Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MANDATORY LEGISLATION REVIEW

Mr Carr moved resolution 30:

That, in the opinion of this House, all future legislation which would establish an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or create new direct expenditures or tax expenditures must contain a sunsetting provision which would, after a specific period of time, require mandatory review of the original legislation by a committee of this House. The committee would be mandated to report to this House on the impact of the legislation, the degree to which the program and policy objectives have been met and make recommendations on whether the program or agency should be continued, terminated or amended. Further, that all existing legislation which has established an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or created new direct expenditures or tax expenditures should, over the next five years, be reviewed by a committee of this House with the mandate indicated above.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Carr: I want to say first off that I am pleased to be able to move this resolution and to speak to it this morning. I think it is a very important resolution. When you look at the objective of this particular resolution, what we are talking about really is efficiency in government.

I was interested to note that in a recent poll called NDP Watch: The First Six Months, 80% of the people said they believed there is a tremendous amount of waste and duplication in government. That was non-political; that was 80% of people who identified themselves as NDP supporters, Liberal supporters and Progressive Conservative supporters. This is something that I think crosses all party lines. I was interested to note in my riding, when a recent newsletter came back with the survey, people were saying the same thing. The perception out there is that there is a tremendous amount of waste. What this resolution would do is say to the people that we are reviewing it, we are taking a look at the programs.

I know in our household there is not a month that goes by where we do not take a look and say: "Can we cut some costs here? Should we be spending it here? Should we maybe reallocate some of the resources?" In fact, right across this province companies and businesses are doing the same thing. Workers are being asked to look at their particular area to see where they could be more efficient. Has something that was put in place a few years ago now become outdated? I think that government in this period of time should be doing what we as individuals with our households and in our workplaces are doing almost every day. It has become more critical.

One of the big factors with this is that I honestly, truly believe that all the social programs that all of us care about in this province do not depend on the compassion of any particular government or any particular party. What they depend on is having money to be able to afford them. As was mentioned, I guess in the throne speech, the Premier said that what we have to do is to look at priorities, and priorities change. Something that might have been a valid program in 1985, for example, might now be outdated, it can be improved or it may be at a point where we can reallocate some of those resources. If we do not do that, I am afraid there is not enough money to be able to provide for all the programs that are out there, and I think what the people of this province are looking for is some guidance.

I was at the Constitution convention this weekend, and the member for St Catharines-Brock and the member for Middlesex, during one of the workshops, said what we need are some sort of sunsetting provisions in government to take a look at some of the expenditures. That was when we were talking about the Constitution, so hopefully we will have some support.

What I attempted to do was get something that was non-political. I tried not to get something that would be aggressive and slamming the government of the day or the previous government or any particular government. I tried to get something that would be practical and I tried to work with it as best we could.

I think the reason we need to have each ministry look at it, and I would like to have the elected officials do it, is that with agencies and boards, some people will say, "They're supposed to look at their own programs and decide what happens." Unfortunately, they look at it from their own perspective. A particular board may look at it and say, "I think this is the most important thing in this province," and if you are in fact dealing with that every day, day in and day out, it becomes the most important thing to you.

But I think, as elected officials, what we need to do is have elected officials look at the bigger, broader picture. The person administering the particular program that is being put in place may think it is the best and the most efficient program, but I think we need an objective view and it needs to be done by the politicians, who can be elected and ultimately are accountable to the electorate.

I think governments of all political stripes realize the old days of when we had programs and every year it was just inflation-plus are gone. There just are not the tax dollars to be able to afford it. We all know that unfortunately we are the highest-taxed province in all of Canada and in fact the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America, so if we want to pay for any new programs, what we need to do is reallocate the money from some of the other programs.

1010

Some ideas were originally thought out and very worth while. I had the pleasure of going to a rent review hearing yesterday morning. When it was put in place, the simple idea was, "We'll have this board that will review it." I also had my eyes opened a great deal with that, because we literally spent all morning, from 10 o'clock when it convened until 11:45, just deciding whether they would proceed that day because one of the lawyers was not there. Basically half a day was wasted, and in fact they tell me it was the second time this has happened, so there has been a full day basically on debate about whether they were going to adjourn or not.

Obviously, something like that particular board or agency needs to be reviewed to see how we can streamline it, how we can be more efficient. I am a little bit used to delays, having sat on some of the committees in here, but I was interested in some of the tenants when I walked out. They were saying to me: "The system doesn't work. This is ridiculous. It's crazy." A well-thought-out idea that I think everybody thought was terrific when it came in needs to be looked at from the standpoint of reviewing it to see what can be done to make it work, because there were about 100 tenants and every one, to a man and a woman, said, "This system doesn't work."

What we are saying with this particular resolution is that we need to look at them with a very clear understanding to make improvements. In some cases it may be that we amend what is done; in other cases it may be that we terminate what was a good idea at the time, but there needs to be that review.

Anybody who has done any studying of modern management techniques knows that controlling is probably the most important key element in getting things done. That is regardless of whether you are a supervisor or you are a worker in your particular area and you are managing that area. Controlling the results, I guess probably second after staffing and getting the right people, is the most important thing. What we are saying with this is that we are going to control, we are going to measure, we are going to monitor the results to see where we can be more efficient and streamline them.

It was interesting to note that when we talk about how man made the journey to the moon -- and everybody knew what the objective was, we wanted to get the spacecraft from here to the moon -- they tell us that when they travelled to the moon, that rocket going to the moon was off course virtually 95% of the time. They knew the goal was to get to the moon, but they were off course, and what they kept doing was bringing it back on course continually so they could reach their objective.

I think we in government should set very clear, very worthwhile objectives for our programs, and then what we need to do is, along the way, keep correcting, keep refining, keep improving them so that at the end of the day people will say that we in fact did everything to the best of our ability to make the government as efficient and as effective as possible.

I say to the members opposite and my friends in the Liberal Party as well --

Mr Hope: Where are they?

Mr Carr: -- those in their offices watching me, I am sure, with the television on this morning, that the public perception is that there is a tremendous amount of waste, a tremendous amount of duplication of services. This resolution, which was put forward in a spirit of non-partisanship, is something that is very practical. I believe it is something that is needed. When we sit back and reflect on the future and see the young people who come in here to watch, it is their future we need to guard, because as members know, if we do not begin to be more efficient and to improve, the legacy we are going to leave to the next generation is unfortunately going to be one of a tremendous amount of debt and overtaxation.

I think this will be a first start. Rather than taking a look at the taxes and saying, "We're just going to reduce taxes in that area," I think this will be a good start towards making government more efficient. I believe it is needed. I encourage all members in the Legislature to take a look at this resolution and offer their support to it. I hope they will. The future of this province is too important not to have this resolution passed today.

Mr Winninger: I believe the resolution put forward by the member for Oakville South is a very thoughtful one, as I might expect from one who has served so ably on the standing committee on administration of justice and who is one of the select few from his party to be elected in 1990 as support for his party slips gently away.

While a sunsetting provision calling for mandatory review of agencies, boards, commissions and regulatory systems may be appealing on the surface, I submit it is unnecessary and represents additional costs the taxpayer does not need to bear at this time. To borrow the metaphor used by the member, I believe his rocket is indeed off course in this matter.

We have a standing committee on government agencies that is working very well. It reviews the operations of agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario. It has reviewed and reported recently on TVOntario, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Rent Review Hearings Board and many other tribunals too numerous to mention. Under standing order 104(g), reviews are made "with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies." It is difficult to find a more comprehensive mandate than that of this committee.

Pursuant to a provisional change in the standing orders adopted last December, the government agencies committee also reviews intended order-in-council appointments to agencies, boards and commissions to ensure appointments are made in accordance with merit or a legitimate governmental policy initiative rather than as a political favour, as has often been done in the past.

In addition, standing order 106 provides that the standing committees on justice, general government, resources development and social development are "authorized to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation" of agencies, boards and commissions reporting to ministries and offices these committees are concerned with. Further, as the member well knows, a member of a subcommittee of these committees can designate a matter under standing order 123 "to be considered by the committee relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation" of an agency, board or commission.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the good work of the standing committee on public accounts, which reviews the public accounts and reports of the Provincial Auditor, to promote the economy, efficiency and effectiveness in public spending that I believe the member for Oakville South is honestly seeking here today. We also have the standing committee on the Ombudsman, which reviews complaints to the Ombudsman against agencies, boards and commissions, and the standing committee on estimates.

I urge the member for Oakville South, before he would establish yet another committee, to consider the mandate of the committees I referred to with a view to identifying possible duplication. This kind of review may in fact be more useful than the creation of a new committee. While there may be room for improvement, the existence of these committees certainly contributes to increased efficiency, public accountability and democracy.

I might add that internally we have the Management Board of Cabinet directives and guidelines, which contain criteria to evaluate the creation of new government bodies and procedures and review guidelines and implementation plan guidelines that ministers are expected to follow when undertaking sunset reviews. In many cases sunsetting can certainly be handled by the respective minister, Management Board and cabinet.

I might add that a sunset review provision is required in all memorandums of agreement entered into between agencies, boards and commissions and the respective ministries. These sunset provisions provide the minister with an opportunity to assess ongoing programs in relation to new priorities and to determine whether funds could be spent in another area or not at all. It could be argued that it is generally better for ministers and their departments to decide, as part of a coherent approach to policymaking, if programs are to continue.

1020

Less government is not always better government. Experience with sunsetting has shown that the termination rate for regulatory or operational agencies is not high compared to that of advisory bodies, which brings me to two other relevant issues when we are considering the kind of mandatory sunsetting called for by the member. I speak of time and cost.

The resolution calls for mandatory review of all new agencies, boards and commissions within a fixed time period. This approach is fraught with difficulty. It is too inflexible. Different bodies may require different sunset periods for review. Who would decide which bodies are to be selected first for review while others go without scrutiny for a period of time? There is no clear way of knowing where potential savings are greater or services are of greater significance.

This resolution also calls for review of existing bodies within the next five years. At last count, this government had 510 agencies, boards and commissions. Five years may not be enough time to review the enabling legislation.

Last, dealing with the question of cost, sometimes the cost of establishing and maintaining the kind of committee the member recommends can outweigh any cost-saving benefit from reducing the mandate of or closing down a committee. Resources may be difficult to justify in this period of restraint. I note that the Macaulay report of 1988, which reviewed Ontario's agencies, boards and commissions, concluded that sunsetting was not meeting its desired goal of self-justification. It went on to observe that since 1980, when sunsetting began, out of 580 agencies only five were actually terminated and 10 merged with other agencies while 77 new agencies were created, of which 15 could be classed as regulatory.

John Chenier, an employee with the federal Secretary of State and professor in the school of public administration at Carleton, has identified in an article many drawbacks of sunsetting. To name but a few, the fixed renewal date frequently becomes an excuse to delay desirable changes, beneficiaries of the program about to expire will only remind the minister of the good works of the program when the sunset date arrives, and a fixed renewal date often raises expectations that the program will be enhanced and problems solved with more effort and money.

Another study published last year noted that 12 US states have abandoned sunset review due to high monetary and temporal costs, unfulfilled expectations of agency termination, low levels of citizen participation and other problems.

Finally, I think I have identified many of the weaknesses in the member's resolution and provided the underpinnings, the basis, for my position in this matter, which is opposed to his.

However, the implementation of new measures announced last fall guaranteeing greater fairness in the appointments process will continue. We hope to secure more trust and respect from the people of Ontario for our government through an open system of applications for government agencies, boards and commissions, accessible to people with diverse backgrounds and experience.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to rise this morning during private members' hour in support of the resolution of the member for Oakville South. I think it is important that it be read out. I have been listening to speakers who oppose it. I look at it as an amendment and a resolution of the House that everyone should be able to support, because it really calls on the individual private member, in his role as a member of the committee, to be able to do his job better and to play a meaningful role in a process that already occurs within government.

I am very much aware that sunset review, program review, was an ongoing mandate of the Management Board of Cabinet during the five years I was on the government benches. During that time, as any new agency was established, there was an automatic five-year mandate review conducted by the Management Board. It seems to me that the new government, which has spoken about enhancing the role of all members of this Legislature, and members of the government benches would be supportive of a resolution that would do just that. It would take that five-year mandated review, which occurs right now within government, and allow a standing committee of the Legislature to be part of that process.

I do not think it is anything that anyone could philosophically oppose. It is certainly a part of the process today because we know the agencies, boards and commissions are reviewed by a standing committee of the Legislature. We know there is a standing committee on the Ombudsman which also has the powers to review programs of the government in depth, even though it has met only a very few times.

Let's take a minute and read again the resolution of the member for Oakville South. It says:

"That, in the opinion of this House, all future legislation which would establish an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or create new direct expenditures or tax expenditures must contain a sunsetting provision which would, after a specific period of time" -- it could be five years, it could be longer -- "require a mandatory review of the original legislation by a committee of this House. The committee would be mandated to report to this House on the impact of the legislation, the degree to which the program and policy objectives have been met and make recommendations on whether the program or agency should be continued, terminated or amended. Further, that all existing legislation which has established an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or created new direct expenditures or tax expenditures should, over the next five years, be reviewed by a committee of this House with the mandate indicated above."

As we look through this resolution, what we find is that it is really a way to involve, inform and fully educate not only members of this House but the public. We know that standing committees of the Legislature, which today review most pieces of legislation and have full and open public hearings, are a vehicle for informing the public in an open public forum about what the work of the Legislature is, what the role of the individual member is and how we conduct our business. The public is very cynical today. They are very cynical about all politicians. They do not like any of us very much. Anything we can do that will inform the public about who we are and what we do is a positive way of reducing the level of cynicism through public education, of reducing the level of cynicism by opening the doors even wider rather than excluding anything the government does from review.

For me, as a private member of the Legislature, one of the most exciting opportunities I have had over the last six years as a provincial legislator has been the opportunity to ask questions not just in the theatre of question period but as a member of committee, to meet with people who are very knowledgeable in their field of expertise, both inside and outside government, and then to take the information I have gathered and share that.

1030

I want to share one experience, particularly with some of the new members of the government caucus, because I think it will help them to understand why I support this kind of resolution. I was a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and we were studying what was then to be the free trade agreement. The more we looked at it, the more concerned we were about the impact it would have on Ontario's workers and jobs. In fact I think we were quite prophetic in our view of what was going to result.

As a member of the committee that studied intently the proposal by the federal government, we also had the opportunity to meet with the office of the negotiators. We met with the European Community. We met with the people who were knowledgeable in the field of macroeconomics, and I remember coming home from one of these meetings and saying to my children, "I now understand macroeconomics." My son, who was in business school at university, said: "You understand it all in just two days? There are people who study for years."

I said: "It is a different kind of understanding that we legislators, we members of this process here in the assembly at Queen's Park, must have. We don't need to have the technical expertise of the master's degrees and the PhDs. We have to understand it so that we can bring common sense, take a look at what is proposed and what we think is going to happen. We represent the people in our constituencies. We need to be able to go back to them and not give them a professional, professorial response. We need to be able to explain in common, everyday language, what is going on, how this is going to affect you and why we either support it or we don't."

When I look at a resolution such as the one proposed by the member for Oakville South, I think it would be an opportunity for members of this Legislature to become even better informed about how precious tax dollars are being spent. I think it would allow members of the Legislature to review in depth and make recommendations to the government about whether a proposed agency, board or commission, whether a proposed expenditure which had been fully reviewed at a legislative committee and passed into law, had achieved its goals. By allowing members to be a part of that review, I think the public of Ontario would be better served.

The members are already today involved in those reviews to a minor degree. As I mentioned, the standing committee on government agencies today is empowered by the standing order of the committee "to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the operation of all agencies, boards and commissions to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes some or all of the appointments, and all corporations to which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, such reviews to be made with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies."

That exists today, so this proposal by the member for Oakville South just enhances a role which already is available to members of the Legislature. It takes it one step further.

It seems to me it is something which would be difficult for members, particularly members who are new to the Legislature, who when they talked about wanting to come to this place were not sure whether they were going to be on opposition benches or government benches, as we were not sure. When we stand for public office in this province, under the British parliamentary system, we never know which side of the House we are going to sit on. We run as members in our ridings to represent our people and their views. We tell them what our policies are, what our party's policies are, and then after the election is over, it is the electorate who determines where we sit.

To be perfectly honest, in 1985 I had as one of my goals, as I said before in this House, to sit in opposition. I consider my five years in government as indeed a privilege and an honour to have served the people of my riding in the cabinet and in the government of Ontario. But I am privileged and honoured, as a member of this Legislature, to serve today as a member of the official opposition and I have pledged to the people of my riding that in my capacity as a provincial member of Parliament, I will be as well informed as I can be, I will be as responsible as I can be and I will be as effective as I can be.

I have a role as an opposition critic of the new treasury board, which has exactly the same kind of mandate of review, of looking at programs, as we talked about a few minutes earlier, as the Management Board of Cabinet formerly had. It has undertaken a massive program review. I believe, as a member of the opposition, that it should not just be the critic who has that opportunity to review what the government is doing. It should not just be one individual critic who has the opportunity to be part of the sunset review provisions.

I think it is important that members of the standing committees of the Legislature be fully informed and have the opportunity to fully scrutinize, to hold the government accountable. That is a very important function. I cannot stress that too highly. As well as holding the government accountable, frequently members of those committees come up with very good ideas.

One of the things I have said to my constituents in the riding of Oriole is that I feel it is my role to oppose and to criticize. That is my role as a member of the official opposition. That is our role and function in our democracy. The official opposition has a mandate to criticize the government, to keep it on its toes, to fight with words and to hold it accountable by a kind of responsible criticism, to oppose when it has made a mistake or erred or when its proposals may not yet be perfect and in the public interest.

I also believe, and I believe this with all my heart, that as a member of the official opposition I must have the opportunity to propose. To be blunt, the best way, the best forum and the best vehicle to be able to propose new ideas, good ideas, is at committee. I have been a Chairman of committee, as I am now. I have been a member of committee, looking at rent review, pay equity, the free trade agreement, and good ideas came from the opposition members.

As I speak in support of the resolution of the member for Oakville South, I think it would increase the opportunity for all members of this Legislature on the government side and in opposition to bring their good ideas forward as we review expenditures, as we take a look at agencies, boards and commissions, make recommendations on sunsetting those that have not achieved their goals and objectives, be critical about those that have not been fiscally responsible, and at the same time serve the people of this province well by doing the job we were sent here to do.

1040

Mr Villeneuve: I am here to strongly support my friend and colleague the member for Oakville South in his private member's notice of motion. As my colleague the member for Oriole repeated, the resolution is simply that agencies, boards, commissions and regulatory systems, once in place, have a sunsetting provision which would not put them out of business but which would simply ask: Are they doing the job they are mandated for? Are they too expensive? What direction should they be going in if they are not going in the right direction?

With this member's background as a professional hockey player -- and as I was going from the baseball game last night to the Nordiques and my Montreal Canadiens -- maybe the Nordiques should have brought him up and kept him. But I am glad they did not because we now have a new, fresh outlook in this Legislature with my colleague the member for Oakville South. He could have probably helped the Nordiques last night. However, he is here helping the people of Ontario.

As an athlete, and I understand his background, he had to make the team every year. You are only as good as your last game. So this goes right in line with his thinking. It is somewhat different from, say, a lot of the thinking of union members who somehow or other would prefer not to bring any more stuff into the open than need be. That is a known quantity. I congratulate my colleague the member for Oakville South for his openness and his refreshing outlook on politics, "Let's have a look at it; let's open it up." I have no problem with that.

I do have a little problem with some statements that were made by the member for London South, however, when in his participation here, he had the audacity to say how well the committee system is working. I happen to have substituted on a committee, the standing committee on general government. It was mandated, after sections 1, 2, and 3 were put in by my party, that we have one opportunity during a session to look at changes in regulations.

With the stroke of a pen, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations shut down 14 registry offices, three of them in my riding, two of which had been there since 1795. The amazing thing is that this was all done and he continues to systematically close these registry offices in spite of the fact that a committee of this Legislature had hearings. Not one person who came to the hearings was in favour of closing these registry office, yet the minister continues to systematically do it.

The idiosyncrasy here is that a solicitor acting on behalf of the ministry made these statements, and they are worth repeating because it is an absolute insult to the committee system of this Legislature and to the members who participate. When the member for London South says that the committee system is working well, he needs to listen closely. I will read some remarks that were uttered by a solicitor on behalf of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations:

"The solicitor for the ministry said it would serve no purpose for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to await any input from the standing committee on general government, which is looking into the closure of land registry offices under standing order 123."

The solicitor gave three main reasons. "The general government committee is of no significance." That is the first statement.

Mr Winninger: That is one opinion.

Mr Villeneuve: Acting on behalf of the minister. The member is a solicitor and he knows what the solicitor-client relationship is. They are acting on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

"The general government committee is really just a way of creating political heat." That is statement number two.

Statement number three: "The general government committee is composed of six members of the NDP and five from the other two parties and all theNDP members could be absolutely counted on to stick to the government's position of closure of the land registry offices."

It is an insult to the members of committees, it is an insult to anyone who sits in this Legislature, and they will tell us it is working. Mr Speaker, I cannot accept that. I will strongly support my colleague the member for Oakville South.

Mr Fletcher: It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this resolution presented by the member for Oakville South. I can sympathize with what the member is saying about trying to get control over government. In fact, I think that through the years, whenever new governments come in, one of their first priorities is to try to get control. But then the governments of the past have already implemented a system, and we are using the same system, where reviews are done periodically throughout the ministries and then Management Board has the job of reviewing them.

As far as sunset legislation is concerned, it has been used in the United States, as my colleague the member for London South has already said. Some of the problems they had with this sunset legislation were that -- let me just read: "There was a failure to reduce the size of government; high monetary costs; lack of meaningful citizen participation; disappropriation; influence of agencies and their lobbyists; a lack of adequate evaluation criteria." The only recommendation that came from any committee was that they "should lengthen the review cycle to permit more thorough reviews of fewer agencies each year." In other words, going from a five-year review, as this system evolves, we will be looking perhaps at an eight-year review, a 13-year review. How many governments will pass through this Legislature in that time? How many governments will be controlled because they cannot go against this sunset committee?

An hon member: They will all be NDP governments.

Mr Fletcher: We hope they are NDP governments, as my colleague says.

Having a five-year review and then watching it go to a 13-year review would only start an evolution in the system getting back to where we are now. As my colleague the member for London South has already said, we have standing committees that are already doing the job. These standing committees were not put in place by this government; they were put in place by previous governments. They seemed to work for those previous governments and they work for this government.

Also, each ministry does a review. In fact, when we did a review of the land registry offices and came up with a conclusion that would be more expedient and cheaper, the opposition jumped on us and said: "No, that's wrong. You can't do this." Now they are standing there saying, "We need a review." Each government, when it comes into power, will do a review of its plans and policies and will implement programs that go along with its ideology, its way of looking at things.

To my friend the member for Oakville South, I can understand the frustration, but instead of just starting to implement a program that suits today, we have to look at the long-term effects. From what we have seen in the United States so far, the long-term effects are a lengthening of the process.

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased to rise today to express my support and that of my other caucus colleagues for the resolution put forward by the member for Oakville South. As my colleague from Sand, Dust, Gravel and East Grenville said just a few minutes ago, this resolution is a fresh, new way to do business around here.

One thing that struck me -- and it is a new point to the debate this morning -- upon my arrival at Queen's Park many years ago when I was an assistant here was how media-driven and interest-group-driven governments' agendas tend to be. But this resolution would give the government -- and I cannot understand for the life of me why the NDP would not support this resolution -- a fresh opportunity to be proactive, to take the bull by the horns around here, as it were, and to review, on an ongoing basis, agencies, boards and commissions and the programs they deliver.

The good part of the resolution that says the review must be conducted by a standing committee of this Legislature -- and there are two points there -- is that, first, we will be sure the review takes place and, second, we can have elected people ensuring that the taxpayers of this province are actually getting value for their tax dollar, which certainly was a demand made on us as we went to the doors during the last election campaign.

We are overtaxed. We are the most highly taxed jurisdiction in North America. We have many boards and commissions and I am sure most members of the government could not tell me what their purposes are. We have a commission called the Soldiers' Aid Commission which was established in 1960. It is still operating, but no one seems to be able to tell what it does. It has never had a review of its mandate.

As the member for Oriole pointed out, since 1986 the Management Board has been doing internal reviews of programs -- Management Board with the exception of the Chairman and the cabinet members who sit on it; the reviews though are done primarily by bureaucrats. It is an internal review. My experience with bureaucrats over the past eight years is that their first inclination is to protect their own turf. Their own inclination is to send the minister a briefing note about how important their program is, whether that program is delivering value for money or not. Their first inclination is to ensure that the status quo is maintained.

I have talked to some cabinet ministers in the NDP government privately. They say, "We can't do that because the bureaucrats sent me a note saying we're going to have to hire X new civil servants" or, "It's going to require new money for anything we try to do." I remember very well talking to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. He said, "I can't do this, that and the other thing because I'm told it will require new civil servants." Those are the standard briefing notes they get from bureaucrats. They have to cut through that.

1050

By reviewing programs and referring them to a standing committee of this Legislature, which does not include bureaucrats -- there are no bureaucrats on the standing committee; it is politicians from all three parties sitting around -- presumably on something like this they could work in a co-operative atmosphere and could actually find out whether taxpayers are getting value for the billions of dollars, some $52.3 billion, that they give to this government each year.

I also want to mention that we do not have to set up a new standing committee of the Legislature, as the member for London South said. He said it might cost more money to do this than it is worth. I sit on the standing committee on regulations and private bills. We do not do anything. We meet once a month to rubber-stamp five or six bills. Frankly, and I will say it publicly, it is very often a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

The only good thing about that committee is that the legislative counsel, again a bureaucrat, has a mandate to review some of the regulations of government from time to time, but he can only review regulations to see if they are constitutional. He has no authority whatsoever, because he is not elected by the people, to inform the committee whether there is value for money in the regulations or the bills he is reviewing. He will simply tell the committee whether it is constitutional or not.

In questioning the other day I said, "What if you found something that the government was trying to do to be unconstitutional?" He said: "I have no teeth to do anything about that either. I would send a memo to the appropriate minister, hope the minister reads it and hope the minister will amend the legislation or regulations to conform with Canada's Constitution."

A standing committee such as regulations and private bills could easily undertake this task of reviewing regulations to see if taxpayers are getting value for money and certainly reviewing legislation and the mandate of programs delivered by boards and commissions around here. It is an excellent idea.

In 1988, the member for Nipissing, the leader of my party, the Ontario PC party, brought forward this exact resolution. Unfortunately the Liberals -- the word "hypocrisy" comes to mind because the member for Oriole today --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not accept that. Please rephrase your sentence.

Mr J. Wilson: I withdraw the term. I thought if you called her the H-word, that would certainly be directed at her, but certainly the terminology --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I ask you to apologize.

Mr J. Wilson: That was then, this is now. We see that with the NDP in opposition and in government; we see that with the member for Oriole in the Liberal Party, who in 1988 would not support this resolution. It made perfect sense then and now we see the government also not supporting this resolution. It does not make any sense for the NDP this time around not to support this resolution. This resolution is long overdue. I credit the member for Oakville South for bringing it forward. It shows real courage. The only reason I can think of why this government will not support it is that it is afraid if it gets into sunset provisions, the public of Ontario will actually sunset the government right out of office.

Mr Martin: I am happy to rise this morning to speak to this resolution. I would like to make perhaps three points about what has been presented to us here today. One of them is that when we look at all the things this government has to do today regarding the recession we are dealing with and all the pain that has been felt out there by the people of Ontario, this is not a piece of business we have time for. Perhaps at another time when the economy is better and we do not have so many pressing things to deal with we might want to look at this again, because it certainly has some things in it that have some value and that we should perhaps look at.

The other thing I would like to say is that in my estimation of how government runs, we do not at this time need another level of bureaucracy. Who pays for it? Who is going to spend time on it? How do we involve some of the members of the public when we need all the energy we all have here focused on more important things, such as the legislation this government is trying to put through this House and is being obstructed in doing by the opposition so many of the days that we sit here.

I would also like to say to the member for Oriole, who spoke earlier, that I agree we have an opportunity here for input on various pieces of legislation. When she was in government, she said that she listened to the opposition as it presented points of view. I want her to know that there is not a piece of legislation that we as a government have put through in our tenure so far that does not reflect a very serious attempt to listen to both the opposition and the public out there so that legislation we bring down actually reflects those in our communities. I suggest when it comes to the regulation of boards and commissions that we are listening as intently at that level as well.

So in fact at this time this particular provision is not necessary. It would be a waste of resources and a waste of people's time and energy. Perhaps another time, but not now.

Mr Turnbull: I am delighted to speak on the issue today that my colleague the member for Oakville South brought forward. I think it is essential to get some responsibility back into governments, and I am surprised the government does not embrace this as it looks at ways of saving money, which undoubtedly it is going to have to do. This gives them a tool to do it, one which we would support them in. It is reasonable that people cut out the bureaucracy. It is quite obvious that bureaucrats have a vested interest in making sure that programs are ongoing.

If we have sunset clauses in all the new legislation and indeed over the next five years bring in existing programs for sunset reviews, we will have an opportunity to determine whether the programs are working or not. I also suggest that we should consider zero-based budgeting as a viable tool. If we do this, we will finally be able to wrestle this massive government to the ground and start getting value for taxpayers' dollars.

The suggestion made by the previous speaker was that the opposition was stopping the government getting its legislation through the House, but if he reads parliamentary journals, he will find that is the job of opposition. Only 23% of the people who were eligible to vote in the last election voted for them. They do not have a sweeping mandate to do whatever they want.

Constructive opposition is what we are offering, and this, more than any other measure, is constructive opposition. It gives the government a tool to be able to address the massive, clogged bureaucracy that we have. Indeed, we should put this into one of the committees that exist so that we do not create extra committees. We have to make our committees work more effectively.

Having sat through two days of estimates on the ministry which I critique, I would say it is just an opportunity for the bureaucrats to strut their stuff and baffle us with bafflegab. Anybody who has watched Yes, Minister will know that is exactly what goes on.

I suggest that if we are going to make committees more useful, we should have equal representation on the committees and, believe me, the NDP will get the benefit of it when it is chucked out on its ear, as it is undoubtedly going to be after the next election. The taxpayers are fed up with what it is doing with this province. They are destroying business and they are destroying jobs, and if we started to be more constructive with the way we operate government, we would then start to see the province moving again. Sunset clauses and zero-based budgeting would be the most appropriate start. It would help the government and it would help the taxpayers.

1100

Mr Carr: I want to thank everyone who participated this morning for their valued comments. I want to just touch on the remarks of some of the people who spoke against the resolution.

The member for Sault Ste Marie said that now is not the time. I say to him that because of the crisis we are in, now is the time to do it. When things are going well and there is enough money, there is not the need to review what has already been done. It is now, when the times are pressing, that it is so serious. I think he is a little mixed up. The government cannot get through the legislation he is talking about, not because of the opposition but because there is no money to pay for it. They could not put all the best-thought-out programs in legislation that they might want to, even if there were no opposition here, because we are flat broke. There is no money. We are almost out of business in this province. That is the reason it cannot go through.

To my friend the member for London South, who said the system is working, I say the system is not working, not in my estimation nor in theirs. In the recent poll, the NDP Watch, 80% of the people who say they are NDP supporters say that with governments at all levels and of all political stripes, whether it be municipal, provincial or federal, there is a lot of waste and duplication in the programs that are there. I say to him that it is not what I believe and it is not what he may believe; the public, 80% of them, say that with all political stripes, the system is not working as effectively as it can.

To my friend the member for Guelph, who said it is based on ideology, I say it has nothing to do with political stripes. I listened to Mr Harcourt after the election, the following morning. Four times -- I counted them -- he talked about a balanced budget. Four times he said, "If we have no money, we can't do it." So it does not matter if you are an NDP member, a Liberal or a Conservative, the fact of the matter is that the public needs to look at it. I say very clearly that the reason it is not working is that there is no money. Members have to look to the chief Treasurer of this province who has talked about selling assets off because the system does not work. There is no money left.

I encourage members to support this resolution. It is needed and the province needs it today.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Cooper moved resolution 29:

That, in the opinion of this House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles.

Mr Cooper: The purpose of this resolution is to initiate a broad-based discussion on a much-maligned form of transportation, the motorcycle.

I believe, along with our government, that public transportation is the best solution to our transportation problems, but in reality most people, because of their busy schedules and their refusal to give up their personal automobile, have chosen not to embrace public transit. As a rule, the people of Ontario still use their own cars as their main source of transportation. Car pooling does not seem to have caught on and I believe it is because of the loss of independence, somewhat the same reason people do not rely on public transit. In most cases, if members look around they will find most cars on the roads and highways contain only one person, and that is the driver. This is the reason I believe the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles as an alternative to the car.

Environmentally there is at present nothing superior to the motorcycle, except maybe the bicycle. Motorcycles take up less space on highways and roads and need very limited space for parking. At a time, especially around Toronto but also in many larger communities across Ontario, where one feels the entire province is being paved over, the increased use of the motorcycle will slow down the need for more highways and parking lots and save our precious agricultural land.

The growing number and size of tire dumps across the province is causing the government problems. While not a solution, obviously, replacing two tires instead of the four which have to be replaced on the automobile gives the motorcycle the advantage as a better choice of transportation. Motorcycles are for the most part more fuel-efficient than cars. We therefore have less pollution and preserve our limited fossil fuels.

I believe that if the government of Ontario actively promoted the use of motorcycles as an alternative to the car, it would eliminate the "bad boy" of transportation perception people in general have. Motorcycles are slowly becoming more popular, as can be seen by the growing number of people using them. Motorcycle enthusiasts include all ages and groups, from students right up to senior citizens.

Much more needs to be done and a good start would be to follow the lead taken by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. In a news release in Markham on October 18, 1991, the ministry states:

"The Ontario government and the snowmobile industry have joined forces to help launch a major awareness campaign to reduce the number of serious snowmobile accidents in the province.

"The Snowmobile Safety Committee is conducting an ongoing public education campaign about trail safety. The new committee is supported by the Ontario government, Arctic Cat, Bombardier Ski-Doo, Polaris, Yamaha, the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, the Ontario Cottagers Association, the Royal Life Saving Society and the Canadian Sport, Head and Spine Injury Research Centre.

"'People are dying and suffering serious injuries from accidents that could have been prevented,' Dan Waters, parliamentary assistant to Ontario Minister of Tourism and Recreation Peter North, said today at a news conference in Markham. 'It's time to reverse that trend.'"

This same approach can be taken to promote the use of motorcycles. The government of Ontario, along with the major motorcycle dealerships, should join together in a promotional partnership to this end. The Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario would be the ideal group to spearhead this initiative because it is the main group chosen to be the lobby to the Ontario government. Its constitution states:

"The Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario is a non-profit organization composed of motorcycle enthusiasts, standing together in a common interest to make government and law enforcement agencies aware of the necessity for reasonable and fair motorcycle legislation along with safety education and public awareness programs.

"Their aims and objectives are:

"to foster and develop improved community understanding and awareness of motorcycles and operators, by actively supporting charities by providing services and/or moneys, and by instigating motorcycle safety through public awareness programs.

"to foster and promote motorcycle safety and responsible riding practices in the motorcycling community.

"to promote and develop friendship and understanding among all motorcyclists.

"to promote legislation affecting motorcycles generally and to oppose and support as the case may be any contemplated legislation by provincial, municipal, or other authorities in so far as same may affect the motorcycling community.

"to endeavour to achieve a closer relationship and better understanding between motorcycle owners/operators and law enforcement officers with a goal to identifying and solving problems of mutual concern."

There are several areas of concern to the motorcycle enthusiast. The first and possibly most important issue is that of insurance. This can best be explained in a letter submitted to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board in 1989:

"Dear Mr Kruger:

"I am writing this letter in response to the upcoming hearings on establishing motorcycle insurance rates. As a citizen I have often felt that we could not change what bureaucrats were about to do, nor was I convinced that writing a letter could help. After realizing the errors in my thinking, I've decided to at least say my piece.

"I've been riding for more than 20 years now and belong to a club that is very aware of safety and impresses on its members the need to be safe motorcyclists. It always astounds me when my insurance premiums come in to find that complete coverage on my bike is higher than my brand-new car. I've never had a claim on my bike. I have on the car. I've never had a ticket on the bike, not quite as good a record on my car. Recently I bought a slightly larger bike (500 cc up to a 800 cc) and my insurance company said that they don't insure bikes over 750 cc. They have made an exception but to be sure I had to give them my automobile coverage first. I'm very concerned that insurance agencies can do this but am afraid to rock the boat or I'll be without insurance.

"What is going to happen when insurance companies decide that motorcycles are too small a portion of their business and we are unable to get coverage? Will one or two companies be allowed to charge outrageous rates so that we enthusiasts will no longer be able to afford coverage? Will more people get coverage to get their plates then cancel and take a chance? What happens when one of them hits me? I'm also very concerned about how easy it is to get a licence for a motorcycle. If insurance companies insisted on safety courses and restricted the size of bikes a beginner could use, we would all reap the benefits.

"In conclusion I feel the cost of motorcycle insurance is high enough now and with recent releases of information on payout, it appears that this statement could easily be supported. I hope your board rules that rates can be held, that all insurance companies should provide coverage and not just through the facilitator, that restrictions be suggested on size of bike a new rider can have and that licences be made more difficult to obtain.

"Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I hope it gave you some food for thought. Your job is not an easy one but I do hope you remember the little guy who pays those premiums when deciding about the rates."

1110

Mr Harnick: You're not a little guy, Mike. You're the biggest guy in the Legislature.

Mr Cooper: This is not my letter. I have gone through similar circumstances and I feel the government may have to take a lead on this issue.

As mentioned in the letter, it may be necessary to bring in legislation requiring that for the first year of riding a motorcycle only a bike under 125 cc can be used. This would prevent people from going and getting their licence on, say, a 100 cc Honda and then going out the next day and buying a 1,000 cc rice rocket and killing themselves, which is what we read about in the paper every spring.

This is the law in Britain. Also, a mandatory motorcycle safety and operation course is necessary to receive a licence in Britain. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation, working through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, has set up such a course, but unlike in Britain this course is not mandatory. As a graduate of this course at Conestoga College in Kitchener, I would endorse that these training courses become mandatory.

These classes include things like classroom instruction on "maintenance and inspection, controls and operation and pre-riding drill."

Then there are the practical courses which cover "basic operation, balance, starting, stopping, gear changing, basic braking and slow turns; starting, stopping and parking on grades; operations using cones and barricades to achieve serpentine weave, circle and figure-eight performance; off-road riding (ie sand, gravel, grass, shallow ditches); emergency braking and collision avoidance; Ministry of Transportation written and visual tests; riding on public roads with the objective of introducing the students to every conceivable type of road condition and riding experience, and individual discussions, evaluation and licensing of students by instructor.

"It is understood that all phases of this course are to be demonstrated by instructor before being performed by students."

With better legislation in conjunction with a better-educated rider, I am sure insurance rates would come more in line with that of car insurance, making the motorcycle a more economically viable alternative to the car.

The public's perception of the motorcycle needs to be changed. During the 1990 election campaign I was interviewed by the press and they knew I owned a bike. One of the questions asked was, "Are you a biker?" When I asked what that meant, they responded, "Have you ever belonged to a gang?" I do ride a bike but, no, I have never belonged to a gang. These images have to be changed.

In contrast to having belonged to a gang, what I have done in conjunction with riding is to take my son on a 1,000-kilometre road trip to northern Ontario to visit his grandfather, and I found this was very well spent, quality time with my son. For all these reasons, and to help save our environment, I would like to see the government of Ontario promote the use of motorcycles as an alternative to the car.

Mr Mancini: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few brief comments on the resolution introduced by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. I think it is imperative that the resolution be read into the record again. He moved, "That, in the opinion of this --

An hon member: Spare us.

Mr Mancini: No, it is important for us to get the true feeling and essence of this resolution. "That, in the opinion of this House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles." It is not often we get a resolution like this. It is not often that we get a resolution that is so wide-sweeping, impacts on so much of the government policy and gives the government members so much to think about.

We heard the member this morning, and I apologize for only hearing the last portion of his comments because I was in committee, talk about insurance and the high cost of insurance, and we know how the government feels about that. We know about its promises to bring in lower premiums for car owners through the use of public policy. We know they campaigned from Windsor to Ottawa and from Ottawa north and west to the Manitoba border telling citizen after citizen, "You vote for us, you give us your trust and we'll give you a public auto insurance scheme that will cause you to pay less for your insurance."

That is what they said. They got the votes. So I was surprised and I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House were surprised --

Mr McClelland: Shocked.

Mr Mancini: -- some say "shocked" -- to hear the honourable member for Kitchener-Wilmot bring up the issue of insurance and insurance premiums as it relates to the operators of motorcycles. Why would any government member, after having participated in repudiating the centre of his party's campaign platform, the centre of its manifesto, want to talk about premiums, auto insurance, motorcycle insurance, or anything of that nature? Why would any of them want to bring that subject up? Why would they?

They have broken their promise to give Ontario drivers lower premiums. They broke that solemn promise they made. Every New Democratic Party candidate in Ontario asked for votes based on government-owned car insurance, based on the fact that the premiums would be lower. The people believed them and trusted them, and they have broken that trust.

Why should we believe the honourable member for Kitchener-Wilmot is concerned about premiums motorcycle operators have to pay when he showed complete disregard for the premiums car drivers had to pay by repudiating the centre of the NDP platform, the core promise of his vote-getting scheme?

What else did the member talk about? He talked about safety. He talked about legislative authority and initiatives to make motorcycle riding a more pleasurable and more safe activity. That reminds me of something which came up in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation just a day or two ago. It reminded me, after listening to the member, of what his colleagues had to say a number of weeks ago about bicycle safety and it reminded me of the speech given by the member for Windsor-Walkerville. It reminded me of the demonstration that he gave the House.

Mr Hope: You can't put any foot pedals on it.

Mr Mancini: Does the member for Chatham-Kent have to continually interrupt my speech? Is it part of the standing orders that he has that privilege?

The Deputy Speaker: Please go on.

Mr Mancini: It reminded me of the speech that my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who also campaigned on government-owned auto insurance and lower premiums, gave to the House on bicyclists wearing helmets. During that speech and in the estimates I recalled some of the words. I also recalled for the members of the committee and the Minister of Transportation the questions that I had raised in the Legislature that morning that were pooh-poohed by the government members. They want to make it mandatory, along with some other members in the House, that everyone who rides a bicycle wear a helmet. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that.

But I asked a number of questions. I said to them: "Have you consulted with the municipal police forces to see if they would be able to police such a new regulation? Have you had discussions with the municipalities to see where the extra money would come from when additional resources were put into specific policing?" Most important, "What would you do for families, large families or families whose finances would not allow parents to buy helmets?" Some of these helmets go from $40 to $80. If you have three or four children or if you have just lost your job, if you have just been laid off, maybe you cannot buy a helmet. Who would ensure that those children who could not be provided with a helmet would in fact be provided with one so that they could ride their bikes to school or to the corner store and partake in an activity that all of us, as young people, took for granted?

1120

During those moments in the Legislature a number of weeks ago when I placed those questions there were catcalls and I was interrupted but there were no answers to those questions. In the committee we got no answers from the minister on those questions.

I say to my honourable colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, it rings hollow to me when I hear government members get up and speak about safety, speak about courses which are necessary, increased safety regulations which he deems to be necessary for motorcycle riders, when they have done absolutely nothing, taken no initiative whatsoever to answer any of my questions about the statement they made and the principles they espoused on helmets for bicyclists.

I say to my colleagues on this side of the House, why should we believe the honourable members opposite?

Mrs Caplan: You shouldn't.

Mr Mancini: My colleague the member for Oriole says that we should not believe them. Based on the government's performance, based on the performance of all of the backbenchers who come to the Legislature regularly to support the activities of their Premier and cabinet, we should not believe them. My colleague the member for Oriole is absolutely right. We should not believe them.

I understand that the member is a motorcycle enthusiast and I understand that is quite a thrilling sport and I understand from conversations that I have had with other motorcycle enthusiasts that there are certain things we can do to make the highways safer for all, to make this activity one not only for sports enthusiasts but for people who would like to use their motorcycles to go to work or any other legal activity they would like to undertake. I understand his interest in this matter and I understand his right to present this resolution to this House.

But I would say to the honourable member that he does his resolution some disservice by making it so wide-sweeping, by making it without any specific details in the body of his resolution. When we read that the government should promote the use of motorcycles because they use less of everything, it leads us to believe that maybe the member himself was not quite sure what the government should do and maybe he was looking towards other members of the House to find their views and to see what we could do to advise him.

We are willing to do that. We are willing to be of help to the member. We are probably willing to be of more help to the member than his cabinet colleagues will be, because as the Liberal Transportation critic I am willing to wager a glass of water that we will see absolutely no initiatives from this government on this honourable member's resolution in the next 12 months.

Mrs Caplan: You could bet the mortgage, never mind the water.

Mr Mancini: I would love to bet my mortgage, but we cannot. I say to the honourable member that we want to support him in making the highways safer for all who use the highways. We want to ensure that people who wish to ride their motorcycles to work or for social activities have that right and privilege and all the safety that goes with it, appropriate premiums, etc. We expect no action from the members opposite on that.

We will sit here patiently and we are prepared to support some of his initiatives, but I think he will find that he will get more support from us on these benches than he will from his own cabinet colleagues. I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that in a year's time or two years from now this will be just another NDP broken promise.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to participate for a short time and share some of the time with my colleagues on this particular motion. I am quite prepared to support it, but I do not believe it will make very much difference to whether there are more or less motorcycles on the roads of Ontario. The interesting thing is I get a very confused message from this government right now. They were the ones that this spring said that the Golden Helmets OPP precision driving would be cut off. "We don't want you any more."

Yet in the same breath we have a member, a backbench member I will grant, come up and say, "We should encourage motorcycles and the use of motorcycles, because they are more fuel-efficient and what have you." That is a very different message than I got whenever the OPP Pipes and Drums band, which came to my town of Maxville to participate in our Highland games, was done away with. The Golden Helmets came to my rural areas on a number of occasions. I was very proud to have them there. They came and they entertained. They entertained as proud OPP officers, precision motorcycle drivers setting an example for exactly the type of legislation that is being suggested this morning. But they do not exist any more. A very confusing double standard. I have a problem with that.

I did some research and it is interesting. There are a number of very high-profile, well-known and well-accepted motorcycle groups across the province. The Harley Owners Group, very important people, I understand basically are in the salary range of $45,000 to $50,000 a year and are 40 years old and over. That is very interesting. I guess this is where that puts this particular member of the Legislature.

Mr Cooper: I am too young.

Mr Villeneuve: He is not 40 yet. I am sorry.

Mr Cooper: Mine's a Yamaha.

Mr Villeneuve: He has a Yamaha. Whether he is driving a Yamaha, a Honda, a Davidson, a Suzuki or whatever, they are all machines. My wife and I are the parents of five children and one thing we dreaded was that our son would want to purchase a motorcycle or that one of the boyfriends would come down the farm lane some day on one of these motorcycles.

It made us very nervous as parents, and I think rightly so, because I have some statistics here from the Ministry of Transportation. They go from 1984 to 1988, and they are a little bit alarming. I will quote -- 1984: 116 drivers killed, 19 passengers killed and almost 7,000 serious injuries; 1985: 97 drivers killed, 23 passengers killed, 6,000 serious injuries; 1986: 99 drivers killed, 15 passengers injured, almost 6,000 serious injuries; 1987: 120 drivers killed, 12 passengers killed and over 5,000 injuries; 1988 -- the statistics get better -- only 76 drivers killed and 13 passengers killed.

One little mistake when you are on that motorcycle and you do not live to tell what happened. There is the problem. Some are lucky, but those are the real facts of life. I do not care about insurance at this stage of the game. I am talking about people who are either scarred or maimed for life or indeed gone from this world because of a slight mistake.

1130

We have the reasons for some of these same accidents, and I will not list them because time is of the essence. But it concerns me very much when someone has suggested -- and there is nothing wrong with suggesting we should encourage, but with that goes the awareness of the danger of the vehicle. That must be first and foremost, and with that goes putting the OPP Golden Helmets precision riding team back in business to set the example. What is wrong with that? I did not see that as part of the member's motion. I could support his motion much more easily and readily if that were part of it.

"Institute tougher licensing requirements." I do not know who is going to buy the first motorcycle and who is going to buy the second motorcycle, but quite obviously we are talking about a smaller, slower machine for the first year and then as you realize how dangerous the machine can be you are licensed for something a little more. Experience is all part of the learning process.

Will the member clarify the Highway Traffic Act to outline and enshrine motorcyclists' rights? Let's face it, these people pay fuel tax and they pay for their licence. Sometimes it is only a motorcycle. For us as car drivers, "Well, it's only a motorcycle." It is not only a motorcycle. It is a person or two people on a motorcycle and a life could well be at stake.

Will he include motorcycle awareness components in the training of OPP officers and in the training of new drivers who see the fun side of this but do not see the very dark side of it, which is injuries and death?

Will the member reinstate the Golden Helmets? I ask him to address that. Will he suggest to the Premier to reinstate the Golden Helmets? The cost was minimal. They were already on staff and they were very much appreciated by people particularly out in rural areas. On a number of occasions I had them in my communities. People -- and young people -- came out en masse and they were very proud to see the excellent job the Golden Helmets did.

Will he work with the municipalities to encourage parking laws and safety for motorcycle drivers?

I will speak from personal experience again. Certainly those members from northern Ontario know that at this time of year it can be very nice and warm on a particular Saturday morning and by the time Saturday night or early Sunday morning comes along, you could be in a snowstorm. I have experience. Coming home from the farm show in Ottawa, for example, at 2 o'clock in the morning, I was following a motorcycle and it was snowing. It was a heavy snow. He was having trouble staying on the road, and I can appreciate why. It was not easy for cars either. Those are the circumstances motorcycle drivers sometimes find themselves in -- being victims of weather conditions. Certainly the weatherman can be of assistance, but we know he is not always correct.

Those are the perilous areas, the real areas of concern, where human life is involved. I am quite prepared to support the motion, and I would very much like to see the Golden Helmets come back.

Mr Mills: It is indeed a pleasure for me to stand in my place this morning and speak to the resolution of my colleague the honourable member for Kitchener-Wilmot. I do not intend to parlay the discussion of this resolution into some political battle, as the member across the way started off doing and as some of the other members tend to continue.

My experience in motorcycles goes back to 1944. I was living in England at the time and, rather foolishly -- the war was winding down and the American troops who were in England were disposing of some of their assets over there -- I was persuaded to purchase an Indian 500 they did not want to bring back to the United States. Having purchased this motorcycle, what I failed to take account of was that gasoline was rationed and I did not have anything to make it go on the road. I remember going down to the war surplus store and picking up this motorcycle and pushing it home, which was no easy feat.

At the time I was working on a farm, and we used to have German prisoners of war arrive every morning to work on the farm by way of an army truck, with two British soldiers as guards. The Speaker will appreciate this, as an ex-military man. I guess the guards must have had some hard nights, but they used to fall asleep and thus leave the truck unguarded. The Germans would come to me and say, "We can get you some gasoline for your motorcycle out of the truck, because the guards have fallen asleep, if you'll give us a pack of cigarettes." I must say I agreed to this arrangement and that allowed me to have gasoline to run a motorbike when, to all intents and purposes, all the motorcycles in the country were shut down.

It is rather interesting -- and I just pass this along for members' general information -- that the policemen of the day over there were riding push-bikes. My good wife, whom I was courting at the time, lived some 15 miles away, and the pressures and urges of young love made me get my motorcycle out of the barn and ride it to visit her, knowing full well that I should not have done that. These Indian 500s have quite a purr to them and, being a young man, I really opened up this purr. It caught the attention of the local constabulary, because in the middle of the night, you wonder what is going on.

The next morning the policeman came to visit me on his push-bike and said he had heard and had reports of the exhaust of a motorcycle ringing through the countryside during the night. I said to him that he must be kind of nuts, because for me and for him there was no gasoline available to ride a motorcycle and where would I get such? He said, "Well, I'm just following up some reports on that and I just wanted to let you know." That gave me the message that this foolishness would cease and I would keep the motorcycle in the barn until after the war, and then gasoline again was free for everybody to get.

Later on in my career I was a member of the Canadian Forces, as members know. During that time I had the opportunity to take proper courses on how to operate and maintain a motorcycle, and had the pleasure of being a dispatch rider, sort of, attached to the 2nd Battalion of the Canadian Guards. I had the pleasure of riding that motorcycle many, many times from Canadian Forces Base Petawawa way down to a Canadian Forces base in New Brunswick. I must say that was quite an experience. Through that motorcycle I was able, through my training, to effectively move large convoys of traffic through -- I remember one particular city was Ottawa, which was no easy feat.

When I speak to this resolution, I am not a Johnny-come-lately-on-the-spot about motorcycles. I have heard my friend the member for Simcoe West, who is not here now, make some sort of comment that if you ride a motorcycle you are doomed to an early grave, and I think that as I stand here today I am living proof that you can ride a motorcycle carefully. It all depends upon proper training and proper respect for that vehicle. It does not necessarily mean that to promote motorcycles means you are doomed to a sudden death.

I think we have to go a long way to educate car drivers in the province that bicycles and motorcycles are indeed vehicles on the highway and they need and expect as much respect from car and truck drivers as other vehicles. I think therein lies the crux of some of the problems with the accidents that happen with motorcycles in our province today, that the respect for another person on a vehicle that does not necessarily have four wheels is lacking.

1140

In a time of economic crunch, I can see that a motorcycle makes very good sense in so far as it uses less of everything. It uses less gasoline. You can park about five motorcycles in a space occupied by a car. I have some difficulty in coming to grips with the winter weather in Ontario in so far as the use of a motorcycle goes. That is a real challenge, to say the least.

Nevertheless, I think the member's resolution is with good intent. He means it to be taken in its presentation, and I am sure that, like him, I remain very perturbed that such a harmless resolution, such a meaningful resolution, should be taken in such a political, partisan way and ripped to pieces in here.

I would also like to pay particular attention, as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot did, to the charity work that motorcycle riders do in Ontario. They are very well known for riding and raising money for all kinds of charities and I think that is very worthy. It just goes to show that sometimes people use the connotation that motorcycle people are a little bit less than we are, and that is not true. I know some very well-off doctors and dentists who ride motorcycles on the weekend and partake in these efforts to raise money for so many worthwhile charities in Ontario.

In closing, I commend my colleague and friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for bringing this very topical item to debate, and I thank the members for the time I have had here to debate it.

Mr Bradley: I find it passing strange, first of all, that a member of the government that is withdrawing the funding for the Ontario Provincial Police Golden Helmets, a group which is noted for maintaining the traditions of the province of Ontario, would be promoting at the same time the use of motorcycles.

The second thing I would note is that the people in St Catharines who are represented by Local 199 and Local 676 of the Canadian Auto Workers may be just a bit concerned about the fact that their automobiles would not be promoted to the same extent if there were promotion of motorcycles in Ontario.

I think one has to be very careful. It is a matter of choice. There are some people who are going to enjoy the use of a motorcycle and find that it is to their liking and to their benefit. There are others who are going to enjoy the use of automobiles in Ontario. They of course will reflect, as I do, upon the fact that there are many people employed in the automobile industry, represented so ably by the Canadian Auto Workers in St Catharines and other communities across the province.

My concern is certainly that. I will relay that concern to my good friends on the executive of the Canadian Auto Workers in St Catharines and indicate to them that the NDP is promoting motorcycles to the detriment of automobiles in this province.

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased to have a minute or two to express my opposition to this resolution put forward by the NDP member. It is probably the most vague, unrealistic resolution I have ever heard of being put forward in Parliament. The member for Oakville South had a very serious resolution in the last hour that the government is not going to support, something that would have actually done some good for the taxpayers of this province, and here we have a resolution that says because motorcycles use less of everything, we should promote their use.

This does not even make any sense. It is useless. The explanatory remarks from the member are pretty useless in the context of my experience. I used to work at Earl Rowe Provincial Park in Alliston and we had motorcycle gangs for many years. I will not, on behalf of my constituents, support a resolution that may bring back the possibility of motorcycle gangs. Wasaga Beach is cleaned up now, but for many years there was a very dangerous situation there. We had a tremendous number of OPP officers assigned to the Wasaga Beach detachment during the summertime to deal with the motorcycle gangs.

Interjection.

Mr J. Wilson: It was not in the 1950s because I was not alive in the 1950s. It was during my lifetime.

Second, I have a vision. I expect the members of the government to show leadership, if this resolution passes, by getting get rid of their drivers, chauffeurs and limousines, which they criticized both the Liberals and the Conservatives for having for many years. But I am not sure I really want to encourage that, because my vision is that the unruly gang of former garbage truck drivers and motorcyclists and God knows what else who now run our government will be travelling down Highway 400 as Bob Rae's motorcycle gang, coming into your riding. Can members imagine what a scary picture that would be? I thought motorcycle gangs going into Wasaga Beach were scary in the past, but to see the NDP caucus gang come into your riding would be a scary sight indeed, and I fear for the lives of my constituents and their wellbeing.

Mr Mills: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I take exception to the member referring to the members of this government as ex-garbage truck drivers. That is not true and I would ask him to withdraw that.

The Deputy Speaker: There are times when language used in this House goes a bit too far. There are times when certain language is used that more or less entices people to get angry. It is as simple as that. This is not a point of privilege, but it is certainly a point for me to tell you that you should be careful in the type of language you use in order not to offend each other. It is as simple as that.

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was going to say that even if I were a former garbage truck driver, I would have been proud of that job and that profession.

Mr J. Wilson: I will be careful --

Mr Frankford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would also like to point out to the members that in my training in London, when I was in medical school, I rode a motor scooter. I would like that to be added to the record.

The Deputy Speaker: I think I have heard enough points of order on that issue. I ask the member for Simcoe West to continue the debate.

Mr J. Wilson: These frivolous points of order are taking up our party's time here in the Legislature. I will point out that the Minister of Energy used to be a part-time driver for Dusty's Disposal Service, so for the member for Durham East to tell me it is not true --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Speaker stands, it is normal procedure that the member should take his seat. I just want to remind the member for Simcoe West that you still have three minutes and six seconds to debate the issue. You do not want to take advantage of it?

Mr J. Wilson: No, I have sat down.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My colleague had sat down before that point of order was raised, and in fact you let the clock continue to run, so it was subtracted --

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: It was not a point of order because everything my colleague said was absolutely correct. Mr Speaker, I would ask that you add the two minutes on to the clock.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, but the Chair rules that there will not be any time given back. We will continue. I think it is a lesson for all of us that we should make sure debates are conducted properly.

Mr Hansen: I am proud to speak on this particular private member's notice of motion.

Mr J. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order -- in fact it may be a point of privilege -- is that I gather your ruling is that my debate was not conducted properly, and I find that offensive.

The Deputy Speaker: I made a ruling and as you know the standing orders are very clear. You cannot challenge the Chair.

1150

Mr Hansen: I have to say to the member for Simcoe West that my dad was a motorcycle rider. He rode in the war. I took up riding a motorcycle when I was going to college. My son is in college and he owns a motorcycle also. It is very good alternative transportation, especially for long distances if there is no public transportation available. I would say that our government likes to recognize all sectors of transportation -- not just transportation, but whatever it is.

The fabric here in Ontario is that there are quite a few people who do things in a different way, and some of them like riding bikes. I was a sponsor this last May for the Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario. For the first time they had a podium on the steps of Queen's Park to relay to Queen's Park and to people in Ontario what they are looking at as motorcycle riders. The member for Simcoe West has the wrong impression of motorcycle riders. I think that by coming out to one of these rallies, he will have a different impression. I think it is a stereotyped image that has developed over the years. We have to take a look at what a motorcycle rider is today compared to maybe 30 years ago with Hell's Angels. Not everybody out there belongs to Hell's Angels. Times are changing.

There are a few things that even the previous government has done. At one time bikers were not allowed to come and camp in provincial parks. There has been some change, some giving by the past government to give the bikers rights equal to those a car driver has.

I have to say too that during the war we exercised rationing when rationing was necessary. That is why a lot of people were riding motorcycles. This is one thing that cuts down on pollution. I heard Pollution Probe yesterday outside Queen's Park talking about how maybe we should be taxing that second car a little bit more, or how maybe if there is already transportation in a particular area, there should be extra fees for using roads in that area. These are ideas from Pollution Probe. They are not government suggestions but suggestions from the public out there.

Something that came up on the insurance issue is that 45% of the insurance is purchased from a company outside Ontario and Quebec. In 1989, the latest statistics I have, income was $38 million and expenses were $25 million for the insurance companies, which gave them a 35% return on their money. One thing members have to understand is that while there is a popular perception that motorcycles are a bad risk for insurers, it is a fact that motorcycle insurance generally is far more profitable than automobile insurance. Ministry of Transportation figures indicate there has been an improvement in motorcycle safety resulting in lowered accident and fatality rates. The other thing is that the average age of motorcyclists in Ontario is increasing.

I have met with the bikers' rights organization and their whole thrust is on safety on the highway. As my friend stated earlier, they would like to get a learner's permit that would have a small bike, 125 cc and under. You would have to hold that for 180 days, and then you would go into a probationary licence that would be for 365 days, during which you would still be on a smaller bike. After you have completed 365 days, you would wind up going to a class M motorcycle licence with full riding privileges. Some of the restrictions would be that a learner would not be able to ride a half-hour before sunset or a half-hour before sunrise and would have to have a zero blood alcohol content. If you accumulate six demerit points, there would be suspension of the learner's permit.

This is coming from the motorcycle riders. It is what they are looking at. They are looking at their own lives and they want people out there to be aware that they are on the road too. They pay to have a licence. They have a right to also be on the roads here in Ontario, not just automobiles. I think this is what they have been trying to put across for a long time. There are 145,000 licensed motorcycle riders out there, and we cannot ignore those riders.

Mr Turnbull: In my abbreviated time I would comment that I am extremely disturbed that the members of the governing party find it necessary to bring such trivial motions forward in private members' hour. My good friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot certainly has told me that he does not have enough time to ride his bike and I have a lot of sympathy. I will be voting against this, not because I have anything against motorbike riding, but I do have a few comments to make.

Surely this government should be trying to promote this province, and to my knowledge there are no motorbikes made in this province or in Canada. Here in Canada the automobile companies are struggling to make efficient, safe automobiles. Surely, given the fact that many of the large bikes today cost more than small automobiles, it would be in our best interests, if we are going to bring something forward, to try and promote their efforts.

If the member were to suggest that perhaps Bernard Ostry, the chairman of TVO, and his successor were to have motorbikes, I would say that would be a great idea when we consider that the taxpayers of this province paid in excess of $50,000 for his chauffeur last year until our party pointed this out.

It has been suggested that we encourage the practice of ministers going around on motorbikes. I would say absolutely not. Ministers have a very busy schedule, and we certainly want to make sure that on the way to their various functions, they learn the speeches their high-paid contract speechwriters have written for them. God help us that they should have an accident trying to learn the words or having them read for them if they have difficulty.

The automobile is surely a safer vehicle to be riding in here in Canada. In the summer, motorbikes might be relatively safe, but they are not very safe on winter roads in Canada. I do not want to be negative about this. I just want to say that I think the government should surely consider bringing forward more constructive private members' resolutions rather than wasting our time with this kind of effort. We are not against the motorbike riders, but we do not think the government should do anything to promote motorbike riding. It should do everything to promote the economy of Ontario, and that would mean safer, fuel-efficient cars and making sure we emphasize the made-in-Ontario aspect of it.

Mr Hope: In the short time I have, I would like to contradict some of the things that have been put forward today. What we are talking about is for the people out there to be safer-minded about using motorcycles, promoting the use of motorcycles. Those of us in rural Ontario, and I am speaking on behalf of the biking club in my community, do not have the luxury of GO Transit and other transits that are there.

I heard the member for St Catharines saying, "Well, your CAW friends will be upset with you." A lot of our auto worker friends will still be happy, because there still are certain times of the year we need the automobile, the car. But for us who travel back and forth to work, the motorcycle is cheaper on gasoline and is not as hard on the roads. It is is very important for those of us who do not have high-wage values, when we need a second vehicle, to have the ability to purchase that second vehicle, because motorcycles are cheaper.

The statistics that were put out earlier, I must mention, did not tell members how many people are actually killed in car accidents. This resolution is not very detailed for the simple fact that we did not want to confuse the opposition. We wanted to keep it simple so they understand that what this government wants to do is promote safety in the use of motorcycles, promote their use, make sure we use them wisely and help the people of rural Ontario, who do not have the luxury of other transit, to take advantage of them.

1200

Mr Cooper: I think most of the concerns raised by the opposition members have been covered by the members on this side. I started off this resolution saying it was to generate a broad-based discussion on the use of motorcycles. I think we have achieved that this time.

The second part was to change perceptions. As we have seen from the members opposite, the perception is that all motorcycle riders are gang members or long-haired hippies with tattoos and earrings.

I have ridden in groups. I have ridden with my union brothers on day trips. I have ridden with church members. I attend a United Brethren Mennonite church. The assistant pastor has a bike. We got a group of 15 church members together and went on a tour. We had some spiritual enrichment while we were out doing this. It was a day that was filled with quality, because we were out with our wives. That is the recreation aspect.

But I am not talking of recreation here; I am talking about an alternative form of transportation. I think motorcycles use less gas and cause fewer pollution problems, such as the tire dump problem that filters in here. I was hoping to get more constructive comments from the opposition, which I did not get.

Mr J. Wilson: Then put forward a more constructive resolution.

Mr Cooper: As for this being a trivial resolution, I think it is a very important one because it shows our commitment to the environment of this province. As for the economy of this province and my auto worker friends, if we had more motorcycle use, we could probably put on pressure and get some motorcycle manufacturing going here.

I thank the members on this side for supporting this resolution, and I am sure the members opposite will, in principle, support this.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired, but before we start to vote, I would just like to give you a few words of wisdom. Let me read from Erskine May, "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: I will not accept any point of order. I am about to proceed to a vote.

Mrs Caplan: I think it is an important point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: I will listen to it, then.

Mrs Caplan: I think your interjection and the wisdom you shared with the House were very valuable. Certainly, members have to be reminded from time to time that language, the use of words, can incite behaviour in the House that is unbecoming. Your interjection was timely, and I want to thank you as part of my point of order.

1210

MANDATORY LEGISLATION REVIEW

The House divided on Mr Carr's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 16

Arnott, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cunningham, Curling, Mancini, McClelland, Miclash, Poole, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Nays -- 33

Abel, Carter, Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Hansen, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

MOTORCYCLES

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooper has moved resolution 29.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DONATION BY PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS

Mr Henderson: Many honourable members will share my sense of the tragedy of suffering and poverty in some Third World nations.

Several Ontario pharmaceutical manufacturers have made a significant contribution to the alleviation of shortage and suffering in Third World Latin America through a donation of medications with a total value of about $30,000.

Members will know that many Latin American nations are reaching very actively to develop stronger economic, trade, cultural and other ties with Ontario and Canada. Besides satisfying our altruistic wish to help less wealthy peoples, that can benefit Ontario as well. There is a real chance for Ontario to benefit by seizing the initiative in broadening our interchange with Latin America.

I applaud the generosity of these Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers and especially wish to thank Richard Benyak of Nu-Pharm Inc, Leslie Dan of Novopharm Ltd, Ron Fozo of Genpharm Ltd, Saul Magder of Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc and Bernard Sherman of Apotex Inc.

VISITORS

Mr Carr: We are fortunate today to have in the members' gallery a group study exchange team from Rotary District 9750 in Australia. The five men are visiting Rotary District 7070 in Toronto and are accompanied today by Mr John Gregory, who is the chairman of international service for the Rotary Club of Toronto.

The team is here to learn about Canada and our way of life. They are midway through a five-week stay and have been living with Canadian families and touring Canadian industries and manufacturing firms, looking at various facets of commerce, law, education and government.

We welcome Graeme Watchers, Sam Carella, Nevelle Stephenson, Paul Brady, Kevin Barrington and Phillip Glutz and wish them an enjoyable visit and a speedy return to Ontario.

OPENING OF UNIVERSITY BUILDING

Ms Carter: On Saturday, the Minister of Colleges and Universities will be coming to my riding to open the new environmental sciences building at Trent University. Imaginatively designed by Vancouver architect Richard Henriquez to blend in with the existing buildings designed by the late Ron Thom, this $9-million addition to Trent houses the departments of biology, geography, environmental and resource studies and watershed ecosystems.

The university launched a major fund-raising campaign to pay for this building, which has been successful. In addition to funding for the building from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the Ministry of the Environment provided generous funding for a toxicity testing laboratory which Trent scientists will operate on contract to the ministry. Other research projects are funded by private industry.

Trent currently has environmental research teams studying atmospheric and botanical impacts of greenhouse gases, ozone layer depletion, acidification and solar energy. Toxicology studies are examining the transport of toxins through ecosystems and attempting to predict any harmful effects from them. Other research aims at developing strategies for rehabilitating lakes, wetlands, mine tailings and depleted species of plants and animals.

The new building and its research laboratories will be open to the public at an open day on Sunday. The research work in this building will play a significant role in helping to protect our environment for future generations.

DIABETES

Mrs Fawcett: Today I rise to lend my support to those from my riding who have expressed their very real concerns with this NDP government's projected $1-billion cutback in health care and how this will especially affect those with diabetes.

Last year I participated in the Diabetes Celebrity Challenge and gained a better understanding and appreciation of how this disease can affect one's daily life. I learned even more when I had the opportunity to speak with Ken McColm on his incredible journey.

Great strides have been made to expand programs in diabetic care. There is an urgent need to build on these achievements and to improve the services for diabetic persons.

Diabetes knows no barriers, yet it has been proven that seniors, natives and those living in rural communities are the most susceptible to this debilitating disease. In total, over one million Canadians have diabetes.

I remind this government that wise management of health dollars will mean less costly expenditures in the future. Proper care and education of persons with diabetes could mean better health and productivity, shorter hospital stays, fewer complications and a better quality of life. Diabetes is the second leading cause of hospital treatment.

I sincerely hope that as this government attempts to control its runaway spending, it will look to sound management of ministry dollars and careful consideration of the over one million Canadians who suffer from diabetes.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Villeneuve: Members may know that in the last seven years Ontario's revenue from tobacco sales has virtually doubled. The tobacco tax now brings in over $1 billion, almost double the entire budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Tobacco revenue has increased by some $457 million, but our agricultural budget has gone up by only $288 million. More than that, one quarter of the agricultural budget is nothing more than a property tax rebate for school and municipal taxes paid on producing fields, orchards and their service buildings.

In the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, there has been a very unfortunate relationship between tobacco and property taxes. Tobacco taxation has driven many tobacco farmers out of business. We all know that. High tobacco taxes have reduced the value of properties and farms on the Norfolk side of the region. The result is that under the last reassessment the Haldimand side is now paying much higher property taxes.

This is not the fault of the residents of Haldimand. The value of their properties and their wealth has not skyrocketed in the last four years at all. They have not received a bounty of new municipal services. And it is certainly not the fault of tobacco growers in Norfolk. There are no equally valuable crops to replace the tobacco that is being grown on the sandy soils.

If the government expects to collect huge taxes from tobacco, it should be willing to use that money to help the farmers and property taxpayers in areas hurt by that same tobacco tax.

BLOCK PARENTS PROGRAM

Mr Mills: It is currently Block Parents week in the town of Bowmanville, which is located in my riding of Durham East. I would like to remind members of the importance of this community project.

The Block Parents program plays a crucial role in keeping children safe in our neighbourhoods. Children can go to Block Parents for help in an emergency. For example, they can seek help if they are being bothered by strangers or if they are feeling unwell. A Block Parents home is easily identified by a red and white sign in the window. This sign tells children that the home is a safe place to go if they need help.

The program has been very successful and has spread to communities throughout the province. Local police forces are pleased to give advice on how to set one up. Any community resident over the age of 18 can become a Block Parent after police screening. It is a great way to serve one's community and I strongly encourage all citizens to get involved.

This program is an excellent example of co-operation between parents, teachers and the police. It shows how effective crime prevention can be when citizens and the police work together. I fully support the Block Parents program and encourage all members in the House to support it as well.

1340

CLOSING OF TREE NURSERIES

Mr Miclash: We on this side of the House are very concerned about the planned Ministry of Natural Resources closing of tree nursery programs in Orono, Dryden and Thessalon.

Let me read a letter from a tree nursery worker from Dryden which he recently wrote me:

"Dear Mr Miclash,

"I'm a concerned worker who has worked for Dryden Nursery for a number of years. I work on a summer basis and need the income to make ends meet. Most of the other employees need it to make ends meet too. If the jobs are taken away, they would have to cut staff to one third of what they employ now.

"Dryden needs those jobs just as Thunder Bay. Most employed by the tree nursery are older workers and have not had the opportunity of proper education.

"I do not think in all fairness these jobs should be sent elsewhere. The size of this is greater than one might expect. We the workers will not stand for the uprooting of our jobs.

"I'm greatly opposed to sending Thunder Bay our jobs. Do you think if the shoe was on the other foot that they would let us have their jobs without a fight? I think not."

I have received a number of these letters and a good number of phone calls from some very concerned workers, workers who I think have a real strong sense of what they do in our areas of these three tree nurseries. I would just ask that the government take another good look at what it plans doing in terms of moving these jobs out of areas that very much need them.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr J. Wilson: The proposal for massive staff cuts and bed closures at Toronto Hospital is another example of how Ontario hospitals are being forced to go it alone while this government sits on its hands.

Three years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, said in a news release:

"Ontario's health care system is on a collision course with Elinor Caplan and the Liberals' fatal prescription for health care. The Liberal government's hatchet job on hospital funding, combined with their broken promises on health care, has produced a growing list of casualties across the province.

"Bed closures and program and staff cuts are becoming a standard response to the Liberals' crusade on hospitals."

By now, no one in Ontario is surprised to learn that the NDP election promises were simply put together so they could con enough people into voting for them, but the people of Ontario are surprised to see just how silent the Premier and his caucus are on issues such as hospital bed closures that once were so sacred to the NDP before they inherited the government benches.

One half of all the hospitals in Ontario are forced to carry deficits because the government of Ontario continues to mandate programs and services on to the backs of hospital boards without a cheque from Queen's Park to pay for these services and wage settlements. It is unthinkable that residents in Ontario, who are paying more and more in taxes, now have less and less in the way of services under this NDP government.

In view of these circumstances, I want the Minister of Health and her government to immediately provide a coherent, co-ordinated plan for Ontario hospitals so they can retire their operating budgets without having to randomly slash services.

OKTOBERFEST

Ms Haeck: Oktoberfest is wunderbar. Those who visit Kitchener-Waterloo will agree with that.

There is another Oktoberfest in Ontario. On October 26 and 27, everyone is invited to St Catharines to participate and partake in the fun. This weekend will see bands playing, dancers dancing and even a re-enactment of the original reason for Munich's festival; that is, the wedding of King Ludwig's daughter in the early 1800s.

St Catharines is located in festival country. Throughout the year all and sundry can enjoy an array of activity: Folkarts, the Sausage Festival, the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival and now Oktoberfest.

A lot of credit must be given to the organizer of this festival, Mr Steve Ruf. Steve is credited with being the founder of Folkarts, two weeks of multicultural celebrations which have been taking place for over 23 years. Nine years ago he was integral to the start of the Sausage Festival, an activity which again demonstrates his energy and his commitment to the city of St Catharines. Now there is Oktoberfest. Steve truly deserves the local chamber of commerce award for his festival activities. I extend to Steve and his co-celebrants my wishes for a successful weekend. Ein prosit.

LAND REGISTRATION

The Speaker: On Thursday last, the member for Dufferin-Peel raised a question of privilege with respect to a matter in which I had given a decision on Tuesday, October 15, 1991, concerning remarks made in a court of law by a lawyer representing the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations on a matter which was before a committee of the House.

On October 15, I ruled that this was a matter which was specifically before the standing committee on general government and, as such, ought to be settled in the committee and not in the House.

I reiterate that this matter may only be brought before the House by way of a report from the committee. I did not ask or instruct the committee to report back to me or the House. Whether a report is made to the House on this matter is for the committee itself to decide. I do not propose to hear further submissions on this matter.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Conway: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier this week, you ruled on the question of statements being made outside the House. I found it quite an interesting ruling. I was particularly struck by your reference to Mr Speaker Weatherill who gave, I thought, some very timely advice in the Mother of Parliaments on July 16, 1991.

I understand very much what you are trying to tell all of us, and in particular members of the executive council. I will say as well that I understand some of the pressures that are on any executive council in these matters, but I want to bring to your attention, sir, an incident yesterday that I find about as offensive and as obnoxious as anything I have witnessed in a long time.

Let me just tell you what happened, Mr Speaker, in light of your very sage counsel. Yesterday, outside the very doors of this place, an agent of the Attorney General was passing out a news release containing very significant, and I think positive, policy on behalf of the government with respect to advice and directives to crown attorneys across the province regarding victims of sexual assault.

My colleague the member for Eglinton raised this very point three or four weeks ago in a good exchange. An extremely sensitive and important public policy was raised in this House, and not for the first time. Just three days after your ruling, a member of the staff of the Attorney General stood right outside this chamber at the end of question period and distributed a positive, timely and important announcement of public policy with respect to the protection of victims of sexual assault.

I find it breathtaking and mind-boggling that this government, particularly on an issue of such sensitivity to all members, would do something as offensive and obnoxious as to stand right outside the front doors of this legislative chamber and hand out a statement of government policy that we all have a very real interest in and, I suspect, a strong and real support for. I want to register my most deep-seated personal complaint on this kind of ongoing manipulation and offensive attitude to this Legislative Assembly, something that I have to believe my friends Donald MacDonald, Stephen Lewis and the late Jim Renwick would have found even more obnoxious and offensive than I do this day.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I would be glad to look into the matter. I might also point out to you that when this matter was raised a couple of weeks ago, the House leaders had a discussion. We said we would make our best effort to correct problems that offended the opposition with respect to announcements. The opposition House leaders agreed that if there was a problem and if a particular announcement were made outside the Legislature that they felt should be made in here, they would make sure they got on the phone and talked to me about it so we could try to correct it.

Until now I have heard nothing from the official opposition. I am trying to work with the opposition House leaders, but if they do not want to follow through with their own agreements, it is hard to do that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: We do not need to debate this. Would the member take his seat for a moment, please.

To the member for Renfrew North, I appreciate his observation on the remarks which I made earlier in this chamber. Indeed, I believe I expressed on that occasion that I shared the view expressed earlier by Speaker Weatherill in the House of Commons in England. I stand by that observation. The member also knows the rules are quite clear with respect to the opportunity to make statements in the House.

To the government House leader, if there is a demonstrated willingness to co-operate on this matter, that of course will be appreciated, I take it, not only by the Speaker but by all members of the assembly. Hopefully that process will begin to take shape. If in that process the office of the Speaker, in the capacity as described, can be of any assistance, then of course the Speaker is more than delighted to provide any assistance in making it a more smooth operation here in the chamber.

1350

Mr Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The government House leader has said that the opposition House leaders are supposed to go and tell him when a problem exists. It has happened several times. Surely somebody over there is giving the orders one way or another. Either the Premier has a strategy to deliberately avoid the House, which I think he has, or he has not. If he has not, then he should tell his ministers to start making their announcements in the House instead of playing the game they played yesterday.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines knows it is not a point of privilege, but the Speaker knows it is a point of frustration.

Ms Poole: For me, this goes beyond a point of order; it is a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: On September 24 in this Legislature I specifically asked the Attorney General about his plans to ameliorate the effects of the Supreme Court decision on the rape shield law for the women of this province. I specifically mentioned training. I specifically mentioned crown counsel and some of the objectives he had said he was going to pursue. Outside this House, at the same time as the Attorney General's staff was handing out this press release, a member of the press asked the Attorney General, "Why are you not mentioning this in the House?" The answer from the Attorney General was that this was not a legislative matter; this was a legal matter.

Because I raised this in the House almost a month ago, surely this minister should be sensitive that this is a matter of great interest to the members of this House and the women of this province. If this Attorney General cannot seem to get that through his head, I suspect the Premier should be looking for a new Attorney General.

The Speaker: The member for Eglinton knows this is not a point of privilege. The matter has been addressed earlier, both by the member for Renfrew North and in a statement which was delivered to this House earlier by myself.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Is this a different matter? Do you have a point of order?

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, if I can say one sentence, please, I want to tell you these are not isolated incidents. You will remember my discussion with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation about statements that had not been made in the House but were dropped on the way to the press room. They were not even indicated by a press release. If our residents and constituents are affected by announcements that ought to be made here, then we must really strenuously object to this kind of process.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member knows this is not a point of privilege. It has been addressed several times.

On a new matter, the member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I want to rise on a point of order simply to advise you, sir, that what the Attorney General has done in this House would represent professional misconduct in the practice and profession he engages in.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. There is nothing out of order. It is time for ministerial statements.

Mrs Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On the issue of ministers' statements in the House as discussed by the House leaders, speaking for our caucus, I expect that we would not have to pick up the phone after the fact. What we would like is for the ministers to make their statements in this House.

Maybe we have a new beginning today, right this very moment. I see there are two ministerial statements. None of us expects to have to have to phone, and surely the government House leader does not want a phone call after the fact. All of us, the representatives of the people of Ontario, should be expecting to hear from ministers in this House. I want to make that point very strongly. Hopefully we have a new beginning today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Hon Mr Ferguson: With regard to the controversy surrounding executive salaries at Ontario Hydro, I would like to make an announcement. Effective today, the salary of the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr Marc Eliesen, has been set at 80% of the salary paid to the Ontario Hydro president. This means Mr Eliesen will be paid at a rate of $260,000 a year. This formula is consistent with the compensation formula established by the former Conservative government for the previous Hydro chair and chief executive officer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat, please. It would be very helpful if all members on both sides of the House could wait quietly and patiently and allow the minister to make a statement, after which there will be an opportunity for responses.

Hon Mr Ferguson: I find it somewhat inconsistent, Mr Speaker, that they complain about our not making statements in the House and when we do --

The Speaker: The minister will continue with his statement, please.

Hon Mr Ferguson: As for benefits, those paid to Mr Eliesen will be consistent with guidelines for Ontario Hydro executives and Ontario government deputy ministers.

Salaries paid to senior executives at Hydro are set, by policy established at the time of the previous Liberal government, at rates 25% below private sector salaries for executives with similar responsibilities.

Having said this, however, let me confirm that the whole matter of compensation for senior executives at Ontario Hydro has been referred to the Ontario Energy Board. We expect the board to make its report by the end of August 1992 as part of its review of Hydro's annual rate request.

In making today's announcement, I want to express the government's appreciation to Mr Eliesen, who came forward to assist us in putting an end to this controversy. Mr Eliesen has already requested the Ontario Hydro board of directors to cancel the employment contract agreed to by the board in August. His initiative in this case is consistent with his outstanding record of public service, which was recognized by the former Liberal government when it appointed him Deputy Minister of Energy in April 1990.

As to the question of responsibilities at Ontario Hydro, Mr Eliesen will serve as chair, with chief executive responsibilities for overall stewardship of the utility. Mr Al Holt will serve as president and chief operating officer. This combination will provide Hydro with the strong leadership it needs to meet the challenges at hand, which are to keep its own costs in line, rehabilitate the electricity system and support the government's policy of promoting energy efficiency and managing demand.

As a final note on the question of salaries, Bill 118, which governs the relationship between Ontario Hydro and the government, will be amended so that the responsibility for deciding compensation for the Ontario Hydro chair and chief executive officer will remain with the government.

Further, I want to say to the leader of the third party and the member for Renfrew North that the allegations they made in this House about Mr Eliesen's character and details of Mr Eliesen's pension arrangements at Hydro were completely incorrect. Mr Eliesen never had any special consideration with respect to his Hydro pension. I am sure the honourable members opposite will want to correct the record.

1400

SKILLS TRAINING / ACTIVITÉS DE FORMATION

Hon Mr Allen: It gives me great pleasure to announce that I have signed today, on behalf of the province of Ontario, the Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement.

In the first year of the agreement, the federal government will contribute $846 million for training in Ontario, and Ontario will contribute $751 million, for a total of $1.6 billion. Federal funding levels are expected to be similar in the second and third years of the agreement, which came into force retroactively on April 1, 1991. The figures for the first year of the agreement represent an increase of 83% over the amount, $463 million, received last year.

The agreement is not a renewal of an old agreement. It is a new agreement, inextricably linked to this government's strategy for renewing the economy in Ontario. This is also a much fairer agreement. It represents a more equitable share of the federal training dollars for Ontario and redresses the previously inadequate funding levels negotiated by other governments in this place. It is a measure of this government's success in ensuring that the federal government responds to Ontario's priorities for economic renewal and recognizes the special adjustment challenges we face.

L'entente est un bon reflet du succès de ce gouvernement à s'assurer que le gouvernement fédéral réponde aux priorités de l'Ontario en matière de renouvellement économique et reconnaisse que nous faisons face à des pressions particulières quant aux adaptations nécessaires.

The agreement sets out specific areas of responsibility for each level of government and strengthens the co-operation between them. For instance, both governments will participate in programs to increase access to training for women, aboriginal peoples, racial minorities and people with disabilities -- that is the designated list for the federal government -- but in addition, the federal government has also agreed to our request to include for special priority in these programs social assistance recipients, francophones, the unemployed and older workers.

De plus, le gouvernement fédéral a aussi accepté d'inclure les bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale, les francophones, les chômeurs et les travailleurs et travailleuses âgés dans ces programmes.

The federal government has also agreed to lift its cap, which has been in place for some years, on funding for apprenticeship training and to provide more timely income support for apprentices.

Improved access to federal and provincial training programs will be a priority for both levels of government. The federal government has agreed, for example, to allow unemployed workers to receive unemployment insurance benefits while they participate in language, literacy, basic education and skills training programs.

The Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement also reaffirms the importance of the province's college system in the delivery of training programs. Minimum base funding for colleges will be $104.8 million in 1991-92 and 1992-93, although funding, because of the transfer the federal government wishes to make to private sector training, will fall to $75.5 million in 1993-94.

To address this reduction in third-year transfer payments, the agreement establishes, right from the outset, new mechanisms to guarantee colleges fair access to new federal training funds. For example, the federal government has agreed to give Ontario's colleges advance notice of federally funded training initiatives. Also, the federal government has agreed to inform third parties of the vital role our colleges play in the training programs of this province.

Colleges will also be among the key players in the local planning process, identifying and addressing local training needs. They will be consulted on the mandate of the new local training and adjustment boards, which will be designated and funded by both governments, and will be invited to have representatives on these boards that will make important decisions about local training allocations.

These new boards will play a key role in the training strategy of this government as a part of our overall economic renewal package, and I will be announcing further training initiatives that will follow this one in the coming weeks.

RESPONSES

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Conway: On the first announcement, all I can say is that I am pleased we are making some progress. It could not be clearer that this government's Hydro policy as outlined in Bill 118 is increasingly a shambles.

I want to say with all due respect how much I appreciate the support I have received in my campaign with respect to Marc Eliesen, who launched a money and power grab in Bill 118 that has begun to really concern and offend not just me and members of the opposition, but, happily, a growing number of my good friends in the government, because they know what they can defend and what they cannot defend out in Ontario. I repeat that this kind of money grab and power grab Mr Eliesen wrote for himself with the original Bill 118 has been stopped to some extent, and I want to congratulate all members who had some role in that rollback.

It is interesting because in this Hydro policy, as in the policy regarding the retail store hours issue or so many other areas, this government does not know what it is doing. On Monday the Premier himself stood up in this House and told me it would be inappropriate for him to prejudge the Ontario Energy Board review, that it would be inappropriate for the Premier to pass judgement on the salary question. He said that in this place but three days ago. I want to say that I am pleased to see that the Premier, in response to growing parliamentary and public pressure, has changed his mind. But let it not be lost that the Clampetts have moved from Beverly Hills to the Treasury bench at Queen's Park. This gang does not know what it is doing.

I want to say that we have seen now, in the last two or three weeks, the Hydro policy amended in two substantive ways. We saw a few weeks ago, happily, the Minister of Energy, the letter carrier from Kitchener, come forward to amend substantially the directive power which was altogether too sweeping, too broad and too intrusive. That directive power was a core of this policy, a policy that was to have been built on openness and accountability. Well, they have backed down, and rightly, on the directive power.

Today they come to the House and they rightly and properly back down on their role to set the chairman's salary. They are now accepting a responsibility that is rightly and properly theirs, so they want another amendment. I think they should start anew. I think they should recognize that the Premier's pal, who wrote this bill more in his own interest than in the public interest, sold them a bill of goods that they cannot defend in the broad public domain. I submit to my friends opposite that the time is now to withdraw Bill 118 and to start afresh.

Finally, I just want to ask one more question of my friends on the Treasury bench. They said a few days ago that Mr Eliesen would receive only a deputy's salary until the bill was passed or the OEB review was completed. I want to know, since they have now set a salary for him that in the end will be a doubling of his current salary -- not bad in this age of restraint when in one fell swoop you can go from $125,000 to $260,000 -- is Mr Marc Eliesen going to be paid a deputy's salary, as they said he was, until this bill is passed or the OEB review is completed?

1410

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Daigeler: In the response to the statement by the Minister of Skills Development, I think one observation is in order. It is becoming clearer every day what the NDP stands for. As students said last week, it stands for "Never Deliver Promises."

Here is what the Treasurer said last May 15 in this House in response to a question by the member for Renfrew North, "We are working within government to put together a very serious proposal and effort on the whole question of training in the province." What we have seen today is old money of the province reannounced. All we have seen today is new money from the federal government. The minister this morning at the press conference acknowledged himself that the figure he is so proud of, $700 million, is already presently in the estimates and that there is no new action, no new money, no new initiatives to get this economy going.

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Jordan: I too congratulate the Minister of Energy for taking the first step in bringing the salary of the chairman of Ontario Hydro under control, not only under control to some degree in a monetary sense but under control of the cabinet where it should be, rather than under the board that reports to the chairman.

The headline in the paper was, "Hydro Boss Pay Hike Cut," so really this is not a statement to the House; it is just a repeat of what has already been reported in the papers this morning. We cannot, as responsible opposition members, try to react to members of this government if we are going to have to react to press releases. We ask the minister to please make his statements in the House and then let the press pick them up from here. It will give us a better chance to assist him.

When the minister was referring to a monster out of control -- or his government -- I say to the minister, he is acting like a monster out of control because this afternoon he has revealed to this Legislature the salary of the president and chief operating officer. I do not think it was his intention to give us the salary of the president and chief executive officer of that corporation. I say the minister should not only withdraw Bill 118; he should resign.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: It is probably a rare occasion when a member of the Conservative Party has the opportunity to stand in the House and witness clapping by the members of the government for some legislation or program that was presented jointly today by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, Bernard Valcourt, for the federal government, along with the Minister of Skills Development for the provincial government. It was a great pleasure to see the progress that I think can be made when two levels of government work together.

I will also take this opportunity to advise members of the NDP government that they were the great critics, as they remember, of Bill C-21, the federal legislation on unemployment insurance. Today I think we have an opportunity to see the federal government put forth some $383 million in new dollars for this year alone for training programs for people who are unemployed and people who are crying out for training programs.

I think that in government and in public policy we have to give credit where credit is due. I would like to thank, on behalf of our party, the Minister of Skills Development for doing just that today, for taking the high road and working together in this country and this province to train our people so that the young people and people who are unemployed can be retrained and this country can be competitive once again.

The colleges that lost some $3.6 million from the Treasurer's clawback recently will now see that money reinstated. It will give them hope and encouragement that the roles they are going to be asked to play in this brand-new agreement, which I cannot say enough about -- it gives us an opportunity once again to see our colleges work with business, industry and labour, which is so necessary in providing the training programs.

At the risk of being overcongratulatory, I will also say that we will be watching very carefully how this program is implemented. We cannot tolerate programs being delivered in our colleges, our universities and our school systems that are perceived as reasonable, appropriate training programs but that are simply not appropriate in these times.

We will be relying on the next announcement from the minister with regard to the training board and we will be looking very carefully at that training board not being overly big and cumbersome, but getting from the front-line workers, the businesses, the industry, the people who rely on us to follow their demands for training -- we will be relying on that board to make certain that it gives the kind of direction and the kind of dollars that the federal government has now presented to this province in the right way, so that training can take place where necessary and so that we are training our young people and unemployed workers in the skills this province needs to be competitive.

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the statement of the Minister of Energy, he has indicated that the new salary for Mr Eliesen is 80% of the salary of the president who runs Ontario Hydro at this time.

I believe that, by making that disclosure, the Minister of Energy has perhaps breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I would like to read the section and ask you to consider it and rule as to whether he has breached the freedom of information act, which may by necessity mean that he has to resign.

The freedom of information act, subsection 21(3), states:

"A disclosure of personal information is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy where the personal information...(f) describes an individual's finances, income, assets, liabilities, net worth, bank balances, financial history or activities or creditworthiness."

It would seem that, according to the freedom of information act, the information that the minister delivered to this Legislature today is contrary to this act, and I would ask you to rule on my point of order.

Hon Mr Ferguson: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: If the members opposite did their homework, they would know that Mr Al Holt, president of Ontario Hydro, has agreed that the disclosure of his salary is in fact in the public interest.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If I could have the attention of the members, please. Since it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to determine the veracity of statements made in the House, I will address the point raised by the member for Willowdale. Indeed, it is not a point of order that you raised, but you do have the opportunity to approach the Information and Privacy Commissioner, if you wish to do so, on this or any other related matter.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Conway: I have a question to the Treasurer. It was in December 1990 that a Minister of Health in his government assured the hospitals of Ontario that the Bob Rae government would "support hospitals in their efforts to work out good relations with the nurses of Ontario." That comment was offered, quite understandably, at the time of the new nursing agreement in the province.

Today the Toronto Hospital announced significant layoffs and service reductions to the people of Toronto and of Ontario. The Toronto Hospital Corp cited, as the two principal reasons for these service reductions and the layoff of some 140 nurses, the Ontario Nurses' Association settlement and the provincial pay equity program.

Having regard to the fact that significant service cuts and layoffs are now being undertaken not just in Toronto but in communities right across the province, in Orillia, Windsor and Ottawa, what does the Treasurer, on behalf of the government of Ontario, intend to do to give effect to the commitments made by a former Minister of Health that the hospitals will be supported as they try to cope with both the ONA settlement and pay equity?

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to assure the member for Renfrew North that our commitment to the hospital sector in this province is strong indeed, and I do not think that the member for Renfrew North is suggesting that pay equity should not apply to the hospital sector. I do not think he was saying that.

I do not think the member for Renfrew North was saying that the hospital nurses were not worthy of an increase. I do not think he was suggesting that the hospital sector should have received more than a 9.5% increase in its transfer payment this year, which was higher than any other sector. So I am not sure what the member for Renfrew North is getting at, but I am sure I will find out in his supplementary.

Mr Conway: I thought Les Frost had parted from this world, but that answer makes me think he is alive and well and living in Nickel Belt.

I want to say to my friend the Treasurer, I only think what I know, and what I know today is that the Toronto Hospital Corp has announced significant service reductions and has announced the layoff of some 250 staff, over 50% of which layoffs are nurses. They cited as the two reasons for that significant reduction in service and staff layoffs trying to cope with the nurses' settlement and trying to implement pay equity.

In December 1990, the Treasurer's colleague the Minister of Housing, the then Minister of Health, assured the hospitals of Ontario that the Bob Rae government would support them, particularly as they tried to deal with the nurses' settlement.

What specific measures will the Treasurer undertake or be undertaking to deal with the people, the patients and the workforce in Ontario hospitals who are this day being jeopardized because institutions which he promised to help in these two particulars cannot cope and are having to proceed in the way that I have indicated?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think it is an unfair characterization which the member for Renfrew North puts. It seems to me that when we announced a 9.5% increase in payments to the hospitals this year, we were indicating that we had a commitment to the hospital sector in this province, and that was true then and it is true now.

Having said that, I am concerned about any reduction in services that might result from any reduction in staffing in any hospitals across the province. In Toronto there are other hospitals and they are working together to make sure that the resulting increase in requirements for the other hospitals will be worked out among them. But I worry in particular about smaller communities where there are not a number of hospitals that can accommodate any kind of downsizing for whatever particular reason.

Finally, the Minister of Health is sitting down with this particular hospital and working out an arrangement by which service to the public will be maintained.

Mr Conway: I have said before that I have a great deal of respect for my friend the Treasurer and I do not doubt his sincerity in wanting to do something, but I repeat, on December 13 last year the then Minister of Health in the Premier's government made a very particular promise. The hospitals across Ontario expect that this promise is going to be kept, particularly as it relates to their efforts to deal with the nurses' settlement.

The Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital has reduced services and started a process of laying people off. The Salvation Army Grace Hospital in Windsor is closing down services. The Metropolitan General Hospital in Windsor is doing the same. There have been layoffs at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. As of this day some 50% of all Ontario hospitals are in a deficit position.

To coin a phrase, what does the Treasurer intend to do specifically in the next few weeks and months to keep the promise made by the member for Ottawa Centre 12 months ago?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think we should also put things in perspective. I understand that at this time of year it is not unusual for hospitals to be showing a deficit.

I gather the Toronto Hospital's deficit is in the $7 million to $10 million range on a budget of, I think, about $500 million. It is a very large budget and the deficit as a percentage of that budget, I think, is manageable but, regardless, the Minister of Health will be sitting down with that particular hospital to try to work out a satisfactory arrangement.

Finally, I understand that in places such as Windsor, when there are problems with hospital funding, the hospitals then are required to sit down together and work out an arrangement whereby services are provided in a better and more cost-efficient way, which seems to me is absolutely necessary. As I said in my statement a couple of weeks ago when we reallocated $600 million, if we are going to save medicare in this province and elsewhere, we have to control its costs.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Conway: I have a second question to the Treasurer and it concerns the state of the Ontario economy.

Just this day McDonnell Douglas announced layoffs, some of which are immediate and others of which will take place in the very near future, a total layoff, I believe, of some 1,450 jobs. The latest statistics on new home sales suggest a sharp decline of some 31% year over year. The latest retail sales numbers show a sharp decline in the month of August, the latest data that we have. The auto makers are complaining and reporting some of the worst sales environment they have ever known.

Is the Treasurer confident that the Ontario economy is responding to the medicine he prescribed on April 29? If he is not, what kind of additional measures does he intend to take to deal with what a lot of people continue to believe is a recession that is continuing almost unabated?

Hon Mr Laughren: We think that the economy is reacting as we thought it would, not just to the actions in the Ontario budget -- I would not be so foolhardy as to predict that, by itself, that has caused the recession to end and we are now climbing out of it -- but everyone has been predicting, including we in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, as we did in the budget, that the recovery from this recession was going to be long and arduous and we have not changed our views in that regard. We think we are coming out of the recession; there are some good signs. But I can tell the member for Renfrew North that it is not going to be easy and we will be continuing to struggle with our expenditures as the recession ends and the slow recovery begins.

Mr Conway: The Treasurer, as I think all Treasurers are wont to do, looks for the positive signs, and I do not fault him for that. I am just again looking at what I can see before me. Retail sales continue to be sluggish. New home construction is not very optimistic; indicators are quite to the contrary. The auto sector is sluggish on a continental basis. It seems to me that those are three very significant indicators that the economy continues to struggle in recession.

In his second-quarter statement today I observed, among many things, that corporate tax revenues are off by some $70 million relative to the budget plan. That too would suggest that the wealth-creating component of the Ontario economy continues to struggle in a real and measurable way.

Can the Treasurer elaborate on what exactly are the positive signs that he sees that would contradict the three or four data that I suggested speak to what is really going on in the key wealth-creating, wealth-generating sectors of the Ontario economy?

1430

Hon Mr Laughren: There is no question that the economy is not recovering as robustly as we would like to see it recover. At the same time, it is not fair to characterize the economy as being different than we thought it was going to be. We forecast this kind of slow recovery in 1991.

There are some good signs on the horizon. On the housing starts, I am not sure the member for Renfrew North is correct. Inflation has dropped, which is allowing, we hope anyway, more investment in the province. The corporate income taxes to which the member refers are indeed down. I remind him that last year they were down over $1 billion from the previous year. We predicted that this year, because of the slow recovery, we would not have the kind of gain in corporate tax revenues that we would like to see and that we think we will have in the next few years. There is no question that the recovery is slow.

Mr Conway: As we have seen in recent days, the newly dynamic party, of which my friend the member for Nickel Belt is the Treasurer, has shown itself to be as flexible and as supine as any political party in the history of Ontario. They have been prepared to reverse themselves on retail store hours. They have been prepared to reverse themselves on the Hydro policy. "Flexibility" is a new buzzword, obviously, at the cabinet table.

Having regard to the state of the wealth-creating part of the Ontario economy, which part of the economy is nearly apoplectic about the labour agenda of the Bob Rae-Bob White government, and having regard to our collective desire for a full and speedy recovery, would the Treasurer of the Bob Rae-Bob White government give an undertaking, if not to this House, at least to the wealth-creating part of the economy on whose back this recovery depends, that it is now prepared to do with the labour policy what it has done with the Hydro policy and the Sunday shopping policy, and that is draw back; apply some good judgement, some wisdom; at the very least put it on ice so that these people who are terrified about what the government's labour policy is going to do to the recovery will be able to catch a breath, create the jobs, create the revenue that will make this budget plan hopefully come in on target at a $10-billion deficit, if we are all lucky?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the fact that the member for Renfrew North will feel lucky if we come in on target.

I want to assure the member for Renfrew North that before labour legislation is even introduced into this House there will be a discussion paper on our proposals and that discussion paper will be widely distributed. We look forward to hearing from people who are concerned about the unknown, I believe, as much as they will be about the specifics, or more than they will be about the specifics in the proposed labour legislation. We hope to have that distributed in the province in the not-too-distant future.

Finally, I am becoming a little worried about my friend the member for Renfrew North. So many of his comments seem to hearken to the past. It is bad enough that Leslie Frost was a Tory, but now his utterances on the labour movement and his views about progressive labour legislation are driving me to think that perhaps he should move over a seat and join the Tory party.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. For the past five years residents of the town of Caledonia in Brant-Haldimand have been asking unsuccessfully for co-operation from her office in Hamilton. Valuable farm land in that area is being used as dump sites for industrial waste. In one case charges have been laid, but many more sites are in operation without certificates of approval. I am afraid our worst fears have come true. Farm land is now being saved for future use as garbage dump sites.

Will the minister agree to investigate immediately and direct her Hamilton office to put an end to this very unworthy use of our farm land?

Hon Mrs Grier: Perhaps in his supplementary the member can expand on whether he is talking about sites that have licences that are being contravened or illegal dumping on land that is not licensed to be a waste disposal site. In either case, I am more than happy to investigate. But I point out to the member that if a site is licensed to accept municipal solid waste, then it is illegal to accept industrial waste, and if in fact it is being dumped on farm land that is not approved as a waste disposal site, it is illegal, period. Perhaps he could give me more details, but I am more than happy to look into it.

Mr Villeneuve: I have just sent over with a page some information, a photograph and a copy of a letter from the ministry officials. This is the photograph of one of the illegal dumps. It is clearly a pile of garbage sitting on what seems to be valuable farm land.

Let me quote from a senior environmental officer in the ministry regarding this type of site, and this is the letter she now has: "It can be concluded that the owners are considered to be operating a normal farming operation."

From that photograph, that is not a normal farming operation. The minister should pass it over to my good friend the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I think he will agree it is not a normal farming operation. This is good agricultural land. Does the minister agree with her staff that this is indeed farm land and should not be a garbage dump site?

Hon Mrs Grier: Looking at the photograph that the member has sent to me, it looks to me like fill has been dumped in a wetland, so I know my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources will indeed be interested. As I said in response to the first question, I will certainly undertake to investigate and give an answer to the member.

Mr Villeneuve: I have further photographs and documentation that will prove that indeed it may be wetland but it certainly is valuable agricultural land. We do not know how much dangerous and toxic material is being dumped in that area, but the government is quite obviously allowing good farm land to be used as landfill sites. The ministry obviously believes that our farmers are growing garbage. If indeed that is a farm, it is garbage that is growing there.

The residents in Brant-Haldimand are beginning to feel like the official dump site of Ontario. First it was Hagersville, and now the minister has documentation that I believe shows it is continuing. Will the minister please quit dumping on the residents of Brant-Haldimand and on some of our good land and look after her ministry's responsibility in this area? Can she promise this House that she will do that today?

Hon Mrs Grier: I can certainly promise the member that the use of class 1 agricultural farm land for a waste disposal site is not appropriate and that in seeking waste disposal sites, that is not a course I will choose to follow if alternatives are available. What he has given me is a photograph of some fill in a pond. I do not know the circumstances. I do not know the location. I do not know the background to the correspondence the member has passed to me. As I said before, I will look into it.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. I would like once again to congratulate the minister for his negotiation of a Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement with the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration.

At the press conference this morning, the minister indicated that this is a landmark agreement, and we agree. The federal government will spend $846.1 million in 1991-92. Members of this House should know that this is an 83% increase over last year. Those are federal dollars for training. We are happy to know he agrees that is a good idea.

When combined with the $751 million, there will be $1.6 billion spent on training in Ontario. Everybody is excited about that, including the business community, the education community and the training institutions. Now that we have these resources, we need to ensure that the dollars are spent effectively.

The minister stated that he will be creating an Ontario Training and Adjustment Board to restructure training delivery. When will he release his consultation paper, which I assume was his first step? When will the training and adjustment agency be in place so that these dollars can be spent?

1440

Hon Mr Allen: I thank the member for her generous response to the initiative. I also know of her continuing deep concern about training problems in Ontario. I want to say to her that it is my intention at some point midmonth in November to release the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board consultation document, which will be followed by roughly three months of very careful consultation so that we are sure we have precisely the kind of structure that this province needs.

Coincident with that, in terms of the agreement I signed today, there will also be a consultation around the structure of local boards in which all communities and all participants in communities concerned about training will be asked to give us their views as to how best those boards might be structured in order to deliver training in all the local communities across Ontario so that the dollars from the province and the federal government will be used for the maximum benefit of this province.

Mrs Cunningham: One of the main criticisms about the delivery of training programs in Ontario is the amount of bureaucratic red tape and program overlap. We need to be more efficient in the delivery of our training so that the money is actually spent on individuals so they can participate in our workforce. I was pleased with your response just now and I was also pleased to see that the federal-provincial agreement released today will reduce the amount of overlap between federal and provincial training programs. That is great.

We need the same streamlining at the provincial level and not more bureaucracy. If we create this Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, as we both understand it, will we then be eliminating the need for the Ministry of Skills Development?

Hon Mr Allen: It is too soon to talk of the actual restructuring that will take place in government as we go through the evolution of the delivery of responsibilities, the form the new board will take and the form the local delivery mechanisms will take. With respect to that undertaking, we are putting in place some very innovative, new human resource initiatives in order to make certain there is not displacement of personnel, that skills are maintained and that people will remain in place throughout this whole major undertaking.

If that is the point of the member's question, we paid a great deal of attention to that. We have some very innovative and highly creative mechanisms that have not been used in this province to date for dealing with that.

Mrs Cunningham: I look forward to seeing that in the very near future. I was also encouraged to see that the agreement reaffirms the importance of colleges in the delivery of training programs. Now we need to ensure that their programs are more relevant to the needs of the community, one of the great criticisms.

Three weeks ago I met representatives of the London Industrial Training Advisory Board and General Motors and they were concerned that our education systems -- and I put an "s" there -- are not producing the number of technically trained workers that Ontario industries require. They want strong linkages established between educators and industry. Technology is rapidly changing and industry has its state-of-the-art equipment while many colleges struggle with antiquated relics. That fact alone demonstrates the need for business and colleges to work together.

I ask the minister what changes he will be introducing to ensure that when a specific business advises that it needs 30 highly skilled mechanics, for example, our college system will be required, and I underline "required," to work directly with that business, industry or labour group to make certain that we train those specific individuals today.

Hon Mr Allen: One of the first things that will be undertaken by the new Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, for example, will be the establishment of a major unit that will deal with best practice in training, which of course will be available to all trainers, including the college system in terms of the research that is undertaken into best practice in all fields of training.

Second, the colleges will have their own more dynamic and better-resourced interface between themselves and new sectoral training agreements for the provision of training capacity industry by industry. That certainly will be a further enhancement of the kind of co-operative structures that presently are in place whereby businesses and industry advise the colleges about the need for local training programs and how they might be sponsored.

I would also observe that all through this structure there is a new emphasis upon not just bipartitism but the co-operation of labour, employers and community entry and re-entry groups that are concerned about those who are not in the employment market today, so that by the combined efforts of all those working with the college system on the new local training boards, for example, there will be a better mix of initiatives, ideas, enthusiasm and research in order to heighten everybody's capacity in the whole training field.

ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question for the minister whose name now appears on most of our elevating devices in the province. I am looking at a report by her own employees, the Ontario elevator inspectors, and I read with utter amazement what they said, that when you ride in an uninspected elevator you are placing yourself at risk; in other words, you are in danger. I am shocked to read what the minister's chief engineer in charge of elevators said at the inquest where two people were crushed to death by elevators, "We do what we feel is the bare minimum to do."

When I step into an elevator I see displayed the minister's licence and her signature, and I am led to believe that I am safe. Is the minister not misleading the public by making people think they are safe when in fact they are at risk?

Hon Ms Churley: Safety is the primary concern of the Elevating Devices Act and it is a primary concern of mine, not just because my name is up there in big letters. I regret writing it so legibly at this point, however.

First of all, I want to correct a misconception that I think has recently come out of the member's statement and an earlier statement in the press. I want to assure people that elevators cannot crash. There are so many safety devices built into the elevators that I want to assure people they should feel safe in riding them. Serviceability is another issue -- I come from Toronto city council, originally -- that I believe we have to do some work on. It is quite true that the ratio of elevator inspectors has gone down in terms of elevators. In fact, as the member's press release pointed out this morning, in 1989, when the Liberals were in power, most of the seviceability problems started to happen.

I am working on that with a comprehensive, multifaceted approach, dealing with inspection of elevators so that the oldest ones are inspected first so there is therefore less of a chance that elevators will have to be shut down for maintenance reasons.

Mr Ruprecht: I want the minister and the House to know that her boss said just over a year ago, "Why are we" -- that is the government -- "sitting on our rear ends when the problem is so big and so scary out there?" She has been sitting there for over one year now and what she has accomplished up to now simply is not good enough.

I want to provide her with some facts that will open her eyes. In 1978, as she said, there were 70 non-fatal elevator accidents; in the last three years there were six that were fatal, and in 1989 the non-fatal accidents grew to 1,000. In the city of Toronto alone, in 1989 and 1990, 1,300 accidents were reported where our fire department was called in to rescue 2,288 people. They were all affected by elevator accidents. That is putting it nicely, since some people were seriously hurt.

The minister cannot continue to keep placing people at risk, as she says. The problem is getting progressively worse. When will she agree to a key request by most of the municipalities that a standard elevator maintenance contract between the owner of a building and a bona fide company be established to get rid of this problem and place people in safe situations?

1450

Hon Ms Churley: The member is in fact not correct. The act already requires that owners have regular maintenance inspections done by a contractor registered with my ministry. I aware that there have been problems and that we need to make sure it works, but that is already in place, I am happy to say.

Mr Ruprecht: It is not in place.

Hon Ms Churley: It certainly is in place and I will be happy to show the member where after question period today. I have already explained to the member that I am certainly very concerned about safety, although I think maintenance is often the problem, and I am concerned about elevators having to be shut down for maintenance purposes. Because there is no way we can inspect every elevator every year, I think this comprehensive approach to inspections is very important so that we can keep our eye on the oldest elevators and the elevators with the biggest problems, and make sure we target our inspections carefully to avoid breakdowns and the maintenance problems that are already there.

To finish, in order to deal with this problem we are already in the process -- this did not happen under the Liberal government when the problem really grew -- of training new inspectors at this time because there is a shortage in this province.

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I want the minister to have a letter from the Ministry of Housing saying there is no provision in legislation. The minister does not know what she is talking about and I think she should get up and either resign or do something about keeping people safe.

The Speaker: It is not a point of privilege.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. For the past several weeks, I have been asking the minister questions on the proposed new Polaris land registry system being conveyed to private hands. We have been trying to find out particulars of this contract the government has entered into, which was negotiated by the Liberal government and finally signed by this government, and the minister has indicated that she is not going to produce it. We have been trying to find out how much this agreement is going to cost the taxpayers of this province and she will not provide specifics.

All this is very mysterious and I therefore have a further question today on this subject; it remains the ownership. Who owns this company, Real/Data Ontario? Last fall it was reported in the Financial Post that there are 30 owners, but the president of Real/Data could not disclose the list at the government's request. It is difficult to know who these people are. In this same article a government alliance spokesperson, Bonnie Foster, did reveal four of the partners of Real/Data, but for some unknown reason she was unable to reveal the remaining 26. She did promise to disclose the remaining 26 after the details of the partnership agreement were finalized. The difficulty is that this government will not produce the contracts.

The Speaker: We need a question.

Mr Tilson: The details have been finalized for some time now and I would like to know who the other 26 owners of Real/Data are.

Hon Ms Churley: Once again, the member's statement before his question is in fact not correct. First of all, this deal was not made in secret and as I have already stated I am happy to make a copy of the agreement between RDO and the province available to the member through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of my ministry. I am happy to release that to him at any time.

In terms of the partnership, which is an equal 50-50 partnership between RDO and the province, there is a 10-year agreement with equal investment of $5 million each to begin with at the government's and RDO's signing, and another $24 million each at the call of the board. All the profits and dividends will be shared equally.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Before the supplementary, I remind the member for Etobicoke West that his quite valued contributions should best be made from his own seat.

Mr Tilson: It is fine for her to tell us these details and produce the agreement, but the question is, who are these people? Information is now available that has been told to us that this land registry system being proposed, the Polaris land registry system, may have more errors with respect to the computerized system than there will be with the current system and that indeed the Polaris system may not even work.

Why is the minister implementing a new land registry system when she does not even know what it will cost; that will perhaps result in the closing of more registry offices; that will be owned and operated by unknown people, many of whom we believe are not even Canadians; that will result from a contract she has signed with unknown people, a contract that will cost the taxpayer unknown millions of dollars; a system that she does not appear to be aware of, the details of the partnership -- at least she will not tell us those details -- with this unknown group of people, and a system that may not even work? Why is she implementing such a system?

Hon Ms Churley: I think the member got most of his facts from a TV program that I have already pointed out was inaccurate.

This partnership is a good deal for the province. This government has done extensive internal and external reviews. It is going to implement state-of-the-art technology which is going to be the leading edge of this technology in the world. It is going to provide up to 2,000 new technology jobs in this area. It is not going to close down any land registry offices. In fact, it is going to provide them more quickly with more up-to-date information. I can assure the member that this has been well examined, and it is a good deal for the province, saving the province money and providing lots of jobs. This is what the Tories want to see more of: partnership between private industry and the government. This, I can assure the member, is a very good deal.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Sutherland: I had the pleasure this morning of attending a session where a document was released called Canada at the Crossroads: The Reality of a New Competitive Environment. One of the comments in there was about skills development. It said, "The level of advanced skills in Canada, critical to sustaining and upgrading sources of competitive advantage for Canadian industry, is inadequate."

My question is for the Minister of Skills Development on the announcement made earlier about the new Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement. I am quite sure many people in Ontario, particularly in my riding, will welcome that announcement as part of this government's strategy for economic renewal over the long term. One of the campuses of Fanshawe College is in my riding, so I would like to ask the minister on behalf of my constituents if he could give us some indication what type of impact this will have on Fanshawe College as a whole.

Hon Mr Allen: I am very happy to respond on the ways in which this will impact on a locality such as the London region and on Fanshawe College in particular. There are two ways in which dollars will flow out of this agreement into local communities. One is through the community industrial training committees that exist in many of our local communities and the other is through the college system.

First, there will be 50% more dollars available to the CITCs to respond to local businesses and groups that make proposals to the CITCs for training programs of one kind or another. It will be possible for those groups and for the local training boards which will in future succeed them to respond to those requests much more generously and effectively.

Second, there is the question of Fanshawe College which, as part and parcel of the college system, will share in the $104 million which will be available to that system for training purposes and which it will be able to bid upon. As I explained this morning to questions of this kind, a number of details in the agreement give some special place to the colleges in the ways in which they can access that money.

Mr Sutherland: In the training that has gone on in this province, there has been a very long tradition that a great deal of that, particularly technical training, has been provided by the college system. I wonder whether the minister could comment on what guarantees there are that the colleges, as public institutions and with a mandate to provide training, will still be playing the most significant role in the area of training within this province.

Hon Mr Allen: I do not think there is any question but that the college system will remain the major deliverer of training programs in this province. In point of fact, they have been existing in a competitive environment for some time, because the federal government has been increasingly diverting its dollars towards private sector contracting for training. The interesting thing that has been happening, and which I think most people do not know, is that the college system in Ontario has been bidding on those projects and has been winning 90% of the contracts. So the colleges have the necessary expertise, both in specific training programs and in the generic, backup skills training programs, to match together for effective training in Ontario. They will continue to do that, and they will do it well.

1500

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Mancini: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday during the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation, I used my limited time to question the minister on the Red Hill Creek Expressway, which was cancelled by the NDP government, leaving the region of Hamilton-Wentworth out in the cold. The government promised at the time that a review would be undertaken and that terms of reference for this review would move forward.

We were shocked to learn yesterday that fully 10 months had gone by and, as staff from the ministry informed the committee, the terms of reference had not been approved by the government. We were told it would take another eight weeks to work out the terms of reference. This morning the minister met with regional representatives to in fact sign such terms of reference. They were shamed and embarrassed into signing the terms of reference.

We were surprised to learn that the study will include a review of alternative routes through the Red Hill Creek area itself. Will the minister now confirm that a route through the Red Hill Creek area is back on the table, and will he then explain why the government wasted a year and millions of dollars and cost thousands of jobs in delaying construction and scrapping the Red Hill Creek Expressway project?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Indeed we reached an agreement this morning. I would like to get the critic's attention because I will try in a word or two to meticulously explain to him -- if he is receptive, with respect -- what has taken place.

The north-south agreement will look at alternatives to the Red Hill Creek Expressway, and the provincial share will remain 70%. What the committee, which is the Hamilton-Wentworth region and the government of Ontario, that is, the Ministry of Transportation, have committed to is the following, to seek an alternative within the next six months. If an alternative is not found, the region of Hamilton-Wentworth has the possibility of coming back with the original proposal. What we are committing ourselves to do -- let me focus here -- is to look for alternatives in the north-south.

Incidentally, in terms of the commitments for east-west, the 50-50 share is still on the table. It was a good partnership. The reason for the delay is that the region opted for the possibility of seeking legal ramifications, to see what it means in the legal sense. That is why it took a long, long time. I know the critic of the opposition will wish to share with me in commending all parties involved.

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: We now can look to the future with a great deal of confidence and with a reasonable and comfortable timetable.

Mr Mancini: I want to remind the Legislature and the minister that his predecessor rose in his seat and said the Red Hill Creek Expressway was cancelled because it was a moral decision. Where is this government's morality today? That is what I want to know. Where is its morality today?

What we have witnessed today is the most cynical of politics. I submit that the reason the Red Hill Creek Expressway is back on the table is because, as was printed today in one of the local journals, "Red Hill is somewhat of a red flag for Hinkley," an NDP candidate for mayor in Hamilton.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Mancini: Tens of millions of dollars in business investment are at stake. Thousands of construction jobs and new jobs in new businesses are at stake. Will the minister stop playing games with the future of the Hamilton-Wentworth region, and will he allow the Red Hill Creek Expressway to go ahead as planned?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We will just wait.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The supplementary indeed has been put and I am sure the opposition will have the decency to let me answer. The commitment is ongoing. What we are talking about here is an alternative to the first proposal. We are hopeful that the facility can go forward and can be approved within a period of six months.

It is not complex. One need not be a mathematical genius emanating from Windsor or Harvard to understand the simplicity. If the member looks for positive results, hard work, dedication, commitment to seeking an alternative, he will find it in the agreement. However, if he does not choose to read it, then with best wishes -- we start on the premise that the cup is half full, never half empty. This is a positive organization responding to positive alternatives. All systems are go. We are looking forward to it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Carr: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Over the past little while, as part of my critic's position, I have been consulting with business. One of the big concerns that has come up is in regard to the Labour Relations Act amendments. I would like to quote a couple of replies I have received, one from a major manufacturer with 250 employees in my riding.

"Gary, as you know, we are hanging on by our teeth. Our US shareholder has seen the proposed legislation and is appalled. All this is just one more 'nail in the coffin.'" There are 250 employees with that company.

Another small employer in my riding says, "As an owner of a small business in Oakville struggling to survive in this recession, if the labour reform law is passed, I will be getting rid of my eight employees." I would like to send this over to the minister to take a look, if one of the pages would be so kind.

Due to the reaction of business, which has been negative, and due to the fact that the minister represents industry at the cabinet table, I was wondering if he could enlighten this House on how he feels about some of the proposals under the labour reform amendments.

Hon Mr Philip: I addressed an almost identical question at the Toronto board of trade at lunch hour. I can say that if the honourable member --

Mrs Caplan: "You don't like our principle, we got other principles. You don't like our morals, we got other morals."

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Philip: If the honourable member for Oriole would allow me to speak over her squeaking, I would be happy to do so.

The Speaker: It would be appreciated. The minister has the floor.

Mrs Caplan: I didn't say a word.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for Oriole says she did not say a word. She does not say a word; she squeaks, squeaks, squeaks over the voices of the rest of us.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I am very concerned that the former Minister of Transportation is very red faced today because of the acrobatics of the new Minister of Transportation over the Red Hill Creek Expressway -- the new morality, the new policy, the new principle, which is an embarrassment to this Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. In his attempt to discredit me personally, I am offended.

1510

The Speaker: It is not a point of privilege, but it would be very helpful if the Speaker could hear both the question and the response. So if all other members in the House could come to order, I would ask the minister to move on quickly with only his response to the question asked.

Hon Mr Philip: To the honourable member who asked the question and who, I know, is interested in the response, the Ministry of Labour has produced, in co-operation with the rest of the cabinet, a discussion paper that will go out and have full input from both business and industry and communities.

We are confident that there are some very substantive issues contained in that paper that the business community will want to provide input on. Indeed, the business community, through me, through the Ministry of the Environment, through the Minister of Culture and Communications and other ministers, has had considerable input already into some of its concerns. Those will be reflected in the paper.

There will be a full and open discussion of that paper, followed by legislation that will go to committee. The people in the business community will have a full opportunity to propose amendments, changes and improvements when that happens. I can tell the member, as I assured the Toronto board of trade today, that we are open to any constructive suggestions and I can tell him that the board and other members of the business community are preparing some very positive ideas that we hope will be useful to us.

Mr Carr: I have copies of a couple of those positive ideas from the More Jobs Coalition, which put together a package, and the All Business Coalition. The fact of the matter is that since this cabinet document came out, the business community is spending a great deal of time and countless thousands of dollars producing some information as a result.

One of the problems is the uncertainty around these proposals that have come out. They have taken a look at them, taken the worst possible case, and, as the minister will see from some of the comments there, the people who are looking at the proposals are extremely concerned, extremely scared. As a result of all the efforts that are being put in, the countless hours and the thousands and thousands of dollars being spent on this campaign, could the minister today enlighten the business community a little bit further about what direction he would like to see and how this will affect his plans for the future for industry and trade? Could he get rid of some of the uncertainty and give us some details on what he would like to see happen with regard to this piece of proposed legislation?

Hon Mr Philip: As I outlined to the Toronto board of trade today and to other business groups, we are developing a number of proposals that, unlike those of our federal colleagues, will develop --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat for a moment, please. It would be very much appreciated if all members, in particular the member for Oriole and the member for York Centre, could resist the temptation to be overexuberant. Your active participation in this assembly is always welcome, but at this very moment, I am attempting to hear the response from the minister. I am having difficulty hearing it.

Mr Sorbara: Where did he have lunch? I hope it was with the board of trade.

The Speaker: It was not with me, nor am I interested in where he had lunch.

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member wants to know who I had lunch with. I have had lunch with a lot more people around this province as a cabinet minister than he ever had lunch with or ever consulted with. The members of the business community know that.

The Speaker: Would the minister respond to the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I asked the House to come to order. Before we start discussing menus, perhaps the minister would help things by addressing only the question placed, which I do not believe had anything to do with where he went for lunch.

Hon Mr Philip: I think I was commenting on the number of people I was consulting with, not how many people I had lunch with. To the honourable member for Oakville South, we are consulting with the business community. We have worked out the needs for the basic models to develop a co-operative model between business, labour, industry, the community and government. Indeed he will find that companies such as the one that is investing some $200 million to expand some very high-tech technology in his riding are the kinds of companies that have developed a very successful formula of bringing about co-operation and partnership between business, labour and government. We are working with companies like that to create jobs in Ontario.

TIMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Waters: My question today is to my dear friend and colleague the Minister of Natural Resources. It has become almost a habit for me to ask this dear minister a question. He is very important to my riding.

As many members of the House are acutely aware, the Ontario forest industry is in very serious difficulty. The problem that developed at Spruce Falls and Kapuskasing is not isolated. A number of medium and large sawmills are in trouble.

Members will also know that direct forest industry employment is critical to northerners because across the north some 32,000 people rely on this industry for their employment. Many smaller northern communities rely solely on the forest industry for their livelihoods. Could the minister please tell me what he is doing to ensure that these issues are addressed?

Mr Stockwell: It isn't a letter.

Hon Mr Wildman: I guess the member was referring to a letter he has written to me. I recognize his concern. I hope all members of the House recognize that we are facing a very difficult state in the Ontario forestry industry. Both the lumber mills and the pulp and paper mills are facing serious difficulty and are under difficult financial pressure.

The Premier has directed me to lead a team effort to deal with this crisis, and I would like to let the member know that a number of my cabinet colleagues and I will be meeting with leaders of industry and labour next Monday, October 28, here in Toronto. It is my hope that this meeting will foster a co-ordinated, co-operative approach to enable us to start to move forward to deal with these difficult times.

Mr Waters: I would like to thank the minister profusely for his answer. I am certain that the people who rely on the timber industry are greatly appreciative of his answer.

There is no question that the high value of the Canadian dollar and high interest rates and the recession have weighed heavily on the industry's fortunes. I ask the minister for his insight in terms of the future of the industry and how we will come out of this recession.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member has mentioned two of the difficult problems facing the industry, the high value of the Canadian dollar and the high level of interest rates.

Mr Conway: And the countervail.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member for Renfrew North refers to another serious difficulty that is also facing us, the American reaction to the withdrawal of the memorandum of understanding which imposed an export tax on softwood lumber.

Those are causes of concern, but there is an overall structural problem. The industry in Ontario is a high-cost producer, first, and also we have seen a virtual collapse this year in new investment in the industry. The planned investment in Ontario mills is only $150 million over the next five years, compared with $1.5 billion planned over the next five years in each of Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. Investment is critical if the industry is to compete in the marketplace and to improve productivity and competitiveness.

I want to say, though, that I know very many members in southern Ontario do not recognize the importance of the forestry industry in this province, but all of us recognize that there are no quick fixes to this problem. I hope the tripartite meeting we are having next week will be the first step in a process which will enable us all to co-operate in looking at new ways to improve investment in the industry and to improve the competitiveness of the Ontario lumber and forest industry.

1520

Mr McClelland: On a point of order --

The Speaker: Just wait a minute. That was indeed a very important question. It was also quite lengthy for both the question and the supplementary, and I will allow one question with one response.

BORDER COMMUNITIES ASSISTANCE FUND

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I agree with the Speaker's comments about the length of the questions and answers. My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Over the past week, two separate ministers of this government have mentioned the existence of a community assistance fund of $5 million which has been set up to help Ontario's border communities implement their own initiatives to counter the cross-border shopping crisis.

The minister certainly must realize that $5 million is almost an inadequate sum in the face of more than 14,000 jobs which have been lost, by this very government's own estimates, and this has been a direct result of cross-border shopping. It is even less impressive given the insistence of the Treasurer that he will categorically not --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am giving facts and figures. I am not lecturing. The Treasurer has categorically refused to reconsider imposing further gasoline tax increases on January 1, 1992. The comments and answers given by these two members of the NDP cabinet --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the government benches to remain quiet so that I can hear the question. I ask the member to quickly place her question.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: The community assistance fund has not been described to this House with any clarity, direction, criteria or allocation. Has any community in this province received an allocation from the community access fund which we are talking about? Would the minister please present, in a clear fashion, the process of application these communities must follow if they are going to access this $5-million fund which is so often mentioned without any detail?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would love to answer this question, although it is under the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. I will forward it on to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Hon Mr Philip: I answered that question a few days ago in response to another member's question, but I would be happy to repeat it.

The member had a two-part question. One was, are there applications in? Yes, there are a number of applications from different communities and they are being processed and considered at the moment.

The process is for the local community group, which I outlined in my answer to the previous question, to form a committee to come forward with a series of proposals. Each of those proposals will certainly be considered for funding.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr McClelland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of the Environment will be introducing legislation this afternoon. We have been around this bend so many times it really bothers me to have to stand on this point, but of all people, the Minister of the Environment, somebody who regards the traditions of this place well and who, I am sure, has -- this must be very difficult for her. I presume it is some directive from the Premier's office. She will be introducing legislation that is vitally important to people in the greater Toronto area. I cannot believe that the legislation is being introduced --

The Speaker: What is out of order?

Mr McClelland: This rightly calls for a statement and it is contrary to every tradition that there was not a statement made by the minister that this legislation would be introduced later.

The Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Ruprecht: Pursuant to standing order 33(a) --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Ruprecht: I will have to shout across the way because no one --

The Speaker: No. Would the member for Parkdale raise his point of order.

Mr Ruprecht: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I thank the House leader.

Pursuant to standing order 33(a), Mr Speaker, I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Parkdale take his seat. The member for Oriole is asked to come to order so that one of her own colleagues can raise a point of order with the Speaker.

Mr Ruprecht: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your assistance in quieting this House.

The Speaker: Would you proceed with your point of order.

Mr Ruprecht: This is the fourth time, Mr Speaker. I am trying. Pursuant to standing order 33(a), I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to my question on elevator accidents. The reasons for my dissatisfaction are the minister's misunderstanding of the legislation and misinterpretation of the Elevating Devices Act. I expect she would be here tonight at 6 o'clock to answer the questions properly.

The Speaker: The member will no doubt file the necessary document with the table.

REMARKS BY MINISTER

Hon Mr Philip: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If the member for Oriole found the remarks I made about the noise and interjections she was making to be offensive, I therefore withdraw those remarks to her and apologize if she found those remarks to be offensive. I hope she would also understand that her interrupting of me so that I could not answer the member for Oakville South was also offensive to me.

Mr Ruprecht: Since the minister is in such a generous mood, I recommend that if the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations gives me a different answer, I will withdraw my recommendation as well.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that, notwithstanding any standing order or previous order of the House, Mr Grandmaître and Mr Daigeler, and Mrs McLeod and Mr Sorbara exchange places respectively in order of precedence for private members' public business and that the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 44.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO IN CONFEDERATION

Mr Cooke moved that the order of the House of Thursday, December 20, 1990, appointing the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, as amended on Thursday, June 27, 1991, be further amended by striking out "November 25, 1991" and substituting "February 5, 1992" therefor.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Mrs Grier moved first reading of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Mme Grier propose la première lecture du projet de loi 143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mrs Grier: This legislation implements the government's plan that was announced last November to solve and manage the waste crisis in the greater Toronto area and to accelerate and broaden 3Rs programs province-wide. It will give legislative powers to the Interim Waste Authority to continue its search for and environmental assessment work in support of three long-term landfill sites within the GTA.

It also deals with the waste disposal gap within the GTA by giving additional legislative authority through the recently issued minister's orders to extend the life of Peel region's Britannia Road landfill site and Metro Toronto's Keele Valley landfill site. The legislation will also amend the Environmental Protection Act so that the government has regulatory authority to reach its waste diversion targets of at least 25% reduction in municipal waste going to disposal in 1992 and at least 50% reduction by the year 2000.

1530

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELEVANT DU MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'ALIMENTATION

Mr Buchanan moved first reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend certain Acts administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

M. Buchanan propose la première lecture du projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is a tradition in this House for the critic to receive a copy of the minister's bill when it is being tabled. In light of the fact that there was no statement that the minister would be tabling this bill, I as critic for the greater Toronto area, for which this bill has great significance, would appreciate the courtesy of receiving a copy of this bill before the minister proceeds. The government House leader and the ministers wonder why we in opposition occasionally get a little frustrated. They have had over a year --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. It is not in the standing orders to distribute copies of a bill before it is introduced. I believe it is a courtesy to distribute background information, but certainly not the bill itself.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I wish to introduce this omnibus bill which amends the Beef Cattle Marketing Act and the Milk Act.

The purpose in amending the Beef Cattle Marketing Act is to remove the upper limit on the checkoff licence fee and provide enabling legislation for the proposed national beef checkoff system. The act was enacted in 1968 and has been amended from time to time to increase the upper limit on the checkoff licence fee. The checkoff system provides a low percentage of the sale price of each head of cattle directly to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association for promotion of the beef industry. After consultation with producers, the OCA has requested that the upper limit be removed and that provision be made for co-operation in a national beef checkoff system.

The second part of the bill is to amend the Milk Act to increase the upper limit on the producer levy for the Ontario Dairy Herd Improvement Corp from three cents a hectolitre to six cents a hectolitre, to be implemented over a three-year period. The Ontario Dairy Herd Improvement Corp is a producer organization that provides information on herd management and health and is used as a marketing tool for breeding stock. It was government-funded until 1981 and is now funded by milk producers, the federal and provincial governments and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. Because of increasing operating costs and an anticipated decrease in government funding, the ODHIC and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board have requested that the upper limit on the levy be increased.

The amendments introduced today will enable Ontario's beef and dairy industries to maintain their competitiveness and high standards. I urge all members of the House to support this bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Laughren moved resolution 28:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing November 1, 1991, and ending December 31, 1991, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Mr Bradley: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this particular issue because there is so much flexibility. The ability to speak on virtually anything on interim supply is extremely attractive to me.

As we change Speakers, I want to compliment the Speaker on his wise decision today, his flexibility, his reading of the situation in permitting the final question that was allowed.

It is very interesting to talk about interim supply because it is one of the tools an opposition has in a democratic system and one that cannot be influenced, even by OPP investigations. It is one of the tools that can be used by the opposition to call the government to account, because the government needs money to function, to pay the cabinet ministers $90,000 a year, to pay all the parliamentary assistants their additional amount of money, many of whom were recipients of increases in pay by virtue of their election to the House. We know we will need considerable sums of money for those purposes. I will not dwell on that at any length. It is always attractive for the opposition to be able to mention that at the very least.

I do want to talk about some of the problems confronting this province, and this government as well. I have noted some interesting writings that have come to my attention about this government. Some of the columnists who are writing about the government are not people who are now attacking it from the right -- we expect the government is going to be attacked from the right -- but are people who are attacking from the left. The reason for this is that these are people who very much believed in the New Democratic Party, in the platform on which it ran, and in what it stood for in opposition and what socialists traditionally stand for. They see some erosion of that point of view now that the government has assumed office. They see that what you see is not what you get.

The NDP used to portray itself as a party that was different from the others, as one that was not slick and obsessed with making itself look good, but rather one that would do what was right for the people of Ontario, one that would keep all of its promises and one that was on a higher ethical and moral level than all other political parties. If there is anyone left in Ontario who believes that, those people are naïve or members of the government at the present time, who have a vested interest in saying that.

What I notice, for instance, is the orchestration of this House by a government adviser by the name of John Piper.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: "Not the Treasurer," he says. I am inclined to believe that the Treasurer is not a person who will be manipulated like some puppet, as perhaps some others might allow themselves to be, because he has been here too long -- most people on this side of the House might agree with that -- some 20 years.

Mr Conway: I saw the pamphlet.

Mr Bradley: I have the pamphlet in my desk. I am going to look for that right now. I will find it some time during my speech, I am sure. I keep these things and I will hold it up for members of the government to see who were unable to make it. Here is a photograph of an individual with a very wide tie and a striped shirt 20 years ago. It does not seem to fit, but he did not care in those days, because he was an individual interested, as he is today, in fighting on behalf of his constituents.

Hon Mr Laughren: I was tall then too.

1540

Mr Bradley: He was taller at that time and I can understand why. This is a photograph that was taken 20 years ago in Sudbury.

When I, with many others, had the chance to attend his dinner, I heard many accolades about him. That is why I do not believe he feels easy with John Piper and the orchestration of this House.

Many people watch now as the government attempts to manipulate the news media, and that is impossible to do. Every government probably tries to influence the news media in some way or other and finds out it cannot. But one of the things I recognized, sitting on the government side when I was there, was that the opportunity for the opposition to criticize arises when ministers make statements in the House. On many occasions now -- it is done deliberately; I am sure of that -- ministers make their announcements outside the House. The Minister of Agriculture and Food, for instance, when he was making an announcement of totally inadequate funding for farmers in this province, made the announcement in that bastion of food-growing areas, that agricultural heartland, Mississauga.

The reason they do this is that their advisers tell them: "You don't have the tough Queen's Park press gallery there, the people who are familiar with the issues and who have some understanding of the past and the present. You go somewhere outside of Toronto, where the people are not familiar with the issues, and make the announcement there. The questions are not as tough. You might even get a puff piece out of the announcement as opposed to some difficult questions." That does happen on many occasions.

A situation arose in the House yesterday. It was raised by the member for Renfrew North, the deputy leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, who pointed out that just after question period an agent for the Attorney General was handing out a press release of an announcement that should obviously have been made in this House. That was most disappointing. I was told by the government House leader that I was supposed to pick up the phone and tell him every time this happened and register a complaint. If I did that, I would be on the phone continuously. It would be like a courtroom where a lawyer asks a very leading question, such as one that would incriminate the person answering it, and then someone raises an objection. The objection is sustained and the judge says, "Strike it from the record." Nevertheless, people have heard it and are influenced by that particular intervention.

We see numerous examples of these press conferences outside the House. The Minister of Culture and Communications made an announcement about Bernard Ostry outside the House, downstairs somewhere in this building, and we had to find out about it later on. There would not be much point asking about it in question period because TVO now does not show question period at 12 o'clock. Since certain members of the House have complained about when they show it, they have now moved it to 12:30. I can understand why it would be moved to 12:30, with the number of questions that were directed by the opposition to the government about the spending habits of the chairman of TVO, who continues on in that position and continues, as far as I know, to have his credit card available for use in this province.

Regardless of the competence of this individual, questions were directed at his spending habits. Now people, if they want to see question period -- I think it used to be at 11 o'clock, or at least 11:30, on TVO -- have to stay up to 12:30 to see the government being brought to account. If you are on the government side, you think that is a great idea; you think that is wonderful.

People from TVO say: "Don't you understand? There's cable television which goes all day." What we have to understand is that not everyone can afford cable television and all those channels, but people with a television aerial in this area can pick up the TVO transmission. I think it is most disappointing that they continue to move it later and later into the evening. Soon it will become an early morning program, if it keeps getting moved. Of course that is in the interest of the government, so it is not going to complain about it.

What I am concerned about is watching a party which was rough around the edges at one time but which most people considered to be an honest group, a well-meaning group, if not as reasonable and responsible about what its role and responsibility would be in government. At least you knew what you got. It has changed.

We began to see the change last summer when they put the Premier, who used to wear brown clothing and informal clothing, in brand-new suits, the grey suits and the dark suits and the nice ties, the way you see Jack Layton now on television when they have a debate. You see Jack Layton all dressed up nicely now. I liked the old-fashioned NDPers who came in here with the patches on their elbows and the brown corduroy coats. When Stephen Lewis was here, he used to dress that way and would make some compelling arguments.

It is a changed bunch. As I look over there, there are a lot of new suits. First of all, a year and a bit later, the government collectively is about 1,000 pounds heavier than it was a year ago. Actually, if you take a picture of any cabinet -- and this is generic, not just for the NDP -- and then take one five years later, if it had the same people in it -- and that is difficult for this government -- you would find there are 2,000 pounds more sitting around that table. I can remember another cabinet where that was true.

The member for Hamilton West is here. He is a person I have always admired for his integrity and principles. He must shudder some days when he has to be part of announcements that are made or policies that are enunciated.

Hon Mr Allen: I had a good announcement today.

Mr Bradley: Yes. He says he had a good announcement today. One in several months is nice to see, and I am sure he is delighted about that.

Bud Germa from Sudbury used to be a fellow I saw as a real New Democrat. I would hate to tell members what he called the other people in his caucus; they were intellectual somethings. In this House, Mr Speaker, you would probably draw to my attention the fact that it is not appropriate to use that terminology. But Bud Germa was the kind of person I thought represented the New Democratic Party well.

Another individual, who passed away very recently, perhaps even today -- I thought it would have been appropriate actually to have paid tribute to him. His name was Bob Carlin. The reason I remember the name Bob Carlin is that my father told me he voted for him when we lived in Sudbury. Bob Carlin used to be a CCF member for Sudbury. It lists him here in his biography as Robert H. Carlin. I do not think he would be very happy being known as Robert H. Carlin. He was with the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and later the United Steelworkers of America.

The interesting thing about Bob Carlin is that he went too far to the left and the CCF kicked him out. He was part of the mine-mill union which, it was alleged, had communist leanings in those days. He had been elected as a CCF member of the Legislature. He had worked in mines. He had been a person who had gone through the tough times. He was one of those people who suffered quite a bit for being a union organizer and for being part of a union, back when it was tough to be a union leader, back when if you tried to organize big industries like that, there were goon squads that went out from companies to go after those who wanted to fight for the rights of workers.

Bob Carlin, who did pass away, I think today or yesterday, was a person who deserves a lot of credit. He reminds me of the old CCF and the old NDP, people who were prepared to fight for what they believed in.

Today I look over there and we have all kinds of new suits and fancy clothes -- not everybody -- as they have become a new-image government. Not the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore; she has always had those. But I look at some others over there and I see the brand-new suits. They know who they are on the other side of the Legislature.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: It is true. The member has just come in, so she probably did not realize the context in which I said it.

This is a change from the old days. This is a change from the hard-nosed, left-wing, tough NDP I knew in opposition and that I admired. I did not agree with them all the time, but I admired the fact that they had principles and stood up for those principles. They reminded me of the Labour government in Britain, which a lot of people disliked, but a lot of those people had principles they were prepared to stand up for.

Now we see the NDP sliding away from those. The business community is happy and the opposition is happy to see some of the changes that have been made. The member for York Centre said yesterday words to the effect that the people of Ontario sigh a collective sigh of relief when this government changes its mind under pressure from the opposition and outside groups, and I agree with that.

I look at Bob Carlin and I want to pay tribute to him. As I say, he got too left for the CCF at one time. He was actually booted out of the CCF and it ran a candidate against him. It says here:

"By 1948 the influence of the Communist party within the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers had become a matter of concern to both the CCL and the CCF. When Carlin opted to 'go along' with the communist-oriented international officers of his union, the CCF denied him nomination for the 1948 provincial election, ran an official candidate against him and he was defeated. In 1949 the CCL expelled" -- that would be the Canadian Congress of Labour then -- "the IUMMSW."

1550

The person who was turfed as an NDP candidate again was a person who was prepared to take it on the chin in the early days of organizing in Ontario. I see some parallels today as the party moves away from its original positions. In fact, I was reading a column on September 14 by Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star. Thomas Walkom would not be a person who would be attacking the NDP from the right. Anybody who reads his columns knows he is a person whom I would characterize as being from the progressive left; quite progressive left as a matter of fact. He talks a bit about what is happening to this government:

"And confusion abounds. What is the Rae government about? Has it sold out? Did it ever have anything to sell in the first place?... Rae, after all, is the man who during the 1990 election campaign" -- and he is talking here about the abandonment of government car insurance -- "faced the television cameras and advised voters to apply this credibility test to politicians: 'What are people's records? What have they said in the past? Whose interests are they defending? Is this something they've said before, or is this just something they're saying now?'"

Tom Walkom continues: "That's what he said then. But what he has done -- particularly his insurance decision -- has shaken some of the stoutest NDP supporters." One of them is a very good friend of mine, Mel Swart from Welland-Thorold, who by the way will be celebrating his 53rd wedding anniversary next week, so the New Democrats will want to make sure they send him a card.

Tom Walkom says about him: "Former New Democrat MPP Mel Swart, the driving force behind the party's auto insurance plan for many years, called Rae's decision 'heartbreaking' and 'a very serious mistake.' Even in the government itself, long-time party members were left shaking their heads in disbelief."

I am not saying this as a person who has any inside in the party, but Thomas Walkom, who interviews many people and has a chance to chat with many members of the New Democratic Party in his role as a journalist, has determined this from his interviews.

He goes on to say, talking about the NDP again and the fact that it has jettisoned some of its original policies:

"In large part that's because the NDP has become enmeshed in its own contradictions. On the one hand, it wanted to become electorally relevant. It hired consultants and pollsters, tried to figure out strategies that might win seats. The pollsters continually told the party: Don't talk about the economy; you can only lose support if you do that; talk instead about justice and fairness."

He goes on to say: "Perhaps, underneath, the party's MPPs never really wanted to win power. Opposition is, after all, comfortable." Those are some of the observations he makes. That is often true, by the way, of people in opposition.

There is no question in my mind as I look at the faces of cabinet ministers these days that it is a difficult job. I know what it is like and I know it is a tough job. I can tell when they come in looking tired that they have had a tough day on the job. If they have not, that means they are not doing their job. I know that all the looks of tiredness from time to time are because they are working long hours. I do not begrudge them the fact that they are paid $90,000 a year, that they have the limo and the credit card and all those things, because I know they have a tough job to do.

Mr Walkom goes on, and I am concerned about this, Mr Speaker, as I know you probably are, about the Agenda for People. This is how he refers to it. He says, "The party's so-called Agenda for People was a sham -- a document prepared in a hurry and released in the midst of the 1990 election campaign on a lazy Sunday afternoon, in the hope that no one would pay attention." When he talks about it in terms of the promises, he says, "They were not meant to be taken seriously." He goes on to say, "Besides, as a senior aide acknowledged this week, the party's positions in opposition were too often opportunistic, geared to winning headlines. They were not well considered."

Hon Mrs Grier: What a different opposition you are being.

Mr Bradley: I would simply point out that the point I am making this afternoon is how the NDP was supposed to be different. What the people have discovered is that it is simply another political party in the process of the province of Ontario.

This, I know, is annoying the Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, whose family, both she and her husband, is what I would consider to be good, hard-nosed New Democrats who have always been supportive of NDP principles in this province. I have admired the contribution they have made in the past and the views they have expressed in the past. Which means the Minister of the Environment must just be shuddering some days when she has to defend some of the policies the government brings forward. I really believe that is the case.

This is what is happening in Ontario when we talk about some of the things the NDP had promised. Mr Walkom in his column on September 14 mentions this. He says: "But other long-time promises remain. Senior figures say the government will push through anti-scab legislation in the face of business opposition, while scrapping some of the other controversial proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act." They say they are going to scrap pension reform; they say they are going to go ahead with limited welfare reforms, and so on and so forth.

There was a list of things the NDP promised and delivered, which was rather interesting. I will not go into the exact detail of it, but it talks about auto insurance and the promise that was made. We all know that was abandoned at Honey Harbour. We know how many members within the NDP were annoyed with that, because that was central to the NDP campaign. It talked about a minimum tax of 8% on corporate profits and no provincial income tax for families below the poverty line, an inheritance tax on estates valued at more than $1 million, a speculation tax on property and other principal residences.

What we have, of course, is an NDP tax commission. It will look into these things. I must admit that the people on the tax commission are pretty left-wing in many cases. Neil Brooks could not be considered to be anything other than very left-wing, and some of the other people on that commission are quite left-wing, so I am sure that some of the recommendations will be rather interesting. This government, I suspect, will not be implementing them. The minimum wage, pay equity, child care, poverty, rents, working to keep Ontario businesses alive, employment equity, the environment, housing -- it lists a number of the promises that were made here, and the promises have been cast aside or postponed in terms of their implementation.

I used to sit with a member who, again, I remember was a rough-and-tumble New Democrat in those days. His name was Ed Ziemba. He and I both served at the same time as critics for the Ministry of Correctional Services. If he could have foreseen what is happening today in terms of the policy being implemented by this government as compared to what he used to stand for -- he was not a milquetoast social democrat; he was a hard-nosed, strongly committed New Democrat -- I would think, although others may have different views, he would not be entirely happy with what is happening to his New Democratic Party today.

Hon Ms Ziemba: He is happy, believe me. Stick to your own policies.

Mr Bradley: The member should have some humour over there and not be so humourless. She is going to perpetuate a stereotype of socialists as being totally humourless.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I smile.

Mr Bradley: That is why she has to smile. Some of her people who have been around here a while smile at some of this stuff. I think I know the person I served with well. I am sure the member opposite knows him even better than I do, but I well remember the cases he used to fight in here and what he used to stand up for in opposition. I cannot believe he is entirely satisfied with what we are seeing. I am speaking of the former member for High Park-Swansea, I believe it was, Ed Ziemba. I wonder how he would feel about this, but I will not go further into that.

1600

Hon Ms Ziemba: Happier than David Peterson.

Mr Bradley: Here she is again, interjecting about David Peterson and so on. That is fine. She had many years to do that and to make those comments.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There will be ample time afterwards to ask questions of the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: To continue on in some of the observations that are made, this is a Thomas Walkom column entitled "Bush's Puppet Hankers For Bigger Stage." I am not going to get into the federal part of this, because this is a provincial House, but he makes an interesting observation near the end, if our Prime Minister were to depart for other pastures.

He says: "But if he does go" -- he is referring to Brian Mulroney -- "we will, in a way, miss him. We will have no one on which to focus our hatred. And Bob Rae, for one, will have no one left to blame. Ontario's Premier will have to justify his milquetoast, do-nothing Ontario regime on its own merits. He will no longer be able to deflect criticism by blaming Brian Mulroney." That is a rather interesting observation on the part of Mr Walkom.

There was somebody else who made an observation, another person who I have found to be an interesting observer of everything in this country, a well-known person respected by people of all political backgrounds, Robert Fulford. It is from the Financial Times of Canada, October 21, 1991. He makes some observations along the lines that I made in the House today, in a much more articulate fashion. One would expect that from Robert Fulford. He seems to say these things in a rather sad way, as opposed to perhaps an angry way -- perhaps I have misinterpreted his words -- more in sadness, I think, than in anger. He says the following:

"A CEO of my acquaintance, after hearing Rae at a breakfast meeting for business leaders in September, reported: 'If you close your eyes, he sounds just like Michael Wilson.' Perhaps he feels he has to. Given his party's antibusiness history, he must now appear to be even more enthusiastic about business principles than his Liberal predecessor was. At his present rate of change, three more years of turning on the spit of public opinion will transform Bob Rae into Margaret Thatcher.

"His cabinet ministers, on the whole, move less swiftly. Many of them have carefully trained themselves, over the years, to despise business and the free market. Now, in office, they have been developing a new approach, which can be roughly paraphrased: 'We are not as antibusiness as you thought we were -- or, in fact, as we thought we were.' This leaves business people unimpressed and makes party members uneasy."

Mr Fulford goes on to say: "The Toronto Star recently quoted a melancholy chap who runs the Hamilton Centre riding association: 'A lot of people who work for the party feel a certain kind of moral integrity -- maybe even superiority.... I think now there is a profound sense of "Geez, we're just like the other guys."' He's the sort of person who knew for certain that government auto insurance would be introduced soon after the NDP won the election. It won't be, of course, because -- well, the New Democrats discovered that it would cost a lot of people their jobs and drastically increase the deficit. Before the election of 1990 these facts were known to everyone else in Canada but by vicious conspiracy were kept from the New Democrats."

He talks a bit about socialism. "Socialism also implies more creative ideas about health care, welfare, and education -- yet there are no signs of any such ideas around. In fact, this government seems even less enthusiastic about helping the universities (a major problem in Ontario) than the Liberals were. In most of these fields, its major concern seems to be the placing of NDP members on the boards of universities, hospitals, museums, etc. Whether these appointees care anything about the institutions in question is of little interest to the government, an approach it learned from the federal Tories.

"The Ontario experience seems to demonstrate that even if political principles are nurtured over decades they can be worn away with astonishing ease. In this case, NDP principles haven't been able to withstand even one year of bad economic times and media hostility. Perhaps that's because the principles were never articulated or understood in the first place; perhaps they weren't principles at all, just vague feelings of goodwill on the one hand and hostility on the other.

"Recently, Edmund Dell wrote A Hard Pounding, a book about the British Labour government of the mid-1970s, which he served in the Treasury under Denis Healey. One sentence leapt to my eye from the page: 'There is no comparable example of such intellectual and political incoherence in a party coming into office.' That produced a shock of recognition. Incoherence is what troubles the Ontario NDP. It is often, and rightly, attacked for its bungling, but we expect incompetence in people who have never seen the inside of a cabinet room before; experience and the usual weeding out will fix that. Incoherence, the lack of shared purpose and direction, is far more serious. Parties die of it."

Robert Fulford is not some right-wing ideologue or Neanderthal. He is a person who probably would be quite sympathetic to the views expressed by the NDP in the past -- some of those views at the very least -- and he is expressing disappointment, as has on occasion Mr Walkom, the columnist for the Toronto Star, at the NDP having strayed from its original purposes.

In addition to John Piper, who seems to be orchestrating things on the other side of the House and making this a slick government, a politically smart government, we had an interesting addition to the cabinet office, one of my favourite people when he was in the news media. He could ferret out stories about government waste, incompetence and so on. I am referring, of course, to the award-winning journalist from CBC Radio, Gerry McAuliffe.

Mr Conway: He has not gone over too?

Mr Bradley: Gerry McAuliffe was an individual to whom it did not matter which government was in power -- Tory government, Liberal government, NDP government. When he wanted to, he could dig up an awful lot about the government and bring it to public attention. I think in that sense he did a fine service for the people of Ontario.

The NDP has hired Gerry McAuliffe. No doubt it is paying him more than the CBC and it serves a couple of purposes. No one can blame Mr McAuliffe, of course, for taking an appointment of this kind. He probably has his personal reasons, perhaps his relationship with the CBC or whatever. I do not know. I am not going to get into that.

Mr Conway: Forty thousand?

Mr Bradley: Forty thousand would not touch that kind of office.

Just as when it does not make statements in the House and avoids criticism, the NDP has succeeded in taking away one of the harshest critics of government, and I say that in a generic sense. It has put him in the cabinet office to advise on -- what would we say it is?

Mr Conway: Critical issues management.

Mr Bradley: "Critical issues management" I think was the terminology.

Mr Conway: That is what the press release said.

Mr Bradley: That is what it said. I am disappointed that we do not have Gerry McAuliffe around to ferret out those stories about this government. It, of course, will have the advantage of his advising it on how to avoid these things. That is something interesting to observe. One would not have anticipated that the NDP would go out of its way to have to hire people to do those things.

We also have some other good tactics that the government uses to satisfy itself. One is that, after question period, it will have selected cabinet ministers who will go to the press gallery lounge and just chat with the folks from the news media, chat them up and make them feel as though they have some special access to cabinet ministers. That is smart politics and no one should deny a government that opportunity. But again, it goes contrary to the image I always had, perhaps wrongly, of the NDP of not being that kind of manipulative, slick government. Instead, well, what you see is not what you get these days unfortunately. From a political observer's point of view, that is kind of sad. I guess from an opposition member's point of view it is great because you can criticize it and say, "See, they're just like the rest."

There must be a lot of people like Mr Fulford and some true New Democrats across this province -- he quotes someone from the Hamilton Centre organization. That is his quote, not mine. He has his source, I do not.

1610

The member for Welland-Thorold is another critic. I have always enjoyed the observations of the member for Welland-Thorold about things affecting this Legislature. I remember the fight he put up on behalf of government automobile insurance in Ontario and against the fact that the previous government was going to deny an unfettered opportunity to sue for people involved in accidents. I think it was 17 hours he spoke in this House. He read out various messages. He did everything he could to prevent the government from having its way on automobile insurance. Naturally, he would be a person who would leave the retreat at Honey Harbour with some degree of bitterness or perhaps resignation to the fact that was happening. I am going to get back to his comments in a moment. In fact, I want to look at a couple of other things that have happened.

We raised in this House the issue of the intervention of the Ontario Provincial Police with members of the opposition and with the news media. We will get to the bottom of this eventually; somebody will fess up to this. We appreciate the Ontario Provincial Police protection in here, however what we do not appreciate is how this government attempts to use the Ontario Provincial Police. That is my observation.

Hon Mr Cooke: You are totally wrong.

Mr Bradley: The government House leader disagrees, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore shakes her head and cusses at the speaker, but I happen to know --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Bradley: I know exactly what is going on with what the government is doing.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member for St Catharines address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Bradley: I will certainly do that.

The Deputy Speaker: It will prevent any heckling that way.

Mr Bradley: That is true. I wish I could believe that, Mr Speaker.

We have a fine police force in Ontario, even though we do not have the Golden Helmets of the OPP any more, which were such a great tradition. They died in Perth. Their last appearance was in Perth, unless they have been brought out for the royal visit. They may well have been brought out for the royal visit. That was something. We had the OPP Pipes and Drums. We had the grape festival parade in St Catharines. I was looking, as were so many people, for the Pipes and Drums and the Golden Helmets.

We know those are the ceremonial duties of the OPP, but we also expect that they are going to be preoccupied with fighting crime. They have had an excellent reputation over the years for fighting crime in this province. Instead, the government has them sidetracked and, as a result, we have the member for Halton Centre being interviewed in her constituency office about some leaked government documents. We have a Toronto Star columnist being interviewed as the result of a leaked document from the Ministry of Natural Resources. We have a spin document coming out of Treasury that has nothing to do with the budget. It is simply a spin document being put out, a public relations document, and we have the OPP used to investigate that.

This I consider to be -- it is a subjective evaluation -- intimidation: intimidation for members of the opposition, intimidation for members of the news media and intimidation, certainly, for the public servants who feel that in all conscience they must pass these documents on to the opposition as they used to do to Stephen Lewis with great regularity. I think there are many people in the NDP caucus who feel uneasy about this. I do not expect them to rise and say that, but I would suggest that when there is a meeting of their caucus taking place, this issue is raised and there are a lot of people who are very uneasy about it.

Also there is the use of Alpha, this new company which, heaven knows, must have NDP connections. It orchestrated presentations to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs when it had budget hearings across the province. All of a sudden, all these former NDP candidates and others who are sympathetic to the government showed up at these hearings to speak favourably of this budget that nobody else in the province seemed to speak favourably of.

Now we see the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. It must be Alpha again involved in orchestrating or bringing forward the people who are going to make presentations there. It will be interesting to see who is involved with Alpha because I know the NDP would not simply pick its friends to do these things. It is different from other parties.

I sit on the standing committee on government agencies. The member for Etobicoke-West is here and he would know what that committee is like. What we are concerned about in that committee is not so much -- let's put it this way: the committee does not have its power because the committee cannot veto -- that there is not equal party representation on the committee, which would make it multipartisan, and not so much that members of the committee cannot suggest their own appointments or hear from others who want to comment on it, so it is a very weak committee, but what is annoying to those of us in the opposition is that it is portrayed as something else. What is probably even more galling are the people who actually believe it is different. You read some pieces somewhere that say, "Bob Rae has made a major change." In fact, he has not.

The present government makes the past government pale in terms of the New Democrats it is putting on every agency, board and commission. That is a right, but if anyone thought things were going to be different with this government, as the Premier suggested they would be during the campaign and in opposition, they certainly are disappointed that we are getting party hacks and other supporters in many cases filling positions the government may appoint people to. That is discouraging. But of course the public relations will continue and it will be portrayed as something substantially different.

Today I was quite interested in the Red Hill Creek Expressway and that announcement. What we are seeing now is the government, in my view, attempting to influence the results of municipal elections. I say "in my view," because the government House leader is probably going to disagree with me vigorously.

I remember the piety as the former Minister of Transportation, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, rose in the House -- or was it outside the House? I cannot remember -- to announce that the Red Hill Creek Expressway was finished, done, no more, that they would not take this road through the valley because it would destroy the valley. Now we hear that route is back on the table, that it has not fallen off the table, but we do not want to announce that because we want to make an announcement that is going to help Brian Hinkley, not get him into trouble.

We have it on one day, off another day. We heard it was a moral decision, an environmental decision and now we find out there is some uncertainty about it. There we have a situation where the government is not coming entirely clean, or is about to change its position. If they made a decision that they said was environmental, that they said was a moral decision and stuck by it, there may be some people in this House who would disagree with it, but at least people would say: "That's their position. That's what they stand for. That's what they're going to do." Now we hear it is back on the table.

Let me draw a parallel for those who are in government and know what is going on. I remember the old debate over the Rouge Valley and whether there was going to be a road through the Rouge. I watched the Ministry of Transportation. It was told by cabinet, "Find an alternative route to the one you had chosen." As the presentation was made -- I was present -- lo and behold, what appeared back on the map but the original route, not only some of the other options but the original route the people from MTO wanted. I said at the time: "This was clearly not the instruction. It was clearly to be alternative routes to this and what is this doing on the paper?" Eventually, of course, it was shoved aside. They recognized that the government meant business, that we would not accept that particular route and we looked carefully at all other routes.

1620

I hear that with the Red Hill Creek Expressway anything goes, anything is possible, and we will not really find out what is going on until after the November 12 municipal election, because we want to make sure we do not adversely impact on Brian Hinkley's campaign in Hamilton. That is what we are going to see. I look for a nod from the members of the Conservative Party when I say to you, Mr Speaker, did not the Minister of Transportation indicate that everything was still on the table, that every route was still possible? He did, and that is going to disappoint some people.

Sunday shopping is another favourite issue. This government was going to close down everything on Sunday and we would have virtually nothing open. We would still have some factories working and other people who had to work on that day, but this government was going to close things down because it cared about the retail workers, it cared about family life and it cared about a common pause day. Now this government has changed its mind. It will put forward various excuses. I know the excuses. I know what the reason is.

Mr Perruzza: It is called listening to people.

Mr Bradley: It is exactly. I am glad the member intervened. It is called reading the polls. They got a poll that said, "The majority of people want this to happen," so they had to make a choice between polls or principles, and they chose polls. Again, perhaps there are people in this House and in the province who would say it is a wise decision and would breathe a collective sigh of relief, but there are many people who would say: "What about the NDP promise? What about those principles? You know I voted for those principles and now I find they are being abandoned. Now I find that there are going to be exceptions, that the bill is so full of contradictions and exemptions that if you use them the right way, we would have a hodgepodge of openings around Ontario." People will recognize that as a retreat.

Then we had the dispute over the salary of Marc Eliesen, the new head of Ontario Hydro. We have seen a retreat on this after much questioning in the House and public embarrassment. That is understandable, and as I say people may breathe a sigh of relief over that. Once again we have seen the jaw come out or people getting caught and then having to retrace their steps. Does this sound familiar? Sure. It is what has been experienced by many governments in this world over the years.

To those who thought the NDP was ethically and morally better than other parties, it is not. It is a partisan organization that would like to keep itself in power in Ontario and will do what it has to do to achieve that power. I hope at the same time they can implement some of the things they believe in because I know some of the members over there believe strongly in many of the things they campaigned on in the past.

I saw an interesting television program. My new favourite television program is Haeck from Queen's Park. This is a cable television show from my friend the member for St Catharines-Brock. It is a very interesting show. She has some good guests. I saw the member for Niagara Falls on and she was marvellous in answering the questions and very informative. She has others on and they have been very helpful in educating me on what the NDP stands for. Last week she had the member for Welland-Thorold on and this was most interesting because --

Mr Stockwell: What did he say?

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke West is probably wondering what he had to say about this government. The member for Welland-Thorold is a person who does not care about ruffling feathers on the other side. He is not one who will kiss the ring of the Premier on any occasion simply to endear himself to the Premier. He is one who says what he thinks, and this is what he said in answer to one of the questions from the interviewer, who did an excellent job as well:

"Ontario is far, far more than the intersection of Yonge and Bloor. But you have some people, and quite frankly they're dominating the government process right now, as they have in previous regimes, who really think that once you are finished with Harry Rosen's clothing store and" -- some other places in Toronto -- "and the Park Plaza, why that's all of Ontario." I think he said Creeds -- "Harry Rosen's clothing store, Creeds and the Park Plaza, why that's all of Ontario."

Hon Mr Cooke: It is closed.

Mr Bradley: The government House leader says it is closed and we know why it is closed. The economy is so weak in Ontario now that it probably fled to the US at the sight of this government.

He goes on to say: "I'm fearful of this -- values that are being rejected by some of those downtown Torontoites. I say no more."

The point he is making, quite obviously, is he believes, as he once said, that there is an exclusive group of people in the Premier's office who make all of the decisions and --

Hon Mr Cooke: Herschell.

Mr Bradley: Exactly. They go from regime to regime, except there are different faces. You need a program to see who they are, but all these places are going to be filled. He seems to believe this group is responsible for decisions.

I would not call anybody these names at all, but I know that members of the House would want to know what the member for Welland-Thorold thinks of some of the decisions that have been made.

He says: "People are telling me...they are fed up with a government that doesn't pay attention to the needs of small-town folk, be it in western Ontario or people up in northern Ontario. They are sick and tired of Toronto values, of downtown high-rise values being imposed upon them."

Then he says: "I am telling you, when people are told that some pinhead made a decision about eliminating the oath to the Queen for police officers, they're saying: 'Now where did that come from? Who made that decision? What kind of nitwit could possibly think that somehow people in this province were demanding that the Queen be abolished from the oath for police officers?' And they are right. When we saw the horror show of the elimination of the Ontario scholarship bursary" -- he goes on to talk about that -- "happening but weeks before those same students were going to be receiving it, again the timing of that was dumb.

"The problem is you got people up there in Toronto who won't take the time to get out of their limousines and talk to real people in their factories, in their shops, in their fields.

"Let me be more precise," says the member for Welland-Thorold on the Haeck from Queen's Park show. "The sad reality is that there are some people at Queen's Park who better get out of their limousines and talk to real people. The sad reality is that we are like so many other governments, guided by too many $1,000-per-day consultants, and I don't need Gerry Caplan to tell me what it means to be a New Democrat. I can go to talk to factory workers at their plant gates. I can talk to shopkeepers in their shops. I can talk to farmers in their fields, senior citizens in their homes, students in their schools and get a far better feel for what people need in this province than I can ever get from the $1,000-per-day consultants.

"I say we better start talking about it and making decisions about it because people are fed up and aren't going to take it any more and I don't blame them."

He is talking about some of these decisions that are made, the member for Welland-Thorold: outspoken as always, a strong New Democrat. When he goes across the province, I am told, even today he is one of the most popular speakers. Virtually every association likes to have him speak. He gets a larger round of applause than the Premier in many places and this is what he says about the government. If he says that, I think one would consider my observations about this government as being somewhat moderate by the same standard.

1630

Let me talk about a few other things that we need. There was initially, I guess, some attempt to have a left-wing government. I recall when at York University there was an organized session for civil servants and people who work in ministers' offices where the Bennites from the city of London -- some people would call them the left-wing loonies; I would not say that naturally, but some people would say that -- were brought over to educate civil servants and some of the political people in the government as to how they should operate a government. This was organized up at York University and certainly John Crispo was not invited to that particular affair. There may have been others, but he was not.

I look at another problem that is certainly on the minds of many people in Ontario. That is the problem of crime in our province. The statistics are worrisome. Police officers are worried. Every day we seem to pick up the newspaper and see killings taking place. We see armed robberies. We see gangs of kids going through the CNE on a rampage or going through the Eaton Centre or some market or into stores. We see people being surrounded. What is the term for that, when they surround the people?

Mr Ruprecht: Swarming.

Mr Bradley: "Swarming" is the term used when they surround these people. Some violent beatings take place. Finally some people, other than those who have been talking about crime for a number of years, have discovered there is a problem with crime. There are two approaches to it and there are two tactics one must use. One must look at the source and the cause of crime and one must look at how you deal with the immediate problem.

I reject entirely those who wish to give me the history of the person committing the crime, as though that somehow is an apology. We worry about the perpetrator of the crime and say, "If you only understood how this person was raised or the environment in which the person was brought up, you would understand why the person committed the crime." I say, tell that to the person who is the victim of that crime. Tell that to the people who have been mugged, the people who have been assaulted, the people who have been killed. Tell them about that.

That is one approach, where people simply dismiss it that way. The other extreme is when people say: "All you need is to triple the size of the police force and make all the laws very tough, similar to some countries that are very drastic in their laws. That will solve the problem." Quite obviously, it is only a combination that is going to solve the problem.

First, we need strict enforcement, good enforcement, support for our police forces in this province, not constantly nagging at them, not constantly going after them, but supporting them when they are carrying out their responsibilities to enforce the laws in this province. Second, we have to deal with the social problems that breed crime in the first place. It is a combination. We cannot simply forget one and pursue the other.

I hope this government addresses itself to this issue. I notice it has become an issue in the Toronto campaign. I am not going to get into the campaign, but I notice that all of the candidates seem to be talking about it as one of the issues. The two candidates for mayor are talking about it. Both people have indicated a concern about safety and are concerned about crime. We all have to address it as well as we can.

We have to deal with the Young Offenders Act. The Young Offenders Act was probably brought in with good intentions. There was a feeling that a lot of kids were going into prisons. Again I make reference to a former member of this House. Ed Ziemba and I went to many prisons in this province, both as Correctional Services critics, to observe what was happening. One of the things we came to a conclusion about was that many of the people who were in those prisons were too young to be in those prisons and were deprived of the appropriate education which would allow them to function well in society.

Some of the recommendations that came out of that committee and its movement during estimates through the prisons were helpful in making at least some changes in the prison system to ensure that once those people got out they were going to be capable of functioning in society. But there is a concern that the Young Offenders Act has turned out not to be the panacea that a lot of people thought it would be, that while it has addressed one problem, it has created another.

You have a number of young people in our society, as small as that number might be compared to all the kids we have in our society, who are just thumbing their noses at it, who are laughing at the police, who are laughing at society because they know they can get away with doing whatever they are going to do. You can even have adults who are malicious using young people to carry out their crimes because they know those young people would have a lesser sentence, and that is most unfortunate.

I think we have to have a careful look at it. I do not think we throw it all out and say, "We have to put all those kids back into prison."

Mr Winninger: Throw them in jail.

Mr Bradley: The member for London South intervenes. One of the problems we are confronted with now is a lot of people who are sick and tired of seeing this happen, of seeing these people thumb their noses at law in this province. That is a great concern. The member can smile if he wishes. I accept his intervention. I do not deny that opportunity. I know he may feel there is an overemphasis on this from the other side of the House. But I am very concerned about the Young Offenders Act. I am not one who attacks it willy-nilly. I think there have to be changes to it to be sure that young people cannot be used by adults to commit crimes and that indeed young people cannot simply thumb their noses at the law and make a mockery out of the law.

There is another thing, and I will not dwell at length on this but I am going to touch on it because I know in the constitutional negotiations going on at present there is talk of entrenchment of a lot of things in the Constitution. I am going to tell those members -- their Treasurer knows better than anybody right now, and probably their Chairman of Management Board, and probably those who sit in cabinet week after week -- they will see as time goes on the major effect the Charter of Rights can have on government policy. They can be forced into a lot of policies that are extremely expensive and may not be a priority for their government because an unelected court has dictated this.

I may disagree from time to time with what an NDP or a Conservative or a Liberal government does, but I prefer the option of throwing that government out and replacing it with a government that is pleasing to me in terms of its policy initiatives and programs as opposed to having to deal with a court that cannot be thrown out. That is the great problem.

People have had that opportunity. When people disagreed with a Conservative government, they replaced it. When they disagreed with a Liberal government, they replaced it. If they happen to disagree with the present government, they will replace it. I prefer to see that option available rather than judges making these decisions.

Speak to the Treasurer. Speak to the Chairman of Management Board. They know the implications of these court decisions which arise out of the Charter of Rights. The Minister of the Environment is going to be confronted by people who will use the Charter of Rights to try to avoid problems with the environment. I have seen those cases arising.

You have to be extremely careful about entrenching things. If you have a policy and want to implement it and you are elected, you have the right to do so. You have the right to do so when you have the mandate of the people of this province.

If this government wishes to become deeply involved in a number of areas that are costly, it has the right to do so, but better it does it as a democratically elected government than have the court impose it. I am telling members, that can happen.

Hon Mr Allen: That is why you support the "notwithstanding" clause.

1640

Mr Bradley: That is a good intervention. The member for Hamilton West says that is why I support the "notwithstanding" clause. In my own personal view, the "notwithstanding" clause should be used in only the most extreme cases.

I look at courts -- and remember, these people are not elected. Many of them in years gone by were not always the most qualified people, in my view. I hope I do not face one, having said that. I think governments today, at the federal and provincial levels, are making a better effort to appoint people who are going to be good judges, who are going to be good people to sit on the bench, who are not simply people affiliated with a political party. That is going to be very helpful, but I worry about people who are now sitting in various posts making policy decisions as a result of sitting on a court.

But I think the member for Hamilton West, in his intervention, wisely reminds members of the House by asking me the question about the "notwithstanding" clause, because I certainly disagree with the one way it has been used. I have seen it used once now, and I believe it was to cut off legitimate rights of people in the province. That is why I think it is extremely dangerous to do that. However I simply make the observation that they as a government will have taken away from them the right to make a lot of decisions by a court which will be imposing its will and its priorities on the government.

I should also mention, in St Catharines, because we are into the New Enterprise Store -- oh, I have not mentioned yet the computerized axial tomography scanner for the Niagara region, and people would be disappointed if I did not. The Minister of Health has a difficult job and I know she is sympathetic. I watch her in the House as I ask her to talk about this. She is sympathetic and wants to make sure the criteria used for the approval of CAT scanners are appropriate. I know it is not easy for her to simply make an instant decision, and it is not a good way of doing things, but I must say that people in the Niagara region are waiting some five and six months now for elective use of a CAT scanner.

I do not want to pretend that emergency use is not available. That would be conveying a wrong impression to members of this House. Emergency use is there, but there are a lot of elective uses that are still important medically that take five and six months for the CAT scanner, so I hope the minister gives her approval. As you know from your own area of the province, Mr Speaker, the local community pays for the CAT scanner, the diagnostic machine, through fund-raising and the hospital must operate it out of its budget, and part of that budget is of course supplied by the province.

I want to look at the police commissions around the province. One of the most important appointments the government will make is to the police commission. I think there is a gentleman by the name of Andrew MacKenzie who works in the Solicitor General's office who has something to say about this. I am not saying he makes the final decisions, but certainly he is involved with this. I will say this through the minister: I hope he looks carefully to observe that the people who are appointed to the commissions are not people who are constantly antipolice. I do not think that will be the case. I hope it will not be the case. There is nothing more discouraging for members of a police force.

I recognize we must have civilian control. I know the NDP will be implementing its promise of years gone by of putting the majority of people from the local municipality on the police commission and not the government representatives; I know it will be doing that. I am confident because it has said this in years gone by. But I think it is important to place on those commissions people who understand the difficulties that police officers in this province face in carrying out the responsibilities.

Policemen and policewomen themselves are the first to want to cast away those who break the law within their own ranks. They do not want corrupt people in their ranks; they hate it because it reflects upon the whole police force. But they are equally concerned if they see a number of people appointed to police commissions who are simply out to get the police, to disagree with the police, who have a long-time grudge against the police.

I hope there is a good balance appointed to the police commissions across Ontario. I am not going to get into naming individuals and get into a fight over those things. I simply put forward that need for balance in all appointments, but certainly on police commissions.

Another thing I want to talk about is the New Enterprise Store in St Catharines. There is a new idea. The Minister of Education will be interested in this and I am sure he will read Hansard. The Minister of Colleges and Universities is here and is very interested in these things.

The New Enterprise Store is strongly supported by Brock University. They have an entrepreneurial centre at Brock University which is getting some education progressing in the field of entrepreneurship. One of the offshoots of this is that a fellow by the name of Gene Luchzkiw in St Catharines, who used to teach at Governor Simcoe Secondary School and now is up at Brock University, is working very hard to establish within the education system this entrepreneurial spirit. It is something that has been missing for a number of years.

Just starting with the previous government, and I hope this government continues it, they have now set up a New Enterprise Store in the northern part of St Catharines where a lot of skills can be learned about how to operate a business. These people are unlikely to be the people who are running General Motors, although I cannot guarantee it. In other words, we are not looking at the president of General Motors. Maybe some day we are. We are talking about a lot of the small business people in this province who start up a little store or a little business and can keep it going. I think that is what this government should encourage as much as possible.

I could probably go on at some length, but I want to give some of my colleagues a chance to speak. I know the member for Etobicoke West is eager to come forward.

Mr Stockwell: No. I am enjoying this.

Mr Bradley: He is enjoying some of these, so I found some more.

I want to go to the automotive industry because it is so important to the city of St Catharines, part of which I represent in the Legislative Assembly and have had the privilege of representing for over 14 years. I listened to a resolution put forward by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot this morning and had a brief intervention. I am not panning his resolution. As a member of this Legislature he is entitled to put forward whatever he wishes.

I did caution him that when one promotes one mode of transportation over another, there are people who will not be amused by that. If they were watching today, I suspect a lot of people who are interested in motorcycles and in the production of motorcycles would say, "That's great stuff." I know what the member meant. He did not mean that people should not buy cars or should not buy bicycles. I want to be fair to him.

In some minds, the interpretation that comes forward from such a resolution may be that the cars produced in St Catharines, or at least the parts produced for those automobiles in St Catharines, may be fewer in number than might be the case if the government were not specifically promoting one mode of transportation or another. I know people in the automotive industry and the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 199 and Local 676, Hayes-Dana and General Motors in St Catharines would like to see cars continue to be produced. They would like to see them, no doubt, and would approve of this, being environmentally better cars which consume less gasoline and have better emissions.

Mr Stockwell: How long are you going to be?

Mr Bradley: I suspect I will be finished by 5 o'clock today.

What we had was in fact a tax on auto workers earlier this year. I do not know who gave the Treasurer the ideas, but they certainly were not cleared with some of the members opposite who have been with CAW before, because these taxes amounted to a tax on auto workers. The tax is being implemented in the middle of the deepest recession since the Depression. At a time when our automobile industry is facing and continues to face unprecedented competition from offshore, this is being implemented. There was a retreat on that.

I am sorry; I promised the Treasurer that if he retreated I would not say he retreated on this, but I think I can get away with it because he did not entirely do what I wanted him to do. I suggested to him that he withdraw the tax and that he encourage people to purchase new vehicles. The reason for that is the major problems with air emissions and what I call mileage that cars get, in other words, the miles to the gallon or litres to whatever it is now. In fact, he could improve the air and the fuel efficiency if he had everyone in the province buying a new car. At the same time he would certainly spur an economy that needed spurring.

Instead we had a punitive tax on automobiles that was somewhat modified when the opposition put considerable pressure on the government, exposed the problem, and when the representatives within the Canadian Auto Workers justifiably made representations to this government and said, "Look, you must understand what the implications are of this."

1650

There was another bit of a retreat that took place, or a change of course, and it was predictable. Just as this morning, when I saw the government members almost en masse get up to defeat a motion by the member for Oakville South with regard to sunsetting legislation and so on, I heard the same thing last year when members of the opposition recommended that the Management Board of Cabinet carefully analyse and look at each of the programs to determine which were still needed in 1991, which were not, what could be postponed and what could be altered, to bring down the deficit in this province. It was not to wipe out the programs -- we need a lot of those programs -- but to carefully assess them.

The same Treasurer who stood in this House during his budget and said, "We're here to fight the recession, not deficits," of course had to stand up several months later, in the fall of this year, and announce cutbacks in various ministries. That is reality. I see that even my old ministry, the Ministry of the Environment, took a hit in terms of the constraints. But a year ago we were told: "You're being dinosaurlike. You're using the old way." The Treasurer talked about my being in favour of supply-side economics, for instance, and being Ronald Reagan-like. That was not the posture I was looking for on that issue.

Looking at the automobile industry, then, I hope we will continue to have policies in this province that will encourage investors to keep their investment in Canada, that will have General Motors booming for a number of years in St Catharines, and TRW and Hayes-Dana Inc all keeping people employed, my neighbours in my neighbourhood, the plurality if not the majority of whom work in the automobile industry.

I also want to comment briefly on the royal visit, because I see the royal visit is on at the present time. I can tell, because there are a lot of people who are close to the royals today. What I found interesting, and this observation was made by others in this House, was that the government that was so eager -- as the member for Welland-Thorold said, it was a bad decision -- to remove the oath to the Queen for police officers and some other traditions that are related to Britain and our heritage with Britain, is quick to cosy up to the royal couple when the cameras are flashing. One columnist, the award-winning -- or if not award-winning at least well-known -- dean of the gallery said in his column that it would take a crowbar to separate the Premier from the royal couple when this visit was on.

Mr Sola: It would take a blowtorch.

Mr Bradley: Someone else suggested it would take a blowtorch to do so, and I suggest to the Treasurer, who would know this talk, Sudbury talk, that it would take a diamond drill to separate them. This is an interesting observation. I just find it ironic that when the royals finally show up, everybody wants to get close to them. I hope our Premier does welcome them and I look forward to having our Premier do so, as our Lieutenant Governor did and as the Governor General of Canada did earlier, but I just find it so ironic that we will be very close to the monarchy at this time.

One of the last things I want to deal with is --

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I hate to have to interrupt you, but I have to make this announcement before 5 o'clock. Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Parkdale has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning elevator accidents. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Mr Bradley: I will be relatively brief in concluding my remarks. I want to get into the field of education. I have been a teacher with the Lincoln County Board of Education in years gone by, and a member of the executive of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation at one time. I well remember when the federations were not involved in partisan politics.

I always encouraged teachers within the teaching profession to become involved with three or four different parties. I encouraged their involvement in the political process. I always thought it was unwise, however, for a federation to align itself with any particular political party. The first time I can recall this actually happening was in the by-election in which the present Premier ran.

I remember a good friend of mine, Malcolm Buchanan, who appeared before the committee -- by the way, Malcolm must be just shaking at some of the retreats this government is involved in, because he is pretty left-wing. I saw Malcolm at a ballgame the other day and he said something about, "You're not wearing a red tie," or something. I just wanted to get back to him on that and say, "If I were wearing a red tie and members of the present government were, how would you know the difference between the two governments?" In Malcolm's eyes our government would have been quite right-wing, and I am sure the present government is not what he would call left-wing.

Anyway, I remember asking Mr Buchanan several questions about this. The Tory government was in power at the time. I said to the federation representatives who were making representations on another issue that I thought at that time it would be unwise for them to align themselves with any political party. In fact, they were doing that by supporting the Premier in the York South by-election. This is the first I could remember -- it may have happened before that -- actually supporting a political party. Bette Stephenson was the Minister of Education at the time. I said: "You're going to close the door to the government that's in power. They're always going to believe you have a partisan agenda if you do that. You're also going to alienate yourself from the other opposition party." So I think it would have been wise for them to have stayed away from that.

We had an election campaign and few observers would have any observation other than to say that they heavily favoured the New Democratic Party. One of the reasons may have been because the New Democratic Party said it was going to pay 60% of the cost of education across Ontario.

Mr Stockwell: I've got it right here.

Mr Bradley: The agenda for power is in the hands of the member for Etobicoke West -- sorry, the Agenda for People.

They said they would pay 60% of the cost of education. Many of my friends in the teaching profession were very disappointed to see that not only are they not paying 60% of the costs this year, but in fact the percentage the province pays dropped for yet another year.

There are many students in Ontario in post-secondary education who thought tuition fees were going to be abolished. Instead, fiscal reality has dictated that this government would raise those tuition fees. There are many within the university community who thought there would be millions upon millions of new dollars infused into post-secondary education, and they in fact have been disappointed that this government has not carried out that policy.

Hon Mr Allen: Twice as many capital dollars as last year.

Mr Bradley: The minister is understandably -- I will not say touchy, but understandably concerned when he hears this. When I look at what was expected as compared to what the government has delivered, I am sure the member for Hamilton West would like to see even more delivered, because he is very committed to his particular portfolio. But this government has not delivered and has done exactly the opposite on tuition to what many people expected would happen.

It is not with anger that I address the assembly today. It is in fact with a sense of disappointment and dismay that I see a government breaking its promises, a government which has got us into a terrible economic mess, a government which is discouraging investment -- not deliberately, but through its policies discouraging new investment in Ontario and stampeding others who have money to invest out of this province, as we see plant closedowns.

One thing I wanted to mention was Temagami, because I remember well -- I was at Trent University, where some of the people were very strongly opposed to any intrusion into a very pristine area of this province, a beautiful area of the province called Temagami. I understand that they are actually still cutting wood in Temagami, despite the Premier being arrested there for the purpose of getting himself on television. While I saw the member for Victoria-Haliburton being arrested and subsequently convicted for something he believed in, I see that they are still cutting lumber in Temagami.

Today I saw in the paper that there was another change which would potentially allow for development to take place in the area. I am not being particularly critical of that, but I am trying to remember all the people who were so critical of the previous government when it wrestled with a very difficult problem.

1700

The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay today rose in the House and asked a very ironic question of the Minister of Natural Resources. He was pleading the case of sawmills in the province. It was only months ago that I remember New Democrats and others who support the New Democratic Party talking as though we would not see another tree fall in Ontario. Yet the trees are falling, the cutting is taking place, and there are people who might just be watching this program today who would take note of that.

As for those who sat in in the offices of Liberal ministers to protest, I hope those same people today who were so vociferous in their criticism of previous Conservative and Liberal governments will stick to their principles and, when they feel this government is doing the wrong thing, will not simply apologize for the NDP, will not simply put their NDP card first and their principles second, but will call the government to account in a very public way.

I have had the opportunity to do that to a certain extent this afternoon and I appreciate that opportunity. I know other members of the House will want to join in this debate on the supply motion and I yield the floor now to the next speaker.

Mr Stockwell: I think the very brief outline the member for St Catharines offered as a critique of the government so far in this session, this term, was fair. One thing you must say about the member for St Catharines in his criticism is that it is a fair, fair comment he makes. He is not nearly as outrageous as some in this House -- not to name them -- but I wish he had gotten a little further involved in some of the promises this government made, maybe as far back as, say, August 1990.

I will compliment the member for St Catharines and I will just comment briefly on a couple of items I would like to point out. I have with me today the official press release for the announcement of the Agenda for People from the then leader of the official opposition. There are interesting words in here that I think should be added to Hansard so the members across the floor can remember exactly what they were saying a year and a half ago or so at this time.

Some of the statements include, "I started this campaign by saying our party would not be representing an endless catalogue of promises to the people of Ontario." He went on further to suggest in his press release, "We don't use election campaigns to discover problems, promise solutions and then ignore them afterwards." He said, "Many will be borne by the interests that can afford to pay more than their fair share" and he talked about "affordable programs."

I think the next one is a very important one that really cuts to the heart of the issue with this government. They announced on this date, August 19, 1990, during the heat of the campaign -- the now Premier stood up during his press conference and said, "The Liberals make promises and they break promises." That was very hard hitting stuff.

I think it was important that those things should be said by this government. Now we can read them back to them. The member for St Catharines outlined a few broken promises. I have the Agenda for People, which is basically an entire broken promise. I would have hoped that he would have gotten a little further into this and I am somewhat disappointed he did not.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the comments of the member for Etobicoke West. I will not take further time in the House because I have had a great opportunity to speak to various of the issues. I hope that I have been helpful in counselling the government in some. In others no doubt they will ignore what I have had to say, sometimes wisely probably and sometimes unwisely. I appreciate the supportive comments from the member for Etobicoke West and I look forward to his intervention, which I am sure will be more colourful and bombastic than mine and perhaps even more effective than mine will be.

Mr Villeneuve: I too am pleased to participate in this debate on interim supply. I will not be quite as lengthy and full of advice as my colleague the member for St Catharines was, but I do want to suggest some very important things to this government, particularly in the area that affects agriculture, an industry that is in deep trouble and that we sometimes take for granted, and also some of the problems that have been occurring in the part of the province that I very proudly represent.

Certainly the agricultural crisis right now must be touched on. I visited the area of Leamington in Essex county. I was in Lucknow on an evening when over 1,000 very distraught and concerned farmers got together to try and send a message to both the federal and provincial governments.

In the Agenda for People, it was suggested $100 million would be there in additional assistance and help to agriculture. This was a long time before we wound up with the very depressed prices that we have in grains and oilseeds, the very depressed prices that we have for the red meat industry. A lot of people figure that the red meat industry, because of low grain prices, is rolling merrily along making dollars, but it is not.

These areas are of great concern, because we have here the backbone of the province. The rural parts of this province effectively provide the stimulus and provide much of the employment, and not with a great deal of fanfare. However, it is and very much will remain the backbone of Ontario.

We are finding that small communities in the 1,000 to 5,000 population range dependent on agriculture are very concerned and distressed right now because there is no money being spent other than for absolutely essential items such as groceries. Whenever we have a situation where one farmer in this province provides enough food for over 100 of the residents of this province yet the spouse of this farmer has to take an off-farm job to be able to buy groceries, we have a situation that is purely and simply not tolerable.

The farmers are basically asking the provincial and federal governments to help in a stopgap measure. The government of Ontario has not seen fit to join in the net income stabilization account, a program that was enriched by the federal government in order to promote its use so that it would bring dollars to the agricultural community one year sooner than originally intended. It is one of the safety net programs that was set in place. It is not perfect by any means. However, it is a vehicle that can deliver some cash. The reason the Minister of Agriculture and Food in this province told us was that the program was announced too close to the Treasurer's budget and therefore they were not able to accommodate the $8 million or so that was required to bring the NISA program to fruition in Ontario this year, in 1991.

Farm-fed grains is another very touchy subject. We had the Ontario Cattlemen's Association meet I believe all caucuses this week. People who grow their own grain at a loss to feed their livestock are being punished, and that must be recognized. It is something that is not at all fair and must be recognized by the provincial government.

The labour legislation that has been leaked through the media to the public is of great concern, as it appears to be now designated to apply to agriculture. As members know, agriculture has been exempt from labour legislation to this point. However, a number of different scenarios are being suggested. They are coming at agriculture at the worst time of all, when the economics have never been worse since the Great Depression of the Dirty Thirties, yet this government intends to have labour legislation oriented to apply basically to agriculture in general and to farm labour in particular, and it is a situation that is of great concern, particularly the timing of it right now.

The environmental laws are also making people wonder. The Minister of the Environment today, pursuant to a question from me regarding a problem that has now existed in the town of Caledonia and the surrounding area for some five to seven years -- it has not been addressed. Indeed, officials from the ministry are saying that garbage and the likes of what I have in photographs here are a natural and normal thing to occur on farms. I am sorry, it is not. It must be addressed and it must be looked at now.

1710

Production of ethanol would provide a new market for grains and for those items grown on farms that presently are being sold at much less than the cost of production, leave alone getting into the profit situation. Ethanol is a win-win-win situation. On numerous occasions I have expounded on the benefits of an ethanol industry in Ontario. It is ironic that in the United States, which this government often points its finger at, saying it is not environmentally conscious, there are two million bushels of grain corn being transformed into ethanol on a daily basis, to create a new market for grain -- I readily admit that -- but also to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide by between 30% and 40% in all vehicles, particularly in those urban areas where we have the greenhouse effect, where we have pollution, particularly on warm days. That would benefit us. We can use up to 10% ethanol in fuel, and it is a known reducer of both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

Ethanol plants must be set up across the province. Certainly eastern Ontario is a natural. I could go on for an hour to tell members why, but I want to make sure the ministries involved -- the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- are fully aware that eastern Ontario must be the home of at least one ethanol production plant, if not more.

Supply management has been of great concern to us all in this Legislature. Under the GATT rules, we have been very concerned about what is happening to article XI, which allows supply management. It allows a price-setting mechanism by producers. It allows import controls at the borders. It allows the meeting of the required commodity domestically and no more. What has happened here is that, all of a sudden, Germany and France have recently come on side and it looks like supply management and article XI will indeed be saved, according to what we see now in the most recent news from the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations.

However, one concern that I have brought to this Legislature on at least occasion is that within this government -- the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to be precise -- the Ontario broiler chicken marketing board, which has supply management powers, has been ordered to roll back by 12 cents a kilo the price that broiler chicken producers will be receiving. This was done by the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal. It now appears that if this tribunal does have the power to roll back a cost-of-production formula that has been gospel up until this point, maybe we are having supply management actually undermined at 801 Bay Street. It is something this government keeps on telling us it is there to protect and to make sure it stays in place. But by their very actions, they are doing the opposite. That concerns me very much.

Cross-border shopping is something that must be addressed. We are dealing with different bills that increase the cost of gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol. Those very items have been identified as the main attraction for our Ontario residents to go and purchase goods in the United States. There has been no solution, not even an attempt at a solution. All they have done is make the problem worse. We have dealt with Bills 83 and 84, which increased personal income tax and increased the tax on tobacco, and we will be dealing shortly with legislation that will increase the cost of fuel and alcohol -- exactly the wrong direction to reduce cross-border shopping. This government must be told that it is not listening; it is not even going in the right direction. Not adding these taxes would have at least not exacerbated the problem.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission is an organization I am very proud of in the riding I represent. It does stretch into other ridings adjacent to mine along the St Lawrence River. We are still working on the Grenville Park problem. I have contacted the Minister of Tourism and Recreation on a number of occasions and he has advised me that they will be able to make a deal with the Cooper family, which has operated Grenville Park very successfully this year -- as a matter of fact, at 100% occupancy -- and has effectively got the park fully booked for next year. But they have not been able to come to an understanding that will give the Cooper family a long-term deal so it can go ahead and install the electrical services that campers require on a beautiful site along the St Lawrence River at Johnstown in the southwest corner of the riding I represent. I say to the government, please get going. Get on with the job because this is where we have attracted not only local people but people from out of province and out of country to use the facility and to spend some money in an area that is very economically depressed.

On Sunday I was pleased to assist at graduation exercises. Our volunteer firefighters had taken several days off in their life and schedule, their work, to attend fire prevention graduation exercises. They will go out into their communities and advise local residents how to prevent fires. They have gone through many upgrading exercises whereby they recognize toxic fires and all the rest of it. This is to prevent those situations that could cause damage to property, injury and even death. I commend them and I say to the Solicitor General, who is here with us this afternoon, if he wants to see volunteer fire departments that work well, he should come to Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. He is always welcome. I put them forward as examples of people we sometimes take for granted, but indeed they provide an excellent service to our community.

Law and order is becoming the number one issue in this province. Law and order is something we took for granted until several years ago. We are now finding a very rapidly escalating number of murders in this city and elsewhere. If we had taken a poll a year ago, law and order would have been down the line. The environment and a number of other items would have been up there. If we ran a poll right now as to the concerns of the average Ontarian in the province, law and order would likely wind up being the number one concern -- people's safety and the safety of their family. This government must not forget that. It is most important that it be addressed now, not as a confrontational issue but together, working with our many police detachments throughout the province.

Finally, I cannot let the opportunity go by without talking about the closure of the registry offices, the most frustrating subject I have ever had to face in almost eight years as an elected member of this Legislature. This government has set out section 123, which says that a political party can take a subject and bring it to a committee, be heard and the government will listen. It is an absolute fallacy. It does not happen. We have even had a solicitor for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations tell us it is a farce, and this solicitor is acting in a client-solicitor relationship for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

If you want a frustrating situation, registry offices in the riding that I represent, registry offices that have been there for almost 200 years have been made to disappear at the stroke of a pen by a minister who may not even know where Alexandria, Morrisburg and Prescott are. It is very frustrating. I want to put it on the record. I hope this government is listening. I attended the annual meeting of the United Empire Loyalists in my riding on Sunday. Handwritten documents are now being removed from those registry offices. In my other life as a real estate appraiser, I have seen them, penmanship the likes of which you could not duplicate or ever replace. These documents are disappearing. No one knows where they are going. Our history, our signposts of history are being destroyed by the government for no apparent reason.

1720

Mr Conway: I want to say a couple of things about the member who has just spoken, who is probably better situated than most of us to speak about the stresses and strains in rural Ontario today, since there are not too many places that are quite as rural as Moose Creek in Stormont.

I want to concur in his last observation that few things we have done in recent memory have attracted the attention of small-town, rural, eastern Ontario quite like the announcement made some months ago by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations around the closure of what are essentially a dozen small-town rural registry offices. I simply want to say that my friend is right. Genealogical societies, among others, have expressed to me their concern about the real disadvantages that are going to be faced by the societies and their membership as they try to go about accessing public information that has been very readily available to them in communities like l'Orignal, Morrisburg, Alexandria, Almonte, Prescott and other such smaller locales around southeastern Ontario.

Certainly the farm community, the rural part at least of eastern Ontario, which is the part of the province I know best, is experiencing a great deal of pain at the present time. I must say there are few things that have irritated those communities quite like the way in which these closures have been announced and proceeded with. Earlier today in the standing committee on general government we were finalizing the report of that committee on this particular initiative, and I am simply here to say that the member for S-D-G & East Grenville is correct when he observes that there is ongoing irritation around the way in which rural Ontario has been expected to pay such a disproportionate share of this governmental cost-cutting initiative.

Mr Bradley: A two-minute intervention is a short period of time, but I was pleased to see the member drawing to the attention of the House many of the problems confronting the rural part of Ontario.

On Monday evening, the North Niagara Federation of Agriculture will be having its annual meeting at which Eugene Whelan, who is a very strong supporter of farming people in this province and this country, will be the guest speaker. Members may know that there are many difficulties facing farmers in the Niagara region. They have been begging, cajoling and asking that they have the opportunity to sever part of their properties in the Niagara Peninsula in order to keep their businesses viable. Those of us who have been involved in planning in the Niagara region know that is the first step towards the disappearance of farm land. So we implore the government of Ontario not to change its land use policies in such a way as to permit the paving over of farm land in the Niagara Peninsula.

Equally important as part of this equation is the fact that there must be the necessary support, either through appropriate prices or -- probably politically realistic -- through government intervention, to assist these farmers who are under unprecedented pressure from offshore, the free trade agreement and the international agreements.

Farming in general is a tough business. I hope this government and the Minister of Agriculture and Food will assist these people appropriately so they will not be selling their property off, so those of us who believe in the preservation of agricultural land can do so in good conscience because we will know we are saving not only the farm land itself but the farmers. They will be looking for this support from this government and from the federal government. Certainly those in the Niagara Peninsula who believe in farm land preservation and the farming industry will be supportive of their efforts.

Mr Villeneuve: I want to thank my two colleagues, my good friend the member for Renfrew North and the former Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, for their observations.

While the member for Renfrew North sat in cabinet, a new registry office went into his area and the Almonte area, a new registry office that was not intended to be closed down the following year. A quick switch occurred there, and it wound up that Perth was going to be closed down and Almonte was going to be kept open; some gerrymandering the likes of which we have never seen before, and this is even before the report from the standing committee on general government was even put together.

It makes you wonder why we are asking our people to come down and make presentations. They do it in good faith. I could never excuse the now Minister of Energy for the way he treated these people when they came to that committee. He told them: "It's nice you came, but we're not listening. We're the government and we can overpower this committee any time." They were actually rougher words than that, and he has been asked by a number of legal people to apologize. I do not know whether he has.

As far as farm land preservation is concerned, today we discussed what is happening to land in Haldimand-Norfolk, where there is garbage; there is definitely garbage, and I have photographs here to prove it. The former Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, has said, "Don't allow them to sell." It is interesting that the government of Ontario is now looking at some of the assets it can liquidate to reduce its deficit, yet it would not allow a farm family with some land that is marginal to sell a little of it to try to keep the banker happy. It does not make sense.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate and discussion on the interim supply bill, and probably more important, some of the overall macro issues that are affecting our province.

I paid particular attention to the previous speaker who talked about the agricultural segment in the province. Representing a downtown, metropolitan area such as Hamilton Centre, those issues are not necessarily the ones I deal with on a day-to-day basis. Yet clearly the issues of agriculture are as important to this government as any others we face.

I find it interesting that in those comments there were suggestions that we were not doing nearly enough -- which is really par for the course in any kind of debate on anything any government does: the opposition says it is not enough; standard fare -- and suggestions that somehow this important sector of our economy is being left high and dry.

One of the difficulties in politics is that there are very few real tests one can apply. There are polls, there are by-elections, but the thing that really matters is the general election. I think what is significant for us here in this House at this time is that, at a point where we are hearing from the opposition that the NDP government in Ontario is so bad when it comes to the issue of agriculture, in one of the key agricultural provinces of this great nation it is indeed the NDP that swept to an overwhelming majority. Although I do not live there, I am proud to say my father is from Saskatchewan, and I have to believe that certainly there would have been a great number of farmers who joined in putting the overwhelming majority of New Democrats in that august House in Saskatchewan.

I think of the election just before that in British Columbia where, while agriculture itself is not necessarily the primary industry, certainly the environment, natural resources, growth, the seasons are all things that are very important to that province. Again the same result: a general election, the test that matters, and what happened on that election day? An overwhelming majority of New Democrats sit in that Legislature also.

1730

I suggest to the previous speaker and others in this House today that on some of the tests that matter, for farmers and for others, when we look at what is happening in our sister provinces across the country, I do not believe a reasonable argument can be made that we are failing so badly when we see the kind of majority governments that are happening as elections are coming up across this country.

It needs to be pointed out that the leader of the third party, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, was indeed out across the nation trying to put forward the very arguments that the previous speaker was about the experience in Ontario. In spite of that opinion, we still showed that Canadians clearly are prepared to support the principles, goals and aspirations of a New Democratic government.

I suggest that the experience in Ontario, surely to the contrary of being a problem, played a positive role in the results of those two elections as people recognized not only that we can talk about issues from the point of advocacy but that indeed we can govern well and do it during the worst economic times we have seen in 50 years.

I would also like to pose the suggestion that there are a lot of people in Ontario who, while not as pleased with this government on some issues as we might otherwise hope -- I suggest that is not unusual for any government in power -- are looking at the kind of recession we are in and the kind of attack the social fabric, the social net of this province is under from the federal government. There are an awful lot of people who quite frankly are pleased that it is New Democrats who are making these tough decisions, because they know the alternative choices the two parties across the way could and would make in these kinds of circumstances and who indeed would pay the price for those decisions.

I look at my own riding, my own community, and I look at the situation of hospitals, of the major transfer payments, an area that is important to the urban centres of our great province. At St Joseph's Hospital and Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals in our community we are faced with some very serious capital funding issues. Yet we are still working, even within this tight fiscal situation, to try and deliver the funds necessary to meet the needs and not do it in a short-term, crass political fashion but rather in a fashion that creates an investment in the community and also plays into the long-term plans of this province that we have for meeting the health needs of the citizens of Ontario. We do that in partnership with those folks. I for one think there are an awful lot of people in Hamilton who are pleased that they see New Democrats sitting here in these circumstances making those kinds of decisions on hospital funding and not other parties.

I can point to the board of education, to the benefits of the anti-recession fund and to money to the municipal councils as other examples of how this government has dealt very differently with the recession than would other parties in the same circumstances. Again, I point to what has happened out west to show that the kind of message the opposition would like to believe it is sending out to the people and to the nation is not being received that way at all.

I would like to touch on two things quickly because I know there are opposition members who wish to speak and I want to give them the opportunity to do so. One of the things I want to mention is partnerships. The Red Hill Creek Expressway was mentioned, a very topical subject today. Not being the ones to answer the questions, it is not always easy for the local members, as the Speaker and others can appreciate, to put one's own point of view. But with the Red Hill Creek Expressway what did not come out today was the fact that it was the regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth, Reg Whynott, who stood beside the Minister of Transportation and wholeheartedly endorsed the process we have and said they were pleased to be working with us in partnership.

I do not suggest for a minute that that means they are backing away from their opposition to our decision and I am not suggesting for a minute that they suddenly think we did the right thing and their position was wrong. But I am suggesting they have recognized our legitimate right to govern on this issue and to make decisions and to set the priorities that we need to. They have also recognized their need to represent the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth. So they have concluded, as have we, that the best thing to do is to try to work together to find a solution, to find an alternative that goes as far as possible in meeting our goals and needs and also those of the local representatives.

I found it difficult to listen to a member -- let's just say from quite a distance away -- earlier suggesting that it was being done for crass political reasons, when indeed it was someone who was known to support a party other than this one who stood beside the minister and said he endorsed this; that indeed it was working with the local mayor and regional chairman and regional council that had us bring this here at this point in time, and that in fact it was at the request of the regional council that this meeting was held as soon as possible and hopefully the result of the meeting would be the agreement to the terms of reference.

Those sorts of things do not come out in question period, but I think they need to be said and clarified. Those are the kinds of partnerships, not rhetorical statements, not suggestions that other people have to back away from their positions, but an honest, sincere effort to work together co-operatively to try and find solutions to problems we share in common in a lot of these matters as the senior level of government to municipalities.

I will close in talking about partnerships by also suggesting that our commitment to work with the business community is as strong now as it was in the beginning. It means as much to us as it did in the beginning, and I think it means as much to the citizens of Ontario. But I think it also needs to be said that while our ministers are doing everything they can to make that relationship work, it does not help the situation when we see things such as the employee payroll tax increase that the federal government suggested to pay for its employee wage protection plan and we hear not a peep, nary a peep, from the business community.

Yet we did not fund it that way and all we heard was a barrage of threats that we had better not because of all the dire circumstances. A fair and reasonable person would suggest that is not necessarily applying the same rules to everyone in terms of trying to achieve any kind of a partnership.

I would also point out, last, about our deficit, about which there was such a hue and cry, that when the federal government suggested -- we are still seeing more and more of this coming out -- that its estimates were so far off that its deficit may be increased beyond what it projected -- $10 billion -- which is greater than our entire deficit, how much did we hear from the business community, from the opposition, about how terrible that was? No. "That was okay; that is the way government does business." But we put the cards on the table and said: "Here's the real situation. Here are the real numbers for the next few years," and all we heard was that we had totally lost control of the agenda.

I suggest to members that the good citizens and intelligent voters of Saskatechewan and British Columbia have not been fooled by this kind of nonsense and neither will Ontarians, as they continue to support and watch this government finish out its term and achieve the goals and solutions that we have set forward as best we possibly can under the circumstances we have. I think they will appreciate the fact that it is a New Democratic point of view that is making those decisions and not the alternatives across the House. I thank members for the opportunity to address this House.

1740

Mr Conway: I have heard a lot here in the last few weeks, but that early part of the previous speaker's commentary that, "There may be some people in Ontario who don't like what Uncle Elmer's doing on behalf of the government for the farm community, but we bloody well understand that they appreciate that in Estevan and Lillooet," is a leap of faith if ever I heard one.

I thought I heard you say, Mr Speaker, that there was a domestic debate around what the government was and was not doing in terms of Ontario agricultural policy. To hear my very creative friend the member for Hamilton Centre suggest, "There may be naysayers in Glengarry who don't understand all the good works that the Ontario provincial government is doing with respect to agricultural policy, but you should know that in Turtle Creek and in Fort Smith they really appreciate this," I think is a very interesting connection.

I watched, as I think probably some other members did, the returns the other night from both Vancouver and Saskatchewan. I congratulate the two governments. I think they did quite well. I was particularly struck by the fact that the British Columbia New Democratic Party, losing 2% of the popular vote, managed none the less to substantially increase its share of the seats. I think they have full value for their victory. I have been listening to Mike Harcourt and Roy Romanow over the last few months, actually about the last year. To hear Mike Harcourt on the economy is literally to hear Frank Miller.

If members watched the debate two weeks ago when the CBC reporter put very directly to Mr Harcourt what his intentions were around traditional NDP labour policy, you could not extract an answer from him on that subject for love nor money. To hear Roy Romanow on the virtues of a balanced budget and the values of prudence in public finance is to make one think one was listening to Bob Nixon. I suggest the western Co-operative Commonwealth Federation tradition is not exactly the one we are seeing here, which is giving us $35-billion worth of additional deficit in four years.

Mr Carr: I want to carry on along those lines. It was interesting; I was reading in Maclean's some of the quotes from the election victory night and the great picture of Mike and some of the other members. On page 15 it says, "Throughout the 28-day campaign, he successfully fended off attempts by Johnston and the Socreds to tie the legacy of David Barrett's free-spending NDP government to Harcourt."

The socialists in this province under the Premier were more like David Barrett's, who basically spent so badly they were thrown out of office. "Harcourt stressed that the planks were goals to be put in place when affordable, not policies to be instituted right away, and early in the campaign, Harcourt declared that an NDP would practise" -- guess what? -- "fiscal restraint." Let me repeat that, Mr Speaker. He declared that the NDP government would practise fiscal restraint, a pledge he repeated after the victory when he said, "We have to live within our means."

I only wish the NDP in Ontario had listened to some of the fine statements made by the socialists out in British Columbia, because when statements like that are made, and if they can truly come through with them, all parties will applaud. Unfortunately what we have here in Ontario is not the Mike Harcourt socialists; we have the David Barretts, who lasted three years and were tossed out.

I was interested to watch Mike Harcourt on Canada AM. He said four times during the interview with the person the following morning "balanced budget." Four times he said it. I would not go quite as far as saying it was Frank Miller, but I hope these people who are championing some of the western NDP are going to take a hard look at themselves and see that maybe they are being a little bit more practical than the government when it has given this province $10 billion and has saddled the next generation with a deficit we will never come out of.

Mr Johnson: The member for Hamilton Centre has made some very positive and interesting comments. I listened intently to what he had to say. When we compare the governments, or at least the situations, that we have in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario, there are some very slight or minor similarities, but we all know, as is so often stated, that the economy of Canada in essence is driven by the engine of Ontario.

I think the similarities end there, because we know that in Saskatchewan, where Roy Romanow is taking over as Premier -- he is Premier-elect -- he has found a situation even worse than the situation the Premier of Ontario found on becoming Premier. In British Columbia, I would like to think they have not been devastated nearly as much by this recession as we have here in Ontario.

I think all these differences have to be taken into account when you observe the different realities these provinces have to live under. Realistically you can compare, but certainly you have to take into account these very important differences. We in Ontario have lost many more manufacturing and industrial jobs than they have in the other provinces and that is something we have to take into consideration.

Mr Stockwell: It is not very often I disagree with my friend the member for Hamilton Centre, because I think he brings points to the debate that I suppose I disagree with, but I certainly have a belief in his right to express them. I think it is a quantum leap for this member to take any credit for any of the victories out west for the NDP cousins. They distanced themselves from this party as though it was a bad smell, with all due respect. They wanted nothing to do with its deficit financing, its $35-billion debt in four years or five years.

If anyone could understand that, if any party in this House could understand why, it is certainly ours. They had as much popularity out west as athlete's foot, and the same thing applies to us and the federal government. As quickly as we can distance ourselves from them, their western cousins were distancing themselves from them. Balanced budgets, no deficits: They sounded an awful lot like the Conservatives in Ontario. To suggest for a moment that they should take some credit for this victory is really insulting.

There could be some working together, some collusion; maybe they will ship some workers out there. I am not suggesting that is not good or healthy, and maybe it is appropriate. It really pushes the sense of reason in this House to the furthest limit when this government, which is not even popular in this province, stands up and begins to take credit for socialist victories in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Please, no more fairy tales.

Mr Christopherson: I would like to just pick up on the last comments of the member for Etobicoke West, which will tie in to the comments of the member for Renfrew North who talked about the fact that I mentioned that those victories out west may have had something to do with the fact that the scare tactics seen by the opposition members did not work.

I wrote down the phrase "pushes the reasoning of the House." It was the phrase used by my friend the member for Etobicoke West and I suggest that there is not a person watching who would not believe and understand that most assuredly, if we had lost those elections, both those members and others would have been screaming that it was because of this government and because of what happened in Ontario. They would have made that connection much stronger than I ever dreamed of doing.

I would also like to thank my colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings for his kind observations. They are much appreciated.

1750

I would also like to quickly comment on the member for Oakville South, who talked about parties running for office now saying they will run a government within their means and who talked about a balanced budget. I hearken back again to the fact that it was the third party who ran on a single issue platform of no tax increases and talked about fiscal responsibility. When they talk about "within means," I suggest that what it means is that working people, families in poverty, education systems, municipalities, the environment, all the issues that matter to people, would have paid the price under the slashing and cutting and burning of a Tory government. That is why they did not form the government and we did.

Mr Callahan: On a Thursday night at 10 minutes to 6, I want the people who are watching this program not to think the channel has suddenly flicked into remote or reverse.

I come from municipal politics. I listened to the member for Etobicoke West and I listened to my colleague from Hamilton, and I think back to the days when I was on municipal council, where parties did not mean anything, or at least they did not in Brampton when I was there. You had an opportunity to get up and speak and try to help the people in your community.

The first time I saw this chamber in 1985 excited me because I thought, "Here is the ultimate of politics, the ultimate opportunity to help people." Having sat here from 1985 and listened to the debates in this House, I have come about that close to quitting, and that may sound naïve but --

Mr Perruzza: We will push you a little the next time around.

Mr Callahan: The member for Yorkview has spoken again at nine minutes to 6. I will not respond to that because it is a political comment.

Mr Christopherson: It's Downsview. You're in dreamland again.

Mr Callahan: Maybe. I just came back from New England in the United States. I think the people in the US, after the controversy that took place there, are looking for government, looking for their representatives to put forward their positions and to accomplish things for them.

I am sure any person who has sat on city council has felt good when he went home at night, because he had accomplished something. We sit around here and gabble gab --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Interjections are out of order, particularly when the member is not in his seat.

Mr Callahan: We sit around here and we play political games. The reality is, people watching this know there is a three-party system in Ontario. The New Democrats, who formed the government, obviously have their own philosophy. The Liberals have theirs, and the Conservatives have theirs. I venture to say that if one was to travel through the caucus of the NDP or through the Liberal caucus or the Conservative caucus, one would find people who are not necessarily married to that philosophy. They go the wide gamut.

I applaud the government. Perhaps it is because of the accident -- and I do not say this in a pejorative way -- of having formed the government in the last election that it brought people forward who were not necessarily tagged with a totally socialist attitude. They are people who think, who care, who talk in their caucus, who debate the issues. That is reflected by the fact that there are many issues that have been brought forward in this House that appear to be very "cannot change it, no changes, non-negotiable," and yet members have negotiated. I applaud them for that. I think that is good. Perhaps that has breathed a breath of fresh air into this Legislature.

I happen to have the privilege of chairing the standing committee on public accounts, which is traditionally a non-partisan committee. The people who sit on that committee are people who treat it in that fashion, non-partisan. In treating it in a non-partisan fashion we are trying to accomplish things for the people we represent in our ridings who cannot come to this august chamber, for whatever reason, and express their views. It is a real treat.

I think the people who sit on that committee are marvellous people. We are trying to address the question of alcohol and drug addiction in this province, and perhaps in Canada, perhaps the world. In a sense what we are doing is looking at an issue that affects probably eight out of 10 Canadians directly or indirectly -- their children, their husbands, their wives, their fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law. We have an opportunity through that committee to accomplish something that we will be allowed by the House leaders to debate in this House. I challenge those House leaders to allow us one full day of debate on that particular issue, to be able to bring to the fore for the people of this province how important that issue is.

I practised criminal law for 30 years and I can tell members that 70% to 80% of the crimes that are committed in this province or this country or this world are drug or alcohol-related. We have heard people talk about the problem of justice, the problem of being safe in their communities. There is no question that is a very strong commodity in our world today. Look at the United States. Just read Bonfire of the Vanities. In the South Bronx the judges and the lawyers and the prosecutors come in in the morning when it is daylight. They order in for lunch because they are concerned about being killed on the street if they go out to lunch. At 4:30 the clerk of the court, like a wagon master, says, "Yo ho." They all go out, 100 or whatever, to their cars and get them before dark and bring them back to the courthouse so they can all go right out to their cars and drive home.

Is that what this province or this country is looking forward to? We are getting there. You look at pockets in the city of Toronto that are drug-infested, where people are being killed and harassed in their apartments. Should we not be concerned that we are going to be a mirror image? We collect megabucks -- I wish the Treasurer was here. He is a good friend and I do not criticize him on a Thursday afternoon for not being here. Why is there no money? We collect megadollars in tax for alcohol, booze of all types, cigarettes and so on. Where is that money going? Why is it not being allocated towards helping these people who have drug or alcohol problems?

We heard this morning from a representative of Portage Ontario. It is the only program in place for young people, the jewel of our society, our next generation, our leaders, the people who are going to carry on after many of us are retired and dead. They have room for 42 young offenders in the totality of the province, which has to be 10 million now. There is nothing else -- nothing.

When we talked to the person who runs this program I was very curious to find out whether or not the question of alcohol and drug abuse was linked with the question of being a learning-disabled kid. I have to tell members -- I hate to bore them and I hope to continue this -- that he told us the percentage of kids who had learning disabilities was staggering, kids who had wound up having a bad feeling for themselves.

I am going to tell members, just to wrap up, and I intend to adjourn the debate because I would like to speak on this at great length, so members should get ready for it --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member does not have to adjourn the debate. He will automatically have the floor upon resumption.

1800

Mr Callahan: To give some continuity to it, one of the reasons I got into this place was because of the Hall-Dennis report, which absolutely destroyed, in my view --

Hon Mr Cooke: It was a fluke.

Mr Callahan: If the government House leader says it is a fluke --

The Acting Speaker: Order. We have considerable business to conduct beyond 6 of the clock. We are already beyond 6 of the clock. I would appreciate it if the member for Brampton South --

Mr Callahan: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Everybody have a nice weekend.

VISITOR

The Acting Speaker: I would like all members at this time to welcome back a former member of this assembly sitting in the west gallery this afternoon, a former member for Wentworth East, Ms Shirley Collins.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week:

On Monday, October 28, we will conclude discussion on the motion for interim supply, followed by second reading consideration of Bill 85, the Fuel Tax Amendment Act.

On Tuesday, October 29, and Wednesday, October 30, we will continue with debate on Bill 85, followed by Bill 86, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, and Bill 130, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act.

On Thursday, October 30 in the morning, we will deal with private members' business: ballot item 41 standing in the name of the member for Parkdale and ballot item 42 standing in the name of the member for Wellington. In the afternoon we will begin second reading debate of Bill 126, the Electronic Registration Act, and Bill 131, the Fire Marshals Amendment Act.

ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Parkdale has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning elevator accidents. This matter will now be debated. The honourable member for Parkdale has five minutes. The honourable minister will have five minutes in reply.

Mr Ruprecht: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is responsible for the safe operation of all elevators and she tells us today: "The act already requires that owners have regular maintenance inspections done by a contractor registered with my ministry. I am aware that there have been problems and that we need to make sure that it works, but that is already in place, I am happy to say."

If this legislation is so good, why is it that her own chief engineer in charge of elevators said, at the inquest where two people were crushed to death, "We do what we feel is the bare minimum to do"? If she is so happy that legislation is in place, why did the policy manager in the Ministry of Housing write to me just three weeks ago that (1) the Elevating Devices Act has no requirement that elevators be restored to service, and (2) "There is no provision in the legislation to require an owner to make the necessary repairs, and there appears to be no mechanism to provide the elevating devices branch with the ability to make the necessary repairs or charge the cost back to the owner"?

The city of Toronto's director of inspections also disagrees with the minister responsible for elevators. He writes to me:

"Dear Mr Ruprecht:

"I urge that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations speed up the process of adopting the proposed B44 standards and maintenance contract and consider making it mandatory."

Even the mayor of the city of Toronto thinks this minister is out to lunch, and he writes to me:

"The current Elevating Devices Act, along with amendments under consideration by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, does not contain requirements that an elevator be maintained in service. The option of removing an elevator from service if it is in an unsafe condition in lieu of repairing it will continue to be an option available to the owner of a residential rental building.

"Your bill" -- that is Bill 139, which I am proposing -- "would require landlords of residential rental properties containing elevators to enter into an agreement for regular maintenance of the elevator. Further, the bill would also require that all elevators intended for the tenants in the building be kept in service, except for such reasonable time as may be required for maintenance, repair or replacement.

"I support this private member's bill and I recommend it be passed into law as soon as possible."

Clearly, if all the people I have quoted are wrong and unable to understand the existing elevator law, will the minister accept responsibility today for the 2,288 battered people caught in elevator accidents and rescued by our fire department in the city of Toronto alone? Will she, today, take responsibility for the thousands of seniors and disabled people who have to use an elevator and cannot because the elevator is shut down at times for days at a time, or will she finally wake up and create an elevator law that will ensure safe and efficient operation of elevators?

I have proposed such a law, Bill 139, and only hope and trust that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will understand the traumatic experiences people go through when caught in an accident, and finally stand up and act and create a bill that all of us can live with and that all of us across Ontario, not only in Toronto, will be able to feel safe with.

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I want to thank the member for his interest in this important issue. I certainly think elevator safety is of importance to all of us.

I just want to clarify what I said this afternoon, which there seems to be some confusion about. Under section 22 of the Elevating Devices Act, which I have here, every owner of an elevator must ensure that the device is maintained and inspected by a contractor registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It is right in here, as I said earlier today, and the member disputed it.

The question of what a licence means I think is quite legitimate, and that may be what the member is getting at. Just as an automobile licence is not a safety certificate, an elevator licence is not either. It is a way of keeping track of owners when buildings change hands.

Mr Ruprecht: That's why there's chaos here.

Hon Ms Churley: I showed the courtesy of listening to the member. Now he should listen to me.

In the case of prosecution, it provides information as to who is responsible for the device. I want to stress that the responsibility for detailed, ongoing inspection and maintenance of elevators rests with the owner and the contractor, not the government inspectors. The legislation is very clear on that.

Mr Ruprecht: It's so clear that thousands are stuck.

Hon Ms Churley: The question of serviceability is a much more difficult one. There are approximately 22,000 elevators in this province. Is the member suggesting that if an owner decides not to repair an unsafe elevator, the province should step in and maintain apartment building elevators?

Mr Ruprecht: That's what we're proposing exactly.

Hon Ms Churley: Landlords may remove elevators from service for non-safety reasons, such as selective use for building maintenance, or they may claim an inability to finance repair work. That is what is going on right now.

There are also disputes over payment for service, which sometimes result in the contractor refusing to perform work pending resolution, and that means the elevator is shut down while the two parties work it out.

It is also interesting to note that municipalities have tried to enforce bylaws requiring owners to maintain serviceability that have proven largely ineffective and unenforceable. I think we both agree on that.

But the province has no desire to get into the elevator maintenance business, nor do I think it should. We have to work out the problems that exist with the municipalities and the contractors, because we agree there is a problem when elevators are not operating. I know senior citizens and disabled tenants have particularly been harmed by this problem. However, public safety is my primary concern.

The member made several references to numbers and I would like to bring him up to date at this time. In 1990 in Ontario there were less than 75 elevating device failures, resulting in less than 10 serious injuries. I agree, though, any injuries are to be taken seriously and we would like to eliminate all of those.

According to Elevator World, which is a trade magazine, the elevating devices branch of my ministry -- this is from April 1991 -- is "recognized worldwide as a premium regulatory operation." Having said that, I also agree we can do better and I am working to make sure we do.

The article went on to say that, if anything, there are fewer elevator and escalator incidents and accidents in Ontario per inhabitant than in jurisdictions with a like population. Ontario does have one of the best records of all the provinces in terms of protecting public safety.

As I mentioned earlier today, I am taking a comprehensive approach to elevator safety. Instead of performing inspections at meaningless intervals, we perform high-quality, targeted inspections on the basis of need. We consider the age, quality and maintenance of the equipment as well as the manufacturer's recommendations.

The people of Ontario should know that we inspect every new elevator before it is licensed to operate. We also inspect elevators that have undergone major alterations before they are allowed to return to service. Again public safety is our first priority. Since 1990 my ministry has been actively following a 10-point safety plan, which the Liberals did not do, that includes the ongoing development and revision of elevator safety and codes. We are working on this ambitious plan, and I hope I get the assistance of my colleague across the floor in making it work.

The Acting Speaker: There being no further business to be debated, this House is deemed to be adjourned and will stand adjourned until Monday, October 28, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1812.