The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Today my concerns are directed to the mismanagement which this government finds itself faced with on a daily basis. I'm not talking about the Piper affair, along with the many others; you know I could go on and on. What I'm talking about is the extension of sewer and water services in the town of Keewatin, a community in my riding.

Thus far, the Ministry of Northern Development has committed $600,000 to this project, the municipal board has okayed the financial structure, the certificate of approval is in place, the Ministry of Transportation has given permits for highway crossings, the tender has been let and the contractor is ready to go. As well, residents have agreed to put their share into the development and the town has agreed to pilot the project, but we have the Ministry of the Environment holding the entire thing up.

In speaking with the Minister of the Environment only yesterday, she too found it interesting that the Ministry of Northern Development would be playing a lead role in this, one which is normally taken by her ministry, as the project reflects directly on the environment. We must note that many of the properties that are involved are fronting on the Winnipeg River.

Every minister across the way has talked about the creation of jobs: jobs, jobs, jobs. We hear the word on a daily basis, but here we have a prime example where the words are not matching the actions.

I call upon the Minister of Northern Development, the Minister of the Environment and the Treasurer to come together on this most important development so that these jobs can be saved in northwestern Ontario. It could be a long winter of unemployment for those contractors involved, and I again ask the ministers involved to review their procedures involving this particular project in the town of Keewatin.

ONTARIO HYDRO SERVICE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last weekend, parts of Owen Sound and the Bruce Peninsula were without hydro power for long periods of time. Unfortunately, power outages of this sort are becoming a part of life for many local municipalities and businesses.

The regional office in Owen Sound has indicated that the problem is defective insulators on their 44,000-volt line servicing the area.

After several major outages last March which took both the AM and FM stations in Owen Sound off the air for many hours, Bayshore Broadcasting raised the matter with the then Hydro chair, Marc Eliesen. These stations have an agreement with Hydro to notify the public in the event of an emergency at the Bruce nuclear plant, but how can station managers fulfil this responsibility if there is no power?

Many businesses are being affected by these shortages. Last Saturday, Burger King was without power for over an hour and had to refuse business at the front door while throwing away food at the back. The Georgian Club and Carruthers Insurance have written just today about similar difficulties. The mayor of Port Elgin says his community cannot attract industry because it is accepted that hydro power is so unreliable.

In view of Hydro's poor record, the people in my area want to know whether or not there is a plan to deal with the problem of these insulators and whether funding has been committed to implement it.

Local Hydro managers and crews are doing their best to cope with these outages, but the solution does not lie with them. It lies with the minister and with the head office at Hydro. My constituents pay the same rates as everyone else in this province, yet they are receiving an inferior product. They deserve better.

DENNY PEDRI

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Today I bring to the Legislature the heroic efforts performed by an individual in Windsor on the weekend. Twenty-one-year-old University of Windsor student Denny Pedri acted out a part which many would not have accepted or embraced. First he called 911, then he went into action.

On early Sunday morning at 8:08, in cold weather and wearing only a bathrobe, Denny responded to the cries for help at a home in his neighbourhood, at 241 Oak Street. Six people screamed for help, four adults and two children: five people were on the roof of that house. Denny Pedri raced to the home. He dashed through thick smoke and choking fire. Not yet aware of the dangers ahead, Denny proceeded to seek out the cries, and among those he heard were those from an 11-year-old boy he found cowering in a corner, already experiencing breathing difficulties.

These scenes are those that seem to appear on national television programs that we think could never happen to us. Today, Denny's capturing much attention in Windsor for what he did. I'd like to add to that valour, so this afternoon I will call the chief of the fire department and urge them to give Denny a medal for bravery.

I know that the entire Legislature will want to salute a very brave and caring Denny Pedri for saving the life of a young man in Windsor on a cold and frosty Sunday morning.

NORTHERN ONTARIO FILM LIBRARY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to bring to the attention of the members of the House the grave concern I have in regard to the fate of the Northern Ontario Film Library. As members will know, over the years the Ministry of Education has comprised a collection of films, but because of financial restraints -- and this is especially so in northern Ontario -- two years ago had to give the maintenance of that up to the North Shore Board of Education in Blind River, and now it's housed in Elliot Lake. This school board, because of a great decline in usage of these films, because of a $7 fee -- and I'm glad the Minister of Education is here today and I can talk to him about this -- has found an 85% decline in the usage of the Northern Ontario Film Library.

This board is now discussing whether it is going to have to disperse this film collection. I'd like to bring to the members' attention that this is a film collection of 14,000 films that is valued at $4 million. This would be a real tragedy to northern education because, more than any other region, we have less access to real-life situations, where we would rely upon a film library for educative needs for our children in northern Ontario.

I would certainly ask the Minister of Education to consider, whether it's in the general legislative grants for northern Ontario boards or whatever, to try to find the $42,000 -- and that's all it would take -- to maintain the collection and disperse the collection throughout northern Ontario schools each year so that our children would have access to a first-class film library.

1340

GET READY FOR SNOWMOBILING WEEK

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate the first-ever Get Ready for Snowmobiling Week, which was launched yesterday in the province of Ontario. Get Ready for Snowmobiling Week offers Ontario residents the opportunity to heighten awareness of the benefits of snowmobiling as a recreational pursuit and economic stimulus.

Total snowmobiling revenues are expected to exceed $300 million in Ontario this winter, and it is anticipated that Mother Nature will a friendly ally in this financial/recreational endeavour. With the Farmers' Almanac predicting bountiful snow conditions, the winter of 1993 is expected to rewrite the record book for the number of Ontarians snowmobiling in one season and the dollars these riders will drive back into the provincial economy.

In my place of residence, Wasaga Beach, the Wasaga Snowmobiling Club had 575 members last year. The club, headed by Don Reese, is looking forward to another successful season, with many important events planned. These include participation in the Santa Claus Parade December 5, a family fun day on January 16 and a poker run on January 30.

In Wasaga Beach, the only obstacle in the way of another banner season for the Wasaga Snowmobiling Club is the Ministry of Natural Resources. The ministry has stubbornly refused to allow snowmobilers to ride on trails located on crown lands.

Snowmobiling provides family fun and is good for the economy. I urge all members of this Legislature to reflect this week and to ensure a safe and pleasurable winter season for the thousands of snowmobile enthusiasts across Ontario.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): "In America, a Rebirth of Hope" is the headline in this week's Manchester Guardian Weekly. In the United States, the new administration seems prepared to attack the problems produced by 12 years of free market dogma.

Whether you talk to Americans or read their media, it is clear that at the heart of the desire for change and reform is health care. As we have known here for years, universal medicare is the most popular program and the one which demonstrates the effectiveness of universality of benefits. You can go anywhere in this province, from University Avenue to remote northern areas, to see all people obtaining a broad range of essential services, undeterred by cost and bureaucratic restraints, at considerably less societal cost and without the terrible risks of being uninsured that we see to the south.

I was shocked and disappointed, though not entirely surprised, when my colleague Dr David Himelstein of Physicians for a National Health Plan drew to my attention a misleading and distorted article in the US edition of Reader's Digest by an émigré Ontario surgeon, Ian Munro, who tries to discredit our system. The arguments are familiar and specious. To support them is to support illness and suffering.

I want to say to the American politicians and planners, to the employers struggling with high benefit costs, to unions and to unorganized workers, to the Physicians for a National Health Plan, to the American Association of Retired Persons, that we know that universal medicare, and nothing less, works. It's really regrettable that Canadian physicians outside this country choose to mislead and misunderstand the need for universality.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): To the Minister of Education: Minister, there is a crisis of confidence throughout the educational community regarding the leadership which you and your government are providing. Hardly a day goes by without a statement by a parent, teacher or trustee expressing their grave concern at how this minister is seeking to implement a wide variety of changes.

On November 13, the president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, Paula Dunning, stated, "The education of secondary-level students in Ontario will be in chaos if the Ministry of Education proceeds with its plan to force schools to implement destreaming without providing the necessary resources to do so."

The president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Liz Barkley, stated over the weekend, "The minister's proposed changes are ill advised and poorly researched." She then called for the minister's resignation.

The public school trustees called upon the minister to defer the mandatory implementation of destreaming "until an analysis of pilot destreaming projects is conducted and until the ministry provides adequate funding to cover the cost of retraining teachers." These are precisely the specific recommendations made by this Legislature's select committee on education four years ago.

Minister, the crisis in confidence among parents, teachers and trustees will soon lead to chaos. You must convene a special meeting of all the key educational stakeholders to ensure that the changes you are proposing can be implemented in a sane and effective way. The goal, Minister, should be excellence and the best education for our kids. Confidence must be restored.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I'm sure many members are aware that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is holding its annual meeting this week in Toronto. While I'm sure we all wish them the best in their meetings and elections, I also think we should review the farm situation from a financial and economic point of view here in Ontario.

Realized net farm income has been dropping in Ontario every year since 1987. In fact, farm income was higher in this province in 1983 than it was last year or the year before. This government's response has been to ignore agriculture, much the same as the previous Liberals had done: large announcements with nothing behind them.

In fact, if we look at the increases in farm-gate prices for farm products in Ontario, we see that return to farmers has gone up by 1.4% since 1986, six years ago. That 1.4% is a lot less than this government has handed out to its union friends in the public service.

In fact, Ontario's food producers have been forced to absorb a multitude of increased costs of production. For instance, property taxes for farmers have increased 32% since 1986; electricity, 37%; building repair costs, 26%; labour costs, 32%. Farm suppliers have kept seed and fertilizer prices to an 11% increase, while replacement cattle have gone up by 11%.

Agriculture's in trouble. This government must recognize it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A point of order?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Yes, sir. Mr Speaker, the honourable member for S-D-G & East Grenville forgot to mention that Brian Mulroney and his Conservative cronies in Ottawa have caused massive problems for agriculture.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his point of interest.

A point of order?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, on a point of order which is just as valid as the one expressed by the member: I want to say to the member I encourage this kind of dialogue and cross-fire from the opposition members.

The Speaker: I appreciate everyone's assistance.

CARVERS' QUILT OF ONTARIO

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I refuse to use my 90 seconds to spread doom and gloom. I have a positive statement.

On October 28, 1992, the Carvers' Quilt of Ontario was presented to the province of Ontario. This unique piece of art was created by woodcarvers from across Ontario to mark the 200th anniversary of representative government in Ontario and to mark Canada's 125th birthday. It's now on display in the Legislature, as you well know.

Today I want to recognize the Brooklin Woodcarvers' Club and the Bowmanville Woodchips Club, both clubs in my riding of Durham East. The Brooklin Woodcarvers' Club contributed two panels to the quilt: the Old Mill, Brooklin, and Parkwood, the R.S. McLaughlin residence in Oshawa. The Bowmanville Woodchips Club also contributed two panels to the quilt: Methodist Church, Bowmanville, 1870, and the Fish Hatchery, Newcastle, 1866.

I want to encourage all members to join with me in thanking the members of both clubs and their respective club presidents, George Austen and the Rev Doug Hall, for their contribution to keeping alive our heritage through the magnificent Carvers' Quilt of Ontario.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order under standing order 23(i), which says that a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.

Yesterday, in response to a question by the member for Renfrew North, the Premier characterized the member's stance as "synthetic indignation." In doing so, the Premier attempted to convey the impression that my colleague and those on this side of the House were simulating our disgust at the actions of his friend and key adviser, John Piper, who, it appears, attempted to convey information to a journalist with the sole purpose of smearing a woman who had come forward with allegations against a then member of the Premier's government.

The Premier then went on with his mea culpas on this issue as if he had a personal hold on morality and ethics in this place and those in opposition were only raising these issues for some lower purpose.

Mr Speaker, I'm asking that you require that the Premier withdraw those remarks and that characterization of my colleague, as required under the standing orders, and acknowledge that there is no play-acting here. We are angry. We have reason to be angry with the conduct of this government and the way it has breached the trust of the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Halton Centre, she will know that if there is anything which occurs during question period or indeed at any time during our proceedings which the member finds to not be in order, it's most appropriate to draw it to the Speaker's attention at that time.

I listened carefully to the dialogue, as I always do, and I did not find that there was anything out of order. I must add, of course, that when there are contentious issues, on both sides of the House occasionally the language is not always the most temperate.

But I must say finally that yesterday, despite the situation, members on both sides of the House made quite an effort to deal with the issue in a very calm and reasoned way. However, I do appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

1350

POINTS OF ORDER

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I understand your rationale in reply to my colleague. However, I must raise something that does cause us problems in the opposition, and that is the fact that if, during question period, a matter is or appears to be out of order and we stand to interject about the point of order, you have taken the usual habit of penalizing the opposition by letting the clock continue to run, so that if we raise the issue and you even declare a remedy available to us, we have already taken ourselves out of use of some of the clock for the purposes of the point of order.

There were occasions yesterday, Mr Speaker, when, without standing in my place, I did point out to you that various members of the government were heckling my leader as she was putting her questions in a very serious and measured manner to expose the difficulties that the Premier has found himself and his government subject to. While you were unable to call anyone to order specifically, I notice that you did try to isolate the origin of the heckling, which from my vantage point really was the Treasurer.

My problem, sir, is this: If I am to do my job as the opposition House leader, I must interrupt perhaps my leader in her questions or another of my colleagues, perhaps the leader of the third party or some of his colleagues, or indeed even the backbench members of the government party in order to bring to your attention what I believe is out of order.

My concern, sir, is this: If we are to raise them at the moment that they arise -- that is, points of order -- how can we do it without penalty to our time to question the government? So far, in fact, I think you have not varied from your practice of listening to the points of order, but you are penalizing us by allowing the clock to run down. Can I, Mr Speaker, ask you for a ruling as to how these points are to be handled and whether or not we are to lose time to question the Premier or his ministers during the only short period of time during the day when we have a chance?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, I don't believe he would want me to break any of the standing orders. The standing orders and the practice are quite clear that points of order must be drawn to the attention of the Speaker at the time when they occur and that, of course, during question period the clock will continue to run.

It is in a sense a moot point in that, regardless of whether it's the Speaker or some other person who interrupts the proceedings, the clock will continue to run. Should I notice anything which is out of order, of course I will deal with it immediately. If I deal with it, then of course I am interrupting the proceedings, and the clock continues to run.

The best caution on this, of course, is if all members would do their utmost to restrain intemperate language and, indeed, I must say to the member for Bruce, my observation is that for the most part, such was the case yesterday. It allowed us to have quite a few questions directed and quite a few responses.

I'm sensitive to the point that the member raises. I know that those 60 minutes are a precious time for the opposition and it's one that should not be interrupted unless it's an extreme situation. It's one that I am very careful to try to protect for the opposition.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PREMIER'S VISIT TO ASIA / VISITE DU PREMIER MINISTRE EN ASIE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): In response to popular demand, I am making a statement with respect to my trip to Asia. I want to report to the House on my recent trip to east Asia. This was my second business trip to Asia in 1992. I visited five countries and jurisdictions, including 11 cities, and attended more than 50 events.

I had meetings with 10 ministers and heads of government, and with more than 50 CEOs and senior executives of some of Asia's largest corporations. These included Taiwan Aerospace, China Steel, Hutchison Whampoa, Wharf Group, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Hyundai Motors, Kia Motors, Sammi Group, Matsushita, Kubota, Kao, Sumitomo, Toyota, Honda and Suzuki.

I met with Asian investors who have this year committed more than $50 million to new Ontario investment: Jae-il Engineering, Daewang Corp, Kia Corp, Kao Corp, Kubota and Sumitomo.

I also had the opportunity to make specific representations to governments and ministers on behalf of Canadian companies and contractors.

Since 1986, more than $1 billion in new Asian investment, creating more than 7,000 jobs, has taken place in Ontario. I met with many of the companies involved to encourage new expansion in research and development and production. All of the advice that I have received, both from Canadian businesses in Asia and from our Canadian representatives in these countries, has convinced me that there is no substitute for steady, regular contact with these leading corporations and governments at every level.

I also had the opportunity to discuss new governmental and educational partnerships with Governor Chris Patten of Hong Kong -- and I know that many people were here when Governor Patten came to Toronto -- and Governor Nakagawa of Osaka, Japan. We shall need to consider together how best we can take advantage of the strong relationships we have already fostered with some of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

In the course of the two-week trip, I met with and spoke to over 1,500 Canadian and Asian business people in 10 addresses to business organizations and Ontario Clubs. Ontario Clubs are groups of Asians who have served our investors in Ontario and who are now returning to Asia and who have very strong feelings and very strong associations with this province.

We made a number of breakthroughs on this visit. I was the first Canadian Premier to visit Taiwan, the first Ontario Premier to visit both Kansai and Nagoya in Japan, as well as Guangzhou and Shenzhen in south China. These are going to be growing markets into the next century and are among the fastest-growing economies in the world.

I pressed market opening issues, contract bidding transparency and dispute settlement concerns of the Canadian government and of our government, and Canadian business in China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

NAFTA was raised at virtually every private event. It remains a serious concern for our existing investors and our prospective partners. I can't overemphasize this point. Some may just treat this as a partisan issue but, believe me, it is a genuine concern being expressed within the Asian business community. We discussed the determination of the Ontario government to defend the interests of our existing investors, as we did successfully in the case of Honda, and our conviction that the future interests of both Asian and Ontario business partners are best served by the early finalization of the GATT.

Support for the Ontario government's initiatives in training, research and development and expenditure control was offered on a number of occasions. Ontario's, and Canada's, reputation remains strong, but it is also clear that we have a lot of work to do, both here and abroad, to build on what we have achieved.

There is a sense in every jurisdiction I visited, both among governments and among Canadians living and working in Asia, that there are many more opportunities for export and investment in Asia than are currently being pursued. It is also clear that competition for direct Asian investment in North America will continue to be intense. There are advantages to investing in Ontario which have to be marketed in an aggressive way, and I can tell the House that this will be even more necessary in the unfortunate event, in our view, of the ratification of NAFTA.

All Ontarians have to embrace the simple reality that our common future depends on our ability to attract investment from home and abroad, to sell our goods on freer domestic and world markets, and on how we measure up against what others are doing in education, in training, in research and development, in investments in environmental improvements and in the quality of life in the province.

We are an international province living and working in a world that is getting smaller all the time. The success of our friends in the world is the product of neither a miracle nor a conspiracy. It follows from their commitment to the values that have brought us as well to this point: hard work, saving, cooperation, education, a determination to take the long, strategic view. We have to renew our commitment to these values as well, to recognize that international comparisons must be made and that the spirit of continual improvement is not just a cliche in a management textbook but a reality of our life as a people.

It's an exciting, challenging world. We should not shrink from it or see any part of it as alien to ourselves. We should embrace it and embrace the partnerships it implies.

1400

Les économies infranationales et régionales joueront un rôle de plus en plus important au sein de ce monde interdépendant. Le territoire de Hong-Kong et la Chine du Sud, qui forment la région du delta de la rivière des Perles, et la région japonaise de Kansai, concentrée sur les villes d'Osaka, de Kyoto, de Kobe et de Nara, pour ne mentionner que deux de ces économies régionales, sont des partenaires naturels pour l'Ontario, tout comme le sont devenus les Quatre moteurs de l'Europe. Il va sans dire que nous sommes fiers de notre identité canadienne et que nous voulons collaborer plus étroitement que jamais avec nos partenaires canadiens, mais il nous faut également envisager notre avenir économique de façon plus claire sur les plans de nos avantages et de nos propres réalisations, et en relation avec nos principaux partenaires économiques et sociaux à l'échelle mondiale.

Most of our trade is carried on within the Great Lakes region, and these of course will remain critical partnerships. But as an industrial region going through important changes, we need to compare ourselves to, and indeed learn from, those parts of the world that are among the most dynamic parts of the global economy.

This sense of our being part of a world economy in which local markets and regions are clearly linked needs to extend well beyond the business community. Our schools and universities can lead as well, as can local governments. I've been encouraged by the number of Ontario municipalities that have active twinning partnerships with cities and towns in Asia. Indeed, as an aside, I'd say to the member for Mississauga, who's listening so intently, that I had the pleasure of being in Hong Kong and Japan at almost the same time as my good friend the mayor of Mississauga.

We need to do more to make sure we are taking maximum advantage of these opportunities.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I wouldn't admit that if I were you, Bob.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You should have listened to her.

Hon Mr Rae: I didn't say I saw her there; I just said she was there at the same time.

Let me outline some future tasks and projects in Asia that I intend to have our government pursue and which I believe the economic future of the province requires.

First, we have to do more to help our key industrial sectors develop Asia strategies that enable them to develop marketing, product development, research and even packaging approaches to these vital markets. We're doing this, but we have to do more. The government will work through our Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to foster these efforts in sectors such as telecommunications, the automotive industry, information technology and plastics.

Second, we need to work with our existing centres of excellence, the seven that were set up by the previous government and whose funding has been confirmed by this government, to focus potential private sector investment from Asia on research and development. We need to introduce key Asian research imperative corporations to the finest talents of Ontario's university and private sector labs. There's considerable interest in doing this; we simply have to take advantage of it.

We need to look at how we might better foster the study of Asian languages from the elementary to the post-secondary level in the province's education system, along with the development of even more Asian business expertise among our business school students and faculty.

We need to build new links between our public sector institutions devoted to marketing Ontario internationally, such as Ontario International Corp, and those of our most aggressive municipal development bodies, and with the federal government. We can and must work better together.

We need to work with the leaders of our Asian Canadian business organizations to help make better use of Ontario's unbeatable human connections to Asia. Ontario is, for example, the favourite destination anywhere in the world for Chinese expatriates from Hong Kong and south China. We should make better use of this potential for our own province.

We need to advance the process of reorganization that's already been launched within our government to make our international marketing and promotion efforts the best in Canada. We need to bring together the expertise of our ministries of Education, Tourism, Agriculture and Food, Colleges and Universities and MITT to focus on delivering our province's message of opportunity to Asia and Europe and further sharpen the focus of our representation in Asia, especially in the booming new markets of the region, about which I'll have more to say later on.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those working in the private sector as well as for both the government of Canada and the government of Ontario who helped make the trip a success. We need to do more to develop our business and human connections with Asia, which is, I would remind the House, a third of the world's land mass, nearly half of the world's population and, by the end of the next century, fully 40% of the world's economy.

This is a challenge that we all share.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): Today my colleague Energy minister Brian Charlton and I are pleased to announce a new energy retrofit program planned for Ontario's government-owned buildings. This is a joint program between my ministry and the Ministry of Energy which will save energy, reduce the province's energy bill and create jobs.

An estimated $100 million will be spent over the next five years to achieve energy efficiencies in our owned buildings. This investment will cut the government's $88-million annual energy bill by $20 million and make our buildings 20% more energy-efficient. Not only are we reducing the burden on taxpayers; we are also creating 2,200 jobs over the life of this program.

We are financing the project through methods that include leasing agreements and contracts with energy service companies. With these options, the cost of the program is actually funded by the private sector and is self-financing. For example, a private sector company will purchase new energy-efficient lighting and install it in our buildings. Under a lease-purchase agreement, we will completely pay for the lighting fixtures with energy savings over a three- to five-year period.

In a previous statement the ministers of Government Services and Energy, together with Ontario Hydro, announced an energy conservation program for buildings owned by this government. Since then, Ontario Hydro has completed more than 1,300 power saver audits in our buildings and recommended relamping, replacement of mechanical equipment and other measures to save money.

Six Ontario government buildings have already been retrofitted under pilot programs financed by the green workplace program and the Ministry of Energy. Electronic ballasts, a new T-8 lighting technology, has been installed in the Macdonald Block, realizing an energy savings there in excess of 20%.

Our challenge is to retrofit more than 2,000 buildings and we're doing it in a way that shows leadership and saves on our operating costs. With our new approach to financing, we have found a creative solution to getting the job done. We are setting an example in energy conservation which we hope will be followed by other major energy users.

We are calling on the private sector to join us in forming a partnership to invest in energy efficiency. For businesses and industries in Ontario, this retrofit program will help stimulate the development of a green market in the energy service sector, which will create more jobs.

An example can be seen at the Canadian General Electric plant in Oakville. This plant recently expanded to produce energy-efficient lighting. This means between 500 and 700 jobs will be created or maintained, resulting in substantial economic benefits for Ontario.

As the official landlord of Ontario government buildings, the Ministry of Government Services is moving quickly to implement these retrofits. The first building to be retrofitted under this program with energy-efficient lighting will be the Macdonald-Cartier building in Kingston. Approximately 50 other buildings across the province have also been selected for retrofitting within the first year of this program.

I'm pleased that my ministry and the Ministry of Energy can benefit Ontario taxpayers with this program by saving energy and money and by creating jobs.

1410

PREMIER'S VISIT TO ASIA

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It is not an exciting day, it is a sad day when the Premier talks about his recent trip to Asia as a success.

More than 11% of Ontario's workforce are without jobs; more than 100 plants have closed in the first 10 months of this year; there are more than 1.2 million people on welfare and 20% of the young people of this province are out of work -- higher than the national average -- and the Premier's sole response to this economic crisis was to go to Asia for two weeks.

The Premier will remember that we said at the time: "Premier, you should stay home. You should talk to Ontario businesses. You should ask them what they need to be able to be competitive and then you should take your trip overseas, Premier, telling investors that Ontario is indeed a good place in which to invest your money." Instead, the Premier went overseas without talking to companies at home and proceeded to criticize them for being less than competitive.

Then the Premier announced that a Japanese company, Kubota, had decided to expand its Ontario plant. He must have been reading a calendar because Kubota immediately said that it had made that announcement two years ago.

In the meantime, we understand that Toyota has announced that it's going to double its production in North America. That expansion will be either in Mexico, Kentucky or Ontario. I wonder whether on his trip to Asia the Premier was successful in getting a commitment from Toyota that its expansion will be in Ontario, and if he was not successful, why not?

The extent of the Premier's Asian trip was a two-year-old announcement and criticism of Ontario business overseas. Premier, you should have stayed home to do what you could do here to restore confidence in doing business in the province of Ontario. Instead, as soon as you left, your government passed the labour legislation bill, which is already sending investment out of this province and is certain to discourage any new investment from coming in.

While you were away, Premier, another 19 plants in this province closed or were in the process of shutting their doors for good. Those are only the plant closings that we know of so far and the final closure numbers for that period of time that you were away are likely to be much higher.

We found while you were away that the provincial government was not doing much to help workers who will lose their jobs because of the closures, because we found that the Jobs Ontario Training program had turned out to be a complete failure. While the Premier was away there was a new government report that came out that said that, under the NDP, workers stay unemployed longer and when they do get jobs they earn less than they did before.

While you were away, Premier, another 1,000 workers in the province of Ontario lost their jobs. While you were away your government announced possible dump sites, which has upset residents and guarantees even more ill feeling on this issue. While you were away we endured the farce of the former president of Ontario Hydro trying to explain by letter why he could not come to a legislative committee to explain the circumstances of his $1.2-million severance package for his supposedly voluntary retirement because he had been placed under a gag order.

The Premier went overseas to show how strong Ontario is, and sadly, I doubt seriously whether Asian investors are any more reassured about putting their money in this province than they were before the Premier left.

There is no question that people want investment in this province, that people want to see an economic renewal, but there is also no question that people want the Premier of this province to understand what is happening here, to understand what he can and should do to start to turn the economic situation in Ontario around. People want to know that the Premier is prepared to address the concerns that clearly give the message that there is no confidence in doing business in the province of Ontario.

Premier, I would suggest that when you stay home long enough to get your own house in order, it will then be time to go overseas and tell people that Ontario truly is open for business.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I just have a few seconds to make my comments and therefore I will pose this question: How will the minister decide who gets a contract? Will he tender this or will he be issuing these contracts to card-carrying members of the governing party?

It seems to me that this is nothing more than good news used as camouflage to cover up the government embarrassment for the recent scandals that have evolved.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO ASIA

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to comment on the statement by the Premier concerning 16 or 15 days in Asia. The leader of the Liberal Party has referred to all the things that have run amok while you've been away, and I believe I would concur with that, along with the layoffs, along with the more unemployed, along with the loss of hope, along with the hungry. While you were away, in fact, absolutely no move was made on a two-year-old commitment to implement a nutrition program for children in our schools -- a sad disgrace, reinforced again today when four children came before and met with the Minister of Education.

You talk about what we should be doing, I guess, at the end of your comments, pages 4 and 5: "help our key industrial sectors develop Asia strategies"; "work with our existing centres of excellence"; "study how we might better foster the use" -- I'm not going to repeat them all, but I'm going to tell you that this is exactly what we have been doing. This is what Progressive Conservative governments did. This is what Liberal governments did. If it isn't going on now, you cancelled it. There's absolutely nothing here that isn't common sense, straightforward.

Of course, this is what the Ontario government should be doing in fostering a liaison with our Asian partners in there. Nobody had to go 15 days to Asia to tell you that this is what we should be doing. There's absolutely nothing here, nothing we could see out of this trip that common sense wouldn't tell you we should be doing, what we were already doing, and if we weren't it was because you cancelled it.

Secondly, "All Ontarians have to embrace the simple reality that our common future depends on our ability to attract investment from home and abroad." Of course; that's the problem. That's why Canadian and Ontario businesses told you to get your own act together here in the province of Ontario. That's why we are less competitive today than we were seven years ago. We are not "Yours To Discover," as we used to be, to Asian countries, to investment from Europe, to investment from all around the world. We are not as attractive as we once were, when we brought 99% of all this investment into the province of Ontario.

You did another thing while you were over there, Mr Premier, for which I soundly condemn you, as did the chamber of commerce. You went over to Asia and you ran down Canadian businesses. That is something we do not do. We put our best foot forward. We don't go over there and tell them everything that's wrong with Canada or everything that's wrong with Ontario --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You're doing it. You run down the province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Algoma. Order.

Mr Harris: We do that right here; that's what this vehicle is for.

Even Canadian businesses, when Canadian businesses go abroad, when they're in Asia, they pretend they don't know you. They don't tell them about the disastrous government. They don't tell them, "Don't come to us." If they knew you were Premier, they'd try to forget that you're Premier. They don't want potential investors to know the disastrous direction that you have for potential investors in this province.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Would the real Mike Harris please stand up?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Harris: They follow that time-honoured rule that all governments follow, that all businesses follow, that we all follow: When you are in Asia you put your best foot forward. You don't run down Canadian businesses. You attacked them for not being competitive. You attacked them for not seeking out the opportunities in the markets. They say: "Shame on you. Get your act together here at home. Allow us to compete in our domestic markets and we will then be able to compete with North America and with the rest of the world."

Finally, in your statement you talk about NAFTA and concerns about the North American free trade agreement. Let me share with the Premier that in discussions I have with those in the business community, particularly foreign investors from Asia and from Europe, they too express concerns with NAFTA. Their number one fear is that the NDP will get elected and cancel all access to markets completely. Their number one concern, when they want to locate a plant in North America, is that there will be a free trade agreement, that there will be access to the complete North American market, not just Ontario and not just Canada. In fact, as companies are looking for global mandating and at global marketing of their products, that's their number one concern.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mel Hurtig can fight that battle.

Mr Harris: That's right. Now that Mel Hurtig is out there espousing that position a little more clearly than the NDP, perhaps they will understand some of the differences as well.

Yes, they have concerns, but their first concern is that they want an agreement, they want free trade, they want access to these markets, otherwise that investment is going somewhere other than Ontario.

This report to us today I don't believe represents the Asian business viewpoint, and Mr Premier, I think you hurt us by going there for 15 --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is time for oral questions; the Leader of the Opposition.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOHN PIPER

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. We now have two cases in which a private citizen has been deliberately smeared, one by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the other by your friend and your close adviser, John Piper.

Premier, we've looked very carefully through the record, and it is true that throughout these situations with Mr Piper and with the Minister of Northern Development you have never actually said that it is wrong to smear a private citizen. You have never actually said that you consider this to be a fundamental breach of trust, a fundamental abuse of power. You have said, Premier, that you do not condone the behaviour, but will you stand in your place today and tell us and the people of this province that you believe that this behaviour is fundamentally, morally wrong?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member can express her characterization of various issues and situations as she will. Let me make it very clear that with respect to what Mr Piper did, I made very clear my views on that. I made very clear, with respect to the actions that have been taken. I indicated very clearly to the province, as soon as I heard of it, the depth of my own feeling on the issue. I think any attempt to discredit a private citizen is wrong, and in this particular instance the results were as we've seen them. I don't think there's any member in this chamber who doesn't feel the same way about that incident.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I'd like to direct your attention and your responses to the very human dimension of the kind of behaviour we've seen from your closest adviser, and I want to ask you about the victims of Grandview, who continue to suffer because of the actions of your government. I'm sure you're aware that as a result of the dirty tricks of your closest adviser, 14 Grandview victims have either withdrawn from their support group or they've expressed reluctance to participate because of the fear that they too will be smeared in public by your government. Premier, will you admit that Mr Piper's dirty tricks campaign, run out of your office, has worked, and that it has further victimized the victims?

Hon Mr Rae: I'd say to the honourable member that the investigation of the incidents taking place at the Grandview institution, about which complaints were made and about which there is now a police investigation, has to be, in every way, shape and form, independent of the political process entirely. That is absolutely essential. It's therefore difficult for me to comment on the particular allegation that's been made by the honourable member.

But I would say to the honourable member that I sincerely hope that nothing that has happened would in any way, shape or form discourage anyone from coming forward, and say that we obviously have a responsibility to ensure that people can come forward without fear of any kind of response from anyone. I want to make that very clear.

I hope the member will appreciate that, given the fact that there is an investigation going on, it is difficult for me to make any further comment except to say that of course we want to ensure that people are coming forward and make sure that that's in fact what's taking place.

Mrs McLeod: Difficult for you to comment? It's difficult for you to comment on the people who are involved in the Grandview investigation, but it wasn't difficult for John Piper to call a reporter into his office and offer information, confidential or otherwise, that could be used to smear one of those victims, simply because she had involved one the members of your government in her allegations.

Premier, I want to take a moment to tell you of what transpired in this House while you were away so that you will no longer do a disservice to the victims of Grandview by trying to explain away the inability of your government to respond by saying it's under OPP investigation.

There is a report, a detailed report, from the Information and Privacy Commissioner which addresses the concern that you and the Attorney General keep offering as your reason for suppressing that report. I use the word "suppressing" deliberately, because the Information and Privacy Commissioner very clearly says that the investigation will be in no way jeopardized by the release of the 1976 report. Stop using that as an excuse, Premier, and deal with what has been done to the victims at Grandview.

Premier, even Michele Landsberg has criticized your government today for the way in which the Grandview victims have been treated. She's condemned the efforts to smear the victims, and she's demanded the release of the 1976 report. Premier, the 1976 report is the one piece of information which can legitimately be put into the public arena which may give those victims some support for their allegations.

I ask you if you will tell us what you will now do to help the victims of Grandview, who have now been further victimized by John Piper's actions. Will you at least respond to their wishes? Will you order the Attorney General to release the 1976 report?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want to say with respect to the preliminary comments of the member -- and I say this quite sincerely -- I have very high regard for the Leader of the Opposition, and I would hope very sincerely that the Leader of the Opposition would not misconstrue my comments, the way I believe she did in her opening remarks. I would say to her most sincerely and without any sense of partisanship on my part that there's absolutely no interest on my part or on anyone else's part in withholding any information from anyone.

But I would say to the honourable member, the idea that the Premier of the province would order the Attorney General to do or not to do something, with respect to his judgement and the judgement of the Ministry of the Attorney General, with respect to a report -- it is just very difficult to see the circumstances in which that would be possible.

I will say to the honourable member, however, that of course I will look carefully at the record of the questions that she has asked, I will look carefully at the record of the answers that have been given, and I will seek to determine if there's anything more that can be done. But I honestly believe that when one's dealing with a situation of this kind -- particularly in light of what's taken place, which I regret most profoundly -- I would say to the honourable member that I can't simply make an instant response to her in the House with respect to something. Of course there are going to be strong opinions on all sides, but I also have to consider what it is that went into the judgement of those who said that they don't believe this is the moment at which that information can be released.

But of course whatever we do has to be done with sensitivity to those people who are complaining about what took place at the Grandview investigation, and also to ensure the integrity of any police investigation with respect to what took place. That has to remain the overall judgement that's exercised by this government in very difficult circumstances, and of course in circumstances that are further charged by what took place last week.

Mrs McLeod: I ask you then to personally read the freedom of information commissioner's report, which has been in the public arena for some time, and, having done that, to just once drop the defence and respond to the human concern that's there.

Premier, I would ask you as a second question whether you're aware that your friend and your top adviser, John Piper, spearheaded the creation of a new office called the central communications secretariat. Are you aware that this office was to be used for more centralized, more politicized communications processes, designed solely to make you, the Premier, look good, and that it was to be operated directly under John Piper's control?

Hon Mr Rae: Of course I'm aware that this government has decided to cut the overall communications budget of the entire operation, and that we've tried to seek some greater coordination of our overall approach to communications. I think that's been well known, and I think it makes good sense.

If I may say so, I seem to recall, during the honourable member's bid for election as leader, her saying that there needed to be more coordination and that perhaps some communications and other work could be combined.

Let's not turn what took place last week, which we all deplore and which I certainly deplore, into some attempt to find a nefarious purpose behind everything that's done. We're trying to cut some budgets, we're trying to bring them together and consolidate them, and that's the beginning and the end of it.

1430

Mrs McLeod: Premier, it seems to me that it's a rather unfortunate moment in time for you to try and defend the central fund as being a way of coordinating and providing more effective communication.

It's our understanding that under John Piper's direction between 3% and 4% of each ministry's communications budget was not to be cut. All of us would applaud your efforts to control budgetary spending if that was your goal. But this wasn't to be cut, this was to be drawn off the ministry budgets and transferred to a new central communications secretariat for a total budget under John Piper's direction of between $5 million and $7 million.

We understand that the role of that secretariat was to fund more polling, not to coordinate communications across the ministries, and to have greater control over government advertising. I would ask, Premier, for you to indicate to us exactly what the office is for, why it was to report directly to John Piper and to the Premier's office, what the money has been spent on so far, and could you explain why you decided to allow your friend and adviser, John Piper, to establish his own political communications fund, drawing for that fund from all the other ministries?

Hon Mr Rae: Look, what we have been doing is an attempt to create a net saving for the government in terms of its communication. That's what we've been trying to do. That is the beginning of it and that is the end of it.

As I say to the honourable member, she can fish as long and as hard as she likes and she can try to draw all the comparisons she wants to draw, but that is the beginning and the end of it. It wasn't some kind of personal decision by Mr Piper. It was a considered decision by the cabinet that, frankly, previous Liberal governments had got into the habit of falling all over themselves, of ministries falling all over themselves, spending money, polling, doing all this stuff under the Peterson administration. We were trying to bring about some kinds of efficiencies in the sort of mess we'd been left by the previous administration.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, may I remind you that we're dealing with the situation of a man whom you hired, whom you brought into your office to be your closest adviser with the one goal, and that was the goal of making you and your government look good. We are dealing with a man who has now resigned because he was prepared to use any tactic he needed to use to achieve his goal of making your government look good and that, Premier, is why we have questions about Mr Piper's budget and the uses to which he was going to put it.

Quite frankly, as we look more and more into the past activities of John Piper and his work in your office, we have more and more questions. He has resigned in disgrace. He was able to skim millions of dollars from all ministries for his own political targets under a new office reporting to him and we have to ask: What else was John Piper up to?

Premier, I suggest to you that all of this speaks to the need for a legislative inquiry, an all-party committee to review John Piper's special political projects and the operations of your office. I would ask if you do not agree that we need to get to the bottom of Mr Piper's activities and all that it means for the operation of your office, and will you immediately agree to establishing a committee review for that purpose?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer is, no, of course not. I would say to the honourable member -- you know, it's interesting. Everyone has agreed that what took place last week was wrong and represented something which all of us can agree on. What we have is an effort, then, to sort of move on from there, because we've all agreed on that. I agreed instantly with that on Friday and that was my immediate response. Then we have the effort on the part of the opposition to look at every single incident, everything that's taken place over the last two years, and try to concoct some kind of a campaign on their part.

I want to say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, I think if you look at the budgeting policies of the previous Liberal administration, we had no budget codes for any of the communication budgets in any of the ministries, we had them staffed with very partisan people, we had budgets totally buried within ministries.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: That was what was acceptable under the Liberals, that was acceptable under the previous administration and we said, no, we're going to cut those budgets. We're going to try to produce some coordination. The deputy minister in charge of the Management Board secretariat has been given the explicit responsibility of trying to make some kind of sense out of the partisan Liberal and Tory mess that existed on the communication side.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I refuse to allow the events of last week -- I refuse to allow the Liberal Party to somehow erase the memory in the minds of the people of the province --

Interjections.

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

New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I would suggest to the Premier that Mr Piper is helping to erase a lot of those memories.

My question is to the Premier regarding a report this morning in the Toronto Star. In the wake of the latest scandal to hit your government, several former residents of Grandview school are now afraid to get involved in the police investigation into the alleged sexual abuse. They have seen what your government tried to do to one of their fellow survivors and they're afraid that they too will be smeared by your government.

Premier, what assurance can you give the survivors, the victims of Grandview, that there are not others involved in your office, that there are not others involved in your government in this type of smearing campaign? Have you conducted your own investigation into that to determine whether Mr Piper was acting alone, and can you give us unequivocally the assurance today that there is no one else that was involved or had knowledge of what was going on with Mr Piper's actions in this regard?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm certainly satisfied that what Mr Piper did was an act of his judgement alone in terms of there having been no consultation or discussion with anybody else in my office. I obviously wanted to be sure of that on Friday. That would be the first question I would ask: "How could something like this have happened? Who would have authorized something like this?" The answer is, it wasn't; it wasn't discussed.

I would say to the honourable member I hope there's still sufficient trust in our public life for people to understand that, regardless of our partisan feelings and partisan intensity, that's the sort of thing that any Premier would ask in an office situation.

The second thing I want to say to the honourable member is, of course, if there are people who are reluctant to come forward -- you say, "What further assurances can I give?" -- I can only state categorically and unequivocally that people should be encouraged to come forward without fear of recrimination and without fear of any attempt by anybody to hurt anyone.

That has to be clearly understood -- granted of course that other people have their legal rights as well, and of course that's the case. But certainly no one involved in the administration of this government should be saying or doing anything to discourage people from coming forward and expressing themselves clearly with respect to events that took place some 15 or 20 years ago.

Mr Harris: Premier, there is absolutely no question -- I too want to be clear about this -- that we want to have that trust. The alleged victims in the Grandview case want to have that trust. But you must appreciate that we have had smearing before, some of which has been condoned by you, by one of your cabinet ministers. The record of your government is not good. It makes in many cases a mockery of this so-called commitment.

During the scandal involving sexual improprieties in the corrections ministry, female guards were afraid to come forward to tell their side of the story for fear of reprisal. You will recall that John Piper was one of those who was in charge of controlling the damage from that scandal. Now the victims of the Grandview school are backing down as a result of the attempted smear campaign by Mr Piper. So, Premier, they've seen a pattern here. This isn't an isolated incident.

I'd like to know if you personally can assure all women in this province, including the alleged victims at Grandview, that no one in your office and no one in your administration or your government or ministries, no one, is going to be involved in any reprisals should they come forward. Will you give your personal guarantee to that as Premier of this province and head of this government?

1440

Hon Mr Rae: Of course I will state categorically that it is my policy and it is a policy of this government that people should be able to come forward without fear of reprisal. However, the one thing I have to say, because I don't want to be misunderstood, is that if there are allegations made against a specific person or against a specific individual, obviously that person has certain legal rights as well. That's a fact of life too.

But there certainly should be no impediment or any sense among anyone involved in the Grandview matter or any other matter who would fear coming forward because of any kind of action being taken by the government; of course not.

Mr Harris: One thing we do know, that in a number of areas, female victims for whatever reason -- the Premier will say, "They have nothing to fear in me," and I believe the Premier means that -- are afraid of your government. They're afraid to come forward and they have been now in more than just one case. They're afraid that they will be victimized a second time by the government of this province. This scandal is just the latest in a series of dirty tricks campaigns, if you like, or smear campaigns to silence your political opponents. This time it wasn't a highly paid doctor, it wasn't a large business lobby, but it was a woman who is an alleged victim.

Mr Premier, let me ask you this. I realize there's an ongoing investigation. There are no charges that have been laid, and I personally and my caucus have wanted to await that before we raise any questions surrounding the former Minister of Energy who resigned. But there were allegations made; the minister resigned, as we think is appropriate; you accepted his resignation as appropriate.

Before the Grandview investigation was even completed, you then recently promoted the member for Kitchener to parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, and I would ask you, Premier, what signal that sends to Miss Harris, what signal that sends to the women of this province, what signal that sends about how seriously you treat the allegation that is now being investigated.

Hon Mr Rae: You've raised the question of when people came forward. In fact these incidents date back some 15 or 20 years. It wasn't until the election of this government or recent changes that people came forward.

I would say to the honourable member that the member for Kitchener has attempted to carry on his public responsibilities in a very difficult circumstance and I would say to the honourable member that I don't think any of us should prejudge in any way, shape or form what's taking place.

Mr Harris: I'm not prejudging. You're prejudging. I don't quite understand the lack of consistency in the Premier's logic here.

My second question is to the Attorney General. Mr Attorney General, would you confirm for this House that you were considering obtaining a court warrant to seal John Piper's office as of last Saturday?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): The answer, to my knowledge, to the member's question is no.

Mr Harris: Some of the information I have received, and I confess I can't confirm it, is that in fact you or your ministry was considering. My supplementary would be, why would you not be considering? Why would you not have been considering sealing Mr Piper's office to make sure that any information that may have a bearing on the OPP investigation was there? Why would you not have done that?

Hon Mr Hampton: I think it's very important at this juncture to emphasize again to the members opposite and to the public that the Ontario Provincial Police has been asked to investigate the incidents that occurred last Thursday and Friday which allegedly involved Mr Piper. The Ontario Provincial Police has full control over this investigation. They will make the decisions as to what information they need, how they require it, how they will get it and what kinds of court orders they may have. I have no intention of interfering in any way in an Ontario Provincial Police investigation.

Mr Harris: Could you tell me if you directed your deputy minister to suggest that Mr Piper be allowed into his office with Melody Morrison without any OPP present, without any forensic audit on the type of material that was being removed? Did you direct your deputy minister to do that?

Since your position here today is, "It's in the hands of the OPP; far be it from me or my ministry or my deputy to have any involvement in this," if you did not direct your deputy minister to do that, are you not then concerned that your deputy minister gave the authority for somebody on the Premier's staff, who should be under investigation in this whole matter -- every one of the Premier's staff should be under investigation. Who gave the authority to the deputy minister? If it was not you, does it not concern you that authority was given without any OPP present to see what was removed from Mr Piper's office?

Hon Mr Hampton: It is true that Ms Morrison requested legal advice as to whether or not it would be appropriate in the circumstances to allow Mr Piper to remove his personal effects from his office. I am informed that that advice was given.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Two minutes ago you said your office wouldn't have anything to do with it. You are talking on both sides of your yap. Two minutes ago you said you couldn't do it.

The Speaker: Order, member for Parry Sound.

Hon Mr Hampton: The advice was that Mr Piper should be accompanied to the office, that anything he sought to remove from the office should be inspected and that it should only be personal effects.

If I might add, the Ontario Provincial Police will decide how to conduct the course of its investigation. It is neither for the leader of the third party nor for me to tell the Ontario Provincial Police how to conduct its investigation.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Premier. I want to return to what, for me, is the essential issue in this disgraceful misconduct; that is, what Mr Piper did. It may be true that Ontario may not long remember what we say here, but it will be a long time before Ontario forgets what John Piper did here.

The Premier has said in recent days, and as recently as yesterday, that while he does not condone what Mr Piper did, it is not unusual and it is not unique for this kind of activity to occur. That's what the Premier said, and I want to focus this question on that point.

What we have here is a high official and close friend and appointee of the Premier who has gone out and somehow accessed sensitive information from the justice system, a system that is supposed to be apart from government. That high government official has then taken that sensitive information and, with the full power of the state and government, applied that information to the detriment of a defenceless person in this province. That surely is what Watergate was all about.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Conway: One of the Premier's own colleagues says it was Nixonian.

Does the Premier not understand that the real issue here is that abuse of power; the premeditated, preconceived willingness by a high government official to take sensitive government information accessed from the justice system to attack a defenceless citizen who dared stand up against the government itself?

Hon Mr Rae: I've served in the House with the member for many years, in fact from the time I was elected to this place, and I say to the honourable member, with great respect, that I think he diminishes his argument by the excessive language that he uses and by the comparisons that he makes.

1450

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Not at all, not at all.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I really do. I think that what took place last week was very wrong. I have indicated that; this government has indicated that. We have responded, and you will proceed to make all the comparisons that you will, and you can proceed to use all the language that you want.

I will say to you that it's deplorable, that there's now a police investigation taking place into what happened and that it is not something which I in any way, shape or form condone or approve of. For the member to suggest anything otherwise is completely inaccurate and not a reflection at all of how I feel or how I have responded to the situation as we have faced it in the last while.

Mr Conway: Yesterday in this place the Premier said that while he didn't condone what Mr Piper did, there was nothing unique, nothing unusual in these kinds of problems, and that is where I differ. This is a breach of trust. This is an abuse of power that is qualitatively different from anything that has ever happened in the political history of this province.

Fifteen years ago, John Dean wrote in Blind Ambition: "In the Nixon White House, upward and downward paths diverged yet joined, like prongs of a tuning-fork pitched to a note of expediency. Slowly, slowly, steadily, I, John Dean, would climb towards the moral abyss of the president's inner circle until I finally fell into it, thinking that I had made it to the top just as I began to realize I had actually touched bottom."

Does the Premier of Ontario not understand that with the abominable conduct of John Piper, we now know there is a moral abyss within the Premier's inner circle? Does he not understand that in Pipergate, not only in this government but in the political history of this province, we have reached a Nixonian bottom? Does he not understand that this is a very serious matter for this Legislature as well as for Judi Harris, and will he not undertake a more serious and a more comprehensive response to the gravity of this problem than we have seen to date?

Hon Mr Rae: It's precisely because I take the issue seriously that I find it very difficult to take the honourable member seriously -- very difficult.

The honourable member can draw all the parallels that he wants, he can make all the comparisons that he wants and he can make all the political attacks that he wants, but it doesn't take away from the fundamental issue which is here. A very, very serious mistake took place last week. It was something which I abhor, something which I deplore, something which in no way, shape or form corresponds with my own view of what should happen.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): That was no mistake. That was a deliberate plan. It was your government and your office.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Rae: There is now a police investigation --

Mr Harnick: Your government.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: There is now a police investigation under way.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I have to say, for the benefit of those who are listening, it's very difficult to talk because of the heckling. I will try to keep on talking and say to the honourable member that it's precisely because we take it so seriously that there is this police investigation under way. I can assure you and I can assure the honourable member that I take this matter very seriously. I take what's taken place very seriously indeed. As I said to the member, it's precisely because I take this matter so seriously that I find his effort to turn this into some kind of partisan windmill a little hard to take.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier as well. It's difficult, in some respects, to take his protestations seriously. He says he has been taking this whole matter seriously, but some of the activities since he landed on these shores would put that into serious question. The fact that he landed in British Columbia and heard about this matter and was very concerned but at that point did not take any initiatives to secure his office certainly raises serious questions about how seriously indeed the Premier takes this whole matter.

The Ontario Provincial Police was notified on Friday afternoon, but because of the weekend it was not able to assign an officer for an investigation until Monday morning. So there was a window of opportunity, if you will, if you want to look at it that way, in respect of Mr Piper coming into his office with the Premier's chief of staff late Sunday night to remove files from this building.

We on this side have to wonder why it was so important for Mr Piper to come in a few hours before the official police investigation was launched to remove materials from his office. Did he leave his keys to the house in the office? We all have to wonder why he had to come into the office a few hours before the official investigation was launched.

It's difficult to believe that since the Premier returned to Toronto he has had no contact with anyone in his office. I want to ask him directly, was he contacted by anyone in respect to Mr Piper's visit? Was the question posed to him and then he perhaps directed that, "We have to cover our political tails by involving a civil servant"? Was he completely ignorant of Mr Piper's plans or wish to visit his office on Sunday evening to remove files? Did you know nothing about this?

Hon Bob Rae: I did not, and I would say to the honourable member that, again, you can make all the accusations and allegations against me and against everybody else that you want, and no doubt some will be made. I would just simply say directly to the honourable member, the request by Mr Piper to take his personal effects from the office was received. A phone call was made to the Deputy Attorney General with respect to what should be done to deal with this. Was it necessary for a police officer to be present? The response came back, after inquiries by the Deputy Attorney General, that as long as all that was being removed was his personal effects and as long as his visit was supervised, that was fine. That's the response that took place.

Nothing was removed; no government documents were removed from the office by Mr Piper. It's our understanding that this is precisely what took place; no more, no less. It's my understanding that this process is one that was certainly understood to be sufficient and adequate and fair and reasonable in the circumstances by the people who were consulted in this regard.

Mr Runciman: I don't think I'm being cynical to suggest that I have great difficulty with the Premier seeing nothing wrong with a chief adviser to himself coming into the office only a few hours before an official police investigation is launched, in the dead of night on a Sunday night, to remove files. He's saying he sees nothing wrong with that.

I think the question is raised in many minds that his chief of staff was not there to ensure that the right things stay but instead that the right things are removed. It raises a whole area of questions which I believe are important.

I like to think that if my executive assistant, for example, was accused of criminal activity, I would secure my office. I wouldn't allow my executive assistant to go in and rifle the files a few hours before the police launch their official investigation. But the Premier again, like he's done on so many occasions, is defending that sort of activity. It's indefensible, again.

I want to say there are so many questions raised about this in respect to compromising the justice system, a whole host of questions, this should be referred to a committee of the Legislature, and I'm asking the Premier today, if he has no concerns, he's not covering up anything on the part of activities of anyone within his government, will he refer this matter immediately to the standing committee on justice for a complete and thorough investigation?

1500

Hon Mr Rae: I saw the headline in one of the newspapers saying, "No Inquiry, Says Rae," or whatever.

The member opposite knows full well, from his experience in this House and his experience in these whole areas, that the Supreme Court of Canada has now made it very clear with respect to the conduct of inquiries in parliamentary committees that are parallel --

Mr Runciman: I'm only talking about a committee of this House.

Hon Mr Rae: The member says he's only talking about a committee of this House. I would say to him that exactly the same thing would take place, and that is the difficulty that we have. It's precisely because I believe profoundly in the integrity of the justice system that I think we have to allow the police investigation to take place without any form of political comment or interference of any kind whatsoever. Once that has taken place, we can then see what else needs to be done and has to be done in order to ensure and maintain full public confidence.

I want to say to the honourable member that it is important for all of us to do that and to maintain it, and that's precisely what it is my firm intention to do.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health is aware that the proposed Morgentaler clinic is just outside the riding of York East. Many constituents, both business and residential, are concerned about the safety of the neighbourhood. My question is: What is the Minister of Health doing to ensure the safety of the area residents?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): The member will know that under the independent health facilities legislation, which has been in place for a number of years now and which licenses the clinics -- of which the Morgentaler clinic that he's referring to is one -- there are provisions through the capital funding, under the funding of the global budgets, for security provisions.

In addition to that, after the bombing of the Morgentaler clinic we provided specific funding assistance to clinics to try to address this issue of additional security measures. Those measures are available to the individual clinics and to the buildings in which they reside, and that stands.

The other thing that has been ongoing: The Morgentaler clinic itself sought an injunction against picketers because, I remind you, it's not the activity itself that presents any danger; it's the attraction of individuals who come there to protest or to take specific actions that may present a danger.

So there's the ability of those injunctions against picketing which is in place, and there's always the consideration of taking the broader step of an Attorney General's injunction if the circumstances warrant that.

Mr Malkowski: Could the minister tell me why these services are being offered in a clinic and not in a hospital, and how is this clinic funded?

Hon Ms Lankin: The funding is done through a negotiated global budget; it's an approved budget that goes through the Ministry of Health. It covers a number of things: the facility costs and the actual services that are provided, salaries for the staff. Those are negotiated. As this clinic was moved, we renegotiated a new budget that took into account the rent and those sorts of things.

The question of why these are being provided in a clinic and not a hospital: We have a piece of legislation; the Independent Health Facilities Act was brought in to establish freestanding clinics. It's an opportunity for us to deliver community-based health services.

The reason why the legislation was required was because abortion, as a surgical procedure, was only allowed to be done within a hospital without the framework of legislation that would allow certain things that had only previously been done in hospitals to be done in a community-based clinic. So in that sense there's a special piece of legislation that ensures quality control through the College of Physicians and Surgeons and other sorts of things.

As you know as well, it has long been the wish of many people in the women's movements and others that these services should be available in community settings.

JOHN PIPER

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Premier. Premier, you certainly are aware of the fact that we have many questions about John Piper's efforts to smear and discredit a person who provided information which led to the resignation of one of your ministers.

As you know, John Piper was at the deputy minister level in your office. He was earning over $100,000 a year. He was responsible for the government's and the Premier's communication strategy. You must have had a working relationship with Mr Piper, one of some kind of personal reporting, some kind of staff meetings, some kind of briefing mechanism.

Premier, my question is this, and it's not pre-empted by any OPP investigation: On the issue of any communication strategy -- and I'm not only referring to the issue of the criminal record -- on the Grandview-Ferguson affair, were you ever present when John Piper discussed this matter, or did you ever personally discuss the matter with him, or did you see any briefing notes on this issue generated on Piper's instructions? If so, what did you see or hear, and who was present?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No.

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Premier, your refusal to answer any questions is not going to stop us from asking the questions that have to be asked. It is essential that we find out the exact nature of the involvement that you, your office and your friend John Piper had in this disgraceful episode. This is why we are demanding a legislative inquiry into your office's dirty tricks campaign.

As you know, both crown attorneys in Owen Sound have denied providing the information to Mr Piper as he has claimed. I ask you, Premier, did you or your staff know who gave the Judi Harris record to John Piper? Was it through Will Ferguson or his lawyer or was it through the Ministry of the Attorney General? What actions will you take if it is revealed that the person who supplied the information is part of your government?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer to the question is, very directly to the honourable member, that it's precisely to determine answers to those kinds of questions that one has a police investigation. That's exactly why it's there. I would say to the honourable member that for me to comment or to say anything of any kind at this point would fly in the face of that investigation. All the facts will come out as they should come out, and they must come out, and there's a process by which they come out.

I would say again to the honourable member, and he's done it just as his colleague the member for Renfrew North has done it: He says I refuse to answer questions. I never refused to answer a question. I gave him a very clear response, and then he said I refused to answer the question. It's precisely that kind of partisan approach which makes it so appropriate for us to say this issue has to get right out of the political process, because it's very clear that the best way in which the facts will all come out is by an independent process, and that's precisely why we have a police investigation.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I suggest to the Premier that we're disappointed a committee is not being set up. We're disappointed, quite frankly, that the police are not reporting to a legislative committee of this Legislature. That's where the findings really ought to be reported so that we can give assurance that there's nobody else who is involved.

However, in the absence of the committee, there are a couple of other things I'd like to get straight here, Mr Premier. You say you are certain that Mr Piper removed nothing that had to do with any potential investigation that will be carried out by the OPP in this matter. I would ask you this, Mr Premier: Did Miss Morrison provide you with a log of every item and every piece of paper that was removed by Mr Piper, and will you table that log with the Legislature today so that we can determine if everything and every piece of paper was in fact examined by Miss Morrison? If so, we would presume there would be a log to that effect.

Hon Mr Rae: I have no such log. What I do have is the assurance from Miss Morrison that she acted entirely on the advice and within the context of advice given her by the Ministry of the Attorney General and that she was completely satisfied herself that there were no government documents whatsoever removed by Mr Piper.

1510

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, I thought the Attorney General wasn't going to have anything to do with this.

When Mr Ashworth was under investigation, you said, June 23, 1989 -- and he would have been about the same status as Mr Piper is in your office: not the big banana but a very key and senior person -- "The rot has extended to the heart of Mr Peterson's own office." So you would understand why we and the public and certainly the potential victims at Grandview feel that the rot has extended to the very heart of your office. You would then understand why we find it unacceptable that it is somebody in your office who may, or ought to, at least be under investigation as to what he knew or he didn't know.

There is a second thing, since we can't have a committee to investigate this, a committee perhaps to give advice to the OPP on some of the things we should do there. However, I would like to ask you this, Premier: Can you assure the Legislature and the people of Ontario today that there were no provisions in Mr Piper's contract for any severance, that Mr Piper in fact is not being paid five cents beyond noon on Friday for his services with the government of Ontario? Can you give us that assurance?

Hon Mr Rae: It is clearly my understanding and I think everyone's understanding that Mr Piper resigned as of Friday and that he's receiving no severance pay, no severance package and no additional payments beyond that point.

GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Many people in Niagara Falls have expressed to me how very pleased and proud they are that it has been selected to be the site of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. People are very interested in both the jobs and also the design of this building, which is going to be a landmark in our downtown area. People also want this investment to be very wisely spent. I need to know: Will local people be involved and have input on the design of the building in order to maximize its impact on the city as a whole and also on the downtown core?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): I am pleased to respond to the member's question. As the minister responsible for the Ontario government relocation program, I am of course supportive of its aims. Two of those aims, job creation and urban renewal, can only be done in complete cooperation with the communities involved. That is why we first develop a set of urban design guidelines for each location, as we have done for Niagara Falls.

Earlier this month we held a public open house at city hall, Niagara Falls to share these urban design guidelines with the community and solicit input. We intend to make these consultations with the people of Niagara Falls through a further open house and through amendments to those guidelines, and I assure the member that there will be much public input into that process.

Ms Harrington: Will there be local people who will be involved in the design team for the building, and secondly, will local people be used in construction also?

Hon Mr Wilson: From our past experience with these projects, we do find that there is much local interest, much local input, much local spinoff and job creation etc. The normal procedure for this is to let construction and design be awarded as a result of a public proposal call. We intend to make sure we encourage local participation in that project.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you've made many statements in the past about the importance of integrity and standards in government, and I cite back to you just one of those statements, a statement of June 1989 in which you said:

"There are those who say, 'Haven't you got anything better to do than deal every day with this question of scandals?' But the question of integrity is the first question in politics; it is the first question in government; it is the foundation of everything else a government does. If a government can't pass that test, it can't pass any other test."

Premier, integrity in government demands a consistency of standards. We do not see consistency, so we have some very real questions about your standards. I ask if you can tell us today what standards you apply in judging the conduct of your ministers.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I don't think there's any question that this quotation that the member has read and the statements that it contains -- the leader of the third party raised the issue, for example, in his last question yesterday with respect to the statements in the speech from the throne -- have been quoted on many other occasions.

This government's standards are clear. I hope my own standards are clear. I regret very much what has taken place and we've taken steps to deal with it. The clearest indication has been given by me and will continue to be given by me with respect to what has happened.

Her colleague says that what I stated yesterday was that while I didn't condone it, I said there was nothing unique or unusual. I never said any such thing. What I said was that human frailty is a fact of life. People talk about the heart of the matter. That is the heart of the matter. There are mistakes made and then there are judgements exercised and this House holds us accountable. This is a forum in which I am held accountable and I understand that.

I say to the honourable member, I hope very much --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I know it's implausible, but I want to say to the honourable member, she can criticize me for what I have done or failed to do in the past, I understand that, and she will continue to do that in a way that reflects her beliefs and her views and I will do the same with respect to decisions and judgements that she has made. But I haven't heard anyone on this debate suggest that the judgement that I exercised on Friday and the statements that I made on Friday or the statements that I made yesterday --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- or the statements that I'm making today are incorrect. I hope I'm right in that assumption.

So I say to the honourable member, I regret profoundly what has taken place. Steps must be taken to deal with it and we are taking those steps in a methodical way. The first step, of course, has to be that of a police investigation and I would say to the honourable member that I regard this as an issue that has to be dealt with by the government. We are dealing with it as we must and shall deal with other issues as well.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, nobody but you believes that this is an issue which began and ended on Friday. This question is about your standards and the way in which you choose to apply them. It's about the fact that we don't see a consistency and therefore it is unclear to us, and I believe it's unclear to the people of this province, what your standards are and how you apply them.

I remind you of that inconsistency and take you back to the Minister of Northern Development, who clearly smeared a private citizen in public, an action which you now say is clearly wrong, but the minister was not fired. I take you back to the former Minister of Energy, who was fired as soon as he became involved in a police investigation into the Grandview affair. The Minister of Tourism, Premier, was not fired as soon as you referred allegations about his conduct to the OPP, but only after the allegations became public.

Premier, again we're talking about your standards and how you choose to apply them, and I ask you one very simple question as a measure of those standards: Why did you not ask your former Minister of Tourism to resign as soon as you referred allegations about his conduct to the Ontario Provincial Police? Why did you ask him to resign only after the second allegation became public?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say if the member is asking the question, and I know she is, in order to get a very clear response -- and it's the first time I've had a chance to respond in the House on this matter and I'll respond as clearly as I can -- again I acted on the basis of what I thought was advice professionally given and it was also my sense -- and again this is something which a first minister has to deal with -- all there was to refer to anyone was a rumour, which in my view required further investigation, a rumour which, I might add, was completely and utterly denied by the individual in question.

I then had to ask myself the question, if there is a rumour which is denied completely, I have no complainant, I have no evidence, I have nothing, all I have is a rumour, and it's denied completely by the individual involved, we have to ask ourselves the question, how do we respond? I think I responded fairly.

What if the rumour proves to be completely unfounded? What if it proves to be without any factual basis whatsoever? What if there is in fact not indeed a complainant? What if there is no basis at all for the complaint? I would say to the honourable member that in that circumstance we're dealing with the reputation of individuals, we're dealing with their careers, we're dealing with their ability to perform in public office, and I have to deal with these issues in a way that I think is fair.

You ask me how I exercise my judgement. I'll say to the honourable member, that's how I exercise my judgement. I exercise it in a way that's as fair and reasonable in the circumstances as it can possibly be, and I think the way I exercised my judgement in that instance was respected: the need to get at the bottom of the matter, but the need as well for us to be able to deal with it in a way that's fair to everyone involved. That's the way I chose to deal with it.

1520

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. During the question period, the nature of the questions being asked prompted lengthy responses not of the type that is probably best suited for response to the order paper. Keeping in mind the balance we always try to achieve in here in allowing the ministers full opportunity, especially under difficult circumstances, to respond, I think it's only fair, although the time has expired, that we allow a question from the third party. I will recognize the member for Leeds-Grenville.

JOHN PIPER

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'll try to make this brief. This is to the Premier. I think there's an important element in this whole matter that he's trying to avoid, and that's in respect to his failure to secure Mr Piper's office when he arrived in Canada on Friday from his trip to the Orient. He's also indicated that he did not request, or no one in his staff requested, that a log be kept. He has expressed no concern over this occurring on a Sunday night hours before a police investigation is launched.

When I've asked for a referral to the justice committee, he's said that this is under police investigation. Well, this is one element that will not be touched upon by any police investigation, and I think it is one of grave concern to all of us in this Legislature in respect to the involvement of the Deputy Attorney General, the involvement of the Premier and other important players in the Premier's office. I ask him again to explain why he's refusing to refer this to the standing committee on administration of justice, especially as it involves himself, his own office, members of his office staff and the Deputy Attorney General.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I've answered that question completely. The only thing I would say to the honourable member -- and it gives me an opportunity to clarify an answer I gave earlier to the leader of the third party as well as to the member from Brockville -- is to say that Miss Morrison of course put a memo to file, which will be available to anyone, from the police investigating, with respect to the removal of material from Mr Piper's office.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. Point of order, the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Premier to my question on his briefings by John Piper. The reason for my dissatisfaction is that it is inconceivable that the Premier had no information on the communications strategy for the Grandview issue.

The Speaker: I trust the honourable member will file the necessary document at the table.

PETITIONS

ENERGY FROM WASTE

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a petition that calls upon the Minister of the Environment to reconsider her regulations with respect to energy from waste in the province of Ontario.

It's signed by 525 people from eastern Ontario, particularly from the Cornwall area, who were encouraged to sign the petition through the offices of the Cornwall Environmental Resource Centre. I have affixed my signature to this petition and submit it to you.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature:

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

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

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

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

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

It's signed by 12 residents of the county, and I've affixed my signature.

LIQUOR LICENSING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Today I am presenting a petition signed by 1,220 constituents from my riding of St Catharines-Brock. The petition states:

"The undersigned oppose the operation of adult entertainment parlours employing exotic dancers in or adjacent to residential communities."

I affix my signature.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by over 1,000 people in the city of St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"The undersigned oppose the operation of adult entertainment parlours employing exotic dancers in or adjacent to residential communities.

"We, the people, are concerned that Seductions will have a detrimental effect on the quality of community life in this part of the city. This type of establishment is inappropriate in a community where children and young people are living.

"We, the people, are concerned that the city of St Catharines currently has no bylaws which regulate the establishment and operation of adult entertainment parlours. This issues is now being addressed by St Catharines's city council. On November 9, 1992, council passed a motion that will begin the process of creating relevant regulations.

"We, the people, are concerned that provincial licensing procedures are inadequate to control the establishment of adult entertainment parlours in residential areas. As we understand, an application review process is conducted when a new application to license a premise is made. At that time residents have the opportunity to object to the application, thus having some say in the nature of their community. The original licence for 123 Geneva Street was granted for a family restaurant. This restaurant and its operation were compatible with a family community.

"We, the people, are concerned, however, that in the case of Seductions, the licence was transferred to a new operator with no opportunity for community reaction. The purpose of the establishment is changed drastically. The new operation is in no way compatible with a family community.

"The LLBO licensing procedures assume that area residents should have some input to licensing decisions. This opportunity is removed when a licence is transferred and/or the use of licensed premises is changed. This, we believe, points out a serious inadequacy in the procedures under which the LLBO operates.

"So we, the undersigned, request that our elected representatives make inquiries to the LLBO to determine if any actions can be taken to eliminate adult entertainment parlours at 123 Geneva Street and that they initiate actions that would allow residents an opportunity to object to changes to the use of existing licensed premises."

They thank us for our attention to this matter. I affix my signature to this particular petition in agreement with the petitioners.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I see the mayor of the city of Toronto is here, and she would like this petition. I have attached my name to this petition, and it reads:

"We, the undersigned residents of the city of Toronto, strongly urge that Metropolitan Toronto's market value assessment proposal should be referred to the Fair Tax Commission in order to create a property tax system that is fair and equitable."

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have approximately 3,250 petitions from citizens of Ontario which read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, in support of the mother of Debra Pauline Williams Ellul, draw to the attention of the House the following:

"That the right to appeal the decision made in the Debra Williams Ellul murder acquitting Guy Ellul of all charges be granted based on the fact that the decision not to allow the appeal does not accurately reflect the public's abhorrence and unacceptability of the outcome of this trial."

I affix my signature to these petitions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Petitions? Reports by committees? Introduction of bills.

1530

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES VICTIMES

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

Bill 97, An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime / Loi portant déclaration des droits des victimes d'actes criminels.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any brief comments?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I believe most members of this House are familiar with this bill. It is now a third attempt to codify in Ontario law the principle and acknowledgement that victims of crime have rights in this province. It seeks to correct a situation where Ontarians find themselves as one of the last provinces in Canada to codify these rights for their victims.

I will not discuss at length the elements of the bill, because it will occur in my private member's time in two weeks. I beg the indulgence of the House at that time to give it its full consideration in the names of those victims of crime who have not received the supports and the services that other victims of crime have been able to receive across Canada.

CONSUMER AND BUSINESS PRACTICES CODE, 1992 / CODE DE 1992 DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DES PRATIQUES DE COMMERCE

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

Bill 98, An Act to provide a Consumer and Business Practices Code for Ontario / Loi prévoyant un Code de la consommation et des pratiques de commerce pour l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any brief comments to make?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Very briefly, this consumer protection and business practices code is intended to bring about a new era of protection for consumers. I look forward to its debate some time in December, I believe December 10, in private members' hour, and I hope all members from all sides of the House will support this initiative in the form of this piece of legislation.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before I proceed with the orders of the day, I'd like to read the following:

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Ottawa West has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Premier concerning the briefing of the Premier by John Piper on the Grandview issue. This matter will be debated today at 6 o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REASSESSMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES NOUVELLES ÉVALUATIONS DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

Mr Cooke moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 94, An Act to amend certain Acts to implement the interim reassessment plan of Metropolitan Toronto on a property class by property class basis and to permit all municipalities to provide for the pass through to tenants of tax decreases resulting from reassessment and to make incidental amendments related to financing in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin de mettre en oeuvre le programme provisoire de nouvelles évaluations de la communauté urbaine de Toronto à partir de chaque catégorie de biens, de permettre à toutes les municipalités de prévoir que les locataires profitent des réductions d'impôt occasionnées par les nouvelles évaluations et d'apporter des modifications corrélatives reliées au financement dans la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'll be very brief. Today I'm moving, on behalf of the government, the legislation that will give Metropolitan Toronto council the same power to proceed with its interim tax plan as any other municipal council would have in the entire province. In fact, all of the other municipal councils already have that power. Metropolitan council is the one exception to that rule across the province.

I don't want to underestimate the difficulty this bill presents and the concerns that have been expressed by people in the Legislature, some members of the Legislature, and some people in Metropolitan Toronto and, in particular, cities like Toronto and East York. Whenever you're dealing with this issue -- we went through it a number of years ago in my home community, where there was not legislation needed to implement it -- it becomes a very difficult issue because some people experience tax decreases, other people experience sizeable tax increases.

The compromise plan that Metropolitan council has come up with is not full market value assessment, and I think that is important to understand. It is a small step towards market value assessment. The mayor of the city of Toronto, who's here today in the gallery, has certainly expressed some of the concerns they have in the city of Toronto about the move towards market value assessment. I think it's fair to say that the concerns they have are, even more, concerns about what happens if they move to full market value assessment and what the long-term effect might be on the city of Toronto, on downtown, if there were a move to full market value assessment.

That's why in this legislation we have not given permission to Metropolitan Toronto to go the next step. This legislation only authorizes Metropolitan council to proceed with the interim tax plan, which is a small step towards market value assessment.

What we have committed ourselves to do over the next few years, before this five-year period is completed, is to work with Metropolitan council and try to develop a fair taxation system. I think it's fair to say that the current tax system in Metropolitan Toronto is unfair and that the proposed tax system only in a very small way alleviates some of the unfairness. It's certainly an unfair tax system as well that's being proposed by Metropolitan council.

We need to work with the regional councillors, we need to work with the regional government, to develop a fair tax plan for this community. That's why we've said, "Yes, you can go the first step, but we're not going to give you the power to go the next step."

That's also why we have put certain provisions in this legislation that will make it necessary for Metropolitan council to pass certain bylaws to implement its interim tax measures. We believe it's very important that certain parts of this plan be re-examined by Metropolitan council because of the concerns that have been expressed by the business community, by people who live in the residential communities in the city of Toronto and in communities like East York.

I think there are some real questions about what the long-term impact would be on the city of Toronto if we went to full market value assessment. This is a great community in which to live, and one of the reasons it's a good community to live in is because we have people of all income levels living in downtown Toronto, we have communities and residential neighbourhoods in the city of Toronto.

Mr Speaker, you will know that I live across the border, about five minutes from the city of Detroit, and I know what happens to a community when its downtown core loses its residential communities: The community then dies and the impact on the suburbs is very substantial as well.

That's why over the next five years we've committed ourselves to working with Metro council to do the social and economic impact studies of what would happen if there was going to be full market value assessment and to work with Metro council to look at all of the options to develop a fair tax system.

1540

This has been a very controversial and emotional issue in Metropolitan Toronto. I don't remember, in the 15 years that I've been a member here, that there has been an issue that has faced Metro council that has been as controversial as it is. I think it's fair to say that the profile of Metropolitan council and of the regional chair has increased considerably in the last number of weeks. I don't know whether they would think that was good or whether they think that is bad, but I do believe that everyone, or most everyone, has come to the conclusion that the current tax system in Metro Toronto doesn't work; it's unfair. And I think there's a general recognition that, while the plan that Metro council has put forward is a little bit fairer than the current system, it's not fair either and that we've got to take a look at the property tax system in this community. We've got to take a look at the property tax system across the province, and that's why the Fair Tax Commission is looking at this issue. I hope we'll be able to develop some recommendations and that over time we will be able to reform the property tax system, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but right across the province.

One other issue has been raised which I think has credibility, and that is that while most of the rest of the province has market value assessment, there is a uniqueness to Metropolitan Toronto that doesn't exist anywhere else in the province. I don't need to be convinced of that; I think that is absolutely true. There's no place in Ontario where the differences in the market vary so significantly as is the case in Metropolitan Toronto. Of course, that adds to the distortion of the property tax system and is one of the reasons why we have to come up with a better system.

But as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I also believe very much that local governments have to take some responsibility for decisions they make, and that the provincial government can't make all the decisions for local government. That's why we are proceeding with legislation that will enable Metropolitan Toronto to proceed with its interim tax plan but put it on notice very clearly that we have to work together to find a fair tax system so that when reassessment occurs again, we do not move to full market value assessment.

I want to make it very clear that we on this side of the House do not believe that full market value assessment would be in the interests of the people of this community, not just because taxes in downtown Toronto would go up even more, but because that would have a substantial impact on the development of this community and, I think, would have a negative impact on the core of this community. While some people in the suburbs might not be concerned about that, we do have to look at what that would mean to the taxpayers and to the social and economic life of this community.

If downtown Toronto were to deteriorate, then there would be additional cost to Metropolitan council. There's no doubt about that, whether it's police cost, whether it's other social cost, infrastructure cost -- all of those items would have a substantial impact if the city of Toronto and communities like East York were allowed to deteriorate as communities in the United States have. That would surely have a substantial impact on the taxes of people living in the suburbs in Metropolitan Toronto.

So while we're moving forward with this interim plan with the power to allow Metropolitan Toronto to move forward, bylaws will have to be passed at Metro council. That will give the opportunity for the level of government that is responsible to have a second look at certain aspects of this bill.

I want to single out one part of the interim tax plan that I have great difficulty with and I believe the government does too; that is, the condition that, on sale, residential properties will move to full market value assessment. I have great concerns with that because I believe it could put the writing on the wall for what the next step would be. I ask Metropolitan council to take another look at that particular part of its plan. I don't think we should do anything that prejudges where we're going to go in year six, after this plan has expired and after we're into a reassessment and looking at a new tax plan.

All we're doing here is giving Metropolitan Toronto the same powers that other municipalities have. We're allowing them to go ahead with an interim tax plan which is a very small step towards market value assessment. We're putting Metro on notice that we will not go to full market value assessment in this community, and we're telling Metro, "We want to work with you to develop a fair taxation system so that when this plan expires and there is a reassessment, we can then implement a fair tax plan in this community," and we're saying to Metro council, "Please look at certain aspects of your plan because we think they will have a negative effect and might prejudge decisions that have to be made down the road."

I think that's a reasonable and responsible approach by the provincial government, and I look forward to going on with second reading, having public hearings at the Legislature on the legislation, and then this whole matter will go back to Metro council, where it will have to be debated once again.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Yes, Mr Speaker. I don't think I've ever heard a minister who could talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time like this minister --

Hon Mr Cooke: In the history of the Legislature?

Ms Poole: -- in the history of the Legislature; certainly the time I've been here, and that's really saying something.

On the one hand, this minister has said he doesn't believe that full market value would be in the interests of the community. He says it would be detrimental to the city of Toronto, and yet this same minister is the one who's planning to rush through this plan, to rubber-stamp it and not even have the guts to change the provision which says that, on point of sale residents in the city of Toronto will go to full market value. He doesn't have the guts to do it. Instead, he passes the buck back to Metro.

Mr Minister, if you did your homework, you'd know that Metro council has voted on that provision three times; that three times Metro council has passed it, over the objections of the city of Toronto and over the objections of the Metro councillors who represent the city of Toronto on Metro council.

When you talk about being sensitive to the city of Toronto, it's all a bunch of poppycock. You are determined to pass this with a minimum of participation. You want it through by the end of this year. It is very clear that your government has changed the rules, and your government has the mandate and the majority to do that. Don't give us this nonsense about protecting the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto is not being protected by what you're doing.

What you should be doing is putting a provision in there which prohibits Metro council from bringing those properties to full market value at the point of sale, but you have not done that. You have opted out. You have co-opted out. You have copped out. So, Minister, don't tell me about your concern for the city of Toronto, because you and those cabinet ministers and those members from the city of Toronto have betrayed us.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I'm alarmed to hear some of the comments that my Liberal friend is making, especially about the initiatives that have been undertaken by this government to protect the city of Toronto, when in fact her government, the former Liberal government, dilly-dallied with this particular issue for so many years that, quite frankly, they made a mess of the entire thing. I'll remind her that it was the Liberal government that essentially changed the political dynamics in Metropolitan Toronto by requiring direct elections to Metro.

Quite frankly, I agree with direct elections. They changed the political dynamics of the Metro area, and a block of councillors were behind the leadership of a particular mayor and a couple of mayors getting together and blocking any decisions that would favour any of the other areas in the other regions within Metro.

On one hand she says, "You know, we introduced direct elections to Metro, which changed the dynamics," which in fact have allowed Metro to make a decision with respect to market value, a decision which Metro, quite frankly, has the mandate to do, as all other municipalities within the province of Ontario have a right to do. Metro made the decision.

Now she comes into this Legislature and says: "Well, geez, we don't want Metro to make the decision. You shouldn't have allowed Metro to make the decision. Quite frankly, you have the authority. Move in and usurp Metro's power." If that's what the Liberal member is advocating, then, quite frankly, boy, we're back to square one and she doesn't know what she's talking about.

1550

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): The member for Eglinton surely has a point when she says she caught the minister speaking from both sides of his mouth. He certainly can't have it both ways.

I was particularly happy when he mentioned that he lives across the river from Detroit and that he says he has personal knowledge of the economic and social rot that can set in when a tax scheme and/or other items that have to do with municipal government affect the growth and living standards of a city. Having said that, would he then not come to one conclusion: that is, why introduce a scheme of taxation at this particular time and place, before an economic impact study has been done?

The question that comes up repeatedly from all over the city of Toronto and from some sectors of Metro Toronto as well is: Has there been an economic impact study that points directly to what the consequences are when this particular plan is put into effect? I think it is not unreasonable to ask that this impact study should be done before the consequences of this plan can be identified.

The minister, therefore, cannot have it both ways. He cannot say on the one hand, "We're not quite sure that we can trust the Metro government to implement this plan properly over the years," and on the other hand say, "Yes, we will implement it, but only in a halfhearted fashion." So what we're asking for today is for the minister to have another look.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The time has expired. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The only body that has been very consistent in this debate has been that of Metropolitan Toronto council. On two occasions that I can recall, just recently and back in the late 1980s, they have initiated plans for market value assessment and they forwarded those plans off to provincial governments. Each time, they forwarded them off. There was an election held on one of them previous to passing, and now this one they've passed on to the provincial level.

This is the initial stage of market value assessment. Make no mistake about it, this is the initial first step. It is, to some degree, the minister speaking out of both sides of his mouth. I'm not going to argue that point. He's trying to suggest that this is neither fish nor fowl. This is a very small step to implement what needs to be implemented: market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto.

I represent a tax-paying community in Etobicoke that has for the last 40-odd years been overpaying its taxes. It's that simple. I hear a small bit of heckling from the gallery, but it's very true; they've been overpaying their taxes. This is the initial step that will hopefully rectify that situation.

I wish this government could have given full authority to the supervisory elected officials who have carriage over this, which is Metropolitan Toronto council. To the member for Downsview, make no mistake about it: Metro passed this plan and passed it by a clear majority vote. The city of Toronto is part of that Metropolitan Toronto council and it was part of the council that voted. The vote was 21 to 13, I think. That is not really what I classify as a close vote.

To take away any directness that they gave you, Mr Minister, is saying you don't trust or believe in Metropolitan Toronto council and, sir, I do. I think they have carried their job forward in a very uphanded and forthright manner, and any suggestion at that level, I think, is unfair to those people who have sat on Metropolitan Toronto council.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes to reply.

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, I didn't question the motivation of Metropolitan council at all. It's been a very difficult issue for them, and I think the kind of compromise they've come up with demonstrates that they did try to come up with a compromise. There are parts of it that I don't agree with, as minister, and I think I have a responsibility to point out where I don't agree, but they have the authority to do what every other municipality can do across the province, and we've made a commitment that we will work with them to try to reform taxes in this community. I think that should be good news.

I find it interesting whenever I hear from the Liberals on this topic, or just about any other one actually, because I remember the history of this issue not only in this community but across the province. Bob Nixon, the former Treasurer, the Liberal Treasurer, was one of those folks who said to people, "Go for full market value assessment; we want full market value assessment," so I don't think it's fair or accurate for the member for Eglinton to stand up in here and somehow say that this is terrible and that they would never do this if they were in power. If they were in power, we'd be going to full market value assessment by provincial edict tomorrow. That was the position of the Liberal Party. So don't give me that.

I also don't think it's fair to listen to the Liberal Party and somehow give the impression that it's entirely unified even in the position that was enunciated by the member for Parkdale and the member for Eglinton. I don't know what the member for Wilson Heights is going to say on this issue. I don't know what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is going to say on this issue.

Mr Perruzza: Oriole.

Hon Mr Cooke: Or the member for Oriole. I suspect that some of those members don't agree with the member for Parkdale and the member for Eglinton, because their constituents are going to receive tax decreases.

On the one hand, the Conservatives say we should go all the way and give unlimited power to Metro; on the other hand, some of the Liberals say we shouldn't do anything, and I think what we've done is try to come down on the middle and be fair.

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

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I'm glad to hear the minister say that this is a compromise, this is not a full --

Hon Mr Cooke: What's your position there, Bernie?

Mr Grandmaître: You'll find out very soon, Mr Minister. I'll be very honest with you, because I realize that what the minister is trying to do is to accommodate everybody but at the same time stay away from any final decision. This is what the minister and the ministry are trying to do.

I realize that when you talk about market value, not only in Metro but right across the province of Ontario, it's a very sensitive, very emotional issue, and it will happen again. Let's hope that this House won't be faced with the same problem as what we're faced with today.

I will not be specific, I will not be attacking any of the sections, but I'm glad to hear the minister say that this will be scrutinized or evaluated through a committee. I'm very pleased to say this.

Also, in his opening remarks, this is the second time in about three months I've heard the same minister saying, "We are faced with a unique situation." The first time the minister said that it was a unique situation, he was referring to the London-Middlesex annexation. That was unique, so unique that he sent out a letter of apology to 834 mayors saying, "Hey, give me a break, this is unique." Now he's telling us the same thing. Again we're faced with a unique situation. Every time this government makes a move it's unique and it's not the right one.

Municipalities in the province of Ontario were given the power to assess and to reassess back in 1970. At that time, the government of the time, the Tory government, was right in saying, "This should be a local decision, a local problem," if you want to call it a problem. Section 63 and section 70 have been with us since 1970 and I think they've been very successful. Most of our municipalities, in fact 75% of our municipalities, are under section 63, and the rest of our municipalities are under section 70, which doesn't apply to Metro Toronto.

1600

But what we are faced with today is a major problem. I don't think the minister was right when he said that we shied away from our responsibilities when we were the government. I want to remind you, Mr Speaker, that back in 1987 Metro was given the opportunity to vote on section 63, and it turned this government down. So this is not new.

I'm going to say that for most of our municipalities that are dealing with full market value under section 63, this program has been a very successful one. What I don't like about what is being introduced today is these compromises. It's true that the minister is saying: "Look, believe me, we are trying to accommodate Metro. Metro is the only region in the province of Ontario without that power, so it's enabling legislation to provide Metro with this kind of power." But the enabling legislation creates precedents, and this is what I don't like, and maybe this is why the city of Toronto doesn't like it.

We were talking about resale. Metro plans to have full market value assessment kick in for the residential sector if a home is sold any time during the period of 1993 to 1997. As far as we know, this is a precedent in Canada, not only in Ontario.

I realize what the government is trying to do. It's trying to deal with a major problem, but piecemeal, and I don't think it's going to be very successful. I believe this is a Metro decision. Yes, they should be given the power other regions have to make their own decisions, but to put this House in this kind of a bind is unreasonable for this minister. I'm glad we will have the opportunity to discuss and to meet with people and organizations that are concerned about the present compromise plan.

The minister talked about the mess that existed in this province for a good number of years because most of our municipalities weren't under section 63 or 70, and he's absolutely right. I think we should continue to provide that opportunity to every municipality. But to say that it's so unique in Metro that we will interfere, I don't think it's right to ask this House to do so.

I know that the city of Toronto will be dearly affected if this compromise, this unique plan of the minister, goes through. It will cost Metro maybe $100 million in costs to the upper-tier government, the Metro government. I think this is very serious, because we are living in a very difficult economic time. The pressures not only at this level, the provincial level, but at the municipal level are twice as bad.

I know the minister or his assistant will tell us: "No, there are no real tax shifts in a class. For the residential class, for instance, if the total assessment is $10 million, it will not increase the municipal coffers." I realize this, but at the same time I think we have to address the shifts from one street to another. I'm talking about maybe a similar home that's been overtaxed for a number of years, whereas three doors or five doors away the same type or a similar home is paying less taxes.

I agree with the minister that it's unfair and we are trying to correct this unfairness, but this is not the way to do it. I think landlords, tenants, small businesses will be affected -- and large businesses as well -- by this kind of legislation. I don't think we will have time to listen to all the concerns of the people of Metro if we want this legislation to go through by December 10.

I can assure the minister that we will not delay those committee hearings. We will grant him all the time possible. We will sit at night and even on Fridays and on Saturdays to accommodate the minister. It's not our intention to stall this legislation. I think more people will be addressing the specifics of this bill, and I'm anxious to hear what the speakers from the government will have to say.

The member for Downsview who said a little while ago that it all started when the Liberal government gave Metro the opportunity to elect its chairman and to elect its councillors at large: He's out to lunch. This is market value assessment. We're not talking about electing councillors or a regional chair. I think he's out to lunch, as usual.

I know that my colleagues will want to address this issue from A to Z -- the member for Oriole and Lawrence and many others -- so I want to assure the minister that our caucus, our party, will cooperate fully. If need be, we may ask the government to maybe delay if more people want to be heard at committee, but at the present time we will accommodate as many people as possible so that they will have their say.

I will sit down and listen to what the third party and the government has to say on this very important, and I repeat, very important Metro problem. It has to be a Metro decision and not a decision of this House.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

[Interruption]

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Are there any questions or comments? The member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: I don't think that gentleman's the only one who can't figure out what's going on in here. I think many times a lot of us share that.

When Mr Grandmaître was talking about market value assessment he talked about the classifications and about the fact that there would be a shift within a class of taxes from certain parties in certain areas of Metro to others.

One thing that he didn't go into as far as the classification goes is that this is one area that Metro has not touched, this is one thing that the provincial government has not touched: the classification system that was set up many years ago. For instance, residences are assessed at 2.2% of their values. These are single-family residences. The commercial are assessed at 4.3% of their value, the industrials are assessed at 6% and multi-residential, that's apartment buildings, are assessed at eight times their value.

So this government, in other forums, has talked about protecting tenants and yet the Minister of Revenue has made no attempt to change this very inequitable situation where tenants pay over three times the taxes that home owners do.

This government talks about bringing in fairness, but it has not looked at the basis upon which this plan is formulated. The Metro plan is a compromise on a compromise on a compromise. It is 1988 values, it is a compromise on that, and it is based on a classification system which is outdated. If this government truly wants reform for tenants, let it take a look at that problem.

1610

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Questions or comments?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I don't plan on getting into detail; I just plan on speaking on behalf of the residents in Yorkview. The residents in Yorkview are going to experience a savings with the current plan. The residents in Yorkview would say to you at this point, Mr Speaker, and to the Legislature: "Why isn't it full? Why isn't the proposal that we were hoping would pass full-fledged MVA? Why am I not getting the full savings? Why did Metro change its mind?"

The members in Yorkview are going to receive a substantial decrease, a lot of them. It depends on the area that they live in. Some will receive $50, $60 and $70 decreases. Others will receive $200, $300, $400, $500 and $600 decreases, substantial decreases.

I am sympathetic towards the people in Metro and I do understand their concerns, but at the same time, try to understand the concerns of the people who have been subsidizing Metro for a long period of time. They have concerns as well. They haven't had the opportunity to voice their opinions as they would like and perhaps that's their fault for not doing that, but try to understand the way they feel about the issue.

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. The member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: I want to congratulate the member for Ottawa East on his comments. Having been the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, he would certainly have very distinct and important knowledge on this subject.

He says that small businesses and large businesses will be detrimentally affected. Mr Speaker, how right he is. Look at the situation that we're facing right now in the city of Toronto and indeed across other areas of the metropolitan area as well -- that is, our strip plazas, our small stores, family-owned, on our major streets in Toronto and other places. Picture this, after this market value assessment plan goes into effect. As it stands right now, already you see that some of the businesses are hanging on by their fingernails to make a go. When this plan goes into effect, the consequences are bleak indeed. There will no doubt be more closings in your area, in my area. While the city of Toronto is going to be more detrimentally affected simply because of the increases, other areas no doubt will suffer as well. We will have more time later to get into the specifics.

The member for Ottawa East is right: Large and small businesses are going to be affected. I, for one, would not really want to participate in a situation where I would be a cause or the member for York East would be a participant in a cause that would indeed lead us to closings of more small stores and shops on our major streets.

The second point the former minister's been making is that he says, quite rightly, that there will be a transfer payment of at least $100 million.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Will you take your seat. Thank you. Are there any further questions or comments?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I have just a very brief comment at this point in time. I listened carefully to the member for Ottawa East's comments, and particularly his opinion with respect to the role of municipal government and the appropriate responsibility and accountability of municipal government for decision-making. I have to say that is in keeping with a lot of my thinking. This is a difficult compromise to reach with respect to the balance between provincial intervention and municipal autonomy on some of these issues. I'll speak about that in a bit more detail when I have my opportunity to address the bill.

I just want to point something out, because I think it will be consistently shown through the discussion on this that there are members of all three political parties who hold very disparate views from their colleagues within their own parties on this, depending on whether you are within the region of Metro or whether you are within the city boundaries. It reflects very much the debate that went on at Metro itself.

I'm quite surprised to hear the member for Eglinton and the member for Parkdale, members of the same party as the member for Ottawa East, stand up and say that they respect the remarks he made. They hold very opposite views. The member for Ottawa East was saying municipalities should decide this. The other two members are saying the province should step in and change the rules on this.

That's okay, because you will similarly hear very different views on this on this side of the House. But let's not be sanctimonious about it and suggest that it's only on this side of the House, on the government side, where that will happen. We do have very differing views on this issue, depending on our constituents and where we come from within the city or within Metro Toronto, and that will become clear as the debate continues.

Le Vice-Président (Gilles E. Morin) : Monsieur Grandmaître, vous avez deux minutes à répondre aux commentaires.

Mr Grandmaître: I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine is absolutely right: It depends on what side of the fence you sit on this one. I'm glad that I'm from Ottawa East, not from the Metro area. The same problem is happening in Ottawa-Carleton, but at least Ottawa-Carleton won't be back before this House for a vote. They'll be doing it on their own for the simple reason that in Ottawa-Carleton it's a little different. Most of our municipalities have been under a section 63 from 1975 up to 1992.

My answer to the member for Yorkview is that I realize that people living in your area will be receiving a considerable decrease. But at the same time the Treasurer formed a Fair Tax Commission. I'm told that the property tax commission has now completed its report. I think the Treasurer should table that report as soon as possible, by Monday, so that the members of the committee can find out what the government has in mind for property taxpayers in this province for the years to come. I think it's very important that the committee should have access to this report.

I realize that the Fair Tax Commission is trying to find a solution to all of our tax systems in the province of Ontario. School taxes, for instance, are very important; 52% of every municipal tax bill is education dollars.

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

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have to say that this is probably the most pressing issue that I have found since I've been in this Legislature, because indeed this is the issue that brought me into politics. I've been fighting the inequities of market value for many years.

First of all, I just want to reflect a little bit on the history of market value for the purpose of anybody who's watching who doesn't understand the whole system. Our present system was based on a 1953 assessment, which was based on 1940s values. They had to go right back to 1940 in order to get a stable year for values, even in the 1950s when there was relatively little inflation.

1620

The current system that has been brought forward by Metro, the proposal it has brought, is a hybrid which was bred out of a series of buyoffs between various members across Metro. It can be suggested with the word "compromise" maybe it's something good and positive, but this is not something good and positive because indeed there was no study of this plan because this plan was hived in the last two hours of debate at Metro. All of the people who made presentations on this issue to Metro and to the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto were talking about full market value.

The present system that we have, which dates back to 1940s values, typically was based on approximately a 10% land value component, unlike today, where in many cases we have as much as 100% land value. A perfect example of that is many of the houses in my riding where people live in houses that they bought 30 or 40 years ago. They might be two-bedroom bungalows, but around them those houses are being bought up and knocked down and there are monster homes being built. The people who live in these houses have no control over what is happening to their neighbourhood. Their ability to pay and their consumption of services haven't changed. In fact in many cases their ability to pay has been reduced.

I must acknowledge that the present system is full of anomalies and inequities, and in fact there are many homes which are underassessed and there are many homes which are overassessed. So from the outset I want to say that I am not arguing against the need to fundamentally change the tax system because we do have a system which is creaking and groaning at the seams.

As has been pointed out by several people in debate so far, there are many views within all three caucuses, and I acknowledge that and you will be hearing that as the debate goes on. But I want to talk about the fact that the people I represent who are against market value are the people who are saying they want a fair tax system but this is not the way of doing it.

To have a really meaningful tax reform we have to look at other alternatives for Metro. The present scheme, I'm concerned, breaks the historic relationship between tax and assessment. Let me explain what I mean by that. Under this scheme that Metro has hatched you will only be able to appeal your 1988 assessment, not your taxes. To the extent that there have been caps put on industrial-commercial and residential properties but not on the other category, in the case of the industrial-commercial 25% and in the case of residential a 10% capping, a lot of people, if they are going to have an increase of, let us say, 50% in their taxes, will not appeal simply because even if they had it reduced down to 25% in the case of a residence, it still would not affect their taxes.

So by the back door this scheme, with the blessing of this government, is going to get in and the assessments are going to be accepted and in five years' time it's very difficult because there's no doubt about it, Metro is pushing in the direction of full market value. Have no doubts about that, anybody who thinks that this capping scheme is something which is just interim and suddenly a magic scheme is going to be brought forward. Metro wants full market value because Metro is a federation of the various municipalities of Toronto and the outer suburban municipalities see a net decrease in their taxes. However, many of the businesses in those areas do not see a net decrease. In fact many of them see increases.

What we're doing is we're seeing a shift of $78 million a year in the tax burden from residential to non-residential taxpayers. There's been no provision in this bill whatsoever to reverse that. I think that in itself is something that we should pause and reflect upon because the potential damage to businesses will be irreversible.

What we're seeing is a whole set of different subsidies to some people and penalties to others. There's been absolutely no impact study done as to what this will do to businesses in Metro. We're going to see job losses and we're going to see bankruptcies of businesses and if you don't believe that, you get out there and talk to small business people today and they will assure you that this is the case. We know that small businesses are in fact the engine that drives the majority of jobs in this province; not large businesses, but small businesses. That is well documented.

Turning to the actual assessment scheme itself, the assessment was very, very shoddy, and there are many cases of tremendous inequities. My friends who support market value will say: "Well, that's easy. You just go and appeal." But who is going to appeal if they're going out of business? At the same time, the others who are capped are going to say, "Oh, well, we'll worry about it later." De facto they're going to have the assessment accepted that way. This, as I said, was the result of a last-minute deal cooked up in the last two hours of debate at Metro.

I want to turn to the effect on urban areas. It's essential that we maintain healthy and vital urban cores. Quoting Jane Jacobs, who is one of North America's foremost authorities on life in urban centres -- she has written intensely on the decline of US cities -- her comment about Metro's MVA scheme is, "It's nutty." She says the plan will leave Metro with only two types of residents, rich and poor, and I would suggest we're all the worse off for that. The middle class will inevitably be pushed out to the suburbs because of cheaper taxes, and that will lead to inner-core deterioration. We only have to look at the example of US cities to know how detrimental it is to society.

Ms Jacobs goes on, "Another problem with MVA is that it will undermine small businesses and the jobs they provide." MVA may work well in communities that are stable and relatively small in total area. In Metro Toronto redevelopment interferes with the stability factor.

Let us turn to the effect of MVA on businesses in the downtown core. We know that there's a transfer under full MVA of $100 million of municipal tax burden from large commercial operations on to the smaller sector. We don't have a full impact study -- we don't have any impact study -- to know how this is going to work with small businesses, but we can make some guesses.

It comes at the time of the worst recession that southern Ontario has known since the Great Depression. The ability of businesses to attract tenants into buildings is strictly diminished by this proposal. With MVA, you are absolutely capping, for a small period of time, the amount of tax increases but, by the same token, we have a massive decrease in the amount of rent that landlords can get from buildings.

One of the great things that is happening in response to this is that landlords are not very pleased about it, but they're lowering rents to attract tenants. We have the situation, which is absolutely obscene, that some of the large downtown office towers have net effective rents of between $5 and $9. Let me explain that for the people who don't know anything about commercial real estate. During the height of the boom, in 1988, which this assessment is based on, we had rents of between $35 and $45 in the large office towers. Now we're down to between $5 and $9.

1630

Now, the landlords won't admit that openly, but I am a commercial real estate broker, so I do know what I'm talking about. The effective deal is, by the time you strip away all of the incentives that you give to tenants, this is what is being done. Existing tenants who may be paying old rents are at a higher rate. But in those same buildings where the net effective rent today is between $5 and $9, what are the taxes? Typically, $10 per square foot. And when I'm talking about $5 and $9, I'm talking about per square foot. The taxes are typically $10 per square foot, and business taxes are half of that; in other words, $5. So the total tax take of the municipality and Metro is $15 compared with, in some cases, $5 to the landlord. The landlord must pay his mortgage out of that. He's not going to get any profit, we know that for sure, but we are countenancing the obscenity of governments taking three times the amount of money that the landlord is taking.

The government hasn't taken any chances, and that is one of the fundamental problems with governments. They don't have to take any risks. They are partners to successful businesses, and when they go under they disavow them. They become orphaned.

Taxes are out of control. The government won't be surprised to hear the Conservatives saying that, but I want you seriously to reflect on the resulting dysfunctioning of Metro and the job losses, job losses which are going to affect NDP supporters just as much as they affect Liberal and Conservative supporters. Why should a government be taking two or three times the amount of take out of a building that the landlord is getting? It's an absurd relationship.

As businesses abandon the core, we're going to get the example of the large US cities like Atlanta and Chicago. We only have to go across the border and look at these cities to see the result.

Let's look at the effect of small tenants in malls. In fact, I will go to that in more detail later and compare it with the large tenants. There are some winners under MVA. There are some residential winners, but I'll talk a little bit about some of the commercial winners. The allocation in shopping malls is rather bizarre. Take the example of Yorkdale: The total reduction in taxes under MVA is $2.4 million, but anchor tenants and the mall developer are going to receive $4.6 million in reductions. The inner-mall small tenants will face increases of $2.2 million.

The small tenants are already paying a disproportionately large amount of rent per square foot, because the so-called anchors, the large tenants, get sweetheart deals. That's fair enough. The landlord knows that when he's going in, and the old idea is that they're to attract other tenants. However, it seems obscene that governments would continue and extend those benefits to those large tenants and say, "Oh, because you're paying less rent, we're going to charge you less tax."

If indeed we were to move to ability to pay in taxation across the board, I would not be fighting this bill; I would be shoulder to shoulder with the government. But I am not shoulder to shoulder with the government because this bill does not, in a general sense, take any account of ability to pay or consumption of services. However, in the example of some large tenants, it is taking that.

I want to talk about some reductions that occur for large companies. Bell Canada is going to get a reduction of $8.8 million; Eaton's is going to get a reduction of $8.2 million; Sears Canada, $7.7 million; Hudson's Bay, $7.7 million; Simpsons, $3.8 million; Zellers, $3.9 million; Woolworth, $2 million; and K mart, $600,000.

I suggest that these companies may not be having boom times, but they're certainly in better shape than the small businesses of Metro today. Why would this government, which has proven itself over and over again, both in opposition and in government, to be a very interventionist government, not be interventionist this time around? We saw only a few days ago the spectacle of the government interfering with what Metro wanted to do with respect to the Toronto Islands when it gave the giveaway to the islanders, where they're getting to have waterfront cottages for $1 a day for 99 years. That's how the government is prepared to interfere in municipal affairs. This time you're saying, "Well, really, this is not our affair." It's like the waiter who says, "I'm sorry, it's not my table."

I would remind the members of this government that during the last election, most of you who ran in Metro ran on a platform of being against market value assessment. I have, to prove it here, a whole set of responses to a questionnaire sent by the Citizens for Property Tax Reform. There were others who responded in all-candidates meetings. Surprise, surprise: Marilyn Churley, Tony Silipo, Margery Ward, Elaine Ziemba responded to this questionnaire; Zanana Akande gave commitments and I believe Frances Lankin also gave commitments that they were against MVA.

We cannot accept the idea that now you are in government: "Oh, there's a municipality asking for legislation. It's not up to us to interfere in municipalities' requests." That isn't acceptable to the taxpayers; it isn't acceptable to the voters. You ran on a platform. You cannot say, "Well, now we're the government we have a different answer." No wonder we have cynicism from the voters if there is one set of answers that candidates can blithely give in the hope that they're going to get elected, but they don't think they're going to get elected to the government; they think they're going to be the opposition.

This, of course, we are seeing over and over again. This is a government that is choking on the attitudes it had, on the fact that it ran on opposition attitudes and now it is coming to reality with the fact that it's the government. You can't have it both ways.

Let's turn to the "other" classification. Under "other," the other categories I've spoken about, there is a capping under market value. The government has said it's against full market value. Well, under the "other" classification you're allowing full market value. Who's going to pay the additional $50 million in taxes? It's going to be passed on to consumers in higher prices.

We've got vacant land under the "other" category where there is no protection. Even large lots: If somebody has a house with an unusually large lot, if it's deemed severable, it is now being hit as a vacant lot. It isn't being taken as part of your garden, which breaks an historic relationship that's always been there.

Railway rights of way: We're not talking about the railway stations and the yards where they are. We're talking about the lines that criss-cross Metro, the very heart of a system which allows the railways to exist. They're going to have a $40-million increase under this scheme in Metro. It's been calculated that that accounts for a 233% increase in one shot. There are 15,000 jobs at risk. If you don't believe this, you just look at what CP did last week in the Maritimes.

It's estimated that Ontario Hydro increases will equate to a 1% increase in rates right across the board. That's what everybody, whether they're paying market value or not, is going to be paying.

I want to turn to the "time of sale" provision. It violates the principle of equal treatment, because now we have this bizarre situation that homes that sell on a street will be paying the full whack of market value taxes and somebody else may be capped. This is going to set neighbour against neighbour.

It's quite clear that in this market, the people who sell their houses are not doing it for speculative reasons. They're doing it because their job has moved or because they can't afford to live in the house any longer. So these people are going to take a penalty, because when somebody goes to buy a house and finds that the taxes are going to go up by 100% at point of sale, guess what's going to happen? People are going to start discounting the value of the house.

So the very system, market value assessment, that was put in place supposedly to create fairness is in fact going to be the very vehicle which forces values down and which will change values. It's a fundamental flaw in the thinking of the government.

1640

And what did the government House leader, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, say? He said, oh, he really didn't like this. So what is he doing? He's being very courageous. He's asking Metro to pass a bylaw. Well, Metro has already passed this bill, this motion. Guess what they're going to do. They're going to just pass the bylaw, so there is no protection at all, and for the minister to have the effrontery to suggest that he is trying to protect people is absolutely insane. He's just throwing the hot potato back to Metro. I must say, Metro deserves a good deal of the blame, but so does this government. We will not let them forget it and, I'll tell you, the taxpayers will not let them forget it in the next election.

This point-of-sale provision is going to block the mobility, because we find that seniors who need to move may be disadvantaged. They won't be able to move because they won't sell their houses, if they happen to be in a house where they're going to get significantly large increases.

It doesn't have any relation to the fact that there's a lot of services. In fact, in the area that I represent there's an awful lot of small bungalows which are paying $6,000 a year now, and that bears no relation to their ability to pay or their consumption of services. That's without storm sewers, without a sidewalk, with relatively unmade roads, houses in not great condition. But because it happens to be an area of hot real estate where the developers are moving in and are buying houses and knocking them down and building monster houses, it is bidding up the area, or at least that's what it did in 1988, the time when this assessment was worked out.

Can we imagine that here we have a Premier in this province who said, on February 11, 1988, "The need for a property speculation tax is perhaps even greater now in order to prevent this latest round of house price increases from taking the dream of home ownership away from working Ontarians for ever"? And yet that speculative boom, which bid up the value of houses for the one time -- shot up and they've dropped down again -- is the basis upon which you're going to lock in certain areas -- in fact, all areas -- and the relationship is going to be with us for five years.

These people cannot sell their homes at that price. Anybody would be pleased to sell their homes at those prices, but in fact they didn't sell their homes, they didn't change their home at all, but a developer bought a house, knocked it down and built a monster home next to them, which had the effect of saying that they had a very valuable property. They're going to be penalized under this scheme.

If indeed this government was wanting to protect people, and protect seniors particularly, then it would be addressing this inequity. But they're not doing it. Instead, what they're doing is eliminating for the many seniors any property tax credits, so that at the same time that property taxes are going up under this government, we're going to see the elimination of the property tax credits. So they're going to be going in two different directions at the same time.

I can't imagine that anybody in his right mind would want to sell his home for speculative reasons at the moment, but they're being penalized with 1988 speculative values, even though they didn't sell.

The problem is, MVA is not related to ability to pay, it's not related to the size of the house, it's not related to the size of the lot, it's not related to the services used and it's not related to the efficiency of the land use. We know that small downtown lots, which are very valuable, in fact are very efficient in terms of use of services. It takes less money to service a very dense street than it does sprawling suburban lots, and the expense of providing transport is not there because most of the people are readily available to their work.

MVA creates a burdensome bureaucracy. Potentially, this government could save $200 million a year by eliminating MVA and going to the unit assessment system, because that is the alternative. So far, we've always seen that unit assessment was decried as not being fair, but in fact it has been proven by the Fair Tax Commission that unit assessment is a viable alternative. It studied the income tax rolls, it studied the market value and the unit size of properties in Pickering and it concluded that it certainly wasn't more unfair than MVA. So why aren't we going to a more streamlined system which would be stable, where people would know what their assessment was for all time and we could get rid of all of those bureaucrats? Because ultimately that's what this is about: The bureaucrats want to save their jobs in the assessment area.

It's been estimated that the administrative cost of appeals is 2% of what they will gather. The experience of Mississauga was that there were 30,000 appeals when market value was introduced. It's been suggested that, in Toronto, unit assessment could save hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of years. The volatility of the Toronto real estate market obviously leads one to the conclusion that MVA is not appropriate.

Let's talk about fairness. There should be a relationship between services offered; values should be predictable. MVA fails on both criteria. Indeed, we're going to see the decay of the centre of our cities. Unfortunately, because time is running out, I'm just going to skip over a few other things.

The taxpayer's right of appeal is going to be severely limited by this, because the historic relationship between the assessment and the taxes you pay is broken because you can only appeal your 1988 assessment; you cannot appeal the taxes. I suspect that the government understands this and is going to try to ram it through in the hope that not many people will appeal their assessment. But they're nuts if they don't, simply because if they don't, de facto, they are accepting market value. The next time around, Metro is going to be moving for full market value, have no fear of that.

I particularly want to talk about apartment dwellers, because this bill does nothing to address the historic imbalance which exists. Tenants in apartments are paying 8%. The factor is based on 8% of the property value, whereas residential is 2.2%. Why should residents in multiunit buildings be paying three times what home owners are paying? This government had an opportunity to address it. It has done absolutely nothing to address it.

The mayor of Toronto is sitting here today and, to her credit, is against market value assessment. I just want to give an example. Her assessment on her house is $252,000. She paid $2,494 in taxes. A three-bedroom apartment in North York paid $2,223. How can the Minister of Housing consider that to be just? Why aren't you lobbying to have this bill changed so that we can finally address that inequity that has always been in the system for tenants of residential houses? I am absolutely shocked that you're not prepared to fix it. Today, as much as three or four months of the rent many tenants are paying goes to taxes. What is wrong with the system?

To conclude, we should be waiting for the Fair Tax Commission to report, and I think you would find that there would be many issues where the Fair Tax Commission would disagree with what this government is doing. Instead, the government wants to barge on and have its way. Then after the fact, they're going to say, "Oh, we didn't know." You've got the drafts of the Fair Tax Commission, which is due to report in a few weeks' time. You know what they're going to say, and you know that they don't approve of what you're doing.

How can the people who voted for you have any confidence in the members who said they would oppose market value assessment? How can they have any credibility in you when you will not oppose this? I would expect every member from Metropolitan Toronto who fought on a platform of being against MVA to vote against this, whether he is in cabinet or not.

More than that, your party, the NDP, has a platform that you're supposed to be against MVA. These decisions are supposed to be binding. For the Liberals and the Conservatives, that is not the case; it's not binding. But the NDP has always had this myth, that it's binding upon you what is decided in your policy conventions. You've never taken that away. You are still hanging on to this myth and yet you're not voting against it.

1650

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Questions and/or comments? I see the honourable member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: I want to say thank you very much to the member for York Mills. He has indicated that potential damages, he says, will be irreversible, we will see tremendous job losses, and bankruptcies, he says, will certainly go up.

Let's look very briefly at some of the statistics. I'm reading from the Toronto Sun October 23 article, which indicates that almost 8,000 Metro businesses -- that's outside the city of Toronto -- will be hit with market value assessment of 100%, and 11,000 in the city of Toronto will get 100% increases; 41,000 businesses will get hikes of more than 25% in Metro. Who can survive that? Nobody.

The minister then says, "What we've got to do is, we've got to put a cap on it of 25%." The conclusion of that is obvious. It's slow death, really. No one can survive that.

What we should be doing at this particular time with the recession is not really hitting businesses, especially the small ones in our neighbourhoods, with increases. What we should be hitting them with really -- and I know there is a lot of sympathy on some of the government benches -- are some decreases.

I had mentioned earlier some businesses are just hanging on by the skin of their teeth. We're forgetting one important lesson here; that is, that the weather-vane or the lightning-rod of a healthy community surely is the small business person and family business on our business strips or on our major roads. If we see deterioration and economic rot set in, which is already somewhat visible, it becomes obvious that the countereffect is going to be immediate, and that means that our neighbourhoods are going to rot as well.

My friends, what you and I both see is important.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Ruprecht: And that is, we cannot increase; we should be decreasing.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I would just firstly like to comment on the member for York Mills's speech. I think it was an informative and accurate reflection of the issue, and I will say that it's important that it be accurate. Although there are some disagreements within the parties and within caucuses, I think we all have an obligation to outline exactly what the adopted measures taken by Metropolitan Toronto were.

I only wish I could say the same thing about the member for Parkdale. Accuracy didn't seem to have any bearing on his statement. The points you are making, sir, and I think were clarified by the member for York Mills in his comments, outlined the increases and the capping of those increases. The 100% and 800% increases you spoke of are not accurately reflected in what was adopted about Metro. You quoted the Sun newspaper and tried to pass it off as fact that there are going to be 100% increases in business taxes, realty taxes, and you know, sir, that's just not true. What is the fact is that caps have been placed on those existing businesses, to be phased in over a period of time, and that is what is reflected in the motion adopted by Metropolitan Toronto council.

I will say that there is some hardship endured by some of the business community when that kind of increase is put forward, but let's be clear that the full-blown market value assessment was never approved at the Metropolitan Toronto level on the business community and the business owners. To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, is somewhat misleading and unfair to the motion adopted by Metropolitan Toronto council.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: I would certainly like to commend the member for York Mills for his speech. He brought forward many items which are not only true but which represent the dangers of market value assessment.

But when the member for Parkdale talked about the devastating impact on business, first of all, he did mention the cap, and second, I hope no member in this House will make light of the devastating impact on business.

Let me give you some statistics. Across Metro, 41,000 businesses are facing tax increases of the full 25% solely because of MVA, and about half of those are in the city of Toronto. Let me tell you that this 25% only refers to the increases over the three years for MVA. That doesn't refer to the enormous increases that are going to go on top of that because Metro can't control its spending. That will go on top. So we're looking at 41,000 businesses that will be looking at close to a 50% tax hike within the next three years. Just think of that. So "some businesses will have some hardship"? Excuse me: Many businesses will have hardship.

If you think it's only in the city of Toronto, I can tell you the statistics show very clearly that's not only the case: 28.1% of small businesses in North York will face the maximum increase; 30.3% of small businesses in Etobicoke will face the maximum increase; 28.9% in Scarborough will face the maximum increase; 40.3% of businesses in East York and 34.5% of businesses in York will face that 50% increase.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): First of all, I'd like to compliment the member for York Mills for his presentation today. I felt there was something he could have spent some more time on. Maybe that's one of the problems we have since the government has changed the rules on timing around here: You're not able to go into the depth that really would be appreciated.

The point I want to raise is the change in position by the New Democrats. If you go back to their 1984 policy conference, the New Democrats adopted a resolution that said in part, "The New Democratic Party opposes any further introduction of market value assessment." Then during the 1990 election, a large number of New Democrats, when they were campaigning for office for September 6, 1990 -- that was when Mr Peterson had made the mistake of calling an election -- a number of them went on record that they would vote against any legislative action that would enable Metro council to introduce market value reassessment in Toronto and Metro.

The fact of the matter is, I just think the honourable member for York Mills could have done more justice to the change in history, that many of these people have now got a different position. Before they got into government they were opposed to landfill extensions in Britannia and in --

Interjection: Keele Valley.

Mr Cousens: -- Keele Valley, and now when they're in power they have quite a different position. They had a different position on Sunday shopping, and now they have another; one on auto insurance, and now another.

I really challenge the member for York Mills: Spend some time bringing out the fact that the New Democrats have had a mammoth change of heart. They've changed their minds on just about everything, especially when it comes to Marilyn Churley, Tony Silipo, Margery Ward, Elaine Ziemba and Zanana Akande. Three of these are still in cabinet, and who knows what will happen to them between now and the future? The fact is, they've changed their minds and they don't stand up like human beings and admit the fact that their word doesn't mean a thing.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member.

Mr Cousens: That is an issue I really challenge the honourable member for York Mills to get into --

The Acting Speaker: Your time is over. Thank you.

Mr Cousens: -- because this is the issue of this government having lost faith, broken faith, and doing what it wants without any consideration to the facts and to the people.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Please be seated. The honourable member for York Mills has two minutes to respond.

Mr Turnbull: Indeed, it is true that I regret the House rules were changed in such a way to limit debate. In point of fact, we would very much have liked to have had more time --

Interjection: David, why did you vote for it?

Mr Turnbull: My friend, I did not vote for it.

The fact is that I'm very disappointed that nobody has got up from the government, particularly a certain cabinet minister from Beaches-Woodbine who is here.

Hon Ms Lankin: I am waiting to speak next. If you sit down, it will be my turn.

1700

Mr Turnbull: The member says she's going to be speaking next. I would ask her to tell us about the fact that during the last election she fought against market value reassessment. What happened in the meantime? You formed a government.

Why on earth do people have to be fooled into voting for you by these absolutely false promises? The fact is, Marilyn Churley, Tony Silipo, Margery Ward, Elaine Ziemba, Zanana Akande and Frances Lankin all said they would fight market value. I haven't seen any fight. I haven't seen any ounce of fight in this.

Why is it that you still have a party platform dating back to 1984 that you're against market value? This is market value, whether you like it or not, because these are 1988 market values. You can twist it any which way you want, but these are 1988 market values, not something else. You are breaking the historic relationship between those and the amount of tax you pay in order that people will accept them.

Well, I'm disgusted, and no wonder the electorate is so sick of politicians, when their word is not worth the paper that it's written on. There is the paper that it's written on and it ain't worth it. So I might as well throw it away. But let me say, stop MVA.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Hon Ms Lankin: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I listened carefully to the member for York Mills, and as he began his comments he said that he found this one of the most pressing issues that he had ever had to deal with in the Legislature and, for one reason, it was the issue that brought him into politics.

I can tell him that over the course of time that I have been elected -- and this is my first term in office -- and have been in government, particularly with my ministerial portfolio, I find that there have been a number of very pressing and very difficult issues that I have had to deal with, and I want to put this right forward as one that has been very difficult for me as well.

I appreciate hearing the comments of the member for York Mills and the member for Eglinton in particular, because I share very deeply their position with respect to market value assessment and with respect to the merits or the lack thereof of the Metro plan.

It's been an interesting process for me, because I have for a number of years -- and I actually can't remember whether or not I was sent one of those questionnaires during the election. Had I been, I would have clearly signed it as being someone who opposed market value assessment.

For a number of years I have been involved at the community level in a fight to get people to reassess their opinions with respect to municipal taxation and our methods of municipal taxation, to look at the need to move education, for example, the burden of education costs out of property taxation and find another way to fund that, the need for us to consider ability to pay.

I was quite astounded actually to hear the member for York Mills put forward that position with respect to ability to pay, and I saw his caucus colleague the member for Etobicoke West cringe all the way through it. There is perhaps an ideological difference there. Maybe I'm misrepresenting that, but I know that they hold very different opinions with respect to market value assessment at least.

I've always felt that it's very unfair, particularly in my own community, as I look at the number of seniors --

Mr Turnbull: -- our consciences though.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I would just point out that I sat very quietly and listened to the member for York Mills and I would appreciate if he would do the same for me during this period of time.

Mr Stockwell: I just want to say, show me two people who agree and I will show you one person doing all the thinking.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: Actually I didn't hear what the member for Etobicoke West said, but it's probably just as well. It would probably have been provocative. Perhaps my colleagues would also allow me to continue.

Consideration of market value assessment for me has been a consideration of what is fairness with respect to taxation. In my constituency we have one of the highest percentages of seniors who own their own homes, and as I have met them over the years as I've been involved in all sorts of different community organizations and events, those seniors have lived in those homes for most of their years. They grew up in the Beach, they married, they settled in the Beach. They have been there for a long time.

People who are familiar with real estate within the Metropolitan Toronto area will know that the Beaches has been an area that has seen dramatic increases in real estate prices over the years and that those seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes, would truly be the victims of a market value assessment. Their property values have increased because of others who've moved in, young urban professionals such as myself, who can afford to pay increased taxes on my home according to my ability to pay. But it is just so unfair in terms of what that transition and change in our community will have done to the market value of homes of seniors who will not be able to pay taxation that relates to that.

One of the problems I have with the situation I find myself in here is that I actually have another fairly deeply held belief, which is respect for local decision-making and community empowerment. I have for a number of years also been an advocate of devolution of decision-making down to communities and respect for that process. I should be very clear about that.

Many of the arguments and positions that I have taken actually go beyond the municipal level, to involving different organizations within communities in appropriate decision-making, but there can be no respect for that without respect for the process at the municipal level and the powers and the accountability structures that are set up there.

Having said that yet again, when I looked at the Metro plan and realized that it was going to be coming to the provincial Legislature, I found a way around that principle and said: "Yes, but Toronto's different. This is the largest city in our province. This is where there is a huge amount of both industrial and commercial activity which needs to be supported, an economic engine in many ways, a centre of access from other parts of the country and the world into this province. The state of our urban core has to be of consideration to the provincial government as well."

If it begins to sound as if I have been pulled between pillar and post on this, quite frankly it's because I have been. I think that, even moving away from the discussion of full market value assessment, the Metro plan, as it is, is a bad plan and I think it will have a very negative impact on the core of our city of Toronto. As a Torontonian and as someone who represents Torontonians, I resent the process of decision-making that has taken place at the Metropolitan Toronto government level, which saw the sheer weight of numbers determine a decision which is so important to my constituents and to myself. On the other hand, there is a sense of democracy to that, I guess, in which that is the appropriate level for decision-making there.

I listened to the member for Ottawa East and another member -- I think it was the member for Etobicoke West -- who raised the consideration about the fact that the municipality should have the full power to do that. Why was the government coming forward with something that didn't extend just the full and automatic power to Metropolitan Toronto from here on in and why were we requiring that in five years' time whatever new assessment Metropolitan Toronto came up with had to be brought back through a provincial process?

I'm going to say I have some sympathy with the comments they've raised. I think it does run counter to my deep belief that there should be local accountability. But what I would suggest to you is that this, as the Metro plan was, is the product of a compromise in terms of discussion, a product of people who have very different views attempting to find a resolution to the differences in those views.

Some of the members opposite have made much of the change of position of members of government from the city of Toronto with respect to this issue. I tell you very directly that I have not changed my position at all. I oppose market value and I oppose the Metro plan.

There is an obvious question in terms of what I have done about that. Have I raised my voice? Have I been party to any discussion to attempt to achieve a different result? Have I attempted to see something else come out of the process than moving ahead with full market value? My answer to you will honestly be yes.

1710

I have participated in the free democratic process within my own caucus with respect to this issue, and I think that although one can be critical of the compromise that was arrived at with respect to having Metro come back in five years into the assessment period, having Metro work with the province in terms of looking at impact studies and looking at other kinds of property tax reform over that period of time, I at least take some comfort -- although it may be small comfort, and I realize it won't be shared by my friends across the floor, particularly the members for York Mills and for Eglinton -- that I have had some impact in the democratic process, that I have been able to accomplish something.

I can't imagine that the report from the Fair Tax Commission property tax working group could come forward with anything but some assertion that property tax needs to be reformed in a way that's fair, and that market value is not a fair sense of assessment. The member for York Mills says we have that report already. I can tell him that I have not seen that report; that report is not in our hands. I understand that it is going to be released soon. I hope that it's out there in the public domain. I hope that it's there before Metropolitan Toronto has to pass the bylaw with respect to moving to full market value on resale, because I think it would be of assistance.

But it is only a step in the process of the Fair Tax Commission. It's a working committee report. It will report back to the full Fair Tax Commission, which will gather together all of the various reports, and it will be some time before we have a final product from the Fair Tax Commission. I myself will commit to trying to work towards ensuring that there is some implementation of fair taxation when we receive those measures and recommendations from the Fair Tax Commission.

I think that the question that can, fairly, individually be levelled at me by members opposite with respect to my own position as a member of government is, where will I be when it comes to the vote on this issue?

I'll say to you, quite frankly, that as a member of cabinet I cannot vote against the government decision and the government bill that is coming forward. The choice that I would have, if I decided that I was going to vote against this bill, is to resign from cabinet, and that's the choice that would face me.

I've given some thought to the question of on what occasions you use the power of not simply the threat but the fact of a resignation from cabinet to influence policy decision-making or to go against what has been a collective decision-making process and a democratic decision being taken. That's an important thing for me always to continue to consider and for all members of the Legislature to continue to consider.

I've decided that I'm not going to resign from cabinet in order to vote against this bill. I think there are many things I'm doing within the field of health, in my portfolio as Minister of Health, that I am challenged by, that I am excited to be involved in, that I think I'm showing leadership on. As part of this government, I want to continue to do that important work.

I also want to continue to work on a number of other issues, not the least of which is to try to be part of a government that can bring about fair taxation and changes in taxes, particularly with respect to property taxation, to move away from market value. I do not support this.

I'm not in a position where I can come into this House as a member of cabinet and vote against a government bill, so I will continue to try through the avenues that are available to me which I believe are fighting for the appropriate kind of property tax reform: the measures that have been given to me by the way in which the government bill has been constructed; the assurances that we will have impact studies done with Metro, that we will look at the effect on the city core; that in the future we will take the advice of the Fair Tax Commission; that we will send back to Metro, where the issue properly belongs, the decision with respect to move to market value on resale, and hope that we have more information in the public domain on which the elected members of the municipal government, who are truly accountable for the revisions to any individual municipality's taxation process, can make that decision with fuller information.

It's not an easy decision to make, and it's not an easy position to be in. I don't expect sympathy from members opposite; in fact, I expect that there will be quite a lot of criticism. But I am very straight with you in terms of where I am on this position, I've been very straight with the members of my constituency with respect to this, and I will stand by my position to remain part of a government and part of a cabinet that will fight for overall property tax reform that I hope will benefit all the people of this province, not just the city and the constituency that I represent.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: I have appreciated the comments of the member for Beaches-Woodbine. She is a member of integrity and I believe that she truly believes in what she has said, that she does respect local decision-making authority.

But I must correct one thing that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has said and also the member for Beaches-Woodbine; that is, they refer to the local decision-making authority, they refer to the local municipality. In this instance, the local municipality is the city of Toronto. The legislation, the Assessment Act, once it was passed by the provincial government in 1970, devolved authority to the local municipality. That is why this is very different.

There have been only a couple of instances where actually the government has proceeded with market value assessment when it hasn't had the consent of the local municipalities. In one case, which was the region of Sudbury, basically they were bribed out of it by a large donation of money to help them implement market value assessment and ameliorate the impacts. In the other instance, it was Haldimand-Norfolk, and that region had only very small towns that were opposed to the plan.

But there has never been an implementation of the plan at the regional level over the opposition of one of the member municipalities, such as the city of Toronto: 635,000 people, the local municipality, and that's what it comes down to.

So I respect the comments of the member. I would say she had a great threat in threatening to resign, because your Premier doesn't have very many competent people to replace you with.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: On November 5, the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the New Democrats announced that the government would introduce legislation to support Metro council to implement the tax plan. When the minister came into the House to present the government's newest position on this, he tried to spin the policy position of the government and its reversal by emphasizing that (a) the province was not enabling Metro to implement the full market value assessment, (b) the proposal was an interim plan only, (c) the province would not give Metro the power to implement full market value in 1997 but would work with Metro to develop a tax package that is fair and protects healthy urban centres.

Inasmuch as that was the twist or the spin or the story that was presented by the Honourable David Cooke when he came into the House after your caucus and your government came up with the new position, I'm wondering how you, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine, would react to the way in which your Minister of Municipal Affairs presented the government's position.

Certainly the kind of statements he was making don't reflect the kind of position you have as a member of the government, and by virtue of that I would like you, if possible, to make some comment on the way in which your government presented its revised position.

I think that people have to remember the fact that the New Democrats were historically opposed to this and are now coming in favour of it, and the fact that you're able to stand, which we're glad to see, and have your own position -- maybe you could help apologize for the kind of things your own minister is saying.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: Very quickly, to respond to some of the member's comments, I respect the member's position in saying that she doesn't support market value assessment. I've always believed that in government there's a fine line and a fine act that we must carry forward, and I think it's very difficult, more often than not, to strike the balance between local, parochial needs and interests with those of a global nature. One of the things we're elected to do when we enter public office under our current electoral system is to represent the interests and needs and wants and desires of our particular communities. Sometimes, when that can't happen within a global framework, within some of the bigger things we have to do, the individual members have to take a particular position, and quite frankly, I've always respected that in my political life. I will continue to respect that and appreciate that kind of position.

Having said that, I'm on the other side on this particular issue and in representing the needs and advantages of my particular community. It would be foolhardy for me not to support what we have in front of us, and although my particular preference isn't this hodgepodge that Metro came up with, I'd be more inclined to support full market value. It's something I thought the Liberals should have represented when they were in office and it's something that in fact they were going to do when they sent back the 1984 plan and asked them to update the year.

1720

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: I was quite delighted with the minister's statement that she was considering at one point in her life resigning over this issue. This is certainly showing all of us that she feels deeply about this, but I'm wondering whether she would be able to answer later whether she's actually tried to convince some of her colleagues that that might be an important consideration for us.

She says she's opposed to market value assessment and the Metro plan because, she says, "Toronto has been the economic engine of the country and the impact of this tax would be negative to the core of our city."

How true. But I would only have hoped the minister could have carried on just a bit more and been more descriptive of what this really means when she says "negative impact." I wish she could have drawn for us the picture of the blight of some of the American cities that we see, where there are empty apartment buildings, whole blocks gutted. It's the kind of scene we would have expected her to describe just a bit more, even though I really appreciate the candour of her statement.

Toronto is different. She's right, Toronto is special. The Premier was in the Pacific Rim, in Asia, and all over the place they would have told him that people would love to live in Toronto because it is one of the most livable cities in the world. Why? It's because we've got rich and poor, it's because we've got livable neighbourhoods within this city; that's the reason.

What this would do, according to Jane Jacobs, one of the most authoritative figures in terms of urban living -- she says: "This kind of market value assessment is really wrong." She says: "It's a nutty idea. This tax will have the effect of making this city an impractical place, not for the richest part of the population and the most assisted part of the population."

It's a bad situation and I agree with the minister. It is important to have an impact study done for her consideration, and the cabinet's.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Hon Ms Lankin: Don't I get to respond?

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, that's right. The honourable minister for two minutes.

Hon Ms Lankin: A couple of things were said that I'd like to take a moment and respond to directly. I think I have made my position very clear with respect to my thoughts of the type of property assessment I think would be inappropriate, which is market value assessment.

I also -- and I don't want people to lose sight of that -- very clearly talked about how important I think the principle of local decision-making and municipal autonomy is and that in some cases, as a provincial legislator, those two issues clash, as they have in this particular issue.

The member for Markham asked me directly to comment on how I felt about the presentation of the issue by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and about the government position on this. Let me say, having I think spent some time explaining to you that I felt part of a process within my own government, within my caucus, to influence the way we looked at this; to express that although I supported local autonomy, I felt that Toronto had a very special case to be made; and to express the fact that I thought there had to be impact studies carried out over the next number of years and that we had to look at fair taxation across the province and that the impact of the recommendations from the Fair Tax Commission needed to be considered with respect to property taxation and that I didn't want to see 1988, Metro to be able to move ahead and run roughshod over the city of Toronto, that I wanted to be able to have some influence on that by the kind of partnership role the province and Metropolitan Toronto could play together, that I would feel very supportive of the final kind of resolution that my caucus came to and that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has presented.

So in fact I think he did a very fine job of explaining what was a compromise between the positions that have been very fundamentally held by members of this caucus who represent ridings that are in the MTA, like Downsview and Yorkview, and members like myself who are from the city of Toronto. It's only in that kind of compromise that we can move head.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Ms Poole: Normally I would begin by saying that I am pleased to enter into the debate today, but in all honestly I can't make that statement. This debate gives me no pleasure, because it's about a scheme that sows the seeds of destruction for a city that I love. Members may say that this is mindless rhetoric, but I can tell you that I truly believe that.

I can tell you that there is no more contentious issue facing Metro Toronto today than market value assessment. To say emotions are running high is quite the understatement. The debate at Metro council has been marked by such hostility and such acrimony that there have been death threats made to councillors and their families on both sides. The chairman of Metro council is wearing a bulletproof vest today.

Recognizing that this is a difficult issue, how can the debate have become so out of touch, so unacceptable that reasonable people have lost all reason? In order to understand where we are today, I believe that first we have to understand where we've been and how we got there. I am regretful that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not in the House right now, because quite frankly I think this would be helpful to him. His statements have been so contradictory and so convoluted on this that I really have come to the conclusion that the minister does not have a clue what this is all about.

In 1970 the province took over the assessment function from the municipalities for the avowed purpose of bringing in market value assessment across the province. From 1979 to 1985, the Conservative government brought in market value assessment to over 600 municipalities that had requested it. At this time today there are over 700 municipalities that are under market value assessment in the province of Ontario. So the minister says, "See, we're just giving Metro what other municipalities have." I say to the minister, "Wrong," or as my son would say, "Not."

First of all, Minister, if you were here I would say to you, those other reassessments have been at the request of the local municipality. Assessments have been done on a regional basis where the local municipalities had voted in favour. There have only been a few exceptions, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, such as in Sudbury, where they were given a large amount of money to bring it in, and Haldimand-Norfolk, when they had it rammed down their throats. But again, they were very small towns that were involved. Nowhere has it been rammed down the throats of 635,000 people.

That's what this is all about. It's not a matter of municipal autonomy, as Mr Cooke says. It's about the province taking away the right of the city of Toronto -- 635,000 people -- to have its own plan, a right the city now has. It's about the province instead giving that right and the authority to the regional government; in this case, Metro council.

1730

You know, when talking about the government's lack of understanding and the minister's lack of understanding on this issue, one of the things I've found to be truly appalling is the Premier's ignorance. Remember, the Premier has represented a Metro riding for a decade, a decade in which this has been one of the hottest topics around. Yet the Premier was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, well, he didn't really understand why the province had to approve the plan. He obviously didn't comprehend that the proposed legislation will take away the right of the city of Toronto to have its own plan, a right the city now has. He really doesn't understand that this is all about the destruction of the city of Toronto and its absorption by Metro.

Just to go back for a moment and look at, specifically, the history of MVA in Metro --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Give us a history lesson.

Ms Poole: Well, I'm sorry. I say to the member that some of the members need a history lesson because they don't understand what this is about.

Mr Mills: I need a history lesson, please. At half past five, I need it.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Ms Poole: The last general property reassessment in Metro took place in 1953.

Mr Mills: Let's get on with it.

Ms Poole: I'm sorry if the member doesn't wish to know the facts but, Mr Mills, the facts are important.

The last general property reassessment in Metro took place in 1953. At that time, they reassessed using 1940 property values. You may ask why they used property values that were already 13 years old. They had to go back that far to find a period of stability upon which to base the values, which, to digress for just a moment, is one of the reasons the city of Toronto is so opposed to market value assessment: It is the wrong tax for a volatile market such as Metro Toronto. Anyway, back to the history lesson that Mr Mills objects to.

In the 1970s, the Conservative government was merrily rolling along, reassessing municipalities across the province, but they kept backing down from grappling with the largest and most difficult municipality, Metro Toronto, until 1982. In 1982, the Minister of Revenue very quietly circulated a draft bill to Bill Davis's cabinet, a bill that would force Toronto to accept market value assessment. Roy McMurtry -- who, you might remember, was another member for Eglinton -- went berserk. I know you're going to say, well, members for Eglinton tend to do that from time to time, and that's probably quite true, but the result was that it killed the bill and the Conservatives backed away from market value assessment, from forcing it on Toronto.

That theme for that government and successive governments then became, "If Metro asks for it, we'll do it." The ball was thrown back into Metro's court. Remember that throughout all this, the city of Toronto has remained and been totally and irrevocably opposed to market value assessment.

In the late 1980s a group of NDP Metro councillors, in one of the most politically contrived and opportunistic pieces of work I have ever seen, came up with a so-called compromise solution. It was a beauty. It was a solution meant to carry them through two municipal elections. They proposed a plan that was based on market value. Properties would be reassessed using 1984 market values, but, lo and behold, there would be no increases for home owners until 1998. All the home owners entitled to decreases would get them immediately.

What a beautiful plan: no increases for home owners; decreases to the home owners who were entitled. Houses would move to full market value at the point of sale. Business -- remember, this is NDP ideology, so this is fat cat business -- would pay the difference. Typical NDP thinking. Home owners vote; businesses don't. Leave what happens after 1998 up to someone else to solve, and pass the buck.

I can tell you that when this plan came to the provincial Liberal government, this member for Eglinton did go berserk. I and other Liberal city of Toronto members made sure it was changed so that it had to be sent back to Metro council yet one more time. This was the plan that was before Metro council this past summer, but one thing had changed. The provincial government had told Metro, "If you're going to consider this plan, you can't use values that are eight years out of date."

When the figures came out in this past summer, the proverbial something hit the fan. The figures clearly showed that the impact on the city of Toronto was even more devastating. Not only would the vast majority of Toronto home owners be hit with dramatic increases, but small businesses were hammered with 100%, 200%, 400% and 800% increases. The figures were that 11,000 downtown businesses would receive increases of over 100% and almost 8,000 businesses elsewhere in Metro, primarily the suburbs, would also receive increases of over 100%. In my riding of Eglinton, a survey showed that if this plan came in, two thirds of the small businesses would close their doors for ever.

With statistics like these coming out, even the pro-market-valuers on Metro council had to do some heavy thinking. One of the originators of the NDP compromise plan, Joe Pantalone, ran to the hills and voted against his own plan. The NDP plan was in jeopardy of defeat at Metro.

So in a series of mind-boggling 11th-hour compromises, the pro-MVAers came up with a new compromise, compromise, compromise plan. Contrary to what they had promised, Toronto home owners and tenants would be subject to increases, but in their generosity, Metro council proposed to cap the increases at 10%. The kicker: Homes would still move to full market value when sold. Residents primarily, but not exclusively, in the suburbs, who had been promised the full decrease, were then told they would now only receive 50% of the decrease.

Metro magnanimously agreed to cap the increases to business at 25%, phased in over three years. But as I mentioned earlier, remember that this is a 25% increase on top of other hikes businesses would get due to the fact of Metro's spending and other increases. That means that over the next three years, businesses will end up with a 50% tax hike.

Mr Perruzza: What happens to the homes in Metro Toronto?

Ms Poole: How many businesses do you know, how many small businesses do you know, that can survive that kind of increase?

Even with the 25% cap, the statistics are staggering: 41,000 businesses, all small businesses, are facing tax increases of 25% due to market value. About half of these are in the city of Toronto. But I want suburban members -- including the member for Downsview, who's now leaving, thank goodness -- to take note. The impact on small business elsewhere in Metro is substantial. The number and proportion of suburban businesses facing the maximum increases are: 7,600 businesses in North York are facing the maximum 25% increase. That's 28.1%.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't understand. I guess the member was referring to me. Not only am I here in my seat, but I'm listening to every word she's saying, and quite frankly, she's shovelling it so thick all over the place.

The Acting Speaker: There's nothing out of order.

Mr Perruzza: She talks about having her facts straight. She doesn't have one fact straight.

The Acting Speaker: Please be seated. There's nothing out of order.

1740

Ms Poole: You know what they say about small things and small minds?

Anyway, getting back to the percentage of businesses impacted, this is a very serious subject and it's got a very serious impact on these small businesses. In Etobicoke, 4,700 small businesses will face the full 25% increase -- that's 30.3% of the small businesses in Etobicoke which will face that full impact -- 6,500 small businesses in Scarborough will face the full 25% increase, plus whatever other increases Metro passes on, 28.9%; East York, 1,200, 40.3%; and in the city of York, 1,300 small businesses will face the full 25% increase due to market value. This is nuts.

We are in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s, with businesses going bankrupt daily, and we are going to approve a plan that has this devastating impact? If the minister were here, I would say to him, where are the economic impact studies of this plan? Where are the studies of its impact on jobs? Where are the studies of its impact on business? Where are the studies of its impact on the people of Toronto? Answer: There have been no studies of any type.

Can you believe it? This scheme affects the largest municipality in Canada and billions of dollars in taxation, with estimates coming out daily on the devastation it will cause the city of Toronto, and there are no studies of its impact. It's incredible that this minister and this government intend to rubber-stamp it anyway.

The whole plan stinks. I'd like to give you an example. Using 1984 values, the big downtown office towers were to get a 50% increase in their taxes. Yet, lo and behold, when they were reassessed using 1988 values, these same big office towers get a 10% decrease. Mr Minister, I ask you the question, have you bothered to ask why? Don't you suspect this whole thing has been cooked? How can the values change so much in only four years? Has the minister even asked who is going to pay the hundreds of millions of dollars that the movers and shakers who own those office buildings no longer have to pay? Sounds a little suspicious, doesn't it?

This plan is about winners and losers, winners and losers that constantly change. Using 1984 figures, the city of York was a winner; its taxes would go down. All Metro councillors from the city of York voted in favour of the plan. Aha. But then, when 1988 figures were released, a large part of the city of York was a loser. The result? York councillor Mike Colle changed his vote and now votes against market value. North York councillor Maria Augimeri has changed her vote three times. Mel Lastman has changed his vote. NDP Metro councillor Joe Pantalone, I remind you, one of the authors of this plan, voted against his own plan. What a plan and what a crock.

But this minister and this government think it's just fine to approve Metro's plan, no matter how ill conceived and how politically motivated and contrived it is. All they've done is add some bells and whistles to try to appease the suburbs and at the same time to try to hold on to their city of Toronto seats.

But then this minister is famous for talking out of both sides of his mouth. I said it to him when he was here in the House and I say it to him again: Every statement he makes is a glowing contradiction.

First he says: "It is clear that Metro council is responsible for its own deliberations and decisions. The province must respect that this is the responsibility of the local council." Then, in the very next breath, Dave Cooke says: "The legislation will not give Metro council the power to implement full market value assessment in 1997. It will, however, require Metro to seek provincial approval before any significant tax reforms are implemented."

The minister's inconsistency is astounding. First he says, "It's Metro's responsibility, so we're giving them the authority." Then, in the very statement in the Legislature, he says, "However, we don't trust them, so we won't let them have the power in future and we're going to make them come back for provincial approval." As Mr Cooke is so often fond of saying, give me a break.

The minister has also said, "We won't allow the community to go to full market value assessment after this round is complete." Right on, Mr Cooke. The NDP won't be the government in 1997, so of course you won't have to allow it. Once again you pass the buck.

Mr Mills: Mindreader.

Ms Poole: I'll say to the member for Durham East that you don't have to be a mindreader to figure that out. Anybody of even moderate intelligence could do so.

If this government believes market value would have the dramatic impact on the city of Toronto, as it has said it does, why in heaven's name is it allowing this plan to proceed? Why is the NDP, in its legislation, not forbidding but requiring Metro to pass a bylaw to allow full market value on homes once they are sold? Surely the minister must realize that by allowing Metro to do that, he is ensuring that within the next five years a significant amount of the city of Toronto will be reassessed under full market value.

If this minister and this government had any guts and if they truly cared about the city of Toronto, they would not have given Metro the power to reassess homes at full market value when they are sold. By giving Metro that power, they have sold the city of Toronto down the river. They will be guaranteeing that Metro Toronto will move irrevocably and irredeemably down the road to full market value.

I put the NDP government on notice today that I will be introducing an amendment to ensure that the protective cap will not be removed when homes are sold. The NDP has the power to defeat this amendment, but I say to it, "Do this at your own peril." This government is gutless for not insisting that these homes be protected in the first place. What remains to be seen is if this government is also toothless and lets market value assessment proceed without accepting this amendment.

As a member representing the city of Toronto, I've been steadfast in my fight against market value assessment over the past decade. I am totally opposed to both the method and this plan. I recognize that there are areas of Metro where the residents have been paying taxes that are too high for many years and want relief. They deserve relief, but what market value would do is completely reverse the scales, to where they would be paying extremely low taxes in the suburbs and extremely high taxes in the city of Toronto.

That's not what we want to accomplish with property tax reform. We just don't want to change the unfairness so that a new set of players is unfairly treated. We want true property tax reform which treats everybody fairly. What we're saying is not no to property tax reform, but no to market value assessment.

Members in this House have heard me talk on many occasions about why I am opposed to market value assessment. It is a location tax which unfairly penalizes people for the simple fact that they live in the city of Toronto. It is the wrong system for a volatile market such as Metro where land prices vary enormously from one end of Metro to another. It is not based on the amount of services used, nor is it based on the income of the people who use these services. It encourages urban sprawl by deeming that residents living in spacious homes in suburbs pay significantly less than people living in crowded housing in the middle of the densely populated city core.

Market value assessment attacks the very livability of our city. Jane Jacobs, who is one of North America's foremost authorities on the life of urban areas and cities, has warned that MVA will make this city an impractical place. It will leave Toronto with only two large population groups: the very rich and the very poor who are subsidized. She says that market value will undermine small businesses and the jobs they provide. What we will see is the death of our small businesses, the same way they have died in American cities, leaving urban rot and a devastated core. As north Toronto Metro councillor Anne Johnston has said so eloquently, it's the wrong tax at the wrong time in the wrong place and it is killing our space.

The accusation has been levied that the city of Toronto is not paying its fair share. I would like to set the record straight. Of the $4.4 billion in taxes produced in all of Metro, the city of Toronto taxpayers produced $1.8 billion. That means that with only 29% of Metro's population Toronto paid 42% of every tax dollar spent by Metro. With regard to education taxes, the city of Toronto paid out to suburban schools $316 million over and above what we used for our own schools. In fact, Toronto subsidies have kept suburban tax bills artificially low for years.

1750

I believe that for the NDP government to adopt this plan in such unholy haste is not only irresponsible; it is obscene. The minister can talk all he wants about municipal autonomy, but I can tell this government one thing: The city of Toronto and the people in Toronto have long memories. We will remember if this government agrees to let Metro council run roughshod over its largest member municipality. The people in Toronto will give their answer to a government that is just willing to wash its hands.

If this NDP government truly cares about the city of Toronto, it must demand that real impact studies are done. Only this government has the power to do this. Only this government has the power to turn back this bill. The rule changes passed by the NDP majority guarantee that the government can pass the legislation on its own timetable and in any form it wants.

As I mentioned, I have been fighting market value assessment over the past decade. When I was a government member, I said to the Premier of the province at that time, a Liberal government, that I would stand in my place and vote against any legislation brought in to impose market value assessment on the city of Toronto. I will do no less as an opposition member. This is a bad plan, an ill-conceived plan. I wish I could say I'm surprised that the government is washing its hands like Pontius Pilate, but I guess I really am not.

I would have liked to speak longer on this particular bill, but unfortunately this government changed the rules in June of this year, so I am limited to 30 minutes. The government also changed its rules to bring in closure, so just as it did on Bill 40, the government has the power to bring in closure and ensure that this bill is only in this House for seven days total, seven days total in this Legislature on one of the most contentious bills that have been before Metro in years.

Our House leader, in order to get a deal to have public hearings, had to consent to a quick hearing on second reading and third reading. The NDP has given itself this power by changing the rules. As an opposition member I feel helpless. There is nothing I can do to stop this bill, because the ball is firmly in the government's court and it is choosing to lob it back to Metro. It is playing games. It is playing games by sending it to a committee which has a Liberal Chair. But people are not stupid; they realize that every committee in this Legislature is dominated by the NDP. The NDP has a majority of committee members on every single committee, including the one these public hearings are sent to.

I repeat: This government has changed the rules and it has the majority to ram this through by Christmas. The question is, does it have the conscience to stop it? Does it have the conscience to take a second look at this? Do they at least have the courage to support an opposition amendment to protect the homes in the city of Toronto that will go to full market value on the point of sale?

This government has six members representing the city of Toronto. Four of them are in cabinet, two of them are parliamentary assistants to the Premier. These six people did not serve the city of Toronto well, and we heard a very good speech by the Minister of Health on how this was a difficult issue for her. I believe what she said because she is a member of integrity. But I can say to the members I'm not commenting on the others. I don't know how they feel because they haven't told us.

I am wondering whether these members are going to have the courage to rise in their places and vote against this legislation for the protection of the city of Toronto. I hope at the very minimum that these six NDP city of Toronto members will encourage their government to accept an opposition amendment, an amendment I propose to put forward, which would buffer the city of Toronto homes and other homes throughout Metro that would be impacted on the point of sale.

We've talked about how this issue is so volatile and how it has raised so much acrimony. It has raised such hostility that the council of the city of Toronto is looking at a way to secede from Metro. When a local councillor first raised the issue several years ago, quite frankly he was laughed out of the room. But feelings have changed. Businesses are feeling very vulnerable, home owners have expressed their total opposition to this plan and their fears of what may come in the future, and the city of Toronto council is now united not only in its opposition to this plan but in its disgust with Metro council and what it has imposed on the city of Toronto.

I urge this government to rethink its decision to rubber-stamp this plan. You cannot treat the city of Toronto that lightly. Ask the six members who represent you in the city of Toronto, because that's the message they will be taking back to their constituents.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Turnbull: The comments made by my colleague the member for Eglinton are certainly comments I would agree with. One of the great problems with the new rules of debate is we don't get a chance to fully expand on the themes that we introduce. I really would like my colleague to talk about the fact that the city of Toronto conservatively produces 20% of the revenue of this province, and the effect on businesses that this tax is going to have.

In the last round when the member for Beaches-Woodbine was speaking, I really didn't come away from that discussion with a very clear feeling as to where she stood. She was saying she was against market value reassessment and yet she was going along with the caucus solidarity and, yes, I believe that she fought because I believe her to be an honourable person who does have integrity.

But the fact remains that we now have a government which has an official platform that was against MVA. There's nothing the government can do or say to take away from the fact that its official, binding party position is that it is against MVA. They have never retracted that and candidates in the last election ran on the platform that they were against MVA.

Why are you breaking your word? Is this just to go in the same category as An Agenda for People where it was absolutely a fraud on the electorate? The fact is that all of these fine words are written down but really have no relevance to the way that you're going to represent the people you get elected to represent.

Now the electorate has a reasonable expectation that what people say in an election is what they're going to do.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Perruzza: One of the member for Eglinton's opening statements in her speech was that she was going to talk about the facts today. She proceeded to reiterate a list of a series of events related to market value assessment. But quite frankly when I heard her talk, I questioned the validity of many of her facts.

In fact, she talked about what happened with market value in the past, how Metro council was asked to make a decision based on 1984 values and how her government, because of her insistence, decided that it wasn't going to proceed. What in fact her government and the Liberal government of the time did was ask Metro council not to proceed with 1984 values, but to upgrade it to 1988 values. Quite frankly, at the municipal level -- and I'm sure that the member from Etobicoke will reiterate many of these comments -- the scuttlebutt was that the Liberals were going to move to full-blown market value, all the way up, all the way down, even across the board.

So for the member for Eglinton to stand in her place and talk about the role of Joe Pantalone, one of the architects of the deal, one of the architects who tried to build mechanisms into the plan to offset some of the increases that would be faced by many of the city of Toronto residents -- in fact, that's what he tried to do. He tried to develop a compromise, because he read the writing on the wall that what the Liberals were going to do was full-blown market value. They weren't going to protect anybody. They weren't going to build in any protections, whether you lived in the city of Toronto or whether you lived in the suburbs.

Ms Poole: That was a lie.

Mr Perruzza: The member for Eglinton may react in any way she likes, but those are the facts.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments?

1800

Mr Ruprecht: I want to congratulate the honourable member for Eglinton for her remarks. Of course, she's right on when she asks the right questions: Where are the studies on the economic impact of this plan? Where are the studies of the impact on jobs? Where are the studies of the impact on business? Where are the studies of the impact on the people of Toronto?

The question is, why has this not been done? It is possible perhaps that the findings of these kinds of economic impact studies would paint a very grim picture indeed, the kind of picture that I think the majority of people of Metropolitan Toronto really understand in their gut.

When I look at the survey that was done, reported in the Globe and Mail on October 22, 1992, it says: "Most people living in Metro Toronto expect market value assessment to be bad for business and jobs, according to the survey.... Seventy-five per cent of those surveyed said they think a plan to implement market value assessment for Metro property taxation would lead to business closings and 70% said a loss of jobs would occur."

We have with us the mayor of Toronto and some of our councillors. They've been sitting here quite patiently and quietly, listening and hoping against hope that some of the members would change their minds.

Today, I'm delighted to see that the Premier has actually arrived, because he indeed will be the kingpin and major decision-maker on this issue. Having been in Asia just recently, he will remember that country after country and city after city have told him they too would like to live in this city of Toronto. I ask the Premier today, why would people right across Asia tell him they would want to live in Toronto? The answer is simple: This is a livable city worth preserving.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member's time is concluded. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Stockwell: There are obviously some strong feelings on each side of the House with respect to this particular adopted position by the government, but let me say that the strong feelings have been come by very honestly. It was this government that campaigned, I believe since 1984 and maybe previously, on no market value assessment. They weren't in favour of market value assessment. If you check the minutes of your previous conventions, those were the kinds of things you adopted as a party. I knew full well that the New Democrats were opposed to market value assessment when we debated this subject locally.

Although being one in favour of market value assessment, I guess the difficulty across this floor is that it's very difficult to nail you down as to where you stand, and that's the problem the public has. The public, who believed you were opposed to market value assessment, supported you, yet find today that you're in favour.

As one who is in favour of market value assessment, I stand here today and say: "Holy smoke, they've now changed their minds. Do I trust them that they're going to carry it forward?" Well, I don't trust them. I don't think my constituents trust them, because they couched it in such a way that they've taken the horse and made the camel.

The difficulty is much the same as trying to nail jelly to the wall as to what the position of the NDP is on any given issue when in government.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): He's never had a hammer in his hand.

Mr Stockwell: No, I haven't had a hammer, the member suggests. I shake your hand. I think I have one, though.

When we in the opposition stand up and try to determine where you're going to go with this particular issue, nobody believes or trusts your position, because you told us you were firmly opposed, and now today, without blinking an eye, you're firmly in favour.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Eglinton has two minutes to respond.

Ms Poole: I would like to respond in the two minutes I have. I would like to start by saying that the statements made by the member for Downsview are absolutely incorrect; totally, totally incorrect.

Bob Nixon said publicly that he would not impose market value assessment on the city of Toronto. He said he would not impose it on the city of Toronto and he did not do so. The government at that time had the mandate to do so if it chose, and it did not. So what he speaks is a lot of nonsense.

The member for York Mills talked about the contribution of the city of Toronto to this province. That is a very strong contribution, but I can tell you that right now the city of Toronto is bleeding. The city of Toronto's guts are bleeding dry.

People have always thought of the city as a fat-cat city with a lot of money, with full employment, with strong businesses. Well, I can tell you that right now our businesses are hurting, we have record unemployment, and people in the city of Toronto are suffering.

This plan would bring about urban rot for the core of our city. Whatever you may say and whatever you may believe, there are those of us who love our city and who know why it was voted number one by the United Nations. If this plan goes through, if market value goes through, our city will suffer.

So I say to the NDP government, because you're the ones who are in control of this, I say to the Premier, a Metro member, think hard before you support this plan. The city of Toronto is counting on you.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 34, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

JOHN PIPER

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): The member for Ottawa West has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Premier concerning the briefing of the Premier by John Piper on the Grandview issue. The honourable member has five minutes to present his views and the honourable Premier has five minutes to respond.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Of course, under standing order 34(a), a member who is dissatisfied with a question during question period can file a notice of dissatisfaction and have this five minutes at the end of the business day in the Legislature to ask the question and, hopefully, have the person to whom the question was placed attend and respond, hopefully more fully.

I appreciate the fact that the Premier is here tonight. I can say, incidentally, that he obviously gives more attention to Ottawa West than Mississauga West, because the last time the member for Mississauga West in our Liberal caucus had a 6 o'clock show, the Premier did not show. But this is certainly an important matter and I appreciate the fact that he's here.

By way of very simple background, we know that 9 or 10 months ago issues arose concerning the Grandview Training School for Girls in which certain allegations were made concerning the staff at that institution. Allegations were made by a particular individual about the conduct of the Minister of Energy of the NDP government when he worked at that particular institution. As a result of those allegations, the Minister of Energy in the NDP government resigned. That was some 9 or 10 months ago.

That brings us to the current issues before the Legislature, the issue of John Piper and why he resigned. John Piper was working in the Premier's office at deputy minister level, making over $100,000 a year, with responsibility for communications: centralized government communications and communications from the Premier's office. Mr Piper was forced to resign because he engaged in a smear campaign of the person who made the allegations against the Minister of Energy.

I asked a question today concerning that particular incident, and I was very careful to point out, by way of preamble, that the Premier must have had a working relationship with Mr Piper in his office. There must have been a way that they communicated, by way of briefing notes, by way of regular meetings. The Premier has a briefing book. There must be certain information Mr Piper would want to get into the briefing book for the Premier in order that he can deal with issues of the day, important issues such as the resignation of a minister of energy.

1810

With that background, I asked a very specific question today in the Legislature of the Premier, and I was careful of my question and careful of my wording, so much so that I actually read the question, which I will read again. I would hope that the Premier would listen very carefully to the words:

"Premier, my question is this, and it is not pre-empted by any OPP investigation: On the issue of any communication strategy -- and I'm not only referring to the issue of the criminal record -- on the Grandview-Ferguson affair, were you ever present when John Piper discussed this matter, or did you ever personally discuss the matter with him or did you see any briefing notes on this issue generated on Piper's instructions? If so, what did you see or hear and who was present?"

The Premier provided a one-word answer. He said, "No."

I couldn't give the response in the House, but my question that comes to mind is: We had the resignation of a minister some 9 or 10 months ago. We have this spin doctor, deputy minister level, resigning over the particular minister in question and the allegations that were made. How is it possible that no information flowed from this deputy minister of communications in the Premier's office to the Premier, either verbally or by way of a briefing note, that he could say no to that question? To me, it is absolutely inconceivable.

If it is true, then the Premier is showing the ultimate of incompetence, where he hires a person to advise him on communications, pays him well over $100,000 a year and comes in here and says he is taking no advice from this individual on how to handle the resignation of a minister or how to handle in fact the resignation of Mr Piper himself.

I say I could not possibly be satisfied with the one-word answer the Premier has provided.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciated very much the opportunity to listen again to a question from my friend from Ottawa West.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): No, you don't.

Hon Mr Rae: My good friend, my old friend and colleague in arms and in battle, in by-elections and elections, my friend from northern Ontario, who says, "No, I don't": I do. I'll tell members, and I'll speak very candidly with members.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Comrade in arms?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Mississauga West is expressing surprise. History is history. We all know that was on one of my previous trips to Asia in which that particular political event took place, but there you are.

I say to the honourable member, look, I know what the nature of question period is and the nature of a political debate is. I fully expect to receive precisely the same degree of charity as I demonstrated when I was in opposition.

Mr Mahoney: We've got a long way to go, Bob.

Hon Mr Rae: I see the member for Mississauga West shaking his head, and I think he and I both know why. I will say to the member for Ottawa West, when I was speaking in Asia I used to say to people, "The success of Asia is not a miracle and it's not a conspiracy," and I want to say to the honourable member, sometimes what takes place is in fact what takes place.

I said to a couple of people the other day, "How long will it be before we get the 'gates' in terms of the comparisons in this and that and the other?" Today it is Nixon, the comparison, tomorrow it'll be Genghis Khan and then it'll be among the four or five great events in history.

I just want to say to the honourable member as clearly as I can, as I answered earlier and as I've said very clearly, the first I ever heard of this interview or discussion by Mr Piper was when I returned from Asia to Vancouver on Friday.

The other question he has is, was there any grand communication strategy with respect to Grandview that was discussed with me? The answer to that clearly is no. I would just say to the honourable member that the Grandview inquiry is carried out by the Ministry of the Attorney General. Anybody occupying the post of Premier, anybody in this province, fully understands and appreciates the complete independence of that whole process with respect to this issue.

I would say to the honourable member that I fully expect all kinds of allegations and statements to be made. I would only say to members of the opposition that it's precisely because of the seriousness of what took place on Friday, and of what it represents in terms of what should not be done by any government or by anybody in any government, that I must confess I come into the House every day since my return, listen carefully to what's said and say to myself that sometimes the excessive rhetoric with which it's expressed I think undermines the very seriousness of the mistake that was made on Friday.

I say to the honourable member as clearly as I can that the government regrets profoundly what took place. We don't condone it in any way, shape or form. It does not in any way correspond to my sense of public service or my sense of what should be involved. I want to say to the honourable member that this is the case, those are the facts as I know them and understand them and those are my feelings as I can express to him as clearly as I can, and that will continue to be the view I express from this desk and from this chair because it is the case.

The Acting Speaker: There being no further matter to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1818.