Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Brown: The managed forest rebate tax program requires changes. I will make my case using a real example.

Peter Schlifenbaum is a young, European-trained forester. His dream is to provide a sustained yield of high-quality hardware from his land in central Ontario. Peter employs dozens of local people. He has invested thousands of dollars in state-of-the-art computer equipment. Peter spent over $100,000 on silviculture work last year alone just to improve the production and quality of his forest.

Peter is in the managed forest rebate program, as are thousands of other private land owners. The program has an upper limit of $25,000, a very small portion of his tax bill, which has increased to $200,000 in just four years. It has doubled.

Peter has a problem, an expense he cannot control. I believe there is a remedy to the shortcomings of the rebate program. I suggest that people enrolled in the program must operate in response to some regulated or approved plan, perhaps involving professional foresters. The plan must be available to those sites which have a minimum site productivity and the ceiling on the rebate should be lifted to provide forest management if forest management is being done.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Jordan: I rise today to ask the Minister of Energy to initiate a complete review of the operation, maintenance and administration budget of Ontario Hydro. This is where costs are out of control.

In 1990, OMA costs amounted to $1.9 billion, an increase of $393 million over 1989. This increase, according to Hydro's annual report, was primarily due to inflationary effects on labour and other costs, higher program costs for maintenance and restoration activities and increased pension costs.

Other factors contribute to the uncontrolled spending for operation, maintenance and administration. Salaries and the proportion of supervisory staff to clerical staff are excessive. I have received numerous calls from constituents complaining of overstaffing in regional offices. The management of the utility has become top-heavy. In my riding of Lanark-Renfrew there are eight utility managers and three rural managers reporting to a regional manager. Residents are confused over who is responsible for what function.

Inefficient management in Ontario Hydro is counterproductive to economic development and new investment in the province of Ontario.

CHILD CARE

Mr Kormos: This is art, and it is art with a message. The artist in this case is young Jeffrey Carusetta of Colbeck Drive down in Welland, and the caption here says it all: "I don't want this man to close the day care centre because I like playing with my friends."

J. C. Bald school, which is a place of day care for a whole lot of kids like Jeffrey whose families have relied on that day care centre for four years now, is being reclaimed by the board of education. The Young Men's Christian Association out of St Catharines has been running quality, affordable day care there for those kids and now it is being told, "As of September 1992, no more, gone."

These families are looking to this government for help. These families are saying to the ministries involved, "We understand that there have to be studies done, but our children's futures cannot be studied in perpetuity."

These kids need day care. These families need care. We have for the past four years, as a result of the partnership between the board of education and the exemplary work of the YMCA, facilitated and accommodated their needs. Let's go one further and make sure that we do not leave them hanging out to dry.

I am talking about people like Jeffrey Carusetta; I am talking about people like Sandra Smelsky and her kids -- she lives over on Gadsby Avenue -- and people like Lynda Cooke of Newleaf Crescent whose kids go to J. C. Bald day care too. They need our help. They need it now. They cannot wait.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Daigeler: We have already talked at length in this House about the many problems surrounding the NDP's flawed Sunday shopping legislation. We have mentioned the unfairness of the bill and how the NDP is unaware of the economic realities of today's marketplace. Cross-border communities are just one example of how the unfairness of this legislation will hurt many retailers in the province.

Today we have evidence of another sector that faces job losses because of the NDP Sunday shopping policies. The Ontario Discount Drug Association has released today the results of a study by independent auditors showing that 3,000 drugstore workers' jobs are unfairly in jeopardy under the NDP policies because small drugstores are allowed to stay open while stores with more than 7,500 feet of retail space must close.

Why does the government policy on Sunday shopping make a distinction between the size of stores? Why is it that employees of large stores are forced to abide by a common pause day but employees of small drugstores are not?

The news conference today by the Ontario Discount Drug Association points out another inconsistency in the NDP Sunday shopping legislation. All these inconsistencies together make us ask, where is the fairness, the equality and the justice that the NDP has promised in its new Sunday shopping legislation?

1340

RESIDENTS' PRIVACY

Mr Stockwell: Once again, I am compelled to make a statement in this House regarding a situation in my riding that has been mishandled by the Ministry of Housing.

Last week the ministry promised to send a representative to a meeting of the home owners of Wareside Road to discuss the ongoing problem between them and some of the tenants of a Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority complex that shares a common property line. On Thursday the ministry sent the property manager of the MTHA complex. How this man could represent the Ministry of Housing in this dispute is beyond me and shows the complete lack of seriousness with which the Ministry of Housing regards this issue.

Some of the residents of this complex are making life miserable for the people living on Wareside Road. There are children living on this street who have never been in their own backyards without supervision from their parents. Finally, after 15 years, MTHA agreed that the only solution was to build a wall. Now, as a delaying tactic, MTHA is making the absolutely unreasonable demand that the residents pay for half the construction of this wall.

I would agree completely with the proposal if the residents were throwing back the steel bars, the chairs, the bicycle parts and other assorted human waste that is being thrown into their backyards. I would agree that the residents of Wareside Road should pay for half the wall if they were responding to the loud stereos at 2 am by turning their own stereos up, but they are not.

I am simply pleading that the Ministry of Housing solve this problem once and for all before it turns into something much more serious.

ANNIVERSARY OF ENCYCLICAL

Mr G. Wilson: This year, 1991, marks the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, on the condition of labour, an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII that is considered to be the charter document of Catholic social teaching. The event was celebrated last May 15 at St Mary's Cathedral in Kingston with a special mass.

In the encyclical, Leo XIII speaks of workers who have been "given over, isolated and defenceless, to the callousness of employers and the greed of unrestrained competition." Fundamentally, he was concerned that economic wealth should serve people, not oppress them. Thus, among other things, he supported the formation of unions to protect and speak for workers.

In his stimulating sermon on the subject last May, Archbishop F. J. Spence traced the Catholic church's social ministry to the passion for justice of the Hebrew prophets. "It is evident," the archbishop said, "that the church's social mission is both old and new, both a tradition to be shared and a challenge to be fulfilled."

Regardless of our personal religious beliefs, I believe we as legislators can benefit from considering the central ideas of Rerum Novarum in our efforts to ensure that everyone, not just the rich and powerful, is able to participate in the creation and sharing of wealth in our society.

On the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Archbishop Spence said: "We express our gratitude to those who have struggled so hard for social justice in the past. At the same time, we are concerned about serious social and economic changes that are presently taking place."

I suggest the tradition of social thought and action begun 100 years ago will help us address these changes in a democratic, just way.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr H. O'Neil: I would like to ask the Premier if he would pay a little attention to this statement. I rise today to pay tribute to the Prince and Princess of Wales following their visit to Ontario. Their genuine concern about the quality of the lives of the people of this province was evident throughout the tour.

During these tough times, as we grapple with a series of economic and constitutional problems, it is useful for us to reflect on the strength and usefulness of institutions such as the monarchy.

I note that the Premier attended many of the engagements involving the royal couple. I am sure the Premier noticed that the Prince and Princess are held in the highest regard by the people of Ontario, who came out in droves to show their support for the monarchy. I trust the Premier has reflected on this experience during the past week, and I hope he has come to the realization that his decision to abolish the oath to the Queen for police officers was a mistake and does not reflect the wishes of the people of the province.

The Premier has said on several occasions that he is not afraid to acknowledge his mistakes. I urge him to admit that he has made a mistake, and I call on the Premier to reinstate the oath to the Queen for police officers and other public servants. All it takes is for the Premier to turn around and look at the Solicitor General and say, "Solicitor General, reinstate that oath." Will the Premier do that today?

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Health, and it concerns her government's inappropriate use of the taxpayers' money.

The NDP Agenda for People claims the government will establish the appropriate supports to enable the treatment of individuals in their own homes or in facilities located in their communities. I believe that by establishing such community outreach programs as diabetes awareness centres, homemaker services, psychiatric care centres or home care nursing services, we would save the hundreds of dollars a day a hospital bed costs and lessen the strain on our already overburdened hospitals.

I would also urge the minister to consider converting vacant beds at the Huronia Regional Centre for the care and treatment of Alzheimer patients, psychiatric patients and other chronic care patients. This would be an effective use of vacant beds and free up badly needed beds for acute care patients at Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital.

I am not suggesting that the minister's government spend more money. I am suggesting that her government begin spending the money that it has more wisely. Common sense tells us that economic opportunity, social justice and health care cannot be attained just by tossing money around. They should use the resources already available and spend taxpayers' money more wisely.

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to congratulate the Kurdish community of London upon the opening of London's first Kurdish community centre. London's 250 Kurds, one of the smallest ethnic groups in London, will share news, take part in educational seminars, find interpreters and help each other help those still suffering. Many in London's Kurdish community have not seen their families for years, have no idea where they are or even if they are alive.

Although the world's focus on the plight of Kurds in the Middle East has diminished, persecution continues. While Saddam Hussein is still in power and their relatives in Kurdistan are still refugees in their own land, a community centre in London is vital to focus and unite those who have been forced to leave their native country.

For those who have been displaced from their homes, who have seen family, friends and relatives killed and who have survived starvation themselves, learning about services to help immigrants adjust to Canada is paramount. I was pleased to hear, therefore, the recent announcement of the Minister of Citizenship that immigrants and refugees living in London will be assured access to settlement and integration services, thanks to continued support for local immigrant aid and multicultural agencies under the Ontario settlement and integration program.

Several agencies, including the London Cross-Cultural Learner Centre and Women Immigrants of London Counselling Services, will receive a total of $240,000. I commend these agencies for the fine work they do in counselling, educating and providing support services to immigrants and refugees such as the Kurds of London.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite all members of the House to welcome to our midst this afternoon a former member for the riding of Lanark-Renfrew and indeed a former minister of the crown. Seated in the members' gallery west is Mr George Gomme.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PENSION LEGISLATION

Hon Mr Cooke: I am pleased to inform the House of my intention to introduce amendments that will facilitate significant reforms to one of the province's largest pension funds. Next month I will be introducing amendments to the legislation that governs the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, commonly referred to as OMERS.

I would like to describe the most important of these proposed changes. The amendments will allow OMERS to guarantee the indexing of their members' pension benefits. All pension benefits will be adjusted for inflation at the rate of 70% of the annual increase in the consumer price index. The maximum rate of indexing in any year would be 6%. This year the board will also be able to increase pension benefits on an ad hoc basis by an additional 30% of the change in the consumer price index. In combination with the 70%, this will provide full indexation for 1992.

Another important amendment deals with the spousal survivor benefits. Formerly, if members married after retirement their spouses were not entitled to receive survivor benefits. The amendments will extend coverage to include spouses of members who marry after retirement. As well, all members will now be able to retire after 30 years of service without a reduction in their pension if they are within 10 years of normal retirement age.

I am pleased to report that this government has listened to OMERS's requests and recommendations and responded. The cost of providing these enhancements will come from the fund's surplus and from an increase of 0.5% in contribution rates from both the employers and the employees. In the past, employees could not purchase past service until the employer entered into an agreement with OMERS. Now individual members will be able to purchase past service in the OMERS plan independent of the employer's approval. The member must pay the cost of purchasing past service.

1350

Once the amendments are passed and proclaimed, employers and employees will share equally in any surplus or deficit. These and other amendments will bring the act into compliance with the provincial Pension Benefits Act and the federal Income Tax Act as well as provide enhanced benefits to members. Additional amendments will deal with general policy and housekeeping issues.

All of these amendments are important to the members of one of the province's largest pension plans, a plan with assets of $11.7 billion. This is good news indeed for OMERS 230,000 pensioners and active members, who include municipal employees, local board employees and non-teaching staff of school boards. I am pleased our government is helping improve the quality of their lives.

I would like to point out that representatives from the OMERS board are with us today in the lower gallery.

RESPONSES

PENSION LEGISLATION

Mr Mahoney: I must say that it is delightful to finally have a statement from a minister of this government. It is about time that the Premier started laying some of the work that the government is doing out on the table for us to discuss in this place.

In a spirit of generosity, I also congratulate the minister because I think these are amendments that are overdue. They are amendments that indeed our government was working on and did not have the opportunity to introduce before we were --

Hon Mr Philip: Sure you were.

Mr Mahoney: Are they upset about something over there? I am trying to compliment them and they do not even seem to know how to take a compliment, for goodness' sake.

It is nice that the minister finally brought out something that is beneficial to the 230,000 municipal employees around this province, and I congratulate him for doing that. I will of course, as is my responsibility, express some of the concerns I hope the minister will take into account in bringing in these amendments.

First of all, I would also like to congratulate him very much on extending coverages to include spouses of members who marry after retirement. I think that is a proper and appropriate thing to do in this modern society.

I find the contribution of 0.5% from both employers and employees interesting. I seem to recall an equal contribution in the teachers' pension when NDP members on this side of the House were screaming that our government was being draconian and unfair in requiring equal contributions by the employer as well as the employee, particularly the employee. At the time we thought it was the fair thing to do -- we still do think it was the fair thing to do -- but the members of that party of course mobilized that union to express some concerns, which is all fair in love, war and politics.

I am concerned about the timing of this. When I got the call that there would be an announcement by the minister, I was wondering if it would be with regard to the issues we were talking about yesterday, Mr Speaker, since this minister is also the House leader, and I thought that your meeting this morning had been so successful in resolving the differences that you might have finally got the House leader to agree to be a House leader, but it is not that.

Then I had thought with some hope that it might deal with the MUSH grants to municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals, because they are waiting to hear and this is the time of year traditionally that those announcements are made. I wondered, being somewhat cynical from a number of years in public life, if the timing -- particularly when you consider that it says, "Next month I will be introducing amendments" -- had anything to do with giving a helping hand to the NDP members who are running for municipal council. Far be it from me to suggest that, but it did cross my somewhat simplistic mind that this might be an attempt by the minister and by the government to prop up Mr Layton and others who would like to say what wonderful things this government is doing.

I know that members of the board invest in many worthwhile projects and I know they are free to do that in the real estate industry. Generally, I support that kind of use of pension funds, but they should recognize and I think just be cautious -- on behalf of my party I would encourage them to be cautious -- about certain investments when it says here that they will share in the surpluses and the deficits.

That is fine in sharing in surpluses. I would hope surpluses would go into perhaps a reserve account for some long-term thinking in case at some point in time some of the real estate projects that have been invested in or some other investments in the private market go sour. Then they would have a reserve fund to call on in case this particular pension fund, albeit one of the largest and best protected in the province, gets into some trouble.

I would ask the minister to work along with the board in monitoring the surpluses to ensure that they be used to appropriately shore up any deficits rather than making quick decisions and taking those surpluses out.

Once again I hear rumours that the MUSH grants to municipalities are going to be flat-lined. I hear of concerns during the municipal election from my Mayor Hazel and many others -- I have to make a tribute to Hazel; the Premier can understand that -- that this government will ignore their needs. I congratulate the minister for this announcement, but I add those words of caution and I sincerely hope he will come out with the grants to the municipalites and the other agencies in this province very soon.

Mr Stockwell: Commenting on the announcement today by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have some grave concerns about the pensionable earnings and pension plans that are operated by governments at all levels, be it federal, provincial or municipal. Every time an enhancement is made to a municipal, federal or provincial program retirement package there is a cost. Now, yes, the cost is split in this instance, but the cost must always be borne at least 50%, as in this case, by the taxpayers. When we speak of the taxpayers, we are speaking about municipal taxpayers today and their home ownership taxes or apartment taxes or whatever. They must bear the brunt of any increase in contributions.

From the conversations I have with taxpayers at the municipal level they are very concerned. They have very real concerns about the affordability of municipal taxes. They have real concerns about provincial taxes and real concerns about federal taxes.

I understand how a group can come down here and negotiate a package that improves their pension. I have no doubt in my mind that this group from OMERS would endorse this package because it improves their pension. But when we examine it from the view of what a taxpayer must now fork over -- and I do not have the numbers in front of me right now -- I would assume that will be considerable sums of money. For Metropolitan Toronto, for the city of Toronto, for the cities of Etobicoke, North York, York and Scarborough, it is going to cost them money, money they do not have.

I have some concerns not only at the municipal level but at the federal and provincial levels on the affordability of pension plans, and future actuarial accounts are suggesting they may not be affordable. I think before everyone breaks their arm patting themselves on the back, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs comes into the House today and announces an enhanced retirement package for some municipal employees, the taxpayers out there must always remember one thing: Every time the government negotiates a package it does not cost the Minister of Municipal Affairs any money; it does not cost the NDP any money; it costs the taxpayers money. They should look long and hard at these things before they break their arms patting themselves on the back.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Premier. I note we have just had a press conference this morning about the potential loss of some 3,000 jobs in an industry that his legislation will make sure occurs. I noticed as well that the press is full of reports that he is about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, however, to rescue some jobs at de Havilland. While all of us congratulate the steps taken to ensure the jobs are retained, I wonder if the the Premier can tell us exactly where the proposed strategy is that he announced on September 23 that was going to turn the economy around so that he would not have to lurch from one catastrophe to another?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question. I take it that the question is not intended as a criticism of the work this government is doing to respond to the particular crises we as a government have to respond to. The question is one the government is dealing with all the time. The Treasurer is working away, as is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and there will be more announcements with respect to the government's economic plans this fall and through until the spring.

I would say to the interim Leader of the Opposition that the decisions we are making, for example, with respect to the negotiations we are carrying on with de Havilland, are fully intended to be constructive and to help not only in the saving of jobs but in the creation of new jobs. That is the situation in which we now find ourselves. We are having to respond to a number of crises as well as having to plan more effectively for the future. We are keeping on both tracks.

Mr Elston: He must have a foot on each track, and he is stretching things just a little bit to let us believe he has everything under control in this province. I have been in several areas where people are reeling under economic stress. I have spoken just recently with people in Barrie who wonder what is going to take place there since they have lost so many jobs in that community. There has been response, although a loss of several hundred jobs is speculated for Kapuskasing, and a loss of jobs in Elliot Lake and a loss of jobs in Sault Ste Marie.

The Premier said here on September 23 that he was going to come forward with a program that would save the Ontario economy and help it to become more vigorous. All we have seen so far in any concrete fashion is the release of details of the labour relations material, an increase of some billion dollars in taxes that his government has taken, a release by the Ontario Hydro people to indicate that hydro rates are going to increase by 44% over the next three years as a minimum, all militating against the economic recovery he so boldly forecast as part of his statement.

When is the Premier going to tell us how those billion-dollar taxes, the hydro rate increases and loss of current jobs are going to fit into his economic recovery strategy?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the hard reality is that recovery is something we have to work at every day and I do not pretend it is easy at the moment. If he is looking for one single announcement on one single day that is going to produce the solution to all our problems, or thinks anyone on this side is saying we have all the problems under control, those are not the kinds of claims this government is making.

What we are saying is that we are working very hard with the private sector and that we are working very hard with the business community on a number of projects right now which we are hoping will come to fruition shortly, and we will be making a number of announcements over time that will indicate some of the positive steps we can take as a government, even given the very difficult circumstances in which we now find ourselves as a province.

Mr Elston: We have not been asking so much about announcements; we have been asking the Premier to fulfil his promise given to the Legislature on September 23. The Premier promised a comprehensive strategy to tell the people at de Havilland where they fit, to tell the people in Barrie where they fit, to tell the people in Kapuskasing where they fit and to tell the people in Hanover, where there have been job layoffs, where they fit.

All I am asking the Premier is, when is he bringing that comprehensive strategy forward so we can see that he actually intends to start to keep one of his promises?

Hon Mr Rae: I will just say that when we made the announcement with respect to Kapuskasing, the Leader of the Opposition was critical of it. When we made other suggestions with respect to --

Mr Elston: No; story-telling.

Mr Bradley: Don't miscarry.

Mr Elston: We want a better administration of this House.

The Speaker: Would the leader take his seat, please. There is clearly a difference of opinion. Does the Premier have a further response?

Hon Mr Rae: I will say to the Leader of the Opposition that we have been making a number of announcements and working on a number of projects at the same time as we are trying to develop a longer-term strategy for the province. The kinds of steps we have been taking with the companies involved and the kinds of negotiations we have been involved with, as difficult as they are, we think are an important element in beginning to point the way to some positive solutions.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Conway: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Reglations. It is one of great interest to people in rural Ontario and particularly today in rural southeastern Ontario.

It was on July 29 that the very distinguished Morrisburg lawyer, James Douglas Grenkie, QC, came before the standing committee on general government and argued quite effectively, I thought, that what the government was intending with respect to its land registry policy was not only unwise but that in his legal opinion it was illegal. Last night, in the General Division of the Ontario Court, Mr Justice Soubliere agreed that the Ontario government could not proceed because in his view that policy violated the provincial statute, namely, the Registry Act. What can the minister advise as to her next move in this endlessly fascinating government policy?

Hon Ms Churley: I have to agree with the member that it is an endlessly fascinating subject. I have received word of the court case decision. However, I have not yet received a copy of the judge's reasons for this decision. When we do, we will determine whether or not we will appeal this decision.

Mr Conway: In the minister's statement of government policy read to this House on May 7, 1991, it was clearly indicated that in the case of the Morrisburg land registry office, which has served the good people of Dundas county in southeastern Ontario for almost a century, that office would in fact be closed some time in mid-November 1991. What can she advise the people of Dundas county as to her intentions with respect to that announced state, with regard to the fact that today is October 30 and that her plan was to close that office within two to three weeks' time?

Hon Ms Churley: I can advise four land registry offices today that, as a result of the decision, at least the closing of these four offices will be delayed.

Mr Conway: I take it this means the offices that were scheduled for closure in Morrisburg, Alexandria, Prescott and Russell are the four offices about which we are speaking. If I am incorrect, I am sure she would be quite free to correct the record.

With regard to what the Ontario court has now ruled and with regard to what her own government did in that spectacular move in Lanark county a few weeks ago, would she as the responsible minister not now agree that in light of all we have heard and all we have seen, this policy is, for the moment at least, a shambles, that it should be entirely put on hold while calmer heads prevail and that the interests of rural Ontarians, whether they live in Dundas county or in north Wellington or in south Grey, will have better treatment from this government on this very important local service?

Hon Ms Churley: As I have said before on this subject, these are tough economic times. I still think the decision to eliminate these kinds of duplications in these tough economic times has to be done. They are not easy decisions but I think it was the right decision, and we will proceed with the other closings on schedule.

1410

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Carr: My question is to the Solicitor General. I had the pleasure of attending a news conference this morning that dealt with his Sunday shopping legislation. In fact, I also had the opportunity to go out on the steps during a protest this morning on that same piece of legislation. I heard from Monica McGregor, who spoke this morning and said that if their piece of legislation goes through, she will be going on welfare. I also heard from Tammy Perry, who said she is fearful that she will not be able to pay for her education if their piece of legislation goes through. I also heard from Laurie Gillis, a single mother, who said, "I don't want to lose my job."

On October 18 I asked the Solicitor General a question. I would like to hear him explain to those people, as well as to some of the people in the gallery from Hy & Zel's, from the Payless stores and from Herbie's drugstore, so those people can hear, what the Solicitor General is going to do to save the 3,000 jobs that are in jeopardy because of this piece of legislation. Will he tell them what he is going to do today?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I thank the member for the question. The reason the amendments to Bill 115 do not deal with drugstores is simply that Bill 115 does not deal with that issue. The drugstore question was covered by the provisions of the Retail Business Holidays Act passed under the previous Liberal government. We choose not to deal with this issue at this time, choosing instead to deal with protecting the rights of workers and ensuring the common pause day of some 760,000 Ontarians and their families who work in the retail industry throughout this province of ours.

As I said, we are concerned with amendments that deal with Sunday working and not with Sunday shopping. Drugstores have in fact been allowed to be open under the previous legislation, and as a result of our amendments to provide therapeutic, cosmetic, hygienic and pharmaceutical products in stores of a size of some, not 1,000 or 2,000 square feet, but 7,500 square feet. We believe that should be sufficient space to provide those kinds of services that were envisaged under the previous government's legislation and our amendments at this time.

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

Hon Mr Pilkey: I would add, however, that these particular stores will be allowed to be open during the Sundays prior to Christmas during the month of December.

Mr Carr: The problem is that the tourism criteria still set 7,500-foot criteria; 7,500 square feet is in fact at issue with this piece of legislation. The Solicitor General may not know that. I know he is a new Solicitor General coming in late in the game, but that is a fact.

The problem is that those people do not care whether it is 7,500 feet, 3,500 feet or 12 feet. All they know is that the piece of legislation he is bringing in is going to destroy their jobs. The people who are going to have to go on welfare are saying to us, "What can we do to get the Solicitor General to act?" They had to come up on the front steps of this Legislature because they could not get the answers from this open and accessible government. They had to come to the front steps with their signs, protesting, to get their answers here today.

I am going to ask the question that did not get answered by the Solicitor General during that time. I suspect he would like to speak directly to those 3,000 people, some of whom were here today, who will be losing their jobs. The question they are asking that they have never had answered is, why is the common pause day being applied to only 3% of the drugstores in Ontario? Why is it only going to restrict that 3%?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I believe I have already indicated in the initial response that it is the government's view that this matter does not fall within the four corners of this bill. It was covered by the previous government. It is not up for discussion, nor can it be at this particular time. We believe that 7,500 square feet, for the purposes that they are allowed to be open in the first place, surely must be adequate to serve the citizens of Ontario on Sunday.

Mr Carr: It would seem the Solicitor General does not care about the 3,000 jobs, and I suspect the people here today see that very clearly. He can talk about other pieces of legislation and he can talk about whose fault it is, but all they know is that they are going to be out of a job at a time when it is difficult to find jobs. As was stated today by Monica McGregor, a single mother, "I'm going to be going on welfare because of this NDP government." That was her statement this morning at the press conference.

If the Solicitor General does not care about the jobs, if he does not care about the people who are sitting up in the gallery who are going to be out of their jobs, if he does not care because they are not the unionized Canadian auto workers that he cares about, if it is because of that, if it is because they are the people at the low end of the pay scale who cannot afford to have the big unions represent them, I will ask him a question regarding some of the seniors.

These particular drugstores offer discounts to some of the poor people across this province who cannot afford access to some of the drugs. Why should the public be denied access to drugstores whose average price for goods and services is 20% to 40% less than in the conventional drugstores? If the minister does not care about the jobs, what does he say to the poor people out there who do not have access because of his policies? What does he say to them?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government has not changed the legislation. If there are jobs impacted, that is regrettable, but the government has not changed the legislation that has been in force in this province for a very considerable length of time.

As I have indicated, in terms of pricing in those particular stores, there will be drugstores that will dispense therapeutic, cosmetic, hygienic or pharmaceutical products to the extent of stores that are of a significant size, up to 7,500 square feet. I assume the needs of the public will be able to be served in stores of that size and that magnitude.

CASE OF BRIAN RAPSON

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Attorney General. As he is probably now aware, Police Constable Brian Rapson was acquitted of the three charges he was charged with, one of which was an indictment that the minister had preferred on attempted murder, which he had already been acquitted of earlier.

The minister has put this man's family through additional hell, through additional suffering and through additional agony because of that indiscriminate use of the preferred indictment. What is he going to do to alleviate the extra pain and the extra suffering he has caused this man's family? What is he going to do to pay this man's expenses for the additional defence of attempted murder that he was wrong in preferring by way of indictment?

I remind the minister that in the past his Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, advocated payment of legal expenses when a preferred indictment was wrongly preferred. What is the minister going to do to help this poor police officer?

Hon Mr Hampton: With respect, I am afraid I must disagree fundamentally with some of the statements made here by the member of the opposition. Now that the trial is complete, I can provide some further information.

The trial judge in this case was presented only a few days ago with a motion for a directed verdict for an acquittal, and in that sense to not put the issue of attempted murder before the jury. The trial judge, having heard the evidence, put the issue of attempted murder before the jury. In other words, the trial judge, having heard all the evidence, decided it was proper and appropriate that the charge of attempted murder should go before the jury.

Mr Harnick: You shouldn't have preferred the indictment to start with.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale is asked to come to order to hear the response to a question which he placed.

Hon Mr Hampton: The issue here is seeing that the process works, that the process of law is carried through. That is what has been done. I can only say again that the trial judge, having heard all the evidence, having presided over the case, decided it was quite proper and appropriate to put the charge of attempted murder before the jury, and that was done.

Mr Harnick: It is interesting that the Attorney General wants to see that the process works now, but when the process worked a year ago and the officer was discharged after a preliminary inquiry, the Attorney General was not content to let the process work. He has now tried the person twice and he has been wrong twice.

It is quite obvious that he is not prepared to do what his own Premier has advocated in the past and he is not prepared to do anything to help the officer, but by preferring this indictment, he has struck a chord against the morale of every police officer in this province.

What is the Attorney General prepared to do to repair his relations with police officers when he has again been wrong? He is not going to do anything for the officer. What is he going to do for police forces generally?

1420

Hon Mr Hampton: With respect, again I must completely disagree with the premise that has been stated by the member of the opposition. The trial judge had the question squarely before him when he received a motion --

Mr Harnick: You were wrong a year ago and you have been proved wrong now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale posed a question, and I would take it that in order for him to get a response, both he and his colleagues will have to listen.

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, as I said, I must completely disagree with the premise that has been stated here by the member of the opposition. The question that was before the trial judge yesterday was exactly the question I was faced with. The trial judge was faced with a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. He did not follow that. He did not accept that motion. He instead put the question before the jury, and that is exactly the question I was faced with.

The member of the opposition says this is something like a strike against the morale of police officers. Is he suggesting there should in effect be one law for the police and one law for everyone else? I would suggest that the process that worked here is exactly the process that works in all situations where someone is charged with this type of offence.

Mr Harnick: I am suggesting, with respect, that the Attorney General not get involved in second-guessing the justice system in this province when somebody has been discharged. That is what I am suggesting. I am also suggesting to him that he was wrong to prefer the indictment. The judgement that a jury has handed down today has indicated that he is wrong. On the basis of his logic, he will probably be appealing this judgement.

The Attorney General is not prepared to apologize to the officer, is not prepared to make restitution to the officer, as his own Premier has in the past suggested, and is not prepared to apologize to police officers generally for what he has done to their morale. I will admit he is not the only bad actor -- the rest of his government has not been great either -- but would he at least stand up here and admit he was wrong to prefer the indictment?

Hon Mr Hampton: I must say that it makes me unhappy when I see a member of the opposition take a serious legal matter and try to use that as an opportunity to score all kinds of political points across the spectrum.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the members to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It would appear that both the member and his colleagues do not care to hear a response. New question, the member for St Catharines.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Premier. In opposition and on the campaign trail, the Premier waxed eloquent about the right of the democratically elected members of the opposition to carry out their responsibilities and role unfettered by the repression of government. His government has sent the Ontario Provincial Police to interrogate the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal member for Halton Centre because they received documents embarrassing to his government from public-spirited civil servants. Is the Premier not concerned that these efforts to silence members of the opposition and intimidate the civil service will diminish the open and democratic system that so many fought for in previous wars?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the House leader for the official opposition that, first of all, I have read the debates and listened very carefully to what people have said over the last number of days, and I do not think anybody who has heard what has been said by the member for Halton Centre, for example, would be unconcerned. The concerns she has raised are real ones.

It was suggested the other day by our House leader that he would be quite happy to sit down with the other House leaders to discuss this situation. There is also, as I understand it, still an outstanding question of privilege which the member for Halton Centre has raised and which is supported by the member for St George-St David.

I would say to the House leader for the official opposition that I have a great deal of respect for him and for his experience. Certainly nothing that would be done by this government would be intended in any way to intimidate or harass or prevent a member of the opposition or any member of the Legislature from carrying out his or her responsibilities.

No police investigations have been ordered or directed by this government. I hope the House leader for the official opposition will at least recognize that fact. I have said it on a number of occasions and I say it again here today. I think there is ample ground here for some further discussion and consultation. Certainly this government has never ordered any police investigations, nor has the government any intention of intimidating or trying to silence anyone at all.

Mr Bradley: That is interesting, because my concern extends not only to members of the opposition but to members of the government. My concern is that the Premier's intimidation tactics are now being used against members of his own caucus.

If the Premier truly believes in the freedom of expression by democratically elected members of this House, why did he fire my Niagara colleague the member for Lincoln and my Niagara colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, in one case as Chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and in the other case as a member of the standing committee on administration of justice? Was it because the member for Lincoln dared to vote against a tax measure which would be damaging to his constituents and the member for Welland-Thorold dared to express the view that the Sunday shopping bill the government brought in is a betrayal of those who voted for the NDP in the last election?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, the member's concern on behalf of members of our caucus is deeply appreciated, I am sure, by all of us. I certainly appreciate that concern.

All I would say to the honourable member is that no one has been fired.

CASE OF BRIAN RAPSON

Mr Harnick: My question is to the Attorney General. It is a very simple question. A year ago he preferred the indictment, and I asked him at that time why he had preferred the indictment. He told me he could not tell me because it was before the courts. Now it is no longer before the courts. A jury has acquitted Police Constable Rapson. I am asking the Attorney General again why he preferred this indictment.

Hon Mr Hampton: We came to the same conclusion that the trial judge hearing this matter over the last couple of weeks came to. Senior criminal law counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to go before a jury. The trial judge who heard this matter over the last two weeks, who heard the evidence, was presented with a motion for a directed verdict and said that there was sufficient evidence here with respect to attempted murder and that this evidence should go before a jury.

With great respect, the decision we made with respect to preferring an indictment has, I think, been vindicated by the trial judge.

Mr Harnick: That answer just shows the capriciousness with which this preferred indictment was brought.

1430

Mr Mahoney: Come on, we're politicians, not lawyers. What does that mean?

Mr Harnick: Malice. The member for Mississauga West asked me what that means. I will describe it as malice.

I put it to the minister that the trial judge's charge to the jury was absolutely clear and virtually instructed the jury to acquit him on the attempted murder charge. The charge to the jury was crystal clear that is what the jury must do.

Mr Wessenger: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: He is imputing the motives of another member and saying there is malice in his actions. I very clearly heard that.

The Speaker: I listened very carefully. He did not accuse the minister of malice; he said the decision was capricious. He did not accuse the minister.

Mr Harnick: In addition to malicious, it was arbitrary, because the minister has stood today and again refused to tell us what reasons he used one year ago. He is relying on the fact that a judge may have done something during the course of a trial one year later. I ask this minister to come clean and tell us what reasons he had one year ago after he was discharged by a judge who heard the evidence. I want to know for what reasons he preferred this indictment.

Hon Mr Hampton: As I said the first time -- and I gather the member was preparing his next line of political attack, so he did not hear it -- when we looked at the evidence in the case, we were of the view that there was sufficient evidence to put the charge of attempted murder before a jury.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Hampton: The trial judge was presented with that motion a few days ago in this case and made the same decision we did, that there was sufficient evidence of attempted murder to go before a jury.

VITAL STATISTICS REGISTRATION

Mr Malkowski: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Many of my constituents use the services of the office of the registrar general to obtain birth certificates. I know the office moved to Thunder Bay earlier this year. Can the minister tell us what has been happening since the move?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I would like to say that I know a lot of citizens of Ontario have been inconvenienced by this move and there have been long lineups and a lot of inconvenience, and I feel very badly about that. There has been a lot of activity over the summer and in fact we hired summer students and put in extra telephone lines and virtually worked around the clock to deal with the backlog.

I think it would help people to understand if they knew the scope of what we are dealing with. The staff, which is mostly new, receives on the average over 18,000 requests for registration and certificates in a week and, on top of that, 1,000 telephone calls. I am continuing to monitor that to try to find new solutions for dealing with that kind of tremendous workload.

Mr Malkowski: Some of my constituents have been waiting a long time to get the documents. Can the minister tell the House why there have been such delays?

Mr Bradley: Must be the previous government.

Hon Ms Churley: The previous government, no doubt, for making the decision. I thank the member. I do, however, take responsibility; it is my responsibility now.

As I said, the backlog from the move was just tremendous, and over the summer we hired a lot of students to deal with that. We have extended the hours in Toronto to benefit working people more. We are open from, I think, 7 or 8 in the morning to 8 in the evening, and we have put in new telephone lines and done a lot of things to help the situation. We have eaten into the backlog significantly, and in fact some members have told me they are seeing an improvement. But I will continue to work on this very important issue. It is certainly one of my priorities.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Poirier: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship regarding her statement about Champlain and Cartier. The minister has made clear her government's commitment as well as her own personal commitment to the elimination of racism and prejudice from our society and to the enhancement of multicultural and cross-cultural understanding in Ontario.

The Toronto Star recently reported that the minister stated that Jacques Cartier and Samuel de Champlain, Canada's first European explorers, were racist. Of all people, given her mandate, does the minister believe her gratuitous statement will contribute positively to linguistic relations in this country, given the sensitive state of affairs that currently exists?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I appreciate being asked the question because I would like to set the record straight. First of all, unfortunately the reporter was not at the meeting and has taken the context of my speech out of order. What I talked about was the systemic racism that has existed in this country. For instance, let me explain about talking about how we interned Japanese Canadians during the Second World War. All parties have agreed that it was not a thing to do, that unfortunately we showed racism in this country. We interned Italian Canadians and Ukrainian Canadians during the First World War as well. In that context, we have unfortunately displayed systemic discrimination and racism in this country.

We also have heard from the Canadian Human Rights Commission how one in 10 Canadians faces racism and discrimination in this country. We are committed as a government, and I think all of us in this House -- I know I have spoken to members in the opposition parties -- want to make sure we have a society that is truly free of racism and discrimination.

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

Hon Ms Ziemba: This is a very serious question, for myself and for the honourable member opposite, so I would like to respond.

We have to make sure, if we are going to eliminate racism, that we understand the problem and that we admit we have had a problem in the past. Now that we have admitted the problem, we can try to --

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

Mr Poirier: It would be interesting to know what, in reality, was mentioned about Champlain and Cartier. I think Jim Coyle from the Ottawa Citizen had a very good history he wrote about what may have happened with Champlain and Cartier recently.

No one can deny that racism has existed in Canada for a very long time, and unfortunately it continues to exist today. We also know there is an incredible backlog at the human rights commission, but I am not so sure that to bring forward the dossiers of Cartier and Champlain would really resolve the problem. I think our role as politicians is to be careful of what we say, because between the message emitted and the message perceived there may be a heck of a gulf, and we have a mandate to add water, not oil, to potential flare-ups.

What is to be gained by making statements of this type if they are going to be wrongly perceived like this? How will her remarks assist or enhance cross-linguistic and cross-cultural relations in Ontario?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Again I must say that unfortunately, as has been experienced I am sure by all members of this House, the tabloids are not always correct, and the tabloids were not present at this particular meeting. That is an unfortunate experience. If this was taken out of context, I cannot apologize for the tabloids.

I reiterate to all members of the House that I did not take, nor would I have taken, anyone personally to task for displaying any form of racism or discrimination. What we are talking about is the systemic problems that have existed in this country and how we are going to find solutions to correct that and to make sure that does not happen again. If we cannot look at past experience and learn from it, we certainly are never, ever going to eliminate racism. I know that members share with me the fact that we must make our society, not only for our children but for our grandchildren, a place where everybody lives harmoniously and in peace, with equity and justice for all.

1440

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Labour. In 1990, the unfunded liability for the Workers' Compensation Board increased by 7% to $9.1 billion. The 1989 annual report from the board stated that the unfunded liability would peak at $8 billion and could be eliminated by 2007. Now the $9.1-billion unfunded liability is projected to grow to $10 billion in 1992 and $12 billion by the year 2000. The current estimate on the elimination has been pushed back to the year 2014. Could the minister explain why the unfunded liability increased by $1 billion in one year, from 1989 to 1990?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The situation with the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board is one that has been with us since 1972. The first steps to try and deal with it took place in 1984. The current increase in the unfunded liability is a direct result of the economic climate we have in the province today and the number of closures we have seen and the number of workers who are out of work. That is a situation that basically we have inherited, but we are currently looking at options to take care of that situation.

Mrs Witmer: I appreciate the minister's response, but I am not sure that adequately deals with the increase in the unfunded liability total.

Last week the WCB launched six months of hearings to determine whether the board should compensate individuals who suffer from chronic workplace stress. We know that is going to increase the costs. The Employers' Advocacy Council, which is based in Kitchener, has sent me a letter. They report that in 1992, employer assessments are going to increase by 21% to reduce the $9.1-billion unfunded liability and an additional 27% to cover administration and program costs. The employers in this province are desperately concerned about the province's ability to maintain an affordable employer-financed system of workers' compensation in the future, and with good reason.

The Speaker: Would the member place her question.

Mrs Witmer: This dramatic increase in WCB rates is going to prompt yet more businesses to close or move out of the province. It is going to contribute to further job loss.

Given the fact that there are too many government policy decisions being initiated without any consideration of the impact on business, I ask the minister to share with this House what research he is doing. What economic impact studies has he done to take a look at the potential inclusion of workplace stress under the WCB on the assessment rates and the unfunded liability?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I should inform the member that the study on workplace stress -- and there have been a number of cases that have been granted but there has not been a clear policy on workplace stress -- is one that has been initiated by the board itself. They are doing a study on it. They have not taken action and will not until, I guess, following the study and then, probably, discussions with my ministry. That is in the process of being looked at as to whether or not a case can be made for Workers' Compensation Board payments for stress items.

In terms of the unfunded liability, the board is currently looking at that issue and has drawn to my attention a number of potential proposals. When it is prepared to make an actual recommendation, we will sit down with it and discuss what we may have to do on the issue.

ASSISTANCE TO TOBACCO FARMERS

Mr Jamison: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The members of this House are well aware of the tremendous amount of strain that has been placed on tobacco farmers as a result of increased taxes and the imposition of health regulations. The Minister of Agriculture and Food had announced earlier in this House that his ministry would be meeting with the federal government to discuss other options and adjustment programs which may be considered to address the needs of the tobacco community and tobacco growers.

Since this is a very important question to the riding I represent, Norfolk, I also say that it has an impact on the communities there. As the minister knows, I have expressed my concern about this matter before in this House and on other occasions with him, and about its effect on the local economy of Norfolk and the people who live there. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food when we can expect to hear a favourable announcement with respect to assistance to this community.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like to thank the member for Norfolk for his question and commend him for the tireless work he has done on behalf of the province's tobacco farmers. Let me also say that this government recognizes the concerns of the tobacco industry because of the taxation and health-related concerns the member mentioned. We intend to address those concerns.

I have met with the tobacco board as a group and I have also met with the tobacco board chairman to discuss its proposals. In light of that we have set up a committee, which comprises my staff, their federal counterparts and the tobacco board members, to have discussions around what kind of assistance options we should look at. As members know, when it comes to health and agriculture, it is a provincial-federal matter, so it is very appropriate for the two governments to share the discussions and look at what kind of assistance we can provide to this industry.

Mr Jamison: Has the committee been working on putting together a long-term solution in support of this concern, since in my opinion long-term assistance will be needed to help these farm families adjust to the future market for their legal product? I think this is a major concern with the ongoing view, looking at assistance in this area.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The tobacco board has submitted some preliminary funding requirements which discuss the terms of five years. The committee we have established is looking at long-term funding and hopefully we can address some of the requests we have been asked to assist with. We are looking at how we can assist tobacco farmers exit from growing tobacco and that is a shared responsibility, as I mentioned. We are also looking at how we can change the requirements for eligibility of any kind of reduction program. We recognize there are some concerns about alternative crops that can be grown on tobacco lands and we need to address those as well.

The second part of our way of addressing this problem is to look at market adjustment. We need to look at the export market for tobacco, which has a reduced price, and we need to look at ways of assisting farmers to adjust to that lower price in the export market.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Curling: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, the minister responsible for human rights and the minister who is giving all these history lessons. Let me bring to her the present situation.

It was about six months ago -- to be precise, it was April 9 -- that this minister promised to produce, as she stated, clear and defined guidelines to prevent employment agencies from discriminating against job applicants. The following day, April 10, 1991, the Minister of Labour promised to put together legislation including tougher auditing of agencies by the end of June. Despite the explicit promises made six months ago by both ministers, the Toronto Star today reports that the chief of the Ontario Human Rights Commission has been forced to make public an appeal to the government to enact a stricter law governing employment agencies.

Let me plead on behalf of the many people who have become victims of such discriminatory practices. Why has the minister failed to keep her promise to produce clear and definite guidelines?

1450

Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank my colleague for asking this question because I know he has suffered discrimination, and he has shared that with me. I understand his concerns as we all do in this government.

What we have to add to that history lesson he just unfolded for us was that when the whole issue came before the Ontario Human Rights Commission I said I would wait for the ruling. In the meantime, the Minister of Labour and I have been meeting with many concerned groups. In fact, we funded a very important conference that addressed this issue. Out of that conference came some very good, interesting comments and recommendations. In that framework the Minister of Labour and I, now that the commission has come forth with its ruling, can move forward to develop that legislation.

We have not been inactive; we have been working very hard to make sure we get the proper guidelines in place and that we bring forward people's ideas from the community. In those terms as well, we have made sure that we are very shortly going to introduce employment equity. We have also introduced a new strategy to combat racism in Ontario in the Ontario anti-racism secretariat. I think we are encompassing all these ideas --

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

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, I will. I am sure there is a supplementary and I will be given an opportunity at that time to expand this a little further.

Mr Curling: I cannot believe this minister is saying she has to wait until the Ontario Human Rights Commission brings forward its recommendations on the two cases. Of course I have been discriminated against in this province. What I am appealing about are the hundreds of people who are subject to this daily, and the minister is going to wait until the two cases are heard by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. What if something happens today? Is the minister going to wait for those cases to be heard by the Ontario Human Rights Commission? This is obviously a do-nothing government.

To quote the Toronto Star, "That which it has said it would do, it does not; that which it does, it changes; that which it promises, it postpones." What is obvious is that the minister has failed to advocate strongly enough at the cabinet table. I do not think the people of this province have a strong voice at the cabinet table to fight for their cause. Will the minister make a specific commitment in this House that her promise and that of the Minister of Labour will be kept before the end of the year, or is it another in a long list of promises that will be broken?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I did not say, first of all, that I was waiting for the commission and that we would continue to wait for the commission's report. I said we are developing other guidelines as we were waiting for that report. We have had conferences. We have dialogued with the community. For the first time people were able to come to a conference and express these ideas and give us input on how they felt. In fact, nobody has ever wanted to talk about racism, they have always wanted to hide it under a carpet. This is the first time government has been open and honest about racism existing, and we are going to stamp it out.

The other issue is that we have kept promises. We are introducing mandatory legislated employment equity. We have come through with many initiatives in this government that have addressed inequities in our society and we will continue to do so. I hope my colleagues on the other side would work with us to eliminate discrimination instead of making this a political matter, and share with us their concerns and work --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat again, please.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Earlier this month I asked the minister when we would see his bill on auto insurance. He replied that he would announce later this month, which is now, a policy statement, to be followed by a bill some time later, which I assume would be next month. There seems to be some speculation that this policy paper has been scrapped. The only sign I can see of a policy paper, the one we appear to be aware of, is the one issued exclusively to the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario; not to the media and certainly not to this House.

We are now at October 30 and we still have no discussion paper. Is the minister still planning to release a policy paper prior to the introduction of auto insurance and will he be doing it in this House or in some other forum?

Hon Mr Charlton: Let me respond first to the last part of the question the member raised regarding a discussion paper released to the brokers' association and to that association exclusively. I have heard several accusations over the course of the last couple of weeks about a discussion paper that has gone to the entire insurance industry, and now about a discussion paper that has gone exclusively to the brokers' association. There is no discussion paper. The brokers' association has not received the discussion paper. The insurance industry has received no discussion paper, as others who have held press conferences have implied.

It is still our intention to proceed with a discussion paper. As the member well knows, in terms of the timing in this Legislature, the time lines are getting very tight and unfortunately I am running a couple of weeks behind schedule, but we intend to release both the discussion paper and the legislation this fall.

Mr Tilson: The wheel seems to be grinding to a dead stop. Certainly this government in the last election promised a publicly owned auto insurance industry. It also promised full access to the courts. It would do away with the Liberal law of the threshold test. The member for Welland-Thorold spent many hours telling us how terrible that was. Now it appears both those promises are going to be discarded and the government is going to do something else, and that would include the abandonment of the economic loss issue.

There have obviously been strictly exclusive discussions with the insurance industry alone, an industry that has made $1 billion in profit since the Liberal bill was introduced. Can the minister tell us what the insurance industry is giving the people of this province in return?

Hon Mr Charlton: I am not sure I can respond to the part of the question that relates to what the insurance industry may or may not be giving. We have had consultations with the insurance industry; that is correct. We have also had consultations with every victims' group that has made itself available. We have met with every lawyers' group that wished to have input on this issue. Just let me say, in wrapping up, that the implication raised by the member a few moments ago about the economic loss issue now being dead or off the table, whichever words he used, is as incorrect as the rest of the things he has raised. We are proceeding to deal with economic loss.

GAS LEAK IN PICKERING

Mr Wiseman: I was getting a little worried that I might not get this question is with all the extensive preambles. My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. My riding --

Mr Harnick: Is this a question about the dump they're putting in your riding?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale should be aware that if a member causes disorder in this House, the Speaker will have no choice but to name that member. I am asking the member to come to order.

Mr Wiseman: This is a very serious question for the residents of my riding. Last summer a house blew up in the area just north of a subdivision because methane gas was seeping into it. Prior to that, the weigh station at the Brock West landfill site had exploded because of methane gas. Yesterday it was revealed that there is a methane gas leak in a subdivision. Is the Minister of Natural Resources aware of this and what is he doing?

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a very serious matter. Yes, indeed we are aware of the gas leak. During the course of the drilling of a well on Pine Grove Avenue in Pickering, natural gas was hit at about 110 feet in bedrock. There was no fire or explosion. Under the terms of the Petroleum Resources Act, the Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for issuing permits for the exploration, but in this case there was no gas anticipated. It is not an area where we would normally expect to find gas, although there have been some occurrences in the past. The fact is that the gas has stopped flowing, the owner will ensure the well is cemented to stop the leak and MNR inspectors are onsite today to ensure the work is satisfactorily completed.

1500

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Motions. Petitions.

[Interruption]

The Speaker: We were at petitions. I recognize the member for St Catharines with his petition.

Mr Bradley: I guess I would call this a question of privilege, Mr Speaker. I notice that the chief government whip, the member for Lincoln and the government House leader disappeared during question period.

The Speaker: What privilege have you lost today?

Mr Bradley: It is another member's privilege I am speaking to. I am wondering if the member for Lincoln has been reinstated as Chairman of the committee.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines will please take his seat.

PETITIONS

CLOSING OF TREE NURSERIES

Mr Miclash: I have a petition that reads:

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

"We, private contractors, oppose the proposed closure of the bare root section of the Dryden Tree Nursery due to the loss of substantial business revenue and local employment."

This is signed by a good number of people and I too have attached my name to this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Witmer: I have a petition that reads:

"To the Honourable Zanana Akande:

"We, the undersigned, request the minister take action immediately to rectify the further salary inequity announced January 31, 1991, for early childhood educators. We believe that the principles of freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination form the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select the day care of their choice."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr62, An Act respecting the City of North York;

Bill Pr68, An Act respecting the Armenian Community Centre of Cambridge.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr68, An Act respecting the Armenian Community Centre of Cambridge.

Your committee further recommends that the actual cost of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Restoule Snowmobile Club.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing November 1, 1991, and ending December 31, 1991.

Mr Runciman: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate for interim supply. I am following yesterday's speaker, the member for Renfrew North, who as usual gave a most interesting speech on the question of government finances and a whole host of other issues. I find passing strange, and I have mentioned this in the past, the comments coming from the official opposition, the former government of this province, and I have some concerns with respect to the validity they may be carrying with the public at large.

We have heard some concerns expressed in the past about the delays in the issuance of birth certificates, death certificates and so on. Of course, it was the former Liberal government which moved that operation to Thunder Bay. They have to assume some degree of responsibility for that.

We have heard questions about payroll tax. The member for Renfrew North has again expressed concern about payroll tax. Who brought in a payroll tax? No other than the former Liberal government. In fact they brought in something like 33 separate tax increases during the five-year life of the Liberal government, representing something like a 132% increase in taxes to the people of Ontario. Now they get up and express concern about payroll taxes.

We hear the interim leader of the Liberal Party getting up and expressing concern about the closure of hospital beds. Well, the Liberal government was responsible for the closure of 3,400 hospital beds. Now they get up in this House and express concern. It is passing strange.

Today -- this one really caught me off guard -- we had the member for York Centre saying he likes beer and wine in grocery stores. That man was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. If he believed that, he sat in cabinet for the portfolio responsible for that area of the economy and did not do one thing, did not make one utterance in respect to support. Now that he is in opposition and involved in a leadership campaign, all of a sudden he supports beer and wine in grocery stores.

I simply want to send out the message to Ontario voters that they should take what the Liberal Party is saying now with a considerable grain of salt when they take a look at its experience and the way it conducted the business of this province for the five years it was in office. That is something we as a party have to continue to reiterate to and reinforce with the public, so the bad government we experienced by the Liberal Party of Ontario is not forgotten about by the time we roll around to the polls three or four years hence.

There is no question that the current government inherited a very bad situation in terms of the state of the provincial economy. They, along with the electorate, were led down the path in terms of what kind of deficit we were facing. I think the Treasurer of the day was talking about a very modest deficit. It turned out to be a very significant one indeed. There is no question this government has had some tough decisions to make. In any event, members undoubtedly are not surprised to know I disagree with many of the decisions they have taken to deal with the tough and trying economic circumstances we find ourselves in in this province today.

I want to talk about a number of issues. I believe they all in some way, shape or form touch on interim supply and the finances of the province. The one I want to deal with initially falls within one of my critic areas, and that is the whole question of the Ontario Provincial Police, law and order and community safety, which is a growing concern in the province.

We are hearing stories now of significant cutbacks in OPP services. I saw a letter that was circulated by Thomas O'Grady, the commissioner of the OPP, talking about changes that are going to have to occur within the OPP: cutbacks in overtime and time off in lieu of overtime. We have situations now where police officers do not have cruisers. They have to use their own cars to respond to calls. We have cruisers in my own area that are sitting on the lot at the OPP station because the detachment cannot afford repairs to those cars. For a significant part of the 24-hour period, the Highway 401 corridor has little or no coverage on it and very few people able to respond to emergency calls. That situation is worsening, with additional cutbacks being faced by policemen and policewomen in this province.

1510

What have we done over the past number of years to improve the situation? Really nothing. The Liberal government -- and the current government is following in its footsteps -- put more obstacles in the path of policemen and policewomen trying to do an effective job for all of us in this province. It is a paperwork jungle, especially if there is a complaint lodged against a police officer. I think police officers have to fill out something like 75 different reports if there is a complaint lodged against them. They are left twisting in the wind because of the long period of time for any public complaint against an officer to be resolved. That is having another negative impact, a significant negative impact on police morale.

We have to look at a host of areas where we have to address the growing concerns of policemen and policewomen in the community at large. We have a significant increase in violent crime in this province but very little concern being expressed by this government and very few options, if any, being brought forward, ways in which we can address that. Mr Speaker, in your former responsibilities, you were intimately aware of and familiar with some of these concerns.

When we talk about anything like this we frequently have tossed back at us, "The Conservatives want to cut spending but here they're talking about increasing spending." There is no question that we do want to cut spending in significant areas of government, but we think there are other areas, such as policing, that do deserve additional funding. What we are talking about is a reallocation of spending priorities within government. We are not talking about new money.

I can go on about a number of things but I want to point out money that is available within government today and could be reallocated to a need that is very obvious and is being neglected significantly by this government. I am talking about policing.

As members are aware, I chair the standing committee on government agencies. We have a draft report before us dealing with the TVOntario network. That dealt extensively with the spending habits of the former chairman, Mr Ostry. We also took a look at the operations of TVO.

One of the areas we took a look at was the French network, La Chaîne, and the significant expenditures going towards La Chaîne. They are attempting to appeal to something like 185,000 Franco-Ontarians. That is their audience. According to the statistics provided by TVO, it attracts something like 2.5% of that audience; 2.5% of 185,000 potential viewers, a pretty infinitesimal figure. Yet La Chaîne, the French network, is taking up 35% of TVO's budget. We are talking about at least $25 million or $30 million.

Mr Ostry and his colleagues, when they appeared before us, talked about the creation of the French arm of TVO and why it occurred. He quite clearly indicated it was not a decision or a desire of the board of directors or the chairman of TVO. It was purely a political decision made by the Liberal cabinet. What we are doing is spending significant sums of taxpayers' money on a network which is really not fulfilling any meaningful need within the province.

The network brass at TVO will tell members that. Anyone who has taken a look at the network and has any appreciation or understanding of the network, and has the guts to stand up and say it, will say that it is not doing the job. We can provide those services through the one network, which we were doing in the past, and perhaps enhance it, and at the same time realize a significant saving to Ontario taxpayers which could be directed into other areas such as policing. If we could look at injecting that $25 million or $30 million into the budget of the OPP, that would have a significant impact on its operations.

I have been trying through the legislative research branch for well over a month now to get details of a manpower study -- this was probably commissioned, Mr Speaker, while you were the minister -- taking a look at the manpower situation within the OPP: where the jobs are, what kind of requirements we are going to need in the future, etc. Up to this point, Commissioner O'Grady has been extremely reluctant to make that report available to me as a member of the opposition, but we are continuing to pursue that.

What I suspect we are going to find is that in a lot of the areas where jobs have been created -- this does not apply only to the provincial force, it applies to municipal forces as well -- based on legislation that governments have brought in and initiatives undertaken by the senior level of government, they have increased the workload of policemen and women and have created jobs that are not front-line jobs, jobs where we do not have officers out investigating crime and trying to prevent crime, working with the community. These are desk jobs, paper-shuffling jobs, jobs that in many instances I believe, if carefully scrutinized, are not really needed. Those dollars could be better directed towards community safety.

Again, these are the kinds of issues that certainly my party, over the next period of time, is going to continue to pursue and continue to press the Solicitor General on.

Another area I want to talk about, which takes up a significant chunk of provincial dollars, is health care. As members know, this government negotiated a sweetheart deal with the Ontario Medical Association with respect to payment to doctors. I call it a sweetheart deal although certain members of the medical profession, specialists, have significant concerns about the ceiling put on earnings. General practitioners do not have those concerns. They see $400,000 as a goal to work for, but the impact it is having with respect to specialists is significant. Of course the consequence of that is that it is going to have a negative impact on health care consumers in this province who require the services of specialists.

Mr Speaker, I know some of my colleagues and perhaps some of your colleagues are now faced with a situation where specialists are reaching their cap on income, and what they are doing is closing down their operations or not investing new capital dollars for the latest high-tech equipment that is coming on to the market. The result of this is that health care consumers in this province are really the end losers.

We have this agreement, as I said, with the OMA. It has made the OMA the union for all doctors by instituting a Rand formula whereby even though something like 3,000 doctors in this province are not currently supporters of the OMA, they are going to be compelled by this government to pay dues to the OMA. In effect, it represents all doctors at the negotiating table with the government. All doctors, whether they respect, support or care about the OMA, are going to be compelled to pay an annual fee to the OMA.

It is passing strange when we see these doctors, the OMA, getting into bed with the Premier. All we have to do is go back to 1986. I think it was 1986 when we had Bill 94 brought in by the Liberal government, banning extra-billing. That was part of the accord. The member for York South and his negotiators insisted that extra-billing be banned as part of the accord, so Mr Peterson brought in the legislation. We had one of the largest demonstrations in the history of this Legislature on the lawn, doctors violently protesting against the legislation, Bill 94, which was going to ban extra-billing. That was not David Peterson's idea; it was the member for York South's idea. It was the NDP's imposed policy on the Liberal government of the day. Now who is cosying up to the Premier and his socialist chums? None other than the doctors, the Ontario Medical Association.

1520

There is a term I could use to describe the OMA, but I will not use it. It is not polite. I will just say it equates to ladies of the night, and I do not have a very high opinion of those individuals, obviously. Certainly we went to the wall in support of the doctors in 1986, and now we see them getting into bed with the architects of the legislation that banned extra-billing.

We are talking about a whole host of areas in this government. A lot of the members opposite are new to this Legislature. They have only been here a year, but I am sure they have witnessed the significant waste around this place and their constituency offices. There does not seem to be a real will on the part of legislators to deal with some of the waste.

I recall, I guess it was last year -- this is just a small example -- getting in my office a report from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. It came by courier, two thick books, and it was simply a listing of businesses in Ontario. I did not request those books, they were sent out to me, but the other thing is they were sent by courier. They sent two books, one in French and one in English.

We all want to be fair. Of course, any time you even touch on this kind of subject, there are going be those who will jump up in the House and say: "Your motivation is something other than correct. You're not really being concerned about taxpayers, you're being concerned about something else, which impacts on a minority in this province."

I think common sense has to play a role here, and it has a very little role with respect to the way we have dealt with French-language services. Let's just take a look at this, where we had this document translated and sent out to members. We did not need it, we did not want it, yet they sent out two separate ones, in both French and English.

I think there has to be some kind of rationalization. Certainly we can provide those services if requested and if required, but to simply publish them, shove them out and send them across the province by courier -- I suggest if we take a look at the cost of that kind of program, which for all intents and purposes is flushing money down the toilet, we would find it is rather significant.

We talk about increasing lines at food banks, we talk about cutting back on police services, we talk about cutting back in a whole host of areas, hospitals beds, what have you, but we do not want to look at these kinds of things. We do not want to look at them at all because it is not politically correct to do so. If you raise them, you are going to be accused of perhaps having ill will towards a minority in this province.

That is not the case. I think we can provide those services in a real way, in a fair way, but not just this carte blanche approach: "Duplicate everything. Send it out to everybody regardless of whether they want it or not. Regardless of whether they need it or not, we will provide it. That way we cannot be criticized by any vocal pressure group in the province."

I think the time is long past when we take that approach to government and to the use of taxpayers' dollars. We are talking about a $10-billion deficit. I know what I am talking about is probably a very modest sum, but we are talking about millions of dollars which I say could be better utilized, especially given the severe situation this province finds itself in economically.

There are other things I want to talk about. If I were in government again, I would certainly call for the cancellation of chauffeur-driven limousines. Again, this may seem like a modest amount of money when we are talking about a budget that is in excess of $50 billion, but it sends out the wrong kinds of signals to ordinary working men and women in this province. There is no need.

I was in cabinet, and when I reflect back on those days, Mr Speaker, you really did not need a chauffeur-driven limousine. We have a garage, where if you needed a car, all you had to do, as a member of the executive council, was call up the garage and have a car available to you for government business, for government use.

Right now, cabinet ministers have their own cars and they have their own drivers, and those drivers are probably making in excess of $30,000 a year, plus benefits. I do not know how many members of cabinet there are now -- close to 30. Take a look at the cost of operating that car and of keeping that employee in service, who on many occasions sits around waiting for a minister all day. In my view that is a very significant waste of taxpayers' dollars. It could be dealt with to send out the right kind of signal to the people of this province. It is not being done.

I know we are not going to get this current socialist government to change its views with respect to this, but certainly one significant area of waste is rent control. The bureaucracy was started under a Conservative government. When it was brought in, it was supposed to be on a short-term basis. Of course, once you bring in a program like that, it is not short term. It grows like Topsy, and it has become a very politically dicey issue to deal with.

If we take a look at the situation in Ontario, there are millions of dollars -- I believe it is in excess of $50 million a year -- now being spent to maintain the rent control bureaucracy. In my view, that is money ill spent. It could be spent in other areas which would be much more helpful to people in real need in Ontario. Many of the people who are now benefiting from rent control are earning in excess of $200,000 or $300,000 a year, living in rent-controlled apartments and benefiting from the taxes paid by people earning significantly less money. People living in Cambridge or in eastern Ontario, making $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a year, are subsidizing people in Toronto who are earning in excess of $200,000 or $300,000 a year. There is something terribly wrong about that kind of policy, but again, politicians are loath apparently to deal with that kind of situation.

I want to talk about the money now being spent on welfare, social assistance. We have the former minister in the House today. I do not think it is a secret that close to 10% of the Ontario population is now on welfare. That is a pretty scary statistic and certainly has something to do with the state of the Ontario economy. I think it may also have something to do with the changes that have been brought about in terms of growing social assistance benefits in this province and lack of incentives on the other side to get people back into the workforce.

Right now we have something like $5 billion going into social assistance, and we budget around $6 billion for education. Yet when you take a look at the welfare rolls, the analysis of people on social assistance, many of them are school dropouts. Many of them suffer from lack of formal education, lack of skills training, but we are increasing welfare payouts to these people, providing incentives to be idle and getting up close to the education budget. It seems to me that those priorities are way out of whack. We should be putting the money into skills development, doing what we can to ensure that these people have proper training and skills so that we do not have to provide social assistance to these individuals.

I know we have had some arguments about this, and the former minister was dealing with this, but we have economic studies which indicate that the gross income now for someone on welfare is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $35,000. That works out to something like $17.50 a hour to be on social assistance. Why would anyone want to work at a minimum-wage job?

Mr White: Because people want to work in this province.

Mr Runciman: Not like you, I guess. You do not know what work is all about.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): I regret the fact that members would interject as they walk past the member speaking and as they exit from this chamber. It certainly is not appropriate. I also regret the fact that members interject and I ask them to refrain. I ask the member who has the floor to address the Speaker. We have been doing extremely well and I think we can get back to that straight away.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your suggestions. I just want to say that the member for Durham Centre who walked off the floor making those comments does that frequently. You are the first individual sitting in that chair who has mentioned that. I think it is the first time. I have been in this House for 10 1/2 or 11 years and I do not recall any other member doing that. This member does it consistently. Not a week goes by without that member walking in here, either coming in from the lobby or leaving, and making those kinds of comments.

1530

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have already made judgement on that and I would appreciate it if we went back to the debate.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I just hope that message is delivered. He was outside the chamber when you made those comments.

Mr Mammoliti: I want to know where you got the figures.

Mr Runciman: I want to elaborate on where I got those figures. They came from a study done by the Fraser Institute.

Mr Wiseman: Oh, the Fraser Institute.

Mr Runciman: I do not have any trouble with the Fraser Institute. Obviously the members opposite do, but that is not a surprise.

In another example they use that I think is pretty scary, they make this suggestion:

"If welfare works out at around $20,000 net, then anyone netting $28,000, which well under half the population of Ontario does, is working a 40-hour week for only $160 a week or $4 an hour, out of which they must pay gas, meals, etc."

As well, the government has told municipalities to ease up on efforts to verify that welfare recipients are actually seeking work. Again, the end result of that is extremely obvious. When you work it out, if an individual is going to benefit to the tune of $4 an hour sitting at home versus being out working extremely hard, there is very little incentive for that individual to get out and find a job. That is the sort of thing we have to come to grips with and it is certainly not going to occur with a socialist government, because it has a mindset that is obviously different despite what is happening in the rest of the world, despite what has happened in Sweden.

The member for Renfrew North talked about the Swedish experience and someone across the floor said, "It took 60 years for the Swedes to throw out the socialist government." I want to tell members that economic times are significantly different now in the world, not just in Ontario, and I do not think it is going to take Ontarians 60 years. I think they are now quickly coming to the realization that socialist policies do not work and that we are paying the price for the decision made by the electorate in 1990.

I want to put a few matters on the record with respect to Sweden."The economy is bowed by a public sector that was used like a magic blotter to soak up unemployment." Here is a relevant matter with respect to welfare, which I just mentioned: "In Sweden, welfare absorbs more than half of the gross national product. There are chronic budget deficits and balance of payments problems, and devaluation can no longer be used to make the figures come right. Productivity has dropped, inflation is high and the competitive edge gone. Twenty-five per cent of workers in any factory are on sick leave."

That coined the phrase so commonly heard, "the Swedish sickness." It could be called the socialist sickness, which this government is trying to institute and is trying to inflict upon the people of this province. We are trying our best to stop it in its tracks. We are modest in number, only 20 Conservatives in this House, and we certainly cannot count on the Liberal Party, because many of the initiatives brought in by the Liberal Party in its five-year tenure in office were certainly in line with many of the beliefs of the socialists in this province and not in the best interests of the economy of Ontario.

Mrs Sullivan: Only the enlightened ones, Bob.

Mr Runciman: I do not call a 132% increase in taxes over a five-year period being enlightened, or 3,400 hospital beds being closed.

I want to talk about another issue that touches on my riding to a degree. That is the question of deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients. This is a policy that, again, is politically correct and has been in vogue for some years. I have always had some difficulty with it, living in the city of Brockville. We have a psychiatric facility there and have seen the experience. We see it in Toronto too. We see these people sleeping at bus stops. We see these people who have no accommodation being shoved out of provincial psychiatric facilities without the support services ready for them in the community, but even if those support services are ready, many of those people in my view perhaps should not be out in the community. It is not in their best interests, let alone the best interests of the community, but no one wants to take a look at that issue again.

I am talking about government expenditures here. When I was chairman of the standing committee on public accounts a number of years ago I spoke to the Provincial Auditor about doing some kind of cost-benefit analysis of deinstitutionalization. He said, "It is government policy and if the government wants to invite me to do it, fine." It was not something public accounts was prepared to take a look at. Again, it is one of those politically correct things that nobody wants to really take an in-depth look at.

I think we should go back to square one and start all over. I do not think we ever really did look at the impact of deinstitutionalization, what its long-term impact was going to be and whether it was in the best interests of the psychiatric patients and the community at large. I think it is long overdue that we do that.

I want to talk about a specific one in my community where they are building either a seven-bed or 11-bed facility -- it is an odd number -- to accommodate patients being moved out of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. They bought a residence in a residential neighbourhood for more than market price. They paid at least $25,000 to $50,000 more than the place was worth, but that is typical. They have sunk well over $300,000 or $400,000 into this home putting in an elevator and doing all sorts of things.

When this house is complete and occupied, I want to determine what the actual cost was of providing those seven or 11 beds in the community. I think it is going to be atrocious. There is that kind of money being spent. I have seen it; we see it, and obviously it is happening in my community.

It is happening in communities across this province where we say within government: "We have to tighten our belts. We have to take a look at expenditures in the psychiatric hospitals, for example, and tighten our belts." But then when you look at these community expenditures, which again are tax dollars, there seem to be little or no constraints placed upon these people. We have seen all these agencies and whatever you want to call them spring up over the past seven or eight years. Tax dollars seem to be unlimited to provide them with the funds to see their little empires grow. These are pretty basic things that government can deal with.

I know one thing that was done when the federal Conservatives came into office in 1984, and regrettably they have not followed up on it, but I thought the idea was great.

Mr Hope: They have followed up on a lot of other suggestions.

Mr Runciman: I agree. They established a commission headed up by Eric Kierans called the Kierans commission which took a look at every ministry, at virtually every operation and every expenditure of the federal government. It was a massive report on ways they could streamline government, make it more efficient and more effective and cut down on the cost and duplication of government operations. That report, for all intents and purposes, has been ignored. The people who participated, who volunteered their time --

Mr Wiseman: The Nielsen report.

Mr Runciman: That is right. It was the Nielsen report.

People who volunteered their time for months, believing the federal Conservative was sincere, have been extremely disappointed, people like the late Sid Handleman, who was the Conservative Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I know he was very bitter after the time he put in and the recommendations his group made. I think this could be a useful sort of thing to occur at the provincial level, using volunteers from every sector of the province to take a look at every agency, board and commission, at every ministry, at every avenue of expenditure within this province to determine whether it is serving a useful purpose, whether it is needed, whether it can be sunsetted and whether it needs to be changed, at a whole host of areas that can make government more effective, more accountable and more responsive. I would certainly encourage this government to do that, but I am not optimistic.

I think some of the decisions this government has made are interesting. My friend the member for Welland-Thorold, the former minister -- I will not put these on the record -- got up in the House the other day and indicated that describing some cabinet members as pinheads and nitwits was not something he had done, or at least he implied he had not said that, although I gather that the member for St Catharines also interjected something in the House at the time, that he had a tape of the show and indeed those things had been said.

1540

There are people in this government who do not fit that description and hopefully they are going to have the intestinal fortitude over the next couple of years to deal with some of these matters I have raised in a commonsense way that is going to be in the best interests of all taxpayers in this province.

I think I have touched on all the subject areas I wanted to deal with today. I believe there are considerable tax dollars to be saved in this province if we take a commonsense approach to the expenditure of money and if we also take a look at the sorts of things that have been described as being off limits because they are politically correct and people are somewhat concerned about being attacked by some very vocal and active minority groups in society and their motives challenged or questioned.

I want to say that I have reached the point in my career where I am prepared to start talking about some of those things. If we are going to feel heat about it, we will feel heat about it, but I know what my motivation is. I know that when I talk, for example, about the French arm of TVOntario wasting $20 million to $30 million of taxpayers' dollars, I am not doing it because of any feelings about a particular group within Ontario society. I am doing it because I believe it is wasted money and that we can meet the needs of that group in another way, in another fashion that is going to be in the best interests of Ontario at large.

Obviously we are not going to impede interim supply indefinitely. We simply wanted to get a number of our concerns on the record, and I thank members for their generosity.

Mr Sola: It seems the member for Leeds-Grenville is focusing too much on the former Liberal government, because he has to go back six years in time to make his criticisms of a former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and a former Minister of Health.

On the other hand, the NDP government seems to be focusing back even further, judging from the remarks of the Minister of Citizenship today in question period.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Your comments should be directed to the speech of this member; not to comments by members of the government, but to the speech by the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Sola: Well, I am. That is right. I am trying to make a statement here, comparing where the two parties stand, because the member for Leeds-Grenville has attacked the former Liberal government as well as focusing on today's government.

The minister went back 450 years in time in order to try to revise history. The member for Leeds-Grenville and his party seem to be trying to live in the past. It seems to me the only party that focuses on the present is the Liberal Party, and it shows that this government is overseeing a slide into a recession without doing very much about it. They criticize the former Liberal government, they criticize the federal government, they criticize the business community, but they do nothing to turn things around.

The member for Leeds-Grenville again agrees with them when they attack the Liberal government, but he disagrees when they attack the federal government, trying to protect its point of view. It seems the Liberals are the only ones showing that there is something wrong today and that it has to be straightened out before the economy can be turned around.

Mr Ruprecht: I listened to the member for Leeds-Grenville. While my colleague the member for Mississauga East is correct that the focus probably should be changed, nevertheless I thought the member for Leeds-Grenville made an important contribution to this House in as much as he has focused on one issue that is of importance to many of us: the whole issue of ex-psychiatric patients and how we deal with them.

I have just one point which, when the member made his remarks, I hoped got through to the government, namely, that we simply cannot put all deinstitutionalized persons in certain segments of Ontario. That simply would not be fair. They should have the right to live in the communities they come from, where the support services are, where their families live and where their friends are. If any municipality should stand in the way, saying through some legislative means, "No, we don't want them; we don't care to look after these people because they reduce our property rights," then I think the government should listen to this member and to our side. We believe that if anyone stands in the way of that, there should be as-of-right zoning and legislation placed and put in such a way that there is no doubt that people who come from an institution or who are called ex-psychiatric patients should have the right to go into political districts or urban and rural areas, wherever they may have come from.

Mr McLean: I want to comment just briefly on the remarks made by my colleague. Some of the issues he touched on were very clear. Some of the issues he touched on go back many years. When I look at what has happened with regard to the birth certificates and the problems we are having of getting them which the government member raised today, it is important that people realize what avenues they have in order to get birth certificates.

People used to come to our constituency offices and we looked after it within the same week. I would bring them down Monday and take them home Thursday. That is not happening in government any more, and it should be. There should be an area where that can still happen that quickly.

When we look at the taxes in this province, the budgetary policies of the government and the different revenues -- the fees for licensing of vehicles -- and at the gasoline tax, I remember the Treasurer -- and my colleague has spoken to it -- when he was in opposition, saying gasoline should be the same across this province. This very same Treasurer is the one who has added three cents a litre within a year to the price of fuel. I do not know what you call that, Mr Speaker, but I have some words for it that cannot be used in this Legislature and I will not use them. But for him to stand on this side of the House and say it should be the same across the province, and then as Treasurer to bring in those tax increases for the people in the north, is not proper.

I have also spoken with regard to my colleague on the costs we have on hospital beds. I have said for a long time we should have more nursing homes, more homes for the aged, and get them out of the hospitals. That would be a lot more reasonable. I compliment my colleague on his remarks today.

1550

Mr Runciman: The Liberal member for Mississauga East suggested I am living in the past when I am critical of the former Liberal government as well as of the current NDP government, but I think it is important to reinforce the message with the public at large. A lot of the issues being raised by members of the Liberal opposition are matters they had completely opposite positions on when they were on the other side of the floor. They instituted a payroll tax. They complain about birth certificates; they moved the office to Thunder Bay. They talk about hospital bed closures; they closed 3,400 beds. I could go on and on. We are not living in the past, but we do not want the public of this province to forget the past either. We do not want the public to forget what the Liberal Party did to Ontario.

I want to thank the member for Parkdale for reinforcing my comments with respect to the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients. I just want to say that in Brockville we have a director of rehabilitation who is a provincial civil servant, the only psychiatrist who is a provincial civil servant in that hospital, put in there to shove through deinstitutionalization. I have been advised that this gentleman is going to retire in two years and that he wants to go through that rehab area of the hospital and have it all closed down before he retires. He does not give a damn. He thinks psychiatric facilities are outdated, outmoded and that these people belong out in the community.

I think many of them may well belong out in the community, but we had better be damned sure we have the support services in place and the people to do the job to make sure we are not jeopardizing their safety and the safety of many people in communities right across this province. We do not seem to have that attitude or approach within the the mental health division in the Ministry of Health. I think it has gotten away from this minister. She has significant responsibilities and I believe she is a very sincere and dedicated person, but she is dealing with a bureaucracy that has been in control for many years and can buffalo, and has buffaloed, many a Minister of Health.

Mrs Sullivan: I am pleased to participate in this debate relating to interim supply. I have been watching the House over the past couple of weeks, and watching with interest the change in tone and attitude among the backbenchers of the New Democratic Party, who are clearly feeling some unease and some disappointment in the way their government is moving ahead on policies that were promises and on which they campaigned. I know, because I went through this in 1985, the enormous exhilaration and exuberance one feels when, after years of being in the wilderness, one is finally moved into government by electoral vote.

When I was first elected to the House, I had the advantage of having been around this place in capacities other than as a member for some time. I must say that during the course of that time I came to know many of the people who were key players in the New Democratic Party, front and back rooms. One of them was Robin Sears, of course, who was fondly known around this place as "Vlad the Impaler." Another one was Gerry Caplan, who is clearly still an influence and an influential adviser to the New Democratic Party.

I recall as well from the Conservative Party representatives in meetings we held, usually relating to election activity or election finances laws, Hugh Segal, who is now taking his place in the Prime Minister's office and assisting in creating a policy there, not a small place and not a small job to clean up.

I can recall the day in 1985 when with astute joint management, I think, from several sides of the House, including the government side and our side, a new government was formed. It was not a coalition government, but a new government that was formed. It was a wonderful day on the steps of the Legislature. I can tell members that people like my colleague the member for Renfrew North; the member for St Catharines; the member for Quinte; Bob Nixon, the former leader of our party; the member for Bruce, and the current leader of our party spent years and years having meetings in telephone booths and in offices with five and six people because that was all the interest we could drum up.

It was a wonderful day. That is not the case today. But for our party and for people in it who worked very hard and provided diligent opposition over that period time, that day in May was a very special day. It was a sunny day. The front of the Legislature was crowded with people and they all came in.

Mr Ruprecht: Thousands of people.

Mrs Sullivan: Thousands of people. Most came to celebrate. Some simply came to view but, by George, the place was full for Liberals who had worked very hard in opposition. I suggest that the Tories today are working hard in opposition. Certainly we in opposition are now working hard again to go back into government.

As I recall that day, I think of the exhilaration that must have been felt by members of the party, whether they were backbenchers or in government, the day of their swearing-in; the exuberance, the hope and the expectations they carried with them. As I look at the record of the government, whether it is a fiscal record, the economic record or the social record, there must be deep pain felt by people who felt so happy and exhilarated on that day.

Sometimes, Mr Speaker -- you will know this, having been here for more than one term -- when we are in this place, it is hard to keep our perspective on what is happening in the world around us. When we look around and see the carvings and the wonderful, ornate red of the floor and the grandeur of the chamber, everything seems so intense and the issues seem so intense here that we forget there is another world outside.

Every once in a while I think of the Vermont Legislature, for example, a beautiful chamber full of historical allusions and background from that community, much as this place is. When you visit that Legislature in Montpelier, Vermont, you see a place that has two chambers rather than one, but it is a wonderful place for people there. Frankly, do we know what is happening in that chamber from time to time? Rarely. Do people in Vermont know what is happening in this chamber? I will tell members: no. There is a world outside this place, and too frequently we get caught up in what is happening here.

In speaking on interim supply, one of the things that is very clear is that this is a debate about paying a portion of the bills that are put forward in the budgetary policy of this government. The bills that are put forward in the budgetary policy, the spending and the revenue record, are included in this document. That is partly what we are talking about today, paying part of the bills that this document covers.

That makes it difficult, because I do not support this document, but the debate on interim supply relates to interim payments, sometimes for civil service and sometimes for social transfers that are part of the fiscal, economic and social policy of this government.

I think as well that this debate very sincerely relates to the approach of this government to governance itself, the way this government respects the role of the Legislature itself and the way it respects the role of the members of the Legislature.

There is no member of the Legislature, whether in opposition or a backbencher on the government side of the House, who takes his or her role lightly. I have very strong objections, as I have expressed in the House, to situations where the police are called in when members have access to information, no matter what the source. I object when there is perhaps misunderstanding, but certainly in the member's mind there was no misunderstanding when he was removed from a cabinet position to the government back bench because of a decision he made to vote on a specific tax bill against government policy.

Those are highly objectionable approaches to governance and to respect for this place. This is where laws are to be made. This is where debate is to be carried out. This is the place where ideas are to be put forward, and the full exploration of those ideas.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. This is a wide-ranging debate. If you can just bring it into interim supply occasionally, I will appreciate that.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, I object to your intervention in my remarks. I am speaking to the fiscal and economic policy and the attitude of this government --

Interjections.

1600

The Acting Speaker: Order. The direction of the Chair was simply a request that the member make some occasional reference to the motion of interim supply before us and relate her remarks to that motion.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, that is precisely what I am doing. I have been speaking about not only the fiscal and economic policies of this government -- I will address those further -- but the way those policies are formulated and the governance, and the respect for the governance and the place of this chamber in the course of that. That is very much a part of the debate on interim supply.

One of the things that is very much a part of that issue is the way the policies are formulated. What that means is when and how an ideology -- I am not saying ideology in a pejorative way. I am saying there is an ideology of this government and of that political party. There is an ideology here; there is an ideology there. What I am talking about is the way that ideology is translated into action, and frankly it is a bad performance. That bloody well is a part of the debate on interim supply, because what it talks about is who is listened to, who has a role, when advice is sought, if advice is sought, and where it is sought.

I will tell you, Mr Speaker, that this government uses the word "partnership" all over the place. In every single debate, every minister leaps up and uses the word "partnership." I will tell you that institutions, individuals, corporations and advocacy groups tell horror stories of the faults in legislation, in regulations, in announcements and in directions that are a direct result of not consulting, of not forming those partnerships, of not bringing people into the action of government. There is no minister and no ministry that is exempt.

I want to recall that today in question period there were questions from my colleague the member for Oakville South to the Solicitor General relating to the Sunday shopping legislation. The principals who are involved in several of the cut-rate drugstores were present in this chamber. I spoke with them afterwards. They have indicated that while they have asked for consultation directly with the Solicitor General in relation to their particular issue, and have sought intervention and meetings with the Premier in relationship to difficulties this legislation causes for their particular operations -- 3,000 jobs are at stake -- they have been refused an interview either with staff or with the ministers. That is absolutely typical of what has occurred with this government.

Mr Wiseman: How did it get in there in the first place? You put it in there.

Mrs Sullivan: What was that? Mr Speaker, you intervened in my remarks. Would you intervene in their remarks?

The Acting Speaker: I do not think I have to remind this House that I do require that you listen to the member who has the floor. I have asked for that on numerous occasions today. I would appreciate if that could be the case. Of course, if when members are presenting their case, they put it forward in an inflammatory manner, it is more likely there will be interjections. However, I would ask for the co-operation of all the House.

Mr Wiseman: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to point out that when a number of us came into this House, in the first instance, we were quite prepared to allow the debate to take the form that is binding in the standing orders.

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of privilege. I am sorry.

Mr Wiseman: However, we learned that --

The Acting Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please. The member for Halton Centre has the floor.

Mr Wiseman: If they don't want interjections, they shouldn't make them themselves.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, with your permission and the permission of the member for Durham West, I would like to continue with my remarks, because I am very concerned about what is happening in terms of the atmosphere in this province. The activities of the government have created uncertainty in many areas, and that leads to mistrust.

I want to give some examples. As you know, Mr Speaker, my role has changed recently from critic for the Ministry of the Environment to critic for the Ministry of Health, but I want to talk about some of the environmental issues. They are important issues and they matter to all of us. They matter to us in this generation and they will certainly matter in generations to come.

Whether the issue is waste management, pollution control, the reduction of accumulation of toxins in our waterways, air pollution requirements and so on, frankly, what we have seen from this government, which has a strong record in the community as being an environmental advocate, is vague rhetoric.

The first piece of legislation that came into the House from the Minister of the Environment was Bill 143. This bill will cost money, Mr Speaker, you will note. It is very much a part of the interim supply bill.

In the course of this bill, there are two issues that are of very great concern. This bill is to provide information and detail on a mandate for the Interim Waste Authority that the minister announced outside the House some time ago. The first thing this bill will do is exempt environmental assessments under the Environmental Assessment Act for interim sites. This bill sets up a new EA process that was never discussed in any way -- no consultation with the communities affected. This is part of the bill:

"Environmental assessments for the sites will not be required to contain discussion of any alternatives to the landfill waste disposal sites.... Policies may be established for purposes of this part by the minister."

That is a fundamental part of the environmental assessment process. This bill does what the Minister of the Environment said would never happen. She demanded on her own that it be a fundamental part of choosing those sites that are most environmentally appropriate, not only for today but for tomorrow. By eliminating the examination of alternatives, we could end up with landfill sites on our headwaters, on class 1 agricultural land, in all sorts of other areas that are totally environmentally inappropriate. I say to people who are part of the back bench, part of the government caucus, that this is a grave disservice --

Mr Hope: Tell us what you did. Tell us what you did.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Chatham-Kent. Not just interjection, but constant interjection is totally unacceptable.

Mrs Sullivan: There was another issue I was very concerned about in the course of the announcement of this bill. The minister did not make a minister's statement in the House the day the bill was brought to the House; she gave a brief description of the bill on first reading of the bill. I believe on a matter that is as important as this, that has occupied the time of this government for close to a year and a half, there ought to have been a statement. But I want to just read from Hansard the response of the minister to a question from the member for Markham in question period yesterday. The minister indicated in her response, "The Interim Waste Authority, which is seeking the long-term sites -- I am not and neither is my ministry; that is the agency doing the long-term planning -- is, through the legislation, not required to consider those non-environmental alternatives."

She has said, "I am not and neither is my ministry." I would like to say that I think the minister should come back to the House and explain that further, because the Interim Waste Authority was set up as a private corporation under the Business Corporations Act, and the sole shareholder of that private corporation is the Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

1610

The minister says, "I am not and neither is my ministry." She is the sole shareholder of the corporation that is doing this work. She is the sole shareholder of the corporation that is changing the environmental assessment process, that is eliminating a fundamental, environmentally necessary part of that environmental process from the search for landfill sites in the greater Toronto area. I want to suggest that the members of her caucus should question her substantially at their next caucus meeting about this.

What has happened -- this has been very clear from the cabinet document I brought to the House last June -- is that there is a fundamental change of process, extralegal now being made legal, but that is a travesty.

I want to suggest that those kinds of decisions, these kinds of dumps-by-decree, almost, lead to enormous mistrust in the environmental community and in the community at large. That is something I am concerned about at a time when there is absolutely enormous cynicism among the population. The job of the opposition is to oppose, and frankly when we see something that is valid to oppose, it is important that we oppose it. I believe this particular action is substantially wrong.

There are other areas that provide enormous mistrust and add to the cynicism. I want to move for a minute or two to the health field, where we understand people are affected from birth to death, where the health budget consumes more than one third of the provincial budget, where decisions that are made affect not only the short-term operation of facilities or of systems but the long term as well.

If we look, for example, at our hospitals across the province, we will see that 50% of them have deficits. There are something like 224 hospitals in the province and 50% of them are operating in a deficit situation. In some cases, those deficits are 10%; in other cases, the deficits run up to 25%. Those hospitals have a mandate under the Public Hospitals Act to provide service to the community.

The minister has said those deficits must be eliminated, and it is appropriate that there are well-managed health services provided through the hospital system. But it is puzzling to me and it is puzzling certainly to the hospitals which have to eliminate those deficits, which have to fall into line with a directive of the minister, that indeed the minister has given no indication of any formula or guideline, no standard for bed closings, no standard for other options that are available to the hospitals. Does the minister want to see, for example, a standard of 3.5 beds per 1,000 in a community? What about 1.8 beds per 1,000? Who knows? Does the minister have a standard?

If bed closings become so substantial that a community is underserviced, the hospitals are in contravention of the Public Hospitals Act. Where is the standard? The minister has not provided that. Surely when the minister, quite rightly, is insisting on a well-managed hospital system where the dollars really count, she should be coming forward with a universal formula that will apply to all community hospitals, and with specific factors that are taken into account for teaching and tertiary care hospitals. Surely that is an appropriate thing to expect from a minister who has expectations of her own from those in the community.

I note that yesterday the Minister of Health -- whom I frankly admire a great deal; I think she is a very talented person who has contributed already to the work of this Legislature and will continue to do so -- referred to 600 beds which the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto has indicated may at any one particular time be sitting empty in Metro. I think one of the things that was glossed over in the minister's response was that we have to understand that a body in the bed at that particular moment in time when a count is done does not mean that the bed is not fundamentally needed to provide health care services in a community.

Without the standards, without the direction from the Minister of Health, I will suggest to her there will be communities that will be underserviced and that is something the Minister of Health cannot allow, because I know she is committed to the continuation of medicare, which itself implies an equitable and fair access to health care services throughout the province.

I want to move back to the question of consultation. We know the government has entered into an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association. Frankly, I regret some of the past difficulties in the relationships of our government with the doctors of the province. Some positions were impossible to bring together, but in others there could have perhaps been more accommodation reached. That is a perspective I have after the fact.

That agreement that the Ministry of Health and the government of Ontario reached with the doctors included with it a joint management committee. Other institutions, other agencies, other committees that are involved in the delivery of health services are very concerned about the role and the nature of that joint management committee. One of the things I would like to bring to the House's attention is that because Dennis Timbrell himself, a former Minister of Health and now president of the Ontario Hospital Association, complained that perhaps hospitals were going to be left out of the process, the minister and her deputy agreed that there would be a committee set up.

However, the OHA had a surprise waiting for it. I read from their latest weekly summary:

"OHA welcomes the opportunity to participate in the review, which it considers of utmost importance to the future of hospital funding" -- so far so good -- "but OHA is concerned that the presence of four union members on the review panel creates an imbalance and has therefore asked for two more places."

What is clear from that is that the OHA was not told what the nature of the committee was going to be or who would be included. I would have thought that had that consultation taken place at the time, there would not have had to be a negative follow-up reaction; there would have been a far more efficient start to what could be a useful committee.

I want to go back to the doctors' settlement for a minute, because it leads me to the position of commenting on the kind of clumsiness and sloppiness with which this government has approached much of its legislative process. The doctors' settlement, we recall, came to fruition when the member for Ottawa Centre was Minister of Health. The regulations for that settlement were only filed yesterday. They have not been gazetted and the regulations are of course retrospective regulations. It seems to me that if this government had been on top of things, those regulations would have been done at the appropriate time when the announcement was made and the agreements were signed.

1620

In other areas there is sloppiness and clumsiness in approach. We have seen announcements from the Minister of Health about long-term care beds in Haliburton. I do not want to disparage the need for long-term beds in Haliburton, but one of the things that is puzzling to every other district in Ontario is, what is this government's definition of long-term beds? Nobody knows, and the calls that are coming into my office from health care institutions and from district health councils are all asking the same question. The minister having made an announcement, on what basis was that funding granted? That is sloppiness. It is clumsiness.

A similar example comes up in a question I raised in the House a couple of days ago relating to the removal of certain drugs from the formulary. In the context of question period those issues perhaps cannot be explained in quite as much depth as they can through this kind of debate, but basically what has happened is that there have been four tiers of access to drugs created: first, there is a formulary; second, there is a non-formulary access; third, there is section 8, special permission; fourth, there is a new tier, for AIDS patients and AIDS doctors, where a list of those doctors' names must be filed with the pharmacy, posted, and when a doctor prescribes for a patient those drugs that can only be prescribed for AIDS patients, those drugs are now included on the formulary.

This government has spoken at some length about the need for anonymous testing for AIDS patients. This is part of the policy of the government, part of the statements of the government. Yet what we find here is a policy that has been so clumsily drafted and implemented that the privacy has been stripped away, both from the patient and from the doctor. It seemed to come as a surprise to the minister. One wonders where the advice came from.

There is one issue as well that I find of great concern, and I hope other members -- I know the member for St Andrew-St Patrick has been very interested in legislation relating to the advocacy bill, the consent bill, the Substitute Decisions Act. Although when she was minister those bills did not particularly emanate from her ministry, I know she has an interest in those.

But one of the things that is of great concern -- and I am asking the government to hear this argument, as it is put forward from people with whom I am speaking as Health critic -- is that those three pieces of legislation will be considered together in the standing committee on administration of justice. Unfortunately, they are extremely badly drafted, and they were drafted in several cases, particularly the consent legislation, in the absence of adequate consultation. As a consequence, there are overlapping provisions in those acts and there are contradictory provisions in those acts. The Minister of Health herself has indicated that the consent bill, or at least the outcome of the consent bill, does not appropriately represent the public policy intentions of the government.

Frankly, given those circumstances, it would seem to me appropriate, and I hope the government will do this -- they know I have already asked that the consent bill be withdrawn and put out for appropriate consultation. I believe this is important legislation. I believe the Advocacy Act is important legislation. The people we represent need some of the provisions that are included in these bills.

However, the overlapping or contradictory nature of this legislation is a matter of grave concern to people who are advocates themselves, to people who need advocacy services, to physicians and health care practitioners who are delivering health care services. I believe that those bills either should be withdrawn in total or the three ministers involved should make a decision that they will be used as consultative documents, a draft bill, if you like, so that appropriate legislative measures can be put before this House.

There is no one, I believe, in any party who does not want to see appropriate consent legislation, advocacy legislation and legislation relating to substitute decisions. Certainly the member for Carleton from the third party has a particular interest in the substitute decisions bill, and we have had many private members' debates on that matter.

The three pieces of legislation are too bad to fix by amendment and I believe that they are too important to be left in their current form. I would suggest, as I already have, that the legislation be taken back and a new start made. Whether these are used as draft bills for consultation or whether they are withdrawn completely and an appropriate consultation formula put into place, I really believe strongly that something better needs to be done.

I have spoken about some of the uncertainties that are being created in this kind of economic climate. Some of those have been created by the government, by certain early statements that were made in relation to who would have access and who would not, in the stories that come back about who in fact can have meetings and who cannot, who is being heard and who is not. But the uncertainty in the business and economic community is most worrying of all. We know there has been enormous job loss, not all of it the fault of this government, but one of the things that concerns me is the enormous lack of confidence in the growth and in the turnaround in the economy that the actions of this government have added to.

One of the things that is going to be vital for a turnaround in the Ontario economy is increased capital investment. Capital knows no borders these days; it is fluid. Business investment opportunities right now are not optimistic, and members can look at those figures in any economic document and any economic forecast. Some members might be interested in reading some of the material written by Robert Reich, who speaks specifically to the lack of borders now in international economies and particularly in financial institutions and the flow of capital.

When this budget document hit the streets, the document spelled out a plan which horrified many people. I had reason to review the other day a public opinion poll conducted by Environics which says that fully 75% of the people in Ontario disapprove of the economic strategy of this government: a $9.7-billion deficit, three times more than any in the past history of the government, and a spending increase of 13.4%, which has removed the flexibility for further action.

One thing that is of graver concern is that if indeed this government was using a Keynesian approach -- which is not to be sneezed at; it has worked in the past, as long as the projections in the early stages are correct -- one of the things that has happened is that the flexibility to react in better times is being removed, because the government has built into its economic plan a $9-billion deficit for next year, an $8.5-billion deficit for the year after and an $8-billion deficit for the year after that.

Those kinds of decisions, along with an increasing tax requirement, are decisions that will drive capital out of the province and not into the province. We are seeing a drain in the wealth creation aspects that are open to people in Ontario.

The climate of uncertainty -- the clumsiness, the contradictions in policy that we have seen as this government implements its fiscal, financial and social policies -- leads to only one question: What on earth is going on? The convoluted clichés, the rhetoric of advocacy without taking principled action that leads to change, the clumsiness in approach -- we saw another example today in relation to the land titles offices -- make one wonder, is the bureaucracy being heard at all? Are they being cut out? Who is being heard as the policies are defined?

1630

Mr Wiseman: I have only two minutes, so it is going to be difficult to correct the record of the honourable member who has just finished, but I would like to raise a couple of points.

In the first instance, she talks about the heavy-handedness of this government. I would like to point out the heavy-handedness and the backroom dealings of her government when it decided it was going to put a landfill site in P1 without going for a full Environmental Assessment Act process, and were going to do it with the Environmental Protection Act. If she talks about something that contravenes the process and is completely unfair, she should start by explaining why this took place, and then why they flip-flopped in this House with their first non-confidence motion and said that it should have a full environmental assessment after they had completely reneged on that.

The second thing I would like to correct concerns the Interim Waste Authority. The Interim Waste Authority is at arm's length from this government and it should be because of the kinds of machinations that went on behind the closed doors of the former Premier and the members from the region of Durham when they conspired to put that dump in north Pickering.

The Interim Waste Authority has six parts to it. Perhaps the member should read it. They set out the criteria upon which the long-term landfill sites are going to be determined. This process is completely separate from what is happening at Keele Valley and Britannia in terms of the extra lifts. The six parts clearly outline that class 1 and class 2 farm land will be exempt from landfill sites, that criteria will be developed on the state of hydrogeological formations, and that criteria will be evaluated as to the fairness of whether future landfill sites will be put in communities that already have landfill sites.

This is a good process. It is consultative, it is arm's length and it is going to make sure the next long-term landfill sites that are found in Durham and Durham-York are fair and devoid of the kinds of backroom dealings characterized by P1.

Mr Stockwell: The last thing we need is a lecture from the government on how to handle landfill sites and environmental concerns.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Please address the remarks of the honourable member for Halton Centre.

Mr Stockwell: I will. The comments just made with respect to the comments of the member for Halton Centre are totally out of order and inappropriate. It is unbelievable this member has the gall to stand up here and make such statements. The Minister of the Environment has unilaterally expanded Keele Valley and Britannia Road without so much as one minute --

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The comments I was making were in direct reference to the honourable member's comments.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order; I am sorry. That is a point of view.

Mr Wiseman: His comments are on my comments, which is out of order, and they are also not accurate.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West, please.

Mr Stockwell: What really gets frustrating is that you, Mr Speaker, allowed them to finish their comments, which I consider to be totally inappropriate. When I get up to make comments on the speech from the member for Halton Centre, and comments on the comments from the member for Durham West, they insist on breaking it up because they do not want to hear the truth.

The truth is that we have not had one minute of open consultation, We have not had one minute of public hearings. We have not had one minute of environmental hearings on two sites being opened and expanded when his Premier stood in this province not 14 months ago and promised never to expand a site without full environmental assessment hearings.

I do not want any more lectures from across the floor on being fair and up front with the public and the electorate. They have been so -- I know the word I want to use, and I am certain I cannot, but they has been less than up front with the public. The people of Peel are very upset, the people of York are very upset and I do not need any more lectures. They have has more broken promises than shoes in their closet.

Mr Hope: Earlier I was ruled as being part of heckling while I was talking to my colleague the member for Essex-Kent. I just wanted to make that clear to the Speaker.

I think it is very important that as we talk about the Liberal government and its five years and some of the comments that are made about this government, I must reiterate some of the things that have happened over the past five years of the Liberal government when it diverted taxation to business. Members talk about business confidence; look at the employers' health tax and what it did to the small business community. They put this piece of legislation in, relieving the larger corporations that were corporate pals and put it on to the municipalities.

They talk about the consultation that the former government had. I stood in front of this park for five years trying to make sure workers had protection and were not being victimized by Liberal legislation. That is the consultation they are saying the Liberal government had. At least we are giving labour, business, municipal and federal governments the ability to consult with us and talk with us.

Yes, we are going to have philosophical differences. That is part of being in government, when sometimes one has to make decisions based on that. But when they make allegations that this government is not listening -- yes, there are some people who do not always get inside. That is part of reality. Eventually, through the time frame in the government's mandate, we will be able to consult with a wide variety of people.

I think it is very important that when they start alluding to pieces of legislation and other things we are doing, they should have done things many years ago on a lot of these issues. They talk about protection of jobs. Where were they for the last five years on research and development when, according to their Premier, they knew the Mulroney trade agreement was going to damage this province, yet never put any money into research and development, into the education system for the skills and development of the people of our future. For them to stand there and make accusations against this government is uncalled for and unrighteous.

Mr Cousens: I just do not know where the members opposite are coming from when they start talking about judgement of government, ability of government to do the right thing. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind and the minds of the majority of the people in this province that this government -- the Minister of the Environment, the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area -- has broken every promise that was made when it was in opposition.

When this government was in opposition, it said there would be a full environmental assessment and that this environmental assessment would mean there would be nothing done on Britannia or Keele Valley without that being done. The honourable member who has just spoken is trying to bring out the fact that they have failed the people of Ontario, that they are continuing to do it and that there is such a camouflage over this thing it is worse than garbage itself because something is starting to smell. It is the promises broken and the direction being taken.

If there is any doubt on this side of the House, it is that this government was elected on a set of principles and promises and have in fact not fulfilled them. I do not mind them breaking some of them. I think they can go ahead and hold back on implementing the environmental bill of rights, because quite candidly if they had introduced the one the minister and the member that has just spoken had brought in, we would be in worse trouble than ever. There are some things they do not need to rush at. Changing and backing off from auto insurance is another one.

When it comes to garbage, these guys are specialists, especially in stacking it higher and higher and doing a poorer and poorer job of it. If this House is to just sit around idly and give them dumb applause, we are not going to do it. We are not going to do it at all and we are not going to let them stand up in this House and make fools of themselves without at least our challenging them to be honest with the facts. They have not been honest with the facts. They have not been honest with the people of Ontario, and for them to think they are doing the right thing is wrong, absolutely, categorically, unequivocally wrong. It is high time the New Democrats stopped embarrassing the intelligence of the people of Ontario.

I thank the member for Halton Centre for what she was trying to say.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The honourable member for Halton Centre has two minutes to reply.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

1640

Mrs Sullivan: In responding to the outbursts and comments from members opposite, I thought I would refer back to a quote from Pierre Laporte's book called The True Face of Duplessis. As we know, Duplessis used to tell all sorts of fabulous political stories and one did not know whether they were accurate or not.

One of the stories is that in Ottawa one day Duplessis chatted with Joey Smallwood, who was then Premier of Newfoundland and of course a Liberal. He was telling him, in the presence of a group of newspaper people, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had once made a statement that was to serve as the basis of all Liberal Party principles. Smallwood leapt to the lure and asked what Sir Wilfrid had said. Duplessis smiled, as he did on all these occasions, described at length the scene where Sir Wilfrid had made the statement, enumerated those who were present and reviewed the impression the statesman's remarks had left. Smallwood said, "Yes, but what did Laurier say?" Duplessis said, "He said the Liberal Party had one principle and that was to have none." Everyone burst out laughing and some wiseacres claimed that Mr Smallwood exclaimed, "That's fine, but why the devil did he go and say it in public?"

That is great fun from our history. What I am talking about is a government that has a principle for today and a different principle for tomorrow.

Mr Cousens: When it comes to interim supply, we are talking about the way money is being spent within our communities. I would like to take a few moments today to talk about what is happening within my own community, where there is some satisfaction but a great deal of dissatisfaction.

I cannot begin my remarks about the way the government is spending money without at least giving a compliment. I think the people who live in Markham, Unionville and Whitchurch-Stouffville have come to appreciate the way in which the previous government and this government have helped the Markham Stouffville Hospital come to reality. It is a fact that our community will never take for granted. The promise has been kept and we have within our community a hospital that somehow or other seems to be so far escaping the cuts the Minister of Health is making. I personally believe that with a fast-growing community such as ours we need to continue to have a very strong hospital. I sense there is some kind of good working together between our hospital board administration and the Ministry of Health.

I would also like to stop and say on behalf of my community that the stoplight the previous Minister of Transportation was able to approve in front of the senior citizens' home in Unionville is now in the process of being built by the Unionville Home Society. It is a rather large job. It is close to the railway tracks. It was a tricky job but none the less it was a situation where we brought a delegation of people from my community and presented the issue again. We did it to just about every Transportation minister we have had here for the last five years and finally, under the previous Transportation minister, approval was given. Again, I want to go on record and say thanks. You just cannot come along and ask and ask and not at least acknowledge when something happens the way you want it to, which I think happens to be the right way. That is only fair and right.

There are some issues, though, within our community that really need to be touched upon. I do not want to spend a great deal of time on them, but they need to be referenced in Hansard and in the House, certainly so the ministers can be aware of them.

The Children's Aid Society of York Region tried to make a point to the Minister of Community and Social Services not too long ago when it said: "We've got to increase our funding. We are the fifth-largest children's aid society in the province yet are receiving the 13th level of funding." That means the kind of budget being given by the province for children's aid society services does not begin to meet the need within our community and the number of children being served.

I have the statistics here. They point to a very serious story for the last several years. It is not just something new to the socialist government we now have. It is something they inherited from the previous Liberal government. There was a failure to address the concerns of a growing community. York region has received the lowest overall percentage increase, well below the annual average percentage increase in budget across the province for the years 1982-87. York region consistently ranked second or third lowest in dollar allocation per child population across the province for the years under review. They received only one third of the average percentage increase awarded to societies in the proximity of York. York region received the lowest dollar allocation per child population relative to societies adjacent to York -- Durham, Peel and Simcoe. The fact of the matter is that we have been shortchanged in York region for our children's aid society.

This government, through interim supply, is going out to spend its money again. All I am asking is that there be equity and fairness in what happens in York region and our neighbouring municipalities. If we have a need, it should be subsidized. It is important to the province to make sure there is equity in the funding mechanisms. I go on record now, as I have been on record before: There is no equity right now for the funding of the children's aid society in York region, and I challenge this government to review that funding again.

The board of directors has resigned. It has been replaced by another board of very interested and caring people from the community who want to maintain the services of the children's aid society. But if they are not going to get the money, we are not going to be able to provide the service and we will end up incurring another deficit, as we had a few years ago. I implore the Minister of Community and Social Services to look at the needs of our children's aid society in York region.

I also bring to the attention of this minister the needs of people in Participation House. Participation House is a very special place in northeast Metro, serving people in Durham and York who are handicapped and yet want to have freedom to live on their own. I was at a special breakfast this morning organized by Cliff Moss. The chief of police was there and the mayor of our town. The chairman of the board, Bob Sherwood, and members of the board were all on hand. These people were all put in by acclamation, so I do not have to give plugs to people. I think when you do things in your community, you will be acclaimed. I want to acclaim them here in this House.

We as a society have a continuing responsibility to help those people who are handicapped in different ways to get out and be part of the community. Two proposals submitted to the Ministry of Community and Social Services would have assisted the residents in Participation House to get out there and live in the Water Street residence at Cedar Crest or at Holy Trinity Square, which is also being built now in Markham. In both these cases, space was set aside so these people could be integrated into the rest of the community that was being built. The fact of the matter is that the 13 units that were set aside in the Cedar Crest Water Street property are still empty. It is not just Participation House. We also have the Villa on Bathurst Street. There are residents being moved out of the Villa who could go into these units.

The fact is that the government of Ontario, this government which is supposed to have the biggest heart of any government you have ever seen, has not found the money or the heart or the substance or the time to look at these concerns. I am satisfied that they have missed an opportunity. Maybe there is still time to do something about it, because both the Water Street residence and Holy Trinity Square have places for people. They can be integrated into another seniors' community, such as we have done with St Luke's in Thornhill, yet this government seems to have a closed mind to it.

I make these remarks now and I will copy them to the Minister of Community and Social Services in the hope that there is still another chance for this government to do something for these people within our communities.

I also want to point out another area where the Ministry of Community and Social Services is failing our communities. I could not believe it, but the other morning I learned that the Family Life Centre, a group of professionals subsidized by people who can afford to pay but also by the United Way and by the government, had to reduce its services last November and December, that is, in 1990, because it did not have enough funds in order to continue to provide them.

We have a fast-growing community in the southern part of York region which has to continue to provide services for families in crisis. Yet this government, in its lack of wisdom, has not made the funding available so those services can be continued. I have to say there is something the matter with its priorities. It is something that should be looked at to make sure those who need help are sure to get it.

I briefly want to mention the problems with the school board. There have been letters. I want to quote briefly from one of the letters from the chairman of the York Region Board of Education. It is part of the Growth Boards Coalition. They wanted a meeting with the Premier to discuss the problems they were having with lot levies, in order to implement what was Bill 20, to collect the money that will pay for new buildings, new schools, new lots. Here is the letter:

"Lot levies will help us to keep up with the growth and to have the new residents who move into our areas pay for the new schools. It is imperative that the Premier meet with us immediately to resolve this matter," said Mr Bowes back on February 7, 1990.

1650

I have to say it is only in the last week or so, some six or seven months after that letter, that they finally resolved the problem, not in the time frame that it should have been resolved, and there never was a meeting with the Premier. How many people are clamouring for an opportunity to meet with someone senior in this government to address and resolve problems, and no one seems to be available?

I challenge this government. It is responsible not only for the funds to administer programs but also to meet with the people who have concerns about them to see what it can do to help balance it off, meet their needs, adjust them, make the changes that are required, fine-tune them. I challenge the New Democrats to be more open with the people of our society who are asking for that opportunity.

Another example where there is a failure in communication has to do with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who failed to respond to letters from York region for months. It had to do with what the region felt it needed, and that was a guarantee or some change to the Regional Municipality of York Act that would allow the region to proceed with the 911 exchange. In correspondence with the minister, they sought that kind of legislative change that would permit the region of York to go ahead with the 911 exchange.

Because of the extraordinarily long delay by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, York region has delayed the implementation of its 911 exchange by something like six months, purely an administrative delay by this minister. As it turned out, the region did not have to have a change to the Regional Municipality of York Act, but in the meantime, the failure of the minister to deal with this issue, where a letter was sufficient rather than a change in the act, has in fact caused a delay to an important need to our community.

The member for Leeds-Grenville raised issues today with the Solicitor General on the 911 exchange. I raise it now on another level with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has failed again.

I point to this government. It has a chance to support another airport in the Metropolitan Toronto area. The town of Markham has tabled a proposal with this government asking for support to finance the acquisition of the Buttonville airport so that the Buttonville airport, which is a very viable airport -- I think it is the seventh largest in Canada -- can continue to serve the needs of our communities in York region and northeast Metro.

The fact of the matter is it would appear to me now that the Ministry of Transportation is not going to proceed with the approval of Buttonville airport. It is the kind of win-win situation where the ministry looks for outside financing first. If that is not there, it should come back and review again the viability of maintaining Buttonville airport.

I strongly believe in the need for that airport. The alternative is not nearly as good as Buttonville. They are looking at the possibility of expanding an airport up on Highway 48 and it is going to end up bringing an awful lot of traffic over the existing community of Markham. I just cannot accept that view as being sensible.

This government has a chance to continue to accelerate Highway 407. If there is anything we need, it is to make sure we build in and around the greater Toronto area an infrastructure that allows for traffic and people to keep moving. Highway 407 is proceeding but not at the pace it should. It needs to be given a far greater priority.

I cannot believe the people who are building these roads and highways. If we had people working a little bit more around the clock in the summertime, instead of seemingly only having to work on those projects for five or six hours during the day -- it is probably longer. As you drive by and see the coffee break or the milk break or the rest break or the sun break, you begin to wonder how much urgency is attached to the projects under construction on the roads which cause you to detour all around them.

If the government began to say, "Look, we want to get people moving around here; we don't want to hold them up," it would start having some of these jobs worked on over a 24-hour period so that we could get the traffic going again. Every dollar spent on transportation nets out to be $10 more that it generates within the community.

I am saying transportation is an urgent need within all our communities. Certainly it is within mine. We need to see an acceleration of the work done on Highway 407 and we also need to see something done about the grade separation for the rail transportation systems, with the north-south route intersecting with the east-west route. There will have to be a major grade separation on the rail tracks on either the Thornhill line or the Unionville-Stouffville line. We realize the high cost associated with that is something in the order of $70 million, to build a grade separation of the kind I am talking about, but what we need here is a rail service provided to the areas north of Toronto so that people have something of the kind of day-round service that is provided on the east-west circuit through Oakville and Oshawa. We deserve, we need and we are paying for the kind of services that would give us far more service during the daytime through Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Langstaff, Stouffville, Markham, Unionville and Milliken.

One could go on with a number of other areas where this government needs to understand the application of funds. I represent a community that is very fast-growing. We are an area that is different from those that are stable, that have been established for a long period of time. Somehow this government has to understand that we have different needs than those that have been established for a longer period.

I hope we will find ways in which this government can work out that kind of equity. I do not think it is easy. I wish there would be a chance in which we as a Legislature could sit around a table and work it out together. Instead, I do not see that at all. I see it as an increasingly adversarial system where the anger from those in opposition is being increased by virtue of the disregard the government shows to our issues. Personally I have not sensed the depth of anger that I feel in this House today and more recently. It has to do with the breakdown of communications, the breakdown of working relationships.

The ministries are showing an increasing disregard for the processes of this House. The Ministry of the Environment makes announcements outside the Legislature, not in here, and it continues to do it. I ended up having to wait for two days to receive information about what it was the minister had announced. I was able to get it in the Toronto newspapers, but I was not able to get it from the minister herself. That is the kind of breakdown that leads to increased frustration and the increased set of tensions that are making this place a more unpleasant place to work.

There are other issues. The money is going to be theirs. They are going to get it approved. I know that I am not about to disagree with the fact that the civil servants' salaries have to be paid. The government must go on, but it is important to put on the record that there are a number of things that are wrong in this province. The government has a chance to correct them. It should not radically overhaul it, but let's work together to try to make it a better place to live.

1700

Mr Hope: One thing I always do when the member for Markham speaks is listen to what he has to say, because he raises some good points at times. Then at other times he gets a little lost in political partisanship and that is unfortunate.

The member raised a number of concerns dealing with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the lack of funding, the direction, but these problems have not occurred just in a year. They have been problems of funding mechanisms that have been there for years. We understand the rapid growth he talks about around the Metropolitan Toronto area, but one of the hardest things we have to understand in the Conservative Party, and also in the Liberal Party at times, is that they are telling us to spend and then they are telling us not to spend. It is hard to get the direction.

I know the member for Markham really speaks sincerely about the community he represents, but in the tough economic times we are faced with today in Ontario, if he wants us to help those community groups and the community service programs that are out there, I think it is very important he makes sure he does not waffle on situations here. If he wants to spend, we can make arrangements to straighten out the funding mechanism to make sure that the service programs he has talked about, children's aid for instance, are addressed on those issues.

One of the unfortunate things that I must say to the member for Markham is that these are not problems that just occurred in one year; they are problems that have escalated over years. It has now become a financial barrier to those service programs. We will be addressing a lot of them, and I am very confident that this government through its communications that the member so eloquently said we are not doing -- we are communicating with those groups and are trying to make sure we can address the needs of the communities not only in Markham but in the communities throughout.

Mr Bradley: I am always interested in the speech of the member for Markham, because he has a wide variety of interests in issues confronting the House. One of them that he did not confront with a degree of specificity, as Joe Clark used to say, that I would have liked to see was the issue of being able to see him on TVOntario at night. We are very fortunate -- this is the fifth anniversary, I believe, of television in the House. I recall putting a resolution before the House with a lot of support from Elie Martel, at that time the member for Sudbury East, about televising the House.

Once one becomes a member of the government it is not always that good an idea, but I know that the member for Markham, and probably it slipped in his notes, would have wanted to say he wanted to see TVO, the television network of the province of Ontario, showing question period back at the old time of 11:30, when most people could stay up at night and watch what went on, because not everybody can watch this on cable, not everybody can afford it. The NDP has long said that it is a supporter of lower-income people, so I know that the people in the NDP will be asking TVO to put the question period on at 11:30 at night or even earlier at night.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I know that the French version is on earlier in the evening and I try to remember my high school French well enough to understand what questions are being asked and which are being answered appropriately. It does not seem to make much difference whether it is in French or English in any event.

Nevertheless, I hope that all of these people who say that they are protectors of the interests of lower-income people will make representations to that person who is so careful with the spending of government dollars, the chairman of TVO, to ensure that we have it back on at 11:30.

Mr McLean: I just want to comment briefly on the member for Markham's comments with regard to the budgetary policies of this government. He touched on some subjects which are very close to my heart. One of the main ones is where he talked about the school funding, where this government campaigned on increasing the costs of education back to 60% over five years. I believe that the government has reneged on that promise. It has not been coming forward.

He talked about the garbage situation in Ontario and when we look at the flip-flops that have been made it certainly leaves cause for concern. It has even been rumoured lately that the minister may be wanting to increase the GTA so that she can get rid of the garbage in outlying areas and still be classified as under the GTA. That is something to watch for, because it may happen, and it may be on some agricultural land where the Minister of Agriculture and Food may have some concern.

The member for Markham also talked about the Toronto-Buttonville International Airport. I think this government should be looking at being a partner in that facility, because it is in an area where it is needed. I think the remarks that he made with regard to the Buttonville airport were very important.

The member also remarked regarding transportation and the GO trains. When members look at what has taken place in this province in the last few years and when we look at the road systems we have in this province, we have to ask the question, who put those roads in this province over the past 40 years? We all know who did it -- it was the taxpayers -- but it was the leadership that was shown that made it happen. I say to the government, and I compliment the member, that greater emphasis must be put on the expansion of our major highways.

Hon Mr Buchanan: In the spirit of the member's comments, towards the end of his speech he talked about the spirit in this Legislature. I would like to make a few very brief comments. I would like to pay tribute to the way he conducted himself. He was able to say some positive things about what the government has done. He was able to criticize some of the things we have done in a fairly constructive way. This government, of course, is not above criticism. We sometimes may make mistakes, and the opposition is here to remind us of those things. We appreciate that when it is done in a constructive way.

I would also say that the member addressed the topic that is before us today from a different ministry's perspective and from the municipality and riding he represents. I think if all members in the House when they are speaking to a bill would try and address the concerns of their constituency, this would be a much more positive place in which to work. I would like to compliment him on the way he conducted himself. If all members did the same in this House, we would have a much more positive place in which to work.

Mr Cousens: First, I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food for his remarks. I sincerely believe we have to try to work together, and when we do that, we will somehow make this a better province. The spirit has to be there and we have to continue to try to find that spirit. I appreciate the minister's remarks, and that is certainly where I want to come from.

I also want to thank my friend and colleague the member for Simcoe East for his eloquent statements. I think there is a real sense of understanding when you can have someone from way up north of Metropolitan Toronto understanding the needs of those who are our suburban residents around the greater Toronto area. So I thank him for that support. I think that is part of the thing we also need in this House. We cannot just have people saying, "Hey, I want something for Toronto," without also recognizing that northern Ontario has great needs and agricultural Ontario has needs and we have to balance off those needs with one another.

That leads to the problems I have with my friend the member for Chatham-Kent. He fails to see the balance that has to take place. When I pointed out that we have immediate problems right now with the Water Street seniors' home, the Holy Trinity Square, the Family Life Centre, the children's aid society, those are all very strong current issues that are before this ministry and this government in the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I am saying get on the ball. There is still hope, and members cannot just keep saying, "Blame it on the Liberals." I think they are to blame for an awful lot of our problems, but there are issues right now which this government has to get hold of and take seriously and respond to.

My final remark is I did not know until the member for St Catharines just told us that it is the fifth anniversary of this telecast that people are watching. How painful for those 250,000 people to watch this group of amateurs standing up and doing our bit. All I can say is that I agree with them: It should not have to be something you have to pay for. Why not put it on CTV at 11:30?

Mr Ruprecht: Our debate on interim supply is coloured by one realization: We are broke. We are unable to pay our bills. In fact, it is so bad that our debt is now in the neighbourhood of $9.7 billion --

An hon member: And rising.

Mr Ruprecht: -- and rising. If most of us were to operate on the same basis as this government, we obviously would be unable to pay our bills, we would be unable to pay our mortgages and we would be out on our ears. The problem here is that this government is concentrating not on wealth creation but on wealth distribution. They simply cannot and they will never be able to get out of debt if they are unable to concentrate on wealth creation.

1710

What does this government do to keep us competitive? To be fair, there is one good thing that happened just last week, and that was the Minister of Skills Development realizing that we obviously needed the necessary skills to be competitive with other countries around the world. What the government should be concentrating on -- and obviously we can play a part in this -- is ensuring that the brain power is being channelled not simply into paying and increasing welfare costs but into looking at what we can do in order to access a market of 270 million people.

It is an opportunity we have. While most of us would probably disagree in terms of what has happened with free trade -- the point must be made -- we have to look for opportunities to access that market. This government is changing the whole focus of what it ought to be doing, looking at the opportunities, and not the other way around.

The question should be raised, how do we get out of this debt, since we are broke and cannot pay our bills? It is obvious, I think, and we have talked about this a number of times. For instance, we all know that if we want to be competitive, we have to ensure that we create jobs.

I recall and I know my colleagues will recall one of the promises this government made not too long ago: "We'll produce jobs, jobs, jobs." It almost sounded like our Conservative friends, but the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs never came true. In fact, the opposite happened. What has really happened is that we have seen the jobs that were promised fleeing the marketplace, fleeing the province, and consequently it is not as my colleague says, "More jobs, jobs, jobs," but less jobs, jobs, jobs. Who is going to pay our bills? Who is going to pay for this interim supply bill today?

Obviously we are being overtaxed, and money is fleeing the province. The reason is that when some of the European people who have had millions of dollars invested in Ontario saw the NDP coming in to take over the government, they equated that with communism in Europe and consequently said, "We don't wish to take a chance on this and we're pulling our money out." That can be documented and I am really sorry to say that has indeed happened.

I do not wish for this to happen, but the question has to be, how do we pay our debts? There is no doubt that what we have to do and what we have to concentrate on is to ensure that the creation of jobs is totally connected not only with the idea of natural resources, shipping them out and going back to the old concept of Canada being the nation of hewers of wood and drawers of water; the point has to be that we have to create labour-intensive industries. That is the only issue here. That is the only way we are going to get our bills paid. No other way is possible.

What ought to be done is that this government has to have a shift of attitude, and the shift and the concentration have to be towards job creation, labour-intensive industries. Let's look at the statistics. We have lost a hell of a number of jobs, but some people, some gurus, some pinheads, as some of the members call them, are saying: "Well, maybe it's not so bad. We haven't quite lost as many jobs as we were expecting."

The point is that labour-intensive jobs are necessary, and while there may be an increase in some sectors of the economy in terms of job creation, the question has to be raised, what kinds of jobs are being created? It is not the kinds of jobs we want; it is not the union kinds of jobs we wish for. They are not the kinds of jobs that pay mortgages. The jobs are part-time, they are not labour-intensive. The jobs in the service industries, which pay a minimum in wages, cannot pay mortgages. It is clear what we need and it is clear what this government ought to be concentrating on at this time -- not wealth distribution but wealth creation.

The reason people are leaving this province as well is that they are not only seeing increases in taxation, they are also seeing how their money is being applied. The question for this government should be, "Are we spending our money effectively?" It is obvious what the answer should be. It is not effective. We have lost a number of jobs. We know it is a fact today that you can make more money being on welfare than having a job. When people who work all hours of the day, and some even at night, see this and try to pay their taxes, which in some instances are up to 40%, 45% or 50%, and then see the money being wasted in a way that is not being productively creative, wasted to the point where they find thousands of dollars being spent on liquor and wine in some of the ministries that cannot create jobs that will pay enough, then we all know it is a sad day for Ontario.

It has to be pointed out that the government still has a chance. It is not too late. How long are you going to be here as the NDP government of Ontario? Two more years, would you say; three, four or even five?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Ruprecht: I just want to point this out because it is not too late to pay this interim supply bill. The government still has a chance to shift its attitude from wealth distribution to wealth creation. If it does, we will help the government. This is not a partisan remark. I know my colleagues would all agree with what we would like to see this province turn into.

This province should be the flower of North America. It ought to be, when all the emigrants across the world are looking to Ontario as a place where they want to settle, not because our cities are crime-ridden but because there are jobs here. The only thing that will attract people to Ontario to invest money in it is if there are jobs, if there is a stable labour force and if people can get a return on their investment. Those are the facts the government ought to be concentrating on -- job creation, not job losses. That is why I said it still has a chance.

The government might have two more years to go before the next election; it might have three more years before the next election. In fact, if it is running right against the wall, it might even have four years before the next election. They had better have one thing clear in their minds, one thing for sure, because the voters out there and the residents of Ontario will judge them badly and the responsibility will be on the shoulders of the government if it bankrupts this province. They are already doing it in a way. The one thing they should remember is that the debt is clear; it is $9.7 billion. What will the government do next year? I am hoping that with our help the shift will take place and the debts will be reduced, but obviously they need some co-operation.

Let me just address two more issues that are important to me in my own area. I recently sent a letter to the Minister of Housing. Do the members know why I did that? Because she said to me one day: "At 1215 Queen Street West we've got a wonderful program. We're going to give you 97 supportive housing units which will house, obviously, some ex-psychiatric patients, which all of us would support, and those who need housing. It's great." I said, "Why would you want to put it on that corner?" All the residents are upset, not because of the not in my backyard syndrome; in Parkdale we take more than our fair share and we greet people with open arms from all over Canada. That is not the point. The neighbours have said this does not fit into this community, not only architecturally. If the Minister of Housing will give us an answer, what will she do with the area and with the apartments or houses people will come from when they move into this new unit?

1720

It is one thing to say it is great for Parkdale, and most of the people who will go into these new units will come from Parkdale, but obviously that cannot be the answer. The answer must rest with one fact, and that is that we must improve social housing in the areas where people are. We must look at these slum conditions people are living in presently and improve them. If we do not do that, if we simply supply new housing and say, "Your residents are going to be helped," the question should then be raised: What happens if they move out from slums into the new areas? What will happen to the slums?

What is the answer? What will happen to the slum areas? The NDP government does not have a policy. It does not have an idea. It does not have the initiative to do something about this. It is leaving the slums as they are and not improving them. All this government is doing is spending good taxpayers' money, millions of dollars, without looking at the community, without seeing what the community wants, without being effective. That ought to be one of the reasons the NDP has come into this place and is the government.

My final point is on drugs. Let me simply make a recommendation to this government. When we were in office, we had established the provincial anti-drug strategy. They know it because they applauded the Liberals previously for establishing a provincial anti-drug strategy, and even today we occasionally get some comments from them saying that was a great idea.

The provincial anti-drug strategy obviously must be overhauled, because conditions keep on changing. It would also be incumbent on this government not simply to take the Liberal ideas we brought forward when we created the anti-drug strategy, but to overhaul it, to make it more effective. Obviously that is one of the prime targets in some areas of Metro Toronto. We all know there are crime hot spots. We all know what the police tell us. We all know the police say crime is very much connected with the illicit drug trade. If we have to spend millions of dollars because criminals are on the street and because they are on drugs and drug trafficking is taking over some neighbourhoods and people are feeling unsafe, and if prostitution along with drug trafficking becomes a situation that is unbearable for some neighbourhoods, obviously this government ought to do something specific.

One thing I would recommend specifically, as the critic for the provincial anti-drug strategy, is to look at the recommendations that were made: the recommendations we have made, the recommendations Metro council has made, the recommendations the city of Toronto has made. Essentially we have to be tougher and we have to have the treatment centres. As my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said, we need the beds. Simply cutting off access to the US is supported by us, but that cannot be the end result. When you cut things off, you have to produce the beds and the treatment centres that are essential to deal with people who need the services. That is necessary. The money obviously has to flow in the direction in which it is most needed to help those who are on drugs and who want to get off drugs. It is obvious.

I am asking this government today to ensure that the necessary funding is in place, that the necessary effective programs will be in place to deal with drugs, and this would include a number of ministries. For instance, the Minister of Transportation, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Correctional Services all have a very direct role to play in terms of fighting the illicit drug trade. We will be addressing ourselves again to this issue.

Finally, let me simply say that there will be no disconcerting opposition from us if the government follows some of the guidelines it has set previously. We wish them well, but we wish as well that they would look at the recommendations the opposition has made and act on them, because it is in the interest not only of the NDP or of the Liberals or of the Conservatives, but of all of us, who really represent all of Ontario. While we necessarily have to co-operate on some of these issues, it would pay this government to think about what the opposition is saying and to ensure that some of the recommendations we are making are being instituted.

Ms Poole: I am pleased to join in the debate today as we talk about interim supply and the importance of a positive fiscal policy for the people of this province.

I came across an article in the Toronto Star the other day that to me epitomized much of my own thoughts about the current government, because when you are looking at fiscal policy, you have to go beyond that. You have to look at the beliefs of the party involved. You have to look at its history. You have to look at its ideology. Then you understand what formulates that fiscal policy.

The article I am going to quote from is by George Fallis, who chairs the department of economics at York University:

"Everyone was surprised when the New Democratic Party was elected with a solid majority in Ontario and most were optimistic that a social democratic party could provide fresh analysis for the challenges in the 1990s. The NDP offered a greater concern for unemployment, the environment and social justice, and we welcomed this. However, optimism has quickly turned to dismay as each policy emerged -- the budget, labour law, waste disposal, the housing framework and so on. These were not fresh thinking, but heavy-handed application of approaches discredited elsewhere.

"It is a puzzle: Why have the NDP programs been so wrong-headed?

"In part, it is simply inexperience in governing. Many of the caucus and even the cabinet had never before held elected office, let alone run a government. New governments tend to distrust the advice of the civil service. Also, it is caused by the disorientation of shifting from an opposition mentality to a governing mentality. This is especially a problem for the NDP.

"However, the causes run deeper. The NDP is not just a political party; it is a social movement with a 'we-they' world view. There is much wrong with the world and 'they' are to blame and 'we' will fight to correct it. In its crudest form, it is the old class struggle between labour (now called ordinary Canadians) and capital (now called big business). It's 'us' against 'them.'

"The we-they mentality means that the NDP never instinctively thinks about the financial cost of any program. If the program must be paid for, just raise taxes on 'them.'

"But most significantly, the we-they world view has meant the NDP has misunderstood what has been happening in Canada and in all Western countries over the last 15 years....

"One of the most obvious, yet painfully learned, lessons of the last 15 years is that financing social programs and fighting a recession with massive deficits is not a sustainable long-term strategy. At the very least, the government gives up necessary fiscal flexibility in the future. The Rae government gave up fiscal flexibility for the rest of its mandate in one budget. Fiscal restraint will be the order of the day for the next few years. As the NDP considers raising taxes, it becomes clear that there aren't many of 'them.' 'We have met the enemy and he is us!' cried Pogo. Two lessons learned.

"The central dilemma for democratic socialists is how to pursue social justice with fiscal discipline. The ends of full employment, a clean environment and empowerment do not have to be abandoned. But the means must be rethought and the constraints recognized -- especially the fiscal constraint and the fact that people and capital are increasingly mobile. The intellectual left in Ontario is failing the very constituency it claims to serve by refusing to acknowledge this....

"Ontarians will pay the taxes for high-quality public services and social protection if the government provides the services efficiently, pragmatically and with fiscal responsibility. The first months of NDP government are eroding this willingness as fast as the pernicious teachings of neo-Conservatives.

"We ordinary people can only hope that history is reinterpreted" --

1730

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to apologize first for interrupting the member, but there really is an obnoxious odour emanating from the desk of the honourable member for Markham and I think we should ask him to remove it. I think he has made his point about pollution.

The Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Ms Poole: Actually I was just at the last line of this article and then I have a few other comments to make. The closing remarks of Mr Fallis were, "We ordinary people can only hope that history is reinterpreted and the rest of the lessons of the last 15 years are learned -- quickly."

From this article, which I heartily concur with, I think it is obvious that a party's history and ideology do affect its fiscal policy. But where this government has got into trouble is that it has not put the planning in place that one needs to have the proper programs, to have the proper fiscal planning and to have the proper spending.

Just yesterday while I was sitting at my desk, I made a list of areas in which the NDP has shown that its planning has been non-existent and, because of this, has had to retreat. They had to change their plans, such as they were; they had to change their minds and come out in full retreat. One of my colleagues recently said that every time the NDP retreats, the whole province breathes a gigantic sigh of relief, and so it is for many of their polices.

Look at the list of retreats from NDP promises: first of all, the heart and core of the NDP, auto insurance. Driver-owned auto insurance a pipedream? Yes, because this government realized that its pipedream was not realizable.

Second, the area I am very familiar with, the area the government promised to present to the people, real rent control: one guideline increase per year based on inflation and nothing else, no extra bonuses for capital or for financial considerations. That is not what the people of Ontario got. They did not get real rent control.

Another area of housing where there has been a recent retreat, which again gets back to the fiscal policy, is that in June this government very proudly announced that it would make affordable housing its first priority for government lands and when it is getting rid of surplus land. But because the budget was so devastating, because the deficit was so devastating, recently the NDP government has had to backtrack on that and now it is saying that surplus land for affordable housing will have to be sold to help pay off the deficit. Again there is no planning.

Look at the labour legislation. First they introduced Bill 70. Then, to appease the business community, which rose up in arms, they had to gut Bill 70. Also in the labour area, they have been stalling pay equity legislation, which they promised in the spring. It is now almost November and still not here.

Look at their retreats in the area of energy: first of all, withdrawals of sections expanding Hydro's mandate in Bill 118, a total retreat by the government; second, in their campaign promises -- I think members all remember this -- they promised no new nuclear facilities but also the phasing out of existing reactors. Where is this policy? Again a retreat. They backed down on Eliesen's salary.

Going on to the environment, this has been one of the biggest disappointments in the retreats by this government. I remember the current Minister of the Environment when she was in opposition and when she was promising to require the strictest of environmental assessments and protections for landfill sites. Now what do we find? She has completely reneged. I remember her also criticizing the Liberal government for not enforcing the 30% quota for glass pop bottles. The problem has only got worse since that time and this Minister of the Environment does nothing.

The NDP promised an immediate ban on CFCs in flexible furniture, foam and rigid foam insulation. An immediate ban? Where is it? They promised a clean air bill within six months. They promised an immediate environmental bill of rights. They promised they would pass the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act right away. Yet what do we hear? We either hear nothing or the fact that they are going to study it or commission on it for another year or two or 10.

Then we get down to Treasury. During the election, the NDP promised all sorts of things, such as a speculation tax, a wealth tax, new corporate taxes, new minimum wages, all sort of things. Yet what do we find? They have siphoned them all to the Fair Tax Commission and said to the people of Ontario, "You have to wait."

They have retreated on the gas guzzler tax, which was an incredibly ill-thought-out scheme in the budget.

If members remember this -- in fact, the Minister for Northern Development and Mines is sitting here right now and I think it was in her brochure -- they promised they would reduce the sales tax from 8% to 7% immediately. It was in the minister's brochure.

They promised to lead the tax revolt against the GST, again a campaign promise, but what happened to the revolt? It just sizzled down to nothingness.

We get to education. You might say they have done nothing on education, and that would probably be a worthy comment, but what they did promise on education was 60% funding by the province. Where is this promise? In thin air as well.

Sunday shopping: They promised a common pause day, but if there is a common pause day in their current legislation, I challenge them to tell us what that common pause day is. Recently when they bowed to demands to help save our business community by allowing stores to open during the Christmas season, they said, "We're going to do this, but only for the month of December." They were willing to abrogate what they called a common pause day in December but not the rest of the year. It is poor planning.

Transportation: It seems again they are changing their mind on the Red Hill Creek Expressway. They talked about GO Transit to Peterborough and Brantford and how they were going to expand that, but I have not seen it yet.

The Ministry of Revenue is another area with which I am quite familiar. When they were in opposition, their party had a policy where they would not support the further introduction of market value assessment in Ontario. Yet this same Minister of Revenue stood up in this House this spring and said that they are proceeding with the Metro market value assessment proposal.

Universities and colleges: This was the party that first promised to eliminate tuition fees, and then it promised to freeze tuition fees, but instead what it did was raise tuition fees.

Finally we get to the whole area of social services, where the NDP promised to put food banks out of business by fighting poverty. I remember the Minister of Community and Social Services standing up last November and saying to the opposition, "Give me three months to end poverty." I only wish it were possible, but to me that represents the idealism, and some unkind people would say the naïveté, of this government, that it could eliminate poverty in three months. What I want to know is, what are they doing? What steps are they taking to eliminate poverty?

Also in the area of social services, they promised 10,000 new non-profit child care spaces and subsidies on 10,000 spaces in each of the first two years. This year 5,000 spaces were promised, but the problem is that this government's ill-conceived viewpoint of how to deal with the commercial child care sector has meant we have lost as many commercial sector spaces as we have gained in the non-profit sector. The net result for the child care community is that it is badly suffering and it is looking for a signal from this government that it is going to act to change this.

1740

Both from its fiscal policy and its social policy, this government has to learn that planning is essential in government. You cannot have a sham of a consultation process that is not meaningful, that does not allow enough time, that does not involve all the parties, that does not listen to the input, that rushes things through and then expects to have not only a good fiscal plan but a good social plan. The people of this province over the last number of months have indicated quite strongly that they want this government to shape up, or in three to four years from now it will be shipped out, because they are not willing to sustain taxes. They are not willing to look at the camouflage of this government that has a $10-billion deficit.

But that is not the worst of it. That in itself is horrific, but look at the fact of next year, the year after and the year after that. Look at the deficits they are projecting to incur for the next four years. In the next four years this government is going to double our provincial debt, and I do not know whether the people of this province even realize that. I think many of them do. Certainly in the business sector they realize this and it is one of the reasons this government has no credibility in the business sector. They have no credibility because of the budget this year but also because of the flagrant, irresponsible and wild spending projected over the next four years.

People could accept that in the time of a recession things are different, that perhaps there would have to be some deficit incurred. I think we are willing to concede that to the government. This was not going to be the year of the balanced budget, but one thing is clear: The people of this province expected constraint and restraint. Of course the NDP responded eventually, some six months later, by saying it was going to restrain. What they did was to freeze MPPs' salaries. That is a nice symbolic gesture. It is always very good to do that. The public is fully supportive of freezing politicians' salaries, but they froze 2% of the salaries. What did their buddies in the union get, 6%? This is what is called collective bargaining. You hammer the symbolic few and meanwhile the fiscal situation rages out of control because you are not getting at the root of the problem.

I think it is obvious that the people of this province are at an all-time low in tolerance. They are not willing to entertain high taxes. They are not willing to carry a $10-billion deficit. They are not willing for this government not to have a long-term plan. The Treasurer, our master storyteller from Nickel Belt, for whom I have the greatest imagination -- not imagination, that is not the word; respect -- that is what I have for him.

An hon member: He uses his imagination.

Ms Poole: He uses his imagination; that is right. The Treasurer and I share at least one thing and that is our lack of height. That has not impeded us in any way. I ask the Treasurer, is that not right?

Hon Mr Laughren: It has not hurt our relationship at all.

Ms Poole: It has not hurt our relationship. I am not sure it has enhanced it. Nevertheless I am sorry, Treasurer, you were not here to hear the other comments I made.

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the Chair.

Ms Poole: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, particularly when we have such a fine upstanding Speaker. Far be it from me not to make my remarks through you. I apologize.

When I make references to the Treasurer, I have a lot of admiration for him, but unfortunately I think by the time he figured out what Treasury was all about and what the whole idea of fiscal responsibility was all about --

Mr Sola: And what reality was all about.

Ms Poole: And what reality was all about, as my colleague the member for Mississauga East says. By the time he found out what this was all about, the cat was among the pigeons, the horses were out of the barn.

My leader has just arrived, so people will be most delighted to know that I am winding up my remarks.

I just say to the members of the NDP, fiscal responsibility is not a luxury these days, it is a necessity. I hope they will look again at their fiscal responsibility. I know when my leader gives his words of wisdom to them, they will listen, because my leader will try to guide them, to be helpful and co-operative. I know that is what this NDP government needs. They need advice and they need to listen.

Mr Bradley: The speech was excellent, as we always expect from the member for Eglinton. I was wondering why she did not include in her pleas to the government for permissions and so on the reinforcement of the position of the members for the Niagara region in favour of a CAT scanner for one of the hospitals in that area. She probably neglected it at that moment because she knew others would raise it.

One of the other things I wondered whether she would talk about was that I hope I have been able to assist her and the government in saving at least one job in the province of Ontario. I noticed that when I asked the question of the Premier this afternoon about the member for Welland-Thorold and the member for Lincoln, who had been fired from their jobs by the Premier because they dared to dissent from the government, the government House leader, the chief government whip and the member for Lincoln all disappeared into the back room.

I was hoping as a result of this intervention on behalf of my colleagues from Niagara, because I have a lot of empathy for them, that perhaps by the time they got out to the scrum, the Premier would have reinstated the member for Lincoln to his position of Chair of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of the Ontario Legislature. I hope that is the case. If my intervention has assisted that member in retaining his job, I hope I can be equally successful with the member for Welland-Thorold, who dared to dissent in the standing committee on administration of justice from the line that was spouted by the government and those enforced by the whip of the government. He happened to say he was disappointed because he felt the people who had voted NDP on the Sunday shopping issue had been betrayed. I hope the member for Lincoln has been reinstated to his position and I hope the member for Welland-Thorold will be reinstated to his.

Mr Elston: My interventions will be brief; there is not much time left. Part of that is my difficulty. I want to thank my colleagues for holding forth with pearls of wisdom which all have taken in. I have been doing an awful lot of conversing with people right around the province these last few weeks. Even before, when I was not the interim leader of the Liberal Party, I was talking to the folks at home in Bruce county, and never before have I felt a time when there was need for leadership, both fiscal and otherwise, in this province to the degree that there is now.

There is an attitude in this province that it is no longer a joy to live here, that in fact it is onerous to be successfully in business in this province, that it is a very real insecurity now to be a working woman or man in the businesses in our province, that it is a very serious problem for those who are suffering from illnesses or whatever, unlike the past. That goes over a whole series of years, not just the last five. There is an insecurity attaching to the personal outlook of so many people in this province that it scares me something fierce.

I am worried that successful people are looked upon as being women and men who have somehow done something wrong. There has to be in this province a sense that this government honours people who have done good things, who have been successful in employing people, who have been successful employees in the workplace, who have been successful students in our schools. There has to be a time when the budgetary work of this province and the policy work of this province is conducted by people who take time out of their schedules to pat somebody on the back. There is not that in this province.

1750

It distresses me more than ever that when we speak about the brain drain we are not talking about some historical perspective on the 1960s, when that was a real debate, but about the 1990s when people are thinking of leaving this province in larger numbers than ever before. This is a reflection of a lack of leadership from a fiscal and economic point of view in a way that has undermined the real drive this province used to have to be successful. There is nothing wrong with being a successful Ontario. There is nothing wrong with being a successful businessperson. There is nothing wrong with being a person who is successful and skilled in the workplace. There is nothing wrong with being a successful volunteer. But somehow there has been a removal of the drive to allow people to be happy and comfortable in being successful.

Hon Miss Martel: I've heard it all now.

Mr Elston: The member for Sudbury East is of course downplaying this sort of stuff. Listen to these people yapping over there about, "You've said it all now." All we have said is that there is no encouragement for people to do stuff right any more. There is nobody standing up for traditional Ontario values about leading the country economically, politically and culturally --

Mr Abel: They're nodding their heads, the bunch of pumpkins.

Mr Elston: -- in a way that makes sense for the people who are down and struggling with real-life problems of job security, insecurity in their homes as they are ripped apart by people invading their personal homes and insecurity because they are not sure they can have access to good-quality health care or education.

I am only trying to say today as we debate supply, this one small snapshot of their fiscal planning, that there is not for us the leadership that allows people to feel positive about themselves and the future of their business, their job and their children. If there is anything government ought to do it is strike a balance in this province that allows people to feel good about themselves and about being here, not about moving someplace else. We want them to be here. We want them to be in Ontario so we can have real jobs created.

Mr Abel: Say yes. Say yes.

Mr Elston: We want to have really successful people feeling they are appreciated for being here. We want men and women who believe they are secure in their homes.

There are some people who mock our concern for the way our province has gone. The folks across the way are doing that because they are supposed to. That is what their job is, to belittle the concerns raised by real men and women like us who are in our places as opposition politicians. I have committed myself to co-operating at whatever time I can with the Premier and to supporting him in his initiatives with respect to the Constitution because our very existence as a nation is under assault. I have pledged myself to say good things when something good can be said, but the people across the way have to listen when I express the concerns of men and women who are talking to me, and talking to them, about whether their 35-year history of retailing in any small town in the province or any one of our streets in this large city of Toronto or in London or wherever it is at risk.

All I am saying is that if these people do not change their ways and find a new balance, we will find ourselves in very serious difficulties. We will lose the edge. We will lose the people whose brains have been driving us as a leading factor in economic and political debates in this nation for well over 100 years. I despair. I wish to use interim supply, these brief few moments, these last seven or eight minutes, merely to issue the warning. That is all I wish to do.

I wish to find, with the Premier, the new balance. There are many types of workplaces that can contribute to the economic resurgence of Ontario. There are very many forms of business structures that can allow us as a province again to develop a leadership roles in helping Canada resume its rightful and aggressive economic posture in international fields. There are ways to manage our expenditures so that we are not placing the Ministry of Community and Social Services against the Ministry of Health in looking for needed dollars. There are ways to manage the dollars that are being brought in from taxpayers all over the province to ensure there is equity and fairness in the distribution of those resources so that each of the areas of our province can be looked after in a reasonable and honest fashion.

I might say, if I had the time, that one of the biggest problems for the people who are out there on the streets is that they cannot find the way to provide more money for the job government does. They are besieged at a time when they do not know that their job is going to exist, that their business is secure and that their very person is secure. They are trying to figure out how in the world they are ever going to make the payments for new taxes. All I am doing is telling the government that this caucus is prepared to work constructively, without finger-pointing, in a fair fashion, giving credit where credit is due, but also wanting to make a contribution in a critical fashion where policies are announced.

We hear, by the way, that the Minister of Health will be in Kingston tomorrow at 9:30 to announce long-term care in that area. When she returns here to deliver that same message to us, that there is a long-term care strategy, we will be pleased to congratulate her for at least making the first step after more than a year of dithering. But I hope to have her here. We can only be of help if we are allowed to speak, and to speak freely, in this place and in other places where we choose to take our message.

That is at the very background of the freedom of speech we all stand for in this House. I exercise it today to tell these people to wake up and re-establish the balance or stand to lose it all. For a woman or a man who is not sure he or she will be working, all can be lost if the government does not find a balance. For children who need education, all can be lost if it does not strike the balance. For government members and me, as politicians, all will be lost in our attempt for public administration for the good of the public if we do not find a balance.

One last line: If we are to be successful, this government has to stop campaigning and start governing.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of Mr Laughren's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1800.