The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by members. The member for Brampton North.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I see four government members. I don't believe we even have a quorum for this section of the Legislature.

The Speaker: Quorum count.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present.

The Speaker: Call in the members.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Mr Speaker.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PAROLE OFFICERS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today to speak on a very important issue. It's the question of probation officers and the credentials they require.

The former Solicitor General, followed up by the new Solicitor General, has advanced the proposition that probation officers should not require any formal education. I understand it's under review and it's been raised by my friend the member for London South in terms of young people who perhaps are taking courses with a view to becoming probation officers and being disappointed.

I suggest it has far greater ramifications than that. The probation officer's report is the foundation on which a judge makes a determination of how to deal with a person in a criminal trial. More important than that, it is the foundation on which the parole board members, who are laypeople, make a determination of whether a person should be released conditionally, unconditionally or not released at all.

I suggest that this Minister of Correctional Services had better realize that it's not just a question of making jobs available for people who perhaps are supporters of his, but of maintaining the integrity of the system and ensuring that there will not be people released into the streets to commit crimes such as the tragic event of the Stephenson boy in my community and other events that will take place, I suggest, if the probation officer's report is done by someone who does not have the appropriate background and education.

I suggest it's a matter of justice -- the Minister of Correctional Services had better understand that -- and it's not just a question of making everything the same for everybody else.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): We know that the Jobs Ontario program is not creating the jobs promised by the government for this fiscal year. One part of the province which is suffering to a greater degree than most others is that part of eastern Ontario outside of Ottawa in the area I represent.

At around 20% unemployment, which is the rate in Cornwall and area, it is worse than in Sudbury, Windsor or Hamilton; 37% of families in the Cornwall area are on some form of social assistance. In the textile industry alone, some 3,000 eastern Ontario jobs have disappeared in the last three years.

The day after royal assent was given to the labour reform bill, Courtaulds Fibres announced the closure of its Cornwall rayon mill, leaving 360 employees without work. The jobs moved to a US plant where labour costs are actually higher.

The problem is that this government still fails to realize the importance of building investor and employer confidence. Not one legislative initiative has been taken by this government to make Ontario a more attractive investment place. Not one budget initiative has been announced that will help create private sector jobs.

The Jobs Ontario program is founded on the belief that government can buy its way out of a recession without taking any other measures whatever. Governments can help, but this government has not.

The Jobs Ontario Capital fund spoke about safe drinking water. But farm wells in Ontario show a large number are contaminated. We do need help from this government.

CAMERON WATSON

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I would like to recognize a constituent of mine, Mr Cameron Watson. Maybe some members of this House have already come across Mr Watson. He can be found in the St Lawrence Market on Saturdays where he sells the apples that he grows within the riding of Scarborough East.

His commercial orchard is located in a residential area and remains a viable operation. To spend time there is a real education about the varieties of apples and the challenges of growing and marketing them. Mr Watson frequently receives school parties and is a valuable resource for city children, helping them to understand food production. Centennial Creek passes through his property and he contributes to conserving it. He is deeply committed to animal welfare and helps individuals advocate for it.

I do not draw the attention of the House to Mr Watson and his work just as a sentimental reminder of the past. Economic and ecological needs should make us look seriously at urban food production. Jane Jacobs reminds us that viable city neighbourhoods require a mixture of uses: economic and residential. The Sewell commission is looking at the preservation of farm land and the avoidance of urban sprawl.

I'd like to make a note of the example that Mr Watson has been able to show us right here in Metropolitan Toronto and hope that the valuable resource he provides will continue indefinitely.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise today to address the current confusion that surrounds the education community in this province. Every day I meet various stakeholders who ask me what this government plans to do to improve the quality of education in this province. We really don't know what its plans are and frankly we don't think it does either.

Let me recap some of the events that have led to this confusion. School boards have been waiting for capital announcements since earlier this year. This minister first said it would be June, but nothing happened. He even indicated in estimates in July that the announcement would be forthcoming, but nothing happened. He sent a letter to opposition parties in October stating that the announcement would be made in early November, but nothing happened. To this date we have yet to see anything.

The minister has also introduced destreaming, but he has yet to offer definitive answers to questions as basic as what is it and when will it be fully implemented? The reality is that school boards, parents, educators and students don't know what the minister's definition of destreaming is because he has not provided one. At a recent meeting the minister and one of his assistant deputy ministers could not even agree on the implementation date for destreaming.

School boards are troubled, to say the least. Now boards are panicking as there has been some suggestion that transfer payments may not be the 2% promised in last year's budget, but no one knows anything for certain.

It's time for clear action on school capital, transfer payments, destreaming and curriculum reform. Minister, students, parents, teachers and trustees are waiting. What is your response?

VELMA MITGES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I'm sorry to inform the House that Grey and Owen Sound lost one of the leaders of our community when Velma Mitges, wife of Gus Mitges, MP for Bruce-Grey, recently passed away.

Mrs Mitges was a true inspiration to her community and will be sadly missed by her many friends. She was a former city councillor in Owen Sound, a member of the children's aid society board, the library board and the waste recycling committee. She belonged to the women's hospital auxiliary and she owned and operated a downtown restaurant.

But perhaps her greatest contribution to her community was her extensive involvement with the arts. As a founder and past president of the Owen Sound Little Theatre, Velma was in part responsible for its fine reputation. The Minister of Culture and Communications will remember that I have praised this theatre in the House before, when I advised her that this cultural centre in our community badly needs a small capital grant to assist it in providing, among other things, further access for the disabled.

1340

I notice that the minister has not responded either to my statement or to two of my subsequent letters on the subject. However, she has managed to find the resources to give $30 million to renovate the O'Keefe Centre in Toronto. If she can find the money for this, I cannot understand why she ignores the Owen Sound Little Theatre, which is administered and maintained by volunteers and which is so vital in stimulating the life of the city's downtown core.

Velma Mitges loved the Little Theatre. I am hopeful that to honour her memory, the minister will finally agree to help the theatre to continue to delight and educate and to provide a love of culture and the arts to many.

ONTARIO-ALSACE ASSOCIATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Almost two centuries ago, pioneer families founded the communities of the Waterloo region. Many of those founding families came from what is now the French province of Alsace. Lutherans, Mennonites and Catholics all came from France to Canada. The names that came down to us through the decades remain as landmarks in our region, but the historical connection was often forgotten.

However, five years ago a young French couple began to forge those links anew. André and Michelle Spetz discovered that one of their ancestral relatives, Théobald Spetz, had emigrated to North America, where he helped to found the village of St Agatha. In 1991 the Spetzes contacted Lynn Myers, mayor of Wilmot township, with an invitation to bring a delegation to Alsace to help strengthen the long-dormant ties between the two districts.

From that experience was born the Ontario-Alsace Association, the Waterloo region counterpart to the Alsace-Ontario group in France. The president is Mary Knowles. Other executive members include Lynn Myers, Glennis Yantzi, Jean-Pierre and Diane Traendlin, Trudy Gross, Dieter Euler and Paul Knowles.

A highlight of the association's activities this year was the return visit of 38 Alsatians in August. Several highly placed French representatives, including Jean-Paul Heider, vice-president of the regional council of Alsace and responsible for international relations, and Jean Klinkert, head of tourism for Alsace, both expressed confidence that tourism and trade links will now flourish between the provinces of Ontario and Alsace.

Special thanks go to Mary Knowles and the many local residents and businesses whose contributions made the 10-day experience possible.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): In a movement of judgement, I'm going to temper my remarks as a result of --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Oh, don't do that.

Mr Mahoney: Just a little bit. I have some concerns. You may recall Bill 92, which is the private member's bill I introduced to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act that would prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to our young people in this province, has been introduced for first reading.

It was my understanding from the government House leader that he and members of the government were going to do anything they could to bring that bill in here for unanimous agreement. I've been informed by him this morning that he doesn't really consider it a crisis. The Ontario Lottery Corp has only received six complaints and, furthermore, some lawyer in their bureaucracy is afraid of a challenge to the charter, that young people may take offence that they're not able to gamble in the corner stores.

What I take from that is that the House leader is using it as a poker chip to try to set his own agenda, or the government, perhaps the Treasurer, is concerned about loss of revenue from all the money the kids are spending in the corner stores, or perhaps this government really doesn't believe this is serious.

I would invite the House leader and the Treasurer to go to any corner store in the city of Toronto or Mississauga or anywhere else where this lottery is available right after school today and see what kind of crisis it is. You'll see the kids lining up to bet their lunch money, and this government can put a stop to it with a very simple action. Bring in Bill 92 now.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The NDP denial that extensive welfare fraud exists in Ontario is entirely in keeping with a government which is mismanaging the trust of the taxpayers. For example, unemployment insurance applicants who collect welfare for eight to twelve weeks before receiving their retroactive benefit cheques are required to pay back the amount they receive in welfare. Few are doing so, which results in the loss of millions of dollars by municipalities and the province.

In September of this year, Hamilton-Wentworth region instituted a dual-income repayment scheme, the first of its kind in Canada, to recover welfare from unemployment insurance recipients. This will save the region and the province, which pays 80% of the welfare bill, more than $1 million annually. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Hamilton mayor Bob Morrow and his council and Alderman Dominic Agostino for their important cost-saving initiative. It has been calculated that if Metro Toronto followed this lead and implemented the same program, it could save the province $40 million and the municipality $10 million on its welfare rolls alone.

According to a recently leaked memo, the NDP Ministry of Community and Social Services will be cutting nearly $1 billion from such programs as women's shelters, children's aid societies, training for the disabled and home care for the elderly. Marion Boyd, like her predecessor, refuses to work with the municipalities on this initiative.

Treasurer, don't cut these programs; reduce the fraud and abuse in our welfare system. That's where you'll find the money to preserve our social services in this province.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I rise today to compliment the Treasurer and the Minister of Skills Development on the Jobs Ontario Training fund and the success it is having in my riding of Cambridge and in the regional municipality of Waterloo. In total, 2,000 new jobs are expected in the Waterloo region in the very near future because of this innovative program. Two important Cambridge employers, John Forsyth Co and Terra Plastics, have already received grants and are actively involved in working with the government to get people back to work.

The program is not just for big business. Many small businesses are taking advantage of Jobs Ontario as well. The Waterloo region is currently working with over 30 employers, who will create 60 new jobs through Jobs Ontario, and it has received calls from another 160 employers who want to be part of it.

The region, the employers, the people who will be employed as a direct result of this program of consultative partnership between government and business: Businesses are getting help in upgrading the skills of their workforce, the region is reducing the number of unemployed residents, workers are getting an opportunity to get back to work and learn new skills, and indeed many companies, large and small, are receiving a very timely stimulus.

Despite the criticisms of the opposition members, who are looking for overnight solutions, this program is working and it will prove to be an excellent investment for our most important resource, the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers. The Treasurer.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL HIGHWAY INITIATIVE

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was carried away with the enthusiasm of the member for Cambridge.

Last February, Premier Bob Rae urged first ministers to consider capital infrastructure projects that would stimulate economic renewal and create badly needed jobs. At the first ministers' conference on the economy on March 25, first ministers agreed that investing in infrastructure to create short-term and long-term economic benefits is a priority for Canada. The federal government has since proposed to the provinces a $14-billion national highway initiative, but the federal offer is both insufficient for economic renewal and unfair to Ontario.

First of all, it is too narrow in focus. The federal proposal falls well short of the broader infrastructure initiative suggested by Ontario and discussed by first ministers. First ministers agreed that forms of infrastructure other than highways, such as municipal infrastructure, information technologies and other types of traditional physical infrastructure, be looked at as well. Second, the first ministers emphasized the need to link infrastructure with the changing economy. The federal proposal does not do this. Third, the amount allocated to Ontario in the current federal proposal is unfair to the citizens of this province.

Ontario accounts for 37% of the population of Canada, Ontario taxpayers contribute 43% of federal revenues, yet under the federal proposal Ontario would only receive 15% of federal money. This was emphasized over and over again by our Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Gilles Pouliot, in Quebec City at a meeting of transportation ministers. Any program that offers New Brunswick more than $750 per capita, as this one does, and offers Ontario only $64 per capita is by anyone's standard clearly inequitable.

In addition, considering that 80% of the jobs lost in the recession have been in Ontario, a 15% share of a national job creation program for Ontario barely begins to meet our requirements.

1350

Of the $14 billion to be spent on upgrading Canada's national highways over 10 years under the federal proposal, $7 billion would have been spent by provinces anyway. The remaining $7 billion would be shared equally between the federal government and the provinces. For Ontario, this means $62 million annually in federal spending over the next 10 years. That is simply not enough. And the narrow focus on four-lane highways means that this investment may not go towards the most economically beneficial projects.

The federal proposal lacks a vision of what could be done to promote economic development. However, I should add parenthetically that the Prime Minister, in his comments last night to an important event, announced that he seemed to be having a broader vision of what was required, so we'll have to wait and see how events unfold.

Infrastructure such as public transit, roads and highways have long been important to economic development. It is for that reason that we must continually upgrade existing infrastructure. But we must also respond to the need for new kinds of infrastructure.

This government recognizes that in the emerging information-based economy, innovations in telecommunications benefit productivity in all parts of the economy. In today's world, infrastructure investment should include a substantial commitment to new information technologies.

We have already undertaken initiatives in many of these areas. But given the tremendous importance of these investments to people in all parts of the country and also given their costs, it is imperative that the federal government also be involved.

A national infrastructure initiative is badly needed, but it must be done properly. We must ensure that economic renewal is the number one priority of such a program. We ask that the federal government re-examine its offer in light of the economic needs of the country and of this province.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to respond. My opening comment would be, "Here we go again." It was just over a year ago that the Premier in the House said: "It may be politically convenient for both governments to take shots at each other, but the public interest demands cooperation. Finger-pointing is a luxury our economy cannot afford. We must improve the climate for jobs and investment and increase the level of trust between the economic partners." That was the Premier of Ontario a year ago.

I would just say that I think the people out there understand that the time of finger-pointing is over. We demand cooperation between the levels of government.

In the statement by the Treasurer, he also says, "The federal proposal lacks a vision of what could be done to promote economic development." I would say to the Treasurer that a year ago, in that same statement, the Premier said, "Renewing our economy must be the central focus of our work as a province," and he promised that you would have your economic renewal plan a year ago.

Then in the speech from the throne, which was again the Premier's text read by the Lieutenant Governor -- this was dated April 6 -- once again the Premier promised. He said, "My government has already launched an economic renewal plan," which we still have not seen, and, "There is no subject more important to the people of Ontario than getting our economy back to health." After that speech, we still haven't seen the economic renewal plan.

Mr Speaker, I think you'll remember, the Premier, right after the referendum debate, said, "We must now turn our attention to the economy," and again promised that we would see the economic renewal plan. We still have not seen it.

I would say to the Treasurer, we understand why you are mad at the federal government -- because it's convenient -- but to say that the federal proposal lacks a vision of what could be done to promote the economy -- and we have still to see your plan, the Premier's plan, for the economy.

Treasurer, you said in your budget plan that the whole idea of building jobs would be through your Ontario capital plan. I would say again, in the numbers that the Treasurer himself released just a week ago, we now see substantially less money spent in capital in the province of Ontario this year than last year. All we're saying to the government is, come clean with the people. There are no new jobs in the Ontario capital program. There is less money being spent in the capital program than last year.

Finally, regarding the promised plan by the Premier on economic renewal, we've seen two parts of it so far. We've seen two budgets, both of which are now proving to have been major mistakes, and we have seen the partnership bill, the bill that was going to establish better working relationships in the workplace. That was something called Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments. Never before have we seen the business community and the labour community so divided.

The Premier promised that we would see all of the training programs, something called OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. We have not even seen the legislation. We are months away from that legislation being passed in the House. It has not even been debated, not even introduced, and that was something the Premier promised. The Premier promised that we would see a whole section of venture capital funds. We haven't seen that.

I find it mildly hollow when the Treasurer attacks the federal government for lack of vision. We are waiting for the Premier's plans. He promised them a year ago in the speech that I've quoted. He promised them in the speech from the throne. He promised them after the referendum. All we've seen are two parts of the plan, neither of which is working, both of which are failing.

We insist, we demand that the Premier come forward with his economic renewal plan as soon as he returns from Japan. In the meantime, we appreciate the Treasurer attacking the federal government and attempting to get more money out of the federal government, but I would say to him that the people of Ontario took the Premier at his word when he said the time for finger-pointing is over, the time for cooperation is at hand.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Because the Treasurer's statement concerned roads, I want to use the remaining few moments of this to report to him, as the finance minister for this province, that in my part of eastern Ontario the concern that people have today about roads is that the winter maintenance budgets of the department of highways for the province of Ontario have been so constrained that the health and safety of the motoring public across Ontario, and particularly in my part of the province, are in jeopardy according to, among others, police officers --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Conway: -- who are reporting as recently as this weekend that those budgets are so constrained --

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

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): In reading the news release and hearing the Treasurer's statement today, I think it's ironic that we have heard in this Legislature so often that this recession is worldwide, North America-wide, Canada-wide, yet we see an admission in his statement that 80% of the jobs lost in this recession have been in Ontario. What more do we need from the Treasurer than an admission of the failure of his policies and the policies of this Ontario government?

Next, I'd like to say the headline of his press release reads: "Ontario asks Ottawa to Re-examine National Highway Program." We would like in this Legislature for this government to re-examine some of its own programs. Why don't you examine Bill 40 and the disastrous effect that it's having? Why don't you examine your Jobs Ontario program which has produced a wonderful 675 jobs, a billion-dollar program? Why don't you examine what OTAB is doing and not doing?

I think one of the worst parts of this kind of approach by a government at this time is the sad fact that during the late 1980s, neither our federal government nor our provincial government under the Liberals put away money for a rainy day. We are now in those rainy days. If we had put away money for those rainy days, if David Peterson had not increased spending at an alarming rate, we would have the money to undertake these programs on our own.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Norm, over there.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sterling: All the problems are not over there; a lot of the problems are to my right and are in the Liberal Party. They caused a lot of this spending.

1400

I'd like to say that my party has continued to say to this government, "Do not look to Ottawa for more programs." On any program that the national government brings forward Ontario pays a disproportionate share of a national program, yet we continue to have a Premier who is chagrined at the deal he's getting in this case but continues to call for additional national programs to spend money.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, they called for it.

Mr Sterling: We can guarantee you, Mr Treasurer, that on any national program you are going to get a raw deal. We are going to pay more than we get, so stop calling for the national government to spend more and more money. You have set forward a pattern and invited the federal government to put forward this program and now are angry because you're not getting a fair share. You are getting what you deserve in this case with regard to that.

Lastly, I want to say that I don't think that this government has been able to negotiate a fair share for Ontario with regard to this particular program.

The Speaker: Further response?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would like to add my comments to this. I would hardly think that this House needs to hear, in the words of the Treasurer, a lecture on capital financing and debt financing and programs to put this economy back on the right track. This is the capital program that you announced, where you said you spent $123 million so far this year of $500 million. Where's that program?

Jobs Ontario is a dismal flop -- $1 billion for 675 jobs. Now we have to listen to you, who have very difficult trouble with simple mathematics, start lecturing this House and the federal government on how to implement capital programs when you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, have been the biggest flop at introducing any of these programs -- the biggest flop.

So, Mr Speaker, pardon me if, when this Treasurer gets up and lectures anybody on finances, capital funding, I look at him as if he's got two heads, because I can't listen to these lectures any more.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome a very special visitor to our midst this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Right Honourable Bernard Weatherill, the former Speaker of the British House of Commons and now a distinguished member of the House of Lords. Welcome to our chamber.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Mr Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. I submit to you that my rights as a member of this Legislature generally and specifically as a member of an opposition party have been infringed. I feel that this is a matter of grave importance and I will provide you with the essential facts in order that you may be able to give it your careful consideration.

This breach of my privileges took place yesterday during a sitting of the standing committee on resources development, on which I sit as the Liberal Party whip. Our committee was dealing with a standing order 125 matter, which, as you know, Mr Speaker, is the only means by which any member of an opposition party can compel the government to consider a matter and hear from witnesses from whom the government would otherwise prefer not to hear.

Prior to yesterday's meeting, the resources development committee had requested that nine witnesses appear before us in connection with a 125 procedure invoked by a member of the third party. The purpose of our hearings was to inquire into the circumstances surrounding Al Holt's sudden departure as president of Ontario Hydro.

Eleven hours were set aside to hear from these witnesses. Because the committee had concerns relating to the witnesses' disclosure of certain information relating to Al Holt's severance package and also relating to discussions between members of Hydro's board of directors, we prudently obtained two independent legal opinions on this issue. Both legislative counsel and the Information and Privacy Commissioner advised our committee in writing that we had every right to obtain the information we were seeking from the witnesses and that there was no legal impediment in the way of our doing so.

Yesterday, however, we learned by way of letters from five witnesses that they were refusing to attend because they felt to do so would place them in breach of either a law or some contractual obligation.

The historical genesis of standing order 125 is most relevant to my point of privilege and I will touch on this briefly. My research has led me to conclude that standing order 125 formed an integral part of the rule changes passed with all-party support in this Legislature in 1989. Those rule changes were brought about after lengthy negotiations between the three parties, and the final package represented the removal of some of the traditional rights held by the opposition and a replacement of these rights by others.

Specifically, as compensation for a new time limit of 30 minutes on the ringing of bells, 15 minutes on the reading of daily petitions and the elimination of the right to challenge you, Mr Speaker, the opposition parties were awarded the right to invoke opposition days and a very important right to compel the government, through a standing committee, to consider any matter of any member's choosing. This last right was incorporated in standing order 123, lately renumbered as 125.

My research shows that it was never contemplated by the three parties that the exercise of this new 125 right by any opposition member could be deliberately thwarted by the government's refusal to take the necessary steps to ensure that the witnesses sought to be questioned appear before our committee.

In the resources development committee yesterday, the government members emasculated the process available to an opposition party under standing order 125. The government effectively said that we, as members of the opposition, can invoke the 125 procedure and request witnesses before us, but it will do nothing to compel those witnesses to attend.

Two motions supported by the opposition parties requested that you, as Speaker of this House, issue warrants to secure the attendance of these witnesses before our committee in keeping with your authority to do so. Both motions were defeated by the government members, notwithstanding that the second motion contained a provision that we, members of the opposition parties --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat for a moment. The member brings a very serious point to my attention and I would appreciate it if members would allow me the opportunity to hear him.

Mr McGuinty: I was saying that both motions were defeated by the government members, notwithstanding that the second motion contained a provision that we, members of the opposition parties, would ask no questions of the witnesses regarding Mr Holt's severance package.

It is also noteworthy that these motions were defeated, notwithstanding that the Chair of our committee, as you well know, retains the right to disallow questions he feels are inappropriate, and that our committee could, if necessary, move in camera to hear from witnesses on certain matters.

It has now become apparent that our committee will shortly receive written confirmation that none of the eight witnesses who were yet to appear before our committee will agree to attend. The net result is that although the Minister of Energy assured this House on November 2 that our "hearing would reveal all," out of a total of 11 scheduled hours of witnesses we will hear nothing more than the 53 minutes taken up yesterday by the minister himself.

Yesterday, the government effectively and in a very deliberate manner shut our committee's inquiry down. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that by any objective standard, in our committee yesterday my rights as a member of this Legislature and specifically my rights as a member of the opposition to compel the government to consider a matter under standing order 125 were denied.

There is another aspect of this matter, Mr Speaker, which is more subtle but worthy of your consideration because of its pernicious nature, and that is the following: As a result of yesterday's proceeding, the word is going forth from this Legislature that persons called to appear before a legislative committee need not appear if they choose not to. This word has it that one need only decline the invitation on the grounds that to do so would in some way place the witness in a difficult legal position.

I ask you to consider, Mr Speaker: Is it not for the legislative committees and this Legislature to decide whether there is any real basis for a witness's reluctance to appear? Is it not for the duly elected members of this House who sit on our committees to determine, after hearing from a witness in person, whether there are any valid grounds for refusing to appear and whether, if there be such grounds, there might not be some way to accommodate the witness's concerns by means which could include restricting our questions to certain areas and conducting our sittings in camera?

1410

Surely, Mr Speaker, you will agree that the ultimate authority for making these kinds of decisions rests with the Legislature and its committees and not with the witnesses themselves. If the people our parliamentary committee wishes to hear from refuse to appear before us and we do nothing about this, to whom are these people accountable?

I submit that the message our committee sent out yesterday is one which is contrary to the laws and traditions which have developed over centuries and which hold that in a parliamentary democracy Parliament is the supreme authority.

So I ask you to consider, Mr Speaker, that not only has my ability to exercise my rights fully under standing order 125 been infringed in this matter, but the very authority which has been carefully and purposely bestowed on our Legislature is now under attack.

I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the government's passive acquiescence in a decision by any witness, let alone eight, to refuse to appear when called to do so strikes at the very heart of this Legislature and the authority it legitimately wields. In this most fundamental way, Mr Speaker, my rights and the rights of each member of this House were also denied yesterday. I leave these matters for your careful and considered opinion.

The Speaker: On the same point?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I have on occasion come to you before and asked you to think about the difficulties of the minority in a Parliament where the committees are dominated by government members, as is the case in each of the committees. While my friend has not asked such to be considered, I might ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider what remedies you, on your own as Speaker, might have to assist the minority in carrying out the obligations and duties we have as opposition members.

In fact, when you consider, Mr Speaker, the fact that the 125 now is in the rules precisely so that opposition people can inquire into certain issues of their choosing, you might very well, Mr Speaker, ask yourself: If the government can veto every claim that the opposition has to inquire into or investigate issues, in its opinion, of importance, then it would appear that the government, as a result of its numbers, is violating the very nature of the standing order provisions.

With that in mind, Mr Speaker, I would ask you to consider the fact that you might very well, at the behest of a majority of the minority members on the committee -- ie, the opposition members -- issue Speaker's warrants to compel witnesses to come before the committee, thereby upholding the standing orders and thereby allowing the opposition its rights, under the standing orders, to investigate subjects of its desire in a real and effective way.

The Speaker: On the same point?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, if you permit me to add a few comments to, I think, some very valid points that have been raised by the honourable members who spoke previously, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that I was in the committee very briefly yesterday but I happened to be there when the vote was taking place.

I can tell you that the headline that appears under one article today in the Toronto Sun saying "Gagged By Hydro" would almost want to make any person who believes in democracy in the free world gag if they saw the exercise that the members of the government party went through yesterday in that committee.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you and beg your indulgence, under the point that's been raised by the honourable member, to look to section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act, because subsection 35(2), for example, says, "When the assembly requires the attendance of a person before the assembly or a committee thereof, the Speaker may issue a warrant directed to the person named in the order of the assembly requiring the person's attendance before the assembly or committee and the production of the papers and things as ordered."

As I say, I didn't sit through the entire proceedings yesterday, but it is my understanding that the committee did indeed request that these individuals appear and bring their documentation with them, and in fact these individuals refused.

It's my understanding that there were at least one, if not two, legal opinions sought, both of which concluded that there could be no reasonable grounds on which these people should refuse to appear before the committee. If they wanted to, they could bring their own solicitors, and their lawyers could advise them if they thought that there was anything improper or any line of questioning that was improper.

I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the committee indeed did request that these individuals attend and bring the required documentation with them, that these individuals have refused and that you now have the jurisdiction, and in fact I would submit to you, sir, with all due respect, the duty under section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act to issue a warrant and require these people to attend, because I think that was one of the greatest affronts to democracy I have ever seen that occurred in that committee yesterday.

For a party which, when it was in the opposition wilderness for year after year after year, cried and espoused the rights of free speech and talked about democratic procedures, does "New Democratic Party" mean that you get all your ducks lined up in committee and put a gag order on officials from Ontario Hydro and stop them from appearing before committee, to the detriment of not only the members here but the entire democratic system under which we supposedly operate?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Mr Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. I think you could interpret section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act in two ways.

You might interpret it as saying that it would need a majority of the people in this Legislature or a majority of the people in a committee to issue a warrant to compel a witness in front of it.

Surely, Mr Speaker, I think it's important that you, as the first elected Speaker of this Legislature and as the first truly independent Speaker of this Legislature, look at this particular part of the act, which I don't believe has been used very often in this Legislature, if ever. I'm not certain. I know that it was threatened in and around the early part of 1981, but I do not know of any particular circumstance where it was used.

Surely the rule or that particular section cannot be there to protect the majority government from proper investigation into matters which that government is involved in. Surely the Legislative Assembly Act, which is stronger than our standing orders in terms of giving individual members rights, should be interpreted as saying that if a legislative committee asks for a witness and is refused by the witness, and then one member of that legislative committee requests of you or one member of this Legislative Assembly requests of you the opportunity to question that witness, you should grant that warrant.

The Speaker: To the members for Ottawa South, Bruce, Parry Sound and Carleton, I first will tell you that I'm very pleased to consider the matters that you have brought to my attention. The member for Ottawa South has identified a number of concerns and I'll be very pleased to examine each one of them in some detail and very carefully. I must commend him on his presentation, both thorough and thoughtful.

I will take the opportunity to clarify two matters. First, indeed there has been a Speaker's warrant issued during this Parliament, at the request of a committee. Second, to my knowledge, I've not received to date a request, from the committee to which the member refers, to issue a warrant, if there was some confusion with respect to that.

The larger point that has been raised, by the member for Bruce particularly, is one that I wish to deliberate on. May I say in closing that the matters the members speak of are serious. I take them as serious, and I will take a look at this as quickly as possible and try to get back to you as soon as possible. I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Point of privilege, the member for Algoma.

Hon Mr Wildman: It's just a small point, but I'm sure that my friend the member for Carleton did not wish to give the impression that your predecessors in that chair were not independent. While I respect your independence and the new process, I would hope that none of us in this House would want to cast aspersions on your predecessors in the chair as Speaker.

1420

Mr Eves: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: I would ask that you take under advisement the fact that this committee normally sits on Monday and Wednesday afternoons, to the best of my understanding. If you intend, which you have indicated that you do, to think about this for a while, and I think that's very appropriate, I would ask that the activities of this committee be suspended so that the clock in effect is not running on the 12 hours under standing order 125 until at least you've rendered a decision in this matter.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound has managed to give me something else to think about. I can tell him that while it's my intention to deal with this matter, of course the proper decision is more important than the speed with which it is made.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, may I say I appreciate your consideration of the point of privilege raised by the member for Ottawa South and I concur with you that it was a thorough, thoughtful and indeed a very serious point of privilege. I would like to follow it now with a question to the Minister of Energy.

Yesterday, the Minister of Energy appeared before a committee of this Legislature to explain his involvement in the firing of Al Holt, the former president of Ontario Hydro. The committee received a letter from Mr Holt which noted "the Hydro board's decision to request me to retire from my position as president." In answering the committee's questions yesterday, the minister again refused to admit that Mr Holt was fired.

I find it incredible that a minister of the crown would refuse to acknowledge what has now become a matter of public record, and I ask the minister, when will he simply acknowledge that Mr Holt was indeed fired and correct the obvious contradictions between his past statements in this House and the reality of what actually happened?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): It would be useful if the leader of the official opposition were to refer to the entire record of yesterday's proceedings.

The opposition is at liberty, if it wishes, to refer to the matter as a firing. The motion that was passed by the board of directors of Ontario Hydro, as I've been led to understand, did nothing more than give authority to the chair of Ontario Hydro to enter into discussions with the then president about a mutually agreeable retirement. If those discussions had led to no mutually acceptable conclusion, there was no finality to that motion and the matter would have again had to reside with the board of Ontario Hydro.

I maintain the comments I've made throughout. My understanding from the chair and from the board members and from the minutes of the Hydro board meeting are that Mr Holt was not fired.

Mrs McLeod: The minister suggests that I refer to the record. Let me refer to yet another record. The minister will surely remember, as is recorded in Hansard, that in responding to some of my earlier questions about Mr Holt's departure, he assured me, "There will be a hearing on this matter in the resources committee and I think that hearing will reveal all."

As the minister is well aware, almost all the witnesses the committee has called have refused to appear, based on legal advice from Ontario Hydro, and the only witness who did show up, the minister himself, continued his line of claiming ignorance of all the issues.

Far from revealing all, this committee is being prevented from revealing anything. I would ask the minister, why does this government want to suppress the testimony of Hydro witnesses? What are you trying to hide?

Hon Mr Charlton: The Leader of the Opposition again blurts out her own contradictions. She didn't listen very closely to the member for Ottawa South, who very clearly this afternoon put on the record the circumstances under which the other witnesses did not appear. This minister and the government have had no contact with the witnesses the committee requested. Those witnesses, each individually, have chosen not to appear, based on legal advice which they've had. I have no connection with that set of events.

Mrs McLeod: This minister's responses and yesterday's antics are just one more example of this government's abuse of power. This is not just about witnesses refusing to appear before a committee. This is about a government which promised openness and accountability and which is using every means at its disposal to hide the truth. This is about a government, I remind the minister, that passed a law giving it direct control over Ontario Hydro now claiming it is not responsible for what's going on at Hydro.

The public has a right to know what is going on. The public has a right to know who is responsible and who is accountable for Ontario Hydro. I ask this minister once again, why are you afraid to let the people of this province know what is going on? Will you today ask your colleagues on that committee to stop their obstruction and let us call the witnesses so that we can all find out the truth?

Hon Mr Charlton: The Leader of the Opposition's appalling lack of concern for any individuals is not acceptable to me. The government has appeared, the minister has appeared before the committee. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act there is a process her colleagues can follow to find out and determine in absolute terms what's releasable and what is not. But what the opposition is doing is asking that individuals who have received legal advice that they may violate the law if they reveal certain information, take that responsibility unto themselves as individuals.

The opposition, if it wants to pursue these matters, has the right to make requests under the freedom of information legislation in this province and to have the commissioner rule on what can be released and what cannot. That responsibility should not be shifted on to individuals who may in fact be violating the law by releasing it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: I think I will let that particular record stand on its own merits. I'd simply remind the minister, as was pointed out by the member for Ottawa South, that the freedom of information commissioner was consulted about the calling of committee witnesses.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Treasurer. Last winter the Treasurer told hospitals, colleges, universities, school boards and municipalities that he was announcing their funding, not for one year, but for the next three years. The very firm commitment he made to those transfer partners for three years of funding was intended to assist them in the kind of planning and restructuring he expected them to carry out. We are now beginning to hear that the Treasurer's promise of the increase of 2% for next year is not going to be kept.

I would ask the Treasurer very directly, will he put an end today to these concerns we're hearing from colleges, universities, school boards and hospitals across this province? Will he assure them that his promise of a 2% increase is in fact going to be kept?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Thanks to the leader of the official opposition for this opportunity to deal with some of the rumours, which I've heard too, that the commitment we made back in the spring for a 1% increase in transfer payments for this year, 2% next year and 2% the following year would be in place -- there is no question whatsoever that the revenue problems of the province, which I've detailed on other occasions here, are causing us very serious problems with funding virtually everything for which we are responsible in the province.

I believe the leader of the official opposition would understand we're not the only province or the only jurisdiction that's having that kind of difficulty. I know as well that she and her colleagues are for ever fretting about the size of the deficit and about the amount of tax increases we might impose in the province.

The leader of the official opposition is quite appropriately raising the question of that commitment. We will be making an announcement much earlier than in previous years. We'll be making the announcement by the end of this month, which I've promised in the past to the transfer agencies, of just how much we'll be able to transfer to them from the taxpayers of the province.

1430

Mrs McLeod: So you're not going to keep your promise.

Mr Treasurer, you will be well aware that municipalities, school boards, colleges and universities and hospitals are now trying to finalize those budgets for next year. They were trying to finalize budgets based on your promise of a 2% increase. They've been told that they have to provide a budget plan by November 30 and yet they've been given absolutely no indication of what their resources will be and, clearly, no confirmation from you today that they can expect the 2% that was promised.

I ask the Treasurer to say very clearly when are you going to tell the transfer agencies exactly what they can expect in financing from your government in this current year and how you can expect the schools, the colleges, the universities and the hospitals to do any kind of a plan in this absolutely chaotic environment that you've now created for them.

Hon Mr Laughren: There's nothing chaotic in the environment except in the mind of the leader of the official opposition; absolutely nothing.

All I've tried to say to the leader of the official opposition is that by the end of the month all of our major transfer partners will know what is being transferred to them. I am not saying today that it will be 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%. I'm just saying that whatever it is will be conveyed to our transfer partners by the end of this month.

There's nothing more to read into that than simply we'll be making that announcement at the end of the month. The leader of the official opposition can draw whatever conclusion she wants. The fact is the announcement will be made by the end of the month.

Mrs McLeod: How soon they conveniently forget their very own words. Treasurer, you made the announcement when you said, "For three years, there will be 0%, 2% and 2%." The transfer agencies are expecting the 2% you promised. They're not waiting for you to announce it will be somewhere between zero and something else.

I remind you that last winter you told those transfer partners that they had to look for innovative solutions to solving their financial problems. They have all been trying to cut costs without cutting essential services. They have accepted the tough reality that you gave them a year ago and said they would work with that reality to try to carry out the kinds of changes that you were demanding they make. Now they don't know whether your part of the bargain still holds.

I ask, Treasurer, why did you even create completely false expectations about the level of funding that would come from the next two years, and what are you now saying to the school boards, colleges and universities, hospitals and municipalities who took you at your word and tried to do what you told them to do?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is the leader of the official opposition jumping to conclusions once again. I simply say to the leader of the official opposition, by the end of the month I will make a statement in the Legislature which will either confirm the 2% that was announced earlier in the year or announce some deviation from that.

I think for the leader of the official opposition to read more into that than simply the timing of the announcement is not doing herself any service, or anybody else out there in the province of Ontario, and I think perhaps she should listen to her seatmate, the member for Renfrew North, who said not long ago:

"For the next few years, we're all going to have to tighten our belts and find new ways to provide services. Neither this government nor any successive government is going to wave a magic wand and create substantial new grants to the public institutions."

What the member for Renfrew North --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Allow me to translate that for some of the members here. What the member for Renfrew North is saying is that the days of spending like a drunken sailor of the 1980s that his government engaged in are gone for ever.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today the Speaker has been put in a rather compromising, difficult position, a position that there's no necessity for, I would suggest to you, regarding the committee hearings into the dismissal of the president of Ontario Hydro.

Late yesterday afternoon the NDP members on the resources committee voted against a motion to subpoena witnesses who had refused to attend these hearings. Deputy Premier, I'm not certain that motion was required. We will find that out when the Speaker rules in due time.

None the less, I would ask you to consider this: Without getting into the specifics of the case, the precedent that is being set here, these are witnesses who have shown absolute contempt for the highest authority in Ontario, the Legislature, and a committee of the Legislature they were asked to appear before. When that occurs -- which is very rare but it does occur -- that is why the Legislature has the authority to subpoena witnesses.

I would ask you this in the absence of the Premier: Can you tell me why your caucus colleagues were obviously instructed to try and shut down these hearings by not allowing the committee to compel witnesses to appear?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): As I set out in an earlier response to the leader of the official opposition --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Slowly, Brian, carefully.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: As I set out in my earlier response, the members of the opposition parties were made fully aware of the legal opinion which was given to those witnesses by the counsel for Ontario Hydro, a legal opinion which suggested that each and every one of them might be liable for breaches of the law if they testified.

Both of the opposition parties have a process by which they can pursue the legality of the release of that information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They have the right to request the commissioner to review that question and to determine what can and what cannot be released. That is a process they've had access to ever since the legislation was passed. For the opposition to be putting the responsibility of potential legal liability on individuals is unacceptable.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I don't think my question had anything to do with the Minister of Energy and I would ask you to rule on whether it was appropriate to refer it.

The Speaker: I allowed the question to be redirected because it had to do with the subject matter of the committee, and indeed an earlier question on the same topic was directed directly to the Minister of Energy. The member may wish to now place his supplementary.

Mr Harris: In spite of the fact that it has nothing to do with the Minister of Energy, since you are a member of the cabinet and have now been delegated to respond to this coverup, let me quote you, Mr Minister. You said, "There will be a hearing on this matter in the resources committee in two weeks and I think that hearing will reveal all."

Mr Minister, the purpose of the freedom of information act is not to supplant or circumvent or take the place of the Legislative Assembly's right to hear from witnesses directly. It is not your duty as minister, it is not any individual member's duty, to counsel members of the public on what questions they should or should not answer once they appear. They have counsel. They can refuse to answer questions on certain grounds. That is their right. All we're asking is the right of the Legislative Assembly, the highest authority in Ontario, to request witnesses to appear before it.

Mr Minister, without getting into the specifics of the case, the individuals are pretty big people. They take care of you every day over in Hydro; they can take care of themselves on what they should say. I would ask you this again: Why have you or your cabinet or your Premier or your House leader or somebody over there instructed the members of your committee to cover up this investigation by telling them to deny the committee, the Legislature, the democratic right, the reason they were elected --

The Speaker: Could the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- to be able to subpoena the witnesses to appear before them? Why are you doing that?

Hon Mr Charlton: This government and this minister have not pursued any coverup. First of all, this minister appeared before the committee and honestly answered all questions that were put to him. Those witnesses who did not appear did not appear because of personal legal advice that they individually had received and chose to listen to. I've set out twice in this House now the process by which the opposition should be pursuing the information that they want to gain. That's the process they should follow.

1440

Mr Harris: I'm sorry, but by way of supplementary, it was you, Mr Minister, who said the committee would get to the bottom of this; it would get the facts. Mr Holt says, "Ontario Hydro has advised me that it expects me to abide by the terms of our agreement, and that voluntary testimony before the standing committee...could potentially expose me...."

We are asking you to subpoena him and the other board members and anybody else that the committee unanimously recommended. It will not then be voluntary, and he can have counsel there to judge what he should reveal and what he should not reveal.

I would ask you this, Minister: We have a president of Ontario Hydro who was requested to retire. We have a board of directors, members, who are refusing to appear. We have a minister of the crown -- you, sir -- accused of misleading the House. We have all of these to get to the bottom to, and you tell us that the legislative committee will find out all; it will discover all.

Can you tell me again why you have instructed the members, your members on the committee, to cover up for these witnesses who have snubbed the highest authority in the province? They have snubbed it by refusing to appear. Why again are you covering this up? What have you got to hide?

Hon Mr Charlton: The Minister of Energy has nothing to hide. The members across the way, in their partisan approach to this issue, have lost the words to the motion which was put under the 125, which was supposed to be a motion delving into my involvement in the process, not into the retirement package of Mr Holt, which is a private personnel matter between the board of directors and that former president of Ontario Hydro. No corporation, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The opposition members have strayed from their purpose. No corporation, either in the private sector or in the public sector, airs and washes its personnel matters in public. It's a right of every board to deal with those matters in private. The issue which the opposition set out to pursue, which was my involvement in the process, I have no problem discussing anywhere at any time.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I'll tell you, you're going to rue the day you put this gag order on and you refused to compel witnesses to appear before the committee of the Legislature when they are snubbing the highest authority in this province.

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is for the Treasurer. Recently, Mr Treasurer, officials in your ministry told the Globe and Mail that they looked forward to Bill Clinton's election as US president. "Ontario Officials Look South for Policy Vindication" read part of the headline. As you know, Treasurer, Mr Clinton's economic policy, which you so heartily endorse, calls for a "significant tax cut for middle-income earners as a means of kickstarting the United States out of recession."

Treasurer, seeing as how you and your officials seem to support the idea of a tax cut for the US middle class, when can we expect your announcement of a similar measure for the hard-pressed taxpayers of your own province, who, by the way, are already paying substantially higher taxes than the US middle-income taxpayer?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Mr Speaker, the thoughts of -- the --

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Um, um, um, um. What a good point, eh, Floyd?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Let me think about it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: There was a day in this House when you were allowed to collect your thoughts before speaking, but I see that's not allowed any more.

The Speaker: I'm not sure when those days were, but perhaps you could allow the Treasurer to complete his response.

Hon Mr Laughren: I actually did have my thoughts collected a minute ago, but I've forgotten what they were again.

The leader of the third party is pressing once again, and I must say that he's consistent in this regard, keeping up his reputation as the tax fighter, keeping up his pressure to cut taxes in the province, but I would say to the leader of the third party, as I've said on other occasions, that reducing the revenues in the province at a time when we're already under siege with our revenues simply makes no economic sense whatsoever. If you really think that cutting taxes would mean new revenues and a new stimulant to the economy that would make up for those lost revenues, I hope you'll explain to me why it didn't happen in the United States when your friend Ronald Reagan tried it back in 1980.

Mr Harris: Contrary to what you have done, ie, you hiked taxes on those making $20,000 a year or more in your last budget, the fact is that some of the leading economists in the United States urged Mr Clinton to enact middle-income tax cuts to stimulate the economy. They have recognized that you cannot hope to rescue a modern economy from recession by taxing the huge purchasing power of the broad middle class half to death. They understand that if you do tax people half to death, you kill the economy right along with them as well. They know you can't expect people to spend and invest and you can't expect the economy to grow if you rob the middle class, that broad group of people, of the power to spend and invest by taxing them to death. That's what the economists advised Mr Clinton, and that's what Mr Clinton decided to do and to campaign on, and evidently you admired that economic program he brought forward.

Treasurer, I would ask you this: Given that your friends in Ottawa have negotiated economic ties and free trade with the United States, can you explain to me why our middle class in Ontario is not going to be given an opportunity to compete with the middle class in the United States?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party really is engaging in flights of fancy at this point in his political career. I was just browsing through the newspaper the other day, and I read a headline that says, "Tory Tax Hikes Called Unprecedented" -- this is federal -- "Changes since 1984 have added $3,115 to Ontario Family's '92 Taxes, Study Says."

I heard the federal Minister of Finance being asked a question the other day about why he would not reduce the GST or eliminate the GST or phase out the GST, and he replied that the room on the revenue side simply didn't allow him to do that. It is old-fashioned, discredited thinking if you think the way to stimulate the economy is simply to have a tax cut and that will look after the lost revenues. That would raise the deficits to what I think are unprecedented levels in this province, and we're not prepared to do that.

1450

Mr Harris: Listen, you can duck and dodge all you want. You can argue about whether Mulroney taxes more than you or you tax more than Mulroney, but you can't condemn him for tax hikes and say your tax hikes are okay. They're both wrong. They're both coming at the wrong time and we all know it. Canadians know it and they're going to express that at the next federal election and they will express it in the next provincial election. You know that and I know that. We know that, so you can duck and you can dodge all you like.

The fact of the matter is this: I have told you where you could find the money. You can take your failed billion-dollar program that's not working and you can cut taxes a billion without increasing the deficit one cent. I suggest to you that surely you must have enough evidence today that you cannot tax and borrow and spend your way to economic recovery. You have tried this through two budgets, the Liberals tried it, but that will not work.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Harris: So I ask you this, Mr Treasurer: Given that we're already the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America, that we have no more tax capacity -- as you say, we have no more borrowing capacity -- will you abandon your ridiculous approach of trying to spend your way out of this recession, and will you bring in tax cuts similar to those proposed by Mr Clinton before he does so we can stay on a more level playing field with our neighbours to the south?

Hon Mr Laughren: Once again, I'll try not to be provocative in my response. However, in his question, the leader of the third party raises a question in my mind that has to be answered. I can't answer it; only the leader of the third party can answer it. Because of his condemnation of the federal government and its tax policies, is it now confirmed that Michael Harris will be campaigning for Preston Manning in the next federal election?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You did say you wouldn't be provocative.

Hon Mr Laughren: But, Mr Speaker, the trouble with the Conservative Party's position is that not only does it want us to reduce our revenues through tax decreases, which would be very nice to do but doesn't deal with the problem of the deficit, but his party also does not want us to get our fair share of revenues from the federal government.

His colleague the member for Carleton said today that the 15% the federal government offers on a national highway initiative is enough for us. The member for Etobicoke West --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Would you let me finish?

Interjections.

The Speaker: We require help on both sides of the House. If the members would come to order and if the Treasurer will be succinct in his response, then we can move on.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm trying to show the contradictions, because the third party, the Conservative Party, is saying we should reduce our revenues by reducing taxes. At the same time, the member for Carleton and the member for Etobicoke West, on that much-watched program -- well, a few people watch Focus Ontario; I saw it myself. The member for Etobicoke West said the federal government had no intention of giving us the fiscal stabilization program money to which we're entitled, and he said, "and they had no right to get."

The Speaker: Would the Treasurer complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the leader of the third party believes, as his colleague does, that we have no right to that money, let him stand in his place and say so.

The Speaker: New question, the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of --

The Speaker: Point of privilege, the member for Carleton.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. A point of privilege was raised.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): The Treasurer indicated that I had said the 15% was adequate. I said, and he will check with Hansard, "Ontario negotiated a lousy deal with our federal government." Interpret that the way you would, Mr Treasurer.

The Speaker: The member has a point of debate, not privilege. The member for Renfrew North with his question.

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm particularly pleased to be able to put a question to the chairman of the treasury board, the provincial Treasurer. I want to say at the outset of my question that I certainly appreciate the dire straits in which the finance minister finds himself with respect to the ongoing recession in this province. I can well appreciate the Hobson's choice he has as he looks at the fall and winter of this particular fiscal year.

With that in mind, and having regard to what he said I said not long ago, which is absolutely accurate, let me be specific about one particular provincial agency that he might care to do something about against the backdrop of these tough times. What does the Treasurer, the chairman of the treasury board, think about the following proposal from the Workers' Compensation Board?

According to the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, a decision has been taken in recent weeks that the board will move by 1995 to acquire new office space. The Workers' Compensation Board is going to take 525,000 square feet in Simcoe Place at a cost of $200 million, or $380 per square foot, at a time in this city, Metropolitan Toronto, when we have 27 million square feet of excess commercial space at an average retail price of $20 per square foot.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the question. I am concerned about it and have asked that arrangements be made for a meeting with myself and WCB officials.

Mr Conway: I appreciate that response, and I assume that the Treasurer and the chairman of treasury board, faced with the very severe budgetary pressures we all know he has, is going to order a stop to any move of a provincial agency or department that would cost the taxpayers $200 million, or $380 per square foot, at a time when there are 27 million square feet of available space at an average cost of $20 per square foot. It seems to me incredible that any public sector agency, no matter how pressed, could imagine spending those kinds of dollars under these conditions.

Will the chairman of the treasury board give this House an assurance that, either today or very shortly, he will come back to this place and say that the Workers' Compensation Board is staying put and is going to make do with the facilities it has and we are not going to burden the economy of this province, either the injured workers or the employers' association, with these kinds of outrageous and untimely costs?

Hon Mr Laughren: As always, the silver-tongued yet dyspeptic dilettante from Renfrew North has put his question very well. I would make a commitment to respond directly to the member for Renfrew North.

TVONTARIO EMPLOYEE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. A member of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, known as NABET, received a letter from Margarette Kaszecki-Pyron, vice-president of the NABET region 7 and an employee at TVOntario. This letter, which solicited NABET members' support in a union election, arrived in a TVOntario envelope that is metered and dated November 13, 1992. I have sent across to the member copies of the letter and the envelope. This NABET candidate used TVOntario stationery, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, for her union campaign activities. It appears that TVO is endorsing this candidate. It is even possible that TVO paid the postage for this mailing.

Minister, you are responsible for ensuring that TVO is accountable to the people of Ontario. Do you approve of this candidate's use of TVO materials and facilities for union campaigning?

1500

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I thank the member for her question. This is the first time I have seen this. The member is correct that TVOntario is an agency of the ministry. I will take this up with the chair of the board. I understand that there was a letter from Steve Droz, who is the manager of industrial and talent relations, regarding this. I will, as I mentioned, take this up and get back to the member.

Mrs Marland: I wish I could tell this House that this is an isolated incident, but it is not. In November 1990, Local 700 of NABET filed a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board about the campaigning activities of this same candidate for the NABET executive, Margarette Kaszecki-Pyron.

I have a copy of a letter dated February 25, 1991, to the OLRB from TVO, which is signed by Steven Droz, manager of industrial and talent relations and it says, and I will read you the quote:

"TVOntario admits that some election material was distributed on behalf of Margarette Kaszecki-Pyron along with the paycheques of some members of NABET Local 700 during the week of November 5, 1990. TVOntario further admits that while unintentional, it was an unwarranted intrusion into the administration of the trade union to have permitted that material to be distributed with some employees' paycheques."

TVOntario also agreed to post an apology for a period of 45 days.

So this is the second incident with the same employee.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's question?

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, my question is this: Minister, neither Ms Kaszecki-Pyron nor TVO has learned a lesson from the first incident. It seems that TVO is still permitting her to use its stationery and equipment for her union election campaign. What will you do to ensure that this situation can never happen again?

Hon Mrs Haslam: As I've said, I will speak with the chair of TVO, Mr Herrndorf. It is an agency of the ministry and, as such, the board will obviously be aware of the situation. I will speak directly to him and I will get back to the member.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Housing with a response to a question asked earlier.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Yesterday I undertook to get further information for the leader of the Conservative Party concerning the announcement I made yesterday on our new energy conservation and fuel switching program.

I'd like to let him know that the figures that have been used in the information we have provided publicly are based on a 1987 study by Clayton Research Associates related to the employment levels generated by conservation and renovation work. That includes direct, indirect and induced jobs. There are jobs in many fields related to this work.

The estimate is based on a formula that says that $100,000 worth of work generates three person-years of employment. The exact employment figures that will be associated with this program are very difficult to estimate. We have made an estimate that we will be looking at about 1,100 person-years of work, but it will depend very much on the projects that come to us through the proposal call, which is going out immediately.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Since really what we're talking about is straight guesswork about what jobs may or may not be created, I would ask the minister two things. Number one, since most of your projections on job creation from your government are half or a third or a tenth or 1/50th of what you actually told us when you announced the program, will you report to the House how many jobs are actually created on a project-by-project basis, not each individually but at an interval, let's say, of six-month or three-month periods?

Secondly, since your estimates seem so ridiculous, will you guarantee that the men and women who will be working on these construction projects will be paid fair wages?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I consider that last question to be an insulting question, but I would be very pleased to provide a continuing report to the House on the number of jobs involved. The member will recognize that some of those jobs included in the estimates which I've provided are jobs which will be occurring because of this program, not directly related to construction within the program.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Deputy Premier. Mr Deputy Premier, is it the policy of your government to promote the borrowing of money to buy lottery tickets in this province?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): Not to my knowledge.

Mr Elston: I have here a circular from the Ontario Lottery Corp which includes in it a registration form that says people can spend up to and probably over $520 at one time and they can use their VISA cards or their MasterCards to buy lottery tickets to give away at Christmas time. I want to know from the Deputy Premier why his government has promoted the use of plastic borrowing apparatuses so that people can gamble away money before they have earned it.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure that I would buy into the language the member is using on what characterizes borrowing and what characterizes simply --

Mr Elston: You use a MasterCard to buy lottery tickets.

Hon Mr Laughren: Would you let me answer the question? I'll try to answer the question. I'm not sure what the member is saying. Buying lottery tickets with a VISA card surely is an alternative way of paying for the tickets. It doesn't mean you have to go out and borrow money. You could pay it off the next day. It seems to me a matter of convenience as an alternative method of paying. I don't see why the member would be upset about that.

CROP INSURANCE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): In the absence of the minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Villeneuve: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I will ask the Treasurer a question; it has to do with crop insurance. I'm sure the Treasurer is aware of the very poor growing conditions that we had in Ontario this year and the lack of heat units for growing purposes. Particularly hard hit are our corn producers.

The situation now is that the crop insurance is telling our corn producers that they should wait for any claim until they have harvested the crop. We've had severe wind storms and we now have snow and the harvesting is going to be almost impossible. These farmers have paid the premiums for coverage. They need cash flow. The corn crop that's out there is grading number 5 or inferior. There's no market and there's no home for it.

Mr Treasurer, could you not tell these farmers, "Do whatever you want with your crop; it is a write-off"? They've paid the premiums. They need the cash flow. They're not likely to get the harvesting done this year. Please provide some leadership here.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): The member for Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville asks a most appropriate question. It is my understanding that in order to apply and receive crop insurance funds, the crop must be harvested in order to know what it is. I stand to be corrected on that, but that was my understanding, and that those rules are set by the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario, which is a federal-provincial agency, and that the minister of agriculture for the province of Ontario is aware of this, as is the member, and that they're trying to work with the crop commission to see if there is a solution to the problem, because I believe it is a legitimate problem.

1510

Mr Villeneuve: Mr Treasurer, an advance payment is a must in any event, because the quality of the crop right now is such that the feed dealers are not looking for grade 5 or inferior corn, the mould and the microtoxins have already infested, and the chances are that very little of this crop will be harvested in any event. So please allow them to write off.

Secondly, we're going to be faced with more than 50% of this year's corn crop in that particular situation. I want you to assure our farmers, who've paid their premiums, that the crop insurance will indeed be there, and honour their financial commitment to agriculture.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do understand what the member's saying, at least I think I do: that it costs more to harvest the crop than it would be worth in the end, so that it does pose a particular problem. I think, as well, that the member would appreciate -- and I don't mean this to be passing the buck -- that it does have to be worked out between the federal and the provincial governments with the crop commission. I will speak to the minister of agriculture, but I know that he and his parliamentary assistant, Mr Paul Klopp, have already been doing some work on that, but I'll make sure that that's reinforced.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Solicitor General. In my riding of York East there are quite a large number of constituents living in older apartments and many of these constituents have expressed concerns about the safety systems during a power failure. I would like to know what provisions have been made in the fire code to ensure that when a fire occurs and there is also power failure people in low-rise and high-rise apartments can find their way to safety.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): As members of the House know, on October 7 I made certain announcements which are now in effect with respect to these fire safety regulations. The regulations required high-rise residential buildings to have emergency power supply for fire alarm and voice communication systems and to provide lighting in exits, stairs and public corridors for at least two hours to ensure residents can find their way to safety. In low-rise buildings containing more than 24 people or 10 dwelling units, emergency power to light stairwells and corridors must be provided for at least 30 minutes to ensure residents can safely exit those particular buildings.

Mr Malkowski: Supplementary: How long will property owners have to comply with the new regulations?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We attempted to balance the concerns of both residents and building owners, and in an effort to do that we provided a two-year phase-in period for this particular regulation. We will allow, in certain unusual circumstances, if there are unforeseen circumstances, the chief fire official to grant an extension to that time frame if it becomes necessary. But, as I say, the rule of thumb with respect to this will be an approximate two-year phase-in period.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP LEGISLATION

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General will know that the provisions of the Advocacy Act, which is soon to come before the House in committee of the whole and for third reading, create a new investigative structure in Ontario. The act will entitle a person, who doesn't necessarily have to identify himself or herself, to enter a public hospital at any time of the day or night to conduct a search. Many people believe that those provisions contravene section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Will the Attorney General refer the search provisions of this bill to the Court of Appeal for an opinion before the bill is enacted as to its constitutionality?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): The member identifies one area of the Advocacy Act which has led to some controversy. She will know that this has been the subject of some discussion before the committee, which has at various times over the last year examined the Advocacy Act and the whole list of legislation which is tied together with the Advocacy Act. I can only say that while she obviously holds one view of the legislation, that view is not shared by legal counsel in the Ministry of Citizenship and is not shared by legal counsel elsewhere in the government, and we see no need at this time for any reference.

Mrs Sullivan: The Attorney General speaks with some understatement when he speaks about areas of controversy surrounding this bill and the companion bills, the consent to treatment and substitute decisions bills.

I want to refer back to this particular issue because the Attorney General will remember that less than two years ago a man wandered around the Hospital for Sick Children. His intent was to molest children who were within that hospital. That hospital can only respond to such intruders by using the Trespass to Property Act. Hospitals across Ontario rely on that act to ensure that only people who are involved in providing health services to a patient or people whom the patient specifically wants to see have access to the patient.

Bill 74 would allow a person who is not a part of the health care team, who is not family, to be wherever a patient is, including in the operating room, with or without the patient's consent. No warrant is necessary. There's nothing to stop that person from intruding at the most intimate of times. In fact, hospital personnel may be charged for not allowing the person to enter a patient's room or other area of the hospital. There is only one point to the forced entry and that is to conduct a search.

Will the Attorney General -- and I'm asking him again -- respond to the demands of health care workers and hundreds and hundreds of other people across Ontario who believe that this bill authorizes a massive invasion of privacy, creates a danger in a public hospital setting and is unconstitutional? Once again, will the AG refer the search provisions to the appeal court for an opinion now, or is he going to wait until this law is challenged in court and he loses?

Hon Mr Hampton: I can only say again that while the member has her particular perspective on this issue, that perspective is not shared by others, and it is not felt that the degree of intrusion that this member believes exists -- that view is not shared and there does not seem to be a need for reference at this time.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation responsible for the Ontario Lottery Corp. On November 4, the member for Mississauga West introduced a private member's bill which would restrict the sale of lottery tickets to individuals under 18 years of age, to children, Mr Speaker. Our Progressive Conservative caucus supports the principle of that bill and we would like to see that bill passed this afternoon.

The Ontario Lottery Corp Pro Line Select lottery is obviously designed directly for children. The marketing campaign directly appeals to children under 18. They bet on their favourite sports team. Thousands and thousands of dollars every single day, as long as the minister is delaying, are bet on sports teams by children. My question to the minister is this: Why are you dragging your feet? Do you support the concept of children gambling?

Hon Ed Philip (Acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation): No, I don't support the concept of children gambling and I don't think any member of the House does. I think for the member to ask that question then says more about him than about anything else.

I'm prepared to support the bill of the member for Mississauga West. That bill will come forward in the regular way in which private members' bills come forward. If there's any way in which our House leaders can get together and move that bill forward, I'd be happy to both speak on it and support the bill. But I think we should put it in some context. There are five provinces that have sports lotteries. None of them have legislation of the kind that has been asked for. There have only been six --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Philip: The opposition obviously want to grandstand on this. They don't want to do something about it. That's why they won't let me answer the question, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that I will support the bill. We will move forward with it as quickly as we can and we will be the first province that has it in legislation.

I can tell you also that there have only been six complaints about that particular matter in the province. It is not a widespread problem, and I think the parents have some responsibility as well for what their children do with their money.

1520

Mr Arnott: I was the minister's critic for Transportation. I'd forgotten about the personal cheap shots he employs.

I would ask him, in supplementary, will he then support allowing unanimous consent to be presented in this House to pass Bill 92 today?

Hon Mr Philip: Unlike that party --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Come on. Yes, yes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat. The member for Markham is definitely out of order. The member has asked a question and I assume he would like a response. I would ask the members to be quiet so that he can hear a response.

Hon Mr Philip: The House leaders make those decisions. It is not my role to be both Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Minister of Tourism and Recreation and government House leader at the same time. Maybe that's how the Liberal Party operates, with several House leaders; maybe that's how the Conservative Party operates, with several House leaders. We don't operate that way.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Arnott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to move for unanimous consent that Bill 92 receive third reading this afternoon.

The Speaker: Such a motion cannot be permitted on the floor at this time, during our routine proceedings. Would you wait until we have completed routine proceedings.

PETITIONS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have yet another petition signed by residents of the city of Toronto who are concerned about Metro's MVA plan.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metro Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived plan to bring in market value assessment, in spite of the solid opposition of the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas we believe market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto is the wrong tax, at the wrong time, in the wrong place; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas if the province changes legislation to deny the city of Toronto the right to determine our own method of property tax reform, Toronto home owners, tenants and businesses will in future be left to the mercy of regional government; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and our small businesses will be devastated by further increases; and

"Whereas city of Toronto residents account for 29% of Metro's population but Toronto taxpayers foot 40% of Metro's bills;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto, and to allow each local municipality in Metro Toronto the autonomy to determine our own method of property tax reform in our own municipality."

I have affixed my signature to this petition with which I wholeheartedly concur.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I'm happy to sign my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by several people in my riding from Comber, Staples, Tilbury, St Joachim and the town of Essex.

"The undersigned hereby register their opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act. We believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38 to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to 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."

Signed by residents of the county of Middlesex; I have affixed by signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which states in part:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I have affixed my name to the top of that petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Margery Ward (Don Mills): I have a petition addressed to the members of provincial Parliament. It reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day would be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be deleted."

I have affixed my name.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads in part as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly opposing the introduction of a new tax on real estate gains.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases, a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the taxes proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

I've affixed my name to the top of the petition.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I present the following petition on behalf of the Lambton County Association for the Mentally Handicapped.

"Whereas the association believes that the respite care bed currently in use at the Maple Street children's residence in Petrolia should continue to operate and not have this vital front-line Lambton county community service reduced or eliminated in any way whatsoever."

I affix my signature. There are 850 names on this petition.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly which reads:

"Whereas the Ontario Lottery Corp has introduced the Pro Line sports lottery; and

"Whereas our young people are being encouraged to gamble on professional sports games; and

"Whereas this gambling has turned all lottery outlets into bookie joints, thereby legalizing gambling on professional sports,

"Therefore, be it resolved that the province of Ontario should immediately pass private member's Bill 92 to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to children."

As the sponsor of that bill, I hereby affix my signature to this petition.

1530

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1992

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

Bill Pr73, An Act respecting the City of York.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Given the fact that the acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation has said he supports Bill 92, I would like to move unanimous consent that Bill 92 be brought on to the floor of this House today so that we can finally eliminate the problem of children gambling on professional sports and do it today, second and third reading. I would move for unanimous consent.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections: No.

The Deputy Speaker: There isn't unanimous consent.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GAMING SERVICES ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES SERVICES RELATIFS AU JEU

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I ask for unanimous consent to move a motion with respect to Bill 26, the Gaming Services Act.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Hampton: I move that the order for committee of the whole House be discharged with respect to Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services, and the bill be ordered for third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to move third reading of Bill 26.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any comments at all?

Hon Ms Churley: Yes. Although they're not in the House right now, just briefly I want to thank the members of both parties, both my opposition critics and others, who spoke yesterday in support of the bill and I would like to thank them for their support for third reading today. This is a very important bill for the charitable gaming organizations out there and it's nice to see that we were able to get full cooperation in the House in passing this very important bill, so thank you to the opposition.

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

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill 26, which concerns, as we know, amendments to the lottery business that the government undertakes -- no, it's the issue of --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Gaming.

Mr Arnott: -- gaming services, correct. It's an important bill for many reasons which have been brought forward by the various opposition critics and speakers. But I'm concerned about it as it may pertain to casino gambling.

In my particular riding of Wellington, there's a very strong concern about the way this government is approaching the casino gambling issue. We see today, with respect to the Ontario Lottery Corp, the way the government is manipulating that particular corporation in an effort to maximize the revenues that may come in to the government.

It's very, very clear that this government is running out of control with respect to its gaming policies. On this bill, we've received many assurances from the government, from the minister, that it does not impact on the lottery corporation, does not create a problem or does not have anything to do with gambling casinos. But we've heard assurances from this government before, and we find on a number of different occasions that these assurances that are provided to us do not ring true over time.

As I say, in my riding there's a very sincere and strong concern about this government's willingness to go ahead with gambling casinos. The government has announced that it's going to have a limited-scale casino policy, a pilot project in Windsor, and really we have a great deal of concern about even that, because we're concerned that it may in fact lead to wide-open casinos in Ontario.

I'm concerned about that particular side of the issue, and perhaps I just want to put the government on notice that I'll continue to oppose its policy of casinos in Ontario.

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

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): We spoke at some length on this bill in second reading just yesterday. I do want, however, to make some additional comments with respect to Bill 26, as I search for some additional information which I think follows up on what I had started to talk about yesterday.

I am trying to make the case to the minister, with respect to Bill 26, that there are a number of concerns she must entertain and that she must be looking at with respect to the impact of casino gambling on charitable organizations. It's not so much that Bill 26 fails to overcome these difficulties. Bill 26 is moving forward to enable charitable organizations, as I said in my earlier remarks, to mitigate some of the impact that may result from the advent of casino gambling in the future.

But I want to make the case that in fact there are some negative implications associated with the introduction of a casino-type economy in a locale such as Windsor, and I'd like to bring out some relevant facts, if I may, with respect to what the experience was in Atlantic City.

As I pointed out yesterday, Atlantic City has experienced some very negative impacts as a result of the implementation of casino gambling, casino development, and it continues to go on unimpeded as the expansion of casinos takes place in that city because it has been very fruitful for the casino operators. In fact it's an overwhelming success for the casino operators, Atlantic City is, but see, that can be and should be instructive for the minister.

1540

Casinos are benefiting. They are operating at the levels which were anticipated, but the so-called spinoff effects which the minister has so amiably put forward as the positive results that Windsor will encounter down the road -- the economic spinoff effects for the hotel industry, for local businesses, tourism in general, the creation of jobs and the revenues which will result in increased taxation, a revenue base increase for the local municipality etc -- we could look at these things. We could look at Atlantic City and, as I pointed out yesterday, the business community there was sadly disappointed in the results.

Let's look at some figures. Of the 383 businesses that list themselves as food suppliers to the casinos in Atlantic City, only 75 have Atlantic City addresses and most of those are small sandwich shops rather than large-scale operators. Of the 221 office supply and furniture dealers, only 16 are local. So you see that a lot of the casino purchasing which is taking place comes from around the country, in fact probably from other places in the world. Again, looking at the spinoffs for the local community and the suppliers that may be involved, only a small fraction of what was intended resulted in direct spinoffs to that community.

Here's another interesting fact. In Atlantic City, 40% of the 34 million visitors come by charter bus and stay for less than one full day. That's what's happening in Atlantic City; you get one-day visitors. For the most part, a significant proportion of these people, and those who are not one-day visitors, tend to be people who are high-stake gamblers, tend to be people who go to Atlantic City to do one thing and that is to gamble.

In looking at the situation in Atlantic City, you don't get the kinds of spinoffs people thought they were going to get, and I point this out once again to the minister. I hope I've been able to provide her with some more specific information because, quite frankly, these are the kinds of things we need to look at. Why is it that the spinoffs aren't there? The so-called spinoffs which are supposed to and are intended to help the city of Windsor, the local economy, just haven't resulted in a place like Atlantic City where they have, and I may suggest, a full-scale, Las Vegas style of operation of casino gambling.

There's also a problem with underage gambling, and this is very interesting and very much to the point today as we talk about my colleague the member for Mississauga West's private member's bill intended to curb gambling of underage children. In Atlantic City they are having a terrible time with underage gamblers, and it's suggested that it's common.

The kinds of controls that are in place in casinos are very limited in Atlantic City. They don't restrict as well as they should perhaps. I hope it will be the case in this country and in our jurisdiction that we do not allow underage citizens to gamble freely. That, I think, is fundamental as a consideration.

I think it's important that we again look at what is occurring with respect to the loss of potential revenues for charitable organizations. Again, I raise these arguments -- and I want to repeat what I said -- because it's important to note what kind of impacts have already been seen in other jurisdictions. When the minister stands up and says, "We're going to undertake a pilot project to get that information which will then determine the best ways in which to proceed," I sort of say to her: "Look, this is putting the cart before the horse. It's not the way to proceed in its entirety.

I agree that we should move forward with the initiative -- it's been decided -- but let's do so in a proper fashion. Let's do so so that we know what we're doing, that some studies have been undertaken to look at these situations in other jurisdictions that have had these experiences, which can be very instructive for Ontario.

Quite frankly, taking a position to bring about legalized gambling in the form of gambling in casinos in this province without the real extensive public consultation, public input and public hearings process which I believe is so fundamental I think is leading to a great deal more cynicism in our society.

I want to quote from what Bob Rae said back in the days when he was in opposition. I think this is very instructive. This was a very famous quote from Bob Rae. It speaks to the kind of cynicism which is created as a result of the comments we make in this very chamber. It's very instructive with respect to the issue at hand today. I'm quoting from what Bob Rae said, as reported in the Toronto Star November 27, 1986: "There are high rollers who are benefiting directly from the ripoff of the working people. They are gambling with your lives. They are gambling with your jobs. They are gambling with the future of your country. What is moral about a system that creates that kind of unemployment just because somebody gets greedy? What is moral about an economic system that feeds on greed? It's time we presented the Canadian people with a vision of a democratic society that is far more compelling because it draws not on what is most narrow in people but on what is most generous in people."

Very compelling words; very profound words. I think it's important that we look at the things we say in this chamber and how those measure up to the actions that are taken.

If we're going to have casino gambling, if this decision has been taken -- it has and it's been finalized; we are moving forward with it -- then I say, at least do some of the things which are necessary to ensure that we do not have the kind of society Bob Rae was alluding to. I know he wasn't just strictly talking about casinos. But we do not have a society created in this province that fosters the kind of values he was alluding to in his comments here when you say we're going to have unbridled, unrestricted casino gambling, and right now we see underage youth undertaking the same kind of gambling that we, I hope, are very much opposed to.

I know the government wants to act on the private member's bill that my colleague the member for Mississauga West has put forward in this House which would restrict young people from gambling. It's a very serious matter. I take it seriously and I know that all members in this chamber do as well.

I implore the government to take the initiative to bring that bill forward for debate and do it as soon as we possibly can. It's been called for today and it was rejected. You would have had unanimous consent from this side of the House. Make a serious commitment to bringing that forward because as we move forward I say, again, as we move forward with casino gambling, the values in our society will change. People will be affected.

1550

I want to point out one other thing that I made mention of in respect of the kinds of impacts which will result. I alluded to the removal or the eradication, actually the closing down and the elimination of funding for Gamblers Anonymous, which was a group to help gamblers overcome their addiction. There's an interesting fact here with respect to that.

I quote from an article in the Toronto Star, dated July 20, 1992: "While only 2% of the people who seek the help of Gamblers Anonymous are able to recover with its assistance alone, the success rate jumps to 50% if the compulsive gambler first undergoes treatment of this kind. Yet while the United States has more than 60 such clinics" -- very important fact -- "and others have been established in Europe and elsewhere, not a single one exists in this province or, indeed, in all of Canada." That's a startling fact.

I think it's important that this government realize that if we move forward in this way, that we make this a priority, that we establish a clinic, that we establish funding for this very real and serious problem -- it's not taken that lightly in the US, as I pointed out; 60 clinics have been started in the US, do exist there and are operating.

People do get addicted to gambling, so it's not something that we can ignore. I say to the minister, it is certainly an area that she has to look at.

There's the other matter of competition. Once Windsor gets its casino and it is operational, it'll be interesting to see what happens with respect to the competition that Windsor might possibly face from Detroit. In the last US federal election, the presidential election which just took place, there was a question on the ballot in Michigan to the residents of Highland Park. They were asked the question, "Do you want casino gambling in Highland Park?" It was answered 3,116 yes, 2,274 voted no.

It was the first time, after three votes had taken place in the Detroit area with respect to this question, that a yes resulted. I think it's informative what Detroit Mayor Coleman Young said. He said the scramble for gambling dollars on both sides of the border at the Detroit River was inevitable. It was to be expected. I think this decision, taken on behalf of Windsor, is one that, again, I do not quarrel with.

The city of Windsor has suffered irreparable damage to its economy. The effects of cross-border shopping, the recession and a number of other things which have taken place have resulted in a real downturn, a savaged economy in the Windsor area. But it's another factor to consider. I'm pointing this out for the minister to take account of the fact that we may perhaps have competition right across the river in Detroit. Once Windsor sets up its casino, we could very well see competition immediately thereafter in the city of Detroit.

I think it's important to realize that and to look at this seriously, to look at ways in which to compete and to look at the revenue projections that will result from this. This is another thing. We are talking about a pilot project here. Initially, perhaps, in the absence of any competition from the other side of the river, revenues and other projections might be higher. You've got to factor in the possibility of competition.

I think that's something that goes largely unnoticed. It hasn't been talked about. I know that people in the city of Windsor are euphoric about this decision and I don't want to rain on their parade. I just want to caution the government to factor that in and make provisions for a very competitive environment, because that could very well be the reality once we open a casino in Windsor.

I've tried to point out the effects with respect to gambling. We talked about the increasing crime that results. It certainly has been a factor which is not to be ignored. It has been a factor in Atlantic City. Almost immediately, there was an increase in crime, some outrageous figure with respect to the increase. I don't have it in front of me, but it was a startling increase in phone calls to the police department shortly after the casinos opened up and started to operate. Again, I point out to the minister and the government that you have to make provision and take that into account, factor that into the equation.

The reason I'm once again rising to my feet to point this out is that I've seen a real lack of information from the government. I want to make sure you don't forget the message. I say to the members opposite, if the minister had more information, was a little more forthcoming with respect to the decision that had been taken and had supportive documentation, which has really been sorely lacking on this question, I probably would not have been on my feet again today asking these questions, not have been on my feet to repeat the kind of concerns I stated yesterday in response to this bill on second reading.

I have yet to see the kind of commitment to the charitable organizations which indicates a plan for their survival, a realistic plan which can be brought about to ensure that charitable organizations are not devastated in the future. I think they have not been fully apprised of and did not fully realize the information that was put to them by the minister. In fact, I think they were led down the garden path.

I want to point that out because we know now, today, that charities will not be part of the revenue-sharing. In fact, no one will be part of that revenue-sharing. There is no revenue-sharing. This Treasurer intends to fill his coffers completely with the revenues from casino gambling. Of course, that's going to be a drop in the bucket in so far as an $11-billion or $12-billion deficit is concerned, but it's a significant amount of money for local economies and charities. That's the point I'm trying to make.

1600

But I say to the minister, it was very clear in May 1992 that she was prepared to have charitable organizations share in the revenues. What happened between May and October of this year? When I asked her in committee that very straightforward question about the role that charities would play, she changed her mind completely. It was in the May 9, 1992, article in the Toronto Sun. "We would have to work out some kind of process, either through general revenues or through a cut from the proceeds or their active involvement in running them," Churley said about charities and the role that they would play with respect to casino gambling and the revenues generated from those casinos.

It was pretty clear that, on her indication, charitable organizations thought they had a deal with the government, thought they were involved in this comprehensive process. They were part of the consultation process that was being undertaken, and they bought into the plan.

Of course, today we realize that this was all a sham, that they weren't part of the plan; they weren't part of the equation. The Treasurer came down very hard on charitable organizations and said: "No, you can't have any of this money. This money belongs to me, and we're going to keep it for ourselves." "No" to the city of Windsor, the local municipality, and "No" to the charitable organizations. No one else will share in these revenues. They're going into the general revenue fund of this government. I think that that is not acceptable, not acceptable because the charities have been left without any real alternative.

Once again I ask the minister to conduct a real study which will indicate to us just what might happen. In fact, look at possible alternatives for these charitable organizations in the face of competition, in the face of casino gambling, which will be pretty stiff competition for the charitable organizations to organize their casino nights, bingo nights etc. They certainly will have a difficult time, and there is no doubt about that.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, it's fine to take a decision. It's fine to take a decision which, after having reversed your policy and your position, after holding some strongly held beliefs, long-held beliefs -- I think people can understand that this government is desperate for revenues. I think people out there say, "Well, the government needs additional revenues, and good Lord, if you don't tax us, at least this is an alternative." People are saying that.

But you know what? This is a tax. This is a still a form of taxation, and the taxation largely falls on low-income people who virtually cannot help themselves, people who are ill-equipped to deal with the negative impacts of casino gambling. So I say again, look at those impacts. Look at whom you're affecting: the very people whom Bob Rae used to talk about so eloquently and used to champion their cause, at least in his words.

We know today that he's reversed his position on a number of things. We know today that Bob Rae has said one thing and then done another. We see that in this decision. We've seen that on a number of other decisions that he's taken, and his government -- I think all the members sitting there -- has to examine these fundamental reversals. They're not things which we arrived at over a period of time and then people decided to shift positions within the framework of a piece of legislation. No, these are fundamental reversals, 180-degree turns. That's why this is so crucial. And what's worse is that you've left behind those people who are most affected. You've left them in the dust. You're going to do that with this decision.

I have yet to see any evidence, I have yet to receive any indication from this minister -- you know, quite frankly, why can't we have more information? In the committee estimates process it was indicated to us that very little information exists and that in fact you could not conduct a study, and that's why we're proceeding with a pilot project: to examine these questions.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't believe that this is the best way to proceed, I don't believe that this is the only way to proceed and I think it would have been far more prudent for this government to have undertaken additional studies even now. It's not too late. You can still conduct those studies. We still have a considerable period of time before the pilot project is initiated, before land is bought up in Windsor somewhere and you build that 40,000-square-foot building with respect to the casino that will be chosen in Windsor. It's still not too late to conduct the kind of studies to make everyone have a better understanding of what we're dealing with. This is a significant decision with profound impact on the whole of the province.

I think I will end there. I want to once again say to the minister that the charities need your help, the organizations that have gone out and organized event after event, year after year, volunteers who have done their utmost. And remember what I said yesterday: that $1.125 billion is raised by gaming activities on the part of charitable organizations. That is a significant slice of economic activity, of revenue that's generated by charitable organizations. That's not something that can be easily replaced. At least provide a sense of direction, provide us the alternatives that charities can deal with this, can cope with it.

That was done on behalf of the Ontario Racing Commission. We heard the minister say that a number of changes have been undertaken with respect to the racing commission, and I believe that it's important that this government provide alternatives for those charitable organizations that are doing the kind of work that needs to be done in housing, in health care, in community and social services, countless agencies, thousands of them that depend on this revenue.

I, quite frankly, was surprised by the magnitude, the number of organizations that depend on revenues from gaming activities. It's province-wide. It's in all of our communities. It's thousands upon thousands of volunteers who give their time freely to ensure the services that cannot be provided by government, that cannot be provided really through the private sector, services that would simply not be provided at all.

I say to this government, think very hard what the impact will be on those charitable organizations: a drop in service, a drop in the quality of service, the quality of care, etc. That's what will result if we don't come up with the alternatives and if we don't think very carefully how this impacts on charitable organizations.

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

1610

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On this final reading of this bill, I would like to make a few final comments. This bill or this piece of legislation followed on a discussion paper which originally was put forward by the Peterson government in 1990, and basically what is proposed now was contained in that document. In fact, the Liberals introduced a bill, Bill 237, which was very similar to this piece of legislation, which ultimately died on the order paper, so I can understand my friend from Eglinton's indication that his party is going to be supporting this legislation.

Prior to 1989 the number of bingo parlours was growing at a rather quick rate in the province of Ontario and numerous complaints were received concerning bingo hall operators: allegations that there were abuses as to the taking of direct profits by these bingo hall operators instead of the service clubs, that these were being taken away from charities and other groups. Therefore, at that time the province issued a moratorium on the creation of new bingo halls in August 1989.

This legislation does provide, of course, a number of long-awaited proposals, and I think that, generally speaking, all sides of the House agree with those proposals. There are many proposals in the bill that we do support.

There are some concerns, of course, some interesting proposals, a number of which we haven't really seen yet, one of which will appear in the regulations, and we haven't seen those regulations because they haven't been prepared yet. For instance, the regulations will require that all registered bingo operators and their employees must have photo identification and fingerprints on file with the ministry. This has been suggested as being part of the fear that the attractiveness of this cash-based industry is connected to a criminal element, all of which is rather unfair. I think I've expressed this concern with respect to the bingo hall operators. Putting all of these people in this category I think is unfair, and to suggest that they all must be fingerprinted and giving the government power to pass such regulations allowing it to do that is a rather harsh way of dealing with the situation.

In order to further dissuade any criminal intentions, the ministry of course has established a stringent authority for the examination of the books of registered suppliers to ensure that the charitable organizations are receiving their full share of the proceeds. In addition, all suppliers wishing to be registered must pass an examination of past history and financial worthiness, performed by the ministry.

Many of these things, again, we all support, because there were some abuses in the industry and it was rather unclear, particularly with the intent as to who was going to be running them and who was going to be regulating them.

I again remind the minister that I have expressed a number of concerns with respect to this bill in the past. I have written a letter to her expressing concerns on the general licensing, the issue of the bill being passed, then there being put forward a second draft and no real response to that second draft. I have asked these questions on second reading. I have asked these questions in estimates and I have asked these questions in response to other speakers in this House and I am going to again request from the minister a response to that line of questioning.

As we have indicated throughout, Bill 26 does provide a regulatory framework for the commercial sector. Operators and their employees will now require provincial scrutiny and regulation to provide support services, charitable and religious organizations will require a licence to hold a gaming event, and under a licence, charitable or religious organizations may operate such activities as bingos and Monte Carlo nights, and that's quite clear.

There's going to be a policy manual -- and we understand that -- or terms and conditions and this is a licensing guide for municipal and ministry offices. Again, there has been confusion among the municipalities, at least from information that has come to my office from municipalities, specifically interested in their comments on this second draft and these were to have been returned. Again, we've heard no response from the ministry as to the results of that second consultation paper which was put forward after the introduction of the bill.

A new order in council is to be issued that will change the current authorities for licensing lotteries and gambling events. For example, municipal councils can currently issue licences for bingos under $3,500 and this is going to be changed to $5,500, therefore leaving the ministry responsible for the commercial sector. We all understand that. But again, I am concerned with some questions that I have put forward to the minister on several occasions. I'm going to put those questions on the record again.

There is my question is as to what requirements are placed on both the municipality and the charitable and religious organization for applying for a licence. There's also the issue of the Nevada tickets, as to who can apply for and sell them. I've asked the question about sports lotteries: Can any charitable or sports association run one of those now under this bill? This bill will receive third reading, but we don't know when it will receive royal assent. So the issue of course is, are the requirements for licensing to take place then or now? The municipalities are concerned with this and the confusion that has developed.

Finally, I raised the issue of the whole consultation process of the second draft. The minister takes great pride in boasting how she has consulted on this bill and how she's set out a second draft. It would be assumed that she was going to listen to some of the comments that would come forward. There have never been any amendments to the bill as a result of that consultation process, so I guess we really question the whole merit of proceeding with respect to that consultation paper.

The minister has said this bill will not have anything to do with gambling casinos, whether the Windsor pilot project or any other areas, but there's also no question that the minister, if she saw fit, could put forward gambling casinos, whether in Windsor or a general policy of gambling casinos, simply by regulation. That gives me and, I know, the member for Lawrence some concern, because essentially she's saying: "Trust me. We will introduce a bill on gambling casinos, specifically the Windsor project, and trust me, it will not come by regulations under this bill."

The fact of the matter is that under this bill, through regulations, the whole policy of gambling casinos could be put forward. Even if they were run by charitable organizations, it could be run by this bill by regulations. It will therefore never come back to this House for debate as to the rules and regulations, the whole system, the whole proposal of gambling casinos that is going to be put forward in this province.

We spent some time in estimates on the whole subject of gambling casinos. My party asked a number of questions as to where the minister is going. She doesn't really seem to know. She did tell us that the Treasurer has simply authorized the expenditure of $2.5 million for the project team to proceed to determine the type of gambling casino that could take place in the city of Windsor.

1620

It is interesting that the Treasurer, who's saying this province is going to reap all kinds of revenue from this pilot project in Windsor, and notwithstanding the fact that the province is having a lot of revenue problems, is prepared to spend $2.5 million and is spending $2.5 million simply on the project team developing a policy on gambling casinos for this government -- a most unusual step to take.

I echo the comments from the member for Lawrence when he says, "Why aren't there impact studies? Why are we going into this blindfolded? Why are we simply going on a trial and error basis? Are we going to have simply a government-run gambling casino, are we going to have a gambling casino run by charities or are we going to have a joint venture system?"

That's a word that's been scaring me. That's a word that's been developing and that also came out in estimates, because we've seen the joint venture system that's developing in this province, particularly with the Polaris project. A company called Real/Data and the province of Ontario have entered into a partnership arrangement to run the land registry system of this province in a Polaris-run-type system and they've called it Teranet.

We are simply unable to find out -- when I say "we," I mean the people in this province, the opposition in this province -- the details of how this company is going to be running the land registry system in Ontario. Because of our privacy legislation, because there is a private company that is essentially in partnership with the government, and we are not entitled to know the workings of that company, therefore we can't know the workings of the Polaris system, of the Teranet company. It gives me great concern, when I raise the issue as to the accountability of this government, whether it be in land registry offices or whether it be on the whole subject of gambling casinos.

The fact of the matter is that if any of us wish to go and gamble in this province, would we go to Windsor or would we go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City, where all the frills of a holiday away are being offered? I've never been to Atlantic City, although I understand the project team had a junket to Las Vegas at the taxpayers' expense to study the subject of gambling --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, they did. A group of the project team went to Atlantic City to study gambling casinos. Can you imagine? That is one of their impact studies. A group of our bureaucrats travelled to Las Vegas to study gambling casinos in Las Vegas and to determine how the effect of that is going to be in Ontario.

If individuals in this province are going to gamble, they're going to get one of the very cheap flights that are offered to fly to Las Vegas or to fly to Atlantic City, where you have entertainment, you have very good accommodation, excellent accommodation, the best in the world, where you have food and drink and where the prices have been reduced. All that is being offered in Atlantic City and Las Vegas. Why in the world would anybody from the United States or Canada or outside North America travel to the city of Windsor? Why would they do that? You can get far better gambling going to these other areas in the United States.

I can only conclude, and it's been suggested, that there are individuals in the United States, people from Atlantic City, people from Las Vegas who are prepared to come up to Windsor and enter into a joint venture relationship with this government in the operation of gambling casinos in the city of Windsor. That troubles me, the joint venture, which is a possibility that has been referred to in estimates, that this government may enter into the Teranet type of operation and we won't be able to find out what it's doing.

Already we've been informed that the city of Windsor is not going to get one dime of revenue. They thought they were. They were led to believe by this government that they were going to get that type of revenue, but they're not going to get it. It's been said quite clearly that the province of Ontario is going to receive all the revenue. The minister says, "Oh, well, there will be some revenue that will be achieved by vendors and other retailers in the back streets of Windsor who will receive some of the spinoffs from these gambling casinos."

What's going to happen is that the people from Detroit and other areas are simply going to travel to Windsor for an hour or a few hours, and they're gone. They're going to go back, unless you develop a highly expensive hotel complex of the Atlantic City or Las Vegas type, with all the trimmings that go with it. Who's going to pay for that, the province of Ontario?

Much time has been spent in the debate today and in second reading on the subject of gambling casinos. Gambling casinos, at the outset, seem a far-removed topic from the subject of bingo halls and other such matters that the Gaming Services Act normally deals with, but the fact of the matter is that it is legally possible for this government, notwithstanding all of its promises -- we've listened to its promises. We even listened to the Treasurer, who is in today, talking last year of how he was going to have transfer payments of 1%, 2% and 2% to the municipalities and the hospitals. Now it appears that commitment may be reneged on as well.

I simply don't trust the government on the promise that this bill will not have gambling casinos as part of its regulatory content. Do you trust this government on that? I certainly don't. Therefore, I think it's very important that we spend some time on the subject of gambling casinos, as we have done, and the effect they're going to have on this province, the effect on the horse racing industry and the job losses that have been established in other jurisdictions, in the United States and elsewhere. Where you institute a gambling casino in the same jurisdiction as a horse track, job losses result, not only in the horse track business but the agricultural industry that surrounds it: the tack, the feed. The general agricultural community has sustained substantial losses.

In my community of Orangeville, for example, there's a small track. There's no question that if the emphasis is placed on gambling -- there is only so much gambling money that's available -- that track will close. What will happen when that track closes? There'll be a loss of jobs. There'll be more loss of jobs in my community, not only at the race track itself but in the agricultural community that surrounds that track, and that gives me great concern.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): It works both ways.

Mr Tilson: I don't know what you mean by saying it works both ways. It doesn't work both ways. Facts have been established in other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, that once you put forward a gambling casino in a particular jurisdiction, the race tracks have lost jobs or have closed down in many cases.

This government hasn't done that. There have been no impact studies. They say, "Oh, well, we're looking at other jurisdictions." They're looking at so-called reports that have been made from other jurisdictions, and of course they've had a junket to Las Vegas to study how gambling is conducted in Las Vegas.

I am concerned with the whole subject of gambling casinos around this bill and the possibility as to what this government can do.

In closing, I can only say that as you flip through Bill 26, it's not a very long bill, it's not a very detailed bill -- I've made this comment during the second reading debate -- but there is a considerable amount of detail that is going to be passed on to the regulations. That is the fear at least we in the Progressive Conservative Party have with respect to this bill. I think we should be very cautious of that. Are we going to trust this government, by orders in council, or the bureaucrats, through the regulations, to make regulations dealing with very serious matters?

The very subject of fingerprinting is a most preposterous proposal, to insist that operators be fingerprinted before they get their licence. Even the criminal courts don't insist on that. You have to commit a crime or be alleged to have committed a crime before that is put forward.

I have referred to these matters in the debate in the past and I'm not going to repeat what I have said other than to say, dealing specifically with Bill 26, that when you don't put forward details as to how you're going to regulate the gaming services, whether it be bingo parlours or any other type of thing, when you don't specifically itemize what that is, it's going to create difficulties. There'll be a certain amount of uncertainty and there'll be no chance for the members on this side, the opposition parties, or the members of the government, to specifically debate and discuss the merits as to whether those regulations are appropriate.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for participation in this third reading debate and I simply ask the members of this House to keep in mind that when they are voting on this bill, they could be voting on the whole process of gambling casinos in the province of Ontario.

1630

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate? If not, Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: Once again, I want to thank my critics opposite for their comments and in particular for supporting this bill. I just want to point out something very briefly -- I think it's important -- and that is, once again, to reiterate that this is not about casinos at all. I think the members opposite really understand that, which is why they're supporting the bill, that it really is to help the charitable institutions make sure that they get the money they should be receiving coming directly to them.

I want to say that most of the commercial operators are honest and reputable people. There have been a few who have been skimming profits and, as you know, millions of dollars have been lost. So the main purpose behind this bill is to regulate that sector to make sure that we have some control over that.

In terms of a very big concern of Mr Tilson's, I just want to point out that not all people will be fingerprinted. It will just be used on very rare occasions when there's some question regarding identity. The request that people have photo identification is quite common today, and it's used for security purposes in many workplaces now. I think this is an area where we need to protect the interests of the charities. I think it's very important, as we regulate this sector, that we have this kind of identification system in place.

I think this is a very important piece of legislation. It's important to communities across Ontario. Many of the problems that have been raised by the opposition, as I said yesterday, are part of the terms and conditions. We are in fact dealing directly with those in our consultations. There have been and will continue to be extensive consultations around these areas. I certainly would like to guarantee people of that.

What we are trying to do is work with all the interested parties, and in particular the charities but also the bingo hall operators in the commercial sector, to make sure that we have the best rules in place, in particular for the charities themselves. This will ultimately lead to a more honest and equitable marketplace for all participants in the charitable gaming industry in Ontario.

Once again, I would like to thank the members opposite for their input. Between the comments on casinos, some very good suggestions were made.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Churley has moved third reading of Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

TORONTO ISLANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE DES ÎLES DE TORONTO

Mr Mills, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands / Loi concernant les Îles Algonquin et Ward's et concernant l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm pleased to present for second reading today the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, which was introduced in this House on June 10, 1992. The legislation finally resolves the long-standing dispute over the residential community on the Toronto Islands, and it does so in a way that is fair to the islanders, to the city, to Metropolitan Toronto and to the people of Ontario.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Who wrote that for you?

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, I understand that the member for Etobicoke West will have an hour and a half to talk to this and I'd like to be able to give my opening statement in peace.

I would like to sketch for this House a brief history of this unique Ontario community.

The Toronto Islands community is as old as this country. It began as a cottage settlement in 1867, the year of Confederation, and 21 years later, the city of Toronto established a 200-acre park there. The attempted dismantling of this close and interdependent community began in 1956, when Metro Toronto first took over the islands. In 1957, 400 homes were demolished, and in 1968, the first homes were demolished without compensation.

Since 1974, when Metro terminated the islanders' leases, members of the community have led a precarious existence, uncertain about their future. The legislation before you today for second reading will give that community the sense of security it needs to plan for its future.

The Toronto Islands are home to 650 people, who occupy some 250 homes on 33 acres of land. This is less than 5% of the total land of the islands, and according to the 1991 survey of island residents, 65% have lived on the island for 50 years or more, 54 of the 250 houses are owned by retirees and more than 22% of the residents have a household income of less than $20,000.

Clearly, this is a community worthy of consideration of preservation not only for the benefit of those who live there, but for the thousands of people, like myself, who love to visit it yearly. The experience of strolling this island neighbourhood, with its car-free streets, gives pleasure to many visitors from Toronto and elsewhere who value the islands' unique setting and ambience.

On March 13, 1991, Richard Johnston was appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs as special adviser on the Toronto Islands. He was given 60 days in which to report on the fairest way to ensure preservation of a residential community on the Toronto Islands. Mr Johnston's dedication, vision and perseverance deserve to be acknowledged and applauded.

In developing his recommendations, Mr Johnston worked under a set of assumptions which I would like to review for you here today.

First of all, it was assumed that the community should stay there for the long term. All residents, regardless of their income, should be allowed to remain. It was equally important that the land remain in public ownership but that the ownership of the houses should revert to the islanders. The housing on this public land should not be and will not be used or exchanged for excessive individual profit. The goal was a reasonable balance between the control of individual profits and the cost of residency. This legislation will enshrine that.

It's important that any solution should not be a burden on the Metro taxpayer. The island community should be as self-sustaining as any other neighbourhood.

Finally, it was established that Ward's Island should continue to be a gateway to the island park.

1640

The legislation before you is the result of extensive consultation and negotiations among the province of Ontario, Metro Toronto, the city of Toronto and the islanders themselves, all of whom made accommodations and compromises to their original positions. This bill represents the best and the most comprehensive solution to this long-standing and thorny issue.

The members will recall that the Minister of Municipal Affairs introduced a similar bill to this one on December 19, 1991. The changes to the act that were made when the bill was reintroduced in June reflect the results of a further consultation process with the island community and with the city of Toronto.

This legislation still includes these measures:

Land comprising the residential community will remain in public ownership, being transferred from Metro Toronto to the province of Ontario. A Toronto Islands community trust will be established to manage the lands, and the province will lease this land to this trust for 99 years. Homes will be returned to the island residents. Island residents will be offered 99-year leases for the land.

The city of Toronto will receive about $12 million through the sale of land leases to island residents. In addition, the city will be able to collect a portion of its prior water and sewer infrastructure investment.

Property sales will be strictly regulated to ensure that no windfall profits accrue. The islands community will be increased by up to 110 new housing units, most of them managed by a housing cooperative.

Several changes have been made to the original bill. These include provisions that will protect individuals who occupy a home on the islands but who are not entitled to ownership of it. A commissioner will be appointed to determine ownership of island homes in cases where ownership is under dispute. The commissioner will determine whether these people are entitled to be protected occupants.

A protected occupant will be allowed to continue to occupy the house for a set period of time while seeking alternative housing on the islands or elsewhere. They will be required to pay rent for the house and land, but will have priority on the list for purchasing a house and the land lease. Another change allows owners to sublease their houses with the approval of the community trust.

In line with the spirit of the Johnston report, provisions have been added allowing owners, upon their deaths, to transfer their houses to their children.

Finally, to those who fear that the islanders will benefit from windfall profits on their homes, I would like to point out that there are significant restrictions on the sale of leases and homes on the islands. They include limiting the right to sell a lease and requiring that residents occupy their home as a principal residence.

All home and lease sales will go through the community trust, which will operate under a formula. The vendor of a lease will be entitled to receive 60% of the remaining book value of the lease plus 40% of the new lease price. The vendor of a house will be entitled to the appraised value of the house plus a 1.5% equity factor. A fair compensation, but by no means a lavish one.

I believe the changes we have made in the original components of the bill provide a creative, fair and equitable response to the debate over the future of the Toronto Islands. I believe this bill serves well the people of the province of Ontario, Metro Toronto, the city of Toronto and the families and members of the century-old Toronto Islands community. This hard-won resolution, this legislation, will also preserve an important part of our heritage that will provide benefits for generations of Ontarians to enjoy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I think the member for Durham East is absolutely right; this is a long-outstanding issue, dating back to 1867. But I would like to remind him that the Cooke deal that's been agreed to --

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Cooked deal.

Mr Grandmaître: -- cooked deal that's been agreed to is not the best deal possible. I think it's a good deal for the islanders but a bad deal for Metro, a bad deal for Toronto and a bad deal for the Ontario taxpayers.

I think it represents, Mr Speaker, a payback to the NDP political friends on the island. As you know, the last election in that riding was a very close one. The islanders have always been known as greater NDPers, and now today, with the second reading of this bill, they're being paid back.

I know the member for Durham East is well aware that all three political parties were on side when we decided individually that the islands community should be maintained. It's not new. Back in 1981, in the days of the Tories, the Tories passed legislation to protect the islands community from being dismantled. From 1985 to 1990, the Liberal government worked with the municipal government, or governments if you want to talk about Metro and Toronto, and also the community representatives of the island, but we couldn't reach a deal, for many reasons. One of them was the lease that the member for Durham East just spelled out.

The difference in the NDP package is that the deal is unfairly weighted in favour of the current residents. The current residents are not required to pay back 11 years of rent. Since 1981 these people have not paid rent. I think it's very unfair to people who are on waiting lists in this province trying to get a sweetheart deal as good as the islanders are getting. I don't know of anybody living in a home, in a house, in an apartment, for 11 years without paying rent and remaining as a tenant.

In addition, the 99-year property lease adds up to the equivalent of $30 per month. This is why I call it a sweetheart deal. This is a great deal for the islanders.

Again, I have to think about the seniors and families on waiting lists right across this province who would love to pay $30 a month for rent, but they have to pay the fair market rent.

Municipalities are not so keen about the package. I'm referring to Metro and the city of Toronto. It's simply not fair. Metro and the city of Toronto are not happy with the package. They have to explain to their constituents why this municipal resource -- the islands residents' property -- was simply taken away, and they have to explain why other residents in the city and Metro have to pay 20 times the islanders' rent for a small apartment in Toronto or in Metro.

1650

The NDP government is proud of this deal. They think they've resolved the conflict, but personally, I think the conflict isn't finished; it's the start. They simply decided to help their islander friends. They disregarded the interests of the city and Metro. They gave up provincial land to help smooth some ruffled Metro feathers, but they still left the municipality with a raw deal.

The minister has said that this deal doesn't leave anyone out of pocket. The deal does leave the taxpayers of this province out of pocket. Metro taxpayers are out of pocket for the land and rent they would have received under the ownership of the property, prime tourist property in the area of Toronto. The 23 acres at the Etobicoke psychiatric hospital cannot compare.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's open space anyway.

Mr Grandmaître: Absolutely. If Metro had made this kind of deal on the railroad lands, imagine what would have happened. This government would have been dead against it; Jack Layton would have been outraged at the deal. But the NDP feels it has the unilateral right to implement the same kind of deal in favour of the current island residents, leaving Metro with 23 acres of parkland.

The province is giving Metro this land as if it is of no cost to the province. But the NDP knows that this property at the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital would likely have been made into parkland anyway because the present Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, has long been an advocate of protecting the Lakeshore psychiatric facility as parkland.

In addition to the land issue is the reality that future rent of the island properties will be far below market value rents. The depressed rents in simple economic terms represent a cost to all Metro and provincial taxpayers in this province. If the same low-rent deal had been made for land in Rosedale, for instance, by any other government, the NDP would have cried "foul."

At the same time the islanders are getting these $30-a-month deals. The leases charged on other provincial properties, most notably rents charged on residents in Ontario provincial parks, have doubled and tripled.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): And the NDP doesn't care.

Mr Grandmaître: Absolutely. They couldn't care less; they simply increase the cost of access to our provincial parks and yet make sweetheart deals with other private groups in the province of Ontario. There are thousands of tenants in private rental units across Metro, across this province, paying the majority of their monthly income. I don't think it's fair to the tenants of this province. I don't think it's fair that this deal should go through for the simple reason that they're NDP supporters and they would like them to remain NDP supporters.

Let's talk about the disputed ownership, as the member for Durham East described. Who are the lucky winners of this sweepstake? We just passed Bill 26, the Gaming Act; again, it's a sweepstake. And yet I hear the Treasurer every day looking for more revenue. I'm not saying those islanders should be overtaxed or charged ridiculous rents; I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that these people will not be paying their fair share.

There's also an association that represents the owners of island buildings who do not even live on the island. They live outside. The legislation establishes a commissioner to review ownership, but the minister will be responsible for picking and choosing who the real owners are. I think that's not resolved. The real ownership of these homes is not resolved. I can recall that back in 1985-86 we tried to identify the real owners of these homes. I want to remind the minister that this is not over with. The legislation, and this commissioner, who is established by the legislation, will be the sole boss and will protect the present occupants, and these people will be able to remain in those sweepstake or lucky-deal or sweetheart-deal homes.

Last winter the NDP pulled the plug on a major development in the area, citing the high cost of flood-proofing the property. Subsequently, it has come to light that the islands also have a similar hazard designation by the Metro area conservation authority which restricts residential construction. The Metro parks commissioner, Mr Robert Bundy, has said very clearly he has long warned of the consequences of new construction on the islands and is aware that past storms have washed away residential structures.

This raises the question as to why the NDP has one set of rules for following environmental regulations to the letter with certain developers and another set of rules for avoiding environmental concerns for their political friends.

The NDP, this government, is clearly aware of this situation but is going ahead. It has been raised with the deputy of Municipal Affairs, who insisted that the new non-profit housing would still be built. I'm all for non-profit housing; I'm all for co-op housing. I think we should be spending more money because people are in great need, but this kind of disregard for the environment is not acceptable.

Another issue is, who will be liable for the damage that may occur to a construction on the islands? How much will this liability potentially cost the taxpayers of Ontario?

Mr Mancini: I don't know why these people are being treated so special.

Mr Grandmaître: As I said earlier, I think it's a payoff from the NDP government thanking them for 1990. That's the only reason I can see. Nobody else in the province of Ontario is getting a sweetheart deal as they are.

If the NDP intends to proceed with construction, is it going to do other infrastructure? Who will pay for it? Who will pay for the improvements? The NDP has simply chosen to ignore these concerns, but years from now, when it will have been voted out of office, the taxpayers in this province will be left holding the entire cost.

In conclusion, the NDP will be saying that the Liberals are reversing their election commitments of 1985. But I did say, even back in 1981, that the Tories and the Liberals were committed to sustaining a community on the islands but not to giving it away.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): That was then.

Mr Grandmaître: That was then; absolutely. You said things back in 1990 and you can't keep your promises today. The Treasurer is turning around and telling us -- you told us today -- that municipalities, universities and school boards will not be receiving what their fair share is, 2%, as it was promised last year. Why won't they announce it?

What this government is doing today with the introduction of second reading of this bill is, again, paying off its friends.

Mr Mancini: What did their friends do for them? That's what I'd like to know.

Mr Grandmaître: Pardon?

Mr Mancini: What do friends do for you? That's what I'd like to know.

Mr Grandmaître: Just a little X, just a vote. Promise them a vote.

I can't accept this kind of deal, because this government is supposed to be so pure, no deals, everything above board. But it's very strange. When they introduce legislation in this House, we can pick holes right through that type of legislation, and this is the kind of legislation that is not acceptable, not only to me but to our party.

At the same time, we want to protect the homes presently on the islands, but these people should be paying their fair market value rents.

1700

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments? Further debate.

Mr Stockwell: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this specific piece of legislation. This piece of legislation should be required reading in any course on political science and how the process works.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): You know it all.

Mr Stockwell: The member from western Ontario has suggested that I know it all.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Pick a riding.

Mr Stockwell: Essex-Kent suggested I know it all. I think not. I never suggested that. But what I do know is the history of this debate, because the history of this debate has taken decades to come to fruition. Today is apparently the day when the islanders have their final day in court.

The reason this is very historical is that the islanders have never, never, ever, ever, in any court action, ever won in court. Every level, every jurisdiction, has always ruled in favour of Metropolitan Toronto and the government of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Mancini: What do the courts have to do with it?

Mr Stockwell: What do the courts have to do with it? Apparently little, if anything, when it comes to legislation that's adopted, by a duly elected council in Metropolitan Toronto, that is fair and equitable to all citizens across Metropolitan Toronto.

This is a court, this final court of appeal here, that has not got what I consider to be the benefits of the majority at the heart of decision-making. This is a story of a very diligent, very persistent group of individuals who have now established that the benefits of the many can be outweighed by the benefits of a selected few. That's the story on this piece of legislation.

It goes back a few decades, when, believe it or not -- maybe some of those across the floor won't know -- the city of Toronto did own this property.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: They own this property, and the member for Yorkview should probably get in his seat and I might listen to him, or he can put a bull's-eye on his head and I can spend half an hour shooting.

But the city of Toronto did own this property many decades ago, and the duly elected council in that same city decided it didn't want to own the island any more. They didn't want to own the island because it was too expensive. It was too much trouble. There was too much aggravation. So they sold the island, and they sold the island to another duly elected government, Metropolitan Toronto.

Metropolitan Toronto at the time, in the motion adopted to buy the island -- I think it was for a buck, a nominal fee -- said: "We will only take these properties over, these islands -- Algonquin, Ward's, Centre -- on the one condition. We will pay for the maintenance, pay for the ferry, pay for the fire services etc etc, on the condition that all people in Metropolitan Toronto get access to this area, that all people in Metropolitan Toronto get to use the island, that all people in Metropolitan Toronto have the same rights and privileges to use this property as public, open space or a park."

That duly elected council in the city of Toronto said: "Good. Good idea, Metro. Do it."Metro said, "We'll do it, but we have to let the islanders who are on there know this is not their own public park, that this is not just their domain, that everyone has the right to use it." It's like High Park, like Centennial Park in Etobicoke, like any of the great Rouge Valley parks, all across Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Murdoch: Queen's Park.

Mr Stockwell: Queen's Park, for that matter.

What happened was that the tenants on these islands were given eviction notices by Metropolitan Toronto back in the 1950s, and I think the member for Fort York would know that. He'd know that they were all given eviction notices with a due period of time in which they'd have to move off the land properly owned by the Metropolitan Toronto government so all people could take advantage of that situation.

And you know what? Most of the people moved off. Most of the people agreed. Most of the people moved off the islands and those islanders' homes were in fact demolished and created public, open space.

Then the difficulty arose because in the history of this, 500 or 600 people in 250 homes felt they had a more important calling than the benefits of the millions in Metro and decided, "No, we're going to stay and we're going to fight this in court, because you don't have any right to take land that is owned by Metro government and make it a park." They don't have any right to take taxpayers' paid-for property and create public, open space.

What happened? In the history of this debate many, many court challenges were made and many, many courts heard both sides of the argument. Many courts made rulings, and every court at every level on every ruling said: "Metropolitan Toronto is right. They own the land. This should be public land, and Metro owns it." Every time a ruling came down, a knee-jerk provincial government stepped in and ruined an opportunity for millions of people to have public, open space at taxpayers' expense.

Yes, the Conservatives were involved; yes, Larry Grossman was involved; yes, the Liberals were involved.

Finally, the nail being driven into this coffin is being driven by a government that, if this were mandatory reading, would show a vocal minority is getting to carry forward its agenda at the expense of the silent majority. Make no mistake about it: All those governments at Metropolitan Toronto levels were duly elected. All those governments were representing the people of Metropolitan Toronto and not one council, not one vote, not one court anywhere ever agreed with what is being handed down today as an edict from this provincial government.

What did they decide? Let me say this too: I take great exception to the number suggested by the member for Durham East with respect to the same number of people living there for any number of years. When this first took place in the 1950s, I doubt if you're going to find more than a handful of people who live in those houses now who lived in those houses in the 1950s. I doubt you'll find more than a handful. What else I'll tell you is that there's a lot of people on the island who are Johnny-come-latelys, who moved on to the island in the not-too-distant past. Mr O'Connor, I'm sorry. I see you gesturing like a plane is landing. What's the problem?

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): We got somebody sitting right here.

Mr Stockwell: I suggested that not more than a handful would be there. Yes, I said a handful. That's the tough one, but a handful means some.

As I was saying, those people have moved into these homes in the not-too-distant past. They have as much claim to these homes as when this transfer of ownership took place between the city of Toronto and Metro, as you and I have claim to these homes. They came later and they've declared themselves owners --

Mr Murdoch: Squatters.

Mr Stockwell: Squatters. Much the same as someone walking into High Park, pitching a tent and saying, "Now this is my house. You can't kick me off," even though that park has been built and paid for by the taxpayers at taxpayers' expense.

1710

To carry forward, these residents have won --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You're too stiff.

Mr Stockwell: Excuse me?

Mr Mammoliti: Lighten up.

Mr Stockwell: These residents have won the lottery with respect to the rent they're paying. They've won the lottery. When this announcement was made, the calculations took place that the cost of rent for the 99-year lease works out to something like $30 or $40 a month.

We have single mothers looking for housing, we have working poor looking for housing, we have seniors looking for housing and we have a government that is cutting a deal -- I will note as an aside -- with people who have voted very overwhelmingly in favour of the sitting member who happens to be an NDPer, cutting a deal that allows someone to have a house on public property at the rent of $30 a month.

They suggest this is preserving the island. They suggest this is a fair and equitable deal. If this is their idea of fair and equitable, I know about two million people who want to start negotiations with them. If you're going to give them a residence on an island just off the city of Toronto's downtown core, provide them with fire, police, schooling and ferry service for $30 a month, the lineup would stretch from here to Front Street for the people who want to take advantage of this. Make no mistake about that.

The other suggestion is they want to maintain a viable and healthy community on the Toronto Islands. I will say I don't really believe all the islanders like the idea of the co-op going up there. I don't think they like that idea. They have their own private playground. They don't like the idea of your building a cooperative housing project over there. Why? Because it's going to ruin the aesthetics. It's going to ruin their private park. It's going to ruin what they believe has been an established community.

So here you have a community that's getting to rent a piece of property and a house for $30 a month behooved by the fact that you're building a cooperative housing project there.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, but tell us what you think, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: George, I'm doing my best, but it's going to take you a while to consume this, so read Hansard for about three days and you might get it.

We now have the debate taking place --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I didn't hear him and that's not unusual, Mr Speaker.

We now have a case in today's debate where we're asking the islanders, who have not paid any rent -- get this, backbench NDPers -- since 1981. They haven't paid their rent and they haven't paid their taxes either since 1981. We're faced with a dilemma here today where Metro has owned the property that these houses are on, Metro has had the right to create public open space and hasn't collected a nickel in rent since 1981.

Why? Because the city of Toronto was supposed to pay on their behalf as well. Metro didn't receive the money. They've been living rent-free for a decade. While people are struggling in this city, in this Metro area, to find accommodations for families, for seniors, for single mothers, this community has lived rent-free for more than a decade. Is that equitable? Is that fair? I think not.

This government was meant to treat all people in the same way, allow all people to have access to power, to the corridors of power. My suggestion is very clear on this one: The corridors of power are open for access depending on how your poll results looked. That's the question on this particular issue.

Metropolitan Toronto hasn't endorsed this for another couple of reasons too. I'd like to debate this publicly with any of the opposition at any public event. I think this is an indefensible piece of legislation and I'd like to tell all those constituents who come to hear this debate that they're getting their rent for $30 a month for 99 years, because I think they'd probably have something to say about that.

The jewel of Etobicoke, as far as public open space is concerned, became a bargaining chip in this deal, and I use that word as opposed to others.

Mr Poirier: A cooked deal.

Mr Stockwell: A cooked deal. This piece of property was owned by the province. This provincial government owned a piece of property on waterfront in the city of Etobicoke, and this party, led by its Minister of the Environment as well as others, but I know for a fact the Minister of the Environment, always had one position when it came to public open space on waterfront at Lake Ontario. Their position was always very clear: Any property that borders the lake, which is owned by the government, must be public open space, a park. Obviously, the Toronto Islands didn't fall into that category.

The interesting part is that the bargaining chip became this psychiatric property at Kipling and the Lake Shore in the city of Etobicoke, which is zoned public open space by the city of Etobicoke, a parklike setting that previous governments threatened to develop. They suggest in this House that they're going to trade a piece of public open space owned by the provincial government and give it to Metropolitan Toronto as a piece of public open space. They've taken a park that they owned and given it to Metro and said, "Keep it as a park." That's the sleeves from their vest. They had no use for the property. It was a park, they said it was a park, the Ministry of the Environment called it a park, and they gave it to Metro and said, "Here, make this a park." It is a park.

This is the deal that supposedly would solidify the Toronto Islands issue. But what was the deal before the cooked deal? The deal was that the Toronto Islands were supposed to be a park and the psychiatric grounds were supposed to be a park. After this fair and equitable treatment of the Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers, they end up with one park when they had two. They end up with one open space when they had two. They end up with development on the Metropolitan Toronto Islands when they had open space. They end up being shafted when they had courts agreeing with them. They end up carrying the can and the expense of servicing this island when they didn't before. They end up with nothing and the taxpayers in Metropolitan Toronto are going to have to foot the bill.

Let's talk about expense, the expense for 250 units, 33 acres for 650 people. Who runs the ferry service back and forth from the mainland? Metro. Who's going to run the schools? The Metro school board. Who's going to run the policing? Metro. Who's going to look after the fire services? The Toronto taxpayers. Who's going to provide all the services you need for a community? The Toronto taxpayers are; taxpayers who elected citizens who said, "No, this should be a park;" taxpayers who elected politicians who said, "No, this should be open space;" taxpayers whose taxes will be increased to provide services for a community they thought would be a park.

1720

What's equitable about that? What is equitable about the fact that these islanders who, let alone get disproportionately more service at a cost that can't even begin to be covered by the taxes that will be paid -- what is equitable about them paying $30 a month rent for 99 years? What's equitable about that? Nothing.

The man who cooked up this deal has suggested he will appoint the Toronto Islands commissioner, who no doubt will have certain NDP affiliations and ties, just as Mr Richard Johnston was on it; just as Mr Johnston was a third-party, unbiased person to do the study on the island, who just happened to be a sitting member previous to this Legislature.

The Toronto Islands commissioner will be put in place to adjudicate over ownership concerns -- ownership concerns. Clearly, we have a commissioner who's put in place to adjudicate over disagreements between the islanders about who owns the homes. What's very apparent, if you've got to put a commissioner in charge, is the people on the island don't have any clear-cut idea of who owns these homes. You also find out when this legislation is passed, there's going to be a lot of people, a tremendous number of people, who are going to lay claim to these homes. There are going to be a tremendous number of people who say, "I should be able to live on the island as a summer retreat, as a cottage, because I have the opportunity and I'll incur the horrendous cost of operating a property on the island for my summer vacations of $30 a month." Thirty dollars a month, Mr Speaker. You can't pay your heating bill for $30 a month. Your cable bill for TV is more than $30 a month. Just to have the opportunity of seeing this station, to know how badly you're being ripped off by these people, you pay more than $30 a month.

Mr Mammoliti: Cable is $20.

Interjection: That's in George's area.

Mr Mammoliti: Twenty bucks you can afford.

Mr Stockwell: I've got a terrible debate brewing here from the member for Yorkview about the cost of cable TV.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I'll withdraw that. Clearly it has exercised his concerns.

Mr Mammoliti: A lot of people can't afford First Choice. They can't afford that luxury.

Mr Grandmaître: Pull the plug, George, pull the plug.

Mr Stockwell: Okay. It's finished, I think. You can tell when the lights go off.

Mr Mammoliti: Oh, please --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is not even in his own seat. Please, the honourable member for Etobicoke West has the floor. When your turn comes, you can participate.

Mr Stockwell: Steer clear of Canada Packers, George.

We now are faced with the dilemma of seeing cable TV being comparable in price to owning a Toronto home, and the land is owned, serviced and provided by the Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers. We have this new individual, the Toronto Islands commissioner -- as I said before, probably an NDPer, no doubt -- whose sole responsibility will now be to adjudicate between who owns the house and who doesn't own the house, when every court in the land has said Metro owns the house. He will also determine when you can sublease.

I always thought these people on the island wanted to live on the island. Why would you want to sublease? Why would you want to sublet this home that you've wanted to live on and fought for two or three years, in some cases, maybe six or seven months to keep? Yet they're going to be allowed to sublet it.

I always thought the whole game plan, under Metro's control, said, "If in fact we do get approval through court, we'll create the park through attrition." They weren't kicking anybody off in the end. Through attrition they would create the park. As those people who lived there moved off, they would take ownership of the home and then create the park. But now they're going to sublet it for up to 99 years.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): They'll be leaving it in their wills.

Mr Stockwell: Of course they will. This is going to be the greatest piece of property to have ownership or lease of in the next many decades. Where are you going to find a piece of property fronting Lake Ontario on an island, where all the services are provided by the local government, for $30 a month?

Mr Mancini: This is Lotto 649.

Mr Stockwell: This is the 649 lottery. They've won the lottery.

Mr Grandmaître: It's called rent control.

Mr Stockwell: It's a form of rent control, my friends say. I don't think any country in the world could provide this kind of rent control. They've won the lottery: $30 a month for 99 years. In 2092, these leases come due. It's still $30 a month, yet not one person across the floor can figure out: "Geez, maybe we're being a little too generous. Maybe we're not thinking this through. Maybe a 99-year lease for $30,000 is a little overly generous."

Thirty bucks a month. I think all the constituents in Metropolitan Toronto should know that this government is giving islanders a $30-a-month rent for 99 years. And guess what, folks? Not only are they getting $30 a month, your taxes are going to pay to service this community. Your taxes are going to provide the sewage system; your taxes are going to provide the policing; your taxes are going to provide the ferry service.

Mr Grandmaître: Schools.

Mr Stockwell: Schools. But just think of it, folks: You get to have homes on an island where you could have had parks. Aren't you lucky.

There is nothing lucky about this. This is an absolute sellout from a government whose position on public open space adjoining waterfront property was as clear as glass. It's now as clear as mud, depending on how your poll voted in the last provincial election.

You read through this legislation and you find out that cooperative housing is now becoming a major component of the island issue. You'd have thought that Metro would have won at least a small portion of this fight when it took over responsibility for the islands. You'd think, in the history, it would have one small victory, and that one small victory was that wherever there was open space, it would at least stay that way. Not any more, because this government is building housing in a park. That's what it's come to. This government is building cooperative housing in the middle of a public park operated by Metropolitan Toronto.

Surely there is some zoning in place. Surely you have some understanding of the basic principles of local planning. Surely you understand that local governments should be allowed to zone and approve developments in their area. You come along and say you're going to start building cooperative housing in the middle of parks.

What park now is off base? Is High Park next to be developed? That's probably worth a lot of money. Who knows the millions of dollars that could be invested in parkland?

Mr Mammoliti: No, it was going to be Fairbank, but we stopped it.

Mr Stockwell: I look across the floor and see the members opposite talking about Fairbank. Good for you. You stopped development in a public park. I'm proud of you. I don't agree with it, but now you're the developer, the land owner and the landlord on a public park in the city of Toronto. This is what this government's been reduced to. They now have a policy in place, this new cooked-up deal, this new fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants policy, that says, "Heck, we can build cooperative housing in parks, and damn the local council and damn the Metro council and damn the zoning and damn the planning process. We know what's best for you, and what's best for you is apartment buildings in parks."

1730

Mr Murdoch: And basement apartments in all the houses. That'll be next: basement apartments in all the houses.

Mr Stockwell: The only thing you can be thankful for is there won't be basement apartments in the island homes because they don't have basements. That's the last straw, I guess.

I just don't speak for one small group of people in Metropolitan Toronto. I speak for decades of councils, decades of duly elected councils, probably hundreds of politicians who've been through the mill on this one, who've been elected by thousands and thousands of people, who duly elected their representatives to say, "We want park on our islands, not housing."

I will say that other than those two polls on Ward's Island, other than those couple of polls out there, the vast majority of residents in Metropolitan Toronto would not accept this as an acceptable compromise. They would not accept this as a reasonable deal. They would not accept this, because they've said so, in the past decade at least, that those islands should remain as park and the rest of those people who are on the island should be allowed through attrition to close up their homes and move on, when they feel like it, and that house should be taken over by Metro and created as park. That's what they said, and what we have before us today is 100 years of developed property on an island that's supposed to be public open space.

I wouldn't even mind so much -- I probably would mind, but I wouldn't mind quite as much -- if the deal was only within a reasonable length of time. If it was five years or 10 years, or if the deal from the other side of the floor -- I look to the member for Durham East and say, look, if you had said, "All those people on the island get to stay until they move off or die or whatever happens," I'd probably accept it. I would accept the fact that is what you're going to do. I'd accept the fact, almost, that you'd charge them $30 a month rent, as long as there was an end to this. I think the communities would accept that. I think Metropolitan Toronto council would accept it.

But the real difficulty I have and a lot of other people have, the real problem, is you're tying this down for 100 years. You're so sure of yourselves, you're so certain, that you've locked this deal in for 100 years, and for 100 years -- I look to the members across the floor -- there won't be any opportunity to create a park here, regardless of the intensification, regardless of the development, regardless of the zoning. You won't be able to turn this into a park.

I suppose that's the most discouraging fact of all. The most discouraging of all is that they've locked this deal in for 100 years, in direct opposition to the council, in direct opposition to the citizens and in direct opposition to the taxpayers. You've locked this deal in for 100 years. The only people you're serving here are the winners of the lottery, those people on the island.

I don't understand it. What makes these people so special? What makes these people so lucky? What makes you so beholden to these people that you're going to give them rent for 100 years at $30 a month at the expense of three million people? What drives you to do that?

What drives them has never been enunciated. What drives them has never been stated. All they've ever said is there should be a community on the island and that community can continue until those homes are emptied and demolished. What gives these people so much more standing with this government than seniors, than single mothers, than the working poor? Why do they get such a special, unbelievably acceptable deal that we can't provide all the other citizens in this city? Why? Why have they gotten this deal when there are so many people out there who are looking for housing?

Why then, if you weren't going to open this place up as an island housing commune, didn't you have a list, like you do for any other development you approved, that would allow people who are in need to live in these homes? Why didn't you do that for $30 a month?

Why does Liz Amer, a councillor in the city of Toronto, get to live there? What makes her so special? Why did Michael Cassidy get to live there? Why do these people get to live on the island at $30 or $40 a month and the people who truly need the housing aren't allowed? Now it's going to become a self-contained community so families could live there because you're providing schools.

Mr O'Connor: The cost of educating kids --

Mr Stockwell: Well, Mr O'Connor, I don't find it humorous that we --

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Educating kids?

Mr Stockwell: The question now is, it's suggested we're going to educate kids. It's not a question of education. You're going to build the schools because you created the community. If you're going to create the community, why doesn't everybody get an opportunity to live in the community?

Mr O'Connor: It's been there for 100 years.

Mr Stockwell: These people haven't lived there for 100 years; some of them haven't even lived there for two years; some of them haven't lived there for five years. These people I've seen at committee after committee and they change sometimes on a yearly basis. They have as much draw to that community as any one of us sitting in this Legislature today, and I have the rolls to prove it, Mr O'Connor. If you'd like to go through them, I'll be happy to show you the length of the stays of these people: six years, four years, six years, one year, three years, nine years, 11, three, 11, nine, three, two years. These people have been there that long, yet they got to win the lottery. Why did they get to win the lottery? Eight years, one year. You just happened to live in that house on the date that these people decided to cut the deal, so you win the lottery and let the single parents and the seniors and the families be damned, because we know for sure that these people happen to vote NDP. That's the deal.

The answer's always the same. You get some snide comment. I've never yet heard a reason why. I challenge the member for Durham-York to come across and look at these lists. Look at the tenants who are in these places and the length of time they've lived there.

I see some 20 people in the gallery.

Mr O'Connor: Some have been there for 40 years, 25 years.

Mr Stockwell: I said in the beginning of this speech that there are some who have lived there longer, and I have always said during the debate that no one should be forced off the island. You seem to miss that point. They shouldn't be forced off, but when the house comes due and the people decide to move or they move on or die, that house should revert back into the property of Metropolitan Toronto. That's been the policy that I've espoused. That's been what I've suggested the community should do. I've said that since day one.

What I don't accept --

Mr Hayes: Those are socialist squatters you're talking about.

Mr Murdoch: Yeah, right: squatters.

Mr Stockwell: I call those people who have been there less than a year or two years squatters. I'll say it here and I'll say it publicly: They've moved in on a perfect opportunity so they can pay rent for $30 a year for 100 years. If you think that's a reasonable request, then I don't think it is.

I look through this list and I challenge him to come over and review the number of years they've spent on there. That's been the policy I've put forward. That was the policy at Metro Toronto. When building applications came before Metropolitan Toronto that they be asked to upgrade their residences because they're living there, I approved them. I voted in favour. I said sure, on the proviso that they not be extended.

I understand why there's a smug glibness on the other side. I understand why there are guffaws, and I understand the cackles, because if I were in the situation that these people are in, I'd be laughing too, laughing all the way to the bank because I've just ripped the taxpayer off in the worst public robbery -- it was robbery without a gun -- that anyone has ever perpetrated on this system. So I think I would be laughing and guffawing and have a glib response to all these points that I put forward, because I've just taken the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto to the cleaners, publicly.

1740

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): They won a lottery.

Mr Stockwell: They won it, and I just did it. So they can sit there, wherever they are, the handful who come down, and laugh and carry on, and the members opposite can guffaw, but I say that this deal that you cut is nothing more than selective lottery wins, and you've just chosen who gets to put his ticket in the drum, and if there are 20 tickets, there are 20 prizes, and those prizes are houses on the island.

We in the opposition -- and I, particularly, after eight years on Metro council and something like three or four decades of fighting this at Metropolitan Toronto -- find it offensive that you've challenged a local council's decision, find it offensive that just a select group gets to take advantage of this situation, and find it offensive that you're foisting the costs of this deal on to to the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto. That's the deal you've cut.

I furthermore find it particularly offensive that a government that pretends to have the protection of those in need at heart would suggest for any minute that those people who live on the island today are necessarily those who would get public housing. It just isn't true. There are some cases, I'm sure, but there are a significant number of islanders who in fact have very well paying jobs, and they wouldn't qualify. So they have gotten $30 a month for the rest of their lives and probably their children's lives, and that's the kind of deal we cut.

As I work through this, Mr Johnston went on to say that in Bill 61, or Mr Cooke's version, "The province will transfer ownership of the existing houses to the present residents, as identified in the 1992 assessment rolls."

Did you notice something about that? They're going to transfer ownership of the homes to those people on the assessment rolls in 1992. Why didn't they say "those people on the assessment rolls when this debate took place"? Why didn't they say that? Why didn't they say 1971? Why didn't they say 1975? Why didn't they say 1980? That's as equitable as picking 1992, because there are some people who've lived there a year, two years, less than a year. Why do they get on it? Immediately you're saying: "It matters not whether you have a true claim to this house. It matters not whether you've lived there. It just happens to be that you live there on the right day, and today is that day."

Interjection: In a public park.

Mr Stockwell: In a public park.

I spoke about if the ownership is contested, and mark my words, there will be many contested. It's not often you get to win the lottery publicly, so there are going to be a few people who're going to have their claim in on it.

"Anyone who is presently occupying a house on the day that this bill comes into force who are not entitled to own it may apply to the commissioner for protected occupant status."

There's a beauty. If by chance we've let you win this lottery and somehow you don't qualify because you didn't answer the skill-testing question, which is three plus three divided by two, you still get to win because you apply to the commissioner and you get protected occupancy status.

Mr Grandmaître: They'll make you qualify.

Mr Stockwell: That's it. What are the qualifications? I'm not sure, but I'm sure you'll qualify. What a deal. Can you imagine the interviews when the islanders come in? "Where do you live?" "I live on the island." "You qualify." What a process. It will probably take the government about three hours to complete that interview.

Mr Murdoch: Oh, no, not this government. Give them a day.

Mr Stockwell: Protected occupancy status entitles the residents -- get this -- "to not only continue occupying the house that they are in for a maximum period of time as stipulated in the regulations" -- 100 years -- "but also gives them priority on the waiting list to purchase a house on the islands."

Holy smokes. You can live there as long as you like, as long as your term's up -- then we'll re-evaluate you and extend it -- and then when one of these prizes comes due, we'll give you an opportunity to buy it. What are you buying? You're buying a 99-year lease for 30 bucks a month. Who the heck isn't going to buy it? Who the heck isn't going to buy your opportunity? It costs you more in gas to get to the cottage up north than it costs you to pay for the rent, taxes and operation of this place.

I'd spend more in gas to get to Huntsville so I can get to my cottage. Thirty bucks return: I don't know many cars that go to Huntsville and back for much less than $30 return. But you can have it all because you won the socialist lottery on the island. You won the lottery. We have said that if you don't qualify, we make you qualify, and then when we make you qualify, you get an opportunity to buy, and when you buy, you get 100 years of freedom. This has got to be the sweetest deal that's ever been cut by --

Interjection: Sometimes they can't afford it.

Mr Stockwell: You can't afford it? We'll subsidize you. If you can't afford it, don't pay the rent for goodness' sake. Thirty dollars a month is a lot of money.

Next, "Protected occupants pay an occupation charge in trust for the owner, and is liable for all municipal charges related to the house and land during their occupancy."

All municipal charges related to the house: I ask across the floor, what are those municipal charges? Are you going to pay for the fire stations? These 650 homes aren't going to pay for that. Are you going to pay for the school? They're never going to pay for the school. Are you going to pay for the ferry service? They're never going to pay for the ferry service. Are you going to pay for the policing? You're never going to pay for the policing. You get all these services paid for by the taxpayers because you won the lottery.

Mr Murdoch: And you get to live in a public park.

Mr Stockwell: You get to live in a house in a public park for 30 bucks a month, all your services provided, and if by chance you don't qualify, we'll make you qualify.

Mr Mahoney: How's the fishing?

Mr Stockwell: The fishing's great, as long as you don't eat them.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): You know, they still won't vote NDP.

Mr Stockwell: They will. I'll guarantee you folks across here that you can check these two polls for about 100 years and they'll vote NDP.

"At the end of the protected occupancy, the owner of the house may purchase the land lease" --

Mr Mahoney: You get a lot of geese doodoo, though, don't you?

Mr Murdoch: Who's going to feed the geese?

Mr Stockwell: If it weren't such a ripoff, it would be funny. But it's not funny. It's a sad commentary on this government today.

Number 6 of the Cooked deal: "At the end of the protected occupancy" -- you know, that protected occupancy where you don't qualify but they make you qualify -- "the owner of the house may purchase the land lease for the house and assume occupancy or may request that the trust sell the house and land lease on their behalf."

If you decide that $30 a month is a little too steep for you and you want to recoup your investment, you can sell it and recover your costs. Here we have now an operation where you can sell it.

Who knows what the private sector will demand for these. I hear some mumblings across the floor at times that it will be a level, set fee by the government and that will go into trust and they won't be able to accrue the difference. The difference is they're not going to sell them. Nobody who gets into this deal will sell. It won't be within their best interests to sell because there's no point in selling the ticket that gets you a house in a park for 30 bucks a month. You couldn't recoup that. Nobody's going to sell his piece.

These are considered the rules for ownership under the current legislation. These are the tough, hard-nosed, socialist rules that this government has put in place for the lottery winners. Give me a break. Go into any municipality out here; go out to Etobicoke, Scarborough or Mississauga; go out anywhere and look people in the eye who are looking for accommodation, whose houses have been foreclosed on because they lost their jobs, who are looking for an apartment to rent for less than $500 or $600 a month, who are looking for a place they can move into. Look them in the eye and say, "We just sold these houses for $30 a month for 100 years."

1750

Tell them the criteria: One of them is that you happened to live there when we did it. Then tell them about your social conscience. Tell them about how fair and equitable your government is. Tell them about what a fairminded individual you are and the people who've never had access to the corridors of power truly have access to the corridors of power.

This is not fair. It's not acceptable and it's just unbelievable that this is what you classify as a fair and equitable deal for the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto. That's what this is. This is not a deal that's cooked by Metro. This is a deal that was cooked by your Minister of Municipal Affairs.

There are a lot of people out there who need help. I challenge this government to go on to the island and give these people a means test to determine whether they need help. You give them a test to see whether or not they qualify. There are going to be a significant number of people on the island who don't qualify. Then you go out and tell all those people who qualify, who are on waiting lists, why you gave them a house for 100 years in the middle of a park for $30. That's going to be a rather tough explanation, I might add.

The argument the member opposite, who happens to be the architect of this lottery, suggested, that other governments have approved this in the past -- you know something? I don't have any agreement in the past with what previous governments did. I don't think the Conservatives handled this well at all. I don't think the Liberals handled it particularly well either. But the one thing they didn't do that this government has done is that they haven't locked the taxpayers and council into a term that is absolutely unreasonable: 100 years. They haven't locked them into a position where this land will never become parkland for 100 years.

Granted they didn't do a great job. I know very well that if it was a public debate, I would not agree with Mr Grossman's position, from our party, when he was in power, but at least he didn't lock us in for 100 years. At least he had some foresight to say, "In the year 2004, these lands revert back to Metro and become public open space." That's what he said. Metro gets ownership. They have been proven in court time and again and that's the big difference.

I take great exception to the minister standing up and saying, "Go talk to your old colleagues." What my colleagues did I am not in total agreement with. But what they did doesn't hold a candle to the sweetheart deal cut by this government on the island -- not a candle.

The other discouraging part I have about this is that the people who are represented in the galleries today and on the island for the past 10 or 11 years -- and I heard the Liberal member bring it up before -- for the past 10 or 11 years, considering they've won this lottery, have not paid a nickel in rent. They have not paid a nickel in rent to Metropolitan Toronto, not a nickel.

You can ask the previous minister. You can ask Metro governments. You can ask them all, besides those who suggest they have. Where did the money go? Where's the money that Metro was owed for those 10 or 11 years? Where is that money? It's supposed to be in trust; it's not in trust and they're never going to see it. This group who have a 100-year lease for $30 a month for a house in a park on the island didn't pay rent for 10 years.

Why? There never seems to be an answer from them. Why? Why were they given this break, 10 years rent-free? Why a 100-year lease for $30 a month in the middle of a park at taxpayers' expense? Why? What makes them so special?

The other thing I would like to do is challenge those members across the floor to go through this list and see who are the occupants of these island homes. I challenge them to come across. It's well known that a city counsellor, an NDP --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): We had a Tory candidate who made promises for years.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member knows that interjections are out of order, particularly when he's not in his seat.

Mr Stockwell: It's well known that some of those residents who live on the island are very well-off. Financially, they're in pretty good shape.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Members will have the opportunity of participating when their turn comes. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor. Please respect that.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker, very much.

Okay, what they should do is take the assessment rolls from the people who live on the island, and they'd recognize some of those names. They'd recognize them as elected officials, they'd recognize them as architects, they'd recognize them as animators, and you know what animators are; you hired them to facilitate you. That's Alpha Consultants you hired as animators to help you facilitate. I'm not sure you can do that in public, but they hired them. These people are in fact well-off. They're paid very well. They have good incomes, and it's well known that these people could afford to pay market rent.

I know across the floor they're not very up to date on the economic practices out there for the private sector, but they must know that $30 isn't market rent. Anyone would know $30 is a little low for market rent.

As you flip through the assessment rolls, you also find that a lot of these people who were supposed to be part of an island community that was first annexed back in the 1950s have no relationship to the people who live there today. These people moved in at some point during the last few decades.

Mr Murdoch: How did that happen?

Mr Stockwell: How did that happen? I'm not sure. You'll also find as you flip through the assessment rolls that it even admits that they've only lived there for a very short period of time. The government should take the time -- the backbenchers or even the minister or the Treasurer, who's so short of money these days he's finding it very difficult to make ends meet -- to review this to find out exactly how much money he's losing in potential revenue for a simple market rent.

Mr Murdoch: You could pay the deficit off.

Mr Stockwell: I doubt you could pay the deficit off, Mr Treasurer. I don't want to get your hopes too high. But it may be so much that you might be spot on if you were to apply these to certain revenues.

Mr Mahoney: A dollar a day rent. Can you imagine that?

Mr Stockwell: I liked that from the member for Mississauga West. I think I'll close with a last thought -- I'm not closing, obviously; I'll take up my opportunity to speak tomorrow -- that maybe we can leave with the members opposite and maybe even the small viewing public that have tuned in to see the member for Yorkview speak and were so totally disappointed.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Wouldn't you let him on?

Mr Stockwell: Or the member from Durham. He may speak in French tomorrow.

We may be given the opportunity to tell the people of Metropolitan Toronto that those people who have won the lottery have got a house in the middle of a park at taxpayers' expense, provided for by taxpayers, as a gift from this government for winning the lottery. Their rent is a buck a day. You can't even get to work and back on a buck a day, and that's what they're paying in rent, these politicians, architects, animators --

Mr Mancini: Agitators.

Mr Stockwell: Agitators. A buck a day is their rent. The scary part about it is that this minister feels that he cut a hard-nosed, tough deal with the islanders because he squeezed them for a full buck a day. A buck a day, 80 cents American. What a negotiator. What a hard-noser. What a guy.

Seeing as it's now 6 of the clock, I would like to leave their palates somewhat whetted for tomorrow as I wind up.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House will stand adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 18, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1801.