Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOSTER FARM

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I rise today to salute Ron McCooeye and the residents of the Foster Farm community located in my riding of Ottawa West for recently volunteering their time and effort to construct a long-awaited and much-needed playground for their children.

With the fiscal pressures currently facing the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Housing Authority, the construction of this project would not have been possible without the volunteer help of close to 40 residents who banded together with pride and dedication to complete the job.

Working cooperatively with the housing authority to achieve greater responsibility has been a hallmark of the Foster Farm community. The residents have once again responded to the challenge, having displayed the necessary initiative and leadership in proving to all that their motto, "Neighbours Helping Neighbours," can indeed be achieved.

By allowing residents to have a bigger role in their community, the people of Foster Farm have proven once again that community pride and respect for property can indeed be achieved in our public housing projects if people are just given the chance to be involved. I congratulate them on their efforts.

WATER CONSERVATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to advise this House that four of my constituents, Bill and Lois Greatrex, Audrey Shaw and Byron Hamilton, have given an old idea a new and exciting twist. During Earth Week this enterprising group introduced the Plunge, a drinking water conservation program, to over 4,100 school children in Owen Sound.

Teachers in these schools received kits which contained teaching aids which stress the importance of saving water at home. Each student got a Plungee, a one-litre zip-top bag. Students were to fill the bag with rocks, marbles or pennies to provide weight, top it up with water and put it in the toilet tank.

A local magician, Bert Hood, wrote the Plungee Song and together with a choir from several city schools made a recording.

The group received corporate sponsorship and city council supported the teachers' and children's efforts throughout the program. Over 3,400 families in Owen Sound use Plungee and now save 54 litres a day. This translates into a saving of 67 million litres of drinking water and about $48,000 each year to the community.

I must commend everyone involved in this initiative because our young people are now learning good water management in a most enjoyable way. I would like children in other areas of the province to have the same opportunity. The experience in Owen Sound shows that they are enthusiastic about taking part in an extremely worthwhile program which helps the environment.

I would ask the Minister of Education and the Minister of the Environment to look at this idea with a view to sustaining and furthering its use. They would be doing the province a great service.

CITIZENS FOR MODERN WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House about the efforts of an environmental group in my riding of Lincoln.

The Citizens for Modern Waste Management is a group of local environmentalists who believe in progressive waste management strategies. This group is currently fighting a proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a toxic waste treatment facility and landfill in the township of West Lincoln. When they were formed in 1985, they believed the technology being proposed by the OWMC was not the best option for dealing with Ontario's hazardous waste. This belief is still held today and is stronger than ever.

What makes this group different is that it is exploring other alternatives for dealing with hazardous waste. They are active in informing and educating the public about the other options and are strong advocates of reducing, reusing and recycling. They share the same belief as this government in that incineration is not a preferred option and that the solution lies with reducing waste at the source, reusing the waste and, if necessary, treating the waste on site instead of trucking it to a centralized facility.

Their name is very fitting, as they believe that waste management strategies should be modern instead of being modeled on a decade-old European system.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, you will remember your visit to the Kenora riding this past winter. That visit was important to the people of the riding, but of equal and maybe of more importance are the visits made to the riding by visiting health care specialists under the Ministry of Health's underserviced area program.

The people of the riding are again asking questions about the NDP's commitment to northern health care and the future of this program, a program which saves thousands of dollars by having specialists travel throughout northern communities to conduct clinics for patients who would otherwise have to travel hundreds of kilometres to receive their services.

Visiting specialists provide services to the citizens throughout my riding, and the cancellation of portions of this program and the uncertainty of its general future is upsetting to many of my constituents who rely on these specialized services.

In his June 17 report to the Dryden district hospital board, chief of staff Dr Carl Eisner indicated:

"Please note this change in government policy is directly contradictory to the policy statement of the NDP government, 'Operation Critical,' of February 1990, which reads, 'New Democrats will fight for needed improvements specific to the northern problem of a small population spread over large distances.'"

People throughout the riding have been told that clinics which they have become dependent on will be cancelled as of tomorrow, July 1. Since clinics have been unsuccessful in their attempts to get a commitment from this government, they have cancelled their travel to many communities throughout my riding.

Today I urge the Minister of Health to get a grip on what is happening to this most important program.

1340

CANADA DAY

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Tomorrow millions of Canadians will gather in their communities across this country to celebrate Canada's 125th anniversary of Confederation.

Just recently Canada was chosen by the United Nations as the best country in the world in which to live. For most other countries we are the envy of the world.

In terms of nationhood, we are still extremely young and our future is somewhat uncertain.

Over the past two years I have had the privilege of travelling throughout our great nation to discuss the future of our country. The experience has provided me with an opportunity to be exposed to the great diversity in values within Canada. I have been greatly impressed by the undying commitment of individual Canadians and their strong belief in our country as a united nation.

While July 1 is a holiday and the constitutional debate continues, we as Canadians should take a few moments to reflect upon the reasons why Canada is such a great nation in which to live. Think about those reasons why the United Nations chose Canada as the best nation in the world in which to live. Think about the reasons why thousands of immigrants fight to get into this country every year. I think we should reflect upon the fundamental values that have made Canada what it is today: tolerance, generosity, openness, enterprise, faith and determination.

I think we'd do well to listen to the words of two great Canadians. Sir John A. Macdonald said:

"Whatever you do, adhere to the union. We are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken."

On January 30 of this year the Prime Minister said:

"What Canada needs today is true understanding, honourable compromise and genuine fairness -- the same virtues that gave birth to our nation 125 years ago. In face of that need, I believe firmly that this generation of Canadians will not be found wanting. All those who love Canada, and who want this magnificent experience in citizenship to continue, will persevere. And Canada will grow and prosper as a united country."

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): In my 90-second space today, I want to speak about Canada Day that's coming up tomorrow.

When I came to Canada back in the 1950s, all I had to my name was one suit of clothes, one suitcase, one wife and two children. On top of that, the cash on hand total we had was $250. If I had thought of the consequences of coming here in such dire straits, I would never have left home, but being young and restless we never gave anything a second thought other than the fact that we wanted to come to Canada and seek out the opportunities that weren't available at home.

As the years progressed, I was given the opportunity to represent my peers in Ontario on a municipal council, and in September 1990 my peers sent me to the Ontario Legislature to represent them. I am honoured to have been given that opportunity.

Today, as we approach our 125th birthday, I salute Canada as my home. I'm proud to be a Canadian, and the Canada I want to live in for many years includes Quebec.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I rise today to draw attention to the Minister of the Environment's barren performance in addressing the issue of water pollution in Ontario.

As you know, the minister is prone to falling in love with grandiose but impractical ideas. One of the best examples of this minister's dawdling destructiveness is her stalling on the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program.

For a year and a half she has "tried to improve" the MISA program. She said that she would improve MISA by including pollution prevention in the regulations. This means filtering out pollutants is not good enough; they must be eliminated from the production processes.

But the truth of the matter is that the minister's petroleum refineries regulations, now before cabinet and a year and a half late, contain no pollution prevention strategy whatsoever.

I also remind members and you, Mr Speaker, and the people watching that the minister spoke of inserting "zero discharge" into the MISA regulations. In September 1991 she stated, "We are developing a list of specific persistent toxic chemicals to be banned from the discharges of all facilities regulated by the MISA program."

But the NDP government forgot about its promises, its responsibilities and its powers and decided instead to beg the Mulroney Tories in Ottawa to do its environmental work for it. They submitted a list of toxic chemicals to the federal government and asked the federal government to take action in banning them.

I ask the Minister of the Environment today, where is the bravely promised list of persistent toxic chemicals to be banned from the discharge of all facilities regulated by the MISA program? When will she stand up and admit that her attempt to fiddle with MISA has accomplished nothing but delay, a barren performance that has unnecessarily allowed hundreds of tonnes of pollutants to contaminate Ontario's waterways?

APPRECIATION OF POLICE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): We're used to hearing all kinds of negative comments from this government about policemen and policewomen, from the Premier, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Citizenship, and recently a most offensive slur against police by the Premier's parliamentary assistant, a slur the Premier refused to rebut. The police officers of Ontario continue to do an excellent job in protecting the public despite the comments and actions of this NDP government.

On behalf of the Conservative Party, I want to commend the officers who made the arrest this week in the senseless murder of Paul Semple. Although the suspects are innocent until proven guilty, this murder has stirred the emotions of many citizens of Metro and Ontario as a whole. The police deserve to be commended for working quickly to apprehend suspects in this case.

I also want to mention OPP acting Sergeant Scott Couse, who was shot early yesterday on Highway 400 in Barrie. If it weren't for the sergeant's bullet-proof vest, he may not have survived this shooting. On behalf of the Conservative Party and I'm sure all members, I wish Sergeant Couse a quick recovery from his wounds.

The police officers of Ontario are doing a darned good job despite the continuing negative and misguided comments of this government. James Wallace, in a recent Toronto Sun column, said it as well as anyone could when he mentioned: "Rae, Akande, Ziemba et al should remember there are individuals who go out and risk their lives to assist and help others every day. They're called cops." Amen.

MICKEY AND JOAN WARNER

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to two of the most tireless community activists in Windsor, Mickey and Joan Warner.

Mickey Warner has been working for the corporation of the city of Windsor for over 20 years. He has been the president of his union local for the past 17 years, CUPE Local 82. Mickey has long been a leader in the labour community, pushing for equity and improved working conditions for all workers. His skill and discipline, especially during negotiations, are now legendary. Before working for the city of Windsor, Mickey had been an organizer for the Steelworkers and organized and managed numerous campaigns. Mickey has also been sergeant at arms with the Windsor and District Labour Council for the past 23 years.

Joan Warner has in her own right an impressive record of achievement. Graduating from nursing school in 1957, Joan helped to organize in Windsor the Ontario Nurses' Association Local 93 in 1962, becoming the first vice-president and staying for some 20 years. She has dedicated most of her career of 33 years to Windsor Western Hospital, with a one-year interval in 1966 when she was a nurse at Chrysler. At Windsor Western, Joan has been the head nurse of the recovery room for 20 years and will be leaving her position in the outpatient surgical unit of the hospital.

With their well-deserved rest from official public involvement, Joan and Mickey can spend more time with their grandchildren. On behalf of my Windsor colleagues and also the member for Essex-Kent, I wish them well in their future endeavours together, because friends and colleagues of Joan and Mickey in Windsor know that retirement will not slow them down.

SYNAGOGUE DESECRATIONS

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Mr Speaker, this is a statement on consent of all parties, and I'm making it today on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Citizenship.

In the early morning hours of June 30, 1992, two Toronto and one Thornhill synagogues were spray-painted with anti-Semitic slogans and swastikas. The Beth Emeth Bais Yehuda synagogue on Elder Street, the Pride of Israel synagogue on Bathurst and the Beth Avraham Yoseph synagogue on Clark Avenue were the institutions which were targeted.

This government deplores such activities, because actions such as these promote fear and divisiveness in our society. We must constantly be vigilant to ensure that we name this as violence and that we act as a community to ensure it does not occur again.

The police take this matter very seriously. They are investigating all three incidents.

The Ministry of Citizenship is preparing guidelines which are designed to assist community organizations to respond to incidents of racism in an appropriate and immediate way. The Ministry of Citizenship is also working with leaders in the Jewish community, among them the Canadian Jewish Congress and the B'nai Brith, to develop strategies to respond to these heinous crimes. The Ministry of Citizenship is presently working with law enforcement agencies to develop strategies to stop the growth of hate groups and the dissemination of hate propaganda, which certainly give rise to this kind of crime.

I'm sure all members of the House will join me in expressing my deep concern for the members of the communities affected, my deep concern for all of us that we live in a community where such things continue to happen and that we will rededicate ourselves to ensuring that this does not occur again.

1350

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I rise to comment on an incident that really touches the heart of my community. The Beth Emeth Bais Yehuda synagogue, the Pride of Israel synagogue and the Beth Avraham Yoseph synagogue; two of those three synagogues are in my riding. It isn't just the physical presence that makes it that significant; it's that many of the people who constitute the constituency of Wilson Heights are people who have come to Canada from very troubled areas. Many of the Holocaust survivors who arrived in Canada right after the Second World War have settled in Wilson Heights. We have a very large Russian-Jewish community that settled here after getting permission to leave the Soviet Union to come to a country they had been told and we keep extolling the virtues of, and just recently we had the United Nations saying that Canada is the best place in the world in which to live. When things like this happen, it puts in doubt some of our statements.

I know we don't know exactly who the perpetrators are of this particular event, if you want to call it that. It is something that is not new; it happens from time to time at various synagogues across this country. But I think it's important that all of us understand that an attack on one group is an attack on all groups. It isn't just a Jewish problem, in the same way that some other events that have happened recently in Ontario aren't just the problem of another group; this is a problem we must all address. It is a problem that creates a great deal of tension in the community, and I want to commend B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress, which have always been vigilant in addressing these particular problems. I hope all of us will take a look at the events and make sure we deal with them in a positive way so that we discourage and hopefully eliminate events of this kind in the future.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I would like to echo the words of the two prior speakers. These horrible events continue to occur. We had an event like this in Brantford a year ago. We now have another event that we all look at with horror and disdain, and I think everybody in this place certainly feels the way I do, the way the minister feels and the way the member for Wilson Heights feels.

I would only ask my friends in this place to go back to their communities and tell their constituents what has happened and tell them that what has happened is wrong and that we have got to stop this kind of thing. As members of this large community in Ontario, we all have to fight this kind of racism, this kind of hatred together. We all have to send out the message that when these people are found they will be prosecuted with the most extreme vigour this government can muster to prosecute them, that they will face the most difficult penalties that can possibly be rendered for these kinds of crimes. I ask my friends in this place to go back to their communities and to convey that message. If we all work together, we can (a) find the people who perpetrate these crimes and (b) take a major step in trying to eliminate this kind of hatred and racism in Ontario.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): May I just be allowed a few minutes to comment on this too, because it really comes to the heart and the core of our community, our people in Canada as a whole. As an example in the world, Canada stands out as a place of harmony and tolerance itself.

As you know, these things emerge in many different ways. We have seen hate literature about the Chinese. We saw hate literature about the Jews and about the blacks. We have seen hate literature about francophones. We see hate literature about the Catholics and other groups. This type of thing attacks religious organizations, it attacks the culture of our people, and therefore it attacks the heart and the soul of Canada.

This is a democracy that we all in this House are very proud of, and members of all parties, all the people here, will stand up and fight against all these racist attacks.

Recently, as you know, the government presented its employment equity program, its race relations program and its human rights policies. We stand here and hope that all our different nations and different cultures here will make sure that these things are stamped out.

I would like to say that I too feel very hurt about this process, and we will stand to protect that democracy here.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL / BOULOT ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation) It is indeed a pleasure for me to inform the House that the Ministry of Transportation will create more than 4,300 jobs for the people of Ontario this year. Our ministry will receive $140 million of the $500 million allocated by the province for this fiscal year. This includes $21.8 million in Jobs Ontario Capital allocated through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines for highway construction programs in northern Ontario.

When my colleague the Treasurer announced details of Jobs Ontario Capital last week, he said, "This program is intended to create immediate jobs that strengthen Ontario's transportation system." That's exactly what the Ministry of Transportation intends to do with these funds. Transportation construction projects are labour-intensive, and the level of funding we have been given will provide work for people across the province.

At the same time, by investing in our infrastructure, we are providing incentives for businesses to locate and stay in this province of Ontario. Efficient highway links play an important role in keeping Ontario competitive.

Je suis particulièrement heureux d'annoncer que les projets de réfection des autoroutes que nous entreprenons dans le Nord auront aussi un impact important et positif sur l'économie des communautés du Nord.

Across the province, the work will include upgrading and constructing major highways that are essential to reach export markets and facilitate just-in-time delivery -- extremely important to Ontario's manufacturing sector.

For example, we will be putting 600 people to work in our eastern region, 627 people to work in the southwestern region and more than 2,400 to work in the central region, which of course includes the greater Toronto area. In the north, with the funding from Northern Development and Mines, we are creating jobs for more than 640 people.

When Jobs Ontario Capital was announced in the budget and the Treasurer said funds would be available this year, we immediately went to work and began the planning work on suitable projects. As a result, we were able to have some projects tendered early to take advantage of this summer's construction season. Work on many of these projects, such as the repaving work on Highway 401 in the Brockville area, started in May to ensure the jobs would be created this year, and so the highway improvements can benefit everyone quickly.

The projects we have chosen to undertake under Jobs Ontario Capital range from constructing noise barriers along the E. C. Rowe Expressway in Windsor, a project that will create approximately 85 jobs, to starting construction on the long-awaited Sudbury southeast bypass with the interchange at Highway 69.

J'ai déjà mentionné quelques projets, dont l'élargissement de l'autoroute Queen Elizabeth entre Hamilton et Stoney Creek, ainsi que la réparation de la voie élevée de la baie de Burlington. De plus, des travaux importants seront entrepris à l'intersection de l'autoroute 400 et de la route 7, juste au nord du grand Toronto.

During the next five years the province will invest $2.3 billion through Jobs Ontario Capital to support Ontario's transition to a more productive, knowledge-based economy. I'm proud of the work that will be accomplished by our province and our ministry through Jobs Ontario Capital. I'm even more proud of the fact that we are creating meaningful jobs for the people of Ontario.

1400

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Today I am pleased to inform members that the Ministry of Education will allocate $46 million to school boards across the province through Jobs Ontario Capital. These grants, plus a $19-million local share contributed by school boards, will support construction valued at $65 million. It is estimated these projects will generate jobs across the province totalling 647 person-years. Approved projects will begin as early as October 1992 and will be completed by December 1993. A total of 307 projects will be funded over this one-and-a-half-year period.

Of the 307 projects, 171 will improve heating, ventilation, electrical and other building systems, including roofing; 38 will promote barrier-free access for persons with disabilities; 50 projects will deal with asbestos abatement, fire safety and sewage disposal systems; six projects will provide schools with new facilities such as libraries or gymnasiums; and 42 will be for general renovations.

These funds are part of the five-year, $2.3-billion infrastructure investment program announced by Treasurer Floyd Laughren on June 22 of this year. It is estimated that across the government this fiscal year alone $500 million in funding in Jobs Ontario Capital will result in nearly 10,000 direct and indirect jobs for Ontarians.

Within the education community, Jobs Ontario Capital will support renovations and alterations to schools across the province. These grants are a step towards achieving our goal of using capital spending to improve the quality of life and to build a prosperous Ontario.

An important element of the Jobs Ontario Capital strategy is to strengthen partnerships with key groups that share an interest in education. We are pleased to be working in partnership with school boards across Ontario to help boost the economy. Students will benefit from better facilities, communities will benefit because of job opportunities, and improved school buildings also make the communities more attractive places for business to invest in.

Details of the approved projects will be announced to school boards later this week. I would also like to tell members that announcements on the 1994-95 capital allocations will follow during the month of July.

RESPONSES

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond to the Minister of Transportation and say I really think it's time the government acknowledged and came clean with the people of Ontario. Your Jobs Ontario Capital program is nothing more than you cut $500 million out of the regular capital program and put it in there. The Ministry of Transportation cut $136 million out of its capital budget. If you look on page 86 of the capital budget you'll see the Ministry of Transportation last year spent $1,851,000,000; this year they're spending $1,715,000,000. They cut $136 million out of the capital budget so today the minister can get up and say, "We are now going to spend another $140 million." It's smoke and mirrors, believe me, and I'm not saying, "Spend more"; I'm saying, "Come clean with the people of Ontario." You cannot have this flim-flam. You can't say, "We are creating" -- I think the number you had in this statement was 4,300 jobs. It's nonsense. You cut as much money out of the budget as you're adding back.

On this Jobs Ontario program, we're not saying, "Spend more"; we're saying: "Be honest with the people of this province. Be honest with the construction workers of this province."

Today we see in the paper a big ad. You are recruiting an advertising agency to publicize this smoke and mirrors. Believe me, as you look at the budget, and I've said this many times to the Treasurer, you are spending less money on capital in the three capital project areas this year than you spent last year. The Minister of Transportation's announcement today is really a fraud on the people of Ontario. You cut it out of one area, you've added it back in this area and you're talking about creating 4,300 jobs. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. To go out and recruit and spend all of that money on an advertising agency to publicize the smoke and mirrors is a waste of the taxpayers' money.

Tomorrow, less than 24 hours from now, every single individual in this province will see their personal income tax rate go up more than 5%.

We hear this announcement today about creating jobs; it is nothing more than transferring money around. There's no new money here, believe me, and if the Minister of Transportation disagrees with that I'd suggest he get on his feet and say that. There is no new money. This is the same money you spent last year as you're spending this year. The only new money that's going to be spent is money on an advertising agency to publicize the smoke and mirrors. You can understand, Mr Speaker, our anger with deceiving the people of Ontario that this is going to be a job creation announcement. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I join with my colleague. In looking at the statement from the Minister of Education we see some $46 million over two years, and again, looking at the capital expenditure in the budget we see that the interim 1991-92 is $370 million and 1922-93 some $332 million. If one simply divides the $46 million in half again, it is less money than is going into the overall capital, and quite frankly I'm surprised that this would be the stuff of a ministerial statement: $20 million masquerading as some kind of major innovative program.

Even -- and I said this yesterday in referring to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities -- the sort of Orwellian way it's set out as a single noun, jobsOntarioCapital, is trying to suggest all kinds of wonderful things when, as my colleague has said, we're simply moving dollars from one side to the other and not really adding anything whatsoever.

The significant thing, and I note that it is not in the minister's text but he added it on at the end, was that we have all been waiting and the school boards have been waiting for the major capital announcement. We are aware that there are ongoing discussions about changes to the way in which capital is going to be allocated, how that whole area is going to be dealt with, and I think the minister needs to have underlined the great concern that is out there in terms of just what is going to happen.

Remember that it was the former Liberal government that brought in, for the first time, the concept of multi-year funding for major educational capital. I would hope that in that statement the minister will make clear that the kind of planning ability that gave to school boards is critical, and we would expect to see something much more substantive in that announcement than quite frankly we have seen in this one.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses, third party?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): In responding to the Minister of Transportation, all I can say is, this announcement today is a joke. We've already heard the Liberal critic commenting on this. Today we have seen the Ministry of Transportation take money out of the budget and then they dribble it back, and I emphasize "dribble it back," because in point of fact this year's estimates of the Ministry of Transportation show that the capital spending for the Ministry of Transportation is some $310 million less than last year. So much for the myth of massive spending on infrastructure and this fraud that this government is trying to perpetrate on the people of Ontario. By adding $140 million in this announcement today, you are still short by some $170 million over what was spent by your ministry last year.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): That is incorrect, sir.

Mr Turnbull: The minister is saying that isn't correct, but if the minister would like to read his own estimates, he will acquaint himself with the facts. You should be better briefed, Minister.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Spend, spend, spend.

Mr Turnbull: We're not advocating that you spend, spend, spend. We're saying, "Spend money better." Your government isn't spending money appropriately.

In fact, when we look at your promise to northern Ontario in the last election, there was a promise of $100 million a year on four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway. Minister, we know that in your first year of office you spent 3.5% of that money. We know the document you published in the last election was a fraud. We know this announcement today is a fraud. In point of fact, the $140 million that is being spent today is a reannouncement of money. They're saying it's coming from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Is each ministry going to reannounce what another ministry is spending its money on?

In fact this is only on provincial highways. There is no mention of any money to be spent on municipal roads, which are a very urgent priority, or should be, with this government. There's no mention of transit systems and there is no mention of GO.

You quite simply are spending less money than last year. No matter how you may try to dress it up, the facts are plain. You are spending less money than last year, so stop telling the electorate you are going to spend massive amounts on infrastructure. You are not doing it. It is a fraud.

1410

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'll say it again, as I did yesterday, but today to the Minister of Education: If one wants to stand up in this House and talk about supporting the economy of this province and creating jobs, one ought to be reaching out to the private sector for investment in Ontario. They can start today by withdrawing Bill 40 so that we don't have to sit here and debate something the private sector has told us is detrimental to the investment of business in the province of Ontario.

Second, I'd like to say that this brings back memories. When Tony and I were on the school board we used to call this additions and renovations, but we used to get those announcements in about April. Not only that, we used to build it into our budget so we could plan the local taxpayers' share, which in those days, when the Conservatives were here, was about 10% or 15%. Now today, the minister says, "We're giving you $46 million but you have to come up with $19 million." To be kind, we're looking at almost a third, Mr Treasurer, that the school boards may or may not have known they even had to spend, that they have to raise from local tax dollars.

So, number one, we have a capital grants plan that has not been revised since 1975 and I just know this minister is going to get that done within the next year. Number two, we now have a rated capacity in our junior and intermediate classes of some 35. The minister and I both know from our school board days that we did not like the previous two governments because they didn't change it. So again, he's going to get that done within the next two years. Number three, he knows we're in the courts with regard to development charges, and if he doesn't change the rated capacity the school boards won't get the kind of money they need either from the private sector. So we've given him a challenge today.

I have to say one good thing. He wants to change the fiscal year, the school-ending year. He's put out a discussion paper. If he can get that done within the next year, that will be helpful too.

This is an announcement that should have been made in March so the school boards could have planned. It's not new money and it's not creating long-term jobs, and that in fact is what we need in Ontario. You could speak to the Minister of Labour, ask him to withdraw Bill 40, and I'll be very happy.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today is June 30 and I notice that the Premier is not in the House and the Minister of Citizenship is not in the House. I'm coming to the point, Mr Speaker.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that Stephen Lewis in his report stated how important was the Mary Cornish report on the task force looking at the Ontario Human Rights Code. I don't know if they're out there announcing it right now, because that is their practice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): What is your point of order?

Mr Curling: The point, Mr Speaker, is: How is it that none of the ministers here are announcing the Cornish report, which is due today? I would expect there would be a report. Stephen Lewis had made mention of it, saying he would expect the government to comment on --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

I can appreciate the member may have an interest in reports or statements. There is nothing in the standing orders that allows the Speaker to compel ministers to make statements or to respond to reports. I appreciate the member's interest in these matters.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Mr Speaker, might I ask unanimous consent of the House to say a few words on the occasion of the royal visit?

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

ROYAL VISIT

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On this auspicious day Canada greets her head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, on her 18th Canadian progress since assuming the throne 40 years ago. The Queen will celebrate the Dominion of Canada's --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Burlington South asked for and was given unanimous agreement by the House to make a statement with respect to an important occasion. I believe he deserves the opportunity to be heard.

Mr Jackson: On this auspicious day Canada greets her head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, on her 18th Canadian progress since assuming the throne 40 years ago. It is also the 40th anniversary of the first Canadian-born Governor General of Canada, the Queen's representative here in our country.

The Queen will celebrate the Dominion of Canada's 125th anniversary and has already unveiled an equestrian statue of herself on Parliament Hill just two hours ago. Later today the Queen will unveil stained glass windows at Rideau Hall and present new colours to the Canadian Grenadier Guards at the cricket pitch on the grounds of Rideau Hall. Tomorrow Her Majesty will participate in all Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill and will remind all Canadians of our royal ancestry and heritage and the roots of our parliamentary democracy and great freedoms that we enjoy today as a result.

I join with all members of my caucus to warmly welcome Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, our pre-eminent symbol of Canadian unity amidst our linguistic, cultural and religious diversity. God save the Queen.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I an indeed honoured on this occasion to stand in my place and speak on behalf of the government and our members in welcoming Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to Canada.

It goes without my saying so that the Queen's public service is unequalled in the annals of history, and the very fact that she takes time from her schedule to come to Canada yet again to be with us as we celebrate our 125th birthday is really heartwarming to many people in Canada.

The festivities tomorrow in Ottawa traditionally mark the diversity of the culture of Canada, and I'm very pleased, and I'm sure that Her Majesty the Queen will enjoy that day in Ottawa as much as we here who can't be there but will perhaps have some time to watch it on television.

I'm very proud to welcome Her Majesty here today. God save the Queen.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I too, on behalf of my party would like to respond and make a statement in this regard. We have a symbol in our city of Mississauga. Our slogan is that we must have pride in our past and faith in our future.

While some people may think that some form of symbolic independence, or in some instances acting like an ungrateful member of a family, somehow gives us strength, I know most Canadians believe in their heritage and see the Queen and the monarchy as a very important part of Canada's heritage.

In fact, if we look at it in that light and recognize that having pride in our past means being proud of being associated with England and with the royal family, then that indeed will give us strength in our future at a time in our history when we need strength from wherever we can find it.

As we remember at this time in our history incidents like Vimy Ridge and the 5,000 Canadians who died to free our country, and we see the news this morning and hear stories of our soldiers in Sarajevo leading a peaceful situation over there and trying to bring some stabilization and some peace, I think this is a particularly important birthday and I think it is particularly significant that the Queen has found it in her schedule to join us as we celebrate our birthday tomorrow.

Our strength is in the fact that we're a peaceful country and that we understand our history. Our ties to England are strong and our ties to the monarchy are extremely strong.

The member for Mississauga South rightfully has asked me to tell you that it was through her efforts in her time and my time on council that she actually gave the city that particular motto I referred to, and we appreciated Mrs Marland's efforts in that regard.

On behalf of my leader, my caucus and my party, I also welcome Queen Elizabeth to our country to celebrate our birthday with us, and I want to say thank you for coming. She's an important part of our history and our values. God save the Queen.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today will be for the Treasurer. I note that the Treasurer is making his own personal preparation for July 1 by re-reading his budget, which seems to me entirely appropriate because today is actually a significant and rather sad day for Ontario taxpayers.

As the Treasurer is well aware, beginning tomorrow Ontario taxpayers are going to work a little longer each day for the tax man. Frankly, I find tomorrow's 3% Ontario tax hike particularly distasteful because at the same time that Ontario's finance minister will be increasing taxes, his federal counterpart is lowering his take by fully 1%. So while starting tomorrow Ontarians will pay more, taxpayers in Manitoba, British Columbia, New Brunswick and virtually every other province will be paying less.

I wonder how this Treasurer can explain to Ontarians that starting tomorrow he is increasing their taxes while taxpayers in the other provinces will see their personal income taxes go down.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): It's true that the increases in the tax schedule kick in tomorrow, both for the general personal income tax as well as the surtax on the higher incomes. I think the leader of the official opposition would be fairer in her questioning if she would at least acknowledge the fact that it wouldn't be very hard for Ontario to reduce its tax burden on Ontario citizens if we could pass on a significant portion of the programs that we and the taxpayers of Ontario assume the burden of delivering.

For you to use the federal government as an example of a jurisdiction that has reduced its taxes is really a bit strange, considering what it has done to Ontario, more than to any other province. They have reduced what I would consider to be what the level of transfers should be in Ontario this year. Because of their restrictions on the Canada assistance plan and on the established programs financing, we are short by $4.5 billion this year. I think it's passing strange then for the leader of the official opposition to say that we should be picking up some of that slack.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Treasurer conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: The federal government is simply walking away from its obligations in Ontario. That's why we did it.

Mrs McLeod: I'm trying to keep my questions very clear and very focused. I want to keep the focus on people. Times are tough. We acknowledge that. But times are tough for people and for families as well as for governments.

Last Thursday during the Treasurer's appearance before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, he referred to his personal income tax as very small and not a lot of money. I beg to disagree. For example, a married couple with two children and one income of $50,000 will pay $120 more in Ontario income tax over the next six months. The federal government, of all institutions perhaps, was prepared to give that family a $40 tax break, but this Treasurer would have none of that. He said, "I'll not only take that $40, but I'll take another $80 besides."

I wonder if the Treasurer still believes that in these tough economic times $120, to use his words, is not a lot of money.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the official opposition should be fair about what it is that those taxes deliver to the people of Ontario as well.

When we were striking the budget, we had a choice. We could have indeed cut back programs massively in the province, because this increase in taxation will represent in a full year roughly $1 billion in revenues to the province. That is significant. If the leader of the official opposition says that we should have cut government programs to the tune of $1 billion or allowed the deficit to go up by yet another $1 billion, I wish she'd stand in her place and say so, because that's not the policy of this government.

Mrs McLeod: In the attempt to keep focused on the issue I'm trying to raise today, let me turn to yet another of the messages this government has attempted to send to the people of Ontario.

Three weeks ago the member for Scarborough-Agincourt asked the Premier about tax measures in the budget. He was told by the Premier that for lower- and middle-income taxpayers, that is to say, individuals who are earning less than $53,000, there will be no increase in the combined federal-Ontario income tax as a result of the federal and Ontario 1992 budgets.

I am not suggesting in raising this question again that the Premier was deliberately misleading the House. I think he simply failed to understand what the Treasurer has actually done with this budget. I ask the Treasurer to set the record straight once and for all. Will he inform his Premier, as well as this House, that the Premier was wrong in the statement that was made, and that taxes are in fact increasing for all Ontarians in 1992 whether they earn $10,000, $100,000 or $53,000?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wasn't in the assembly the day that example was used.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Do you read Hansard?

Hon Mr Laughren: I said I wasn't in the assembly the day that was used. I think there has been some confusion over the two years 1992 and 1993. I believe that confusion was caused by me, quite frankly, by not putting both years in the budget statement. I regret that and I've said that before to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. For 1992, if we look at a one-earner married couple with two children -- I think that was the example the leader of the official opposition used -- with an income of $20,000, the net change of both the federal income tax reduction and the provincial income tax change will be a $5 reduction. For a $25,000 level it would be a $95 reduction. For the $30,000 level the increase starts kicking in and there's a $30-a-year increase.

For 1993 -- I know the Speaker doesn't want me to use too much time in this response -- the savings are basically across all income earners because the full impact of the changes then takes place and there's no increase for Ontario citizens who are a one-earner married couple until they start earning approximately $60,000 a year. It depends on which year you're talking about when you compare the numbers --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The Premier was wrong.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't know whether the Premier was wrong. As I said, I wasn't here when he gave his response. If he was incorrect, I suspect it was caused by the fact that there were two sets of tables, one for 1992 and the other for 1993.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that with all the Treasurer's words he's confirming the fact that Ontario taxpayers, everyone, will pay more taxes in 1992. I want to pick up on a part of the Treasurer's response to my question.

The Speaker: A point of order, Treasurer.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I was going on to another question.

Hon Mr Laughren: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think the Speaker will allow me to go through it again, but I was trying to show the leader of the official opposition that that is simply not the case.

Mrs McLeod: We'll be happy to provide the Treasurer with clarification about his budget following question period.

The Speaker: I think we would all be served well if we followed the traditional way of asking questions and answering them. Indeed, if it's of any help to the Treasurer, he may wish to table a detailed response to the table so opposition members can have that information.

TAX REVENUES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to turn to another aspect of the Treasurer's tax policy. In fact, the Treasurer continues to ask more questions than providing responses when he attempts to respond to our questions. He asks whether we would not feel his tax policy was justified because he has to somehow regain the money that was lost. I wonder if this Treasurer has simply failed to recognize that taxpayers have reached a point where they are saturated and simply cannot continue to pay higher and higher taxes.

If he would just look at his last year's budget, he would recognize that when he raised 11 taxes for $1 billion, the personal income tax revenues ended up $2 billion lower than he expected, sales tax revenues were $500 million lower than he expected and corporate taxes were $600 million lower than expected. It is clear that at some point, higher tax rates actually lead to lower revenues because they have such a negative impact on consumer spending and business investment.

I would ask this Treasurer if he could tell this House whether he has ever looked at where that cutoff point actually is. Does he know how long he can continue to raise taxes before those increased taxes actually lead to lower revenues, where they don't help him solve his problems of meeting his expenditure needs? I wonder if it's not possible the Treasurer has already passed that point.

1430

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I obviously don't believe we've passed that point or we wouldn't have made the changes we did this year. But I would ask the leader of the official opposition to cast her mind back to about 1980 when the supply-side gurus in the United States said that if we could only reduce taxes -- and did indeed -- the economic activity that would generate would in effect do what the leader of the official opposition says: increase overall revenues to the state, if you will. What happened was that eight years later the debt of the US had tripled because it didn't have the revenues to pay for its programs.

I don't believe we've reached that point. I do believe the tax system in this province is competitive with other jurisdictions. That is the big test of a tax system, it seems to me, along with fairness. I believe we're going to move some way to addressing both of those concerns.

Mrs McLeod: Clearly it's not 1980; it's 1992. I want the Treasurer to deal not with economic theory, but with reality. The reality is that the Treasurer's record in projecting the revenue he's going to get from his taxation policy has not been a very good record. I've already cited the complete difference between his projections in his last year's budget and what he actually raised in revenue.

The Treasurer needs to deal with that reality. I'm not sure he understands that he can't pull $1 billion out of the economy in higher taxes every year, particularly in these difficult times, and expect that same economy both to provide jobs for our young people and also to provide the revenues he needs to meet his expenditures.

The Treasurer's 1992 budget is pulling $640 million out of the economy through income surtaxes alone. I wonder whether the Treasurer has attempted to conduct any studies at all on the effect his higher taxes are going to have on jobs, consumer spending and business investment. If he has done those studies, perhaps he would share those with the Legislature today.

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition asked me not to deal with 1980, when in fact she's using 1980 arguments to develop tax policy. I don't think that makes any sense.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Tell us about François Mitterrand's 1982 budget policy.

Hon Mr Laughren: Never mind François Mitterrand. This is Ontario.

I was comparing the tax rates in the various jurisdictions in Canada as well as in the United States. I am convinced that we are roughly in the middle of the pack. We are not overly taxed compared to other jurisdictions. I could go through the list if you like, but I don't think question period is the appropriate time to do that.

I would simply say to the leader of the official opposition that I really do believe we are achieving -- we haven't got there yet in terms of fairness -- a tax regime in the province that is both competitive and in the end will be fair.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps I can ask the Treasurer to focus on something even more specific, that is, one of those taxes that has certainly reached the saturation point: the gasoline tax. July 1, tomorrow, marks the start of the summer tourist season but unfortunately, 1992 could become one of Ontario's worst tourism seasons on record. With 95,000 hospitality jobs having disappeared over the last two years, surely the Treasurer would agree that this sector of our economy needs a boost.

The Treasurer was absent when I asked the Premier two weeks ago to have a look at the possibility of instituting at least a summertime gas tax rollback. We happen to believe that the net impact in terms of consumer confidence and tourist interest would actually pay dividends both to retailers in border communities and to tourism operators across the province.

I would ask the Treasurer whether or not he has looked at this suggestion. If he has, could he tell us what kind of impact a summertime gas tax rollback would have on Ontario retailers and tourist operators? Will he be prepared to examine the potential that a gas tax reduction could actually increase his government's revenues by encouraging people to shop at home and by encouraging tourists to come to Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, I was aware of the suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition. I am not convinced that a temporary rollback in sales taxes on gasoline will have the effect some people think it will. For one thing, the rollback would have to be very substantial, it seems to me, to have any kind of major impact on consumer behaviour. I don't think one, two or three cents per litre would do it. I think it would have to be a very substantial rollback.

The final point is that I believe, from an environmental perspective, the whole principle --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): So let's kill tourism to save the environment. Come on.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for York Centre has got the answer to everything, it seems. The fact is, I do not believe a rollback in gasoline taxes would produce the desired result on tourism revenues. Second, I don't think it would be environmentally helpful.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Stop the clock. Before recognizing the leader of the third party, I would invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon three special visitors: Gwen Shea, a member from the Texas state Legislature; Dennis Smith, Senator from the state of Missouri state Legislature, and Dan Halperin, Senator from the state of New York state Legislature. Welcome to our assembly this afternoon.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): By way of introduction to my question to the Treasurer, I would like to say how much I support the call from the leader of the Liberal Party, and suggest to the Treasurer that if you would cut even 10% of the massive tax hikes the Liberals brought in, it would have a dramatic effect in this province.

My question is to the Treasurer. Now that the signs are that Canada is slowly pulling out of the recession -- no thanks, Treasurer, to your free-spending government -- the latest NDP tax hike, this one on personal income, kicks in tomorrow. I guess it's Bob Rae's way of saying "Happy Canada Day, Ontario" with $1 billion of new tax hikes. Many Ontario workers will have $10 to $20 less in next week's pay envelope. That's an extra $1,000 a year that won't be spent on groceries or rent or in purchasing power by consumers.

Treasurer, why are you reaching yet again into the pockets of Ontario taxpayers just as they are struggling to recover from the recession and just when what is absolutely required is that new $1 billion of spending that you are taking away from them?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): It's such a relief to move from questions from the Conservative Party to questions from the Reform Party.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Never mind. I wish members would take this question more seriously.

I do understand that the leader of the third party has gained some notoriety, and quite rightly so, from his posture, his role as a tax fighter in Ontario, but I think he should understand that for every penny or every dollar of tax revenues that does not come in, there's going to be some kind of program out there in Ontario that people really want to keep.

When we had the pre-budget consultations, the one message representatives from across the province who were at those consultations gave us very clearly was to keep the deficit in check, do something about jobs and maintain essential programs. Those were the three key messages they gave us.

1440

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, the Ontario government does not have a revenue problem; the Ontario government has a spending problem. Quite frankly, this spending problem started with the Liberals in 1985 and it has carried on with the NDP since it's taken office.

Treasurer, not only are you massively carrying on the program of increasing taxes to feed your spending appetite, you are also now, by way of what I call back-door or secret taxes, massively increasing fees, which is an indirect way of taxation.

I would like to ask you specifically about the increase in fees starting in July when every corporation in Ontario will be ordered to make a special filing that will cost it $50. With 300,000 corporations large and small, that works out this July to a new tax of $15 million on businesses in this province. Treasurer, wouldn't you agree that this brand-new fee is nothing more than a new $15 million tax on corporations that are struggling in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: Before I attempt to answer the question, I'm not too sure I understood the question, so I would ask him to go back at me again in his final supplementary, if he will.

The leader of the third party started out by giving us a broadside, saying that we didn't have a revenue problem, we had a spending problem. I would remind the leader of the third party that in the year we're in now, our growth in spending at 4.9% is the lowest rate of growth in spending in 39 years -- many of those years when your government was in office, my friend.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will attempt to be non-provocative in the remainder of my answer.

I would ask the leader of the third party as well to put the tax increases this year in a context of revenues that we are not getting which we deserve from his friends in Ottawa. I know you will try --

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): You did it to the municipalities, school boards, hospitals.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: Tell that to the mayors. Tell that to the school boards. You did the same thing.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South, come to order.

Hon Mr Laughren: The Conservative Party will try to depict that as a provocative and partisan statement. That's not what I intend it to be. It's simply meant to get on the record the fact that one of the major reasons --

Mr Carr: You did the same thing to your transfer partners: municipalities, school boards, hospitals. You did the same thing.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South is asked to come to order.

Hon Mr Laughren: The members opposite don't like to hear it when I remind them why we have a revenue problem in Ontario. Much of that problem rests squarely in Ottawa. They're your friends, not mine.

Mr Harris: I don't take the minister's comments as provocative and I don't take his comments as partisan. I take them as a basic lack of understanding of the problem. Ontario taxpayers don't want to pay any more federal taxes either. You have a spending problem. That's your problem: You cannot control your own spending. You are spending this year an increase higher than every other province, higher than every other government, and two and a half to three times the rate of inflation, the same as the Liberals did -- the same problem. That's what we're faced with.

I asked you specifically about the new $15 million of fees to corporations brought in to ask them to do new filings the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations wants. Not filings that businesses want to do; they have been ordered to do it. They have been ordered to pay $50 for you to collect your information. In addition to that, if they don't comply, they can be fined up to $25,000.

I ask you, Treasurer, as you got a vague look on your face when I first raised it, will you investigate this new $15-million tax, the new $25,000 fines on corporations to collect information you want, not that they are asking for?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is true that the government has raised some fees that reflect more the cost of delivering the service. I don't think there's anything untoward about that.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): What service is that, Floyd?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't know why you ask a question if you don't want to hear an answer. The leader of the third party once again referred to spending. I keep notes from day to day in the Legislature and I have a list here that the following members of the Conservative caucus want more money spent on various programs. The member for Simcoe West wants more money on health care, the member for London North on education, the member for York Mills on municipalities, the member for Nipissing on health care, the member for Waterloo North on colleges and universities, the member for York Mills on transportation, the member for Parry Sound on provincial parks and the member for Willowdale on credit counselling, and the list goes on and on.

I would simply ask the leader of the third party to be consistent. He cannot, day after day, accuse us of spending too much money while his own colleagues are demanding that we spend more at the same time.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer talks about fee increases. It's a brand-new fee brought in, never before charged by anybody, a new $15 million.

ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Health. I want to ask you about what is a matter of life and death for Marilyn McCleary of Barrie, Ontario. She is a victim of multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. She cannot tolerate most of the things in our surroundings that the rest of us take for granted. Since there is no facility in Ontario, Marilyn has been receiving treatment in Texas since September. She was told by OHIP that 75% of her costs would be covered, but OHIP has since changed the rules. They now tell Marilyn McCleary that only a fraction of her costs will be covered.

Minister, Ms McCLeary has no money left. She cannot afford to stay in Texas, but there is no environmentally safe haven here in Ontario for her to come home to. What advice does the minister have for Marilyn McCleary?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I find the question a difficult one to answer in terms of what advice I have. The whole issue of environmental sensitivities and the way in which the medical profession has not reached a consensus here in this province and in this country with respect to treatment of that leaves it very difficult for governments with respect to investment of dollars in these areas.

I've met with representatives of groups representing patients who have, with some physicians, found diagnoses of environmental sensitivity and it is a horrendous problem. I know that a number of years ago George Thomson did a report on this. Again, from a layman's perspective and from a political perspective, it's a very troubling issue. Where there isn't a medical consensus, it leaves governments with a very difficult problem, when there are scarce resources, about investing resources.

With respect to the individual case, I would have to take notice on that and indicate that we can look into it within OHIP. I can't comment on the individual case here in the Legislature.

1450

Mr Harris: In 1985 Ontario was spending about $8 billion a year on health care. Today you are spending in the neighbourhood of $17 billion, more than twice as much. In 1985, seven years ago, the Thomson report, as you alluded to, called for an Ontario treatment facility to be established for people like Marilyn.

Here it is seven years and $9 billion of new spending later and there is still no treatment facility in this province. Patients must leave if they want to live. Yet your government is telling them if they're not rich enough to pay for the treatment themselves, they're out of luck and they're out of life.

Minister, the health care system, OHIP, was set up by Ontario Progressive Conservatives to provide a safeguard for people like Marilyn McCleary. Why is your government busy spending billions more, $9 billion since 1985, on a system that is stripping away those safeguards?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, the way in which the question is put is problematic, I find, in terms of the juxtaposition of the expanse of spending on the health care system and the gaps that are in the system, not in the sense that I disagree with the member. In fact, I agree with him completely and have been saying many of these same things over the last number of months, as I have taken over responsibility for this portfolio.

I think what we are trying to do is to look at the gaps in the system in areas where we think we can more effectively spend money to get good health outcomes in this province, and it's a question of shifting the system.

At the same time as the member is recognizing the need for that, he and members of his caucus have also talked about the need to continue the expenditures in the hospital sector and for physicians. The member himself has raised questions around northern specialists leaving the North Bay area because of the thresholds we put in place with respect to physician payments. The member can't have it both ways on these issues.

I do recognize that there are many services we do not have covered in our Ontario system. We are striving to reform the system to be able to invest in those areas. I come back to the point that with respect to medical decisions on approval for treatment, I have to listen to medical advice, and there is not a consensus around environmental sensitivity yet, although there may be a very strong political imperative to act.

Mr Harris: Minister, without OHIP coverage for her medical treatment and taxes, Marilyn McCleary is destitute. She's destitute. Without a government commitment to provide a safe haven for people in her position, she's dead. In 1985, spending $9 billion less, Marilyn McCleary was provided for and the treatment was provided for. Now, seven years and $9 billion of new spending later, it is not provided for.

Minister, when medicare was first set up in Ontario -- again, I repeat, by a Progressive Conservative government -- its first priority was not to provide 100% of everything for everybody everywhere, every time, everything they possibly wanted. I suggest to you, Minister, that the first priority that was advanced by those who fought for medicare in this country, by John Robarts, by Bill Davis, by even some New Democratic Party advocates across this country, the very first priority they fought for was to ensure that no one, no individual, no Marilyn McCleary, would ever be faced with a choice of bankruptcy or dying.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): Robarts called it a diabolical plot.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): He said "Over my dead body."

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I would ask you, Minister, two things: Will you personally investigate Marilyn McCleary's case to ensure that she is not faced with that choice, and would you not agree with me that the system is failing not only the Marilyn McClearys but so many others in trying to be all things to all people and ignoring the first priority responsibility Tommy Douglas himself fought for, that of ensuring nobody is faced with the prospect of bankruptcy or dying?

Hon Ms Lankin: I'm not a student of history, but people all around me in this Legislature are indicating that John Robarts in fact called medicare a diabolical plot.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: Do you think there's any credibility in the statements we just heard from the member across the floor here with respect to his defence of the system? Let me tell you what I heard. Behind those words, what I heard was a call for user fees. What I heard was a restructuring of the system with a Tory agenda, which is not much different than what I heard when I was in Ottawa from their federal friends and their Minister of Finance.

On the problems that are out there, they don't accord with what I believe in, don't accord with what Tommy Douglas believed in and what this government believes in, and I'm not going to respond to that kind of myth that is being perpetrated across the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Mississauga West.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member for Parry Sound come to order. The member for Mississauga West with his question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. The member for Mississauga West has patiently been waiting to ask his question.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'll just talk over it if they get excited again.

APARTMENTS IN HOUSES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Recently outside of this place, the day that we were not in here, you announced in a press conference draft legislation to legalize basement apartments. You did so without consulting the municipalities, without talking to AMO, and most important, without talking to the public about the pros and cons of that policy. What you've done is created chaos in the community instead of taking an idea and building on it.

Minister, what process have you put in place to allow municipalities to deal with this issue? They're concerned about their tax base. They're concerned about their zoning bylaws, which they feel are in serious jeopardy with your program. They're concerned about the quality of life in their communities. What message do you have for the municipalities on how they can deal with this very contentious issue?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It is the case that the announcement was made outside of this Legislature. It was the day when the Legislature had been closed down by the opposition at about 10 o'clock in the morning, so the announcement was made in the media studio.

The announcement I made was that there would be a summer-long consultation around draft legislation for apartments in houses. In fact the municipalities of Ontario and AMO have participated over the last year in the housing policy framework discussions. This was a very large consultation on the direction of housing policy in Ontario and the question of apartments in houses was one of the issues raised for discussion in that paper. We got a fair amount of feedback from municipalities, from the public, from tenant advocates and so on. That gave us a good introduction to release draft legislation which will be discussed publicly this summer. I personally have discussed this in a room with the leadership of AMO.

Mr Mahoney: It's interesting to hear the minister say that. I would simply remind the minister that the day you made the announcement, the House was not sitting because the government could not generate 20 members to sit in their places, so let's just be clear about that. It was this government with its vast majority that failed to deliver a quorum.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: The president of AMO and mayor of Kingston, Helen Cooper, has stated, "In some neighbourhoods we already have a very serious problem trying to maintain the quality of housing stock, and this could simply exacerbate the problem." I could go on with quote after quote of municipal politicians.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What does Hazel think?

Mr Mahoney: I can tell you what Hazel thinks. You know darned well that she's very concerned about the fact that you have not put in place any kind of mechanism for the municipalities to deal with their ratepayers on this. You have not addressed absentee landlords. You have not addressed blockbusting. You have not addressed rooming houses, parking, noise, safety regulations, the impact on the municipal budget and the infrastructure, or schools.

You haven't addressed anything. You've simply created chaos by getting the community all upset. You've taken what in reality is the germ of a good idea and you've made it impossible for the municipalities to deal with it. You've created anger and fear and the entire community is upset. They're mad at you, but let me tell you, they're mad at the local politicians, because they take the heat. Are you simply trying to pass the buck on to the local politicians so they can take the heat for your ill-thought policies?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Quite the contrary. I would be very pleased to take what I believe will be a lot of public appreciation on this matter.

We haven't created anything. We have released for public discussion a piece of draft legislation with accompanying discussion points, which is open to all members of the public, including any elected representatives at the municipal level, to provide us with comments on it. That's precisely why we released it. We're going to have discussions all around Ontario on this subject. I don't know if the member for Mississauga West is aware of it, but this is a very welcome legislative initiative in many, many areas of Ontario.

1500

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. I sent the minister a letter regarding a case involving fraudulent invoices submitted with past applications for rent increases.

The tenant who contacted me about this issue met with the ministry's rent review investigation manager in April 1992 to review approximately 50 invoices. The manager's conclusion was that -- and I quote -- "serious fraud has occurred and that criminal charges should be laid." However, for two months the tenant heard nothing further, and numerous messages left with the minister's assistant, Tim Welch, by the tenant, my assistant and a representative of the Ombudsman were never returned.

When the tenant finally spoke to Mr Welch in late May, he was told that "a letter had been drafted and was awaiting signature." It was with some surprise, therefore, that the tenant later learned from a member of the Premier's staff that the letter has never even been drafted.

My question, Minister, is: This deceptive and cavalier behaviour is unacceptable; will you address this matter immediately?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member is correct that this case has been carefully investigated in the Ministry of Housing. Under the existing legislation, the RRRA, the Residential Rent Regulation Act, under which these malfeasances were done, there isn't a prosecution for some kind of slippery behaviour such as this if it occurred more than a year ago.

What has to happen in a case like this is, a criminal charge of fraud has to be laid, and in fact, that is something which is, as I understand it, being advised by the members of the Ministry of Housing staff. She's quite right that it needs to be followed up legally, but that doesn't come under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, because there's been an expiry of more than a year since the fraud was committed.

Mrs Marland: It's very hard to understand why the minister's staff have ignored all our calls when perhaps they could have alleviated a tremendous level of concern if they'd even had the courtesy to return those phone calls. As a matter of fact, last Friday the tenant finally met with the rent registrar, who told him that criminal charges will be laid by your ministry. Unfortunately he was also told that the artificially inflated rents would not be rolled back.

I'd like to ask the minister to tell this House how her ministry can admit that the landlord has defrauded the tenants while at the same time refuse to review the rents which were increased as a result of the fraudulent invoices. What possible explanation can you offer for this incongruency, and what action will you take to ensure that fairness is going to be available to these tenants, these tenants about whom you spout off all around the province that you protect?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I should make it clear. I think earlier in answer to the member for Mississauga South I suggested that there had been fraud. There's an allegation of fraud, and as the member is aware, there is follow-up on that allegation.

She is suggesting that the rents won't be rolled back. If it can be established that the rents have been illegal rents, that they have been set illegally, then that's another matter. As far as I understand the situation, once the question of whether fraud had been involved was established, then you would have established whether the rents were legal, but it's not an automatic thing to roll back rents in the situation which she has described.

LEGAL AID

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm pleased to be able to ask a question. I was also pleased to have the question placed on my desk before I got here this afternoon, but I really had something that was closer to the things that have been asked of me lately. It's a question to the Attorney General. People across this province, members of the bar, people interested in due process in the criminal justice system -- and I know this is an issue the member for Willowdale has raised on numerous occasions -- have been concerned about what's been happening recently. People like Anthony Leardi and Guy Gardin, who are sitting here in this Legislature right now, are interested in exactly what has been happening within the Ministry of the Attorney General in terms of its plans about the future of the legal aid plan, especially in view of the recent discussion paper proposal, white paper, call it what you will, that was released a couple of weeks ago.

I read with interest the comments -- I'm getting close to the question, sir -- of Michael Crawford from Canadian Lawyer Magazine, who says, "While Ontario's government has denied it wants staff clinics in criminal law" -- you know, American-style public defender systems -- "it is cautiously testing the water."

I ask the Attorney General to clarify once and for all, to assure us that we are not going to descend into that lowest common denominator of public defender systems and that, rather, this government is committed to maintaining the private-counsel legal aid system.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I welcome a question on this issue. By way of explanation, I should point out that due to the failure of the federal government to live up to its funding obligations with respect to legal aid, we face this year a likely shortfall of about $35 million in the legal aid system. We're trying to find that additional money through some other sources, but in terms of longer-term solutions we want to try some pilot projects in the area of refugee law, in the area of young offenders law and some experiments with staff duty counsel.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Willowdale come to order.

Hon Mr Hampton: But I should point out that at no time in our discussions with the Criminal Lawyers Association, with the Ontario legal aid plan or with the Law Society of Upper Canada have we entertained the idea of moving towards a public defender system.

Mr Kormos: I ask this because all sorts of people -- again, to be fair, a whole lot of them lawyers, but hardworking lawyers, people who work hard to defend the rights of people; people like Mark Evans, a bright young criminal defence lawyer down on King Street in Welland -- have been wanting an opportunity to provide input into this decision-making process. They recognize the validity of the leadership of the Criminal Lawyers Association, of the Canadian Bar Association, of any number of organizations. This is an important issue, Speaker, and I appreciate your indulgence. What these hardworking lawyers, who work literally day and night, seven days a week, want to know is: How are they going to have an opportunity to provide some direct input into the decision-making of this government? I believe that's crucial if this government is going to maintain and if the Attorney General is going to maintain any credibility on the issue of the future of legal aid.

Hon Mr Hampton: We have already met, for example, with the law society, with the Criminal Lawyers Association, with the community legal clinics, with the actual board of the Ontario legal aid plan, and we have gone through the numbers with them. We have pointed out, as a matter of fact, that the federal government will increase its funding to legal aid this year by about $400,000 over what it was last year. If they were sticking to their agreements they would be increasing the funding by about $40 million. We've made all of these groups aware of the shortfall in funding from the federal government.

We have also given them our assurances that in terms of the design of any of the pilot clinics, any and all clinics will be designed with full consultation with the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Ontario legal aid plan, the law society and the other interests that want to become involved in this.

1510

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, you will know that we have a very serious problem in Ontario when it comes to hydro rates. Those rates are going through the roof. At a time when inflation is less than 2%, rates this year went up by 11.9% and next year they'll likely go up by close to 9%. This is having a terrible impact on Ontario Hydro's 3.7 million ratepayers.

Your principal response to this very serious problem has been energy conservation, but here's the rub: According to information filed with the Ontario Energy Board recently, this minister's conservation policies will cost ratepayers $2 billion over the next four years. To be clear, that's a $2-billion net cost after allowing for any savings generated by conservation. In other words, this minister's response to the problem of skyrocketing rates is making matters worse. Minister, my question very simply is: Is it deliberate or is it a mistake?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): It's very deliberate; it's not a mistake. Those numbers didn't come from information tabled at the OEB; those numbers came directly from this minister and tithiministry in the House here. We have announced on a number of occasions that we intend to spend $2 billion over the next four years and $6 billion over the next decade on energy conservation and efficiency in conservation. It's a deliberate program of the government.

The rate problems that are confronting the industries, the home owners and the businesses of this province are rate increases that result from a lot of very inappropriate decisions that have been made in the past, like the Darlington nuclear station. This government is determined to ensure, on the one hand, that those kinds of mistakes never have to be made again, and at the same time to proceed to help the consumers out there in the real world to reduce the bottom-line numbers on their bills by becoming more efficient, even if the rates have to go up.

Mr McGuinty: First of all, let's be perfectly clear about Darlington. I am prepared to acknowledge that the impact Darlington is having on rates is something that is completely beyond your control.

I'm not talking about Darlington; I'm talking about your energy conservation policies -- something over which you have complete control -- which the Ontario Energy Board has said are ill-advised, simply not cost-effective and constitute short-term pain for little or no long-term gain. Will you now commit to revising your conservation policies so they will be cost-effective and not add to the terrible burden already being felt by ratepayers?

Hon Mr Charlton: The answer to the question is absolutely not. The member is quoting from an Ontario Energy Board report released last August which took a look at energy conservation programs that were ineffective and that were implemented under the previous administration.

The structure of the energy efficiency and conservation programs that are now being pursued has been dramatically changed both in terms of direction and efficiency. The reality is that the member has to come to terms with the relationship between rates and costs. Rates can go up while the costs that consumers pay go down.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. It is about his attempt last January to smear the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

Last January the federation went public with evidence that wild turkeys were being hunted out of season by some native people and that this hunting was putting the wild turkey population at risk. It went public with this because the Sparrow decision, which the minister always quotes, says it is the government's responsibility to put conservation first. Ahead of native rights, ahead of hunting, ahead of native hunting, ahead of native hunting out of season, comes conservation.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters then went public with what it felt was a case of putting the wild turkey population at risk. Your response, Mr Minister, was to issue a release that said the OFAH was incorrect and, after passing judgement that the federation was mounting -- your words -- a campaign against aboriginal rights, you then after all of that decided to investigate. Can you tell me the results of that investigation?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I should indicate clearly that there was certainly no attempt to smear anyone and my statement that the press release of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters was incorrect was indeed accurate. Their statement was that aboriginal people were illegally hunting and that was incorrect. The aboriginal people involved appeared to be exercising their rights protected under the Constitution. The investigation took place and the Ministry of Natural Resources was not able to determine that conservation was put at risk.

Mr Harris: The minister paraphrases what the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters was saying. They were saying the turkey population was threatened and that it was the minister's responsibility to protect. Minister, your comments at the time were so out of line the Attorney General was called in to find out if you had prejudiced the investigation under way at that time by your officials.

You have said, Mr Minister, that you're willing to look into any hunting or fishing incident that threatens conservation. You've said you're willing to do that, yet when the federation raised an issue, you publicly attacked and smeared their credibility and impugned the motive well beyond the desire of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters for conservation. I ask you, Minister, how you expect people to come forward if as soon as they bring forward examples -- in the case of doctors they are smeared; in the case of civil servants, instead of whistle-blowing legislation they get OPP officers investigating them to find out where the information came from, but in the case of the Federation of Anglers and Hunters you come forward with the kind of smearing press release --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: I ask you, Minister, do you not realize you are making it very difficult for people who care about conservation to come forward? Will you do the honourable thing today and apologize to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, an organization that has always put conservation first?

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I wonder if it's in order for a member to use that kind of language in a preamble to a question. As you've decided that apparently it is in order, I will attempt to respond. Frankly, I don't believe it is in the interests of racial harmony in this province for that kind of question to be put in that way. As I've indicated --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member does not want to hear the response, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: That's exactly what you said. They raised the conservation issue and you started to smear them. They raise the conservation issue and you tried to smear them. You, like Miss Akande, are part of the problem.

The Speaker: I ask the leader of the third party to come to order. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Natural Resources. At first there was simply a reiteration of an accusation which had been made outside the House. However, just now I heard the leader of the third party accuse the member directly of smearing, and I ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary language.

Mr Harris: I will withdraw the unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker.

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

Hon Mr Wildman: The statement that we need to develop a proper approach to preserve conservation is in fact correct and it is the responsibility of all governments. That's why the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the government of Nova Scotia, the government of the Yukon and all other governments in this country are attempting to work out agreements with aboriginal people to protect their rights and at the same time meet the obligation to protect conservation. As a result of the need to do that, the Ministry of Natural Resources has initiated a dialogue between the Chiefs of Ontario and the leaders of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters with the Ministry of Natural Resources. That first meeting is taking place today.

1520

IRRADIATION OF FOOD

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Constituents of my riding of Peterborough are increasingly concerned about media reports of superfoods and the new technologies which prolong shelf life, such as irradiation and genetic engineering. In particular, to be able to exercise their power of choice consumers need to know if food has been so treated. Could the minister tell the House what he is doing to ensure that Ontario consumers can continue to be confident that the food they buy is safe and healthy?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Any new technologies that come into use in Canada have to go through extensive testing for approval through the federal Food and Drugs Act before they're approved by the Department of National Health and Welfare. All products and all technologies are tested on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Here in Ontario we currently are building a new food services lab in Guelph. In conjunction with developing that particular building, we are looking at developing a new, enhanced food quality safety program which is going to have several components to it. One will be consumer education. We will have research facilities there. We'll have a food safety response team. We'll have food standards legislation which we would like to introduce in this House.

In cooperation with other ministries within the government, I feel we are going to have some of the safest and most healthy food available for consumers here in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Cooke moved that the Chair, clerk and research officer of the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to attend the conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTING

Mr Cooke moved that when the House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until 1:30 pm on Monday, July 6, 1992.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition signed by some 750 persons that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the official plan of the township of King states that 'the township of King has traditionally been a rural municipality within the region of York,' and that 'the township possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been, and remains, devoted primarily to agriculture'; and

"Whereas this document also states that 'agriculture is an important land-based activity within the township';

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land in King township and turn it into Metro and York region's megadump."

I support this petition and I have signed it accordingly.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, please. There are too many conversations going on. If you want to vacate the House, do so now.

GAMBLING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by many residents from my area:

"Whereas it is against United Church of Canada policy to indulge in any type of gambling;

"Gambling casinos bring crime to a community;

"Not everyone has the self-control to limit their betting;

"Low-income people will suffer from unwise use of their resources;

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

"Be it resolved that the Toronto Conference United Church Women do strongly object to the Ontario government's proposed legislation to promote offtrack betting, sports lotteries and gambling casinos."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition signed by 24 residents of the county of Middlesex, petitioning the Legislature to reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London.

VIDEO STORES

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by very concerned constituents from my riding of Oakville South which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the undersigned oppose the presence of adult-only video stores in our community and would like to see them and their material banned in Ontario; and

"Whereas we find that such stores in our community do not promote anything of good moral value or help to build upon the strength of our children, youth, women, men and family units,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to revoke and remove permanently the licences of these stores."

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by approximately 10 students from the provincial riding of Cambridge, expressing their concerns with respect to the government's plan to amalgamate certain art-related courses at the year one secondary school level into one course in a proposed program called the Transition Years.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by residents from all over Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the government of Ontario declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

Mr Speaker, I've affixed my name to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted, unprecedented annexation by the city of London; and

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregard the public input expressed during the public hearings; and

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the relevant portions of Middlesex patently not being economically viable,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have numerous petitions here signed by people from my area and it's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the direct discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act,

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

1530

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ask the Premier of the province of Ontario to attend question period every day and to respond to the legitimate needs of members of the Legislature."

I will sign this petition and present it for consideration.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Mancini from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's first report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): The report deals with drug abuse and alcohol abuse clinics. This matter was studied by the committee before I was named Chair and before I was named a member, but I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the previous Chair of the committee, Mr Bob Callahan, who oversaw the work of the committee.

I understand the committee did detailed work in regard to finding out how we could best offer services to individuals who were in need because of alcohol or drug abuse and how we could assist the Ministry of Health in securing these services at a rate affordable to the people of Ontario, and introducing a system where we did not have to send our own citizens outside our province and into the United States.

I think the work of the committee should be acknowledged by the Ministry of Health and I think the ministry should in fact implement some of the recommendations that have been made by the committee, because we can do that work here.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How cooperative are the government members now on the committee?

Mr Mancini: My friend the member for St Catharines asks me whether or not the members of the government committee have been cooperative. The only thing I can say is that the members of the government have used their majority to vote down every initiative put forward by either party of the opposition, something that I have not seen done before in my 17 years here in the Legislature.

I would say that if this trend continues, we will have other members of the committee resign, as did Mr Sorbara last week. I believe the government House leader should take note of what's happened in the public accounts committee, because if the situation continues it will become a mockery of the Legislature.

We do not want a politicized public accounts committee. We want to hear and do things that the government members ask us to do, and at the same time we want to hear and do things as members of the opposition who have been duly elected and have serious responsibilities to their constituents. I present the report to the members of the Legislature and in particular the Minister of Health.

On motion by Mr Mancini, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC FUND ACT, 1992

Mr Marchese moved first reading of Bill Pr45, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing July 1, 1992, and ending October 31, 1992.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe the member for Etobicoke West had the floor when we adjourned last night. He is not here. Therefore, I will recognize the member for Brampton South.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I am pleased to participate in this debate. I'd like to raise a few matters that I've spoken to before -- I'm glad to see the Treasurer is here -- the first one being the matter of special education. Due to the economy and the lack of funds on the government's part, funds available for special education have been cut back significantly.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can I ask for unanimous consent? I wasn't finished in my speaking yesterday.

Interjections: No.

Mr Stockwell: Okay. Thank you.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Just a second. I think you should listen to what is requested.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. When we started orders of the day, the member for Etobicoke West unfortunately was not here and I recognized the member for Brampton South. Therefore he has the floor, unless there is unanimous consent.

Interjections: No.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent. Therefore, the member for Brampton South.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: These things happen from time to time.

Interjections.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, I'm on a point of order. The unwritten policy of the House is reasonably clear. For example, the other day when the Minister of Agriculture and Food made a mistake in the House and wasn't present at exactly the moment he should be, unanimous consent was asked and granted to override that consent. This House can be very fractious, but I'm sure the members of the government would want to reconsider and allow this member to exercise his rights, now somewhat more limited than they were last week, to speak in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: I have asked already if there is unanimous consent. I will ask once more. Is there unanimous consent that the member for Etobicoke West have the floor?

Interjections: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: Therefore, the member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

1540

Mr Stockwell: I appreciate that effort made by the opposition party and the government. I thank them and I certainly will remember that if one of them is ever late for a speech.

Not to temper my remarks at all to deal with the issue at hand, yesterday I started discussing the rule changes specifically and the lack of shock, the lack of surprise, I felt with respect to the government's introduction of those rule changes, considering its history with respect to representing those who are part of a minority. Being in opposition, we being the minority, it was rather interesting to see the rule changes unilaterally introduced by this government without any discussion, without agreement or consensus and basically rammed through the House. It was shocking to me to some degree, but not nearly as shocking as it was, I found, to the member for St Catharines.

To move on in this interim supply debate -- I know we have some time constraints -- I would also like to deal with the serious concerns I have that the remarks made by the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, Zanana Akande, about the program that she put in place and was covered quite liberally by the press.

Let me start with the comment itself, and exactly when that comment took place and how the member, in effect, tried to slip out from behind or underneath the comment until it was so painfully obvious that what she meant was before the public.

Let's be clear about this comment: This wasn't a Shelley Martel kind of comment. This wasn't a comment where Ms Martel was under attack and claimed to have been having a bad day and also claimed to have lost it and so on and so forth. This comment came, as I can gather, at an NDP convention attended by NDPers, with like-minded people sitting around discussing the concerns they have with respect to the running of the provincial government and the province in general.

I might add that the question, I thought, was a very legitimate question, and I will note that on any application we accept in this government or any application accepted in the private sector, it was duly noted many years ago, and rightfully so, that there can't be a question of race put on the application to determine whether the person is black, Asian or white. The question came from the floor at that conference by, again I assume, an NDP member -- and they shake their heads no, maybe I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected, but I understand it was at the conference --

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): A training session.

Mr Stockwell: Excuse me?

Hon Mrs Boyd: A training session.

Mr Stockwell: A training session. I see. At a training session at the convention, was it not? Okay, I withdraw that. It wasn't at the convention; it was a training session, as I picked up the remarks, by a social worker.

Now the question was: How do you know whether the person you're trying to hire for the job is black? That was the whole point of this particular program, and it's a good question because under the employment standards of today you can't ask that question on an application unless you absolutely interview every single person applying for the job. We know, in some instances, that's physically impossible. So the question was a fair question and I think should have been treated like a fair question.

So I say, when this question was asked it was asked of a very influential and important person in this government, a person who, as I understand it, had a very successful teaching career in the city of York.

The Deputy Speaker: Just on a point of order, on a temporary basis: Will you please welcome to the chamber a delegation that is here from the Instituto Bruttium of Calabria, Italy, headed by Don Franco Gentile, and the group Arca, headed by Professor Fabio Gallo. They are here on a cultural exchange program.

Mr Stockwell: So let's be very clear what took place with respect to this question, and I thought it was a reasonable question.

The response I find unbelievable. I frankly find it unbelievable that anyone holding such an influential position in this government and who is, in fact, representing the viewpoints of the people in this province, would shoot back with the comment that she shot back with: that "You don't have any problem identifying us when you want to shoot us." I just can't believe that is an acceptable comment made by a member of the government, particularly a member whose responsibility is hopefully as a person who's going to cool the concerns that are out there in the community today.

This member, in my opinion, crossed the line and created more havoc, more concern, more frustration, and obviously upset a considerable number of people in this province. I can say categorically, there is not one person I have run into and spoken to about this who finds those comments acceptable. Not one. I have spoken to a considerable number of people in my riding and across Metropolitan Toronto who have heard about these comments and find them offensive. That's what they were: offensive.

I know full well this member apparently had a very good career at the school board in York, was promoted to the position of principal and was teaching the children in Metropolitan Toronto. I would hate to think that every time someone would ask a question that she didn't necessarily agree with or found trouble with, this is the kind of response she was giving them.

My goodness, you're in politics. You're going to get questions from people you don't necessarily like and you have to deal with them, and dealing with them means you try to answer them. Maybe if you can't answer them you say, "We have to agree to disagree," but it hardly gives you the right to slam the members of an entire police force right across this province, suggesting that they have no problem identifying blacks when they want to shoot them. That is absolutely unacceptable to me and, I believe, to the people of this province, and it should be unacceptable to you, the backbenchers in this government and the cabinet.

I went back into the history books, because do you know what else really troubles me about this issue? It is the fact that the Premier, by his silence, has endorsed the remarks. "Why has he endorsed these remarks?" you ask. I think the track record of the Premier is a little sketchy at times as well.

The member who made these comments tried to quietly sidestep the issue in a television interview that I caught where the question was put to her: "Were these comments reflecting your attitude to the police? Did you include the police? Did you mean the police when you made these comments?" Her comment was, "I never qualified those statements then and I will not qualify those statements now," thereby trying to leave the impression that she was not talking about the police.

Not so. A few short days later in the press she admitted the fact that she was talking about the police, and do you know what? The police are mad, and the police should be mad, because they have to go out on the streets and deal with the problems in our troubled neighbourhoods and the last thing they need is a member of this government making statements such as the one that was just made.

It really concerned me that the Premier of this province didn't ask this minister to either apologize or resign. It seemed to me the most logical and appropriate position the Premier could take. But then I was reminded of this book I read a few short years ago about Bill Davis, a biography by Claire Hoy, and I recall a statement this Premier made when he was elected leader of the NDP.

I'm wondering to myself, "How can this Premier, in this House, stand behind those remarks by the member for St Andrew-St Patrick?" Now I sat in this House when the member for Leeds-Grenville stood up and asked how one of your representatives, on a committee that you struck to deal with the race relations issue in Toronto, could still be on a committee when he was arrested during the riots in Toronto. I know full well there are members across there who screamed at him that he was a bigot and a flaming racist. I heard them, and all he asked was, "How could you leave this person on a committee?"

I think the word "racist" is a word that's overworked and overused today. It's lost its meaning. It has lost its meaning simply because in today's society people can accuse June Callwood of being a racist and get away with it. I'm not sure if that's an appropriate word to use, but it's certainly lost its meaning. In an excellent Globe and Mail editorial some few weeks ago, she outlined exactly my position on these kinds of words. They're words that are too loosely used and too damning in criticism to be taken without the seriousness they deserve.

I would suggest that those two members, the member for Victoria-Haliburton and the member from Barrie, who made those comments during that day in the House, should think long and hard before using those words again, because those are the kinds of words that certainly inflame me and inflame, I know, the member for Leeds-Grenville, and he should be rightfully upset.

He should be rightfully upset because what he said, as compared to what the member for St Andrew-St Patrick said, is nothing, and the police forces across this province and in Metropolitan Toronto will tell you that. That's the most damning thing that's been said in this House in years. That's what the police are saying out there today. That hurt. That's painting with a broad brush every law enforcement officer in this province.

1550

Let me get back on track. In 1982 the now Premier of this province, who was elected NDP leader, had this to say during his speech. I will quote from the book by Claire Hoy.

"Rae, a highly publicized federal NDP finance critic, had been seemingly preordained as the saviour of a party desperately in need of divine intervention after four years of rudderless tutelage under Michael Morris Cassidy. He is a silk-stockinged socialist, raised with all the inherent and definitely unplebeian privileges of a diplomat's son, such as being whisked off to private school in Geneva in a chauffeur-driven limousine. But here was this self-declared man of the people telling about 2,000 socialists that the dreaded Tories were not only misguided; they were out-and-out racists to boot."

It goes on: "In his main convention speech Rae conveniently ignored the fact that there were less than a dozen non-white faces in the crowd and said he wanted to speak of two visions of Ontario: 'Toryland and the real Ontario.' He said many people from minority groups had been excluded from power because Toryland 'is an Anglo-Saxon land. Maybe that's why it's so bland. You won't see a black face or hear the Italian language or the Greek language or the French language spoken in Toryland. They'd rather those things were kept quiet in some quaint little restaurant where they don't bother anyone.'"

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Who said that?

Mr Stockwell: That was Bob Rae at the 1982 convention where he was elected as leader of the opposition party.

It goes on: "Hugh Segal, doing television commentary for the convention, called Rae's comments 'the lowest political attack I've ever heard on any politician. To imply that somehow there is a racial prejudice in any political party is not justifiable.' Davis, too, was outraged, saying, 'I think perhaps it's one of the first mistakes Rae has made.'"

That seems to cut to the very bottom of the issue. It cuts to the bottom of the issue for me. Why? Because how can we ask this Premier who made these kinds of comments in 1982 to ask the member for St Andrew-St Patrick to redress those comments she made not a few short weeks ago?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I just got in here. Who said that?

Mr Stockwell: Bob Rae, the Premier of Ontario.

This is an issue that causes me great concern. Of all the things this government has allowed to happen, from Shelley Martel to its flip-flop on auto insurance to its flip-flop on Sunday shopping, to allow one of its members to malign every police person in this province is one of the worst things it could have done. And to allow the Premier, through his silence, to endorse that attack attacks the very fabric and integrity of the people in this province. I don't accept it. I don't accept it today, I didn't accept it then and I will not accept it in the months and years to come.

I know it didn't make for great headlines and I know it was only partially picked up in the media, but I will say in closing, as I know there are many who want to get into this debate, that I am very upset. I am upset the comments were made and I am equally upset by the arrogant, self-serving comments made by the member for St Andrew-St Patrick when she came into this House, treating us as insolent serfs who have dared question her authority on whether or not these comments should be made, and looking at us, glaring at us, and saying, as I am certain all will remember her words, "In conclusion," as if by commenting we were out of line. It left me with a very sour taste, it has left my constituents with a very sour taste and it has left the police with a very sour taste.

Mr Rae and Ms Akande should be ashamed of themselves. With those kind of comments, I'm sorry to share the same benches at times.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments, the member for Downsview.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond very briefly to some of the comments made by the member yesterday in his speech to the House when he talked about our rule changes and how that's going to impact on the procedures of this House.

Let me start off by saying there's no question that yesterday was a sad day for many of us who have spent considerable years in opposition, because in opposition you tend to make full use of the rules, and rules, more often that not, should be structured and slanted in favour of minority groups. There's no question about that. I've enjoyed on a number of occasions in this House listening to some of my learned friends in this place who have gone on at quite some length and shared with us their experience of government and quite generally their experience of life. I've welcomed that opportunity and I've appreciated that opportunity to listen to many great speeches that were made in this place.

I can tell the member for Etobicoke West that I enjoyed his talk on the rule changes. I thought many of the points he made and many of the arguments he put forward struck at the heart of what many of us are experiencing in this very place. I can tell you that my good friend the member for York Centre also spoke at quite some length about the rule changes in this chamber and he too put forward some very excellent arguments about why the status quo should be preserved.

But I supported the rule changes, for one reason and one reason only, after much contemplation, and that's because I fundamentally believe the opposition has used tactics just simply because it's refused to accept the authority of this government.

Mr Mancini: I want to comment, not on yesterday's speech but on the speech made today by the honourable member for Etobicoke West. I think he's brought to light in the chamber a number of important things and a number of important issues that have taken up the time of the Legislature over the past few years. If there's one thing I can be critical of of the members across the floor, it's that they have no sense of the history of the Legislature, no sense of what transpired here prior to their election, and therefore they are in any number of ways put at a disadvantage.

We just heard from the honourable member across the floor who just sat down, talking about the rule changes. He has no idea of what those rules meant to the opposition, because he was not here to use or in any way take advantage of those rules, as opposition parties and opposition members should. He joins us as a member of the large government majority, which feels that any criticism of the government is because it was elected, and that's not true. If the government does receive criticism, it's because there are different points of view.

When any government uses its power and its majority to shut out different points of view and to shut out other people who are not as strong as it is at the moment, and large segments of the population, it does itself an injustice and it does democracy an injustice, and certainly it does the members of the opposition an injustice.

I cannot agree at all with the comments made by the member across the floor sitting on the government benches. I'd rather agree with the comments made by the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I would just like to say that, first of all, I congratulate my colleague the member for Etobicoke West for an excellent speech. I really believe that speech should be mandatory reading for everybody in this Legislature. Indeed I would commend it to all of the NDP to take away and read what he says, because he talks volumes about tolerance and how disgusted he is with a government which would move to support the comments by members of its own government which are clearly of a nature which will inflame the attitude of people, and indeed he spoke about the rule changes.

As I've listened in this House, there are not many speeches which go on for many hours, but I have found I've been enchanted with listening to, for example, the member for Renfrew North as he has made his excellent dissertations. I don't always agree with him, but I must say his sense of history and his view of what has gone on in this House leading up to legislation is certainly something that any new member should dwell upon and find useful.

With the introduction of the new House rules, we won't be able to have that benefit for new members. Indeed this is a sad day for this House because this is the last day we'll have any lengthy debate, and it will be the worse off for it. So I thank my colleague the member for Etobicoke West, and I also take the opportunity to thank the member for Renfrew North for many of his long, excellent and insightful dissertations.

1600

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I just want to add my comments to the others made in this House with regard to the comments of the member for Etobicoke West with regard to the rule changes. While I wasn't present for all of that speech, I did hear a portion of it here and also on the television while the speech was given, and I want to say that in my view, while I don't associate myself with all the views he expressed, it was an excellent speech and it was obviously heartfelt.

As someone who has served in this House for a considerable number of years and has had an interest in politics all of my life, I think I have that sense of history the member for Essex South indicated that many may not have; I'm not sure that many don't have it. As someone who served in opposition for many years, I recognize the importance of the protection of the minority, but I also recognize that even in other Legislatures across Canada changes are being made because of the need to be able to allow the majority to carry out its responsibilities.

At one time in this House we could ring the bells ad infinitum, and did, and measures were then taken to change those rules. I understand in the Saskatchewan Legislature this week there are proposals being put forward to end the ringing of the bells that has bedevilled the operation of that Legislature both under Conservative and NDP governments over the last couple of years.

It seems to me that whenever there is significant division in the House, it leads to tactics which then inevitably lead to rule changes, as the member for Etobicoke West indicated in his remarks, and that almost always then leads to investigating new ways of getting around the new rules by the opposition. I suppose this is a cycle that will continue. I just hope that as we get through this process we can indeed get back to more civility within the House.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to just quickly thank the members who gave their questions or comments. I certainly understand why the members opposite disagree. I can understand their frustration in processing legislation through this House. I don't necessarily believe it's something that is necessarily unnecessary or bad.

I very rarely buy the argument, at any level of government I've been in, and it's always the last argument if all else fails, "Well, we're doing this because everybody else has." You hear it all the time. "We're changing our rules because they did in Saskatchewan." Well, what makes them right in Saskatchewan? "We're changing the rules because they did in PEI." Well, what makes them right in PEI?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Potatoes.

Mr Stockwell: Something. I used to hear it at all levels and I don't buy it. If the best excuse you've got for changing the rules or forwarding an argument is, "Well, everyone else is doing it," that's just not good enough in my books. Because the kids come in when the lights go on, and Johnny stays out later. So what? I'll quickly explain it again. Your kids come to you and say, "Well, Johnny got to stay out later," and you told them they had to be in when the lights come on. That's that argument, and we're changing our rules because Saskatchewan did; not really deep.

Finally, now we are saying we will not have any more speeches beyond the 30 minutes. You know what? I'm the loser because I enjoyed them.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Government House Leader): Ninety minutes for leadoff.

Mr Stockwell: A 90-minute leadoff. Well, we're splitting hairs; 30 minutes if you're not the leadoff. I enjoyed sitting here and listening to speeches from the members for St Catharines and Renfrew North and Hamilton Centre and even Essex South, but the real loser is the taxpayer.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to enter the debate here. I was sitting in my office on Friday. I want to share a letter that was sent there. It says:

"I live in a high-rise apartment facing the Petro-Canada refinery in the Bronte-Oakville area. I am a chemical engineer and have worked in the oil industry for 40 years."

This is a letter that came in about a man who was concerned with what was happening. I was reflecting on it as we were sitting here debating about all the tax increases and the spending that go on. He says he's maintained for four years accurate records of what's been going on in the Petro-Canada facility.

He goes on to say: "Our highest complaint is the odour. We cannot sleep with our windows open. People in the homes cannot see their outside facilities. It is affecting the young and the old alike. They pollute the air with their frequent heavy brown smoke, which is noxious. We in this area would appreciate your kind attention to the problem."

As I sat there and reflected on the fact that we're the highest taxed province in Canada and the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America, I went back to see exactly what some of the concerns were. I raised on October 11, 1990, this issue with the minister when she had recently signed in as the minister at that time, October 1. I tried to get a meeting.

November 29 of that year I made a statement in the Legislature on that issue. The following December a public meeting was held where the ministry was saying it was going to solve the problems. On the 21st I again wrote the minister regarding this problem. On the 22nd I requested, through this Legislature in a statement, some assistance. February 20 of that year I requested a meeting for myself and some of the other people, which was given. On April 30 of that year I introduced a resolution regarding the situation and what was going to be happening. I won't go into the resolution. September 11 I again requested another update on what was happening. On December 17 I made a statement in the Legislature.

To date we have had no solution to this problem.

As I sat in the office last Friday, I thought, here we are, we have the highest taxes, yet none of the problems seem to get solved. I went back and looked at it and a year later these poor people have no solution. As I look and see all the effort that's been done, there are no answers out there for these people.

It was the same thing virtually two hours afterwards when I thought, here we are, we're no better off in terms of the environment a year and a bit after this government has taken over. That's why I believe there's a sense of frustration out there. I think people believed the NDP wouldn't solve all our problems in the areas of taxes and spending, but I honestly believe a lot of them thought the environment was going to be one of the areas it was going to improve. Of course we know what's happened with this Minister of the Environment. She's been caught up in the dump issue. The two chaps who came to my office thought one thing we would be able to do was have some clear action on the environment. There has been nothing.

Friday was not a particularly good day for me as I looked back and I saw as a legislator all the things you've tried to do, the letters you've written and the statements you've made, the resolutions you've introduced. The fact of the matter is we're no farther ahead.

It was the same situation two hours later when somebody came over over housing, come in regarding some of the apartments -- I know the former Minister of Housing is here and I wrote him many times -- at 5166 and 5170 Lakeshore Road. The chap came in with the Rent Review Hearings Board decision, 43 pages, and the frustration -- I won't name the chap because he probably wouldn't like the landlord to know that.

It is so ironic that the former Minister of Housing and the now Minister of Housing surely are trying to help these people. He wrote on the Rent Review Hearings Board appeal number application that came back, "The hearing at the appeal is a disgrace to the province of Ontario and to the sworn oath of the board members."

I spent last Friday on the issues of the environment. We got nowhere. This particular issue has been going on, and I sat in some of the hearings on this and there's no doubt that the hearings were confusing, frustrating and time-consuming. On the environment we've had no improvement whatsoever. In the area of housing, these people feel frustrated. In fact I can't say in the Legislature what they said about the particular hearing process.

1610

We see why there is frustration out there and why people are so concerned, and all they're asking now, for example, the people in the housing, is, "What direction do we need?" Some of the people have been fairly kind. I had a chance to speak to the people, the housing manager, and said, "Where do we go from here?" Quite frankly, there were no answers and I think that's why the frustration and the confusion out there, because nothing seems to work. Ontario is in trouble. We've got high taxation, high government spending, high unemployment and low productivity, but nothing seems to be getting better, whether it's the environment, whether it's health care, whether it's education.

It was the same thing with another chap who came in the same day. He was with the Naylor Group. He came in concerned about a labour board decision. The nutshell of it is that the labour board has decided his company can't build the Oakville-Trafalgar hospital. He's a subcontractor and it's very complicated, because the contractor has to use workers who are from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. He won the bid in a closed process. From his letter, I believe it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400,000 cheaper, and he can't build that hospital because of the labour board decision. He came in very frustrated.

Here I was on a Friday. The chap from the Naylor Group came in; he was frustrated. The system didn't work; the labour board. The environment people came in; that wasn't working; the housing people.

When I think back to when this government was elected, I want to share a few thoughts with you, the hope that was out there. This is a quote, and I'm not going to tell anybody who it's from or where it was from, but it goes back to August 1990 and it says:

"I started this campaign by saying our party would not be presenting an endless catalogue of promises to the people of Ontario. Men and women across Ontario have told me that they don't want promises that can't be kept and they don't trust parties that pretend to serve every need and satisfy every demand. Compare our approach to the record of the Liberals. We don't use election campaigns to discover problems, promise solutions and then ignore them afterwards."

Well, that's from the Agenda for People. As I sat on Friday and found out the chap from the Naylor Group -- Jim Wilson is off rotation; he's in a meeting. That means I keep going. Thank you.

I was just going to say that in terms of the labour board decision with the Naylor Group, he's frustrated with what was happening. The environmental people are frustrated, and I won't even get into the frustration out there with the Minister of the Environment over the dump issues. I think, rightly so, they have called for her resignation regarding that. It's the same thing with the housing situation and the frustration that's out there regarding that.

As I was reflecting back on some of the record, I was looking and I just want to go through some of the promises that were made during that election campaign and let's see where we are today, and then I'll close up, because I know some of the other people want to go on.

Here are some of the election promises that were made that year. Driver-owned auto insurance: That promise has been broken. Gambling? That promise has been broken. Sunday shopping? That promise has been broken. Remember the one about the northern fund? Nothing with that yet. They were going to four-lane the highway in the north. Nothing.

They talked about safe, clean water. Nothing. The member said you made that promise. You'd better start working on the Minister of the Environment if you made that promise because the next election is coming quickly. Environmental bill of rights: nothing. Pipeline to Wallaceburg: I remember that one, but there's been nothing on that. Clean air: nothing. Waste management: That promise I think has been broken and broken again.

The minimum corporate tax -- remember that one? -- nothing. They were going to fight the GST and the free trade: nothing. The speculation tax they were going to put in: That promise has been broken. The education funding one -- holy smoke -- 60% funding they were going to raise it to. In Halton it dropped farther this year. That was the promise that was made. I would say that would be broken, and I underline that one.

They were going to eliminate the food banks. Remember that promise? That one's been broken too. They were going to preserve the farm land. That's been broken. We didn't know they were going to put dumps on it. We didn't realize what they were going to do with it. The gas tax: They were going to be the ones who were going to help the gas, and that's been broken. We saw that very clearly with their increases. They were going to do something about pensions: nothing on that. Reforestation: That one's been broken.

The taxes for the working poor: As we heard today, that was the biggest one, because Bob Rae ran around this province and said, "Yes, you're right; the taxes are too high. It's David Peterson's fault. We can have all the spending, $5 billion more, but don't worry. Somebody else will pay." We found out in the last budget who that somebody else was. It wasn't the rich, it wasn't the corporations; it was the average working person who paid. I would say he broke that promise as well.

Job protection: nothing there. In fact, we've lost more jobs. Historically this province has had 40% of the jobs and 50% of the manufacturing capacity. In this particular recession, we in Ontario have lost 80% of the jobs. This has been an Ontario-led recession, and this government is to blame for it. The statistics have been very clear on that. Some 40% of the jobs historically have been in Ontario; 80% of them, if you look at the statistics of what has been lost, have been in Ontario because of this government and its policies.

They made some promises on the job protection board: There's nothing in there. They talked about some of the training initiatives: We're into that with OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, so there's a little bit there. We'll see what comes out of that.

Then they talk about some of the other things here. As I look at the list, we wonder why there is frustration among the people of Ontario with this government and any other government. It is because they thought you would live up to some of your promises, and you have not.

I know the next member wants to speak. It is with a sense of frustration that we close up this particular session. I say to the people out there, we are worse off under this government. I say to the people out there who last time voted for this government because they were angry at the other two major parties and really didn't know what they were going to stand for, next time you'd better take a look at what the politicians are saying, because the province of Ontario is worse off now. It's a direct result of this government. It's a sad day in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): It's actually Scarborough-Agincourt, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to join the debate on supply. I guess the thrust of my remarks will be around the issue of trust: trust that the government has and trust that it should have.

I remember well the throne speech. I carry it with me all the time. This was the first speech from the throne, November 20, 1990. The Premier's words: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist."

My comments will be all around the issue of trust and how, in my opinion, the government has lost the trust of the opposition. Nothing, I think, could be more important and more fragile than that. It's a rather personal comment, because I'll go back to where this all started for me, the first signals.

When the Liberals were defeated, the first major event by the new government was the swearing-in at Convocation Hall. No one likes to lose, but I wanted to go to that event because I felt it important that one respect the new government. I phoned the new Premier's office for several days asking for tickets. I couldn't get tickets to the event.

Hon Mr Cooke: There were no reserved seats.

Mr Phillips: There were tickets for the event and there were reserved seats. There you go again. I went over to the event. I tried to get into the event. People were rushing by me to their reserved seats. The problem with the government House leader is that he says these things and indicates why I don't trust him. There were reserved seats there. People were brought into their seats. I didn't mind. I stood in the hall on my tiptoes looking in on it. I didn't mind that. I understood that and accepted it. But the Premier's office said they were sending tickets to me and they didn't. That was my first indication of things to come. I'll go through a variety of things. As I say, the government House leader is reinforcing my concern about the government.

The second thing that happened, and not necessarily in any order of priority, was that in November 1991 we received a memo to cabinet from Shirley Coppen on the consultation central coordinating committee. It showed once again the cynicism of the government. To use its own words: "Ministries will take responsibility for mailing out documents, keeping lists and using names creatively. This is an opportunity to establish new support bases across Ontario. Participating ministries must agree to resource the project." It goes on further, "We will conduct these things based on the budget committee approach last summer."

1620

For those people who are watching it, the budget committee approach that was used the previous summer was an exercise in futility that we in the opposition conducted. You may recall, Mr Speaker, that we spent the entire summer last year going around the province trying to get input into how people reacted to the budget and what people thought about the budget. Little did we know that at that very time the Premier's office was phoning groups that relied totally on the government for their funding to show up at the committee and speak in favour of the budget. It was a sham orchestrated out of the Premier's office. This is why you are losing your trust and why --

Hon Mr Cooke: You used to take your marching orders from Hershell Ezrin.

Mr Phillips: We have heckling from the government House leader because he doesn't like the facts.

Who was on that committee, by the way? Again, this is government money, money used by participating ministries. Who was on that committee? Jill Marzetti, NDP. That was the second thing that began to raise my concerns about trust by the government.

The third thing: There is no question the Premier's time in this House is severely limited. We see him here perhaps once, perhaps twice a week. Today he had an event this morning, which we understand, but he was due back here in the Legislature at 3 o'clock. Could he not have been back an hour earlier to participate in question period? We understand it is an orchestrated approach for the Premier to avoid being in the House, to avoid the opportunity for the opposition to ask the Premier about the business of the day. We also see most ministerial statements made somewhere else, made out of the Legislature, giving the opposition no opportunity to respond. That's the third thing on this trust issue.

The fourth issue, and my colleague in the third party talked about it, is the Agenda for People. I remember that document was waved under my nose throughout the campaign at event after event, many orchestrated, I will say, by the NDP, where placard carriers would be outside my campaign office waving the Agenda for People under my nose and saying: "They'd do this. Why can't you do it?"

Here we are now, less than two years after their election. The member who so ably spoke before me on campaign promise after campaign promise after campaign promise broken -- whether on the common pause day, on educational funding, on public auto insurance or whatever -- went through perhaps 15 different promises that were made. While I personally respect many of the members opposite, as a government I'm losing my trust in them.

The issue that perhaps offended me the most was the OPP incident. To refresh your memory, it was back in October. The Treasurer gave an update on the financial picture of the province and was bringing the House up to date on several significant changes. The day that happened, the member for Bruce was given a copy of something called a midyear adjustment plan. As the Treasurer himself said, it is a non-sensitive document. It is merely, as it says here, "general themes" in answering questions, some questions and answers and has absolutely nothing significant in it in terms of sensitivity.

I know the fact that the member for Bruce received it that day angered the government. I know they were upset that somehow or other this document had come into our hands, and they did something I continue to be totally offended by. They called in the OPP anti-racket squad. I honestly don't know why the caucus members of the NDP aren't totally offended by this. If there is something you should be guarding against, and all of us should be guarding against, it is the state using its police against the opposition. To this day I don't know why some of the civil libertarians in the NDP caucus haven't demanded of their Premier, "How do we justify this?" This document, believe me, was totally non-sensitive. It was irrelevant, other than the fact that you didn't want us to have it. What was the response? The government phoned the OPP and said, "Go get'em."

There is no doubt, by the way, that the Premier didn't phone the police. I know that, but the Premier was fully briefed on this and he did have a choice, as I said in the Legislature here. I'd known the Premier when he was in opposition for some time and I had fully expected the Premier to say: "Listen, this offends me. I don't believe we should be letting the police go after any opposition on a matter like this. Stop it. Back off." I honestly can't understand why some of you in the caucus haven't raised that and said, "Listen, if there's something I believe in, it is protecting the freedom of speech in this country from the state police." Certainly the police had no option but to do what they did.

I've raised this several times in the House and the Premier says: "I have nothing to do with this. This isn't anything to do with me." Yet it does affect him. It isn't the first time it's happened to us. On at least two occasions the OPP has been called in to officially investigate the opposition on documents that really are not sensitive and that, as I say, I think should not have been investigated.

But the Premier, when I raised it with him, said, "I have nothing to do with this." If he has nothing to do with it, who does? Who is going to set the policy that says this is unacceptable? Or any time anybody in the bureaucracy wants to turn the police loose, are you going to turn them loose on us?

I can't forgive the government for that. I will continue to raise it. I have asked the Premier on several occasions simply to get up and say: "I understand why the opposition's angry and I've now issued a code of conduct on how we are going to conduct ourselves." But do you know what he said to me on several occasions? He said, "You're wrong, I've nothing to do with this."

He was briefed and he and only he can stop this, because right now what is acceptable behaviour is that whoever wants to can turn the police loose on us. I'm repeating myself, as I feel so strongly about this and I cannot understand why the Premier's not gotten up and cleared the air and said, "We made a mistake." There was something else in the speech from the throne, "When we've made a mistake, we'll admit it." Why don't you admit it?

The next area of trust: Members will know that from the day the budget was released, my leader, Lyn McLeod, said: "We've got some serious questions about the accounting methods in the budget. We don't think that the way the pension funds are accounted for is properly done." Events have proven us right. She said: "We have some real questions about the way the asset sales are being reported. We have significant questions about what's called the fiscal stabilization plan and whether in fact we're ever going to get that. We are going to ask our Public Auditor to look at it." So we sent a letter off.

1630

The auditor sent a letter back to us saying he and his office would be happy to look at it "but we require a legislative committee to ask us to do it." So we prepared a motion that we took to the standing committee on public accounts. What happened? It was turned down, rejected. The government members said: "No, we're not going to let you get at that. The answer is no."

You can understand why the trust we should have in the government is gone. I can't tell you how offended I am by that. Historically, when the Liberals were in power, the NDP and the Conservatives had essentially free rein on the public accounts committee. To the Conservatives' credit, when they were in power, the public accounts committee was allowed to look at virtually anything it wanted to, to assure the people of Ontario. So here we have now significant concerns.

I will say this. The Treasurer said in the committee of the day that we have spent $2 million more than we needed to on interest because we chose to borrow the money, not on the market as we would have done but from the teachers' pension. It's a sham. It is a deliberate attempt to understate the size of the deficit. There is no question about that. The Treasurer said as much in the committee.

But we want to get the Public Auditor to look at it. The Treasurer, when I ask him a question, says, "I have no trouble with the Public Auditor." But then when it gets to the committee, whoever is pulling those strings, whoever is putting the whip on -- I think it's out of the Premier's office; I have a lot of respect for the Treasurer -- says, "We don't want this exposed." The theme of my remarks is trust. There we have it. In the House, the Treasurer says, "I think it's a good idea for the Public Auditor to look at it," and then when it gets to the public accounts committee, the whip is on: The opposition uses its power and says, "We're not going to let you look at it."

I'll talk a little bit more about trust. I repeat: I have respect for the Treasurer personally, but the budget has some extremely questionable numbers in it. One of them we talked about today in the Legislature, that is, the increase in personal income tax that comes less than 24 hours from now. On July 1, every person out there will see his Ontario personal income tax go up more than 5%.

By the way, and my colleague from the third party mentioned it, in the Agenda for People -- I can remember being in the House here when the then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Rae, would say: "Bob Nixon, why don't you reduce the taxes on the working poor? In our Agenda for People, we're not going to reduce it; we're going to eliminate the taxes on the working poor."

What happened, though, as the working poor will find out tomorrow, is that they didn't eliminate personal income tax on the working poor; they actually increased it more than 5%. It is ironic in the extreme that at the very time when Brian Mulroney, of all people, is reducing the income tax level on the working poor, the NDP has chosen to increase the taxes.

The member for Dovercourt, Mr Silipo, sent out in a communication, a householder, to every house in his riding, information that is incorrect. He said, "If you're earning less than $53,000 a year, don't worry about it, because you won't be seeing increased taxes." That was wrong. We had to get the Treasurer in the House to instruct the Minister of Education, the member for Dovercourt, to issue a correction, to say to the people in his riding that he was wrong and to send out a correction.

Mr Mancini: Did he send it out?

Mr Phillips: I don't know whether he's sent the correction out yet.

This was on May 14. I remember it well. The surprising thing is that in the Legislature two weeks ago, who said the same thing? Who said, "For people earning less than $53,000 a year, there'll be no increase this year in personal income tax," which is wrong, wrong, wrong. Who said that? After Treasurer Laughren had instructed Minister Silipo to correct it, who once again said it wrong?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I bet it was the Premier.

Mr Phillips: The Premier.

Not only that, I said: "Premier, you're wrong. Will you correct it?" He said, "I will take that as notice." Normally when one takes it as notice, eventually you come to the Legislature and say: "I'm sorry, I was wrong. Here's the correct information." The Premier has never done that. The Premier has never come back to correct the record.

In terms of trust, my last point on trust is the House rules. Perhaps the finest speech I've heard was made last Thursday night -- it went from perhaps 6 o'clock to 11:30 or thereabouts -- by my colleague Mr Sorbara. He outlined for us the issue of House rules and how it impacts on each of us.

I made the observation then that I understand why the cabinet does it. This allows it to have the real power, and I understand that. But why the caucus would permit it is beyond me. I realize there is only one member of the government caucus who sat in the Legislature in opposition, apart from the cabinet ministers, and that's the member for Welland-Thorold. I hope he would appreciate the importance of these House rules. All the rest of the government members who were here in opposition are now in the cabinet, with that heady thought of power.

The government House leader has chosen to bring these rules in. I will just say that when I dealt with Bob Rae in opposition, I actually had some confidence, some trust in him. This series of events has led me to think there are two Bob Raes, and I liked the Bob Rae in opposition a lot better than the Bob Rae who is Premier.

Look at the things we sitting in opposition see coming at us: how seldom the Premier chooses to be in the Legislature, because I know he's got instructions, "Don't go there, you'll just have to answer tough questions"; the central coordinating committee document and the manipulation of the committees; the whole Agenda for People and how cavalierly that's been discarded, and how much I felt it was a central part of the campaign; the OPP thing that I continue to feel deeply about and frankly won't give up on; the abuse of the standing committee on public accounts; the misstatement in the budget; the misstatement by the Premier, and the final straw is the House rules.

As we look ahead for the next several years, while we deal in opposition with the government, I hope that at least the caucus members who aren't in cabinet will understand why we feel the way we do and why we act the way we act. I hope some of you will begin to ask the tough questions in caucus that have to be asked. I'm sure you thought before you were elected that you would never let these things happen without significant challenge by yourselves.

1640

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate.

Mr Callahan: This is the delayed debate; our colleagues here were kind enough to let the member from Etobicoke go ahead.

It's interesting because in 20 minutes, or 19 minutes now, I'm going to have to say things that I feel passionately about and then I'm not going to be able to do it further. I think it puts in perspective what will happen to members of this House with the new rules that have been voted on: the fact that people who were able to speak about things they felt very passionately about in interim supply will have 30 minutes within which to enact that speech.

Having said that, I've already spoken at length on the rules and how I feel they were really a trammeling of democracy and the rights of members of this Legislature to represent effectively the people from their ridings. I want to address, as quickly as I can, five issues. The first two will be the alpha and the omega of the world: senior citizens and young people.

I hope, whether or not anybody else is listening to this speech around the province of Ontario, that at least the following people are: the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Treasurer, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Correctional Services and the Minister of Health. None of them is in the House, but I hope they are listening on the television sets they have in their offices.

I want first to address the question of young people. Over the 25 years that I practised in the criminal courts -- and this is a speech I've repeated time after time, and I hope somebody's listening -- the number of times I've had to approach a judge in terms of the sentencing of a young man or a young woman on the basis that he or she had a learning disability, that it went undiagnosed, that they were pushed through this eclectic system that we have and couldn't make it and found that they became asocial and got into crime, to the unhappiness of their families, and wound up in our correctional system.

These were people who were not given the benefit of a test by a psychologist to determine whether they had a learning disability. We can all be empathetic about the fact that if somebody's in a wheelchair or they're blind or they're deaf, we can see that disability. We can't see the disability of young people who have learning disabilities, who perhaps are not dyslexic, which is clearly evidenced by someone looking at them. There are kids in this community, in the province of Ontario, and I bet around the world who are treated as illiterate, who are in fact people who have a learning disability that is not diagnosed.

We go on as politicians making plans in terms of what's good for tomorrow, what's politically sexy for tomorrow, instead of planning for the help of these kids. You look at the crime rate in the streets. The crime rate, I suggest to you, is just a drop in the bucket. We'll be like New York if we don't do something about this issue. I plead with the ministers. Number one, the Ministry of Health should pay for psychologists to test young people, either on a contract basis or through OHIP, to determine whether or not they have a learning disability. There should be a psychologist on staff at the correctional facilities in this province to test every inmate coming in who might show some perceivable problem with a learning disability. Otherwise we are just housing these people, putting them away, and they'll come right back out the revolving door and we'll have the same problems we have now.

I plead with the Treasurer that if you're going to plan for money, plan for it for the future, plan for it for the most important commodity that we have in this province, our young people. Don't just let them be flipped off into the correctional system and become into a way of crime. Let's do something about it.

We pay for psychiatrists under OHIP. It just blows my mind. You have two types of psychiatrists -- without offending either one of them -- you've got those who figure drug therapy is the secret to everything and constantly rewrite prescriptions for kids so they can constantly get more drugs, or you've got the psychiatrist who perhaps uses a different approach, who perhaps is a little more effective.

But then you have psychologists, who I think do a pretty good job. A psychologist's exam to determine if a child has a learning disability can go anywhere from $900 to $1,500. Families who are poor cannot afford that, and in many cases those are the families where the parents don't understand that the child has a disability. They think the child is out of control, or they can't afford it. The net result is that that child winds up in a system of asocial behaviour.

It's just like the mechanic says, "You can either pay me now or pay me later." I suggest to you that it's far more humane, it is far more beneficial to this province, if we in fact pay for it now, if we plan for it, if we in fact look after these children and make certain that they get that examination, and it's not happening.

This may not be a sexy political issue, one that's going to win the election for the government in 1995, or for that matter for any government, but in fact if you think about it, we have to do something very substantive for the young people of this province. We just see window dressing.

We see window dressing in terms of $20 million that's thrown out for jobs, and the only people who get employed are the people in those agencies who are interviewing the kids who are supposed to get the jobs. I talked to young people at Gage Park in my community last Tuesday and I asked them about this. I said: "Is the $20 million getting any jobs for you kids? Are any employers coming and listing jobs on your board?" "No." So what is the $20 million being used for?

We play these window games as politicians with the people, the most vulnerable part of our society next to the seniors. We play these window games with these people, smoke and mirrors, and we expect them to have some respect for law and order, we expect them to have some respect for politicians, we expect them to have some respect for what goes on in our society. I say: "Wake up, Ontario. Wake up, Canada." Politicians have got to stop playing the smoke and mirrors game. We've got to start thinking about what those kids are all about.

Of course the only time this will hit home is when some member of this Legislature has a child who has a learning disability and finds that child is not able to get access to a proper job because employers don't understand that a child with a learning disability has to have something explained to them in a much more expanded arrangement.

We look at our universities. I was talking with the critic for Colleges and Universities and a couple of other people. Our universities are set up to provide spaces for people who have learning disabilities. But think about it. What's happened in the last little while is the fact that because of the cutback in the number of spaces available in universities because of the cutback in funding, because of the fact that the competition for these spaces has become so tremendous, you now need an 80% average to get into most universities. So it doesn't matter if you've got a program there for them to help them out, to assist them. What you have to do is provide access to those people who can only earn a 65% or a 70% average, those people who are disabled, those people whose disability we can't see but it's there. It's as true as the person in the wheelchair.

Yet what do we do? We continue to have a process whereby you need a 75% or an 80% average to get into university, or perhaps the same to get into a community college. What are we doing for these kids? Can we leave this Legislature thinking, "Oh, well, we fooled around with it, we played with it, we were able to get a sexy political issue, get a few headlines in the newspapers" -- because that's the be-all and end-all in this joint. If you can get in the press and you can get a headline in the press, you have achieved. That's the success of your government -- that plus polling.

But are we not here for a purpose, to achieve something significant as opposed to just the glamour of seeing your name in the press or seeing yourself on television or getting re-elected?

Hon Mr Wildman: I'd rather not see my name in the press.

Mr Callahan: We can say: "Well, the Minister of Natural Resources has just spoken up. We can save trees" -- which is very important -- "we can save farm land" -- which is very important. We can save a whole host of things that are very important, yet when it comes down to saving the most important thing in our society, our young people, we have no planning whatsoever. It's the quick fix. It's the spin doctors in the back, down the hall, the unelected representatives who have the say about what will happen.

1650

What did we do to the teachers in the secondary and elementary schools? We gave them 1%, 1% and 2%. So the government threw the onus upon the trustees to take it from the taxpayer. Well, they're politicians too, so obviously the least line of resistance for them, rather than tax the taxpayers more, was to cut back on programs like special ed. I don't know how people in political life can possibly live with themselves, how they can possibly go home at night and feel as though they did a good job, if they're only interested in the quick political fix, the headlines in the newspaper or the polls, and not about those young people.

I said the second part of it is the omega, the seniors. What did we do with our seniors? We have made them now pay at provincial parks. They have worked their buns off in our society, done a lot for this community, and what do we do in a recent initiative of the government? We charge them to go to the provincial parks for their outing. It may be the only thing they can afford.

What else did we do? We took people who are travelling outside the country and who perhaps have served their days in Ontario, have worked hard and are perhaps summering or wintering someplace, and we changed the rules on OHIP for them. Did we tell them? Of course not. Some senior could have wound up getting ill someplace in the United States -- and I would suggest to you, that's a real possibility with a senior -- and may have found that the OHIP coverage was not sufficient to cover the cost of the US or whatever foreign medical service.

So I suggest to you that we're looking at the two sides of those coins, and we're looking for quick political fixes. I know the government's in trouble in terms of finances. That has nothing to do with whether it's an NDP government or a Liberal government or a Conservative government, but for God's sake, don't try to ride it out on the backs of kids and don't try to ride it out on the backs of seniors.

Our correctional system is supposedly there to assist people who get in trouble with the law. Let's face it: I suggest to you that there could be people in this Legislature whose kids could wind up in trouble with the law. Do we provide institutions where there is proper treatment for these people? Do we provide alcohol and drug abuse treatments? Yes, in the Ontario Correctional Institute. OCI houses about 200 inmates. That's the select place you go. In order to get there, you've got to get about two years less a day.

Why haven't we got more of that? Why is there not more concentration on Correctional Services? I'll tell you why: because corrections is not a sexy political issue, nor is justice. Justice is not a sexy political issue. The Attorneys General of every political party have had difficulty weaselling money out of the Treasurer for corrections and for justice.

I suggest to you that that is becoming a significant issue. We see it in the debates in this House now on the violent crime that's occurring on the streets. We see that happening because of our inability to deal with the question of drug and alcohol abuse and the treatment of those people.

You keep giving 1% or 2% to justice out of the provincial budget and I can assure you -- and I suggest that you read Bonfire of the Vanities -- you won't be able to leave the Legislature or the courthouse without an armed guard. We're going to see it, and some day -- I hate to say it -- I'll look back at these debates on what I've tried to say in the House and say, "I told you so." I don't want to have to say that, but it's coming. It's happening.

I've spoken on the reform of this place ad nauseam. This place has to be reformed totally. The power is so concentrated, it's incredible. It's concentrated in the hands of people who were not elected, as my friend the member for St Catharines so eloquently said the other night in terms of people who are accountable. It's the backroom boys. They talk about the United States with its backroom boys. Ours are worse. You've got people back there, spin doctors, who decide what is the important agenda of the day or how they're going to muffle the Legislature, muzzle us with rules that are inappropriate for a democratic society, and you have those people back there setting the agenda for Ontario. I suggest to you, that's totally objectionable. It's objectionable to the people of Ontario. It's objectionable, or it should be, to every one of you people who have been elected to this Legislature.

I'll give you an example too of very poor planning. We have the excellent Peel Non-profit Housing Corp in the region of Peel. It is a major way, and probably the most innovative one, of providing low-cost housing for people.

In the recent initiatives by the Minister of Housing, where she allocated 3,500 units of the first phase of 10,000 units, she didn't give very much, in fact very little, to Peel Non-Profit. It went to co-ops, and that's fine; I think cooperative housing is a good approach. Peel Non-Profit Housing has a demand of 8,300 households. The most disastrous thing I hear in my constituency office is that single parents with children can't find accommodation. You have to put them up in a fleabag hotel. When they come to my office and say, "I can't find housing," I go to Peel Non-Profit. Nine out of 10 times they solve that problem, but they won't solve it with a demand of 8,300 households outstanding.

The Minister of Housing's suggestion of how she would allocate the non-profit housing may very well have been politically sexy for her because she spread it among larger groups that would become beholden to the government of the day. If that's the agenda, direction and aim of a government, I say, "Shame on you." Shame on any government of any political stripe; that should not be your directive.

Your directive should be to try to solve the problems of this province where they can be solved and try to direct your money in a way that it's going to be most effectively used, not listen to the spin doctors, the Agnews and the rest of them back there and even the ones who were there for the Liberals and the Conservatives. Listen to your constituents. In your caucus, fight for the opportunity to represent your people; you're not doing it. Every time you vote, you stand up like you're joined at the hip. Do you really believe that the people in the next election are going to say, "I want you back"? I don't think I would if I were out there in the electorate. I'd say: "You didn't serve me to begin with. You weren't able to carry on in the small things I gave you. Why should I give you greater opportunities?" I suggest to you that's exactly what's going on.

We're seeing things in this community that absolutely blow your mind. We're seeing a flip-flop to casinos. Casinos are going to kill the charitable organizations.

I went to the Big Sisters annual meeting. They raised 70% of their funding through fund-raising. They made $147,000 of their total budget, Mr Treasurer, on the basis of Nevada tickets. For those people who are watching who don't know what a Nevada ticket is, it's a paper slot machine. The minute you bring in slot machines, I can assure you that the Nevada tickets are gone and the Big Sisters of my region, who do an excellent job, will be out of business. So I suggest you look at that.

If you look at the whole thing with the race industry, the jobs you're going to destroy there are absolutely incredible. That's the whole problem: that this government doesn't bother itself with planning or with consultation; it looks at the polls, it looks at what the press writes about it, what the television coverage is.

Mr Treasurer, I have to say to you I'm really disappointed, because I knew you in opposition, and you were a man who constantly was at the government of the day, the then Liberal government, and I'm sure you were at the Conservative government, because you were around in those days, stressing that it should try and look at the question of planning and using these dollars that are becoming scarcer and scarcer every day in a really planned way. I suggest you're not doing that.

I would love to be able to speak longer. I have lots more to say. I'm not sure if it's because of the new rules we've enacted or, if I'm wrong, if it was on the basis of consent, which is the way this place should work, really, but I'm prepared to close.

Before closing, I'm going to make the final pitch: food banks, Mr Treasurer. I talked to you about that. There is a solution for food banks. The marketing boards we have in our province prevent a producer from producing more than is the necessary quantity. You're high on co-ops. Why could we not set up co-ops that would allow the farmer or the producer to sell that extra product for a pimple above the cost to those co-ops and make them accessible only to people on social assistance who would have a card like a credit card? It would keep the people out of there who had the fur coats. It would provide it for the people who really need it, and we wouldn't constantly be begging for food in the various food banks that are around this province.

Hopefully, as I said, the ministers I've suggested have been listening, and hopefully I'll get another opportunity to put an oar in the water for the areas I've discussed.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

1700

Mr Scott: I note the presence of the Treasurer. I want to assure him that I don't intend to do anything to prevent him, under the new rules or the old rules, from getting his way. I'm not a person who could maintain a filibuster if my life depended on it, and I had no intention of participating in the debate until I heard the honourable member for St Catharines speak with such passion and such concern yesterday about the changes he sees in the House. He, like the Minister of Labour, the Treasurer, the honourable member for Renfrew North and others, is a long-time denizen of this place and understands its temper, its values and its instincts much more profoundly than I've been able to in the short seven-year period in which I've been here.

I think we will begrudge the change we have made in the rules. I understand perfectly well the dynamic that requires a government to propose such changes. I also understand perfectly the dynamic that leads to resistance. When I was in cabinet there were many of us who thought aggressive changes should be made so that efficiency would take a greater role at the expense of participatory democracy, and there were others who thought that, no, a popular democracy, at least in this assembly, was a value that had to be protected.

The interesting thing is that in the seven years I've been here, I've heard stories about the past but I can only recall two instances of a protracted filibuster. There may have been more, but I refer to the filibuster around the previous government's automobile insurance legislation, which will certainly form a place in the history of the NDP policy manual right there; and the second, the filibuster around the Sunday closing legislation which the Liberal government introduced.

Looking back on it, I think I was right to conclude at the time that those pieces of legislation were reasonably good pieces of legislation. I wouldn't dare say that in the presence of a majority NDP government except that I note, after a good deal of rustling about, that it essentially has adopted them as its own. I think that illustrates that the policy adopted in both those laws was, for its time and for the present time, a reasonably sensitive and practical accommodation of the issues.

So you ask, how can you justify a filibuster conducted against legislation that you thought was not only plausible but entirely desirable in the public interest? I think it has something to do, and something to do very profoundly, with the nature of a popular democracy. The honourable member for York Centre, who spoke the other night, made some of these points. You can't get up and filibuster for 17 hours and sustain that kind of resistance to legislation if you don't represent a profoundly held view in the community. It may be a foolish view and it may be a wrong view, but it will probably be a view that is widely shared.

When I look back at the filibusters around a common pause day, I think some of the things that were done were silly. The successful attempt to prevent the Treasurer from reading his budget was not only silly, I think it was counterproductive in the end, because it was an excellent budget when it came out, but that kind of technique served no purpose.

The filibusters themselves, as long as there was a remedy to terminate them under the direction of the Speaker, were appropriate and desirable democratic mechanisms. The mechanism, of course, to terminate it was that the government could intervene and ask the Speaker to determine that there had been significant and useful debate, and then closure could be introduced. That was a sensible rule. I very much regret that that rule has now been abandoned. So we now face the reality that after three days of debate, or whatever it is, at second reading a minister of the crown will be able to announce to the House how long the debate will continue.

I have every reason to believe that members of the government party -- and I see one or two of them here -- must have had grave difficulty assenting to that legislation. I know all about cabinet solidarity, and bear the scars on my back from submission to it in one or two rare instances when I wasn't in total agreement with everything that was done. I see one or two ministers here, perhaps more, who must have found it a trying day to abandon this important instrument of popular democracy in Ontario.

The good news is that in Ontario we have three mature, fully formed political parties. There's nobody around saying that the Liberal Party is going to disappear and, no matter what we may wish, there is nobody around saying the NDP is going to disappear. With three fully formed political parties we recognize the reality that sooner or later there will be a minority government -- probably one in which the NDP will play a much less significant role than it did in the last minority government if I have anything to do with it -- in which the successful cry for the restoration of the old democratic, popular rule that you could filibuster until the Speaker said "Stop" is applied.

As I say, I am no denizen of this place and I don't understand its traditions, but I think the honourable member for St Catharines made a telling point about our traditions which would be unfortunate to ignore.

I don't see why the Treasurer should have his money any sooner than absolutely necessary. With that in mind, I want to deal with three or four other but perhaps connected matters in no particular order of importance.

The honourable members who are sitting for the government can be certain of one thing, and perhaps one thing only: I will not be a member of the next Liberal government that will take its place here.

Interjections: Oh, no.

Mr Scott: Sad. Why is it that the complaints and the reservations about that pronouncement come only from the government and not from my colleagues? I'm not able to say.

I just want to deal with three or four things, one of them contentious. The first is political patronage. I accept entirely what the honourable member for St Catharines had to say about it yesterday. I think his words were wise and sensible. They recognized the errors of us all, but those words recognized certain realities and the importance of being as good as your promises.

I want to take up -- I have tried to take it up with the government; the honourable member for Ottawa South, I believe, has tried to take it up with the Attorney General -- one area of political patronage that concerns me as a lawyer very greatly and about which nothing, though I have been asking for weeks, has been done.

One of the initiatives of which I am most proud as a former Attorney General is the establishment in this province, and it has become a model for its establishment in other provinces, of an independent committee -- a majority of whom are intelligent, lay people in the community, not lawyers -- to make recommendations to the Attorney General about the appointment of judges. The first chairman of the committee we appointed was Professor Peter Russell of the University of Toronto. It had on it a majority of lay people. Its function was precisely to offset the notion, which I think was not often true, that perhaps politicians had too much to do with the appointment of judicial officers.

1710

That committee made its recommendations to the Attorney General. During the time when I was in office, I rejected only one of those recommendations, and that on the basis that the proposed appointee was not capable of speaking in both official languages in a district where I believed that to be required. In other words, it removed the element of political involvement and, more than that, because I don't think political involvement really was ever a very big factor in the appointment of judges in Ontario, it created a sense with the public that those appointments were recommended by good, sensible Ontario people in their communities. I'm proud to say not only that our government introduced that but that when it was introduced, the present Premier approved of it and spoke highly of the exercise.

I want to tell you that I'm very disappointed. I should tell you that I never said for a moment that there shouldn't be people who were interested in politics on the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. It seems hard to believe that between 1985 and 1990, perhaps even to 1992, you could find 11 people in Ontario who weren't interested in provincial politics and didn't have views about a wide variety of subjects.

For example, when I established the committee, I didn't hesitate -- and this is merely an example -- to appoint Michele Landsberg to the committee. She is the spouse of Stephen Lewis and an able, intelligent, experienced Ontario person. I don't think anybody would have any doubt about how she voted; indeed, it would be almost a matter of domestic crime to hear that she had voted against a Lewis for political office. But I didn't hesitate to appoint her, because she was not an active politician even though she had political views. I thought she could sit on that committee, make her judgements and no one would think that the committee was controlled by an active political person.

I must tell you that I am really saddened at what has happened under this government. This government decided to appoint a new chairman of that committee and appointed a person who I'm sure is excellent in every way and is a professor at the University of Windsor law school. That professor then decided, as a member of the committee and as its chairman, to seek the NDP nomination in a federal election and obtained it and is now engaged in the preparatory work for an election campaign. I believe that chairman should step aside.

I find it extraordinary that a scheme designed by our government and approved by the NDP to insulate judicial appointments from political interference should be seen by the public of Ontario to be chaired by a person, and I'm sure an excellent person, who is now an active candidate for political office. I can tell you, honourable members, particularly on the other side, that if, for example, Professor Peter Russell had announced that he was going to be a candidate for the Liberal Party and remain as chairman of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee --

Mr Bradley: He'd be gone.

Mr Scott: He'd be gone because I'd demand it. He would be gone because Bob Rae would have demanded it, and he would have been right to demand it -- not gone in disgrace, not gone because you lack ability, but gone because you have lost, if only for the moment, the ability to present yourself as non-political to the public of Ontario when you were making judicial appointments.

I don't want to generalize about the patronage practices of this government or about any of your other practices. I want simply to give you that example and to ask you, as members of a government, if you can really live with that, because I think, when you examine it, you won't be able to live with it. If you can begin to make changes like that, there is some significant hope for all of us.

The second matter I want to deal with, and I am not embarrassed to deal with it in the presence of the honourable member, is what has now become known as the Martel affair. As an opposition, I think we bear some responsibility for what has happened, which in the end is tragic.

I remember the day in this House when the then minister responsible for women's issues came into the House, obviously visibly upset, and explained to the House, having obtained unanimous consent, that she had written a letter to the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. It had been brought to her attention that it was not proper to do so. It was a breach of the Premier's guidelines and she proposed to offer her resignation. The Premier got up and graciously said he proposed to accept it. The honourable member who is now the Minister of Northern Development got up and said that in effect she had done the same thing.

Then an extraordinary thing happened. My leader, the Honourable Robert Nixon, a great human being in my opinion, overcome, I think appropriately, by compassion, by a sense of these careers at stake, by the sense that one minister, who has had her own difficulties with health but was trying to do a good job, had resigned for something of which she may have been totally unaware in terms of propriety and where another minister, the daughter of his long-time good friend, a young woman who had an enormous contribution to make to Ontario politics, was facing the same fate, got up and said, "I wish she would reconsider."

It was a magnanimous gesture of a most remarkable kind that could only come from an extraordinary human being. But in a way it was a terrible thing to do to the government and to the member in question, because if that had not happened the minister responsible for women's issues would have resigned -- her resignation had already been accepted -- the Minister of Northern Development in all probability would have resigned and her resignation would have been accepted, and following the model of the Minister of Health both of them probably now would be restored with full power and capacity to the cabinet.

But do you know what happened? I don't know whether it happened in the Premier's mind or in the minds of those in the Premier's office. They said: "Hey, we know what should be done because we've already done it with the minister responsible for women's issues. We know what propriety demands, but look, we're going to be able to skate by this because of what Bob Nixon said."

The Premier did that. The Premier abandoned the principle: I'm not worried in this context about automobile insurance or casino gambling or these principles that have to do with the economy of the country; I'm worried about principles that don't cost you any money. On that day when Bob Nixon made that offer, as the honourable member for St Catharines said the other day, "We saw an opportunity to look at what a government and a leader of a government will do when they think they can get away with it."

Bob Nixon, a great man, a man I admire enormously, out of an act of compassion gave the Premier an opportunity to make a choice and the Premier, I regret to say, made the wrong choice. That will be a matter for debate and there will be many who think I am wrong about that and I understand that perfectly, but the tragedy of that exercise, when all is said and done, is that the Premier lost the ability at that time, and I think it may be extremely difficult to recover, to take the high road on matters of that type.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if he had said, as I thought he would: "I have drawn the line in the sand. I like that minister but she will have to go and we pray that she could soon come back?" No, he said, "I've got an advantage because I've got this opening. I can get away with it," and he did.

1720

What's the upshot of that? The upshot, when all is said and done, is that the Premier is besmirched by that in an important area. But that doesn't worry me. The other thing that is tragic is I think that in a practical sense has damaged for ever the career of an able, intelligent, devoted, young member. It used to be said the member might succeed Bob Rae as the leader of her party, and she would be qualified and able and experienced enough to do it.

The tragedy of that, the tragedy of trying to get away with something because there's a chance we can skate by it, has damaged him. That doesn't matter. He's the Premier. He has to make these choices and he can live with them. But ironically that has more profoundly damaged her. Now that's an example of conflict of interest. I do not speak generally to generalize; I only take examples.

I also want to say that I think there is a third problem that has to be addressed. I have been a member of a government and I understand some of the difficulties. There is much said in this House about the fact that the NDP has been unable to carry forward its Agenda for People. Frankly, having read it in its fullness, I'm not terribly upset that you haven't implemented every single provision of it, and cower with fear when my Conservative colleagues demand that you comply with your promises. Few things would terrorize me and do more damage to the Ontario economy than if in fact you did comply with all your promises. But I understand about that; I have no trouble about that.

The difficulty that seems to have happened -- and I say this sitting a little bit aside, looking at your party and the government from outside -- is that there is an angst about being pragmatic. You aren't comfortable with it. The Tories aren't comfortable with it either. It was fascinating to see the two parties of the left and the right, the ideological parties, today engaged in a fuss about what Premier Robarts said about OHIP, as if it matters in 1992, or what the position of this ideological party was as opposed to the position of that ideological party. Ideological parties in Ontario don't survive, never have, never will.

But there's a problem that you seem to be dealing with not very satisfactorily: how to put the Agenda for People behind you, how to concede that all this stuff you said you would do is simply out of touch with the realities of modern Ontario and how to begin to govern effectively and still have a democratic party.

You're grappling with that; you're trying to deal with it. The notion that the governance of Ontario can be established in town halls all across Ontario is so naïve it would be almost offensive to state it to any sensible person in the province. But what is happening, as you grapple with this, is real difficulty, because if you are going to be successful, you will become a pragmatic party and abandon some of those loony ideas which carried you successfully through opposition. But if you're going to become a pragmatic party, you've got to successfully address that question.

The next election is going to be fabulous. If the members will permit, I just will tell one story about appearing in an election campaign -- and I won't name the riding or the candidate -- at a cooperative housing project for a political meeting. The NDP candidate, a fine young woman, was there. I was there as a Liberal member of the Legislature in a sitting government. The Conservatives don't go to co-op housing meetings because there aren't any votes for them there at all. So there were just the two of us and it was like the old days when you had a two-party system.

But the co-op members, most of whom in that particular poll, which I don't think was anywhere near my riding, are devoted NDP supporters, immediately turned on me, as a minister of the crown, and said, "What are you going to do about cooperative housing?" The question didn't come to me totally out of the blue, so I had got together what we had done. I forget the figures, but I think we had committed to build some 60,000 units over five years and we were in the third year of that program. So I said, "That's what we're doing."

Loud boos from everybody and the NDP candidate said, "I told you that's not enough. They don't do anything. That isn't nearly enough," and started to dump on me, the likes of which I've never had. I didn't know what to do. I was in an enemy camp, surrounded, when "not enough" seemed to be enough to win the battle.

I decided that the only thing to do would be to turn to the chairman of the meeting, like you, Mr Speaker, the protector of the innocent, and say: "Look, Miss X, I have told you what our government is committing to do over five years. Will you tell me what your government, if you form a government, will do over the same period?"

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): You asked that?

Mr Scott: I asked that. There was silence. The audience, first of all, booed, but then when I put the proposition again, the NDP candidate was finally forced, "You should answer the question, candidate."

The NDP candidate hadn't the faintest idea what the answer to the question would be, except for one thing: She knew she had to pick a figure higher than 60,000. But that wouldn't be good enough because if she picked 65,000 or 75,000, would that satisfy this clamouring crowd? She had no idea. So wisely, I think, never expecting to be in a government, she picked 100,000, a good round number. I would have picked it myself but for the fact I didn't want to have to pay the bills. She said 100,000.

Then an interesting thing happened. We'd been talking about a five-year program and she had said 100,000. Then there was a sort of rustle at the door. Actually someone was trying to get out, but she thought it was a sign of dissatisfaction, so she said 100,000 each year. While that poll was not in my riding, I am sure she won it. Certainly, if you're interested in cooperative housing, she won it.

What this means of course is that as this party, which now forms the government, moves into the next election, you are going to be planning election campaigns of the type you never imagined.

I thought 1985 was a wonderful thing because in all my adult life there had been only one government in Ontario. I have many friends who are NDPers. My first law partner was an NDPer. I made contributions for Bob Rae's campaign in Riverdale -- I wish he'd stayed in Riverdale -- and did other things of that type. I joined the Liberal Party -- pragmatism had its way -- because I thought the Liberal Party was best placed to win the election of 1981 -- misjudged that one slightly -- and if not that, then 1985. My goal was to displace one government in Ontario, the Conservative government, not because they were bad governors particularly, but because a single party in government for any length of time is destructive of political debate.

The year 1985 was great news; 1990, personally, was bad news. I was sorry to leave. I thought that on balance we provided reasonable government. But there was a good thing about it: We now have an opportunity to watch the New Democratic Party in government.

Let me tell you, my friends, that you are going to have to learn to be realistic. Next time, if you produce an Agenda for People, you'll be laughed off the streets of every town in Ontario. Next time, if you announce that you are going to promise to do this, someone will say, "Cross your heart and hope to die?" because they will know you have been able -- I'm not criticizing you for it -- to carry forward barely one of the promises you made.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Not true, not true.

Mr Scott: I'll give you one. I heard someone promise that Rosario Marchese, my friend, wouldn't be a minister for ever. You kept that one and that's one you shouldn't have kept; he was a good minister.

1730

What I say to you is that you, an established political party, are moving into a new world. This speech isn't meant to be funny. This speech is to encourage you to adjust to that reality and to avoid one thing that I find afflicting some of you, more notably the ministers than the backbenchers: that there is a bit of meanness about the atmosphere in this place. There's heckling and there always has been. There's heckling in question period, and I've been known to make an odd contribution to that, but there is a meanness about what is happening. I don't blame you for that. I think the meanness is a result of the fact that you've finally come up against the fact that you can't do what you promised the people you would do.

That must be a very unsettling thing for you. It's not unsettling to pragmatists who understand that; it's very unsettling for ideologues and especially ideological ministers. The reality is that you can make this adjustment, as other parties have had to do, and I simply pray that you will be able to make that without developing, as an antidote to your inability to be ideological in the future, any meanness of spirit toward those who oppose you, those who do not vote for you and do not support you and, indeed, to those who may think, like some of my friends, especially on the far left here, that you're an odd pack from beginning to end. They're Ontario people too and you're going to have to successfully adjust to this.

I find, for example, in dealing with the opposition in matters of rule changes, in dealing with the bureaucracy, there is a hint of this meanness developing that I find quite extraordinary. I'll give you an example: I think of Mary Hogan who was the Deputy Attorney General of Ontario. I would have been honoured to appoint her to that job. I appointed her a judge before we had this committee and she is a fine and able woman. She was one of the Premier's first appointments as a deputy minister and one which he made very personal, you may remember, one of the first senior women deputies. She had a distinguished career at the bar and on the bench and I don't know why it didn't work out, but it didn't work out. I'm sorry for that, as I'm sure everybody is.

There was a touch of meanness about the way the matter ended. I don't know who stole the letter out of her desk. It must have been somebody in the building. I don't know why the bureaucrats hustled hither and yon to cover it up. I don't know why the minister didn't come to her defence or go to bat for her. I don't know why the Premier didn't say anything. But I certainly have the feeling that an us-and-them mentality was developing on your side of the House to a certain extent and that Mary, a fine woman and great judge, was to a certain extent a victim of that. I pray that you will be able, over a period of time, to approach these very difficult questions with a little more generosity than I think may occur.

Just one last minute and then the Treasurer gets his money as far as I'm concerned. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt is a moderate, modest, sensible man. He is, as you will know, very exercised about the intervention by the Ontario Provincial Police in the offices of the then Leader of the Opposition and of our environmental critic, the member for Halton Centre. I think he has a right to be concerned about that and I think the responses from the government have not been full and fair enough to do that issue justice, and it's an enormously important one.

Everybody understands what happened. The OPP turned up at those two offices in this precinct, or nearby, to interview those people about how they got a government document. They didn't say to the police, "Somebody came in here whistle-blowing from the bureaucracy and the NDP has always been in favour of whistle-blowing so I knew there'd be no problem." They answered the questions.

But how did it happen? The Premier says he didn't send them, and I accept his word because he's an honourable man in this respect and I've known him for many years. That's not the point. I accept that he didn't send them for these purposes. The fact is the police were there and somebody sent them and we don't know who. The question is, why didn't the Premier tell them to stop? That's the question. Why didn't he write a letter to the chief of the OPP: "You can't go and interview the Leader of the Opposition and his staff and an Environment critic like that. You're going to make me look terrible because people might think I had something to do with it." He knew it was happening because he said so. Why didn't he stop it?

He says he didn't stop it because he never interferes in police investigations. That, my friends, and you, Mr Speaker, whom I include among my friends, is the shallowest, most trivial, most impossible of explanations. There is nothing wrong and everything right if the Premier of the province or the Solicitor General, who has direct responsibility, calls off an improper police investigation. That's what civilian control of the police means. Our Premier didn't do that. I think that's an important thing. It may not be fatal. The member for Bruce will survive it, the member for Halton Centre will survive it and this government apparently will survive it, but I think you have to think about these things in a slightly broader perspective.

There's nothing more boring to government backbenchers than hearing how it was in 1985 to 1990, and I don't intend to go through that. I grew up in an NDP law firm. Andrew Brewin was my boss. He was one of the founders of what was then called the New Party. He was for many years the president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a person who came to your party not through the trade union movement like David Lewis but rather through the church, as many of you have done, and was a person of great compassion and understanding. I can't imagine Andrew Brewin answering the question that way. I simply can't imagine it.

I don't believe most of you, in your heart of hearts, would answer it that way. I think if you found out that someone had sent the police to the Leader of the Opposition's office, you would have said, "We want that stopped right now." Maybe you did say that in caucus. That's what caucus is for. Maybe you did say that. Let me tell you, my friends, after only seven years, if you didn't say things like that on those occasions and on the Martel inquiry and in dealing with Mary Cornish and these hosts of issues on political patronage in the judicial appointment system, if you don't speak out and say those things, you won't be here very long. You will be replaced and it will be right that you should be replaced.

I know what our faults were. There were many. Not as many as some of my voters thought, but there were many and we paid for them. I can tell you, you're on that track as sure as can be -- forgive me, honourable member for St Catharines -- not because you've introduced casinos in Ontario. That's not going to get you defeated. I think maybe even your sensible turnaround on the common pause day is not going to get you defeated. What's going to get you defeated is the likes of these things: Martel, Mary Hogan, the police in the Leader of the Opposition's office and allowing people who are candidates for political office to run the system for the appointment of judges.

I say I won't be here after 1995 and I'll be reading about you. Most of this, of course, I probably won't read about because the reporters don't cover it very thoroughly, which is the luckiest thing that ever happened to you and us. But the reality is that you won't be here unless things like that happen.

1740

This government is only two years old. It came to office with the support of a significant, not an overwhelming, percentage of the Ontario population. Regardless of the votes you got, you came to government with extraordinary goodwill, just as we did, from Canadians and Ontarians who wouldn't have voted for the NDP if you were the only party on the ballot. It's the truth.

That goodwill was an enormous resource. It's not the flip-flops on policy that are going to cost; it's the abandonment of principle in those areas where it ironically doesn't cost anything.

Why can't you deal with the Deputy Attorney General fairly when she gets into trouble with her minister, particularly when she's one of the principal women bureaucrats you've brought to the system? Why can't you deal with issues like Martel in a way that does not damage her distinguished career and allows the Premier to honour his intentions? Why do you not deal with the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee by asking the NDP candidate who is now the head of it to step aside until the election is over? And why don't you deal with such issues as the introduction of the police to investigate the Leader of the Opposition's files by saying: "Under our government, that's not going to happen. We didn't come here to do that"? As the Premier said, "We didn't come here to permit that to happen."

Those of us who will be outside the House after 1995 may not be voting for you, but we will be very proud of a government that does those things.

In conclusion, I think the Treasurer should get his $16 billion. I've been tossing that up and down in my mind for half an hour, but I think on balance he should get it just this once more.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for St George-St David for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Sorbara: I have a brief word of commendation for the member for St George-St David, the former Attorney General of the province, for his comments.

In the past few days I think we've heard some important addresses in this Parliament. I include on the list of important addresses the one given by my friend the member for St Catharines just the other day on the supply bill, but I think he touched on a number of extremely important themes and reminded us what this Parliament is all about.

I include on that list the speech just given by my colleague and my seatmate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who I think has as accurate and effective an analysis of the economic policies of the government as anyone in Ontario, and certainly anyone sitting in the Ontario Legislature.

Of course I include in that list the speech just given by the member for St George-St David. It makes sitting in this Parliament truly worthwhile and truly significant. Not all the speeches, not all the questions, not all the interjections, are of much note or of much significance, but the remarks we've just heard today from the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, I think were perhaps one of the most important messages government members could hear, because it was a speech about principle.

I just want to remind my friends in the government party sitting over there on the other side of one sad aspect of that speech, that is, that as a result of the work they have done as a government, and in their search for even more power as a government, the speech my friend has just completed would not have been permitted under the new rules that will govern this House as of next Friday at midnight. That is to be lamented.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, I recognize the member for St George-St David for up to two minutes for a response.

Mr Scott: I think the honourable member from Wilson Heights made this point, that if the government's polls remain very low over the next three years it seems to me conceivable that the last resolution before we go to the new polls will be a resolution from the House leader to restore the old rules. I'll want to give some thought to that when it comes up.

The Speaker: Further debate? If none, I recognize the Treasurer for any windup remarks which he may wish to make.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Probably one of the reasons I have stayed in the Legislature as long as I have is that I enjoy the speeches that are made in a wide-ranging way on motions such as supply. I have enjoyed those over the years, and this debate was no exception, and I do thank the members for taking part in it. I wasn't here for every speech, but I did enjoy the ones I was able to listen to here in the assembly. I felt somewhat nostalgic hearing the Attorney General give what most objective observers, if they were sitting in the gallery, would say is "a good speech, but it sure sounds like a swan song." I don't want to read more into that speech than should be there, but there were several references in it that made me think along those lines.

I listened to a big portion of the leadoff speech in the official opposition from the member from St Catharines. I don't think anyone on this side had any doubts whatsoever about the vigour with which he not only delivered it but felt about the issue of the rule changes. I understand that, and I know that rule changes are always very difficult. I do believe, however, and I don't want to trigger a new debate, that with the rule of 90 minutes for the leadoff and 30 minutes, that's a long speech, 30 minutes, and I don't think it's unfair if you compare it to other jurisdictions, for example. Also I think there was some misunderstanding of the new rules. I heard some of the members talk about how little time there would be and how in one day a bill could be put through. That's simply not the case. I think when you reflect on the actual content of the rule changes --

Mr Sorbara: No, four days.

Hon Mr Laughren: Right. Well, there were people using much shorter time frames than that in their speeches. I'm not saying the member from York Centre was, but there were members who used much shorter time frames than that in making their point.

I realize as well that a supply motion of $16 billion is a lot of money, and it warranted a full-ranging debate, and I appreciated the comments of the members opposite from both parties. I wish there was more time because I know there are a lot of members on this side who have a lot to offer in these kinds of debates, and unfortunately --

Mr Sorbara: They never stand up.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member from York Centre says, "They never stand up." They would love to engage in this debate for another two or three days. But I think the reality of the situation is that we do want to get on with other business, and you would recognize, I hope, that by members on this side not speaking, members of the opposition have a much fuller say in the debate than they would otherwise have. So I regret that our own members, who feel very strongly about a lot of the issues, in particular a lot of the economic decisions and fiscal decisions that have to be made, don't have an opportunity to speak longer.

I did want to allow time, and I think there's time, for one more piece of legislation. I feel the Minister of Education's eyes boring into my back, so I think I will simply thank members once again for their contributions.

The Speaker: Mr Laughren has moved government notice of motion 9. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

1750

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (EDUCATION AUTHORITIES AND MINISTER'S POWERS), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (COMMISSION INDIENNES DE L'ÉDUCATION ET POUVOIRS DU MINISTRE)

Mr Silipo moved second reading of Bill 21, An Act to amend the Education Act in respect of Education Authorities and Minister's Powers / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les commissions indiennes de l'éducation et les pouvoirs du ministre.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the minister have any opening remarks?

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Education): Briefly, Mr Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce this bill for second reading. As members know, amendments in this bill are in keeping with government policy with respect to anti-racism, employment equity, native education and drug education.

As a government we are deeply committed to eradicating racism from our education system. One of the measures in this bill will require school boards to develop and implement anti-racism and ethnocultural equity policies. A key part of this requirement for anti-racism policies is that these policies be approved by the ministry. We must ensure that the young people in our schools are taught to understand and respect racial and cultural diversity. We must take firm action now to address the problem of racism at all levels in our education system.

As members know, I will be naming a new assistant deputy minister whose responsibility will be the development and implementation of the ministry's anti-racism and ethnocultural initiatives. In conjunction with anti-racism and ethnocultural equity policies is the need for employment equity policies that target women and minority groups identified by the ministry. This bill then will also amend the requirement for boards to have employment equity policies that include women and those other designated groups.

With respect to native education, this bill will allow a single Indian band to establish an education authority to provide for the educational needs of band members. The present requirement is for two or more bands.

Finally, this bill will require school boards to develop and implement drug education policies in accordance with the framework established by my ministry. It is imperative that school boards have such policies in place so that our young people are educated, beginning at an early age, to the dangers of drugs of all kinds.

These then are the amendments to the Education Act contained in this bill. I urge members in the Legislature to give quick passage to this bill. Certainly, if we had more time, this is something on which we all could spend more time debating, because I think the issues presented in this bill are significant ones. I appreciate the cooperation of the members opposite in having this bill proceed expeditiously.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member, the Minister of Education, for his introduction and invite questions and/or comments.

Seeing none, I invite further debate.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Mr Speaker, in line with the agreement and cooperation among all parties, I would just say a few things about this bill, which we will support. Clearly it is in the interests of all members to ensure that we have clear policies and guidelines around the whole issue of anti-racism that express the views of this House and indeed the views of our society.

There are perhaps two cautions, simply, in that what we are really dealing with in the bill are principles we support. The two cautions: I think it's very important that, as school boards go forward in developing their programs, the ministry be very involved in ensuring that the proper resources and funding are available to make sure these can be meaningful. I don't think they have to require a lot of expenditure but, none the less, I think it is critical the ministry assist in that regard.

The second point is that, as we approach these issues when we are trying to deal with anti-racism and a variety of equity issues, we not become overly bureaucratized, but that we recognize we're dealing with people, that there may be situations from one board area to another where we would want to have some flexibility in how this is developed. If we can do that, then the spirit of the law will be fully met and we will be able to ensure that these principles are in fact realized, not just in law but in the way they are carried out from day to day. With those brief remarks and, as I say, in light of the all-party agreement, we will support this bill.

The Speaker: I thank the member for York North for his contribution and invite any questions and/or comments. Seeing none, I invite further debate; the member for London North.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): With the few minutes left I would like to put some comments on the record with regard to Bill 21, especially with regard to the minister's intent about employment equity and ethnocultural equity in school boards.

I think the best advice I can give the minister is that in many school boards now we have employment equity policies in place, we have ethnocultural equity policies and programs in place and, best of all, Mr Minister, there are many anti-racism policies in place where school boards have a vision and have looked to the challenges in their own community and put these in place without this legislation.

I'd like to say to the minister: He ought to look to those boards that are leaders and have proven they have policies where they are working with their communities to establish a working, positive teaching environment. My great fear is that we're going to be looking at some unrealistic time lines and demands on what I would call a blank cheque to be all and do all for all people. Mr Speaker, I have to tell you that what we're talking about today are attitudes. We need positive role models in front of our young people, and therefore we ought to be looking at what the minister and I talked about earlier -- that is, our admission policies into our educational institutions. In fact, in every community throughout Ontario we should have leaders from our young people within our school systems entering education. We won't do it with the way our teachers' colleges are working right now.

It takes time. This isn't anything we can force, but it is something we can support. We're very concerned about time lines and quotas; we've been concerned in the past. I'll leave those remarks with the minister and wish him the best and tell him that we hope to work with him with the positive implementation of these policies within our school boards.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for London North for her contributions to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): This will be very short. This entire proceeding, I reckon, will take eight minutes, and it's the way this kind of bill should be dealt with. I just hope everybody here understands the way the old order worked, because I can see, though I pray it will not happen, the day is fast approaching when a new order will impose upon this kind of routine proceeding not eight minutes but three days.

I say again I think what has just happened is entirely commendable and I hope everyone pays attention to what can happen when the old notions of consensual agreement around here speed the business through in eight minutes.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the member for London North has up to two minutes to respond.

Mrs Cunningham: To whom, the minister?

The Speaker: I invite further debate on the bill. Seeing none, the minister is entitled to a windup.

Hon Mr Silipo: In the spirit of the consensual agreement that has been arrived at, let me say that I remain one committed to doing business in this way. I think this is a significant bill. I appreciate the comments of the two opposition critics, because I think they're ones we will continue to look at in terms of implementing this legislation. I think this piece of legislation will go a long way in ensuring a greater sense of equity in our school system.

The Speaker: Mr Silipo has moved second reading of Bill 21. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, it was my understanding there had been consent to do third reading today as well, and I would ask for it at this time.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker: There does not appear to be an agreement to do third reading right away.

Bill ordered for third reading.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): It's my understanding that pursuant to standing order 53, next week the business on Monday, July 6, Tuesday, July 7, Wednesday, July 8 and Thursday, July 9, will include second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment standing in the name of Mr Mackenzie. In addition to Bill 40, it is my understanding the House will be undertaking:

Second reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act; second reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in respect of School Board Finance; third reading of Bill 21, An Act to amend the Education Act in respect of Education Authorities and Minister's Powers; second reading of Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services;

Second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act; third reading of Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments; third reading of Bill 166, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to Co-operatives; second reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act;

Second reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act; second reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters; second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex; second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands, and second reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping.

1800

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for York Centre has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of the Environment concerning Bill 143. This matter is to be debated today at 6 o'clock. Such being the case, we are deemed to have adjourned. The House will resume on Monday next at 1:30 pm.

The member for York Centre has up to five minutes to make his presentation.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): As some members are leaving the House, I simply want to say I appreciate that the minister has actually deigned to come and participate in what we describe as a late show.

If I can go back to, I guess it was yesterday, I posed a question to the Minister of the Environment that I've been posing over and over again in the Legislature. The reason I've asked that we now spend an extended period of time, that is, five minutes on this side and five minutes on the other side, is not just the grave dissatisfaction I've had with the answers that have come from the Minister of the Environment, but the grave dissatisfaction in York region concerning the answer she gives to what is really a seminal question when you talk about Bill 143 and the management of garbage in the greater Toronto area.

The question really comes down to this: Why did the Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, before she presented her bill, Bill 143, in this Legislature -- it was almost a year ago that it was presented -- in trying to solve the garbage crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, that is, to find a site for Metro's garbage, pick York region? We've never been able to figure that out.

Mr Speaker, if you just visit York region for a day or an afternoon, and you visit communities, you will see in every community throughout the region, through nine municipalities, a quality of anger that I have rarely seen in my own political life. My constituents and the rest of the people in York region pose that question to me over and over again: "Why is this happening to us? Why did she write a bill in which she fingers, points out and points to York region as the place she has decided should be the site for Metropolitan Toronto's garbage?" We have never been able to figure that out.

The whole history of environmental legislation and managing difficult, sensitive and important environmental issues is to put those decisions within a context in which you rely on science, on good environmental planning and on a hearing process that considers a variety of options before you make a decision.

In this case the only answer we've ever had from the Minister of the Environment is something about a historical relationship between Metro Toronto and York region, a contract of sorts, an agreement whereby Metro has had the right historically to dump its garbage in a variety of landfill sites in York region, the largest being the Keele Valley landfill site.

But you see that answer has never satisfied the people of York region, because that answer is simply another way of saying, "We've always done it that way so we're going to continue to do it that way." I want to put it to the Minister of the Environment that is unacceptable.

Now, sir, with the indulgence of the House, I want to cede the floor for the last minute and 30 seconds to my colleague, who also had part of the question the other day.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): What I want to know is, does 57 years of farming mean nothing to this government? They say they protect the farmers of this province. They've done absolutely zilcho for them. That minister, the Minister of the Environment, who's done nothing as an Environment minister, has the audacity to put the Doanes, who have farmed in my community for 57 years, at risk.

I say to you, minister, it flies in the face; it's total hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy that you've espoused; it's hypocrisy that the Premier, Bob Rae, has espoused, Bob Rae, the guy who stood on the stump and talked about saving farm land. You haven't saved farm land. You're about to put people who have farmed the land -- farmers have a tough enough life as it is -- for 57 years in my community -- you have designated that as a spot where garbage will be.

I just wonder what will happen when people visit us about 100 years from now and dig up that land, class A agricultural land, and find refrigerators and landfill in there. They'll think the people of the day were lunatics. Certainly the government of the day will have been lunatics, and certainly the government of the day will not have fulfilled the promises that it made, that its Premier made.

Again, as my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere says, it's a matter of trust. Can we trust this Premier? Can we trust this Minister of the Environment? Can people who have farmed for 57 years count on not having a landfill site in their community?

Minister, you've done nothing. You should be ashamed. I don't know how you can go home at night and look at yourself in the mirror. You have done absolutely nothing. You've flown in the face of every principle; you've thrown it right out the window.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. The minister has up to five minutes to respond.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): Resolving the greater Toronto area's waste crisis has baffled two provincial governments and I think four regional governments for almost the last decade. When I became the minister, I realized that trying to resolve this problem was not going to be easy, nor was it likely to make me popular. But it's a problem that must be solved. An urban region of four million people must plan to deal with its waste for the long term. For the sake of the environment and for the sake of the economy, it can't afford to continue to reel from crisis to crisis or to look for short-term quick fixes.

For this government, the underlying principle of dealing with that problem has been to reduce, reuse and recycle. Bill 143 gives my ministry the tools to ensure that businesses and individuals will do their part to reach the very ambitious target of 50% reduction in waste that's going to disposal by the year 2000, a target set by the previous government, but a target which it had set without putting in place the policies or the programs or the tools to enable us to get there.

We have built that target into our estimates of the requirements for landfill capacity we have given the Interim Waste Authority. We have assumed and we have put in place the programs to make sure we reach that target.

Nobody wants a landfill in his backyard, but we are all responsible for the waste we create and we must find the best place to put it and the best way of finding that place, and we must do it in an open and a fair way. That's what the Interim Waste Authority has been established to do.

Let's not forget that Metro has always had a special privilege. Metro has been allowed to expropriate land anywhere in the province for a waste disposal site. The previous government gave all the greater Toronto area regions an even greater privilege by allowing them to open new greenfield landfill sites in Whitevale and in Brampton under the Environmental Protection Act, a privilege not open to any other municipality in the province.

We rejected that approach. We said that the greater Toronto area and its municipalities must play by the same rules that apply to all the other over 800 municipalities in this province, that they must define a waste management master planning area and that they must then do the 3Rs, applying those to that area, and within that area find a disposal site, and that they must find a disposal site that would last for 20 years. Bill 143 does that for the greater Toronto area.

Metro and York did that in 1983. That is when they signed an agreement that Metro would construct a landfill site in York, the one at Keele Valley, a landfill site that would serve both the regions until the year 2003.

I think it's worth remembering that this site filled up because there was no waste reduction being undertaken in those regions. It is also worth remembering that the suggestion that waste from the GTA be taken to an old mine in Boston township near Kirkland Lake was a proposal that was to deal with the waste of both Metro and York.

But transportation of waste to northern Ontario or all across this province is not a solution to waste management issues. It's not an environmental solution. Neither is the incineration of waste an environmental solution. It's merely a sleight of hand that does not remove the need for a landfill site. In fact, it establishes a need for a landfill site for hazardous waste, because that's what the ash usually becomes.

The only responsible solution to waste is a comprehensive approach that is based on the 3Rs, that looks at the regional municipalities and their traditional responsibilities, that joins together those that have historically been joined together in a mutual agreement to dispose of their waste jointly, and that submits the criteria under which a landfill has been selected, the process under which a landfill has been selected, and all of the arguments for and against that landfill to an Environmental Assessment Board. That's what we are doing. That's what will resolve the GTA's waste management problems.

The Speaker: There being no further matter to be debated, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1813.