Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): This opposition critic is not going to let the Attorney General do a "Martel" to this Legislature: a blind misreading of political ethics. What an unbelievable spectacle when the Attorney General justifies appointing an active political candidate, Emily Carasco, as chair of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, which was established specifically "to remove any unwarranted criticism of political bias or patronage in appointments to the judiciary," yet the Attorney General says Carasco is just another appointee with political affiliations.

This is a ludicrous proposition. No other member of the committee was an active political candidate when appointed. Certainly this is an unacceptable precedent: an NDP candidate for Parliament appointed by the Attorney General four days before her nomination and continuing after her nomination. The Attorney General, in personally endorsing her continued chairing of this committee, demonstrates a blind misreading of the standards and ethics of his office.

Considering the special and sensitive nature of this committee in the appointment of judges, the Attorney General made a grievous error in appointing an active NDP political candidate, not merely a party member, as chair and now aggravates the matter with a feeble and inappropriate defence.

The Premier should know his Attorney General not only lacks an agenda; he lacks a fundamental understanding of the ethics imposed on this high office.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I rise to call to the attention of all members that it is now one year since the Premier made his arbitrary decision to remove the name of our head of state, the Queen of Canada, from the oath of allegiance sworn by police officers in Ontario.

By refusing to act on the calls of many thousands of Ontario citizens, heads of police boards, members of his own political party, and most recently the former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, to reinstate Her Majesty's name in the oath, the Premier continues to display a disconcerting contempt for the central cornerstone on which Canada's historic traditions of parliamentary democracy and great reputation as an international peacekeeper are established.

By attacking the crown, the Premier strikes at the very source of our national unity and protection against the arbitrary use of political power. He also downplays the traditional roots of our unique Canadian identity, which has for years allowed Canadians to take pride in their social, political and cultural distinctiveness, separate from their American neighbours.

On this, the first, and it is to be hoped the last, anniversary of this draconian decision, I again join with the citizens of Ontario and the Ontario police boards in calling on the Premier and his NDP cabinet to withdraw their decision, reinstate the Queen's name in the oath and to apologize for the offence they have given to all Canadian citizens. God save the Queen.

CITY OF BARRIE

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I would like to bring to the attention of this House the economic and personal damage that has been inflicted on the city of Barrie by this long, continuing recession or depression.

I was astounded when I looked at statistics showing approximately 13% of the population of the city of Barrie depended upon social assistance, with an additional 10% of the workforce on unemployment insurance. When we look at the fact that over 2,700 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the city of Barrie since the free trade agreement was instituted in 1989, it is no wonder we have such a critical situation.

Over 3,000 people on social assistance potentially could be employed if jobs and child care were available. These statistics also show a large proportion of employable persons who have an education level of grade 11 or less.

We clearly need a change in economic direction at the federal level which will promote investment in new plant technology, research and development, encourage import replacement, provide a competitive Canadian dollar and lower interest rates.

At the provincial level, we need to establish our own industrial strategy to encourage new investment and high value added production, to promote marketing of Ontario products, services and technology, to develop a job strategy program and to have more coordinated and effective skill training programs by proceeding quickly with our government's Ontario Training and Adjustment Board program.

We must prepare for the needed future learning skills and reduce the wastefulness of our high educational dropout rate. We need to turn our social assistance program from a dependency to a transition program, so that recipients will be able to participate fully in the needed jobs of the future.

In conclusion, I would like to remind my government that Barrie, a former "have" area of the province, has now become a more needy economic area and would ask that it be given the appropriate attention in future decision-making.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Today is Earth Day, a day in which the people of Ontario plant trees, put on environmental displays, attend green rallies and stop to think about our planet and how to make it greener. In fact, Earth Day is an opportunity for people to have fun going green.

But today is also a sad day in some respects in Ontario, when we pause to remember the unfulfilled commitments made by this NDP Minister of the Environment. I remind this House and the minister that in her opposition days she seemed to have all the answers to Ontario's environmental woes. In fact, during the 1990 election campaign, her leader, now the Premier, made the following pledges to the people of Ontario: (1) zero discharge of all toxic chemicals by the year 2000; (2) a ban on toxic organochlorine dumping by 1993; (3) an immediate ban on CFCs, with a complete ban of all ozone-destroying CFCs by 1995; (4) a commitment for a safe drinking water act; (5) a commitment -- the cornerstone of the NDP agenda -- to an environmental bill of rights.

I say to the minister, I remind you of those words you said a year ago in this House today, and these were her words then: "Earth Day is a time for us to renew our commitment to the restoration and protection of the environment for the generations to follow."

It has been 365 days since the minister uttered those words in this House and almost 18 months since she has been in office, yet we have seen no concrete action on any of her pledges.

I remind the minister that it is one thing to talk; it is another thing to do something. We have to know, when will the minister start to do something about the pledges she and her government made?

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): This morning the Education Relations Commission called the Ottawa school board trustees and the secondary school teachers back to the negotiating table with a deadline that they reach agreement by 11 am Thursday morning or the commission will advise the minister that the students' education is in jeopardy.

In other words, "jeopardy" has nothing to do with the students' education, but everything to do with labour relations and negotiations. Why don't we do away with the Education Relations Commission?

The Treasurer must take full responsibility for both the Ottawa board strike and the Carleton board strike, in that he ran the red flag up the pole when he announced on January 27 reduced transfers to both of these boards. Prior to his announcement, both sides in these two disputes were talking and making headway in their contract negotiations.

Immediately after his announcement -- as a matter of fact within hours -- both boards withdrew their offers and they have been unable to resolve the disputes since. Never before has a provincial government caused two strikes like these. This same government has shown little leadership in resolving the problem it has itself created. The 27,000 students in the Ottawa-Carleton area are paying very dearly and a very high price for this government's incompetence.

1340

ARC INDUSTRIES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I stand in the House today to bring to your attention, Mr Speaker, the 30th anniversary of ARC Industries in Peterborough. On February 28 I had the opportunity to visit them and join in their celebration.

ARC Industries was originally conceived by concerned parents who wanted fuller life experiences for their sons and daughters who were developmentally handicapped. Over the past 30 years, ARC Industries in Peterborough has evolved into an organization that employs more than 90 workers and is playing an increasingly large role in our local economy; 75% of the production at ARC Industries is the result of work contracted out to them by larger corporations in Peterborough. Quaker Oats, Johnson and Johnson, General Electric and Fisher Gauge are but a few examples of local companies which have benefited by providing work in light assembly and packaging for ARC Industries.

It is a testament to their success that some workers are able to progress from the workshop to other programs or competitive employment.

It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today, sitting in the visitors' gallery, from ARC Industries in Peterborough, Bill Whawell, David Quinlan, Dawn Clark, David McQuaig, Barb Dunk, Linda Shisko and Ben Taylor.

Mr Speaker, I'm sure that you and other members of this House will join me in congratulating ARC Industries on its 30th anniversary celebration as well as wishing it continued success in the years to come.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The Minister of Government Services recently announced a cleanup of soil containing low-level radioactive particles in the Malvern community in northeast Scarborough. The initiative in principle is rather praiseworthy, and it continues some of the programs of previous governments, including the telephone information line and storefront information office set up under the Liberal government in conjunction with the federal government.

The minister's proposal is that the contaminated soil, from which the most highly radioactive particles have already been removed and sent to Chalk River, be moved from its current temporary site in the Malvern community to another temporary site in the same community.

What my constituents would like to know is why the Ministry of Revenue doesn't seem to share the government's concern with this contaminated soil. Until recently homes in the area were assessed at a lower rate due to the presence of the contaminated soil. Apparently the Ministry of Revenue believes there is no longer a problem, and property taxes for some Malvern residents have increased from a nominal $100 to 75% of market value as a result.

We are extremely concerned, and I hope both ministers can get together and make sure that this does not happen to my constituents in the Malvern-McClure area.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the cash-strapped government's proposal to implement video lottery terminals, casino gambling and sports betting in the province of Ontario. Before anything is implemented, I believe this government should take a long, hard look at this scheme because of the detrimental effect it could have on locally based community support programs and the potential loss of jobs at facilities like the Barrie Raceway.

The Royal Canadian Legion and service clubs in communities like Orillia, Penetanguishene, Coldwater and Elmvale provide funding for community sports organizations, local charities and many other worthwhile endeavours through bingos, the sale of Nevada tickets and other similar lotteries. There is growing concern that the government's proposals will seriously undercut the work of community support programs throughout Ontario.

There is also growing concern that the government's proposals will have a serious impact on employment at racetracks in Barrie, Orangeville and Peterborough, to name but a few. Racing in Ontario provides employment for more than 50,000 people, many of them on breeding farms and in supply businesses not readily associated with the activities of a racetrack.

I have serious reservations that this government is moving too fast and really does not understand the impact its ill-advised proposals will have on locally based community programs and employment. This government appears to be too eager to gamble with Ontario's future.

EARTH DAY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise in the House today to join members in celebrating the 22nd annual Earth Day. As members may recall, on Thursday, December 5, 1991, I introduced a bill in this House proclaiming April 22 in each year as Earth Day. This bill is intended to encourage the participation in community, provincial, national and international activities that share a common purpose with the activities organized by the Earth Day movement. This bill was supported unanimously, and I thank members of all parties for their support. Due to your overwhelming response, I am hopeful that this bill will proceed to third reading and royal assent as soon as possible.

Earth Day seeks to foster environmental awareness and responsibility using the celebration of Earth Day as a focus. Over 45 communities and 500,000 people participated in Earth Day activities last year, and more are expected to get involved today, including approximately 100,000 school children.

Today I had the privilege of participating in a tree-planting ceremony in my riding of Hamilton Centre at Bayview Park, which overlooks our beautiful Hamilton Harbour. Hamiltonians were most appreciative of the substantial provincial dollars provided for the cleanup of the waterfront and the development of adjacent parkland. At the tree-planting, Mayor Bob Morrow and Alderman Dave Wilson proclaimed April 22 Earth Day in Hamilton. In recognition and to show their support for my Earth Day bill, I was presented with today's proclamation. I am proud to have that proclamation with me to share with members of this House.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank those individuals who have worked so very hard to organize the numerous Earth Day events and for their commitment and dedication to the environmental movement.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I am pleased to announce today that the government will make available a total of $50.2 million to support structural change in Ontario's school system. This funding is made up of an allocation of $26.2 million from the transition assistance fund announced by the Treasurer in January and a $24-million contribution of in-year savings from the Ministry of Education and other branches of government.

Reform of the education sector is an important part of the government's plans to invest in our province's greatest strength: our people. If school boards, teachers and other education employees are to continue meeting the needs of the young people of their communities, they must be prepared and encouraged to operate in a more cooperative way.

Greater cooperation means recognizing that there is a direct link between the quality of the total education program and the people who deliver the program. Whether we are talking about junior kindergarten, English as a second language or any other of the important programs and services offered by our school system, it must be understood that protecting the quality of education necessarily involves taking steps to preserve jobs. Cooperation also means greater cost-effectiveness in the delivery of education. It represents greater opportunities to develop innovative solutions that have broad community support.

These are critical objectives to guide our schools through this time of fiscal constraint. They will be equally critical in the longer-term future. However, it is clear that there are substantial barriers to achieving greater cooperation in the education sector. One such barrier is inflexibility in employee-employer relations, which continues to have a significant effect on the collective bargaining process.

The transition funding to education will therefore target this and other barriers. Above all, it will be used to promote greater cooperation between school boards and their employees, and $41 million, 80% of the available funds, will be directed to this strategic area of employer-employee cooperation.

These initiatives will address labour adjustment issues such as the establishment of balanced and affordable contracts between school boards and unions and federations through lower wage settlements in return for enhanced employment security and other negotiated benefits, or they will support innovative employer-employee plans to restructure school board operations. Such plans could involve, for example, new approaches to the delivery of curriculum, professional development or to integrating children's services. These plans could also include joint planning with other school boards, municipalities, social service agencies or other community partners.

The remaining $9.2 million will support the development of local administrative cooperatives between school boards and other agencies in the broader public sector. As well, a portion of these funds will be available to assist school boards in the same area to obtain computer hardware and software to help plan the sharing of school bus routes.

We are continuing to work with representatives of trustee organizations, teachers' federations and support staff unions to establish a process for approving proposals and distributing funds. I will be issuing more detailed guidelines about this in the near future.

However, I would like to inform the members that there are basic criteria that all proposals submitted must meet. They must involve restructuring to a new way of doing business that maintains or improves the quality of education programs and services; they must be developed through employer-employee cooperation; they must reflect progressive human resource policies and practices; they must demonstrate significant cost savings over a three-year period, and they must include a process to ensure that there is accountability for the success of the proposals.

As these criteria indicate, this funding will promote lasting structural change in the operation of Ontario's school system. The education community is aware of this goal and understands that the funds will not be available as a quick fix for immediate operating pressures such as salaries.

Our government's commitment of the $160-million fund to the health, post-secondary and now the elementary and secondary education sectors reflects the conviction that meeting the challenge of economic constraint requires fundamental change in the structures and operations of Ontario's broader public sector, but this funding also looks beyond the short term. It looks towards economic renewal and recovery built upon cooperation and a new spirit of partnership.

1350

RESPONSES

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING / FONDS D'AIDE TRANSITOIRE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to respond to the minister's statement and to begin with some comments about some things that are under way today and that we in this House all hope are going to be resolved, which is the strike that is ongoing in Ottawa. I think to remind you, Minister, of the importance of those discussions today and of what we in this House and indeed what the parents in Ottawa are going to be looking for tomorrow when we come back into this House. We'll be expecting a statement from you that will be in effect announcing the end of that strike.

I want to leave with you one quote which is in the Ottawa Citizen today, where a senior Ottawa Board of Education official, in fact the director of education, Bob Gillett, states: "This is the jeopardy week. We believe many students are now in jeopardy." Surely the focus here has to be on the welfare of the students, and surely therefore, you and the Education Relations Commission and the teachers and the board must be thinking about that today and tomorrow.

With that as a backdrop to this particular statement, we then see that some $50.2 million has been made available by your ministry, of which we really do not know where some $24 million came from and indeed what programs may have been cut in order to deal with those programs. You mentioned junior kindergarten, you mentioned English as a second language, many other programs. How many of those could have been better provided if these dollars, which you've evidently found from here and there, had been allocated earlier or perhaps had not been taken from programs that are necessary?

We hear today that in Peel some 200-plus teachers have been laid off because of the policies of your government, which is only providing a 1% transfer payment. That is a reality. These dollars don't deal with that reality.

You say in this document that the transition funding is going to move us towards better labour-management relations, but how can that be when in fact through the very policies that your government has taken forward -- its lack of funding, its loading up of the agenda; look at what school boards are currently dealing with. We know the Fair Tax Commission is dealing with education financing. You're looking at education financing. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is looking at disentanglement. All of that includes the boards.

We're talking about restructuring. We're talking about governance. We're talking about changing curriculum evaluation and redesign. We're talking about the testing and assessment of children to ensure they can compete in the global economy. We're talking about the evaluation, indeed, of the future role of education in our society. We're talking about teacher training. We're also supposed to be talking about integration and special education. That $24 million that many parents have been waiting for now for the two years that your government has been in office could perhaps well have been spent to assist more kids with special needs in getting the education they need.

Instead we have a statement which frankly does not speak to and does not help those substantive problems that exist in the education system. Quite frankly, I believe what is needed is for the minister to convene an education summit. That summit is needed because of the nature of the issues that we have, because school boards are getting one message, teachers' federations are getting one message and parents are getting another. The people of this province see no vision from this government in terms of where it is going.

En plus, il faut dire que la communauté francophone attend et attend une déclaration claire de la politique de ce gouvernment en ce qui concerne le rapport Cousineau et exactement ce qu'on va faire pour assurer les droits de notre minorité linguistique. Encore une fois, on nous donne 50 millions de dollars, mais pourquoi ? C'est une déclaration qui est pleine de mots, mais dont on ne sait pas exactement l'effet immédiat et concret sur le système de l'éducation de notre province.

The minister's statement, in providing some money for real programs, would have been very helpful to school boards. The needs right now and the focus right now must be on the very difficult problems which school boards are experiencing because of the strange and erratic funding procedures and policies of this government. If we are to end this climate of uncertainty, the Minister of Education is going to have to become directly involved with all the partners and to truly develop the sense of partnership he says he wants.

The place to begin is to ensure that by tomorrow the strikes in Ottawa and Carleton are over and that we can then really focus on those real and immediate needs that the system has. If that happens, then perhaps there is some value to this statement being made today.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Again we're seeing a government that absolutely has put out a statement today that I don't know if anybody could understand even if they try. As far as I'm concerned, it's just unnecessary. It isn't providing some lasting structural change in the operation of Ontario's school system, which is exactly what we need: some major structural changes. I hate to stand up here and be negative after the accusation from the Premier last week when he accused us of asking for more money, but I'll tell you right now, Mr Speaker, this kind of money at this stage in financial planning, some piecemeal, Band-Aid approach to a very big problem, is not helpful; it's harmful.

We can take a look at the promises in this statement: "Demonstrate significant cost savings over a three-year period." School boards are asked to do this with the budgets they've got right now? That's not even realistic. "Include a process to ensure that there is accountability for the success of the proposal"? All we're talking about is asking them to do more things for government, as opposed to teaching children in classrooms.

We take a look at the awards that arbitrators have given throughout the province. I've just been made aware of one of 7.5% where that board will have to reduce 22.5 teaching assistant positions which are helping special education children; clerical positions by 5.6. Settlement figures are still coming in and this minister sits there and does nothing about it.

You cannot, for the first time in the history of the province of Ontario -- 1986, 5.4% in operating grants; 1987, 6%; 1988, 6.8%; 1989, 6.1%; 1990, 8.7%; 1991, 7.9% -- this year give 1% and pretend you haven't got a problem. Of course you have a problem.

This minister should be telling school boards and teachers to open collective agreements for two reasons. First of all, they can accept reasonable and responsible salaries. Second, they're going to have to take a look at class size in order to maintain the teaching positions and talk about quality education. We cannot dismantle school boards across this province.

At the same time, I asked the minister a question last week. I said, "Would you at least stand up and say you're not going to mandate programs down the road like junior kindergarten?" He refused to do that. He's handing out $50 million from an operating budget of $4.9 billion to school boards this year, and pretending this is some big deal. The public are too smart for this. They know this is a carrot. This is the old style of politics. This government came in and said it would do things in a different way.

The Premier's smiling, but I don't like to be quoted out of context. I did not say, Mr Premier, to give them more money. I said take a bigger percentage of the whole provincial pie and put it where it matters, in the front lines of services to the public: health care, housing, education, the whole thing. We have not asked for more money. Right now you've asked school boards to do something totally unrealistic.

I'm going to sit down. There's so much more to say to this government. This is irresponsible and a silly way to manage your budget. The public and the teachers and the kids are too smart. They know what's happening. Enough is enough. When are you going to smarten up and manage Ontario like you said you would?

1400

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I find this a sad day in the Legislature when the Treasurer, on January 27, pulls the rug from underneath the Carleton Board of Education and the Ottawa Board of Education in decreasing the grants he is giving them over the next few years; pulls the rug from underneath the 27,000 students who are now out of class because of the lack of support of this government; and then we have this government come in and be willing to spend $50 million on some restructuring of the system. Minister, we all know we're not getting our money's worth in the education system. Tell your administration to smarten up and make some decisions and show some leadership in this province. We need decisions; we don't need any more study.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would certainly echo some of the comments that have been made by my colleague from London North. I am extremely disappointed. This statement today obviously makes no attempt to meet the real needs of young people in this province. It does nothing to address the very critical issues facing them. In fact, I see very little reference here to young people or students in any way.

We have now had the Peel Board of Education, as has been indicated, cancel its junior kindergarten program. I want you to know, Mr Minister, it's going to have a tremendous impact on students, on families and on staff, and that's not even considered here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier, and I would think my first question would not come as a surprise to the Premier, although, to be very honest, we on this side of the House were somewhat surprised this morning, and perhaps members of the government caucus were a little surprised, to read in the Toronto Star that this government may apparently have already decided, behind closed doors, to bring legalized casino gambling to Ontario.

We would all agree that whatever the decisions are about opening casinos across Ontario, that decision to open casinos could change the face of the province, yet there has been no consultation and no open debate with the people of this province. This Premier makes many fine statements about consultation and about the openness of his government, yet once again the words simply don't match the actions.

I would ask the Premier how his government can possibly even consider making a decision of this magnitude behind closed doors, without the benefit of public consultation and public debate.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): This jurisdiction, together with almost every other jurisdiction in North America and elsewhere in the world, is looking at a reform of gaming and gaming laws; every other jurisdiction is looking at similar questions. I simply tell the honourable member that no final decisions have been made by the cabinet at all.

Mrs McLeod: Nevertheless we are certainly all aware that this issue is being discussed, and we suspect discussed at some length, behind the cabinet doors. We wonder if the Premier and his government are in fact putting a lot of their energy behind this particular initiative. While key initiatives like the industrial strategy seem to languish rather endlessly, casinos, on the other hand, seem to have become almost a fait accompli within a matter of weeks.

It seems interesting to us that in the past, when he was Leader of the Opposition, the Premier expressed some very strong concerns about the integrity of previous governments. He frequently denounced lotteries, casinos, the greediness of modern society, and he vowed that his government would adhere to a higher standard of integrity and conduct than ever before. In fact, it was just in 1990 that the Premier wrote, "The casino plays on greed, the sense of the ultimate chance, the hope against hope that the spin of the wheel or the shoot of the dice will produce instant wealth, instant power, instant gratification." I would ask the Premier why he has changed his position on casino gambling so completely.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for the quality of her research. I simply repeat to the honourable member the answer I've given, that no final decisions by the government have been made in this area at all.

Mrs McLeod: I realize fully that it's not my responsibility to provide answers to the Premier as well as to ask the questions, but I'm a little surprised; when I asked why his position has changed, he might have responded by at least referencing the rather desperate economic situation of border communities like Windsor that are making the proposals for casino gambling. There is no question in the minds of any of us that the people of Windsor and the people in communities across this province are indeed desperate. The Windsor economy is shattered in large part because of the impact of cross-border shopping.

We also all know that mayors of border communities have been pressing this government for some action, any action, to alleviate the kind of serious problems they're facing. They've asked for wide-open Sunday shopping to stem the tide of shoppers crossing the border to the United States, and they've asked that the gas tax be reduced, also to stem cross-border shopping, yet the government has not responded to any of the requests in these areas. I suggest to the Premier that it's not surprising that communities are rather desperate for gambling casinos, because the government has given them nothing else to grasp. No other alternative has been offered.

If the Premier is prepared to consider opening casinos to assist the beleaguered economies of Windsor and other communities, will he also consider the other alternative solutions those communities have been pressing him for?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member has to put it in the context of what is also going on in New York state, Quebec, Manitoba, Michigan -- what's going on in competing jurisdictions. This is the reality we have to deal with as a government, as I am sure she would --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: Obviously this government is considering, as any government would consider, proposals that have come from border communities and mayors in all parts of the province. The Treasurer and the government have carried out the most extensive pre-budget consultation of any recent government, so it's only natural we would consider any reasonable proposals that are put forward.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Premier. It's a little tempting to consider this a rather non-enlightening exchange, but I will now turn my attention and the attention of the Premier to yet another of the issues causing this economy literally to lurch from one crisis to another. The Premier has just mentioned the Treasurer's pre-budget consultations. It's exactly that issue I wanted to come back to.

The Premier is well aware that the Treasurer has told Ontario that it can expect substantial tax increases in next week's budget. I suppose we can only hope that the Treasurer is simply warning people of that so that they'll be relieved when he actually doesn't carry forward with that proposal.

We're concerned that one idea the government seems to have is to increase the numbers of goods and services covered by the provincial sales tax; such things as children's clothing and books could be taxed to pay for the NDP's last disastrous budget. But every proposal to change the provincial sales tax, according to the Treasurer's own consultative working group, will cost Ontarians jobs. I ask the Premier to commit to not changing the provincial sales tax system when his own studies say that such a move will simply cost more jobs.

1410

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I must congratulate the honourable member, because this is a time-trusted, if slightly time-worn, strategy in opposition in the week prior to the budget: asking me as the leader of the government or the Treasurer to either rule out or rule in certain tax measures or any kinds of tax measures that she will list and could list.

She could parade all kinds of horrors in front of us and say: "Are you going to do this? Are you going to do that? Won't you at least commit to not doing that?" The honourable member knows perfectly well that I'm not about to reveal or discuss any budget proposals in the House prior to their being presented to the House by the Treasurer. She knows perfectly well that I can't do that under the traditions of this place.

I simply say to her that this government is committed to being as fair as possible, to being as realistic as possible and to doing as much as it can to create employment in the province. Those are the commitments we've made to the people.

Mrs McLeod: I don't indulge in time-worn strategies. This is a real day in Ontario and this government has to deal with the realities of today. I am as desperately concerned about the economic situation of this province as the people in the communities across the province are.

Mr Speaker, we know how desperate this government is for new tax revenue and we know the government thinks it can get that by broadening the base of the province's sales tax. The Fair Tax Commission's sales tax working group says that kind of move could cost anywhere up to 32,000 jobs even if the change in the tax is revenue-neutral -- although we hope the Treasurer hasn't learned about revenue-neutral taxes from Michael Wilson. In other words, if the Premier actually wants more money from this new tax --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: I want to make the point very clear. If the Premier actually wants more money from a new sales tax or a change in the sales tax, he will have to actually increase the sales tax people are paying and throw even more people out of work. I ask the Premier why his government is considering this kind of sales tax grab when he knows such a move will only lengthen the lineups at the Unemployment Insurance Commission.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member that hers was the party that last raised the sales tax. Our party reduced the impact of the sales tax, in one of the first actions we took as government, by up to nearly $500 million. That is the kind of commitment we've shown as a party in terms of that issue.

As she's quoted so strongly from the Fair Tax Commission, I can obviously tell her that it's precisely the kinds of arguments and concerns that have been expressed by the Fair Tax Commission that of course the government would take into account in drawing up its budget.

Mrs McLeod: When you develop a budget in a particular year, surely you look at the realities of that particular day. This government has certainly understood it can't spend its way out of a recession. Surely they can understand that you can't tax your way out of a recession either. This government makes economic renewal its own priority. We simply want to reinforce the fact that job maintenance and job creation have to be the number one priority for this government and for the budget it's going to present. When you boost taxes, obviously it's going to take money out of the pockets of Ontarians, who are not going to buy things, and then companies are going to lay off workers.

I'm sorry to see that today we have yet another example of this depressing cycle, with Dofasco having announced that it will cut more than 1,000 jobs by year's end because not enough people can afford to buy cars and other products that use the company's steel.

In March, more than 1,000 people lost their jobs every day in Ontario and it looks like the trend is continuing in April. I would simply ask the Premier why he is looking at tax increases when it is only through holding taxes down that his government can actually get Ontario working again.

Hon Mr Rae: The party that raised taxes 33 times in its budgets between 1985 and 1990 is now parading as if it's got religion. It won't wash. It just won't wash and it won't add up. I would simply say this to the honourable member: She is very quickly falling into what we now know are the traditions of Liberalism in opposition: Don't raise taxes, spend more money and lower the deficit. To describe that as voodoo is to pay it a compliment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I'd like to pursue the area raised by the leader of the official opposition on how the government intends to fund this province by gambling, and specifically to carry on with how the indignant Premier has reversed his speech, the casino-plays-on-greed issue. Madam Minister, having heard that and having watched the roulette wheel of your government go around for the last week when we last asked you the question, can you tell us, in your opinion how many jobs will be lost as a result of this decision you're about to make?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member for St George-St David come to order, please.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would just like to tell the member and reiterate what the Premier said earlier and what I said last week when questioned about this. No final decision has been made. This is one of the many areas this government has been exploring in terms of non-tax revenue. We have had discussions about it. We will continue to discuss it, but no decision has been made at this point.

1420

Mr Tilson: The question had to do with the loss of jobs, not non-tax revenue or all the other funny words you're trying to develop over there. The question was, how many jobs is it going to cost the people of this province? You obviously have no idea. This is nothing more than Bugsy Laughren's desperate effort to get his hands on a few more bucks; nothing more. That's all you're up to. You're gambling with every charity, every amateur hockey team, every raceway. You're gambling in the dark, Madam Minister. Has your decision been based on anything other than a bettor's hunch?

Hon Ms Churley: I had trouble hearing the last question because of the din from the other side. I don't know if it's in the rules, but if he --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: There it goes again. However, I believe the member's talking about lost jobs, etc. I would like to point out that in the process of deliberating this question and during the process of consideration, I have consulted quite widely to date.

I believe the member is concerned about the horse racing industry in particular. Over time, I have met with a variety of people from the horse racing industry, including the Ontario Harness Horsemen's Association, the Ontario Horse Breeders Association and the chair of the Ontario Racing Commission etc, and will continue to do that.

I have said in the past, and will say again, that we are taking a very balanced approach to this. It's of great concern to me that we balance all the issues we're talking about here. Of course we're taking into consideration, when we have these discussions, the impact it would have on charities and the horse racing industry. We will continue to take that into consideration and consult on those matters.

Mr Tilson: Madam Minister, we're very concerned over here as to which way you're going on this. We're concerned on a number of issues, because your answers seem to be all over the place. In fact, I'm waiting for Wayne Newton to be the new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Madam Minister, will you tell me this: When you were a councillor, how did you vote on the issue of gambling, when that matter would come before you, at the Canadian National Exhibition? Would you tell us that? How did you vote?

Hon Ms Churley: I really don't think that is relevant to the questions that are being asked today.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: I believe our position here is very clear.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: I'll address my comments to you, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. This House stands recessed for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1425.

1436

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, through you to the Minister of Government Services, who is just coming in, we have just learned that the ministry has spent over $1 million on the NDP propaganda phone line. Will the minister tell the House what the government is planning to spend on polling in the next few years?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): The actual sum of money we will be spending on all types of polling in the next few years is difficult to say at this time. But where polling is considered necessary and part of government policy, we certainly will poll.

Mr Turnbull: I am inclined to say perhaps we need a recess for 10 minutes so the minister can check what he should respond with.

Your government seems to be ignoring the public opinion polls on labour law, which are available free to you. I hope you are not going to plan to do polling until you find some people who will agree with you, because the province will be bankrupt if you do that.

I have a copy of a proposal. It is a request for a proposal for opinion polling over the next three years. According to this document, one or more contracts for both qualitative and quantitative work will be awarded for up to $500,000 each. That is a minimum of $1 million. Will you tell us, is it going to be $1 million, $2 million or $3 million, and can you guarantee that the polling data are going to be made available to the public, the taxpayers who are paying for them and this House?

Hon Mr Wilson: The setting of tenders for whatever object, whether it's for polling or for other service to the government, is a matter of course. I am not at liberty to discuss any tendering action in this House at this time.

Mr Turnbull: That is the most idiotic answer I have ever heard. The request for tender is a public document. We know that the Liberals took a poll before they sneezed. It looks as if your government is going to do the same thing.

I notice in the proposal, which you don't seem to know about, Minister -- and I quote from it -- it says, "Describe the particular subsets of the Ontario population that are, in your opinion, most important in polling for the Ontario government." Could the minister tell me what subsets of the Ontario population his government considers to be politically correct for polling purposes?

Hon Mr Wilson: I simply will not discuss a proposal for tender before this House. You know it is irregular. But I will tell you this. Any information we do gather from polling, by whatever method, will be made available to the public.

Mr Turnbull: When?

Hon Mr Wilson: When the polls are taken and the questions are given.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): In the absence of the Minister of Labour I would like to direct my question to the Premier of Ontario. Premier, as you are aware, Ontario, and specifically southwestern Ontario, is experiencing deindustrialization through plant closures and job losses at a rate never seen before in the province. In 1991, 118 complete plant closures took place, and 14,269 employees were affected by these closures.

Premier, your government has had more than 18 months to put in place initiatives to deal with this deindustrialization. So far we have seen nothing coming from the Ministry of Labour or any other important ministry to deal with the problems these workers are facing. Could you please tell me what initiatives are ready to go today? After 18 months in office, which initiatives can in fact be implemented today which will be able to help workers who have lost their jobs through this deindustrialization?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let's not forget that it was just a little over a week ago -- and I discussed this with the honourable member just as he was coming over here to be nice just a few minutes ago. I said to him the investment --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: No, that is another reason, but you have to be pretty forgetful to forget the fact that it was just eight days ago that Ford of Canada announced a $1-billion investment in Windsor. The honourable member says that's not important or that's what happened last week. That's a very, very substantial investment that's being made.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): What did you pay?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Nepean says what did we do. I can assure the honourable member, and he will know this if he reflects on it for a moment, that of course discussions with the government were a factor in terms of the decision that was made by Ford of Canada with respect to its investments in Oakville and its decisions in Windsor. I can also tell the honourable member that the budget will obviously need to address the crucial need for new investment and for regional development and for jobs, and that's what the budget is going to address.

Mr Mancini: Today we learned that Dofasco Inc of Hamilton is restructuring and downsizing its plants, costing over 1,000 jobs. The Ford announcement will not help those 1,000 workers. Yesterday we received notice that the Allied Chemicals plant in Anderdon township, near Amherstburg, was to be mothballed; 100 jobs have been lost. The vast majority of these 100 jobs are highly skilled, well-paying jobs, allowing employees to earn $40,000 to $50,000 per year. We are not talking about minimum-paying jobs; we are talking about high-wage, high-economic-spinoff jobs.

I want to know from the Premier -- and you'll be going to Windsor soon, so you might want to address the Allied workers directly -- what do these employees who were fired yesterday have to look forward to and what can you do to be of assistance to these workers who are losing their jobs and the communities that are losing their tax base during these difficult economic times?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member will know that what we are experiencing is very difficult. I'm not denying that for a moment. I cannot put sugar on what is a very difficult pill in terms of what is happening to the province. What I can tell the honourable member is that there are signs that the recovery is going to be stronger at the end of 1992, that we are going to have to attract new investment, that we're going to have to create new jobs, that we're going to have to do a better job on training, that we're going to have to do a better job in terms of ensuring that there is new investment and the expansion of existing investment; that's exactly what we're trying to do. It isn't easy.

I would say to the honourable member that the layoffs didn't start on September 6, 1990. He knows perfectly well that this process we're going through as a province has roots that are a fact for us as a province that we're going to have to contend with, and I don't have a magic wand. What we do have is a commitment in this budget, as in the last budget, to create more jobs and to encourage more investment, and that is precisely the commitment we make to the people of the province as we go through these tough times together.

PEPPER SPRAY TESTING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Solicitor General related to the NDP government's lack of support for policing in this province. The Solicitor General professes to be supportive of police. I would like to ask him what he is doing in respect to a recommendation by the provincial equipment advisory committee to field test pepper spray. We're talking about a non-toxic spray police could use to apprehend criminals, a spray police are currently using in British Columbia. What are you doing about that, Minister?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The honourable member refers to a product called Capsicum. He refers to it as a pepper-based product; the trade name is Capsicum. It is a product being field tested in the province of British Columbia and in other jurisdictions. Our ministry has recently received those field test results. We are considering and reviewing them in terms of their applicability to the jurisdiction of policing here in Ontario. When we complete those testings and considerations, we will advise police services boards throughout the province as to whether the ministry recommends their particular use.

Mr Runciman: I don't know how to respond to that. I'm not sure whether this minister is deliberately misleading the House or is simply unaware of what's going on, but I can't believe that, based on the facts before me.

This recommendation was on this minister's desk back in October of last year. The Liberals had it in February 1990 and did not act upon it.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I wonder why.

Mr Runciman: Yes, I wonder why.

To suggest that British Columbia is conducting field tests -- that's not the case. There are now six police forces in British Columbia using it.

The minister had this proposal before him, I am told, in October or November of last year, and the minister's response when it was placed before him for signature and approval for field testing was: "This is too controversial. I don't want to end up on the back bench" -- that from the man who's supposed to represent police interests around the cabinet table.

The minister simply didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the police because he's more concerned about his own political future. He won't stand up for this province's policemen and policewomen because that would mean taking on the anti-police string-pullers in the Premier's office. We just heard the Premier's reaction when we talked about this pepper spray that's going to help policemen and policewomen in this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Runciman: Minister, why won't you commit yourself today to an immediate field testing of pepper spray?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The quote the honourable member attributed to me I would have found much more authoritative had he quoted the source of this alleged quote, or whoever said I said such a thing. In terms of being concerned about moving to the back bench, if that were the case, at least I wouldn't have far to go, because I'm almost there now.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Thank you very much. I appreciate the support of the honourable member for St George-St David and suggest to him that while I haven't reached the back benches, he's obviously reached a bench he should be concerned about.

None the less, the item was in fact brought to the desk. It is a question that does fall within the gamut of the use of force. It is a matter, as I indicated to him, that was being field tested in British Columbia. I was waiting on that government to make a determination as to whether it would endorse it for its police forces throughout the province. The matter is current, it is before us, and we will be making a decision in the not-too-distant future.

1450

CREDIT UNIONS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Mr Minister, in my riding of Durham East, and particularly in the village where I live, Orono, they've just announced that they're opening a new autoworkers' credit union. Believe me, that outlet is needed; the downtown area has been devastated by layoffs, so I'm looking forward to this place opening.

In the speech from the throne there was some reference to the part that credit unions will play in the wellbeing of workers and communities; there was reference made to that in the throne speech. Minister, can you fill me and my constituents in on what initiatives you are planning to introduce the effective credit unions?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): The reference the member refers to in the throne speech is a project we've been involved in since the fall; we're in the process of major discussions with the credit union movement in the province. We're looking seriously at complete reform of the credit union legislation in this province, first of all in an attempt to level the playing field by which the financial institutions operate in this province. The credit unions are presently restricted from providing a number of services that other financial institutions have access to. In addition to that, we want to make it a little more appropriate in terms of credit unions' ability to provide useful investment vehicles for community development investment in local communities.

Mr Mills: That was such a succinct answer that it leaves me very little manoeuvrability. However, how are the credit unions going to be affected by these initiatives, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Charlton: As I said, the discussions we're involved in are direct discussions with the credit union movement across this province in all three of the sectors. It's our view and I think the view of the credit union movement that the changes we're looking at will be very positively welcomed by the credit union movement across the province.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question of the Minister of Skills Development, another question along the lines of why the words and the music of the throne speech just aren't in sync. There were some very positive words in that throne speech with regard to skills development, especially to people who are on social assistance, but that music is ringing a sour note throughout this province for those very people.

We brought to the attention of this House examples of pilot projects that our government had started in the past that you have cancelled, which is really sending those people back home to collect the welfare cheque. We believe that's wrong. We have brought to the attention of this House the municipalities that were promised training dollars two years ago, and to date they have not received those dollars.

We know that through the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board you're reorganizing skills training in Ontario, but what are you doing today for those people who are shut out of those programs and are going home and have to get that welfare cheque?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): Let me say in the first instance that the programs that have been referred to by the member opposite as pilot projects were indeed just that, set up by his government. They were time-limited, they were to test certain approaches to training, and they have run their course, some of them, so they are terminating. Some of them have worked and some of them have been hugely costly, and you wouldn't want to invest those dollars on a per-job basis if you were on this side of the House.

What I want to say, however, is that we have an active program of training programs in Ontario at this time that deal, for example, with every aspect of training needs of those in technology programs, expanding apprenticeships, facilitating the re-entry of those in social services and on social assistance into training. We have addressed all those issues. We're expanding sectoral training initiatives in various sectors of training in industry, and all those have equity components to them addressed to precisely the persons the member was referring to.

Mr Ramsay: Those programs have been very successful. There is example after example of people who have picked themselves up and have started their own businesses or have picked up new skills and are back to work. We'd like to see the continuation of those programs.

The other day in the House the minister talked about the establishment of OTAB, and workers' say on that. What the minister said is, "If those who are unorganized out there want to have an organized voice to speak with, they know how to do it." I'm very pleased, as are all of us over here, that organized labour has a strong voice on OTAB, but today I'd like to speak to the 70% of people who won't have a voice on your new training board. Many of these people represent sectors of the economy that historically have never been organized, and many of them represent some of the work in the new industries that aren't as yet organized. These people need a voice at the table. I'd like to ask the minister today what he is going to do to ensure that those people have a fair say in the future of skills training in Ontario.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): In the first instance, it's quite clear that the whole board, representing labour and business and trainers and entry or re-entry groups, will speak on behalf of all of those in Ontario in need of expanded training. That's the job of the board. Let me say that we have not told employers whom they should send to the board. We have not told trainers whom they should send to the board. We're not telling labour whom they should send to the board. They will be sending the people they can, and they'll be sending them from whatever organized sectors are out there. I cannot help it if there are masses of workers who have chosen not to be organized, for whatever reason, but they will be represented by the whole board, which will address the whole problem of training in the whole province of Ontario.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question today is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Yesterday he told reporters that he does not have to concern himself with the impact of his government's taxation policies on the tourism industry. I am told he said: "I'm not the Treasurer. It's not my job to think that way." Would the minister please indicate to the House what he sees his responsibilities as being?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): My job as the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is to advocate the interests of both tourism and recreation partners in the province. I do in fact work with the Treasurer. I work with treasury; I work with cabinet; I work with caucus. I also work with the partners out in the field to develop and help nurture tourism and recreation in the province. The Treasurer is the man who makes the decisions on taxes and those things in conjunction with cabinet and caucus and government as a whole.

Mr Arnott: That's a very reasonable response, but the largest tourist interest group in Ontario, Tourism Ontario Inc, thinks that high provincial taxation is one of the biggest problems it faces today. In fact, this group is so concerned that the current taxation inequities are having a detrimental impact on tourism operators that it made a pre-budget presentation to the Treasurer and Minister of Economics on this very subject.

I have counted the number of times that the words "tax" and "taxation" appear in this document. These words appear 20 times. Yet the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I feel, does not fully understand that he must familiarize himself with the impact of taxation policies on the tourism industry. What is the minister going to do to ensure the recommendations and suggestions regarding taxation and tourism contained in the March 10 pre-budget submission by Tourism Ontario are adopted in the provincial budget?

Hon Mr North: As the member well knows, we have had opportunities to speak to the Treasurer and treasury about all issues concerning taxation and the tourism industry, as well as the taxes on small business, which is a large part of the tourism industry. Yesterday, as a matter of fact, I had an opportunity to speak with some people at Tourism Ontario. We had a large group together. We've had discussions about the issues. We brought those issues forward to the Treasurer. Those are decisions that will be made during the course of setting a budget for 1992-93. I'm sure that issues concerning taxation in all areas will be addressed in the budget that is forthcoming.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, Ontario farmers and food processors continue to face immense adjustment pressures as a result of the Canada-US free trade agreement. Our farmers and food processors also face uncertainty over the outcome of the GATT negotiations. Minister, would you please update the House on the status of the GATT agricultural negotiations?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The Ontario agriculture and food industry is very concerned with what the final outcome of the GATT negotiations will look like. Ontario continues to support the Canadian position. We support the clarification of article XI and the reduction of export subsidies. I would say that the negotiations had a target date for conclusion of Easter. As we know, Easter has passed. There is some concern in the agricultural community and in other sectors of the economy that we may not have a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round. Agriculture is the key component in the failure to reach a satisfactory conclusion of those talks.

There are efforts under way, today actually, between President Bush and European Community President Delors to try to break the deadlock between the US and the European Community. There is some optimism that there may be a breaking of that deadlock, and they can hopefully conclude the negotiations in successful rules and regulations for agriculture and food in the country.

1500

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I have a copy of correspondence sent by an official in your ministry to the Ontario Medical Association with respect to the potential removal of certain medical services from OHIP coverage. Included on that list are sterilization procedures, which would include vasectomies and tubal ligations, and I point out that if those services are removed from OHIP the only birth control procedure that would be included for OHIP coverage in Ontario would be abortion. I am asking the minister if she will assure the House today that under no circumstances will vasectomies and tubal ligations be taken out of OHIP coverage, and furthermore that payment for those services will not be reduced.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I think the member raises legitimate concerns with respect to the specific procedures she raised, but in general, with respect to the debate around management of fee-for-service services and whether procedures like that should be delisted or whether there should be other ways that we manage the system, I would like to ask the member if she would send me a copy of the correspondence so I can refer to exactly what she is looking at.

I can assure her that there have been discussions with the Ontario Medical Association about the concept of delisting of services. However, at this point in time there have been no particular steps taken to approve any kind of list, and at this point in time I am inclined to agree with her that the issues of sensitivity she has raised around birth control -- and I would say that there are some other issues and procedures on that list that also raise sensitive issues -- are the kinds of things that would have to be considered before any kind of positive steps were taken at all.

Mrs Sullivan: I find the response of the minister shocking in that this is clearly not only an issue relating to health care; this is a women's issue. This government has spoken of and intended to project the impression that it is a proponent of women's issues. I think this kind of response is very, very damaging in terms of the confidence women can feel in terms of the Health minister being a proponent for them.

Also included on the list -- and I will send the minister the list -- is psychoanalysis, a course of treatment that has assisted thousands of people to live fully independent lives. Many of those people, also many of them women, have been severely traumatized by physical and sexual abuse, by incest and rape. Many have no alternative therapies available to assist them, and as I said before, many of them are women.

I also would like an assurance from the minister that under no circumstances would psychoanalysis be considered as a mere cosmetic service and removed therefore from OHIP coverage, and furthermore, that payment for those services would also not be reduced.

Hon Ms Lankin: I really appreciate the concern the member has and in fact I agree with her that the issues she has raised are women's issues. I myself, as a woman and as a feminist, have a great concern that our health care system is more responsive to women and not less responsive to women.

The manner in which we deliver services and the manner in which we pay for services is a matter of current debate in the province. I am not going to deny that people have been looking at options and that lists have been generated, but to take that to a step of suggesting that I personally am considering delisting of these issues at this point in time is to raise a level of hysteria and concern that is unwarranted.

The member, in question period, raises a list and wants instant answers on policy questions and matters that are under consideration. I am not going to respond in that way.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is to the Minister of Health. Youth substance and drug abuse services are tragically almost non-existent in Ontario. On February 13, 1992, you assured Parents Are People Too, a Kitchener-Waterloo group of parents fighting for their children's futures, that any United States facility that would accept the $200 per diem would not require prior approval from the ministry.

The Glenbeigh facilities in Ohio provides drug and alcohol services at the approved ministry rate, but your ministry will no longer allow children in desperate need to utilize the services provided by Glenbeigh. What is your response to the many families who now have absolutely nowhere to turn for drug and alcohol treatment for their children in spite of your assurances to the contrary?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy): I do recall meeting with these parents. They have met with my staff a couple of times as well. They certainly have a long-standing history of concern in active work and after-treatment program support work with the children in their community. It's an impressive group of people.

The actual quote the parents attribute to me, and a reporter did this morning as well, has me a bit perplexed. I can't remember the construction of the discussion around that. What I do recall, which is similar to what the member has said, is encouraging them with the facilities they've been dealing with in the United States -- at that point in time I believe they were dealing with hospitals -- to seek a reduction of the per diem rate those hospitals charged to the $200. I think it's probably a fair reflection that if in fact I didn't say those words, they might have been taken the way the member attributes it.

The problem we have is that the facility the parents have been referring their children to is not a hospital. The policy change we made was that out-of-country premiums would be paid to hospitals. I think the issue of services in Ontario is an important one. I can perhaps speak to that in response to the member's supplementary, but I want to assure her that the problem with respect to this facility's status as a hospital or not a hospital has only been brought to my attention. I can't give her an answer on that today, although I am of the current understanding that the reason payment is being denied is that the facility does not qualify as a hospital.

Mrs Witmer: Madam Minister, obviously it is preferable that we would have treatment facilities in the province for children under 16. Unfortunately we don't, and we don't see any improvement and we don't see any new services being brought on board. It's a sad reality that children's health and social services are in shambles. In fact, they're almost totally lacking in this province. I believe that you as minister have a responsibility to ensure that our children do have access to the drug and alcohol services they need.

It's unfortunate that we don't have the appropriate treatment facilities for these children in Ontario. Are you prepared to give your personal guarantee that your government will not continue to block treatment for these children in need and that it will start to make appropriate provisions in Ontario for these children?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member's concern with respect to the nature and level of services in Ontario is one the government shares and I share. You will know that we acted on recommendations from reports studying the system of therapy and treatment for addiction services to set up the drug and alcohol referral registry of treatment in Ontario. That registry is a very important tool modelled on some of the steps the previous government took with respect to cardiac care registries and others in order for us to be able to match individuals and their needs to programs that are in place.

What we have found since implementing it -- it is in early days and I don't have complete reports for the member -- is that we are better able to serve people and direct them to services that were being underutilized in some parts of the province.

We are also undertaking a reinvestment of dollars that have been saved from the out-of-country steps we have taken. The announcements with respect to the first set of dollars should be available soon. A review of those proposals is almost completed.

The member raises the issue with respect to children's services in particular.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: I assure her that I have been speaking with the Minister of Community and Social Services. The two of us have split jurisdiction for this issue. It is a matter of priority for us to look at how to augment those services.

1510

SKILLS TRAINING

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. Mr Minister, I met recently with officials of Local 46 of the plumbers and steamfitters union in my riding. The plumbers and steamfitters are concerned about our plans to restructure skills training through the creation of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. How will the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board impact on skills training and apprentice programs in Ontario's construction industry?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): That's a good question that is often asked. The training board, of course, is intended in the first instance to enhance and expand private sector training, and therefore the construction industry trades and their various programs will be participants in all aspects of the board and its councils. Therefore, they will benefit from the new resources that will be brought to bear on training in Ontario.

I suspect the member may have a more precise concern around that general question and I'd await her second question in order to respond.

Ms Swarbrick: I do. The plumbers' union pointed out that in fact training in the construction sector in general is superior to training in the industrial sector. They're concerned that their training standards will suffer under a training structure that removes their autonomy and combines them with the industrial sector. I am wondering, Mr Minister, if you could comment on what you and your ministry are doing to respond to the concerns of the plumbers' union and of their colleagues throughout the construction sector.

Hon Mr Allen: The construction trades, of course, have a very well-developed training system, widespread apprenticeships and are thoroughly bipartite -- employer-employee controlled and operated -- and they are well-established and long-standing.

There seems to be some misunderstanding that by relating to OTAB they somehow will lose their autonomy. I want to say that one of the principle activities of OTAB, which they would relate to, would be what would be called the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board sectoral training council, which will deal with organized sectors such as steel trades, electronics and so on. The construction trades would be a separate sector unto themselves and they would therefore function autonomously in their own way, in their right, and would set their own standards. The provincial advisory committees that govern each of their trades would remain in place.

They might even have their powers expanded under OTAB. There are many important ways in which they would benefit from OTAB without losing any of their autonomy or any of their dynamism as a well-founded and well-established training system.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH CORRESPONDENCE

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will recall that on April 7 I raised in the House the financial difficulties facing the board at the Willett Hospital in Paris. The minister must be aware that the record of our exchange was circulated throughout her ministry with a sarcastic and offensive covering note from a senior official in the hospital planning branch in which he states: "A banner day!!! Willett makes the House. It will close its OR (Oh my!) if it does not get funds. Where will all the bunions go?"

Further, since this memo was circulated to 54 of the minister's officials, I demanded this minister undertake to correct the record and apologize to the patients, physicians and board at the Willett Hospital. The minister promised encouragement and assistance on April 7 to the Willett Hospital board. Obviously she has neglected to pass down this promise to her officials.

My question to the minister is this: Is it acceptable to this minister to have her responses in the House circulated throughout her ministry with sarcastic and offensive comments made by her officials?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I truly appreciate the member drawing this to my attention. In fact, it hadn't been brought to my attention through any other source and I appreciate the opportunity to learn of this. Let me answer you very directly. No, I don't find that acceptable at all. I believe I have done a very effective job -- at least I thought I had done a very effective job -- of passing on throughout the ministry my commitment to try to communicate openly, directly, honestly and respectfully with the health partners out in the community.

The member demanded -- he could have asked, but he demanded -- an apology to the people of his community, the patients and the health care providers who use that institution. I very certainly will offer that apology here at this point in time and I will also take steps to ensure that the individual who may have circulated that, if that individual is made known to me, will also offer an apology to the people of his community.

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have been asked by Linda Field of Englehart to present a petition to this House. She wanted me to read it verbatim into the record, and I will, because it is short:

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

"Whereas the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at municipal levels; and

"Whereas the current government disputes its self-serving select committee and intends to encourage increased use of French in the courts, schools and other provincial services to ensure that the French Language Services Act is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations etc to comply not only with the written but also with the unwritten intent of the French Language Services Act; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayers are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education -- French language school board,

"We, the undersigned, request that the French Language Services Act be repealed and its artificial structures dismantled immediately, and English be declared as the official language of Ontario in governments, its institutions and services."

It is signed by 28 people and I am presenting that on behalf of Linda Field of Englehart.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise to submit a petition that is signed by 2,386 residents of Ontario, many of whom are from the riding of Lanark-Renfrew:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby urge our elected members of the Ontario Legislature to repeal the French Language Services Act of Ontario, Bill 8.

"Whereas this act was passed with only 44% of our MPPs present, with no recorded vote, and was discussed and passed almost entirely in French for less than 5% of the population, we deem this to be undemocratic procedure; and

"Whereas we are told that this act will not affect municipalities, why then was a costly 45-page task force report on municipal services in French prepared by francophones and sent to all municipalities for the future implementation of this act; and

"Whereas the designated areas in the act indicate 10% or a 5,000 francophone population as the criteria for providing French-language services, eg, Toronto, with over 2.6 million people, to be included as a designated area should have 260,000 francophones, but 5,000 actually makes it eligible; and

"Whereas billions of dollars spent on legislated bilingualism should be spent on schools, health, social and municipal services; and

"Whereas, as a result of the implementation of this act, thousands of careers have been affected, many cut short by layoffs, demotions and loss of promotions, this is serious discrimination,

"Therefore, be it resolved that the French Language Services Act of Ontario be repealed and our provincial government continue, as it has in the past, to accept and promote the use of English as the official language of communication with its citizens of each ethnic, cultural and language group, with all levels of government."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a number of petitions that have been signed by 76 Ontario residents, representing both the management and employees of a number of Ontario companies including William Day Construction, MBS Steel, Drainstar Contracting, Palmex Interior Systems and Advance Cutting and Coring. They read:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

1520

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's first report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCIAL CONSUMERS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES CONSOMMATEURS DE PRODUITS FINANCIERS

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill 13, An Act to provide for the Protection of Financial Consumers / Loi visant à assurer la protection des consommateurs de produits financiers.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): This is a reintroduction of Bill 3, which I introduced in the last session. The purpose of the bill is to provide greater protection for consumers who receive advice from financial planners or who invest in certain financial products offered by or through financial planners, agents and suppliers. The bill provides a stronger and more effective control over the activities of mortgage brokers, something this government continues to delay.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved resolution 4:

That the standing committee on public accounts consider the matter of the appointment of the Provincial Auditor and that the committee report to the House its recommended candidate for appointment as the Provincial Auditor on or before June 8, 1992.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved resolution 5:

That notwithstanding any standing order or previous order of the House, the following changes be made to the order for precedence for private members' public business:

Ballot item 2, Mr Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt); ballot item 5, Mr McGuinty; ballot item 8, Mr Brown; ballot item 11, Mr Henderson; ballot item 14, Mrs Caplan; ballot item 17, Mr Bradley; ballot item 20, Mr O'Neil (Quinte); ballot item 23, Mrs McLeod; ballot item 26, Mrs O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau); ballot item 29, Mr Ramsay; ballot item 32, Mr Elston; ballot item 35, Mr Conway; ballot item 38, Mr Cordiano; ballot item 41, Mr Poirier; ballot item 44, Mr Curling; ballot item 47, Mr McClelland; ballot item 50, Mr Grandmaître; ballot item 56, Ms Poole; ballot item 59, Mr Beer; ballot item 62, Mr Miclash; ballot item 64, Mr Chiarelli; ballot item 66, Mrs Sullivan; ballot item 68, Mr Scott; ballot item 70, Mrs Fawcett; ballot item 72, Mr Cleary; ballot item 74, Mr Offer; ballot item 76, Mr Callahan; ballot item 80, Mr Mancini; ballot item 82, Mr Sola; ballot item 84, Mr Ruprecht; ballot item 86, Mr Daigeler; ballot item 88, Mr Mahoney; ballot item 90, Mr Sorbara; ballot item 92, Mr Morin.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Runciman moved opposition day motion 1:

That, in the opinion of this House, since this government has assumed office, there has been a significant increase in crime, particularly violent crimes and crimes against women and children; this government has demonstrated various misuses of police resources; this government has politicized police services boards; this government has failed to provide a bill of rights for victims of crime; this government has not provided adequate support for law enforcement agencies on the streets and in the courts; this government has undermined the morale of police forces in Ontario through political pressure and fiscal strangulation; this government has taken no action to address the serious shortage of Ontario Provincial Police officers and this shortage has left numerous communities unprotected; this government has continued the pattern of neglect and low prioritization of Ontario's law and order concerns established by recent Liberal governments; therefore, this House calls upon the government to introduce specific measures to resolve these concerns so the citizens of Ontario and those who visit our communities can walk our streets safely and without fear.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I draw to your attention that I don't think that sort of thing is allowed in the chamber, that box. I ask that it be removed if it's not allowed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I assume the member is referring to the large box that is in the chamber. We do discourage having large objects in the chamber. I wonder if the member could perhaps move it to the side or place it somewhere else after he's had it on display for a little bit. Having moved the motion, the member may begin his speech.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This is not a display, as some members suggested; this is the packaged-up results of an advertising campaign by the Ontario Provincial Police Association, 13,000 responses expressing concerns of citizens right across this province about this government's lack of appropriate support for the Ontario Provincial Police in this province.

I would like to have a page -- I suspect one or two might be necessary -- to take this to the Solicitor General, please. We trust the Solicitor General will ensure these coupons are delivered to the Premier. They're addressed to the Premier, but regrettably he isn't present for this debate today.

We have very limited time. We could, in our caucus in any event, talk about this subject at length, because we certainly have a great many concerns in regard to law and order issues in this province and the way in which the NDP government is dealing with those very legitimate concerns of everyday people. We see incidents like the abduction of a young lady in St Catharines recently, case after case of very significant crimes occurring and, in our view, many of these are not being addressed in an adequate fashion.

The coupons are one expression of those concerns in respect to the OPP shortages. Many areas in this province are simply not adequately protected during many hours of the day. Restrictions placed upon them by this current government and the past Liberal government and to some extent the previous Conservative government have created extreme difficulties in this province for the OPP and are creating what we have described and what the police association has described as a policing crisis, especially in many parts of rural Ontario.

I was at a function last night, an organizational reception of a group called ProAction. I guess the driving force is John Bitov, a well-known businessman in Metropolitan Toronto, supported by many prominent citizens, such as Lincoln Alexander, the former Lieutenant Governor, Senator Trevor Eyton and others who are very concerned about all the negative media directed towards policemen and policewomen in this province, who have formed this foundation to support police involvement in community-based programming, essentially in the Metro Toronto area, but we hope this is going to spread. What the ProAction Foundation is hoping to accomplish is effectively to unsilence the silent majority.

One of the people who spoke at the event last night was the president of Brights Wines, who three weeks ago had been at a banking machine, had withdrawn some money from a banking machine, and as he was leaving he was attacked by two young offenders, who stabbed him several times in the chest and took off with his funds. The gentleman survived, simply because he was able to get to a car phone, dial 911 and get immediate assistance from police and ambulance authorities. I think he was indicating the way society in Ontario is changing and has changed, and not for the better, in the last number of years.

This government and its predecessor government have effectively failed to address those growing concerns. In fact, they've taken an opposite tack, in many instances having a very negative impact on policing and police morale right across this province.

When you take a look at some statistics -- I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but in 1985, the last year of a Conservative government, the provincial share of municipal policing costs in this province was over 18%. In the NDP budget of last year it was slightly under 12%, a 6% drop in the assistance provided by the province to municipal policing costs.

On the other side of that ledger, if we can just take a look at two yearly statistics, 1990 and 1991, crime statistics in Ontario, we've seen homicides increase by over 18%, attempted murder by 163%, sexual offences -- in just one year, mind you, from 1990 to 1991 -- up 17.5% and robberies up 44.3%. In Metro Toronto, total violent crime has increased close to 10%, and in every category of offence. Whether it is sexual assault, abduction, attempted homicide or homicide, they have all increased -- homicides by close to 38%; a record number of homicides in Metro Toronto last year.

1530

When you look at the provincial policing costs right now, in 1991 the OPP budget as a percentage of total provincial expenditures was less than 1%. In a survey I did some months ago of municipal officials across this province, the majority indicated that they felt that in terms of funding from the province, law and order -- policing -- should rank number two or three in the order of priorities of this government. I don't know what we could look at that would rank much lower than less than 1% of total expenditures going to the OPP.

We are not talking about new money going into policing. The minister may get up later and talk about the Conservatives being contradictory. We're not talking about new money; we're talking about allocation of resources. We believe it can be done. A lot more money should be going into policing in this province. It doesn't have to mean new money and it doesn't have to mean additional taxes to the people of this province.

We want to take a look at a couple of things; for example, the misuse of police resources. The Ontario Provincial Police Association brought this up. Taking a look at the Ministry of the Solicitor General over the past number of years -- this goes over a couple of governments -- there has been an increase in the ministry of close to 67%; when you take new people, new bodies, bureaucrats going into the Ministry of the Solicitor General, there has been an increase of 67%. When we look at the uniformed force of the OPP, there has been a very modest increase over that same period of 9%. The people out there doing the real policing saw an increase of 9% while the bureaucracy grew at an astounding rate of 67%. Something's very wrong when we talk about the misuse of police resources.

We can point to the fact of using 30 OPP officers from various units across this province to protect the NDP budget. That's another misuse. For the last Conservative budget we had eight OPP officers. The Liberals got up a couple of weeks ago and complained about this. They had 28 OPP officers to protect the the last Liberal budget, and they get up and complain about the NDP having 30. Birds of a feather.

We can take a look at the Mary Hogan memo. The Deputy Attorney General's lawyer was sending a memo to the Attorney General outlining all the disagreements and the bitter relationship between the Attorney General and his deputy. That memo leaked to the media. This NDP government called in the police force to investigate a leaked memo from a lawyer to the deputy. They're more interested in nailing political enemies than carrying out real, effective policing.

We talked about a whistle-blowing law when this party got into government. "We're going to bring in a whistle-blowing law to protect people who tell the truth." Well, here's someone telling the truth -- it was admitted -- and they take two homicide detectives, two of the finest men in blue, out of the Metro force to investigate this kind of leak. Shameful.

Then we take a look at the raid on Liberal Party offices. Again, another effort to intimidate the bureaucracy and anyone who may try to tell what is going on within the confines of this government. A terrible misuse of police resources, simply terrible.

We can talk about the politicization of police services boards. We can look at Mary Nnolim, the Peel region appointee who said before her appointment was finalized, "I believe that all police lie on the witness stand." I brought that forward and this minister would not revoke that appointment, would not even conduct an investigation. The chief of police in Peel said this minister's action does nothing but create considerable loss of morale within Peel region when you have a member of the board, appointed by this government, saying she believes all police lie on the witness stand.

Interjection: Unbelievable.

Mr Runciman: Unbelievable indeed. At least the Ontario Police Commission has taken it upon itself to investigate this. The government wouldn't do it. They wouldn't take a look at their own appointee. At least the police commission is now taking a look at it.

We have to take a look at other people being appointed to police services boards. We're getting people from a variety of labour unions -- nothing wrong with that -- we're getting a lot of social activists, but that's what we're getting. We're not getting any business people, people who know how to manage a budget. We're simply getting people who have been in the NDP camp. We're not getting a broad spectrum of appointees. We're all going to suffer for it; all municipalities across this province are going to suffer for it.

I want to talk about the most infamous appointee, and this individual was appointed by the Liberal government: Miss Susan Eng. She's been appointed as the chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board by the NDP government in a controversial back-door reappointment that the Premier tried to keep quiet. No one in this House had an opportunity to even say anything about that appointment before it went through cabinet. This is someone who brings people like Dudley Laws into a police board meeting, an individual with a number of police charges, and tries to embarrass the chief of police of Metro Toronto. He had to leave that meeting. She's done that on numerous occasions. She deals through the media. She's a media hound. She's a publicity hound. She has no right to be serving as chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board; she should not be there. But this is the sort of individual they use in their social experiments with police services boards right across this province. We're all going to pay for it.

Last night I was watching CITY-TV for a few moments. They had a segment on policing in Metro Toronto, and they had Susan Eng on as a guest. One of the things she said was that during her years on the Metro services board, including her time as chair, she has not been in a police squad car. She has not gone on a tour with an officer on the beat. She doesn't have a clue about the kinds of problems these people are facing, and here she's serving as chair. She has the unmitigated gall to say, "I'll get around to it some time, but I'm the person who's going to be making decisions affecting their lives," and affecting the lives of the residents of Metro Toronto who depend upon policemen and policewomen to protect them in their neighbourhoods and communities. That's the sort of person we're getting.

They also talked about the frustration of police officers with the political interference from the board and from the provincial government, policemen talking about how they have to be so politically correct. They can't identify a potential culprit as a black male or as an Asian male. They have to say "a non-white male" or they're going to be up on the carpet. They can't identify them because they have to be politically correct. What we're doing is handicapping our police officers and not allowing them to do an appropriate job.

Another area is a bill of rights for victims of crime. My colleague the member for Burlington South has for over three years been trying to have a victims' rights bill. He's introduced it, tried to have it passed by both the Liberal and NDP governments, and all they've done is stonewall him. Ontario is the only provincial jurisdiction in Canada which does not have a crime victims' bill of rights. Despite this fact, the member for Burlington South's bill has been successively blocked by both Liberal and NDP governments. I want to applaud the efforts of the member for Burlington South on behalf of victims of crime in Ontario. I'm calling on the Premier and the Attorney General to stop sitting on their hands and to bring in the member for Burlington South's crime victims' bill of rights and make sure it passes.

We talk about the members across the room in the white ribbon campaign to commemorate violence against women by men. On that day I refused to wear that white ribbon because this place reeked of hypocrisy. As Toronto Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein said in a column, "Some things you cheapen with a ribbon." I'd like to quote an additional excerpt from that column.

"I will not be wearing a white ribbon because I am, frankly, suspicious of the real agenda of many of those who will and who want me to. Let me explain why. I am suspicious because I venture to say many of those people who will be so proudly wearing their little ribbons are the same self-proclaimed sensitive, liberal, leftish, politically correct types who for years have fought against any and all attempts to make the justice system tougher on criminals.

"What they seem to want is a system that makes everyone a criminal or a suspected criminal or a potential criminal and that makes everyone but them wallow in perpetual guilt. In fact, their real agenda seems to be a desire to frighten the law-abiding majority into not daring to venture any opinion on issues as diverse as crime, immigration, welfare, multiculturalism and the like by declaring anyone who disagrees with their so-called progressive views racist or sexist.

"These are the sorts of people who have ridiculed the Toronto Sun for years when it stood virtually alone among the major Canadian media in calling for the restoration of capital punishment, for tougher sentencing of criminals, for adequate resources for the police, for tougher bail and parole conditions and for more attention to be paid to the rights of the victims of crime rather than the criminals." Amen.

1540

I talked about pepper sprays earlier today, where this minister is not willing to put a tool in the hands of police that would give them the ability to knock down a 250-pound aggressor. This has been proven in field tests. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has carried out two major tests and knocked down a 250-pound aggressor. They don't have to resort to a gun. We have tear gas, which is much more harmful than pepper sprays, used in the province and widespread across Canada. He's not prepared to because he thinks it's going to be too politically dicey; it may jeopardize his position. I understand that, given the Premier's reaction today. When I mentioned pepper sprays and the Liberals not doing anything about it when they had the recommendation, he said, "That's understandable." I said there are anti-police string-pullers in the Premier's office and he confirmed it. We've known it for years, but he confirmed it today.

We can take a look at Constable Brian Rapson, who was discharged at a preliminary inquiry on a charge of attempted murder. What happened? Under pressure from vocal minority groups the Attorney General came forward with a preferred indictment and political pressure from the Dudley Laws of the world, and we had that man and his family put through all that stress, all that agony and all that pain simply because of this Attorney General and the NDP government's political agenda.

A great many of these controversies revolve around the question of race and the predictable charges of police racism by Mr Laws and other of his ilk as well as frequent fuel from the Toronto Star. No doubt there are police officers who are racist, just as there are racists in all professions. In cases where officers maltreat visible minorities, they should be disciplined just as they should be if they maltreat any citizen. If the offence is serious, the officer in question should be suspended or fired. In cases where police unnecessarily shoot suspects, they should be charged, but let's not implicate all police officers and paint them all with the same brush.

It's really disgusting that at the very time that the police are being faced with increased levels of crimes such as assaults, drug use, drug-related crimes and street gangs, this is the time the government is turning its back on the police.

As we look into the 1990s we can expect turbulent change in this province. With a growing and changing population, rapidly expanding cities and considerable economic displacement, the pressures on the government will be great. One question we must ask is, how safe will our province be? With increased urbanization more and more Ontarians will wonder, how safe will our cities be?

I have given just some examples, out of a file full of them, to tell this House that the NDP government is doing its best to thwart the efforts of our police forces to maintain the high degree of safety -- which is not only a custom in our province; it's taken as a right. Ordinary citizens, like those sending in the OPP coupons, must continue to speak up on behalf of the police, or the NDP, along with its Liberal cronies and various self-styled organizations that claim to speak for large segments of society, will irreparably damage police morale, severely handicap their ability to fight crime and ultimately damage public safety.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): As all present in this chamber are aware, it's a basic right of people in this province of ours to be guaranteed public safety. It is a responsibility of this government to ensure that this very right is in fact protected. Our government is fully committed to doing everything necessary to realize that goal.

We take the health and wellbeing of the people of this province very seriously. I am concerned, however, when the opposition boils public safety down to a question of crime statistics. I think it is very problematic when that is done. Statistics really are not as simple as they often appear.

First, the opposition states that crime statistics have gone way up since the government took power. Quite frankly, this is not true. There has been no sudden or dramatic increase in the rate of crime since this government took power. More important, however, is that crime statistics do not measure the absolute amount of crime that occurs. Statistics simply measure crimes reported to the police.

As society attempts to eradicate crime, education and awareness of the effects of crime raise the visibility of these very crimes. Let me give you an example. Wife assault didn't start yesterday. Sexual assault did not begin yesterday. These crimes have been with us for a very long time. Through our efforts to eradicate crime, we must sometimes realize, as painful as that realization sometimes is, the extent of the problem and enhance our efforts to serve the victims of crime both before and after the fact.

Increased awareness of the incidence and impact of sexual assault, improvements in the way law enforcement agencies deal with it and the increased availability of support services mean that more women who experience sexual assault will have the courage to come forward and report it to police. This is also true of other crimes. The more aware people become, the more likely they are to report that crime to us.

The fact that there are newspaper reports of increases in crime may also lead people to report those incidents. Crime rates will also go up if enforcement efforts shift. Enforcement can increase because there are simply more police officers to witness these crimes or because the enforcement policies of police forces may, and often do, change.

In the area of wife assault, police services have been directed to lay charges if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has occurred, rather than if the wife wants to lay charges, which in the past was rare. Statistics would undoubtedly show a dramatic increase in this violent crime when in fact what has increased is the number of charges that have been laid. This point that crime statistics are open to various interpretations is a very important one.

Another important point is that the causes of crime are widespread. The problem of street crime is not simply a law and order problem. The causes of street crime are wider societal problems like the desensitization of our youth to violence, poverty and homelessness, and the terrible effects of this difficult recession that we all face.

Our government is trying to deal with some of these root causes of crime, but I ask you to remember that law enforcement alone will not solve the problem of crime. That law enforcement can't do this is seen in the fact that we have consistently given budget increases above the level of inflation to police services and still the crime problem has not disappeared. We must take a more holistic and comprehensive approach in providing public safety to all the people of Ontario. We must look at how we are providing police services to the people of Ontario.

Research has shown that a traditional model of policing has had a rather limited effect on crime. We do not believe any longer that simply adding more police officers is in itself the single solution. New ideas like community participation, problem-oriented policing and greater emphasis on crime prevention are the wave of the future. This is the focus of community policing. It is one of the cornerstones of our recently passed Police Services Act. One of the principles of this act is the need for cooperation between the providers of police services and the very communities they serve. Community policing is a rather innovative approach to policing designed to reduce crime, improve officer safety, enhance community relations and make police services more a part of the community they serve and protect.

1550

This emphasis on the community is found to be working in our police services boards as well. They reflect the new spirit of community policing, which is community involvement in the shaping of the very police policies that are used to serve that same public.

The boards have, as well, many responsibilities beyond that. They have the establishment of the employment equity plans which are being undertaken right now, the hearing of disciplinary appeals, the establishment of police budgets, and perhaps most important, determining local policing issues and priorities in consultation with their own chief of police.

As members of the community, the board members ensure that the needs and the concerns of the entire community are reflected in policing policies. Unlike practices in the past, this government has opened up the appointment process for police services boards.

The members opposite have discussed the politicization of police services boards and how that somehow is impacting negatively on police service. What they call politicization is merely this government's more open approach, which may involve appointing people who in the past were shut out of the process: women, persons with disabilities, visible minorities and people who believe in two main thrusts of the legislation that governs policing in this province -- community policing and employment equity.

I would like to question their definition of "politicization." They are looking back, quite frankly, to what are described by many as the good old days when the good old boys were appointed to every agency, board and commission throughout this entire province. We've opened up that process, we've advertised in local papers, we've created manuals listing all appointments so the public can be aware of them. We have sought input of local municipal officials and local members.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would appreciate it if you would stop heckling so I could hear better.

Hon Mr Pilkey: We review all the appointments by a legislative committee, of which the member opposite, who has sponsored the motion for today, is the Chair.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the Solicitor General would not like to mislead the House at all. I know you wouldn't do that. But we see here that it was never advertised: the patronage appointment of Mel Swart's daughter. Don't tell me they are always advertised. Many of the posts were never advertised. I know you would like to correct that.

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

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: He is suggesting it is scrutinized by a legislative committee that a majority of the members of the government sit on. There is no scrutiny and they have not turned down a single appointment by order in council yet.

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

Hon Mr Pilkey: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for ruling on those inopportune and inappropriate interjections.

I would also like to say, quite frankly, that I am very proud of the appointments we have made to date. Our appointments will ensure the best spirit of community policing, that police services are sensitive to the communities which they serve. We are working to produce police services that more accurately reflect their communities, and I believe this important step not only will contribute to a better and more productive relationship between police and community, but it will also have a very positive impact on the rate of criminal activity, of such concern to members opposite.

The commitment to community policing means a commitment to eradicating types of crimes that may have slipped through the cracks previously, such as violence against women. My colleague from Niagara Falls will speak eloquently a little later on the things our government has done on an action-oriented basis in this area. This government is committed to preventing violence against women.

The member opposite also mentions the provision of victim services. He has said the government really hasn't done much in that regard. I want to tell you, and I am pleased to reinforce this, that we have not doubled funding; we have tripled funding to the sexual assault initiative that assists victims of sexual assault. We are turning our very successful victim assistance and referral services in Kingston, Brantford and Sault Ste Marie into regional centres so they can reach out and provide a much broader service, and we are continuing the Toronto program as well. It is simply not true to say the government has not been acting in this area.

The motion that was sponsored also states that the government does not support policing. In the one sense, it's a ridiculous statement. It is not one that is really worthy of a response, but of course I must respond, because all of us who are elected here to this government and all sides of the House want nothing other than the highest possible public safety for all the people we represent and who in fact are our neighbours.

My colleague the member for Durham East will expand on all the things this government has done to support policing, but I'd like to take a moment to say a few words about that myself.

The government is in the process of re-evaluating how all government services are being delivered so that it can deliver them better and with a large degree of fiscal responsibility. Part of this process is coming up with innovative ideas to make services more responsive and more cost-effective. It is those who are able to come up with these new ideas whom we must support. Those who are simply looking back to the past really do not realize they are preventing new and innovative methods of policing from emerging. They want to keep us back in the past. We see from the past that those techniques have not prevented crime. We've got to look forward. We have to support policing, and the methods we are adopting will, I think, prove to be really welcomed and a step forward in this province. We are trying to adapt policing to a modern reality rather than keeping old methods that have not proven to eradicate crime.

I think a perfect example of this is our very own Ontario Provincial Police. With the assistance of this government, the OPP is a force that is a model for forces all across this country, if not the world. The OPP was one of the first forces in this province to implement community policing, and I want to tell you that it's been very successful. The OPP has as well been undergoing a comprehensive re-evaluation of its service delivery. We are addressing these issues in cooperation with the OPP and the Ontario Provincial Police Association.

In addition, we are improving our levels of service by implementing community policing, continuing the implementation of modern technology systems and supporting the creation of a strategic planning committee of the OPP to constantly re-evaluate that service delivery.

I must say I am somewhat disturbed by the things the member said, as if he was implying that the OPP is not doing its job. I am very proud of the members of the Ontario Provincial Police and the excellent job the men and women of that force are doing on behalf of us all. In fact, I think most people in this province would agree with me.

The member for Leeds-Grenville has shown us his makeshift survey-in-a-box of municipal elected officials and others who have signed these coupons. I would rather put my faith in a scientifically conducted poll by the Gallup organization that found that 87% of the people of Ontario were satisfied with the performance of the police and the police services in this province, so much so that it eclipsed the national average of acceptance, which was only 78%. I want to say as well that if 13,000 coupons are supposed to be some expression of a massive degree of discontent among over nine million people here in Ontario from over 800 municipalities, I suggest that while we are pleased to receive those expressions of concern, this survey by Gallup proved that there is a large body of this province who are well satisfied and have faith in their policing services.

I must say, though, in all fairness, that policing is going through a period of change. Of course, all government services and even private industry in this recession are going through a period of restructuring, and when restructuring occurs, difficulties can arise.

1600

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, order, please. I would ask again that you refrain from heckling. The procedures are very clear: 20(b) prevents you from heckling, so I ask you not to heckle.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I was saying, when at any time changes occur, they are always difficult times. We know that from experience. There will always be those who will disagree with restructuring, not only outside, but those inside the organization as well. There are those who don't want policing to change, but it's a more modern society, it's a multicultural society, it's one where policing must change.

We're taking steps to accomplish and react to those present-day realities. This government has had the courage to take on the important challenge of improving policing by way of the police services in Ontario. As I said, we're looking for innovative and fiscally responsible solutions and we're in the process of finding, developing and implementing those to everyone's benefit.

But the way to find them is not through this kind of confrontation, but really it is through partnerships: partnerships between the community and the police, partnerships between the police and the government and partnerships between the government and the community. Only working together can we find solutions that will solve the very difficult problems all of us face. We can do that, and hopefully we can do that in ways we will all be satisfied with.

The opposition motion we are discussing today ends with the statement "so the citizens of Ontario and those who visit our communities can walk our streets safely and without fear." I'd like to say that we live in one of the safest countries in the world, we have one of the safest provinces in the world and Toronto, for a city its size, is one of the safest cities anywhere in the world.

The Police Services Act I think is a progressive piece of legislation. We need positive voices; we don't need those that instil fear in the minds of people. They're not hurting the criminals when they do that; they are hurting law-abiding citizens. We have to do something of a positive nature. We have to come together in the various aspects I've commented upon, and I think in that way we will in fact produce an even greater and more enhanced policing service for the protection of all citizens, which we have come to enjoy and want well and long into the future in this province.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'm going to take a little different approach here. On the question of safety in our province and in our cities, I'd like to take a look at that in comparison to, say, 10 years ago. There's no question that we are fast becoming like the US cities. We seem to look at the US and pick up all its bad habits, and we don't bother to look at how those habits or how those situations arose and try to anticipate them and overcome them. I often say in this House that every member of the House should have a copy of Bonfire of the Vanities so you could see what happened in the south Bronx, for a lot of the reasons -- neglect -- that have been going on in this Legislature in terms of policing, in terms of the justice system, in terms of speeding up the process, in terms of providing the necessary essentials to ensure that our society maintains its civility.

I find it passing strange, first of all, that in a democratic society the Attorney General or the Solicitor General is even a member of the cabinet. I know that one will never fly, because traditionally that has always been the case, but in countries like Ireland and others that is not the case. The reason I suggest that should not be the case is that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are the guardians of the rule of law, and once they're in cabinet they become part of the political process and part of the political partisanship. They have to fight for every dollar they get. They make decisions that impact significantly on this province and this country, so those people should not really be down in the dust playing with the other politicians; they should in fact be out there making decisions that are good to retain the civility of this province.

If you look at the question of why we're having problems on our streets, we opened up institutions throughout this province in what was looked upon as being a very civilized and a very far-reaching approach to dealing with people who were suffering from mental disorders and so on. But having opened up those institutions, what did we do to help these people? They wander the streets, without help, very often without housing, without income, without food, and we expect to maintain a civil society? I suggest that's not possible. You have to provide the backup for these people, these unfortunate people who are ill, not simply open up the doors of the institutions and say, "You're free to go out and freeze over a subway corridor, in the alleyway" or whatever.

You have people who are schizophrenics. The Mental Health Act was amended in this Legislature, and I am ashamed at the way it was amended. Schizophrenics have absolutely no help. Their loved ones can't assist them, because they're not required to take their medication. Schizophrenics can be very dangerous to others and to themselves. What do we do for them? What does this Legislature do for them? What do the laws of the province of Ontario do for for them? Zilcho.

What about the question of young people in this province?

Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it is awful that we are debating such an important issue and we don't even have a quorum in the House.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1607

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Brampton South, you have the floor.

Mr Callahan: I want to thank my colleague for drawing the House's attention to the fact that the government doesn't consider this an important enough issue to maintain the quorum which is its responsibility. I find it passing strange that all these people who are cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and chairs of committees, who receive extra compensation out of that massive bag of government money, do not have enough interest in this issue to be in the House. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that going on with --

Hon Mr Pilkey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not wish to interject, but in fairness, when the member opposite rises on a point of order of quorum and makes the allegations he did, he might view his own side of the bench and see that the Liberal Party has only three members of this House present during this important debate.

Mr Callahan: It's not a point of order. I would like to get on with the issues of what is at the root cause of --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member brought to the attention of the House the many extra salaries and benefits. It should be brought to everyone's attention that the member also receives an extra benefit as a Chair.

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

Mr Callahan: I want to bring the member for Durham West up to speed. I no longer chair a committee, so he's about a year behind.

I'd like to get back to the issue, though, and put aside this partisan pettiness and suggest, along the lines of what I was trying to say, that you have let all these poor souls out of institutions. You've not provided the backup; you amended the Mental Health Act and created problems for families of schizophrenics and people with other mental disorders. You don't provide the housing for them. They wander the streets of this fine city of Toronto and probably the streets of the province.

The OHIP scheme: The OHIP fee schedule doesn't cover the cost of a psychological examination for a young boy or girl suffering from a learning disability, the invisible disability. You people in the government and I guess all of us as legislators can always recognize a disability that is visible -- someone in a wheel chair, someone who is blind, someone who is deaf -- but the invisible disability, a learning disability, is not even funded. You can't go to a psychologist and receive the funds for going to the psychologist to get that very important determination of whether that young boy or girl has a learning disability and therefore whether there should be accommodation in the school system or whatever other system for them.

Over the years I practised in the courts, I wish I had a nickel for every time in a pre-sentence report addressing the matter of sentence -- it went something like this: "He or she had a learning disability. It went undiagnosed. They were pushed through the school system" --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The orders of the day were very clear. The topic is very clear, and I'm afraid you're not debating it. I would ask you to debate it.

Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, I'm getting around to it. I'm trying to show the final element of the resolution, that the government "introduce specific measures to resolve these concerns so the citizens of Ontario and those who visit our communities can walk our streets safely and without fear." I suggest to you, with the greatest of respect, that I'm doing that. If these people, in addressing the court on sentence, are winding up in our correctional facilities or winding up in anti-social activities because of the inability to get funding from the government for a psychological report, then I suggest that's part of this entire issue as to why our streets are not safe, why crime is increasing.

The question of literacy: In my own riding, I think it was 45,000 people five years ago who were illiterate. That is partially, I would suggest, as a result of the question of the learning disabled as well as the education system. We're not providing these young people with the tools to make it in society. So what do they do when they can't make it in society? They become anti-social, they resort to crime. I suggest that's not proper.

It doesn't matter how many police officers you have. You could have a police officer for every 10 people in the province and I suggest you would have no different situation. You've got to attack the roots of why our streets are unsafe. You have to attack the reasons behind it. I suggest that's not being done.

Look at the backlog in the courts, the slow process of the courts. Police officers must be totally frustrated when they see a criminal, a person who has a record, and perhaps is innocent until proven guilty but has a long record, waiting a year or two years or whatever for a trial. It's cheaper by the dozen. If you're waiting that long or you're going to get an adjournment that long, you may as well go out and knock off a few more, because you're going to get the same sentence if it's one or 10.

The issue of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the very people who should be rewarded for being attacked as a victim -- you've done nothing about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In fact, I read in an article recently in the newspaper the fact that they can't hand out any more money. The cupboard is bare. That's a heck of a way to deal with people who are more and more, increasingly in this day and age, becoming victims of crime.

You're rushing headlong into the introduction of casinos by a secret cabinet decision, not putting it through the Legislature where we can debate it, or even taking a plebiscite of the people of Ontario. You're going to create casinos, which I suggest are going to cause more problems for the police, are going to cause more problems for our society, make our streets unsafe even more than they are now.

In fact, I'm told there was a famous quote by one of the owners of a casino in Atlantic City that Atlantic City is a Taj Mahal in a war zone. You don't dare walk out of the casino and down the boardwalk lest you be attacked. Is this what we're creating for our children and for our society here in Ontario? You haven't even asked the people. I understand you're going to have six of them. Are you going to have police officers to look after the fallout from that: the prostitution, the loan sharking, drug-related problems and a number of other things?

Finally, as my time is limited, I just want to address very quickly one final item: the question of drug and alcohol abuse. Some 80% of your crime could be eliminated if you would take a real run at trying to solve the problem or provide the facilities to assist people who have drug and alcohol problems. I suggest that with the exception of a task force, which accomplished nothing, there really has not been a great deal done. The standing committee on public accounts was trying to look into the issue. I don't know where that's going now -- I no longer chair it -- but I suggest to you that's at the very root cause. It's not a question of more policemen.

You will also make safe the lives of those police officers who have to face a person who's under the influence of drugs or is drunk, in terms of the violence that person might inflict, not just on the average, everyday citizen but on the police officers; the violent crime that occurs in homes because of drinking and drug abuse, domestic disputes, which are very dangerous for our police officers.

So I suggest you don't sit back there on your laurels. I don't think any member of this Legislature has the ability to do that, to be able to sit back, pat himself or herself on the back and say, "We've done it." You haven't done it. Until the members of this Legislature take their responsibility to heart, and you people as the government who control the purse-strings and all the rest of it, we're going to continue to have those problems on our streets.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's a pleasure for me to rise today to speak about such an important motion, because a major theme noticeably absent from the throne speech was any mention at all of the government's plans for the justice system in Ontario and no mention of its plans in so far as the policing and safety of our neighbourhoods are concerned.

I can tell you that in my riding of Willowdale, the concern of the people who live in my riding is not just taxes, because they say, "We're prepared to pay reasonable taxes, but we've got to get something in return." What they see is a system where their neighbourhoods are no longer safe. They see a government that's distinguished itself through its term of office by an antagonistic environment between law enforcement officers and the government itself. My constituents, quite frankly, are concerned about that.

The anti-police attitude was first evident in the appointment of Susan Eng as the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. Susan Eng has long been known as a person who has an antagonistic relationship with Metropolitan Toronto's law enforcement officers. She has virtually no credibility among police officers, yet she's been placed in a position of utmost importance.

A clear demonstration of antagonism again exists when we see three Metropolitan Toronto police officers up for early retirement and they state lack of support from the government as the reason for their departure. Police Chief Bill McCormack highlighted the problem created by the NDP when he stated: "To fulfil those duties of a police officer, you have to have the support of those you serve. We have found ourselves in places of high profile without that support."

The anti-police attitude of the NDP is best illustrated by the fact that it preferred an indictment against Brian Rapson after he'd already been discharged by a provincial court judge. That decision by the Attorney General brought the integrity of the justice system into doubt and it struck a blow against the morale of every police officer policing in this province. There's just no question the decision to prefer that indictment smacked of political opportunism.

In a survey conducted in my riding of Willowdale, over 60% of the respondents stated that the government had assigned too low a priority to the justice system, yet this government continues to belittle the efforts of members of our law enforcement branches and ignores the need for increased government focus on the system as a whole.

One of the prevalent issues facing people in my riding is public safety. People in my riding, especially women, are afraid to take public transportation, they're afraid to walk through their own neighbourhoods at night, and the government is not making their safety any kind of priority.

Last October the Solicitor General acknowledged that crime rates in Metropolitan Toronto were rising out of proportion compared to the rest of the province, but he stated he was unwilling to provide any assistance. That is not acceptable to the people who live in Willowdale, the people who are afraid to walk through their own neighbourhoods at night, the people who are afraid to take public transportation.

I can tell you, when the Solicitor General stands up and says that crime is not increasing in this province by any drastic amount, he is living in a closet. He does not know what is going on in the streets, particularly in the streets of Metropolitan Toronto. We know there was a 37.7% rise in homicides from 1990 to 1991 and, lo and behold, those are the years this government became the government. Attempted homicides are up 18.5%; abductions are up 22%; sexual assault is up 10.8%, non-sexual assault up 6.1%, robbery up 18.9%. In my riding, people can't find the means to secure their houses against break-and-enter. It has become a problem all across Metropolitan Toronto.

1620

What does the Solicitor General say? He acknowledges that crime is going up in Metropolitan Toronto out of proportion to the rest of the province, yet he's not prepared to do anything about it. All he's prepared to do is stand there and tell us they have new methods of appointing people to boards and they have new methods of doing this and doing that, but he doesn't talk about any methods for policing, for providing safe neighbourhoods.

He talks about what's going on in the Legislative Assembly committee in room 151 of this building, but I can tell you that's not making the people in my riding any more secure when they're in their homes and people intrude or when they're robbed or when they're walking from the bus. What the Solicitor General says in his speech here today is totally unresponsive to the people of my riding, just the way the throne speech is totally unresponsive to the needs of the people in this province when it comes to policing and justice enforcement.

It's interesting to note that total non-violent crimes in the last year went up 11.6%. The target for this coming year indicates we're going to increase again the amount of crime, which went up between 1990 and 1991.

My time is limited. I merely wish to stand and convey to the Solicitor General, who I am pleased is here, the concerns of the people who live in my riding, because their neighbourhoods are no longer safe, their homes are no longer safe, public transportation in Metropolitan Toronto is no longer safe. I urge the Solicitor General to do something; not to say, "We can't do anything," not to belittle the efforts of the police departments, not to rest on what happens in room 151 at Queen's Park, but to do something.

Mr Mills: I am very pleased to take part in this debate today. I've also been pleased to listen to the comments from the opposition.

I just want to say that this morning I was in Newcastle, in my riding, at two schools. While there, we celebrated together, and I wear the badge proudly, "Proud to be a Canadian." It was quite a moving morning when the local band, with the young people there, played O Canada, and everybody stood up there and said and did various things to indicate how proud they were to be Canadian. I was among the group to do that.

It's rather disappointing for me, as a person who's proud of this country, to stand here in this Legislature today and hear the members opposite absolutely slam-bang-dunk the whole judicial-police system in Ontario. I don't think that's being very fair and I don't think it's doing the province any good. I am certain that a number of people who are watching are very upset about some of the things that have been said here.

We talk about the shortage of policemen, but it's a fact that the police ratio to population is the same today as it was in fact 10 years ago. Some 87% of the people in Ontario are very pleased with the way the policing of the province is going on today. I think that's very encouraging.

I tried this afternoon not to be political or partisan, but I can't, because I listened to the member for Leeds-Grenville, and it almost made me ill to listen to some of the dreadful things he said about the mosaic culture of our country.

When we talk about politicized police services boards, I don't know how on earth anyone over there can say that with a straight face, because when they were in power they not only politicized the police boards, but they did that to every other board and everything that moved. We still have evidence of that in the province today. There are still some of those folks around.

When the God-emperor William Davis sat across there as the Premier of the province --

Interjection.

Mr Mills: That word, "God-emperor," is not mine. That word I attribute to the former Conservative member for Durham East who held the seat before I did. Those were his words: "The God-emperor ruled everything with an iron fist." We know the police boards were among those items he ruled with an iron fist.

I'm going to go back a few steps in time, to about a dozen years ago. At that time I was an alderman for the city of Barrie. A constituent came to me and complained about the difficulty he had in placing burglar alarms in the local police station. We discussed the matter and it turned out that the chairman of that police board was in fact the co-owner, with a son, of a numbered company that controlled the burglar alarms in that police station. It took a considerable effort on my part to get a public inquiry going into that situation. It took a lot of public input to do that. The reason was -- because those folks over there talk about the way things are now -- that was the good old boys club and they were trying to protect the good old boys. That is the way they work.

I'm very perturbed about the comments made about the chairman of the Toronto police board, Ms Eng. I sat on a committee during the summer and Ms Eng appeared before that committee. Afterwards I had the opportunity to speak with her. I said: "I'm very pleased to meet you here today. I've read a lot about you." She said: "You know I am really a human being. I haven't got crooked teeth and big horns coming out of my head." We had quite a discussion.

I've got news for those people over there who say she has no knowledge or concept of how policing is in Ontario or how police boards work. I spent over 20 years as a police officer in Ontario and I can tell from experience in my discussion with Ms Eng that she had quite a grasp on the whole issue of policing. She was very knowledgeable. We spent maybe 15 minutes talking about it.

I went home and happened to be talking to my wife. I said, "We have all that terrible press about this young woman and it's absolutely despicable, because during my discussion with her today I found her so enlightened and such a positive effect on policing in Ontario." I think it's awful for those people over there, who don't understand or have never worked as policemen, to criticize a person they neither know nor have spoken to.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Personal attacks.

Mr Mills: As my friend in front of me says, it's a personal attack. I agree with him.

Of course there's an increase in crime. That increase in crime is commensurate with the times we live in. All down through history when we get tough times there are people who resort to crime. This is the way out. I read in a newspaper the other day that down in Michigan the governor of that state declared that every able-bodied person would no longer be eligible for welfare. So what has happened in Michigan is that they have created two different sets of people. The people who are healthy and well can't get a job because there aren't any, so they've turned to violence and crime and end up in prison. The frail, disabled and weak can't turn to crime, so they end up in hospital. The governor of Michigan has solved nothing in so far as his dealing with the welfare recipients in the state of Michigan is concerned.

1630

I would like to turn now to the 911 service. This government continues to support the implementation of the 911 system across this province. That system is one of the greatest assets that I can remember or know about in fighting crime.

In my past position as the parliamentary assistant to the previous Solicitor General I had the pleasure of going to Orillia to launch its 911 system, and what a day that was. It was exciting, and the people were very excited about that service. Afterwards I was mingling around there with a few of the citizens, and a lady came up to me -- rather elderly, rather frail -- and she said, "This 911 system, what it's given to me is the key to the police station, it's given me the key to the fire station, and it's also given me the key to immediate response for ambulance services."

I think that when we look at the overall service people in Ontario receive in respect of protection, one mustn't ever forget the 911 service that has been provided under the auspices of this government. Seventy-five per cent of Ontario is covered by 911; 10% is presently under study.

I'd just like to turn to the use of innovative technology, and it's this government's commitment to supply that to the people of Ontario. I'd just like to apprise the House of a recent development that I had the privilege of seeing in England. There the police cars -- and I'm sure it's only a hop, skip and jump away from coming to Ontario -- have a computer set up in the patrol cars that automatically keeps recognizing the licence plates of the cars in front. It brings up the owners and everything about them -- if they're wanted; if the car's wanted; if it's stolen. This keeps on going on all day as they drive about the highways over there. Should something of significance arise, there is a beeper that sounds off to alert that police officer to apprehend that car. I'm sure that's the sort of technology we are looking for in Ontario that will increase the capabilities of our police forces.

In the old days, in the old ways -- I can speak from some experience -- I can remember going to Highway 27 and setting up the speed traps up there with the two rubber tubes across the road. I can remember that I always used to have to take a tape measure with me because these two pieces of tubing had to be precisely 15 feet apart. Otherwise the speed gauge wouldn't be right, as you can see. If it was a little bit wider it would make some difference to the estimation of the speed.

I can remember also being in a community where police communications were such that someone used to flash the street lights on and off if there was a call coming in that we should respond to. So why I am talking about that is that in Ontario we have come a long, long way in the last 30 or 40 years, and we continue to go ahead.

Training is important both for the safety of the public and of the police officer. Programs geared to special training to deal with hostage-taking and wife assault are an ongoing function of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. That is a far cry from the days when I was going through some basic training, where all you had to know was unarmed combat, which was the main thing anyone ever thought was important.

The government is showing leadership in the modernization of the provision of policing services and public safety, and we have a long way to go.

I'd like to go back to Sir John Peel. He was the founder of the police force in London, England, in the 1800s, and most of the police forces are modelled on some style of John Peel's. It is traditional --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Robert Peel, isn't it?

Mr Mills: Robert. I beg your pardon. Thank you. The member for Durham West corrected me. It's Robert Peel. Anyway, he traditionally is the father of policing as we know it today throughout the world. That was fine in the 1800s, but it doesn't wash today in the 20th century.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Neither does socialism.

Mr Mills: My friend across the road there interjects, "Neither does socialism." Well, I think socialism in place of what they had to offer for 42 years is the difference between night and day.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Good management. Forty-two best years this province ever had. Can't wait to get back to it.

The Deputy Speaker: Address the Chair, please.

Mr Mills: The member opposite talks of 42 years. Well, I don't have to tell you about those 42 years because you and I share the same age bracket. Anyway, getting back to Sir John Peel --

Interjection: Robert Peel.

Mr Mills: Robert Peel; I shall get it right yet. Robert Peel was a fine example for policing in the 1800s. He's not an example today because we have to rethink the way we police the province of Ontario, we have to rethink the way we provide policing services and we have to rethink our whole attitude to the relationship between the police and the public. We still have a long way to go. We are far from reaching the goal of this government.

I would like to conclude by saying that I have, spread out through Ontario, many, many friends who are policemen. I've had some conversations with these fine people over recent weeks, and I can assure you that their concerns and their ideas are not in step with the nonsense, the gobbledegook, the tommyrot that the member for Leeds-Grenville has tried to imply here this afternoon. I think what he had to say was a disgrace. I think it's a disgrace to the people of Ontario and to the province of Ontario to belittle the police like you did, and so I say again -- disgraceful behaviour.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): It's unfortunate that we have maybe two days to debate this because maybe we could have brought some sense to both the government and to the third party.

I'll start off by making reference to the motion before us. I should say first how extremely disappointed I was about the motion the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville put forward. The first thing that jumped out is to associate us with a government whose action in regard to justice has been poor, to say the least. I also was quite surprised that the honourable member's motion itself lacks the research that is needed for this. Many of the things there are not so, putting it lightly.

Having said that, it also gave me the opportunity to speak in regard to justice in this province. Before I do so, I would like to pay tribute to our law enforcement officers, those quite able-bodied men and women who risk their lives daily so we can have a society that is safe in order to live and to work. I want to commend them because I have lived in many, many cities and many countries, and I want to tell you that in Canada we have a very wonderful country and in Ontario we have a wonderful province, and in this city we can say it's basically safe.

1640

I know too that with what has happened over the last 10 years or so, the challenges faced by our law enforcement officers have been quite a challenge for the police. The fact is that the demographic makeup of this province, especially in the cities, has changed dramatically: the multicultural society that needs a much more sensitive approach to issues, an understanding of culture which is quite necessary in order to enforce law or even to make law.

I would say, though, that this present government doesn't give the necessary support to our law enforcement staff and officers and the justice system in this province. It's quite evident. You must have read of the cutbacks and the lack of funding that have appeared and have happened over the last couple of months.

We have seen the Solicitor General whose time is spent constantly -- as a matter of fact, I would suggest to the Premier to change his title. Maybe you should call him the Minister of Sunday Shopping. The energy he has put into this, on Sunday shopping, if he would just redirect it to look at justice, I think the Solicitor General could have done a better job. Therefore, I think the support that is needed by those law enforcement officers is not there.

I heard this attack by the member for Leeds-Grenville on the inactivity of the government of the day at the time in 1985 to 1990. He speaks of the Liberal government. I think he should really go back to see some of the achievements we did. As a matter of fact, the anti-drug strategy initiative was done by the Liberal government. In the 42 years the Conservative Party was in power, there were no amendments at all to the Police Act; none. They thought more or less that things were going fine. They were just ignoring the cosmopolitan direction the cities were going in: no acts at all, no changes to the Police Act.

As to what we did, we saw the changes that have come about, with a much more sensitive Police Services Act today. We saw that the training that was needed by the police was there, but what is happening today, as we know, is that they fall flat and are sleeping at the switch. This present government now does not continue to do what is necessary.

The increase, of course: We talk about victims who were not being compensated. We saw a 50% increase in the awards to those victims of crime. In 1986 we did that, as far back as 1986, to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. I heard, as I said, the lack of research by the member for Leeds-Grenville, who said that we did nothing.

It is very difficult to find out how they could associate us with such a government like this that has been very neglectful. I could cite a couple of things. The other day I raised in this House the shortage of OPP officers in the regions outside Metropolitan Toronto. Seeing that this government at this time brought 20 officers down to protect a budget, placing them in the Sutton Place, of course, at a high price, that money could be better used in supporting the need of policing within those regions. To think about it, to take away those officers where they are most needed, I think it's a great lack of will by this present government to do so.

The current government has now been slow to respond to the concerns of people in the province about the increase in crime rates. Yes, there has been an increase in crime rates in the province and the concerns are pretty real, but from this government we get a collective shrug of indifference. I have pointed this out many times to the minister in the House and somehow I get that he thinks it's kind of funny the way we address this serious concern.

I could bring you examples each day, Mr Minister, of people who fear for their lives on the street. Each day that we turn the TV on we see the abduction of people. We're wondering if it's our daughter or son next. We are very concerned. We feel that with the technological advancement that is happening, criminals themselves have the tools -- I remember a police officer said to me that the criminals are sometimes more advanced in technological advancement, in order to do crime, than the police are.

I will give you an example, Mr Speaker, and you will understand this. I visited a police station in my riding in Scarborough. While they were showing me some of the new accommodations they had acquired, I saw a typewriter on a desk. I thought it was an antique, as a matter of fact, and I commended the officer who was maybe collecting antiques. He said: "It's not an antique. That's the typewriter we use." The kind of funding from this government does not even give them sufficient funds to buy adequate typewriters.

Mr Wiseman: If it's an old one, it's your fault.

Mr Curling: Somehow, as we hear from the government, as soon as we point out some inadequacy within the system it will then shout: "It was your government that was in power then. Why didn't you look after it?" Or the Conservative Party, which sat around for years and didn't even realize that the province was changing dramatically, in the type of people here, but oh no, they went along and said, "It's fine." We have seen that some of the members of the police force -- of course, as I've said, I'm very proud of our police force, but there are some elements within that police force that need to be addressed, some of the racism that is there, some of the recruiting devices they should do and the training. That must be addressed. I urge that policing is not only by police, as if we were in a police state or the police had the enforcement of law.

In order to have a safe society, we need the cooperation of citizens and politicians. Talking about politicians, from as soon as we asked the government to assist us in making a non-political, non-partisan type of policy, we have had more interference by the government than ever. As a matter of fact, the minister got up today and said how much has improved about the appointments to police boards and what have you.

The headline itself showed it, Mr Speaker. I know you can read from here with your careful eyes. I will do it for you. It is marked "Patronage." That's what it says here. This is the same government that said it would establish -- "Patronage Denied in Two Police Board Appointments." So they say. Mel Swart's daughter, it said. "Oh no, no. Although she is a member of the NDP, it has nothing to do with her being appointed." I don't think that because she's a member of the NDP she should not be appointed to a board, but I think there's a process.

When they came into office they said they would put that process through the legislative committee, and up to now, because of course they have a majority in that committee, not one has been turned down. Sometimes we don't even get a chance to question these people. Sometimes they say time has run out in order to appoint people to the police board. Of course it is the Liberal initiative which they've all tried their best to improve. The problem we have is that we have a government that's trying to improve something that was good to begin with and it is incapable of doing so.

I have no confidence in the Solicitor General. As a matter of fact, as an individual I really like him. He is a nice gentleman who came from an upstanding family, but as a Solicitor General he is weak. As a Sunday shopping advocate, or whatever way he wants to go, he's a little bit better. But we don't want a Minister of Sunday Shopping; we want a Solicitor General. We want a Solicitor General who is able to put in a good justice system and enforcement of law in this province and give the necessary funding in order that they can carry out their duties.

1650

I just want, in the time I have, to address some of the backlog, because it's important. Mr Speaker, I know you questioned my colleague the member for Brampton South, saying that he should be on topic. I think the point he is trying to make is that the backlog we see has discouraged some of the policemen from enforcing the law. The courts are backed up. Police officers have made arrests and brought them to the courts.

I see the Attorney General now has decided that quite a few of the cases that are too long should be thrown out. Can you imagine how those people, the victims of those crimes, feel when they have waited all these years because the system has not worked properly? They have gotten off scot-free. We must do something about that; the backlog in the courts has to be addressed.

Again, as soon as you identify the problem the government will quickly say, "Oh, you were in power." I'm telling you, my dear friend, that you are the government, you are the person to make the decision. You have been making great decisions. You are making decisions like having casinos without discussing it with the people. Therefore, if you want to be a dictator, which you are in many ways, you can go ahead and do some of the good things.

Some of the things -- if you do not carry it through the public and we know and assess it to be good, we will support it. But some of the things they are doing today -- and we have pointed out, he sits there and says it is the fault of the previous government. It is not so. The previous government's record stands there to be examined.

I am not here to defend the Liberal government's initiatives. Why should I defend them? It is there. As I said, for 40 years the Police Services Act was never amended. It is there now amended and moving in the right direction.

I ask that this government come to its senses, that the minister himself get together with the Attorney General and all the people who have been suffering so much, in the sense of law enforcement.

I want to address a very sensitive issue -- and some of the issues you may expect me to address: the relationships in the community, the police and the communities -- and it relates to training. It relates to the demographics, the breakdown of the different multicultural societies. From time to time we have confrontations. It is not the policemen's fault at all; it is a matter of how we put a better understanding of our people. No laws can be made, any law at all -- I'm not a lawyer, but I feel that if laws are being made, there should be consultation and understanding of the people and their culture, working together with the people.

What this government has done, and I see as they cut back -- I hope the Solicitor General is listening -- that some of the funds needed to have a community outreach are cut off. I tell the Solicitor General that the last money he should cut out is for those community outreach programs, because that's where the community sees the police officer as an individual, a person, a family individual. When you cut that off because it is easier and political to do, you have damaged the kind of relationship and the fostering of the good policing that we have. Some of the communities here are very upset.

Tomorrow, Mr Speaker, I know you will be there, and I've asked the Solicitor General and the member for Leeds-Grenville, who shows great interest in policing. There will be a demonstration tomorrow outside the House in the afternoon, the evening. Don't miss it if you can; come out to hear some of the concerns, the hurting, the feeling of these communities who are saying they are being harassed by the police, maybe wrongfully or rightfully. I don't know.

A community in this democratic society will come out -- since the socialists always praise themselves and wrap themselves around democracy -- so come out and listen to these people tomorrow. I ask the member for Leeds-Grenville, of course, to be there, and also my good friend the member for Willowdale, who made a very scathing attack on some of the community leaders. They would then ask, who appointed them as leaders? But as soon as they speak on an issue of concern to the people, there are leaders.

Interjection: Dudley Laws is a leader.

Mr Curling: Dudley Laws is a leader, Charlie Roach is a leader. You may not agree with these individuals, but I say we have to listen. They are citizens of our country. They are citizens of our country and the law must protect all. Therefore, I challenge you all to come out there and be a part of those people. Be a part of the Chinese community that has a different kind of interaction in communities and bring them all in. Because then we have, as we call them, ghettos. Of course we have different kinds of ghettos, but a better understanding.

Mr Solicitor General, my appeal to you is not to cut off those funds. If you have done so and you are at the cabinet table, speak to the Premier, who himself embraced many ethnic groups and talks about how much he understands them, and say: "It's not that I used to do that. I continue to do that. I continue to go to the ethnic events, all events."

I say to the Solicitor General to tell the Premier at the cabinet table that this is the last fund he should cut off because those are the bridges that you are building. Don't leave those police officers out there alone without any funds. Don't leave those communities up in the north with a lack of police enforcement officers. Of course, I could demonstrate with boxes and what have you, and we have many newspaper clippings that tell you about the cutbacks of funds and the damage it's doing to the people.

Then you find you must protect some white paper as a cabinet submission, or whatever the case may be, and bring in all these policemen to protect that. But, Mr Speaker, let me tell you something, and you must have seen this too. I don't even have to wait in the least; I just read it in the papers. I can read in the papers of all those things that need that protection. Where the money is needed is to give those officers the type of capital funds and operational funds that are needed. Don't stand back and say to me, "Every time you say, 'Spend more,'" because if you don't pay now, they will pay later.

In summary, I say to you that this is an important matter. It touches the hearts of mothers and fathers and families. It touches the hearts of children. It touches the heart of a community. I say to the Solicitor General, when he stands in here to make the announcement about employment equity in the police force or anything else, to make sure he understands the people. The SIU, special investigations unit, that we have is not working effectively. We have a case in Ottawa right now that we are waiting to complete.

I am anxiously awaiting those reports because while we are awaiting those, people are concerned. People are losing their confidence in the police force, not solely because of the police, some of the bad ones, but because of how it's funded, and not solely because of the Solicitor General. Maybe because of the criticism that is given here, that is unfounded in itself.

In ending, I want to tell you again that I am very happy to know that my country of Canada and my province of Ontario have a good police force. There are some rotten eggs there; they're all over the place. We hope we can clean that up and have the best police force we can ever have in the world.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I am pleased to join the debate today on the motion put forward by my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville. Before I get into the text of my remarks, I want to comment on the remarks of the member for Scarborough North of the Liberal Party.

I think it's a good indication of the tremendous government my predecessors in the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party provided for 42 years that when you think back over that time, we had such a tremendous commitment to law and order in this province. Only twice in the long history of the Ontario Provincial Police Association has it felt the need to speak out publicly about its concerns regarding policing and the lack of officers or the number of officers in this province. Once was under the Liberal government and, more recently, under the NDP government, in the long history of the association. My predecessors in the Ontario PC party believed in law and order. It was a priority with our party and continues to be a priority today, and we see that in the motion put forward by my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville.

I say to the Solicitor General that if his government, the NDP government can't get its priorities in order, then he should resign. We went through an election some 18 months ago with Bob Rae where I went to the door and people said, "Bob Rae has a corner on compassion." Only Bob Rae could look after -- only the Premier. Mr Speaker, I am sorry --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. When you refer to a member, you refer either to his riding or to his title. Bob Rae is the Premier of Ontario or the member for York South.

1700

Mr Jim Wilson: Only the Premier, they felt, had a corner on compassion. I say we had 42 years of good government. We had fiscal responsibility, good management and a large dose of compassion. Our record on compassion is second to none. Yours is all baloney. It's all hearsay. It's all opposition rhetoric from years in the back benches. But we have a record and we're proud of that record, and policing was part of that record. We didn't increase the number of bureaucrats in the Solicitor General's office by some 67%. We didn't spend $4 million or $5 million on bilingual highway signs in Ontario. My constituents aren't anti-French; they simply want money directed to where it's needed.

I don't think the Solicitor General understands what it means to go to sleep at night and be scared. I don't think he understands that. He says that my party is scaremongering.

I quote from the reeve of Creemore. Members will recall that five times in this Legislature over the last 18 months I've raised the problems of lack of 24-hour policing in communities like Wasaga Beach, Creemore and Stayner. I'm pleased to see the OPP association is now on side with its ad campaign and trying to put pressure on the government, and I'm pleased to see the Solicitor General is here today to once again listen to our pleas for 24-hour policing.

The reeve of Creemore, Ralph MacDonald, said in a Globe and Mail article on February 4, 1992: "Now almost everybody's scared to go to bed. If you want a policeman, you can't get one. It's not a good scene right now. And it's getting worse." That is a reeve, an elected municipal official. I suppose the Solicitor General would say that Mr MacDonald is scaremongering. I don't think he is.

Last year, in the span of four weeks, Smart's pharmacy in Creemore was burglarized three times and each time narcotics were stolen. Peter Moon, in a Globe and Mail article, writes of an elderly Nottawasaga township couple who had heard a burglar in their home and called the Stayner OPP detachment. The Stayner detachment was closed, because we don't have 24-hour policing in most of my riding of Simcoe West. The call was then sent to the dispatcher in Barrie, and the dispatcher told the couple, who were sleeping in their bedroom, with a burglar out in the living room, that it would be 40 minutes before they could get an officer to that home.

That's what it's like to live without 24-hour policing. That's what it's like to go to bed scared, being scared to go to bed because the pharmacy down the street and across the road is being broken into. It has all the alarms and whistles in the world. The last time the pharmacy was broken into, the crooks took about a half-hour. They took their sweet time about it. When Ferris's enterprise, a gas station, an Esso station in Singhampton, was broken into and some $22,000 worth of cigarettes stolen, the crooks had enough time to drink a can of pop. They left their footprints in the sand outside the store and a pop can on top of the machine, because they knew the police would be a half-hour to 40 minutes coming from Barrie.

We need 24-hour policing. The NDP's policy on crime and order and policing in rural areas seems to be: Put a peephole in your door, put a deadlock bolt on your door and move your door to Toronto. That's your response so far, Solicitor General, to my many letters to you and to your predecessor, the member for Cambridge. It's disgusting that you people cannot make policing a priority.

The Solicitor General began today by telling us that policing, law and order, was a basic right, the right to protection of people's property and person. Then he spent the rest of his speech giving us dozens of reasons why his government can't live up to fulfilling that basic right for citizens of this province.

That excuse was not acceptable when they were in opposition and we were in government. We provided policing, and why you people can't get your priorities in order is beyond me. We have made suggestion after suggestion after suggestion on how you can get your priorities in order. You've not listened to any of them, and the people in my riding continue to go without 24-hour policing.

I think it's a real shame and I think it's a moral issue, that this government has a moral obligation to live up to and it's failing miserably, and I'm pleased that this motion was brought forward today so we have the opportunity to once again hammer away at the government members and plant the idea in their heads that policing and 24-hour policing in rural areas must be a priority.

Now we've heard that although we're told to move our doors to Toronto, today members from Metropolitan Toronto have brought to the attention of the House a number of policing concerns. I learned today that those concerns are very similar to my own and in my own riding.

If the NDP cannot get its priorities in order, then the Solicitor General should simply step down. The fact of the matter is that I've written to him on several occasions and I keep getting back the same form letter. Actually, I should say to the Solicitor General that it's become a joke in my riding. Every time I get the form letter back, I publish it in the local papers. It talks about all the fiscal restraints the government is under and how there's no way it can provide us with 24-hour policing. That's not acceptable. People do not deserve to go to bed at night scared.

I say to the Premier, as I've said to the Premier on many occasions in this House, and I say to the socialists that people cannot enjoy the expanded social programs that the Premier is bringing in and has already brought in. They can't enjoy those programs if they don't feel safe and secure in their own communities.

Security, safety, law and order must be a number one priority of this government. I'm hopeful that the Solicitor General, in the upcoming budget, will have made some headway with the Treasurer in bringing forward more funding for the OPP so that we can have the 24-hour policing we used to have before the Liberals came to office.

We had 24-hour policing in my riding for as long as anyone can remember, but in 1986, over their term in office, the Liberals allowed the number of OPP officers to slip. It didn't keep up with population growth; it led to increased crime and now today, despite assurances from the Liberal Solicitor General at the time that they would restore 24-hour policing, we're stuck with another government that doesn't even give us those assurances. It simply says it can't afford to do it; it is leaving us in the dark and tells us to move our doors to Toronto. That isn't acceptable.

I hope the Solicitor General will not just consult and listen, like he always tells us he's doing, but I hope he'll actually do something. We want to see some action. The word "consultation" is overused by you socialists and the word "listening" is overused. We want to see action. My constituents deserve it. They pay their taxes like everyone else in Ontario and they deserve 24-hour policing.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I wish to address the motion put forward by the member for Leeds-Grenville, a wonderful part of this province where I grew up, but second to the riding of Niagara Falls.

In his motion the member states, "There has been a significant increase in...violent crimes and crimes against women and children." He relates this to "since this government has assumed office," as if there were cause and effect here. This theory is so obviously without sense that I think it is appropriate that we look for cause and effect here.

Certainly I must go back and say that rape, incest, murder, all those things have certainly been around. One has only to think of the revelations coming forward now from the 1950s and 1960s and what happened in places like orphanages and training schools to realize that it has been there. It has been covered up. At least now things are more open. Surely that is the beginning of some change.

The member for Leeds-Grenville is striving in his own way to know why violence is occurring. Many people are struggling similarly with the daily news of violence. I believe it is appropriate to look at the cause. This was an article in the Toronto Star at the end of 1991, looking at all the different women that have been killed in this province. Some very interesting conclusions were drawn from this.

"There is a war going on out there and these are the casualties: There are faces and stories of some of the women who have been murdered in Ontario during the past year -- stabbed, shot, strangled, suffocated, bludgeoned to death. They have been attacked with axes, chainsaws and hunting knives. One was impaled with a crossbow bolt. Another was set on fire in her own bed. They have died horrible, violent deaths, in many cases death at the hands of the men that they loved and trusted. Many died while trying to leave abusive relationships after taking steps that society had told them they should take."

In searching for causes, I was looking to a study that was done by a woman named Maria Crawford, working on a grant from the Ontario women's directorate. She has combed through coroners' and police files to get an accurate picture of the deaths of 900 women from 1974 till 1990. Her project looked at the initial charges that were laid, whether they were reduced and the length of sentences handed out. Some of her recommendations are the following, after her study.

1710

First of all, when a woman says, "He's going to kill me," it tends to be true. The police might start treating all domestic disputes as potential homicides.

Her second recommendation: Police need to enforce restraining orders more stringently. Police should respond more quickly to domestic disputes and police should lay charges against men who batter, whether the victim wants those charges laid or not.

I would like to give a little more personal example. On an August holiday weekend in 1990 I went to my local police station with a young woman, whom I will call Ruth, to help her deal with a complaint against two police officers. We had to take along her six children, who were under the age of eight. Her husband beats her -- she has been forced to flee to the local women's shelter before -- and although ordered to pay support by the court, he refuses to pay. The support and custody enforcement office has such a backlog that Ruth's file has been on record for five years and has had trouble being processed. She is trapped in the welfare system in Ontario housing. She is a victim of frequent violent assaults. She has no feeling of security from police protection.

What has happened to Ruth has affected many of her neighbours as well. Women have become demoralized, discouraged and rendered powerless -- powerless because they're poor. They live in public housing because they're women. When women are victimized and powerless they rarely stand up for their rights. In this particular case she declined to take any further action on her own behalf to follow up on the complaint. These women simply learn to endure.

What is violence against women? It is just a soul-destroying subordination. It is the loss of control over one's life. It is the loss of dignity. It's a feeling of entrapment and the horror of living with constant violence.

I would like to come back to the answer, I hope, or try somehow to get near an answer for the member for Leeds-Grenville. According to the Ontario women's directorate: "Violence against women is both a cause and an effect in our society, the cause and effect of a power imbalance between men and women. Wife assault is a reflection of men seeking power and control over women."

Solutions to this problem of violence, and particularly violence against women, are not found in the old ways, as the opposition may suggest, such as more money and more officers. That will not get to the root of the cause.

I would like to give some suggestions of a positive nature: mandatory judicial education so judges understand and can be sensitive to issues of sexism and racism, more women on the bench and a more open and public approach to how judges are appointed, and curriculum courses dealing with sexism and racism from the preschool level up. Police services boards certainly must appoint women, minorities, people who represent the whole of society. I would also like to suggest a change in the welfare system to empower and enable, not denigrate, people. Appointing women to the local housing authorities, even women tenants, might be a good start as well.

I would like to put my thesis -- that women and politics equals equality -- on the table. I believe if we had, say, half of all our politicians, whether it be at the municipal, federal or provincial level, that would certainly go a long way against violence against women; and economic and political -- I hate to use the word "power" -- being involved in our community and across this nation. I believe that's what women need to stop violence.

I would like to go a little bit further, hopefully in a couple of minutes, and tell you this. I would like to attribute it to Michael Kaufman, who teaches at York University and was the originator of the White Ribbon Campaign:

"Researchers tell us that half of tribal societies investigated over the past century had no or very low levels of violence. Some had no rape, no battering, no fist fights, no war. Humans in general" -- this is proof -- "and men in particular are not generally programmed for violence against each other. If it's not biologically innate, then it must be learned.

"Anthropologists tell us that societies where there is very little violence are more or less egalitarian. Men didn't control women and men didn't control each other. They tell us that societies with more violence have been societies of male dominance. Men have learned to think of power as the ability to dominate and control, and when men do not have this ability to control, what happens? Far too often, many may use harassment, abuse and violence. Harassers, rapists, batterers, murderers of women are not simply deranged. They have bought into the message that they have got to dominate."

Mr Kaufman concludes: "Violence occurs in societies of inequality between men and women. Feminism is a vision of equality between men and women. It is a vision of liberation for women and men and a liberation from violence."

The member for Leeds-Grenville is rightly concerned about violence's causes and solutions. I ask him to think about the solution of sharing power, of an empowerment of all people. The patriarchal system must go. We must support our police. They are very important. We must support them in this change. They have a very difficult job. They need all our support.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to join this debate this afternoon. It's quite timely for me because last week I had the opportunity to attend a public meeting in the village of Cobden, which is a community of some 1,100 people in the heart of the farm district in central Renfrew county.

The meeting had been called by the Cobden and District Business Association so we could discuss in a public forum the concerns of the Cobden and District Business Association and, I must say, others in the community who have a concern about law and order, crime and punishment and the appropriateness and availability or lack thereof of our provincial police services. From my point of view, I must say it was an extremely useful dialogue. It is one of the very few times in the course of my 16 1/2 years in this Legislature that I've been called to a public meeting to discuss policing, at least in my constituency.

I must say I echo the concerns of a number of other members of this assembly on all sides who have indicated in this debate this afternoon that this is an issue that is rising in terms of its importance in the public agenda. I don't mean to speak for everyone, but certainly in my area there's no question that over the course of the last number of months there has been a noticeable increase in the number of individuals who have spoken and written to me.

I can cite, for example, a letter I received from the president of the Cobden and District Business Association, Mr Merrill Schauer, which letter of 23 March 1992 outlines some 15 to 18 different break-and-enters in the village of Cobden over the past 12 to 15 months. That, I must say, is a profile that concerns me, other members of the Legislature and certainly is of concern to people living in the village of Cobden. That's just one example.

Last fall I raised a number of concerns about the staffing and support services we now find in some of our rural OPP detachments in my part of eastern Ontario. I can think specifically of some concerns that were raised with me about the very rural detachment at Killaloe, about certain limitations that have been placed on the detachment by higher authorities.

The question arises, what is to be done? I want to be very clear. It was interesting. At the meeting the other night, a video was made available from the Ontario Provincial Police Association, wherein it outlined its concern about underfunding and cutbacks and related cost-containment measures. I must say, given it was part of a lobby, I thought the video on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police Association was reasonably moderate as those kinds of lobbies go.

1720

I want to say here this afternoon that I think it is probably time for this Legislative Assembly, or more appropriately one of its committees, to inquire into the situation of how it is we organize and fund our Ontario Provincial Police.

I can say, from my own point of view, it's not a budget I know a great deal about. That's obviously a comment about my inadequacies over the years. But I was saying en passant to the member for Etobicoke West that as I looked at the statistics in preparation for last week's meeting in Cobden, I did a very quick scan of the estimates for the Ontario Provincial Police over a seven- to eight-year period. I did a very random check. I thought it interesting that in 1983-84 the moneys voted by this Legislature in support of the operations of the Ontario Provincial Police were approximately $250 million. In 1991 the operating budget for the Ontario Provincial Police had risen to some $420 million, approximately.

Now, people talk about cutbacks. I just simply want to submit to you, Mr Speaker, that over that seven-year period approximately, that budget, on the operating account, rose by -- I didn't do the calculation, but it's something probably in the order of about 65%, from roughly $250 million to approximately $420 million. I don't doubt that this allocation requires more attention and more support. I'm sure the member for Oshawa, the Solicitor General, will do his part in lobbying for additional resources, but I want to say here what I said in Cobden the other night. I do not personally favour any additional appropriation until I have a good look at how we're spending the $420 million that is now being allocated. I don't doubt that more money and more resources are needed and ought to be applied, but I want to know how it is that we are spending the money that is now being allocated.

I hear from friends of mine who are in various police forces that they think there is certain internal reorganization, certain adjustments, that could be made that would make savings possible. I am again just reporting anecdotally what I hear, but I'll tell you, I know too many police officers who tell me about the amount of time and money spent moving people back and forth around court dates, the overtime that is paid not just by the provincial police but by other police forces, to accommodate sending people to court.

Now, obviously we have to send our officers to court, but we have had a very inefficient court system. Much of that inefficiency or some of that inefficiency is bearing down on our police budgets. My anecdotal evidence may not be complete and it may not even be accurate, but more than a few police officers and other court officials have told me that they think we can be much more efficient about the way in which we organize sending police officers to court. I don't know, but I've heard just enough to make me believe that is something we ought to look at.

I want to say something as well about police budgets. They are some of the most sensitive and difficult budgets that any Parliament is ever going to have to deal with. It's rather like a group of civilian legislators trying to control the Pentagon or the Department of Defense. There has been a culture over the decades in most of the western industrialized communities that the Pentagon sends the bill and Congress is expected to pay and not ask any questions.

There's some of that in the relationships around police forces in various parliaments. I don't mean to offend the sensibilities of my friend the quiet member for Etobicoke West, but I will say to the assembly what I said to him just a few moments ago in an aside. In my experience in public life, I think one of the most, if not the most extravagant public edifices I have ever seen exists about four blocks from here. It's the new Metropolitan Toronto Police headquarters. There is a Taj Mahal.

I'm all for supporting the police, and I think we're well served by the Ontario Provincial Police. I ought to know. I live on the highways of Ontario. I've probably had more personal encounters with the good men and women who serve the province in the provincial police than anyone in this assembly.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): How many tickets, Sean?

Mr Conway: I'm not going to answer that question. But I want to say that if I'm going to support the police, and I want to, I want it to be a responsible support. I want to support primarily men and women on the beat, whether it is in support of traditional policing, which is watching out for characters like me who might be prone to breaking the Highway Traffic Act, or, very important, as the previous speaker, the member for Niagara Falls, has observed, policing in a more contemporary and a very necessary context, dealing with and routing out the evils of child abuse and sexual abuse or the scourge of drugs in our society.

Those are concerns that were not a major issue in policing. They presumably ought to have been, but they weren't, as far as I can remember, very high on anyone's priority 20, 30 and 40 years ago. They are there now. Obviously we're going to have to accommodate that. People who want to talk about the good old days have to understand that Ontario in 1992 is not Ontario circa 1935. I heard people like my late grandfather, who used to sit in this place, talk about what provincial policing consisted of in my area a generation or two ago. I'm going to tell you, we have come a long way.

So I look at these budgets and I say not just to the assembly but to the Ontario Provincial Police Association: I appreciate your concern, but before I vote to appropriate any additional resources, I want to know more about the $420 million or $430 million that various solicitors general have been able to secure for provincial policing. I want to know more than I now know about how we're spending that money. I'm prepared to support more, but I'm not going to throw more money into areas I don't believe are priority concerns.

My principal interests obviously are rural Ontario. If you're running the detachment up in Killaloe, you have got a very large community, so you're going to be very dependent on your ability to move those cruisers and those men and women in them around a very wide jurisdiction. It is not going to be as major a concern in the city of Pembroke, for example, where we have our own and a very good municipal force.

I was saying to my friend from Manotick -- and I'm sure the Solicitor General is having some interesting times with this -- that I don't know whether that Toronto Star article of March 18, 1992, is accurate. I suspect it is, those 47 black dots on the map that indicate a number of communities, including ones now served by the former Premier, the former Minister of Finance, the former member from Muskoka, communities well above 5,000 people, are getting free OPP policing. People in communities like Tweed and Wiarton, which are paying their own way, are beginning to ask questions.

I would to say to my friends in the NDP that you've got a very valid point of criticism to direct over here: "How did we let that happen?" I don't know how it happened, but it's a very good question and I suspect we're going to have to deal with it. Fair is fair. Some of these communities, with populations of 30,000 and 35,000, apparently getting -- be very careful, Mr Speaker, because I do not want to disturb you, though I think I could, I say to my friend from Manotick.

I think we're going to have to take a look at that, because it's clear that a number of communities have been paying their own way: the village of Tweed, which I drive through three or four times a week, a wonderful community. Somebody told me that Allan Leal is now retired up to Tweed. It has 1,800 people, and they're paying their own municipal police service. A number of these other communities are much larger and apparently getting free OPP policing. That is a situation that obviously is going to have to --

Hon Mr Pilkey: Sean, don't take the full rap; look over there too.

1730

Mr Conway: No, listen, I accept my share of the responsibility, and I will say here what I said in Cobden the other night: We are in very tough times. People are fed up with taxes, and they of course want more services. Two-thirds of all the money we spend is in the area of health, welfare, education and social services, so let's not kid ourselves about the ability of any Solicitor General to secure the kind of funding that he or she is going to want. At approximately $420 million, the police budget in this province is less than half of what the drug benefit part of the Ministry of Health budget is. I repeat: The 1991 OPP budget at approximately $420 million is roughly 50% of the Ontario drug benefit program, which the last time I looked was spending about $870 million.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Solicitor General, who has to go in and compete with any Minister of Health or any Minister of Social Services who is there in support of homes for the aged and hospitals and all the rest of it, so I am not here to play games with the budget. I know how difficult it is. But I will say to the assembly that there is concern in rural Ontario that we are not getting the level of service we once had and we require. I think it is going to take not just more money; I would hope that some of the additional money for communities like Cobden can come with more emphasis on community policing.

I agree with the Solicitor General; I think he is absolutely right in that respect. I want to see that kind of community policing. It has worked well in many of the other communities in my area. I want to make sure, though, that community policing is really getting its share of this budget now and that if we appropriate an additional $20 million or $30 million it will go to those areas we all deem are the areas of priority. There is a tendency in some of these budgets for the money, perhaps, not to go all the way in the directions that we would like.

I remember our experience -- my friend from Oriole will remember as well -- when we were in government. I remember the initial appropriation for the much-needed OPP telecommunications system. It was a very good presentation, and it was undoubtedly needed. I think it started off at a rough estimate of around $50 million. It probably came in at about $125 million. That is an increase of, I don't know, 200%. It was a very significant increase and it was necessary, but that is money that did not go into community policing directly. It helped, I am sure, but the temptation in defence budgets and police budgets for very sophisticated, high-cost, high-tech gadgetry is almost irresistible.

I just want to say that on behalf of the men and women of Cobden and the rest of rural Renfrew country it's not the gadget we want in the first instance --

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Off topic.

Mr Conway: My friend from Lanark-Renfrew -- he's a very able fellow -- would want me to say as well that people in communities like Cobden and Pakenham and Waba and other such wonderful communities want to see Constable Pilkey on the street, they want Constable Pilkey at the school, they want Constable Pilkey at the arena, and they're not seeing that to the extent they would like.

I simply say that there are, from my point of view, some things we can do. We should probably start as a Legislature, for the first time in a long time, taking a good look at this budget. Yes, we will probably have to find some additional resources, but I repeat, before we do, we had better decide as a community of legislators where it is we want the resources allocated.

I don't share some of the views of the member for Leeds-Grenville and others who have spoken about priorities that I don't happen to share. We live in a multicultural community; we've got social realities that I don't like very much, but they've got to be taken account of.

The traditional policing around native communities has been an abomination. It has been a transparent failure, and anything, in my view, would be an improvement over our past record. I congratulate this government and my friend the former Attorney General for some of the initiatives that our government took, but those are first steps. We have to go a long way to redress some historic grievances and historic inequities there.

I've spoken my piece. I thank you for your indulgence.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to join in this debate and I'd like to congratulate my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville for bringing this resolution forward today.

I'd like to talk first of all about the job of the police. It's a very difficult job and it's a job in which they feel very isolated. Unfortunately, we have a government that would like to paint the police into the corner of being in some way not in favour of human rights and all the dignities that we attribute to everybody in society. There's no doubt about it that it's a very difficult job. It's a very high-risk job.

I recall that the very person I met when my wife and I came to live in Canada in 1969 was a young rookie policeman who, not having ever met us before but living in the same building that we did, offered to go out and rent a car to go and get our luggage from Union station. This was my first impression of Canada: the decency, the kindness of Canadians, but more significantly a policeman who was prepared to help. I saw him coming home in that first year he was in the police sometimes devastated from the experiences he'd had, devastated because he'd seen some tragic situations he felt he couldn't help because of the constraints that were put on him even back then.

Progressively we've put more and more constraints on police. We do know certainly that the police sometimes have some bad apples, and unfortunately this government has a penchant for dwelling on bad apples. The vast majority of police are the most incredible pillars of society, people who are going to take risks at very little pay relative to the dangers, and they go out and protect our society with very little thanks.

Our friend the member for Renfrew North commented on the misspent money of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force in building the Taj Mahal. Surely this is not where we should be spending money. We should be spending money on making sure we have enough manpower, and we should have enough equipment for the police so that they are best equipped.

It's with some pride that I say Metro police are recognized as being one of the best police forces around the world. They are not corrupt, they are dedicated to their job, and on the whole they do a very good job. But they are operating under tremendously difficult conditions; they're outgunned and they're outmanned.

When we look across the province we know there are many communities that don't have 24-hour policing any more, and this is thanks to the Liberal government when it was in power, and now the NDP have continued this. One of the most fundamental things people in rural Ontario expect for the taxes they pay is at least that there be police forces available to them, because they don't get many services relative to the big cities.

The people of York Mills are particularly concerned with the erosion of security that has occurred in York Mills and in Metro to date. Looking at the statistics we see that our streets are not safe any more, and we see a 15-year-old girl being abducted on her way home from school. We see that violent crime has risen by 47.9% since 1985; this is a frightening statistic.

I note that the member for Niagara Falls was talking about the recognition of crimes against children, child abuse and wife abuse, and these are indeed crimes that are coming more to the fore. It isn't to suggest that necessarily there is more of it today than there was some years ago, but it is being reported, and it is important we recognize this and make sure we have all of the help on hand, and indeed the police force must be sensitive to these issues and be able to respond to them.

But the way we are going about it at the moment is inappropriate. The appointment of Susan Eng as chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board is really inappropriate. Even if we charitably were to suggest that she is a woman of goodwill who has the best intentions for the community at heart, one must say that she is dogged by the fact that she has been needlessly provocative. She has churlishly written a very foolish, childish report on the police chief where she's made many anti-police remarks.

1740

Then we see such things as the NDP appointee to the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board with a statement that he believes police routinely lie on the witness stand in court. Now that is a very serious allegation and it's an allegation the NDP should be particularly sensitive to at the moment. When we have a minister of the crown who admits to losing it and lying about a member of the community, and yet we have NDP appointees to police boards suggesting that police routinely lie on the stand, I would suggest such broad-brush statements are totally inappropriate and not compatible with being on a board of police.

If the statement were made that sometimes a police officer may lie on the stand or may exaggerate, I think we must accept that there are two circumstances. There's one where they are bad apples and we have to weed them out, and then there are the other police who are so frustrated with the system that they definitely want to get the criminal and they feel the whole justice system is working against them.

To use the Minister of Northern Affairs' expression, "losing it," I think that is to be excused sometimes, but we cannot accept it and we must make sure that the police are routinely told that we have higher standards and that we live in a different society.

I think when we look at the issue of crime statistics according to race, we know that within Metropolitan Toronto the police have been ordered not to keep these. I know this is a very sensitive issue, and it isn't an issue that we should attack and say that we cannot keep statistics. We must have statistics in order that we can identify the problem so that we can address it in a way that helps those communities that have difficulties. Crime may be a cry for help and we have to address it. Unless we have the statistics on it we won't be able to address it.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's with pleasure that I stand up here today to speak. May I say that I think overall this opposition day motion seems to be a rather simplistic view in terms of what is going on with policing.

When the campaign started about the shortage of funding for the OPP and not enough officers, I initiated a conversation with my local detachment chief to find out what the situation was locally. I think there's no doubt that there are strains on the system and everyone would admit that. I hope that as a government we are able to find more resources to try to relieve some of those strains. But the types of things we're going to do to solve some of the problems, some of the difficulties police forces are having, OPP and local police forces, are going to take far more than what's in this resolution today.

I looked through the resolution and it says "this government has politicized police services boards." I'd like to know what the member for Leeds-Grenville thought police services boards and police commissions were before. I mean, they had elected officials from municipal governments on them. If that wasn't a political body, a politicized group, then I don't know what was. Police boards have been political for years.

What the Police Services Act does is try to respond to an overall direction of community policing. What does that mean? Well, to me, and I think to many people out there, what community policing means is that we're going to bring in a broader spectrum of the community to be represented on police boards to try to establish priorities for police services in their communities.

In my riding of Oxford many people who wouldn't have been involved in the process but have good experience in the community in terms of being volunteers, being very active, are now filling out application forms to be on police services boards. In the town of Ingersoll we have a person who served on our public utilities commission for several years who's now on there. We have a former town councillor. We have a retired teacher who's also a former driver education instructor. In the city of Woodstock we have the executive director of the United Way. We have a local business person. In other words, we are getting a broad perspective on there. I think that's very important.

My riding certainly understands the strains and the stresses that have been put on police officers, the challenges they have in carrying out their duties. In the last eight years we've had two police officers who've been shot in the line of duty and we most recently had one in September. We understand what they go through. We understand what police officers, firefighters and ambulance officers go through in putting their lives on the line for us, to make our communities safer, to protect us from dangers and accidents.

There is no doubt, I think, that for the most part police forces have been very good in this province and have done a good job, but as society is changing, as community expectations are changing, police forces need to change with that. I think many police forces across the province have initiated changes on their own. Others are responding to the leadership that has been given by previous governments, this Legislature and the community as a whole.

This motion talks about misuse of police resources and says the government is not providing all the support. I even heard comments from opposition members who said this government is anti-police. I think that if you go and look at the record, this government is not anti-police. We support the police and we want the police to be involved in the community. I think most police officers recognize the need for change, because if they're not integrated into the community as a whole, they're not going to receive the community's support. I think every police officer who's out there putting his life on the line for the residents in the community wants to know that he has community support.

The member for Renfrew North brought up the issue of the police services board report. I certainly find that report very interesting, because in my riding we have a few areas that have police support but weren't included in there; for example, the township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The village of Tavistock, which is part of the township, has its own police force. The township area is covered by the OPP, but it's not included as one of the communities that should be subject to paying for OPP services. I hope that issue gets dealt with.

Quite clearly this resolution here today does nothing to improve police services in the province. It does nothing to promote cooperation, harmony and the concept of community policing to ensure that the police have the support of the community and that all communities, whether they be from different economic classes, whether they be of different ethnic backgrounds, whether they be of any other types of association, are supporting the police forces and are responsive to the community needs. I think that if we're going to make police services in this province more effective then we've got to continue those efforts.

Some of the police services in my riding have done a very good job: basketball games with local organizations to raise money for charity. I saw the program on CITY-TV last night where the chair of the Toronto police commission was on, being accountable to the public. There were representatives of the local police force playing a charity basketball game. Those are the types of things that are going to make police services better and more effective.

As my final comment, we all have an obligation to help the police. I just want to put a plug in for the Crime Stoppers programs, which I think are very effective in helping all police forces to make policing better in this province.

1750

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this very important opposition day in this Legislature. Opposition days are important because they give the members in all parties the opportunity to discuss very important issues in this Legislature. I think this is one of the most important issues we have discussed here in a long time.

The government has created a safety crisis with its chronic underfunding of police services, and of the Ontario Provincial Police specifically. While dollars and staff allocated to the OPP have dwindled, the staff and resources at the Ministry of the Solicitor General have increased significantly. We heard earlier on today, for instance, about some 9% increase in staff in the field and some 67% increase in head office. I find it unacceptable to realize that the people in the field doing the work are not being complemented as I feel they should be.

The ministry had set aside money to replace specialized officers needed for such programs as the RIDE program. Instead the money was used to increase the ministry staff. They cut out the Golden Helmets, the Pipes and Drums, and other major things that we have had in this province for many years.

They estimate the Ontario police services are understaffed by about 500 officers, and another 197 are scheduled to retire this year. Current government policy is forcing the OPP to reduce the use of gasoline and cut down on patrols. They are diverting uniformed officers from patrols or from responding to calls to perform court duty or to escort prisoners, which is a job that I believe could be better handled by retired police officers. I have said for many years that it should be run from the county jail to the court where they are held, and retired officers could do that on a two- or three-day basis. It would cut down on the cost of officers running back forth twice in a day.

The 911 number has been taken off with regard to the consultative services for the consultant who offers advice and assistance to communities to provide that emergency 911 service. When we look at some of the aspects that have been cut back in the OPP specifically, we have to wonder where this government's priorities are.

I wrote to the Solicitor General a while ago on behalf of the Oro township community policing committee to express its concerns with regard to the need for an increased police presence in OPP District 7. That takes in a very large area. Superintendent Burke has had a major concern with regard to the understaffing he has indicated, some 34 officers out of the Barrie detachment that they have neglected to fill.

A portion of the letter I got from the minister is very interesting because he says:

"As you are aware, the current global recession has seriously impacted on all sectors of our society, whether public or private, resulting in a significant decrease in government revenue. This fiscal decline has affected the provincial government's ability to provide ministry funding to the same extent as in the past."

That is a form letter, I am sure, that was sent to most of the people who had written to him with regard to policing across the province.

The OPP recently completed a province-wide review for service delivery with regard to the uniformed staff levels, and the Solicitor General indicates that he is looking at the recommendations and the findings. When will we ever hear what the findings are?

I have another interesting letter that I received a copy of. It was addressed to the Premier and had specifically to do with a Harold Rogers of Orillia. It's not my letter, it's not my words. It's a resident who wrote to the Premier with regard to this very specific case of an individual charged with manslaughter:

"...the recent charge of manslaughter for an occurrence in 1954, against this man who is in his seventies and is very seriously ill, is an unconscionable waste of the taxpayers' money and the OPP's resources.... In view of complaints of shortage of OPP funds and personnel, the extravagant expense and wasted manpower involved in this charge which has virtually no chance of resulting in a conviction is completely unjustifiable."

They understand the OPP has gone as far as British Columbia to interview witnesses. When we look at some of the waste that is going on, there is a great concern right across this province.

I just want to indicate briefly that another paragraph of that letter that was sent to the Premier says: "How could the prosecution possibly expect to convince a jury of 12 people to arrive at a unanimous 'guilty' verdict based on necessarily unreliable 38-year-old recollections by people whose judgement is subject to question? This is a pipedream." And we talk about some of the waste that some people indicate there is in policing services.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and most other government ministries at Queen's Park are more interested in some cases -- and we have looked at the spending estimates of this government, and if we look at all the different ministries and at the increase in administration expenditures, that's where this government has focused: on increasing ministry staff in every government office in this city and across this province.

There are officers complaining about drug pushers getting lighter sentences, and the previous Attorney General chastised the police for saying that. For the officers killed, wounded or severely injured on duty, no one stood up to express support or extend their condolences to the families, yet two cabinet ministers attended the Wade Lawson funeral.

It's important to watch the record. They've done away with the Golden Helmets, the pipe band and the oath of office. This resolution is timely, it's appropriate, and I commend the member for Leeds-Grenville, who has brought this forward today for a full and public debate in this Legislature.

1800

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

Ayes -- 13

Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Jackson, Jordan, McLean, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 71

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Henderson, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury);

North, O'Connor, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Poole, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1807.