The House met at 1332.
Prayers.
ESTIMATES
Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I have a message from the Administrator of the government. The Administrator of the government transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1993 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The report of the Race Relations and Policing Task Force was released five weeks late.
The task force members made it clear that the training initiatives of this government over the last two years have been practically non-existent. They were just a few words short of saying that the Solicitor General is totally incompetent.
They further state that some members of the ministry have yet to come to grips with the reality of proper policing. This also applies to certain ranks within the police.
This report was delayed for five weeks, as I said before, and I am convinced that it was intercepted, hence the delay in presenting the findings and recommendations of the task force.
It is my belief that Piper, the spin doctor, was at work here. To instruct an independent task force to delay publishing its findings is consistent with the government's manipulative behaviour with respect to other independent groups and agencies. An example, Mr Speaker, as you know, is the Ontario Municipal Board.
Furthermore, it is apparent that it was a deliberate ploy to delay the report, given the current climate that the government has created with respect to the police.
I commend the task force for advancing the cause of employment equity, emphasizing that it will not await the government's Employment Equity Act. As you know, Mr Speaker, they have delayed employment equity for another year, therefore 1997 before the first phase could be brought before the tribunal.
It is apparent that they have repeated many of the findings indicated in the Stephen Lewis report. Unless the government is committed to implementing these recommendations without delay, it will become another relic on the shelf. As you know, Mr Speaker, that's how they react to reports in this House.
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the excessive service fees charged under the Environmental Protection Act and the Conservation Authorities Act that will virtually slow down or put an end to development in the province of Ontario.
Under the Environmental Protection Act, boards of health are collecting $75 per lot for new lots created by severance, plan of subdivision or condominium. Under the Conservation Authorities Act, developers are charged $50 per lot per subdivision, to a maximum of $5,000 for reviewing subdivisions; $25 per unit per condominium for review of condominiums; $250 per development for review of industrial, commercial and institutional developments; $100 per application for fill, construction and alterations to waterways regulations; $30 for solicitors' inquiries and inquiries from real estate companies, consulting firms and development companies; and if a site inspection is required, an additional fee of $70 will be charged.
This government continues to find new sources to tax the people of Ontario, and these excessive service charges are sad examples of this ongoing policy. Charging excessive service fees will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment by putting an end to development in the province of Ontario.
I didn't realize all these service charges were in place until John Copeland of Elmvale came to my office and indicated what this government is doing to his business.
ANNIVERSARIES
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On the past weekend I had the opportunity of participating in two 50th anniversaries. The first 50th anniversary was dealing with an organization in the town of Wallaceburg, that is, United Auto Workers 251. The trade union was established on December 7, 1942. It currently has 22 units which represent 2,000 members in that local union and it covers a wide variety of sectors of workers and the workplaces around there. One of the very important things to see is the foundation that the trade union has created in the town of Wallaceburg and its support through United Way and others.
The other 50th anniversary that I participated in was Mr and Mrs Chandler's 50th wedding anniversary in Chatham township in the town of Wallaceburg. Seeing the 50th anniversary was a signal to the community of what can be accomplished in 50 years of marriage. As we witness today the divorce rates and the abuse that's out there in our communities, to see two fine people stand and renew their vows in holy matrimony for one more time after 50 years was a dedication for myself and my wife to be there to witness this.
It made me reflect on how important it is for unity: unity of a labour movement, unity of a family, caring about the communities they live in. I think what it will do is send an important message to the rest of society: We must stop and think. No legislation will ever produce love.
1340
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): School boards and hospitals in the Kenora riding expressed disbelief and shock over the Treasurer's announcement on what they see as a freeze on transfer payments.
Over the past months they have been preparing their 1993-94 operating budgets on the basis of the commitment made by this government in January. They avoided the slash-and-burn approach to budget management the NDP government is now employing. Boards of education throughout the north have stated that they are extremely concerned that this government's funding freeze will jeopardize the high standards of education they now offer.
Mr Treasurer, in an area where the costs of hydro will be increasing by 9%, where the cost of shipping materials in can be as high as 30% of the price, where bus lines are asked to pay as much as 11 cents more for a litre of gasoline, northern boards are predicting that along with equalization of assessment, unorganized territories throughout the north may be looking at as much as 14% to 15% increase in their education taxes next year.
Hospital boards have said that the freeze will affect their plans to upgrade equipment and force it to re-evaluate their levels of service.
Take, for example, what this has done to the Lake of the Woods District Hospital. For them the so-called one-time funding will amount to about half of 1%. This translates into about $75,000 on a $23-million budget. This won't even cover the costs of the increase in the employer's contribution to the OHA pension plan or the increase in WCB costs.
Mr Treasurer, these boards have understood the recession and undertook responsible budget management. Why can't you?
MARK NIMZ
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I rise to commemorate and extol the heroism of Mark Nimz of Burlington.
On Thursday, November 26, a man dressed in army fatigues entered a Burlington roadhouse restaurant and forced six of the people present into a rear office area and began robbing the premises. As the man held a gun to the head of the owner, Mark Nimz, a father of two, bravely confronted him. The bandit quickly turned and fatally shot Mark point-blank in the chest and continued to rob the bar while Mark lay bleeding to death on the floor. Police arrived moments later but the murderer had fled on foot and he remains at large.
As Mark's mother, Lisa, said, "Mark was the type of person who would come to anyone's aid." In the words of Mark's friends who left him at the bar 10 minutes before the shooting, "He stood up for something he believed in and paid the ultimate price." My brothers, who went to school with Mark, also knew him as the courageous and warm-hearted individual that he was.
At this time of sadness and sorrow, I should like to extend, on behalf of all members of the House, our sincere condolences to Mark's family and his close friends. May it compel us who are legislators to ensure the best possible protection against crime for the communities we represent and serve.
Today we celebrate the life of Mark Nimz, inspired as it was by the text for the funeral service of heroes: "Another commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you. No man has greater love than this, that he give his life for his friends."
WORLD AIDS DAY
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to draw attention to the fact that tomorrow is World AIDS Day.
Since 1988, December 1 has been set aside each year to increase public awareness about HIV and AIDS and to strengthen our commitment to combating this epidemic. In just over a decade more than 10 million people, 3.5 million of them women, have been infected with HIV worldwide. At least half a million have developed AIDS. By the year 2000, 30 to 40 million people worldwide are likely to be infected with HIV. That amounts to a staggering 5,000 new cases of HIV infection every day. Anyone can contract this deadly disease.
This year the World Health Organization has chosen "A Community Commitment" as the theme for World AIDS Day, stressing the need for community action in response to HIV infection and AIDS.
Today many members in this House are wearing red ribbons in support of a local campaign organized by the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research and the Fife House Foundation. Since Friday, hundreds of volunteers have been selling these ribbons to raise funds for AIDS research and for supportive housing for persons living with AIDS.
I took some time last Friday to sell ribbons in my riding of Fort York and I was heartened by the positive response of the public. Local community-based initiatives such as this campaign are at the forefront of the struggle against HIV and AIDS. By becoming involved at the local level, we are all partners in the global action against this devastating disease.
WOMEN'S ISSUES
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I bring to the floor of the House today three questions that the women of this province are asking of this government.
When will you reassign at least 10,000 of the spaces targeted for the Jobs Ontario program that we all know is stagnating to the broader child care community, and thus serve real needs of real women and real children in this province?
Another question is the pay equity announcement of last Thursday: another broken promise to women of this province, in this case vulnerable women, women who have been among those consistently underpaid for decades. The announcement means, in their estimation, that their real needs are being put on hold, indeed tossed into the future. The new date of 1998 is being thrown out as a crumb, a sliver of hope. How can these women really believe this government?
Child care reform, another NDP priority, by all weights and standards, is being postponed into the new year. Will it ever really happen?
In each of these three issues, issues that used to be considered NDP priorities, we are hearing more and more about nickel-and-diming on the backs of the vulnerable. Conditional dollars; announced dollars; targeted dollars. These words ring hollow. They are leaving many, many women in this province disillusioned, angry and feeling used.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.
ENTERTAINMENT TAX
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Grey Cup fans from across the country travelled to Toronto over the weekend to watch the Calgary Stampeders and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers square off at the SkyDome. As a football fan and as a frustrated Toronto Argonauts fan, I was there with about 45,000 people to watch Doug Flutie and the Calgary Stampeders win the Grey Cup.
According to Grey Cup organizers, the Grey Cup contributed about $40 million to the Metro Toronto economy. More than 20,000 people visited Toronto, staying in its hotels, eating in its restaurants, visiting its stores and enjoying its taverns. The Grey Cup is a vital economic boost to tourism in Metro.
The bad news is that this government, through its taxation policies, is unnecessarily burdening the CFL teams in Ontario. According to Al Strachan, a columnist with the Globe and Mail, Ontario is the only province that gouges its three CFL teams by imposing entertainment taxes.
The economic spinoffs that Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa receive from their CFL teams should not be discounted by this government. Instead of creating an environment in which these teams might thrive, the government imposes burdensome taxes.
The CFL, as most sports fans know, is struggling for its very survival. As a Canadian football fan, I fear losing a brand of football unique to this country.
It is about time that the NDP government recognizes the positive economic benefits that the CFL teams and other professional sports franchises bring to this province and trash this tax.
COAT DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Oxford County Board of Education, Loeb Club Plus, area service clubs and the ministerial association for sponsoring and supporting the annual Coats for Kids program.
Established in 1989 in Oxford county, the campaign originally supplied coats for 500 children. This year that figure is expected to more than double, thanks to the public's generosity and the efforts of countless volunteers.
In these tough economic times, more and more people cannot afford to buy their children new winter clothes. This program means that children will not have to suffer through the winter months in spring jackets and running shoes.
The groups involved in this effort have collected new and used coats, gloves, mittens, boots and hats. The clothes range in size from infant to adult. Many of the items appear to be new, purchased by caring individuals to donate to the Coats for Kids campaign.
Local business people further contribute their time and effort to this worthy cause as well. Local dry cleaners ensured that all the coats were cleaned, charging only a nominal fee. Volunteers then distribute the coats to various distribution centres.
I want to make special mention of the Coats for Kids campaign in the town of Ingersoll. Most distribution centres in Oxford county wrap up their efforts at the end of November, but the Ingersoll drive has been extended to mid-December to ensure that every child has the chance to be prepared for the winter months.
With the holiday season fast approaching, most of us are thinking about sharing our good fortune and good times with family and friends, but I'm especially pleased to see that the spirit of caring and sharing exists in Oxford all year round.
1350
ORAL QUESTIONS
ONTARIO ECONOMY
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): With my first question today, I want to focus on this government's absolutely breathtaking inability to manage either Ontario's economy or its finances.
On Friday, Dofasco announced that it's laying off 2,000 workers. Today, Falconbridge said it is reducing its Sudbury workforce by 200. These workers will add to the 550,000 Ontarians already on the unemployment lines, and many others work day to day, uncertain whether or not their plant will be the next to close.
The Premier has blamed the global recession, or he blames Ottawa, or he even blames Ontario's business people for not being sufficiently competitive. He absolutely refuses to understand what his government is doing to make it impossible for Ontario business to compete. I would ask the Premier, why do you keep blaming the federal government when the real problem here is your absolute refusal to understand what your government is doing to make things work and what it could do to make things better?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member has raised two issues, two industries in particular, two examples, to ask me the question. Let me say to her with respect to Falconbridge that it just so happens that I met with the president of Falconbridge when I was in Tokyo. I want to tell the honourable member directly what he told me. The fact of the matter is, she asked questions with respect to a particular industry. Here is an industry whose products are traded on the world market. Here is an industry where prices are affected directly by the supply. Here is an industry where supply is directly affected by political events in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union, where in fact there's evidence that substantial amounts of minerals are now being dumped on the world market.
I say to the honourable member, I think she's really got to get with it. Understand for a moment the extent to which --
Interjection: These are global problems?
Hon Mr Rae: Yes, these are global problems. Also, I would say to her that it's not a matter of blaming the federal government, pure and simple. It's a matter of recognizing that at a time of unprecedented industrial change, the leadership that's been shown by the federal government has been sadly lacking. I would have thought the honourable member would be the first to agree with that, since the evidence of that is simply overwhelming. Those are the facts, and that's what's led us to take the decisions that we have.
Mrs McLeod: Perhaps in the supplementary response the Premier might explain to us why he had to go to Tokyo to meet with the president of Falconbridge.
I would suggest to the Premier that the failure of Ontario's economy -- and it is a failure of Ontario's economy -- is very directly related to the problems that the Treasurer is having with his budget. Premier, the Treasurer says that the people of this province are going to face more tax hikes in order to keep the government's deficit target. We can already point out, and have pointed out in the past, tax policies that have taken $1 billion out of the economy and directly cost 25,000 jobs.
In October, just a month ago, the Treasurer said the tax revenues were $500 million less than planned, and now, just one month later, we discover that Ontario's revenues are $4.5 billion less than planned. Meanwhile, the government is trying to spend millions of dollars buying out private day care operators and the Workers' Compensation Board is wasting money on a new downtown office tower.
Premier, I would ask, before you even breathe the words "tax hike," don't you think you should get your own fiscal house in order?
Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member, this from a member of a Liberal cabinet and a Liberal government that raised taxes 41 times while they were in office, 41 times.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Hon Mr Rae: I don't recall the honourable member resigning from cabinet on a matter of principle, saying that this was so terrible, that she objected so strongly to what the Treasurer was doing, that they weren't going to deal with it.
The Liberal opposition is carrying on in a way which has got to be exposed for what it is. It's the way in which she says, "Don't raise taxes, don't cut expenditures and bring your deficit down." To describe it as voodoo economics would be to pay it a tribute it does not deserve.
The Liberal Party is incapable of understanding, because it does not want to recognize that we are now reaping the whirlwind it sowed when it was in office for those five years. We are having to make, as a government, very difficult decisions dealing with situations which the Liberal Party and the Liberal government were never capable of resolving, never wanted to address and never had the courage to deal with. We're dealing with them, and that's exactly what we're going to do.
Mrs McLeod: I really wish that the Premier, rather than simply coming back to his descriptions of voodoo economics, would get out there and talk to the Ontario businessmen he was so critical of when he was speaking to the Hong Kong chamber of commerce. I wish he would talk to those Ontario businessmen about voodoo economics. They will tell him that when the Treasurer talks about tax hikes, that makes the possibility of investment in this province an even more remote possibility. They will tell him that any new taxes now are going to cost even more lost investment and more lost jobs. New taxes are likely to put more people out of business and more people out of work. That's the message Ontario business would want to send to this Premier. That's the way they would dismiss his description of voodoo economics.
I would also suggest to the Premier that since his government's numbers change daily, and with every change in numbers there is the threat of yet another new tax hike, that does nothing to restore confidence in business people looking to invest in the province of Ontario.
If you can't figure out how to get the economy going, could you at least tell the people of this province the truth about the budget figures? Would you please come clean with the people of Ontario about the state of this economy and about the kind of tax hikes you may be planning for them?
Hon Mr Rae: The Treasurer gave a very full report to the House on Thursday indicating very clearly exactly where we are and indicating why certain decisions with respect to transfers and other things had to be made. I think that evidence is very clear.
I want to say to the honourable member that I meet regularly, frequently and constantly with the business community, and one of the things they constantly say to me is: "Premier, we realize that this is not all of your fault. We realize that what you are having to deal with are several problems which have been left to you by other governments."
In their moments even when they're critical of some of the things we have done, I can assure the honourable member, and I want to tell her this now, if she thinks the chamber of commerce and others are saying, "Please, just do what Bob Nixon did, just do what David Peterson did, and everything will be okay," I haven't met a soul out there telling me that. I think the Liberal leader ought to recognize that.
JOHN PIPER
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, and it's about the Piper incident. I'd like to get a firm commitment from the Premier of what is going to take place after the police investigation.
We in the opposition, Premier, don't feel that this was an isolated incident by Mr Piper, nor do we feel that he acted on his own. Ultimately, Premier, you're responsible. You knew exactly whom you were recruiting when you brought Mr Piper in as your deputy minister. Mr Piper is known as a tough, hard-nosed, aggressive political fighter. He's known as someone who fixes political problems. That's why you went out and recruited this person you've known, I think, for 20 years, knowing exactly what you were recruiting. That's why we are suspicious, Premier, that this was not an isolated instance.
We want a commitment from you, Premier, that once the police investigation is over you will permit a full hearing of this, an all-party legislative committee so that we can get to the bottom of all the activities that were going on in your office around what we would call dirty tricks.
Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would say to the honourable member that I would urge him not to prejudge anything or anyone with respect to what has taken place. I would suggest strongly to the honourable member that we would all be well advised to wait for the outcome of the police investigation.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Mr Phillips: Premier, you didn't listen to my question. I said once the police investigation is over, we want a commitment from you about an all-party legislative committee.
I will say to you, Premier, that you had early warning of exactly the kinds of problems you would face. It was only a few days after the election that you personally called Mr Piper. You asked Mr Piper to be your personal consultant on the Olympic bid. You sent him to Tokyo on taxpayers' expense. Then when Mr Piper got to Tokyo, he systematically proceeded, I understand -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong here -- to attempt to undermine our Olympic bid. He was your consultant, recruited by you, paid for by you, I assume reported back to you, and if the things I understand he did in Tokyo he didn't, I will stand corrected; but I understand, Premier, that it was he who insisted that the Bread Not Circuses people be allowed to demonstrate in front of the IOC. He did a lot to undermine our committee's bid.
1400
My question to you is this, Premier: If you knew that was the sort of activity Mr Piper would engage in, why did you personally go out and recruit him to be your deputy minister in your office, with all of the clout that that entails?
Hon Mr Rae: I was just chatting with the Treasurer and listening to the Treasurer's advice to me. I would remind you that I asked the former Premier to go on behalf of the province and he refused; he declined to go. He said he wouldn't go. I then asked the member for Nickel Belt to go and I am advised by the member for Nickel Belt that Mr Piper was in fact very helpful in Tokyo. I want to say to the honourable member that he can engage in this kind of activity if he wants; I'm not going to dignify it with a further response.
Mr Phillips: It was you, Premier, who recruited this individual whom you've known for 20 years; a well known, very tough, very aggressive individual. You brought him in. You made him your deputy. You gave him all the clout that this entailed. I will tell you that my understanding of his activities in Tokyo is that he did much to undermine our bid.
You can understand, Premier, why we are frankly very distrustful of what has gone on in your office, and Mr Piper only added to that. After he was caught at this, he said, "Frankly, I've done nothing wrong." This is your deputy. This is the person whom you've known for 20 years. He said, "I've done nothing wrong, other than embarrass you." I hope you can understand now why we on the opposition want to get to the bottom of this.
We understand the police investigation. If nothing can take place till that's done, so be it. But we want your commitment, Premier, based on what we now know about Mr Piper, that once that police investigation is complete, we on the opposition side will have a full chance to find out how many other things were going on, undetected, unknown to the opposition, that will only come out if we have a full, all-party legislative committee able to look fully at this matter.
Hon Mr Rae: I will stand by my answer that I've already given to the honourable member and stand by it very directly, and I will just say that I'm very disappointed in the kind of attitude that's being taken by the honourable member.
The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party has the floor.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Over two years ago, you, David Peterson and I were travelling around this province fighting an election. You and I both knew at that time that the province was going headlong into a recession. In fact, that's the reason why the election was called early; I think everybody would acknowledge that now. David Peterson didn't seem to know that we were going into a recession or he didn't want to talk about it but, Premier, you and I did because we had talked about that in the session before the election was called that spring.
But, Premier, even though you knew that, you chose to ignore that in the campaign. You laughed when I travelled this province and wouldn't make any new promises, when I said, "In fact, we can't even afford the spending that we have," that had been run up by five years of irresponsible Liberal government. But you laughed, Premier, and you said, "No, we can, and we can afford a billion dollars more in the Agenda for People." That's what you told them.
Then you and your Treasurer, Premier, brought in your first budget. You hiked spending close to 13% at a time when the rest of the country was going into the dumper, including Ontario. At a time when other treasurers and other premiers were practising restraint, at a time when wage restraint was being brought in in the public sector, you decided to carry on the same way of David Peterson.
Premier, my question to you today is, why do you and your Treasurer point the finger to other governments, to Ottawa, to former governments, to this recession that you didn't know was coming, to the world? Why would you not acknowledge you were wrong, apologize to my candidates who campaigned in the last election for misleading statements you made during the campaign? But, more importantly, why wouldn't you apologize to the people of this province and say, "We're sorry; we were wrong, we massively overspent, and now we all have to pay the price, but it is my fault, Bob Rae's fault, my fault"?
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader complete his question, please.
Mr Harris: Why would you not acknowledge that today?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I must confess, when I listen to the honourable member, that I say to him very directly that the issue of the recession is difficult enough as it is without turning it into the kind of rhetorical circus which he has done.
In response to the recession as it was unfolding, yes, we did put $700 million in capital spending into the budget in the first year. We did take that action precisely because we recognized how serious the situation has been, and we've continued to take it. So we're now investing more; we've got $4.5 billion in capital spending and in training money that's in the economy now, this year, the highest amount ever by the province, and we're proud of that. We have no hesitation in saying that.
At the same time, we've demonstrated consistently the need for restraint in terms of transfers, yes, and a restraint in terms of wage settlements, and we've got the wage settlements down without having to engage in the kind of confrontation, the kind of poor feeling that exists in other jurisdictions. We've now got a very responsible policy which is understood and embraced by all concerned. That's the direction that we're going in and that's the direction that we're taking.
I want to say to the honourable member that, given the circumstances, given the very tough situation that we face, and yes, given the neglect, the systematic neglect of this province by the federal government with respect to its overall economic responsibilities, I think we can say to the people of the province that we are trying as best we can to respond to a difficult and tough situation --
The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his response, please.
Hon Mr Rae: -- and that's exactly what we're going to do.
Mr Harris: Premier, you can blame the feds. You can blame others. You can blame your predecessors, and there is some validity in blaming some of your predecessors; I understand that. But the fact of the matter is and the bottom line is that you made the wrong choices 18 months ago when you came into office and you brought in your first budget. You made the wrong choices, and you have nobody to blame but yourself for those choices.
I think you will recall one of the things that I had said at that time. I said when you brought in the first budget: "This budget will have implications for many years to come. It will be remembered as the beginning of the province's slide into a devastating spiral of increasing taxes and decreasing economic activity." That was April 29 I said that here in this very place in 1991. But you laughed at me. Your Treasurer laughed at me. You said: "No, we are going to spend our way out of this recession. We know something no other politician in Canada or in North America and the world knows": that these massive increases, a wage package to the public service up 16% year over year in total wages --
The Speaker: Will the leader place his supplementary, please.
Mr Harris: I would ask you again: Would you not now acknowledge that you, in your first budget when you went on this $53-billion spending spree, are a significant part of the problem that you and your Treasurer and your government face today?
Hon Mr Rae: I want to say very directly to the honourable member that if you look at the record of the Treasurer in terms of trying to respond to a very, very difficult situation -- and it's so ironic, because the member now talks about his policies and what he said. You know, there isn't an instance we can point to, an instance in question period in the last couple of months, when the questions haven't been coming from all the members of his back bench, saying: "Spend more money. Spend more money. Spend more money." That'll be one day. Then the next day it'll be "No taxes," and the next day it'll be "What's wrong with your deficit?"
So I want to say very directly to members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, who no doubt will carry on with this chatter for some time, that the people of the province of Ontario deserve straight goods from everybody. They're getting straight goods from the New Democratic Party government, they're getting straight goods from the Treasurer of Ontario, and they're getting a pile of baloney from the official opposition and from the third party. Those are the facts.
1410
Mr Harris: Mr Premier, you lost the fight against the recession. That was the fight you picked. You told us you were going to fight the recession and you lost it. You've lost the fight against the deficit. That was the one you tried to run away from but you lost it too. Now, with 500 job losses a day, you've lost the fight for jobs. Enough is enough.
You limited the transfer partners for last year and into this year to 2%: hospitals, schools, colleges, universities, municipalities. I supported that restraint. You will recall I said I wished you'd done it a year ago when I called for it. I supported that. But I also called on you to live within the same restraints. In the same budget last year you hiked your own spending two and a half to three times that -- 4.6%, I believe -- including the transfer payments, which means your own spending was up probably three times that amount: three and a half times the rate of inflation.
You've limited your transfer partners to 2%, and in fact they're going to have to spend less than that because the following year it's minus 2%. I would ask you today, will you commit today to limiting your own spending to 2% and minus 2%, as you've said hospitals can do, as you've said school boards can do, as you've said municipalities can do? Will you, today, limit your own spending and commit that next year and the following year it will be 2% and minus 2% so you could show the same kind of restraint you're telling others they should do?
Hon Mr Rae: When you look at the facts, when you take out public debt interest which we're running up on behalf of all the transfer agencies which don't have a debt, when you take out social assistance costs which are a statutory entitlement, a legal entitlement that people have, our funding has gone up 0.3% in terms of expenditures, the lowest level of increase. So I don't need to take any lectures from a Tory about how to exercise restraint with respect to public expenditure.
The critical question, though, is to do it in a way that continues to demonstrate our commitment to jobs and to job creation, which is what we're doing.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, we're going to be talking about straight goods right now. Everybody wants the straight goods. We heard you on the CBC about a week ago talking about The Transition Years pilot projects. You stated that these pilot projects have been available since last summer, which really confused me.
You intrigued the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation at the same time, because at its conference over a week ago it talked about using the freedom of information act to get information on these pilot projects. So we called your office, Mr Minister, and there are over 64 of them. We were told that there is a bound copy. However, we were also told there has been no in-depth analysis of these projects. Will you give us the straight goods right now and tell us whether in fact we do have an analysis of these pilot projects and when they'll be available for everybody in this House?
Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I was referring, I think, in the comment the member referred to, to some information which I understand has been available in 12 school boards for some time -- I think back to last spring -- and which I'm told is there, which is a description of some of the findings of the pilot projects of the first year's experience. I know I've had on my desk for some time a document which I believe is a public document, which outlines in a descriptive format some of these pilot projects. I think that information is available to anyone who wants it.
Mrs Cunningham: I'll just tell the minister what his office told us. I can't get a copy of the analysis of these pilot projects. You have a bound copy, which is simply that each board that had a pilot project made a report. It's all put in a bound copy. I mean, anybody can do that. We want to know what's working and what is not working in Ontario. Now, at the same time, Mr Minister, a week ago Friday evening the OSSTF got a copy of The Transition Years. The appropriate document I think was sent to the OSSTF at its conference.
At the same time, the Ontario Teachers' Federation didn't receive one. The Ontario Public School Trustees' Association, the school boards, didn't receive one. They got theirs on Monday. What is your process for communicating? You think you've got the document, your staff tell us it's not available and then you send something else out on The Transition Years to a conference. The rest of us wait until Monday. What is your process for communicating?
Hon Mr Silipo: I know the member would very much like to make an issue out of this process question, but let me just tell her very clearly that the information that was sent out to the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation was indeed the exact same information that was sent out to everyone, including the OTF, on Monday, and the reason it was sent to the OSSTF on Friday was because it was ready then and because they were in the middle of the discussions, so we felt it was pertinent, therefore, for them to have this information right away.
That's really the long and the short of it. The information normally goes out to everyone, as it did in this case. As I say, it was simply because OSSTF was having a discussion and a conference around this issue that we thought it was useful to send that information to them at that time.
Mrs Cunningham: If information is ready on Friday, I think I should have it. I think every member of this House should have it. I think school boards and teachers' federations should have it on Friday, not on Monday.
My supplementary question to the minister has to do with the transfer payments last week, with the frozen base and the lump sum, which is approximately 2%. In the announcement there is some confusion. It says that boards will have to negotiate for the 2%, and it mentions three criteria. It mentions cost of restructuring:
"The government's overall priorities for restructuring are (1) to reduce the cost of public services" -- obviously that's going to happen -- "(2) to maintain public services" -- how you reduce the costs and maintain them will be wonderful, but perhaps some boards can do that -- "(3) to preserve jobs to the greatest extent possible."
These are criteria for getting 2%. I would say after my other question around transition years and restructuring the curriculum, surely we're going to be looking at curriculum changes, but it wasn't mentioned. My question to the minister is this: Is it a fact that these are the criteria and that all school boards will not get 2% next year? Is that the fact? If it is, I hope you make it very clear to the school boards, because that's what they are expecting, 2%.
Hon Mr Silipo: When I met on Thursday afternoon, before the Treasurer's announcement, with the representatives from the various school boards, teachers' federations and other groups to go over with them the nature of the announcement the Treasurer was making, I also indicated to them that I was very interested in pursuing discussions directly with them about the way in which they best felt we should allocate the 2%, one-time-only funding. I've committed myself to discussing that with them.
I'm going to be inviting people to come back together before Christmas to hear their suggestions, and I've said to them that before we make decisions about how to finally determine the best use of the 2%, which is about $99 million in our case, I will want to hear from them on that. I've also committed myself to getting the main components of the general legislative grant out towards the end of January, along with the decision around the use of the 2%, so that school boards would have that information available to them as they structure their budgets.
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Last Thursday, we heard information from the Treasurer which was tantamount to the big lie. He said there would be a 2% transfer to hospitals on a one-time-only basis, not added to the base.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Just a minute. Before people get all excited, I realize it isn't the most helpful way to phrase something, but there was not an accusation of anyone lying. Could the member direct her question, and to which minister?
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. The truth is that the operating transfers to hospitals are frozen until 1995 and that special funding arrangements that he's included are in fact designed so there will be no cash flow in the next year. The truth is that thousands of dollars which were spent in preparing full operating plans, which were to be on the desk of the Minister of Health today, have been wasted.
There are three implications to that announcement: service cuts, job cuts or deficits. In many areas of this province, people will be put at risk directly as a result of that announcement. I'm asking the Treasurer, will he fund the deficits of hospitals when communities are placed at risk because hospitals cannot provide the health services that they are by law required to provide?
Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I won't reply in kind to the member and imply that she's a liar, or any such thing.
The member should know, if she doesn't, that the transfer to hospitals this year, the year we're in now, included a transitional fund which was to help the hospital sector restructure and deliver its services in a more efficient way with a minimum loss of jobs.
That has been accomplished to a remarkable degree, and an enormous amount of credit must go to the Minister of Health and the health care sector workers, because I can tell you that after a decade of double-digit increases, this government was able to sit down with our transfer partners in the health care sector, including the hospitals, and work out a deal in which we put a stop to that. The increase in the cost of funding hospitals has now been brought under control.
For 1993-94, what we have done is to allow a 2% fund again, another 2%, and the Minister of Health, in her inimitable fashion, will be working with the hospitals to determine to what extent any given hospital will receive a part of the equivalent of 2%. So I think for the member to imply that we haven't worked extremely hard to minimize job losses is simply not to understand what we've been doing at all.
1420
Mrs Sullivan: The Treasurer doth protest too much. He has not provided a 2% operating transfer. He has not come even close to providing a 2% operating transfer. He has frozen operating transfers.
Three quarters of hospital costs are staff-based. Within days, arbitrated settlements for CUPE and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union are expected. An arbitrated settlement will be coming forward in March for members of the Ontario Nurses' Association. The Service Employees International Union settlement, which has just been made within the past couple of weeks, adds a $12-million additional cost to the hospital sector.
We know that each 1% increase in unsettled collective agreements above a 2% CPI assumption will increase hospital costs by $53 million. Treasurer, what advice will you give to hospitals that have to work with settlements over which they have no control and which affect the costs associated with over 70% of their staff?
Hon Mr Laughren: My advice to the hospitals would be the same as it was this year: to sit down with the Minister of Health and to work out an arrangement in which job losses can be minimized, essential services will be maintained and costs can be reduced, in view of the new reality out there of how much money we've got to transfer to all our transfer partners.
I would remind you, Mr Speaker, to you directly, that this past year there were people who threw up their hands and predicted that there'd be 14,000 job losses in the hospital sector as a result of a 2% increase in transfer funding. As a matter of fact, when all of the dust settles, I believe there will be between 600 and 700 job losses. To me, that was a major accomplishment, and once again I pay tribute to the Minister of Health and to the hospital sector for accomplishing that. I believe it was truly remarkable.
MINISTERIAL CONDUCT
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, last December your Minister of Northern Development attempted to smear a doctor, an outspoken critic of the government. She admitted she had lied and took a polygraph test to prove it. Mr Premier, could you tell me who in your government, in your cabinet, made the decision to allow Miss Martel to remain in cabinet following that incident?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think that issue was debated over a year ago, and I think the member knows full well that full discussion took place in this House and a very full discussion took place following the adjournment of the House in committee. I think the member knows that full well. That was over a year ago.
Mr Harris: You're right. It was a year ago, Premier, and you're right: I certainly did suspect it was you who made that decision.
In the last few days I've been in Sault Ste Marie, I've been in Sudbury, I've been in Timmins, I've been in North Bay and I've been in Toronto. Everybody who is talking about the John Piper affair -- and they all are -- is saying: "What's happening down there? What's going on? We can't believe it."
When they talk about the John Piper affair, virtually everyone I talk to all across this province, in small towns and big cities, is telling me the same thing: that had you as Premier fired Shelley Martel, if you had clearly said, through that firing, that smearing the reputation of a political opponent is not acceptable, then John Piper would not have thought it okay to smear Judi Harris's reputation.
Mr Premier, they are all saying that, and I would ask you this: Do you not realize that your inaction on Miss Martel is in fact what places you personally to blame, you personally responsible for the actions of Mr Piper, because you set the example with Miss Martel a year ago today? I would ask you this, Premier: Will you today rectify this problem?
Will you rectify this duplicity of standards? I think we would acknowledge Mr Piper is not a stupid person. Your cabinet and your parliamentary assistants, your Treasurer tells me, are not stupid people, but they do not understand, because of the duplicity of standards, where the line should be drawn. I would ask you if you would correct that today by asking Miss Martel to step down today and resign her position -- that that conduct is unacceptable -- just as you asked Mr Piper to resign and step down?
Hon Mr Rae: I guess the long and short of the question is that the one thing I can tell the honourable member that I know -- I think everyone in the House knows -- is that regardless of what happens anywhere, any time, anyplace, the member is going to say it's my fault. I think that's the one thing we do know.
ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Many constituents in the riding of Wentworth North, and I'm sure there's many others in the province of Ontario, have been reading reports in the press about recent changes to OSAP. These reports have led people to believe these changes include total elimination of grants. Can you, Mr Minister, tell the people of this province whether these changes do or do not totally eliminate student grants?
Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I appreciate the question because there has been a lot of misunderstanding around the first news that came out about the OSAP changes. The important thing that has to be said is that grants have not been eliminated. There remain important parts of this program in which there is direct money paid to students in order to support them.
In the first instance, it's important to remember that this is not a loans-only program, that it is a loans-first program, and that students' indebtedness is capped at current levels and beyond that level of indebtedness students cannot go. Their loans above that will be forgiven. There are, in addition, other parts of the program which are straight bursary payments to students under certain circumstances.
Mr Abel: Even with the limit on student debt loads, how does this plan help or hinder students with extraordinary costs, such as sole-support parents needing child care or disabled students who need special learning materials?
Hon Mr Allen: We've doubled the amount of money that's available for students with special needs. We've doubled the amount of money that's available directly for students who need work study programs. There are child care bursaries that are direct grants that will help sole-support parents. There is a new one-stop shopping approach through OSAP directly for persons on social assistance, and in particular sole-support parents who will benefit quite considerably under this new package in ways they couldn't in the past.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Treasurer. Mr Treasurer, you will remember that two weeks ago the member for Renfrew North asked of you the propriety of building a new headquarters for the WCB at a cost of approximately $200 million. You knew the proposal calls for the construction of a new building of approximately 525,000 square feet at a cost, as I indicated, of about $200 million, or about $380 per square foot.
In addition, it is proposed that only 70% of this building would be used for the WCB, thereby of course adding 30% of commercial glut to the already 27 million square feet of excess commercial space that now exists in Toronto.
1430
Treasurer, two weeks ago you indicated you were concerned about this proposal, yet last Friday you allowed this project to go ahead through the opening of tenders and bids on this matter. Can you explain to this House how you can allow this type of expenditure to go through this year in this manner?
Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I recall the member for Renfrew North, I believe it was, raised the matter in this House and I undertook at that time to have a look at the whole issue.
It was my understanding that before the present chair of the board took his job at the board, an agreement had been reached, and I think unanimously, by the directors of the Workers' Compensation Board, including all of the employer representatives on the board, that such an arrangement should be struck and that they should proceed with the construction of a new building. That is my understanding, and I've asked for more information on that. I wasn't aware that the tenders had been opened on Friday.
Mr Offer: You weren't aware of the tenders being opened last Friday? You are allowing this $200-million expenditure to go through when the unfunded liability of the WCB is now over $11 billion and growing. Not only are you embarking on this ridiculous venture but, Treasurer, you permitted only three contractors to tender.
Treasurer, only three contractors were invited to tender this project. All other contractors were specifically excluded. Why did you purposely exclude all other contractors from tendering their bids on this project?
Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I didn't exclude anyone. I think you should separate my responsibilities from those of the board of directors of the Workers' Compensation Board.
I did ask for a legal interpretation as to what extent what had already been done was legally binding on the board of directors. I didn't make any commitment to approve or disapprove of the project, because I'm sure the member opposite would not want us to become engaged in an expensive lawsuit if that was to be the final outcome. I've simply asked for a legal interpretation to determine just what the status is of the obligations already undertaken by the board of directors of the WCB, not by me.
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Mr Minister, the Treasurer has recently announced that it's not his policies but the recession that has forced the government to cut back on the whole issue of transfer payments to the municipalities, the hospitals, the school boards, cuts on social services etc. There are a mass of cutbacks on almost everything in your government.
My question to the minister, Mr Speaker, is whether he can tell this House what the implementation costs are of Bill 164, the no-fault auto insurance bill.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): I can't give the member precise figures this afternoon in terms of the implementation costs. The member will be aware, though, that when Bill 68 passed in June 1990 and the Liberals set up the Ontario Insurance Commission to handle the implementation of Bill 68, the process for the implementation of Bill 164 in fact was already set in motion.
The mediation and arbitration processes at the OIC in terms of auto insurance claims under the current legislation have been developing over the last two years. The process has become quite effective in turning around claims and, although we expect there will be some minimal increase in the inability of the OIC to handle all of the claims under Bill 164 with its present staff, we haven't quite determined the precise number yet. That will be very much as it's been in the last two years, a bit of working through experience.
Mr Tilson: Let me help the minister. Mr Don Scott of the Ontario Insurance Commission has told my staff that he will require 100 additional staff to implement the benefits package of Bill 164 and $5 million more a year just to implement this so-called legislation. That is shocking.
Interjection: The minister doesn't even know it?
Mr Tilson: No, he doesn't really know it, because he obviously hasn't been speaking to Mr Scott or anyone from the Ontario Insurance Commission. Yet he reluctantly is about to have hearings on this subject come January.
My question to the minister is, how can you justify the information that Mr Scott has revealed to us, with all that additional bureaucracy and all that additional cost to the taxpayers of this province, when hundreds of other agencies, whether it be the municipalities, whether it be the social services, whether it be the school boards, whether it be all of those other agencies, must do with less when you're willy-nilly spending all these funds on a policy that no one wants?
Hon Mr Charlton: The member should tell his staff when they're talking to Mr Scott that it might be useful if they got all of the facts and all of the information. First of all, the numbers to which the member refers include numbers which I've just referred to. I don't know the exact breakdowns, but as Bill 68, the current plan, has been evolving, there has been a requirement at the OIC for additional staff.
The Ministry of Financial Institutions, and specifically the minister, who is in dialogue with Mr Scott on a regular basis, will make the determinations at the end of the day about what the staff requirements are for Bill 164.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Education. Many parents in my riding are very concerned about the destreaming and also eliminating grade 13. On top of that, the members I met with from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation raised several questions with me, and I think they warrant being answered.
Some of the questions were: Would the government consider delaying destreaming grade 10 until a thorough study of the effects on grade 9 students has been completed? What happens to the grade 9 student this year who fails a subject and has to repeat it next year? How can you get rid of the OACs when universities are full? These are just a few of the questions.
Minister, are these steps being taken just to save money in the Ministry of Education, or are we looking at putting the education of our children first in this province? I think that's the real question.
Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I'd love to answer in detail each of the subparts of the question that the member asked, because I think he raised some very valid points. But I think I can try to answer the basic question that he has put in terms of whether we are going about looking at the changes in education as a way to save money or as a way to improve the quality of education.
Let me just say to him very clearly that, while I know that from the Conservative Party particularly we've heard that the abolishion of grade 13 or that fifth year of high school will save millions of dollars, any changes we are contemplating would be done in the context of improving the quality of what we teach in our elementary and secondary schools and in ensuring that we can set out for the public and for our students a set of expectations from our school system that will clearly say what in fact our students should be able to achieve at various points in their school careers, all of those going together to heighten the quality of education in our schools.
Mr Hayes: One of the other questions is that some of the people, especially the teachers, are quite concerned about having the proper textbooks and having the curriculum changed in time. They are really concerned also about what happens if a student fails in grade 12, for example. Does this really --
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Mr Hayes: I know that some of the members across the hall here don't care about some of these questions, but the people in my riding do. One of the things they want to know is how this is going to affect the universities, especially when there are dropouts from post-secondary education. Is this going to allow more to go into the university, or are we going to see a drop in the enrolment?
Hon Mr Silipo: I think that again the member raises a point that I can tell him we are addressing, which is the question of whatever changes we bring about with respect to the secondary school years we need to do obviously in the context of the impact that has on colleges and universities and the movement between high school and post-secondary education for young people, as well as obviously the direct link between high school and the world of work for those students who opt to go in that direction.
I can tell the member that again these are very much part of the considerations that are going through our minds as we are looking at some of the changes. I can assure him that we are taking these very much into account as we come to some decisions around these directions.
1440
INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Premier. The Premier recently returned from a 16-day visit to east Asia. In his report to this House, the Premier reported that he met with more than 50 CEOs and senior executives, including those at Toyota.
The Premier, I'm sure, will know that Toyota is considering a major expansion in its existing North American production capacity, which will cost at least $500 million. Under consideration is a new plant in either Mexico or Georgetown, Kentucky, or Ontario.
Could the Premier share with us the results of his deliberations with Toyota, and what are the prospects of that investment coming to Ontario?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, I would like to say that in terms of our dealings with Toyota, we are building on a good relationship which goes back many years. The honourable member will know that. He will know the extent to which, if I may so, patience, persistence and every solid effort are required.
What I would say to the honourable member is, the basic approach that we're taking is to emphasize the commitment of this government to research and development and to training. That's the approach that we've taken with respect to Chrysler, the approach that we've taken with respect to Ford, the approach that we've taken with every major manufacturer in the province with respect to the areas in which the province can be of the greatest direct assistance.
Above and beyond that, all I can say is that we're discussing plans --
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): What have you got to offer them, Bob? High taxes, tough labour laws.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Hon Mr Rae: -- potential with respect to every major manufacturer, not simply Toyota. But as soon as I have any news to announce, I can assure the honourable member that I will be glad to do so.
Mr Kwinter: We don't know the outcome of the Toyota deliberations. But we do know about, and my leader has already alluded to, the 2,000 jobs that are going to be lost at Dofasco. Not only that, but in addition to these jobs, Dofasco has announced that it's deciding on a US location for a new mini-mill.
Mr John Mayberry, the executive vice-president of Dofasco, has publicly stated why they are establishing this new mini-mill in the US. His list of American advantages range through "lower electricity costs, lower land costs, cheaper labour costs, lower taxes and the absence of an NDP-type government." Okay?
I should point out in another instance that Mr Gerhard Pfeiffer, who's the general manager for Richardson Greenshields Securities of Canada, GMBH, in Frankfurt, has discounted the concerns of German investors as a result of the referendum vote. But he did indicate that there were real concerns over Ontario's fiscal policies.
Now we have a situation where this government has created an environment where local indigenous industries are looking elsewhere to establish their expansion. Other investors from around the world are looking at Ontario and saying, "Why would we possibly invest there?"
The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.
Mr Kwinter: Although I certainly don't want to be the bearer of bad news, I would be very surprised if that Toyota expansion happened here. What I want to ask the Premier is, what are you doing to change this negative image of this jurisdiction so that we can create the kinds of jobs that all of us in this House are desirous of doing?
Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member very directly this: For example, he raises he issue of Hydro costs. Let's talk about Hydro costs. Let's talk about why they're as high as they are. Let's talk about what's happened.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps the honourable member could stand up and say how he would deal with the $31-billion debt which Hydro now has.
I want to say to the honourable member, we recognize our obligation to be competitive, and I think it's also our obligation -- it's a shared obligation on the part of everyone in this House -- to talk up the province and not to talk it down, and to do everything we can to keep our cost structures competitive. That's exactly what we're intending to do and that's exactly what we're doing.
ONTARIO HYDRO
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Ontario Hydro is currently developing plans for a new right of way from Sudbury to Toronto. There's been a great deal of concern on the part of local residents and community groups who will be affected by this project.
These groups are voicing two major concerns. First, why does Hydro need another major transmission route from Sudbury to Toronto? The second concern relates to the reason Ontario Hydro would be looking at 250 acres of prime agricultural land for a new transformer station. Please explain the rationale for proceeding with these massive capital projects, taking into consideration your plans for the utility in Ontario.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): Obviously, the member didn't listen the other day when one of my colleagues asked me almost precisely the same question, or he would have been aware of the answer before he even got up today.
Hydro's proposals for the Sudbury-to-Toronto line were proposals that were developed as part of its 25-year plan, a plan that was tabled, as the member is well aware, at the Environmental Assessment Board hearing in 1989. Part of that proposal has already been deferred. The EA hearings around the proposed options will proceed simply so that we can satisfy the question which the member has raised, the question of need.
The environmental assessment process, as the member should well know, demands that Hydro, in its environmental assessment proposal, substantiate the need for the line in the first place. Part of the proposal has already been deferred by Hydro board's decision last month.
Mr Jordan: The purpose of the environmental assessment hearing was to assess the 25-year demand-supply plan. You scrapped that plan; there is no 25-year demand-supply plan. Why are you continuing with these environmental hearings for projects that are not relative to your plans for Hydro in the province of Ontario? You're spending $500,000 a week on these environmental assessment hearings on a plan that has been scrapped. Would you please direct them to terminate those hearings until there is a plan that you can put forward that requires such environmental hearings?
Hon Mr Charlton: Very briefly, obviously the member is somewhat confused. There are two environmental assessment processes going on here. One is the 25-year-plan hearing; the other is the environmental assessments that have to go on around the individual proposals which Hydro makes. That process will continue.
The member knows, for example, that the Manitoba purchase still has not been cancelled. It may be deferred, but those lines will be required if that purchase proceeds, and Hydro intends to proceed with the environmental assessment hearings.
1450
JOHN PIPER
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Attorney General has a response to a question asked earlier.
Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Last Thursday, I was asked a couple of questions by the member for Renfrew North. I gave an undertaking that I would attempt to provide the information to him by today and I wish now to respond to the questions asked of me by him last week relating to advice given by the Ministry of the Attorney General to the Premier's principal secretary. The questions asked in the House by the member were supplemented by other questions contained in a letter written to me on November 26.
As the House was advised last week, Ms Melody Morrison phoned the Deputy Attorney General at his home on Sunday, November 22, at about 10 am, seeking advice on whether Mr John Piper could re-enter his office to remove his personal property and, if so, how it should be done. The Deputy Attorney General advised her that he would provide her with advice after consulting with senior ministry counsel. He then consulted by telephone the director of criminal prosecutions, after which he phoned Ms Morrison back at about 11:30 am. The legal advice he gave her was that Mr Piper did have the right to enter and remove only his personal property, but that he could not remove any government or work-related property. Further, he advised that she should go into the office with him, observe him as he gathered the items up --
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Hampton: -- and then inspect the property to ensure only strictly personal property was taken.
As mentioned in the House last week, I am advised that Ms Morrison did follow the advice that she was given.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Piper was supervised throughout and all of the property was examined before it was removed. The Ontario Provincial Police had been contacted by the Ministry of the Attorney General on Friday, November 20, and asked to undertake an investigation into allegations regarding Mr Piper. That investigation is ongoing.
While the OPP were not aware in advance that Mr Piper was removing two boxes of his personal property, I am advised that Ms Morrison has met with them and has provided them with a list of property that was removed. The Deputy Attorney General did not consult with any individuals other than the director of criminal prosecutions. I was advised on Monday, November 23, that this legal advice had been requested and given.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question to the Attorney General is simply this, in light of what he said: How is it possible that in a matter so sensitive as the one the police are now investigating, the dirty trickster, Mr Piper, was allowed to go back to his office, accompanied only by someone from the same office --
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Conway: -- and no one seemed to bother to call the OPP to tell them that this visit was going to occur and nobody, including the Deputy Attorney General, seemed to think that it was worth his while to suggest to the OPP that they be present at the point of that very crucial visit? How did that all happen?
Hon Mr Hampton: First of all, Mr Spiker -- Mr Speaker. Perhaps the former is more appropriate, Mr Speaker.
First of all, as a matter of law, Mr Piper is entitled to his personal property. That was the question that was asked and that question was answered.
Second of all, the advice was asked for, as advice is routinely asked of the Ministry of the Attorney General by all ministries within the government as to what are the legal responsibilities, what are the legal obligations and so on. That advice was given in that vein.
Secondly, the Ontario Provincial Police have been advised that Mr Piper did remove two boxes of his personal property. I understand they have been told exactly what property was removed by Mr Piper and they have had an opportunity to further follow up on that.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Hampton: The member may wish to second-guess and third-guess. That is his freedom to do so. If the Ontario Provincial Police believe that there is anything significant here, I am sure they will look into it.
The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Motions? Petitions.
PETITIONS
GAMBLING
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and
"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."
I support this petition. I've signed it.
Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): It is my great privilege again to read into the record a petition sent by the good burghers of Ontario, from Owen Sound and Lindsay and from other parts around the province.
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and
"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and
"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and
"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and
"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;
"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."
I am glad to affix my signature, Mr Speaker, and to have these join the thousands of others who have petitioned this very same thing.
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition from the Quinte area which I'd like to present. The signatures were gathered by Mr Dave Switzer of Frankford. It reads:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Whereas pornography is exploitive of women, viewing them as mere objects of possession used as a man sees fit;
"Whereas police experience and academic research indicates that this mentality directly contributes to the escalating problem of rape and battered women;
"Whereas pornography degrades and dehumanizes women in our society;
"Whereas the 1991 federal Criminal Code, section 163, is clear and concise in its definition of 'obscenity';
"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of Ontario, to insist that the Ontario Film Review Board live up to its mandate when reviewing films and implement the letter of the law."
I present this petition, Mr Speaker.
POLICE USE OF FIREARMS
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.
"Whereas the proposed NDP use-of-force legislation requiring police officers to write a report whenever they should unholster their pistols in anticipation of a situation of danger poses a potentially serious threat to their safety and security;
"Whereas this proposed legislation also poses a grave threat to the safety and security of the citizens and their communities the police officers are sworn to serve and protect;
"Whereas the police officers themselves are not being consulted in a meaningful way by the Rae administration concerning this proposed legislation that so seriously affects their safety on the front line of service to the public; and
"Whereas we, in union with the spouses of Ontario police officers, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:
"That Premier Bob Rae undertake to invite immediately representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns without setting any preconditions for such a meeting, and
"That this NDP administration which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, determine to exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."
I'm very happy to sign my name to this petition.
1500
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 32 residents of the county of Middlesex and London area, who petition this Legislature as follows:
"To set aside the report by arbitrator John Brant because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, it is not in the best interests of the London and Middlesex area because other and alternative solutions exist, it awards far too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London, and will jeopardize agricultural land, the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life."
I have signed my name to this petition.
GAMBLING
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition is from the Church of the Resurrection, which is located in Thorold. It reads as follows. It is a petition to members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario re the proposal to license a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula:
"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity.
"By my signature here attached I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."
It's signed by a large number of residents and I affix my signature to this as I am in agreement with the petition.
EDUCATION FINANCING
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:
"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education; and
"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and
"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."
I've put my name on that petition.
GAMBLING
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here. It's from the First Baptist Church in Beamsville and Concordia Lutheran in Fonthill.
"Petition to the members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario:
"Proposal to license a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula:
"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gambling establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity.
"By my signature here attached, I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."
I affix my signature to this petition.
PSYCHOGERIATRIC CARE
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have a petition signed by a number of people from Ottawa-Carleton.
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the residents of Ottawa-Carleton are presently required to transfer to Brockville Psychiatric Hospital for medium- and long-term psychogeriatric treatment; and
"Whereas there is physical space available in existing facilities in the Ottawa-Carleton region; and
"Whereas the geographic distance constitutes an unreasonable hardship for families who want to provide ongoing support and to alleviate the emotional turmoil suffered by families now compelled to place their loved ones outside their geographic area,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To provide funding for long-term psychogeriatric care including hospital beds in Ottawa-Carleton, and we urge this funding to take place as quickly as possible."
I agree with the petition and have affixed my name.
GAMBLING
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would also like to add many names to the list that my friend from Victoria-Haliburton introduced into the House, and I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to the family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and
"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and
"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and
"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and
"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos, despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,
"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the government immediately cease all moneys to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."
I have signed this.
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from some 18 or 20 people from the community of Timmins, addressed to the members of provincial Parliament.
"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.
"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.
"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."
I affix my signature.
LABOUR LEGISLATION
Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition which reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and
"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and
"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."
It is signed by 54 people throughout the province.
INVESTMENT FUND
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas we, the undersigned members of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, do not want our pension funds invested in the Ontario investment fund; and
"Whereas we cannot jeopardize our retirement incomes by allowing the government to use our pension funds to further the NDP's political agenda; and
"Whereas the provincial government has no business gambling with the retirement income of private citizens,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to guarantee the independence of private pension funds by withdrawing the proposed Ontario investment fund."
I have affixed my name to this petition.
GAMBLING
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 48 residents of the Niagara Peninsula. Their church is located in my riding of St Catharines-Brock, and the petition reads as follows:
"We, the Church of the Resurrection, wish to express our concern and opposition to the proposed gambling casino in Niagara Falls. Our church is a regional church, with most of our congregation from St Catharines and some from Thorold, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Welland, Lowbanks, Fonthill, Fenwick, St Anns, Jordan and Beamsville."
As has been echoed by a number of members in this House already, they are concerned about a licence being granted in the Niagara Peninsula and they are concerned about criminal activity etc. I do agree with the comments made by the constituents, so I will be affixing my name to this petition.
1510
POLICE USE OF FIREARMS
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the proposed NDP use-of-force legislation requiring police officers to write a report whenever they should unholster their pistols in anticipation of a situation of danger poses a potentially serious threat to their safety and security;
"Whereas the proposed legislation also poses a grave threat to the safety and security of the citizens and the communities police officers are sworn to serve and protect;
"Whereas the police officers themselves are not being consulted in a meaningful way by the Rae administration concerning this proposed legislation that so seriously affects their safety on the front line of service to the public; and
"Whereas we, in union with the spouses of Ontario police officers, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:
"That Premier Bob Rae undertake to invite immediately representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns without setting any preconditions for such a meeting, and
"That this NDP administration, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, determine to exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."
I affix my name and my signature to this petition.
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
Mr Hansen from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:
Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:
Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex / Loi concernant les annexions faites à la cité de London et à certaines municipalités du comté de Middlesex.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.
Shall Bill 75 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING
Ms Coppen, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved government notice of motion number 21, pursuant to standing order 6(b):
That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on November 30, December 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1992, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion, until the next sessional day.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It has been my understanding that there's been agreement that the time be divided between the two opposition parties.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased this afternoon to have an opportunity to discuss some of the public's business under this particular motion standing in the name of the government House leader and put by his colleague the chief government whip.
It is, as is obvious from the wording of the motion, an effort by the government, as the government is quite properly allowed under the new standing orders, to extend the sittings in the last two weeks of the session. I, myself, don't have any particular problems with that provision since I had something to do with arguing its case just a couple of years ago, but I do want to use the opportunity this afternoon to talk about a couple of things relating to House business that this motion, I think, provides me with an opportunity to do.
The first has to do with a very, very bad habit we're getting into in this place. I have not had official confirmation from the Minister of Agriculture and Food because he could not be here, but I heard the other day -- in fact, I heard on the weekend -- that it's the plan of the government, having introduced the so-called stable funding legislation on farm organizations last Thursday, to in fact have that bill completed before we rise on the due date of Thursday, December 10. I can't believe it. I can't believe that there is anyone in this Legislature who honestly thinks that we can now use these new rules to preclude not only a good legislative debate but, in this case and more importantly, a debate that will allow farmers in this particular initiative to come to a legislative committee and speak their minds.
I understand that at the recent New Democratic Party council meeting at the University of Toronto over the past weekend there was some pressure brought to bear on the government party from farmers in this connection. I just simply have to believe that there is no one here, including the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who honestly thinks we can now do business in this place by introducing significant legislation that the House, and in fact, I gather, many outside the House, have not seen prior to its introduction on Thursday, November 27, if that's the right date. None the less, we are expected to pass the bill without any hearings in two weeks and three days. That, I think, is a wrongheadedness that surely must be imaginary.
I know that my friend the member for Oxford, a reasonable fellow, and his colleague the member for Lambton, representing large farm communities in southwestern Ontario, wouldn't for a moment countenance any legislative proposition that would have a bill of that kind introduced one week and passed without hearings 10 days later.
If there's anyone around here who's thinking that's the way this railroad is going to be run, I am telling whomever cares to listen, that without being particularly difficult, I will do everything I can. I want to say to my friends opposite to think about it. Surely, that's not the way we're going to run this place. If it is, I'm going to tell you that this government or any government will do so at its peril.
It concerns me that while we all want to see the place made more efficient -- unlike some over here I'm quite prepared to accept many of the sanctions in the new standing orders. I find obnoxious the way they have been interpreted and applied in some cases. "Obnoxious" understates my protest, but as I have said here on earlier occasions, the bad angels in me will want to keep all of those precedents and apply them ruthlessly against some of their architects some years from now. I just hope that when that day comes, my good angels will override my bad angels. I have to say --
Interjections.
Mr Conway: Is there any point? There seems to be --
The Speaker: To the member for Renfrew North, indeed there are a number of private conversations. It would be appreciated if perhaps members could find a different place to hold their private conversations, and the member for Renfrew North can continue.
Mr Conway: Let me just summarize that first concern. If anyone here on either side -- I don't mean this just as a criticism of the government side. If people now think the way this place is going to be run is that a minister or anyone else can come in here and drop a legislative proposition like stable funding on November 27 or 28 and the bill is going to be completed in two weeks with no opportunity for anyone out there to even come and voice a concern at a committee hearing, then I think we all better think again.
I know the member for Chatham-Kent has a view on stable funding. We probably, uncharacteristically, agree on that subject, but whether we agree or not is immaterial. The notion that this railroad is going to be run so expeditiously that people are not going to get any kind of an opportunity to come in and speak their piece on a major bill -- I can imagine administrative matters, housekeeping deals that do not need a great deal of time, but I want to say to my friends opposite --
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): No, no. It was the Liberals and the Tories who want to push this through.
Mr Conway: Pardon me?
Mr Hope: Don't want to change it.
Mr Conway: I don't know what the member is -- I'd like to be engaged in the debate, but there's no point, it seems to me, being made with that.
Mr Hope: Well, what's your party's position on the bill?
Mr Conway: I am telling you that I certainly don't favour the proposition that has been developed and I intend to speak and vote against it. I understand others will have a contrary view. That's what Parliament's all about. But what I am very concerned about is that the public is going to have virtually no opportunity to get a say.
The Lanark-Renfrew New Democratic riding association has clearly indicated a protest over this particular initiative, and it is now increasingly concerned not just about the substance of the bill but about a legislative timetable that's going to railroad the thing through, lickety-split, without anybody getting a chance to really think about it or talk to it. That is not what was intended when we imagined changing the rules to provide for things like late sittings as we get to the end of the fall and spring sessions.
I have no intention of denying my friend from Orono or anyone else a reasonable Christmas vacation. But having said that, it is not acceptable, nor should it be thought acceptable by anyone, that we can use these new rules to railroad major pieces of legislation through this House so that members can't have an opportunity, and as I said earlier, people out in the community who in this case won't even know what's in the bill.
I can imagine farmers, for example, getting their farm journals next week telling them that a bill has been introduced, and by the time they get a chance to write or call their local member, they may very well be told the matter's done. But not if I have my way. I don't think that's an unreasonable position for me or anyone else to take.
I want to take the other part of my time this afternoon to deal with the so-called ethics problem the government is having, particularly in the Premier's office. There has been a lot of discussion in this chamber in the last two weeks. I fear that perhaps, in my enthusiasm, I've not been able to explain to some of my colleagues on both sides why it is I feel as strongly as I do, particularly about the matter involving Mr John Piper, and why I think, before we adjourn this fall sitting, we are obligated as a self-respecting Legislature to resolve that this matter will be referred to a committee -- it probably should be to the old elections and privileges committee, in my view -- to look at the way in which the public trust has been superintended in the highest office in the province, namely, the Premier's office.
1520
I understand my friend from St Catharines was making the point earlier today that those of us in the opposition are not paid to be scrupulously objective. There is a subjectivity to our job, just as there is to the job of the members on the treasury bench. But I just simply want to remind honourable members what we have in this case. If some of us are a bit overwrought by the Piper case, it's because we've been around a while and we've had a great deal of respect and regard for that part of the New Democratic tradition which has, perhaps better than any of the other political parties, reached out to assist the most disadvantaged people in our community.
I think it is very important that all of us reflect upon what we know happened, what has been admitted to by the Premier's former communications adviser, Mr Piper, in this particular respect. Mr Piper has admitted to taking information that none of us outside of the department of justice ought ever to have, namely, a complete criminal history of an Ontario citizen and resident. Somehow Mr Piper came into possession of that information. He therefore, having that information, decided to use the information in a way that was intended to be transparently detrimental to the person involved, namely, Ms Judi Harris. There was a clear wilfulness of intent on the part of the Premier's principal communications adviser.
I would go one step further and say that on the basis of the evidence such as I have before me, it seems clear that what Mr Piper was endeavouring to do was to take this highly sensitive information, which he ought never to have had and ought never to have used, and he was prepared to take and use that information in a way that was going to injure a party, a citizen of the province, Ms Harris, who had taken up an argument with the former Minister of Energy, Mr Ferguson, the member for Kitchener.
It is that conduct that is so absolutely discreditable. I would say to my friend the member for Riverdale, among others, that it is particularly discreditable for anyone working in a Premier's office, most especially working in the office of a New Democratic Premier, though, let me add, it is inexcusable on any count. But that it could happen in Bob Rae's office is almost unbelievable, because these people in that new democracy have opined with great vigour and greater regularity that they are the moral high ground. They have lectured those of us in lesser ranks for many a decade about their moral purity.
Now we've got someone Bob Rae selected, someone Bob Rae appointed to the innermost part of his government, the heart of his office, the director of communications: We've now got Mr Piper admitting to that kind of wrongdoing. It seems quite clear that what in fact was happening here was that Mr Piper was very anxious to use this information in a way that was going to affect a civil proceeding as between Mr Ferguson and Ms Harris, another reprehensible aspect of his strategy in this connection.
It has been observed by my leader and by others, including the leader of the third party, that the so-called Piper affair is another example of a very serious problem in this government, where when the government of Bob Rae is attacked, it is willing, in this case and in the Martel case, to use information that governments have in their confidential possession to have at their enemies in the public domain. That is a mindset that is very troubling.
We know, and I can confess better than most people, that all governments have had their problems, but one of the reasons I became so upset the other day when I read Mr Rae's comments in the Windsor Star and the Ottawa Citizen -- "Yes, it was unfortunate and it shouldn't have happened; I don't condone it, but you know, all governments have their problems" -- was that Mr Rae was trying to put out the line that this was really just like so many of the other issues that this government and other governments have had.
I beg to differ. I cannot think of another case, and I'm prepared to stand corrected, where officials as high in a government as Ms Martel last year and Mr Piper this year were apparently so willing to take information, highly sensitive and confidential information, and use that with the full force of government at their backs to publicly attack individuals who had begged to differ with the NDP government of Ontario. That is a qualitative difference that makes the Piper and Martel cases very worrisome.
Now we're told that all is well because the Premier has launched, through the department of justice, an inquiry, a police inquiry. The police inquiry, as the member from Leeds has properly pointed out, is a narrow inquiry that's going to look at whether there was any criminal wrongdoing on the part of Mr Piper when he called Ms Dawson to his office and offered her that information. That is quite properly a matter for the police to inquire into. But there is obviously a lot more in this than the narrow band of that police inquiry.
There is the fundamental question of what kind of ethical environment were people like John Piper working in when they thought they could actually do this kind of deed and it would somehow be all right. That's not going to be a matter for the police inquiry. That's why, before we leave this place in two or three weeks' time, it is, I believe, incumbent on this Legislature to resolve that this matter be referred to a legislative committee so that it can be looked at from the point of view of the other issues -- ministerial conduct, and that is the ministerial conduct of the Premier because John Piper was one of his top aides, and the conduct of senior advisers -- and not just in a narrow sense of the police inquiry.
I say to my friends opposite, and let me be even more direct, to the women in the NDP caucus, who have, I think, been a very heroic group as they have struck out -- the minister responsible for women's issues has been prepared to lecture some of the old boys, myself included. While I haven't liked it, I've had to listen to it and I understand something of her perspective. But I say to my friends in the women's caucus across the way, how much longer can you stand some of this?
I mean, yes, the terrible Tories and the terrible Grits did some bad things, but I don't believe that John Robarts or Bill Davis or David Peterson ever presided over something quite as serious as what John Piper was prepared to do to Judi Harris. For those of us who are asked to wear ribbons, who are asked to wear buttons, who are asked to join in these lengthy statements of support, I say to those women across the way, what are you prepared to do to assist those of us in this Legislature who believe that there is more to this Piper affair than just the police inquiry?
The Attorney General gave an answer this afternoon to my question of last Thursday.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would suggest that if it's so important to extend the sitting hours of this House, it may also be important to have a quorum.
1530
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Could the clerk check to see if we do have a quorum, please.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Mrs Deborah Deller): Mr Speaker, a quorum is present.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is present. The honourable member for Renfrew North.
Mr Conway: I appreciated the response --
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member is not in his seat and he knows interjections are out of order. Please.
Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I understand and I appreciated the response this afternoon from the Attorney General about who did what and when 10 days ago, but I ask my friends opposite, and I don't say this facetiously, to think about what the Attorney General has had to say.
We have now been told -- and by the way, I know Melody Morrison and I have a high regard for her. It's because I have a high regard for her and because I know how long she's been around, and I know George Thomson, a very distinguished public servant, that I just find this response this afternoon absolutely mind-numbing. Unlike the member for London South, I'm not a lawyer, but I say to myself, "What were we told this afternoon?"
Mr David Winninger (London South): You are very good at hyperbole.
Mr Conway: Well, I may be. I want to say to my friends opposite that maybe, yes, but if there is some hyperbole, it's because I can't believe it. I can't believe I'm in this place after all of these years -- people smile, and I know you think I just do go on, but if I did what John Piper did, I'm telling you, I just can't believe it. To viciously attack the most helpless in this community in the name of Bob Rae is so disgusting. I'm sorry. If I'm a bit hyperbolic, then I apologize to the tender sensibilities of friends opposite.
What are we told now? We are told that the Premier's chief of staff accompanied this dirty trickster, this scoundrel -- my friend Phillips knows this character in a way that I don't, but essentially what Phillips tells me is that if you know John Piper, this is exactly what one ought to have expected. I'll say one thing further. To this day --
Mr Winninger: That's hearsay.
Mr Conway: Pardon me?
Mr Winninger: Hearsay evidence. Is that the best you can do?
Mr Conway: Well, my friend Phillips has been around Toronto school boards for a long time, and so has Mr Piper. I don't know Mr Piper, but I'm going to tell you, I gather from listening to Gerry Phillips that the line is, "What's bred in the bone must out in the flesh." He did precisely what he could have been predicted to have done. I don't know the man, I repeat, but I know what he did, and what he did is absolutely disgusting.
When the Premier came off the plane in Vancouver, his reaction, I thought, was perfectly solid and commendable. I would have reacted in the same fashion. When he said, "I'm not talking to him now or ever again," I could understand his anger.
What then do we find? His chief of staff, two days later, is accompanying the honourable dirty trickster -- what a phrase: the dishonourable dirty trickster -- back to the scene of the crime without anyone calling the cops to tell them, these people who are undertaking the police inquiry, that they're making this late-night visit to remove materials.
If this had been an issue of drunk driving or a sexual peccadillo, I mightn't have been as concerned about the removal of papers and things, but remember what this character, Piper, was doing in that office. He was mounting a dirty tricks campaign against one of the victims of Grandview, Judi Harris. Now, if he was prepared to do that with Judi Harris, what else do you suppose he might have been prepared to do?
Now we're told that he was allowed to go in to decide for himself basically what were his personal effects and to take out two boxes of things. I wonder how much computer erasure there was. I wonder how many discs were in those boxes. I don't know, but I can't imagine ever being so implicated and anyone allowing me to go back with my pal Bradley, or Bob Richardson from Lyn McLeod's office, to say, "Oh, Conway, yes, well, you do what we tell you to do." It would be just unthinkable. Talk about a conflict of interest. As I say, I don't know Piper but I know Morrison, and I can't believe that Melody put herself in a position of such difficulty.
How are we ever going to know? It's that office which is going to be under investigation. There may be nothing to my charges, but who's to know?
Interjection: Probably not.
Mr Conway: The member from wherever says, "Probably not." All I know is that the man who brought this latest disgrace, and this ultimate disgrace, on this government was up to a rotten, miserable, nasty dirty-tricks campaign against a defenceless citizen in this province who has been victimized, apparently, quite enough by a number of people.
Now I'm being asked, unbelievably, to accept the idea that somebody else from the office under investigation was allowed to go back and supervise Mr Piper as he took things out of there, and nobody, not the Deputy Attorney General, not the chief of staff to the Premier, not the Attorney General, no one, bothered to phone the police.
All we've heard from the government in the last 10 days is about the first-order importance of the police inquiry. There's a hell of a lot of credibility to a police investigation when the scoundrel and one of his coworkers, not a scoundrel in my view, Ms Morrison, were none the less allowed to go back to the scene of the crime and remove what I believe could very well be some of the evidence.
I'll take my seat by making the point again. I don't know what happened here. You know what may have happened? It may have been a complete oversight by Ms Morrison and other people. But I ask reasonable people across the way to imagine what this looks like to anyone on this side of the House or outside. Imagine the idea that you could be allowed to go back unsupervised by the police, accompanied only by somebody who is also going to be under investigation by the very nature of the offence and who is not at arm's length from the villain in this piece, Mr Piper, and being allowed to, on your own, walk out of the building with whatever you consider to be your personal effects.
Today -- and I haven't seen the Hansard -- the Attorney General is now suggesting that there was some kind of a record kept. That's going to be interesting.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I hope some day somebody goes after you on a personal level.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Downsview is not in his seat. He continues to interject, and we will not accept this.
Mr Conway: I just want to say that what happened here is deeply offensive to political ethics inside this Legislature and outside, and I have to believe that everybody understands that. I have to believe, because the offence in this case is so unprecedented and so serious, that we will all want to do the right thing, and that is get to the bottom of the environment in Mr Piper's office that allowed him to imagine that he could do something as outrageous and as unthinkable as he was prepared to do to Judi Harris. That's why I believe there is a reasonable and good case for a legislative inquiry into the whole surrounding of the Piper affair.
I will say again that in the Martel matter we had a legislative inquiry running alongside of a police inquiry, and I can tell you that all members of all parties behaved, I think, quite admirably in keeping confidential that information which they were told to keep to themselves. In my memory, that was done. It's not unusual to have a police investigation running alongside of a legislative inquiry.
But I can't believe there is anyone -- and I can't believe the women's caucus in the New Democratic Party is going to allow this issue to simply rest with a police inquiry, because the issues at stake go much beyond the narrow question of criminal misconduct. There are fundamental issues of ethics and judgement and operations that we have an obligation to get to the bottom of.
If anybody over there, including my friend the Premier, thinks that he's going to rag the puck with this police investigation for another nine days and that'll be the end of this, I'll just say to him and to his colleagues that it will be a frosty Friday in July before I ever feel the urge to join my friends in the new democracy, particularly as they invite us all to do certain things in the area of victims' rights and women's issues, because we have a female victim here who was absolutely assaulted by the highest office in the land, and she and all of the people she stands for deserve more in terms of accountability than the narrow police inquiry is ever going to be able to provide.
1540
The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Cooke's motion?
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today on this motion to continue the proceedings past 6 o'clock to midnight for the next two weeks. When I tell people in my riding, when they ask me what I'm going to be doing for the next little while, "I'm going to be sitting till midnight to debate bills that this House has put forward," they find it rather strange, particularly when the government, the NDP, has just recently passed a set of rules for this place which shorten the proceedings by two weeks. Here we are sitting for the next two weeks, perhaps at least the next two weeks, past midnight to discuss a number of bills.
We start listening to what this government has yet to do. They have introduced a number of bills. We've had second reading on a number of bills. We have to proceed with third reading on a number of bills. Second reading that is required -- and I'm going to list a number of these bills to show how it is absolutely impossible for this government to complete the agenda that has been put forward. It has no idea how to govern this place. It puts forward these bills -- I don't know what's going to happen to them; I suspect they'll die, but here they are:
In the next two weeks, we are going to be having second reading on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board; Bill 90, which is apartments and houses; the political activity rights issue; pay equity in the public service; the OLRA construction issue; the long-term care issue, which was just recently put forward.
Third reading is required on Toronto Islands, where of course they're building non-profit housing and co-op housing; they're expanding the housing on our parklands in Toronto Islands --
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is that on the flood plain?
Mr Tilson: Well, they're building it on flood plains, they're building it on parklands and, more importantly, parklands which -- I have yet to understand why they're going on that policy, on a policy they can't afford.
As well, they're proceeding with the road safety agency, where third reading is required -- that's Bill 39; the education act, Bill 88; market value assessment -- that's Bill 94; the three advocacy bills. Members of the public contact my office and they ask where we are on that and, of course, the bills have been so substantially changed from when we first proceeded with these bills, no one really knows where we're going. Yet somehow I suspect this government is going to try and ram this through in the next two weeks, sitting till midnight.
The subject of teachers' pensions; the greater London issue, Bill 75; Sunday shopping, Bill 38, remember that? Remember how that issue, Bill 38 -- I don't know whether we're going to debate on that or not. There are many people in the government and many on this side who -- Sunday shopping is now proceeding in this province and yet there's no law. It's complete anarchy as far as the whole subject of Sunday shopping is concerned. That bill was put forward and the existing law is not being obeyed.
The income tax act, Bill 31; retail sales tax, Bill 32; tobacco act and liquor control act, Bill 85; the vehicle transfer bill, that's Bill 34, which all of us have had many inquiries on. Those are some of the bills -- oh, and of course, there's the AgriCorp package, which is 63, 64 and 65. I believe second and third reading is required for those bills. The game and fish act, which many of us -- particularly in the rural ridings there's been much controversy on that bill. That bill has yet to be proceeded with, Bill 162. Special education, Bill 37; livestock, poultry, bees damage, Bill 78; Ontario Arts Council, Bill 72.
That's just up until last week. This government intends to proceed with that legislation prior to Christmas; at least it hopes to. How they will, I have no idea. Again it's the issue of how is this province governing itself? How are we governing? I guess the image out there, at least, is that we're in a state of chaos. We have all these bills and we've now waited till the last two weeks to proceed with that.
Last Thursday, which is the last day the legislation could be introduced and still receive second reading, a number of bills were introduced: the Long Term Care Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, which is Bill 101; the Pay Equity Amendment Act, which is Bill 102; the Firefighters Protection Act, which is Bill 103; the Farm Organizations Funding Act, which is Bill 105.
Also introduced last week were the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act -- that was introduced last Monday and that's Bill 96; the Limitations Act, which was introduced by the Attorney General last Wednesday -- that's Bill 99; the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act, Bill 100, and that was introduced last Wednesday.
Isn't it mind-boggling when we hear all these pieces of legislation? Some have had second reading, some have had first reading, some have yet to have third reading. How are we going to do it? You've shortened the rules of this place, you've changed the whole structure of this place. They don't want to sit, and now, to ram it through before Christmas, we're going to debate all these bills, and that will be on time allocation, I might add. So it's become quite a process we have in the Ontario Legislature, quite a strange process to proceed with.
The previous speaker has just spoken on the John Piper affair, and I think that's an issue that I must also address. When we get into that subject, it is very strange, particularly the revelations that were raised today by the Attorney General: how one political individual, Mr Piper, can go to his office, clean out his office with his political associate, under her guidance. We don't know what was in those boxes. We don't know what went on in that office. We have no idea what went on in that office for that period of time that they were allegedly picking up his personal items. The shredder could have been going, for all we know. We don't know. There was absolutely --
Mr Bradley: Could have been?
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Going non-stop.
Mr Tilson: Well, I hate to make that allegation. That's the why the request for an all-party committee is most reasonable, because we forget what this is all about: This is all about the Premier's office, the top level, and these sorts of activities are going on in the Premier's office, these dirty tricks that have been mentioned in this House, as to how it's been described.
We don't know. Justice must be done, and justice must appear to be done.
The Premier is saying, "Oh, well, the OPP is having this under investigation," notwithstanding the fact that after that was made, of course, Mr Piper arrives at his office, picks up two boxes -- and who knows what was in those boxes? -- and trots them off. And who knows what he did while he was in his office? Who knows what he and Ms Morrison were doing? Perhaps it's unfair of me to make those allegations. At the very least, if they didn't want to have a member from the Ontario Provincial Police attend and observe what was being taken from that office, there are other people. Even a security guard could have gone into that office and observed what those two were doing in there. It really is shocking conduct for the top office in this province to be carrying on business. I think the real question is, what else goes on in the Premier's office? What other tricks are there, with all of these scandals?
We have listened to the scandals that have developed. Some of them have been solved, some of them are still going on, some of them probably haven't even been revealed yet. That is the question. Is this the type of conduct, is this the way the Premier of this province does business? Because it's not Mr Piper; it's the Premier. He's the one who chose him. It's under his guidance that this whole operation is carrying on. I think the taint that has been painted of the Premier's office is unbelievably shocking.
In a way, this matter seems to be, "Oh, well, we've dealt with this issue long enough, we've been in the House and we've asked all kinds of questions, and perhaps it should go away." It shouldn't go away. I think the people of this province have a right to know exactly what goes on in the Premier's office. What kind of conduct should a Premier proceed with? We've heard about his own personal conflicts of interest and how he gets matters pushed up for development. That's one thing, but it's getting worse. So what else has Mr Piper done?
I think we're entitled to proceed with that in a reasonable way and I believe the only way that can be properly aired is in an all-party committee.
Of course they say, "There's an OPP investigation," and that is very fine, an OPP investigation, but that's just on one issue. I don't think the Premier understands what the taxpayer and what the people in this opposition on this side of the House are concerned with. We're concerned with what other issues have been going on, with other dirty tricks that have been going on. And that's all it is: dirty tricks, the slandering of a woman or the slandering of a doctor up north --
1550
Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This talk that the member across the way is doing is all fine and dandy, but can you please bring him back to the order in question, which is late-night sittings?
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It's all business that will be discussed and debated in this chamber and I believe it does have some relevancy. The honourable member has the floor.
Mr Tilson: The member has raised a valid point. I think that's what the members of the government want to do. They want this issue to go away. They don't want us to talk about it any more.
Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Oh, give me a break.
Mr Tilson: You say, "Oh, no." I tell you that there should be an all-party committee. You can't hide behind an OPP investigation where there are no documents: The documents are gone; the very document we're concerned with in this whole issue has disappeared, it's gone. So how is the OPP going to have an investigation? What else is going on in the Premier's office? We have every right to know what is going on in this government. You can't hide behind OPP investigations and you can't say, "It's not relevant to talk about this." We have every right to talk about this.
I believe there should be a full all-party inquiry on this subject, but there are other matters that seem to be rushing through. Our party has called for full hearings on the subject of market value assessment, and that is going on today. It's very strange that today in the House we're going to be debating the subject of market value assessment while public hearings are going on. Isn't that a strange way to do things? In other words, that whole sense of "Rush, rush, rush, put these bills forward." It's called, how do you govern? You put these bills forward, but you have no idea how to govern.
The subject of market value assessment: Obviously there are people, I suspect members of the government, in particular members of the cabinet -- it's interesting to watch -- some of whom represent some of the areas of Toronto, and I'm sure they're having a great deal of difficulty politically as to what they're doing.
It's an important issue that this not be a debate simply on who will pay more and who will pay less with respect to taxes. I am not from the city of Toronto. I represent Dufferin-Peel, and we made this decision some time ago. I suppose I, as a member of this House and as the member for Dufferin-Peel, am concerned about what goes on in Toronto. Why? Because how the economy of Toronto goes, how goes the rest of the province. I'm concerned with that and I'm concerned with how this government is handling this issue.
I believe we need to spend more time on it. We need to look at the implications of changing the tax structure of an important economic centre of this province, namely, the city of Toronto. Have we spent enough time on that? Do we know where we're going? Perhaps the implications will be only minor, but the proponents and the opponents of market value assessment seem to acknowledge that it is a very important change, not simply to the tax structure but to Metropolitan Toronto itself.
The committee -- which is proceeding as we speak, as I understand it -- should be charged to provide clear, timely and useful information to this Legislature to allow us to make an intelligent decision. That is my concern with respect to this motion: Are we going to have sufficient information to make a decision of this sort?
There's the whole subject of businesses. One needs to look at the effects of market value assessment. The first effect I think we need to look at are the businesses in Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While I'm finding this to be very interesting and really informative and I'm listening to him very closely, I'll remind him that that's precisely the reason why we have to sit here until midnight tonight: because we have to listen to this fuddle-duddle.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.
Mr Tilson: There's no question that many businesses in the city of Toronto will find their taxes rising and many in the suburbs will find that their taxes fall. Obviously, areas in downtown Toronto, for example, will see their taxes rise sharply; facts have been put forward, and that's exactly what will happen.
The business core is located in downtown Toronto. Given that all those businesses are located in downtown Toronto, the question is, what will be the impact of higher taxes on these businesses? We need to know that for the rest of the province, not just for downtown Toronto, because how the economy goes in Toronto is how it goes in the rest of the province. Will the taxes be passed on in the form of higher prices, layoffs and closings? A lot of serious threats have been made, are being made even today, and we need to know more about that. We need to know more information so that this House, this place, can make a proper, intelligent decision with respect to that specific bill on market value assessment.
The second effect is the whole subject of residential patterns, and we need more information on that. Will market value assessment discourage people from buying homes in the city of Toronto or will it spread out and become the urban sprawl that many of us fear? Will it raise the rents?
This government has spent a great deal of time and is continuing to talk about how the rents are rising in this province, when in fact they're going down; vacancies are being made more available. Yet they continue with the whole policy of non-profit housing and co-op housing at the expense of the taxpayer. There are vacancies all over the place, yet this government continues on this blind policy of non-profit housing and co-op housing. They're expanding it even to the Toronto Islands, they're expanding it to Wellesley and Bay -- unbelievable decisions.
We need to have facts on that. Will this policy raise the rents of tenants already living in the city? What will be the impact on development of new housing? Will there be any new development? Will development even come to the downtown core, because of this policy? We need more information on that.
Thirdly, we need to find out more information with respect to the topic of planning. I need to know, as do all members of this House need to know, what sort of planning has gone into this change in tax structure. How is Metropolitan Toronto prepared to deal with any of the negative implications of market value assessment, such as higher business taxes? Because there will be higher business taxes because of this legislation. Changes in traffic patterns, whatever; all these need to be assessed before we proceed with this legislation. Has the province done any planning in order to proceed in the way it's been going, or is it going blindly along like it does in a lot of its other legislation? The whole housing policy is a complete shambles, because they're going on blindly, proceeding in an area in which they have no idea what they're doing.
The subject of transit: One media report has warned that there will be substantial increases of taxes on CP Rail, which will be passed on to GO Transit, which leases rail lines from CP. It indicates that fares could rise as much as $20 a month, which of course concerns people in my riding. People in my riding don't even have GO Transit; we have to drive our cars to Brampton and other areas and pick up the GO bus or the GO train and get into Metro or the areas to the south in that fashion. We don't even have it, we're trying to get it, but it's going to be made more expensive. That's the prediction of market value assessment.
I think we in this House, the legislators, need to know more on the impact this is going to have not only in Metropolitan Toronto but outside Toronto.
There was even an article by Mr Ian Harvey in the Toronto Sun this morning that talked about this subject of how fares are going to increase. It's an article I'm sure you've all read. I'm going to refer to sections, because it is quite startling, particularly if you're a commuter from outside the area. All of us may sit back and say, "Oh, well, market value assessment really doesn't have an effect on us." But it does. It does. If you live in any area around Metropolitan Toronto, it's going to affect you; it's going to affect your constituents. So I think this is an article that all of you should read, and I'm going to refer to sections of it.
1600
Mr Harvey says in his article: "All those folks riding home on GO Transit during the controversial market value assessment debate probably thought the issue had nothing to do with them.
"Wrong. CP Rail, which 'leases' rail lines to GO Transit, says they may find their ticket fares rising by $20 a month because of the scheme and because of the way railway lands are taxed.
"As every taxpayer in Metro now knows, the way property taxes are calculated these days will change under MVA, with the most likely direction being up for those in business or in the city of Toronto.
"And taxes on lands where utilities and railways have rights of way will rise because municipalities recently won a ruling allowing them to tax the companies owning or controlling those lands."
This is the important part of this article, which I would ask that all members consider:
"Add it all up and it means a 225% hike in CP Rail's Metro property taxes. Its bill is projected to hit $40 million next year."
So the whole subject of transit should be canvassed, I think, more than what we are doing in this Legislature, before we make this decision, which is not only going to affect the people of Metro but is going to affect all of us.
There is the whole subject of urban density. The push in recent government and, I would hope, this government, in the last few years has been away from expanding Metro's geographic size, which destroys prime farm land -- notwithstanding, of course, what this government is trying to do in my riding in Caledon, where we've already got two sites on the short list to put a superdump for Peel in prime farm land. But notwithstanding that policy that the government is now getting into, generally speaking, it's been trying to preserve farm land and move towards intensifying the use of space that it already takes up.
This policy contradicts that, because the more dwelling/shop units, shops and stores that can be fitted into a certain area, the more cohesive the community and the more efficient the provision of services such as roads, such as parking, such as public transit and schools can be. In the whole philosophy, whether we're talking housing, as I say, or whether we're talking roads, that's been the concept: to make it more dense, more compact.
This, of course, is density and it is a vital component in increasing the environmental sustainability of cities, as well as in reducing costs. Some studies show -- and this is something that I think this House needs to spend some more time on -- that market value assessment discourages density, since denser areas will pay higher taxes despite the fact that they are proportionately more efficient users of services.
The final effect, which I don't believe this House has spent sufficient time on -- nor, as I suspect, is it spending sufficient time in committee -- is that Metropolitan Toronto is an important economic centre in Ontario. This is the centre of the Ontario economy.
So the question is, what will be the effect on the province of Ontario as a result of market value assessment? Will it be positive or negative? I'd like to hear more about that, because once it's passed, that's it. And I honestly don't know the effect that it is going to have on the province of Ontario.
If market value assessment causes businesses and tenants to move to the suburbs, how much money will the province of Ontario be expected to find to help expand the services in the suburbs?
Then there's the issue of tourism. That pops up periodically on encouraging people to come to Toronto for the whole purpose of conventions, for our wonderful world champion Blue Jays team, for the Toronto Maple Leafs, for all of the sporting activities, for all of the theatre and drama, the Royal Ontario Museum, the art gallery, all of these issues. They're all in Toronto, and people are attracted to this city to come here.
What is the effect? Well, I'll tell you, one of the concerns, of course, in the theatre -- I notice the minister is here in the House and it'll be interesting to know whether she realizes the effect that this legislation is going to have on art groups. It's been suggested that this legislation could push the already stretched arts budgets over the limit. A survey of 14 cultural organizations show that they face an average 134% increase: the National Ballet of Canada, from $72,000 to $201,000; Toronto Truck Theatre, from $4,000 to $12,000 -- these are the anticipated effects of market value assessment on the arts groups in the city of Toronto -- Ontario Crafts Council, from $7,000 to $25,000. Even the 25% cap which has been suggested is too much for many of these. So there's the whole effect on tourism, on the arts, on attracting people to Ontario, because what is good for Toronto is good for Ontario.
I believe this will cause many hundreds of people to be thrown out of work, and I'm concerned about the effect that's going to have on the province. Already the number of people who are out of work in this province is unbelievable. Will this legislation have that effect? It's been alleged that it will. I'm concerned with the terrible rush we're being forced to be put in with respect to this motion for the next two weeks.
I'm going to close my comments on this motion, other than to say that the government of Ontario needs to put more thought in its planning for legislation that's being put forward, as opposed to putting lists and lists of bills for first, second and third reading, and not having the time to properly deal with them or properly debate them.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: I regret that of course there's so little time to deal with this particular motion, but under the new rules Bob Rae has imposed upon this House, members are extremely limited.
First of all, I think I should deal initially with the reason this motion is before the House, this motion that the House shall sit this week and next week for the purposes of dealing with legislation between 6 o'clock in the evening and 12 midnight. It's quite obvious why the government wishes to do this. This is the government, first of all, that, through the Premier's new rules, has cut the number of weeks this Legislature is in session, and of course the business of the House can only be dealt with appropriately and the government held accountable when the House is in fact in session.
Unfortunately, the Premier has decided this doesn't fit him. I think that's probably partly on the advice of John Piper, the departed chief adviser to the Premier of Ontario, who suggested that the government should manage all of its news and avoid the news media and the members of the opposition, except when it's to its own convenience.
The government wants to essentially avoid question periods, the time when it is most accountable. Therefore, if you count up the number of session days, you would say there are two more weeks being added for the government to do its business but to not be accountable to the people of this province.
I've dealt in this House with the new rules of the Legislature on many occasions and I recognize it is not an issue that editors are going to be interested in. If the people who cover Queen's Park go to their editors with a story about rules, they'll say, "Well, that's an in-house circumstance, that's an in-house issue, and we don't think we're going to do much about it." But they don't recognize, I believe, the ramifications of these rules -- what it means for the governing of Ontario.
Again, the Piper affair -- Pipergate, as the member for Renfrew North has referred to it -- really demonstrates what it's all about. It's the concentration of the power in the hands of non-elected people, the so-called experts who advise the Premier.
1610
The Premier has available to him some 73 other members of the Legislature, the government caucus. He has, if he chooses to listen on any occasion to the opposition, the collective members of the opposition. If the Premier wants to get good advice, he should listen to those who are elected, those who are accountable to the people in the areas in which they reside and the areas they represent, because they best know the issues that are affecting people on an everyday basis and they're best able to give the kind of advice that the Premier should accept. But premiers tend not to do that, and Bob Rae, as Premier of this province, has selected a number of people to advise him. These people are not elected, and by changing the rules of the House he has further concentrated the power of this government in the corner office, in the Premier's office itself.
One shouldn't be surprised when the latest Piper affair comes out. Mr Piper has a long reputation as a political fixer. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt indicated clearly to the House his knowledge of Mr Piper. One need only go back into the history. He's reputed to be a smart public relations person who can manage news and discredit those who would dare to oppose the government, though I think those people wouldn't be those who are on the Radio Noon phone-in show, because once again, if all Ontario were opposed to the NDP government, I assure you that on the Radio Noon phone-in show and on Radio Noon or, as some of my friends refer to it, NDP Noon, there would be scant criticism of this particular government. That is on a daily basis. When they aren't talking about whether you can identify a bird by the noise it makes or what the first prom you ever attended was like, when they're not doing that, they are doing favourable journalism for the NDP. There's another word they use in the business that we're not allowed to use in this House.
The Piper affair is one which I refer to actually as the Rae affair, and the reason I so refer to it is that the Premier himself must select the people he wants for his chief advisers. He's going to select people, first of all, whom he believes are smart, are intelligent, have good judgement and are people who can be helpful to him in carrying out his responsibilities -- clearly his judgement. He knows the record of John Piper and the style of John Piper. He must accept the responsibility as the person who appointed John Piper to that position.
I was listing reaction to what the government's doing lately. Members opposite would say the opposition are always going to be critical and some members of the news media, from time to time, outside of the CBC programs such as Radio Noon, NDP Morning and NDP 4 to 6, are not going to be very critical -- the odd little dig in there but not very much in terms of criticism. They always assume that it's the opposition or those who are philosophically opposed who are critical of the government.
But I was reading the Windsor Star, November 25 and November 28, and the headline in one column by Paul McKeague says, "Rae's Follies Worry McCurdy." Howard McCurdy, as I recall, is a very strong and dedicated member of the New Democratic Party, and I was wondering what Howard had to say about this government.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): What did he say?
Mr Bradley: The member for Scarborough North says, "What did he say?" It says, "Windsor-St Clair MP Howard McCurdy is exasperated with the antics of his NDP brethren at Queen's Park and he's not shy about saying so. 'Bob Rae is not very popular right now,' he says. 'There's no question Bob Rae is going to have to get his act together.'"
Then Mr McKeague goes on and says in his column, "Dissatisfaction with the Rae government is tainting the federal party, which could only look on helplessly as Rae's gang ran amok last week." That's Howard McCurdy who was worried about this. Mr McKeague, the columnist, is noting this.
"Ontario's NDP government is giving the entire province a fit of giggles. People look forward to the latest news from Queen's Park the way they once awaited the reruns of Gilligan's Island. Being a laughingstock is even worse for a government than being disliked, but the abrupt resignation last Friday of John Piper, who reportedly tried to smear a woman whose allegations were embarrassing to the government, suggested that there's also a dark side to Skipper Rae's crew. If this is NDP government, why would they want such a government in Ottawa?"
Then I read on the 28th, "McCurdy Calls Provincial Cuts a Serious Mistake." Perhaps Mr McCurdy should run for this House and offer his criticisms of the government. But this is a New Democrat, not an opposition person saying this. It says:
"Ontario's NDP government has violated social democratic principles by scrapping student aid grants in Thursday's mini-budget, New Democrat Howard McCurdy charged Friday. The Windsor-St Clair MP is outraged that an NDP government has made it more difficult for low-income people and single parents to get the post-secondary education they need to succeed in the modern economy. And he says" -- this is Mr McCurdy -- "'If there is any basis for social justice, it has got to be not just to keep people off welfare and social assistance but to make investments in people.'"
McCurdy also said, "The cuts make no sense economically."
"'I think it is a serious mistake,' said the federal NDP's industry critic. 'It is fundamentally inconsistent with what I deem to be the social democratic approach to economic development. We need as much encouragement to education as we can possibly have.
"'In today's modern economy, high-valued knowledge and learning are critical to the creation of wealth,' said McCurdy."
"'If Ontario is going to compete, it's through education, it's through training. Thursday's announcement by Ontario Treasurer Floyd Laughren sends out entirely the wrong message,' McCurdy said."
It went on and there's a little bit of an apology here. Others say, "Well, you've got to give them a chance" and so on, but McCurdy said, "The provincial government should have looked for other ways to make savings than cutting student aid grants."
"'What the country needs is an infrastructure of knowledge,' he said, 'not just roads and transportation.'"
Even Steve Langdon defended the mini-budget, "but NDP policy at both the federal and provincial levels is to increase access to post-secondary education, and the provincial mini-budget moves in the opposite direction, he acknowledged."
Mr Mahoney: Who said that?
Mr Bradley: This was Steve Langdon.
Now these are not Liberals or Conservatives or people not affiliated; these are NDP members who are concerned that the promises that were made to the people of this province are promises that have not been kept. I just thought I should share that with the members here.
I guess, to go back to the Piper affair and the scandals that have racked this government, I would acknowledge that when people were thinking about the New Democratic Party in the past, and particularly in the last election, they may have believed that the NDP really couldn't run the economy very well, or weren't particularly noted for being good managers of the economy, and certainly that has proven to be the case, but they acknowledged that. I think most people would have acknowledged that's probably the case.
They would have thought, as well, that these people had policies that the mainstream of the province of Ontario didn't agree with, that they were essentially the fringe of Ontario: different policies, by all means, but outside the mainstream, the moderate middle of the province of Ontario.
But the one thing they would have believed, in my view, was that this government was going to be different, that it was ethically superior and morally superior to parties that had been in power before.
Well, if there is any doubt about that today, one simply has to look at the series of scandals and government activities to know that this party is certainly no better than any other party in terms of its ethics. If one had sat in this House as long as I have, listening to the sanctimony of the Premier of this province, listening to the pronouncements on the campaign trail and elsewhere of Premier Rae, one would have anticipated that the NDP would be different.
To flog an issue just very briefly that I have touched on before, an example of that is the so-called patronage system. I've always said in this House and I've said in committee: "You know, you won the election. If you want to appoint your own people, at least appoint good, competent people. Whether New Democrats or not, the public doesn't expect something different."
But Bob Rae said he wasn't going to do that. He was going to have a new system out there that would bring only the very best people, regardless of their political affiliations, into positions in government. That hasn't happened. I said in the committee that New Democrat after New Democrat is appointed. Again, I say to the committee: "I understand that. You are the government. You are entitled to do so. But please, none of the hypocrisy. Please don't tell me you have a system that produces different results. It may be good window dressing. You may be able to sell it at the provincial council on a weekend, but you certainly can't sell it to objective observers in this province."
1620
I also look at the danger of politicizing the civil service. I see that David Agnew, the campaign manager of Bob Rae, is now the head of the civil service. What happens out west is that when governments change hands, change parties, they have to fire virtually the entire senior civil service at a great cost to the taxpayer, because no longer are they golden handshakes; they're now platinum handshakes that are given to these people.
In Ontario, the tradition has been that when a government changed hands -- and to a certain extent in the federal government -- it has been a non-partisan civil service. There were some people who did move on but the majority stayed in those positions and served the new government. What this government has done, what Premier Rae has done is to begin to politicize the civil service.
They can hire their large staffs, and I understand they have huge staffs now in various ministers' offices, even at a time when they're cutting others. I know they're wiping out entire floors to have those new people put in, and I understand that is happening. They are political people and they're entitled to do that. My plea is that the government not politicize the civil service, and certainly the civil servants believe that is happening.
Something else I want to touch on, and the member for Mississauga West will put a note in front of me when he wants me to cease my activities, but I do want to deal briefly with a couple of other issues that I've dealt with rather extensively in the House.
One is the automotive industry. I want it placed before members of this assembly again a concern about the automotive industry in Ontario. I hope we do well, I hope we have further investment and I hope we can retain the investment we have today, but I continue to worry that at a time when the North American and world auto industry is going through many changes we, in this province, aren't addressing the issue as we might. I hope that by having raised the issue in the House a number of times, this has changed and that there's full attention being devoted to that.
I was concerned when the Premier headed over to Japan at a time when decisions have to be made. I hope those decisions are favourable. There isn't anybody in this House on the opposition side -- certainly not on the government side -- who wants to see something bad happen within the industry just so we can say, "Oh, well, it's the government's fault," and point fingers. We all hope the news will be good and I implore the government and all members of the assembly to work towards that goal.
I know my colleagues in the Niagara region on all sides, on the government side, feel as I do that it's an extremely important issue, and all of us are endeavouring to have the governments at the provincial and federal levels address that issue.
One I want to touch on very briefly is that of developmentally handicapped people. I've always said that I ran for the Legislature to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to represent those who do not have power and privilege in this province, and the reason I think all of us run should be that very reason. The powerful can defend themselves. The privileged are in a privileged position. People with lots of money have the ability to exert power and influence in any society, but we in this Legislature are elected to defend those who cannot defend themselves.
Among the most vulnerable of those people are those who are developmentally handicapped individuals, and I saw those individuals and the people who work with them and their families on the front lawn of this Legislature. That should not be necessary. It should always be a priority with whatever government is in power that the best of services be provided for these individuals, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in circumstances where they cannot easily compete with others in society. So I implore the government, when it is determining its priorities within the framework of fiscal responsibility that it must, that it assign an extremely high priority to those who are the most vulnerable in the society in which we live.
I could go on to a number of other issues, but I want to provide for the member for Mississauga West, whom I must congratulate, by the way, for the private member's bill that he presented to the House which prevented young people from squandering their money on yet another government lottery. I will leave him 15 minutes; that leaves me 44 seconds.
I want to mention something, and here's something where you get a chance to say, "I told you so." I wish it hadn't happened, but it was so obvious. Did everybody see the headline about Detroit now?
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Yes, I saw that. I've got it here. Don't steal my thunder.
Mr Bradley: Of course. They've got a huge casino going to go into Detroit. It was just predictable that if you establish one in Windsor, they'll put one in Detroit, and do you know what? It's going to cause even more people to flock over the border to Detroit. It was just as obvious as could be. Again I criticize, along with some government members, the government moving into the casino business in this, our Ontario.
The last point, and I promise the very last point, is that I also ask the government not to abandon its policy of moving ministries to various parts of the province. The rumour is out there that the Ministry of Transportation move to St Catharines may be in jeopardy. I don't believe the rumour because I don't want to believe the rumour, because I can't believe this government would abandon such a sensible policy initiated by the previous government. I'm sure my two colleagues who represent St Catharines are with me in imploring the Minister of Transportation and the Chairman of Management Board not to allow that to happen.
On that note, I'm pleased to turn over the floor to the Conservatives and then ultimately to my friend Steve Mahoney, the MPP for Mississauga West.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the member for Etobicoke West.
Mr Stockwell: I look forward to the speech by the member from Mississauga centre. It should be rather interesting and telling.
Mr Bradley: Have you ever been invited on Radio Noon?
Mr Stockwell: No, as a matter of fact. Have I ever been invited on Radio Noon? No, I haven't --
Mr Mahoney: Do you own a cottage on the island?
Mr Stockwell: -- but that's not surprising. No, I don't own a cottage.
This specific debate is rather, I think, enlightening for the government backbenchers. It allows them to know exactly what's cooking in opposition with respect to the issues that they see as important or specific --
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry, I missed that; the member from Cochrane was mumbling. It allows us in opposition to discuss some of the issues that we find particularly difficult or offensive or that we feel particularly strongly about, where we don't think the government is giving them a fair shake.
My first comment is that I always carry with me, and I find it really, really enlightening whenever I get into a discussion with someone who, say, voted for the NDP -- they're fewer and fewer as we move on in time, but I find that they always like to hear about An Agenda for People. I've always got my Agenda for People handy. It's always good to go through this Agenda for People and remind those members opposite and their supporters throughout the province exactly what they promised last election.
Many of those people would say, "Gee, well, they didn't know a recession was coming." We all know that's not true because the Premier was on the campaign trail telling all the people in the province of Ontario, "We're into a recession and you'd better vote for us because we're going to institute An Agenda for People." They also say to me at that time, when I hear about their concerns during that election, that the Agenda for People was something they put out just for an election and that they really didn't believe they could implement it.
I find that particularly offensive, because they never said that to us during the campaign or afterwards. They sit in their cabinet cars and their seats here and they'd just as soon this went away, the Agenda for People. It's not going to go away. It's something you made promises about and it really is particularly good reading. I ask any member of the public out there who's watching today to phone my office at 325-7535 and request a copy of An Agenda for People, because it's something I think they'd find very, very interesting to read.
I often said before the campaign, "The NDP has no intention of implementing this because there's no strategy, there's no hope, there's no prayer that this kind of stuff can be implemented." Of course, as it turns out, we were right when we suggested they couldn't afford this kind of a promise package. The government now today has backtracked on a series of promises.
What I find really interesting is this: This government in the campaign made all these promises that couldn't be kept. You'd think this government would have learned its lesson: Don't make promises you can't keep. But they haven't. This is the most amazing part. They haven't learned not to make promises you can't keep. Because the general public remembers. They remember when you make a promise to their specific group and they remember when you make a promise to the specific organization they're advocating for.
It takes us back to last Thursday. Last Thursday we're sitting in this House waiting for the pronouncements from the Treasurer about the transfer payments to the MUSH groups. He made, not more than eight or nine months ago, maybe 10, a promise to all your transfer partners -- and I love that term "transfer partners"; everybody is their partner -- the municipalities, the universities, the hospitals, all your partners you promised 1%, 2%, 2%.
1630
You see, they made another promise. Here's a government that went through the last campaign with An Agenda for People hanging around its neck like a leaded tire that would carry it beneath the water surface and it still made that promise of 1%, 2% and 2%.
Last Thursday we then got this new "I can't keep my promise" routine. You'd think they would have learned, but they didn't. This is particularly offensive not only to us across the floor but to all those recipients that you've built their hopes up by suggesting they were going to get an increase of 1%, 2% and 2%.
You see, there is some difficulty with no hope. People have a problem with no hope. You know, that's something you want to try and change, but there's only one thing worse than no hope and that's dashed hopes. Dashed hopes are worse, because what happens is that you build up their expectations and you give them the thought that they're going to get increases and you believe they're going to get more money and then you dash their hopes. The government dashed their hopes.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Spend, spend, spend.
Mr Stockwell: The call comes across the floor from the member for Cochrane South, "Spend, spend, spend." You see, that's the point. You still don't get it. Nobody told you to make this promise. Nobody asked you to go forward and tell all these groups in the MUSH sector that they're going to get 1%, 2% and 2%. Nobody held a gun to your heads. You did it of your own free will.
It's not within you to tell the truth. It's just not within them. Nobody asked for that kind of pronouncement. Nobody said, "You should give us the announcements three years hence." You did it on your own, so it's not, "Spend, spend, spend." It was this government making the pronouncement that it was going to give 1%, 2% and 2%.
Mr Bradley: What does Howard Moscoe think? Is Howard Moscoe critical?
Mr Stockwell: The NDP people on local councils, maybe the Howard Moscoes of the world and maybe the Liz Amers and the Barbara Halls of local council, I haven't heard a lot out of them, because of course they're NDPers and they understand your dilemma.
These people aren't saying anything, but there are a lot of people out there who are really concerned. The point I'd like to make is that you've got to stop doing this to yourselves. You're shooting your foot off every time you make an announcement that you can't fulfil, because it's not just no hope, it's dashed hopes.
Mr Bradley: You mean like the dumps?
Mr Stockwell: The dumps are another perfect example. That was pre-election stuff, but that's another perfect example. The worst part about the dump issue, since I've been reminded about it, is that this government is no further ahead than it was two and a half years ago after the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee announced what dump sites would be allowed.
The Minister of the Environment talks about the member for Durham West, Mr Wiseman, being a great environmentalist. Well, this great environmentalist came to this place when there was only one dump in Whitevale, and this great environmentalist now has five dumps in Whitevale. That makes him a great environmentalist. I would say that would make him a roaring failure.
Mr Bradley: But Martin Mittelstaedt said that's not true.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, we have the Globe and Mail telling us that's not true and maybe we can have a debate about that some day: Mr Mittelstaedt.
This seems to me to be at the very crunch of the issue: This government, led by the Premier and Treasurer, is thoroughly and totally incapable of outlining the exact fiscal position this province is in and how terrible it is out there and why people can't get increases.
He's incapable of it. Why is he incapable of it? I'm not sure, but what happens is that you get a deficit figure that is not accurate, you get a MUSH sector that's being told it's getting increases that it's not getting, you get promises that can't be kept and you get government backbenchers, and the only defence they have is to mouth those words, "Spend, spend spend," when no one asked them to spend a nickel. They shot themselves in the foot.
That, I find, is one of the more interesting things around last Thursday's announcement. They're rather shameful about it, I know, because they skulk around now, really concerned about all those oppressed groups they've put into further debt by their thorough mismanagement and their unbelievable promises that couldn't be kept. They are embarrassed. You know they're embarrassed, because they're hammering the very groups --
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: Here's another one. I always love it when the members across the floor tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Two years ago, when I told the member for Durham West, Mr Wiseman, that he was going to have a dump in his backyard, he said I didn't know what I was talking about. Well, I was wrong. He's got five dumps, not just one.
Mr Bisson: You don't know what you're talking about.
Mr Stockwell: Here's another one from Cochrane telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, when I told him last year the deficit was going to be more than $9.9 billion. It's amazing how much I've learned in two years if I didn't know what I was talking about.
That's the first thing I would like to impress upon this government.
Mr Bradley: Even the teachers are mad at them.
Mr Stockwell: Even the teachers are mad at them; after all the things you were going to do for teachers.
We are here, and it gives me an opportunity to talk about those groups that aren't getting their funding this year. The last point I'd like to make on this is that they're calling it a 2% increase, which is so misleading. I'd be really ashamed if you backbenchers were going out there trying to tell them they're getting the 2%.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): What is it then?
Mr Stockwell: I'll fill you in, Mr Hansen, no problem. Let me give the analogy of negotiating with a union. Think about it as if you're negotiating with a union and you're giving them 2% this year as far as your contract negotiations are concerned. They come back the following year --
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: You've got to listen up, the member from Cochrane. If you're ever going to learn, you've got to listen up.
You've given them 2% this year and the union comes back the following year and starts to renegotiate its new contract. The first thing they say is, "What kind of increase are we going to get this year?" Of course, if this government was negotiating a union contract, the first thing it would say to the union representatives is, "The 2% we gave you last year we're taking away." They'd be before the board in no time flat for dealing in bad faith.
The member from Cochrane certainly understands that. He must certainly realize that. You can't give them 2% in one year and come back the next and say, "We're taking that back and you're getting no increase." You'd be before the board for negotiating in bad faith. That's exactly what you're doing.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Exactly.
Mr Stockwell: Exactly. You're giving them 2% this year, and next year you're saying, "We're taking it all back." That's not a 2% increase. The member from Cochrane must now understand, and I'm glad to enlighten him on exactly how badly you're ripping off the MUSH sector, and the promises you haven't kept.
That brings me to the other issue I find particularly distressing in this particular debate.
Mr Bradley: Is it Toronto Islands?
Mr Stockwell: The Toronto Islands are one issue that I found very offensive. I find that particularly offensive because we have so many people in this province who are in need of housing, who have no place to go: single mothers, seniors and children who need a place to live. This government's response to that is to send those islanders the biggest, sweetest political kiss you could find.
Mr Bradley: But how did they vote?
Mr Stockwell: My friend asks how they voted. There's no doubt how they voted. That political kiss happens to be to give them a piece of property on the Toronto Islands, in the middle of a park, with all the services, and not charge them for those services, for a buck a day for 100 years.
Mr Bradley: But Richard Johnston recommended this and he's independent.
Mr Stockwell: The independent Mr Johnston recommended it, as is noted.
There's something that bothers me. During these times of tough economic recession, they give 250 islanders one of the sweetest deals a government has ever cut for anybody. They defend this because it's a unique neighbourhood. I dare this government to go out to any neighbourhood in Metropolitan Toronto and find one that doesn't claim to be unique. They're all unique.
Mr Perruzza: No way.
Mr Stockwell: They're all unique, except for the member for Downsview who says "No way." Maybe his riding isn't unique, but all the rest are unique. All the rest would like to have a house built and given to them for a buck a day for 100 years. I think that's offensive. We have this government that made that kind of decision, which I find particularly offensive.
I'm reminded of the issues and promises they made, and that wasn't even a promise they made. That was just a sweetheart deal they gave to 250 predominantly socialist people who happen to live on the islands, who happened to vote overwhelmingly in favour of the government in the last election.
1640
That brings me to one of the most burning issues in this House today, that is, that of John Piper. Mr Piper is someone I've known --
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: The member from Cochrane is chirping.
Mr Bisson: You don't know what you're talking about.
Mr Stockwell: Well, I'm doing my best to enlighten you. It's very difficult, I know.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. This is not questions and comments. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.
Mr Stockwell: The Pipergate issue: I think generally the public out there is very concerned about this. The Pipergate issue is of particular importance, I think, because this government is sort of --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, do you wish to address the House?
Mr Stockwell: I'm doing my best. It's just that I don't find this Piper issue very funny. The member from Cochrane's laughing in the corner. I don't particularly find it funny, and I find it really offensive that the NDP government would be laughing about such an important issue, considering what they've said in the past and considering the circumstances surrounding this issue. It's very shameful that this government would sit in this House when the Piper issue is being discussed and laugh. I find it very distressing.
The public out there may be finding out exactly what the NDP is all about. The NDP is no different -- in fact, worse in a lot of instances -- from every other party. Their idea of fairness, in my opinion, has been etched publicly in my mind for a goodly number of years. I think what has happened in the Piper affair is simply the public finding out what this government is all about and has been all about for the last number of years: They're no cleaner, they're no fairer, they're no more aboveboard than anyone else; in fact, in some instances, clearly they're worse.
This Piper affair has pointed that out so clearly to the public. It's obvious that what they believe to be an acceptable way to act only depends on one thing, and that's the end: If they accomplish their goals and meet their policies, then whatever is needed is done. "If that means slandering a doctor, that's okay; if that means slandering a victim, then that's okay, because what we need to do is implement our policies and implement our ideas and implement our good for the people, and we know what's best."
I don't know how the backbenchers of this government across the floor can stand the thought that their Premier's office was directly involved, and who knows how many implicated, in such a scurrilous attack on a private citizen.
The problem with this government is that the Premier still doesn't get it. He still doesn't understand that when you're in charge, the buck stops there. The buck stops there when it comes to the Martel affair. The fact is that if the buck stops at the Premier's office, the actions taken by the Premier have direct impact on how the rest of this caucus reacts to and acts in certain situations. Because this Premier allowed one of his cabinet ministers to slander a doctor in Sudbury without any sense of loss of position, it simply meant that it became open season on private citizens in this province, and there's no fear of losing your job.
Whether you want to admit it, whether you like that analogy, that's the analogy that's being used on the streets, in all corners of this province today, because an action such as the one the minister took in slandering that doctor in Sudbury was directly related to Mr Piper pulling the cheap, dirty trick that he did on a victim.
What was particularly enlightening today was when a question was asked of the Premier and the Premier stood up and said, "It just seems very clear to me" -- I'm paraphrasing -- "that no matter what happens in this government you're going to blame me." That's the trouble. This Premier still doesn't get it. Of course he's to blame, of course it's his responsibility, because the Premier is in charge, the Premier is the boss. The buck stops there, and he still doesn't get it.
In the private sector, when you have a complaint about a retail operator you don't talk to the counter clerk, you talk to the owner, because the buck stops at the owner. If you're dealing with a company, you don't talk to a sales rep, you go to the owner. You write the owner a letter, because the buck stops with the owner. They're in charge. They're the big banana. They're the ones who make the decision, and this Premier still doesn't get it.
By allowing --
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. You know, you interfere with the debate and you're annoying the Chair. I would ask you to stop.
Mr Stockwell: When you're at the top and you're the boss and you allow the minister to get away with what she did to that doctor in Sudbury, you are tacitly, indirectly responsible for what took place with Mr Piper and that rag of a story he was trying to sell, because if you don't deal with the issue at hand, you can only end up being responsible for the repercussions that take place, and particularly the Piper affair.
So in closing --
[Applause]
Mr Stockwell: I understand why the government members are happy, because they don't really want to deal with the reality. They don't want to deal with the reality of what's taking place in the street. They don't want to deal with the truth. They have a natural affliction with dealing with the truth.
They don't want to deal with the truth when it comes to the finances. They don't want to deal with the truth when it comes to the deficit. They don't want to deal with the truth when it comes to transfer payments. They don't want to deal with the Martel affair. They don't want to deal with the Piper affair. The way they're dealing with the Piper affair is to pass it off to the OPP, allow Mr Piper to get back into his office, take whatever's needed out of his office -- and then let the OPP look after it. For goodness sake, the Attorney General is trying to defend that. He's certainly no sleuth, because clearly that would be the first thing you do: lock up his office.
So it doesn't shock me that they don't want to hear this, but they're going to hear it.
The people of this province are upset. They can't believe how incompetent this government is, not only with the finances but with its own character and with its own attitude to running a government. They can't believe how incompetent this government is, and as the polls plummet, it's clearly becoming more obvious.
Finally, I noted on the weekend that Mr Rae went to the local party hardworking sorts and started talking about the election in 1995. I want to be clear, the biggest boost this government can give the economy is holding the election before 1995. They should be looking at a 1994 election; if they can move even that up, all the better. They're serving no one by extending the election period as long and far into the future as they can. They're simply writing the death certificate for this province by continuing to talk about a 1995 election. I would only request one thing: Stop that kind of discussion and let's deal with the election in 1994.
[Applause]
Mr Stockwell: The applause comes. I'd be happy to take this under discussion, because I would be more than happy to go back to the people in this province now or in two weeks or in two months, because I'm certain that a goodly number of those members across the floor would not have any prayer of retaining their seats.
Mr Mahoney: I first of all would like to mention what this debate is actually about. While my colleagues are drawn to the Piper affair and to the mismanagement, the incompetence, displayed by the government, and I probably will get to that as well, I want to point out that this debate surrounds the new rules of doing business in this place, and the reason that we have to extend sitting hours of this Legislature is the incompetence of the government to get its agenda put on the floor.
1650
Mr Bisson: Oh, no.
Mr Mahoney: Well, it does; I'm sorry. As the chief whip for the Liberal Party, I sit in the government House leader meetings. I sit there every Thursday and see how the government House leader attempts to get his agenda through.
They just constantly find themselves having to take one step forward and three back as cabinet minister after cabinet minister gets into hot water, and now of course people senior to the Premier's office do the same thing.
But let me tell the public, Mr Speaker, if I might, through you, that extending the hours -- let me just back up. In a normal legislative day, following question period, petitions, introduction of bills and on and on, we get into debate on specific pieces of legislation. That generally happens between 4 o'clock in the afternoon, some days 3:30, depending on whether there are any ministry statements or disruptions during question period, but it's safe to say that around 4 o'clock we get to the legislative business in this place, and so we go from 4 until 6. That's two hours during which debates can take place, four days a week.
Just follow me on that. Extending the hours from 6 till midnight gives us almost three additional legislative days per session. Times four is 12. If you go through the two weeks we'll be sitting -- we're scheduled to sit to the Christmas break -- it's as many as 24. Call that an exaggeration; call it 20 additional sitting days of the Legislature. The fact of the matter is that this government needs those additional days because of all the incompetence that has occurred.
I just point that out to say that the government has changed the rules to bring in closure. They've limited debate by members in this place to 30 minutes, except for a leadoff speaker in a debate, who can have 90 minutes. They, in effect, have invoked closure by that alone. But then, so that the debate is limited and when it's done they get on with their business, they have cut out the democratic heart of opposition politics in the province of Ontario with these changes. They've shortened the time the House sits, the actual calendar that the House sits. We leave earlier and come back later because they don't want to be here. The Premier doesn't want to be here. The worst record in modern history of a Premier attending in this place is by this Premier, Bob Rae.
Now let me tell you that --
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Downsview.
Mr Mahoney: I'm sorry that it gets everyone excited.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, I've referred to the rules. I don't see anything in the rules that specifically says that when you're in the Legislature, when you're in this chamber, you have to be awake and alert. I know that some of my Liberal friends may not be.
The Deputy Speaker: Please.
Mr Mahoney: That member is becoming an irritant, I think, even to his own caucus, from some of the silly remarks.
I want to just go, if I can, for a moment to what I consider to be the real problem of what's been referred to as the Piper affair or any of the other -- I mean, look at the pictures in the paper. There they are, eight of them, the scandals that this government has had to endure. But I want to deal with the real problem, and I think it came out last week --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, the member for Etobicoke West, the member for Downsview, would you please take your seats.
Mr Mahoney: Go to your room.
I want to go back to question period when the member for Willowdale, in the Conservative caucus, asked a question of the Premier with regard to the Piper affair. In essence, out of Hansard, the basic question he was asking had to do with the fact that Mr Piper resigned on Friday and was allowed, with a phone call, to come back in on Sunday evening. As a result, Mr Harnick, the member for Willowdale, said, and I quote from Hansard: "I put it to you, Premier, that somebody in your office is guilty of obstructing justice if that's what happened. I put it to you that this investigation had better deal with that aspect."
Now, the Premier got all excited because the member for Willowdale had the temerity, the nerve, the courage to actually suggest to the Premier that because Mr Piper was allowed to come back into his office, two days after he resigned, with the assistance of one of the staff members of the Premier's office, there is a possibility that someone in the Premier's office is interfering with due process of justice in this province. And what did the Premier say? The Premier went on to say: "The member has just made an allegation. I'm sure there'll be lots more" -- etc, etc -- "I say to the honourable member, you know how to do it." Then he says, and these three words underline to me the lack of integrity and the intimidation tactics of this Premier: "Say it outside."
Here is an honourable member of the opposition party, the critic in that area, suggesting that if certain events took place with regard to the boxes and the personal information being removed by Mr Piper with no one other than a member of the Premier's staff -- no police in attendance, no one from the Attorney General's office in attendance. Yet on Monday morning an investigation was ordered to be commenced and to start on Monday morning into the Piper affair and what does he do? He goes back into his office on Sunday night, loads up his boxes with whatever; we have no idea. Somebody suggested today he might have had time to adjust the computer records in his office. We don't know if he did or he didn't, but what we do know is that the police investigation was to begin on Monday morning and on Sunday night, two days after he resigned in disgrace, this man was allowed to go into the office.
Everybody shouts about government having scandals. Other governments have scandal. We had a few problems when we were in government and I acknowledge that. It's how you deal with those. When we had a senior staff person who was accused of wrongdoing, let me tell you, within one hour of his resignation that office was sealed and no one was allowed in or out -- I assume they were all out. No one was allowed back into that office to clean up his personal papers. No one was allowed in to perhaps tamper with the computer records. It's how you deal with it. Let me add that under that investigation there were never charges or convictions.
Now we have a situation where a police investigation is going to take place into one of the most serious allegations this government has had to face. We have a member of the opposition suggesting, I suggest quite fairly, to the Premier that due to the circumstances it is entirely possible that someone is guilty, to use the words in Hansard, of obstructing justice. And what does the Premier say? The Premier, like the bully he is, says, "Step outside and say that." You see, that's the mentality, that's the attitude of this Premier. No one in this place knows that this Premier is not a boy scout, nobody knows it better than I know it. Nobody in this place knows that this Premier will stoop to any level to try to smear the reputation of either a member of the opposition, a member of his own party if he has to, or a member of the public. If, in fact, it is seen in his twisted logic to be good enough for Bob Rae then he'll do it. And don't any of you ever doubt that, because if you need to be sacrificed -- to the members in the back bench -- you will be sacrificed.
If you are fortunate enough, however, to have someone in your background who has some kind of magical influence, such as Elie Martel, then maybe you'll survive. You see, we don't understand the double standard. We don't understand how the Premier can sit there with justification and protect a minister who took a lie detector test to prove she was lying when she said things that would slander a doctor from northern Ontario. He protects that minister, and then on the other hand, he hangs another minister out to dry because he appeared as a Sunshine Boy. The standards are all over the map. The Premier's action, in trying to intimidate members of this House, is to demand that somebody repeat his allegations outside. I would be happy to.
1700
Mr Morrow: You did.
Mr Mahoney: You're darned right. I drew him outside and I made him retract. I made that man apologize because he told a lie about me and my family, and I will not tolerate that. No one in this place should have to tolerate that kind of behaviour.
That was your boy scout over there, folks. That was your white knight who stands up now and says, "Oh, I've never seen a government come under greater scrutiny than our government." What a load of nonsense. This government is creating the need for scrutiny. This government, through its incompetence and its mismanagement and its trickery, is creating the need for opposition parties to be more vigilant than ever, for the press to be more vigilant than ever and for the public at large to look at you with close scrutiny and to say, "This government is dishonest."
If this government is dishonest, there is only one conclusion that you can arrive at, and that is that the leadership of this government is patently dishonest. I suggest that the attempts to intimidate --
The Deputy Speaker: Your choice of words is a bit too forceful. I don't accept it and I know you don't either, so I ask you to withdraw it.
Mr Mahoney: In respect to you, Mr Speaker, I will withdraw the word "dishonest" and suggest to you that I believe the leader of this government is not being forthright with the people and is attempting to come forward and intimidate and muzzle opposition members by demanding the member go outside.
Do you know what happened? That member, I might tell you, was indeed worried about the impact and therefore did not repeat what he said outside. I find that offensive, because what he said was that if indeed items were removed from Mr Piper's office that should not have been removed, then someone in the Premier's office could be complicit in interfering with the process of justice. It could be, and he should have said it outside.
While I'm not a lawyer, it would be my stand to say it again, and I would be pleased to say it again, because I truly believe that what we have seen here is a Premier who, through lack of action, has created a sense in the province that there is indeed some dishonesty. I don't like that word any more than you, sir, but he has created that sense, that fear. Who can be happy if indeed he fears that there is any dishonesty in government? Yet we hear nothing but pontificating from this Premier about how they would be different. They're not only not different, they're worse by a long shot.
Mrs Marland: There has to be some irony to stand in this House today and speak to a motion that is extending the sitting hours. The reason it's so ironical is that this government decided to extend the out-of-session hours earlier this year. Instead of coming back at a certain date in March, at the end of that sessional break, this government recalled this House two weeks later. Isn't that rather interesting?
It's also rather interesting, I suggest, that this government, when it introduced its new House rules as to how this House, this chamber, would operate, also -- primarily, of course, we realize it introduced those rules to shorten the amount of time the opposition parties had to debate government legislation to the extent that, of course, it was really shutting down the role of opposition almost entirely. The fact that we now have very strong limits on the amount of time we can speak and the number of speakers we can have and so forth, that's all part of the new rules. At the same time, the government introduced a new calendar which, overall, shortened the amount of time the House will sit.
I think, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, we understand very well why the government would bring in those changes.
First of all, they don't want to be accountable to the people of this province. They don't want to permit the opposition parties to have the opportunity to ask them questions in question period more often than they have to. They want to try to avoid that show-and-tell that sometimes question period can be. Of course, very often, especially with this current government, we ask the questions; we certainly do not get the answers. But at least by asking the questions we are able to raise the concerns the people in this province have about the issues, and that's part of a parliamentary system.
We doubt very much whether this government in fact believes in the parliamentary system at all. We doubt very much, to be quite frank, whether this government has any respect for the parliamentary system and the parliamentary traditions of this chamber and this province. We are faced every day with examples of where this government fails absolutely to recognize that there is tradition, that there is integrity, and that there is honesty in the operation of a parliamentary system that has its history and its roots in the province of Ontario.
People laugh occasionally when we refer to the fact that certainly the Progressive Conservative Party was the government in this province for 42 years. Now, of course, in the past seven years that I've been here, the people of Ontario have been able to experience the other two brand Xs as government. They've had five years of Liberal government, and by the time this government has the courage to call the next election, we probably will have had another five years of NDP government.
The interesting thing is that in recollection of 42 years of Progressive Conservative government in this province, I have to say that it wasn't all bad. Certainly, our party made some mistakes when we were the government, and wasn't that inevitable? First of all, we are human, and second, we were the government for 42 years. But whatever mistakes we made, they were nothing in comparison with the direction this current government is taking this province. We built this province of Ontario to become the premier province in Canada, and the reason that happened was because we believed in putting the people first.
We never, ever, would have imagined in the history of this province that we would have had 4,000 people outside this chamber on the front lawns of Queen's Park last Thursday at noon -- a lot of those people with physical disabilities, in wheelchairs, some people who couldn't walk, some people who couldn't communicate because of their developmental disabilities. Who would ever in 125 years' history of this province have ever thought for one moment that those people, their families, their workers, their friends, their relatives, would have had to come and march on Queen's Park? The most frail, the most vulnerable people in our society had to march on Queen's Park to demonstrate 4,000 strong on the lawns out on the front of this chamber.
That tells you, in my opinion, how far in the other direction the Bob Rae socialist government has fallen, how far it has moved itself from its promises. They always said they were the party of compassion. Well, I want to tell you that no party can ever again say they're the party of compassion and call themselves the New Democratic Party.
They are the people who don't even have a clue when it comes to prioritizing. Sure, we all recognize we are in recession times. There isn't a money tree at Queen's Park; times are tough. But it isn't that there isn't any money at Queen's Park; it's simply that the Bob Rae socialists do not know how to prioritize in terms of human need.
They could stand on any public platform anywhere in this province today and defend spending money first, at the top of the list, on the most frail and vulnerable people in our society. We all agree with that. Yet their cutbacks have hit those same vulnerable, frail people. I think the issue of the community living association's rally here last Thursday with these 4,000-plus people says more than anything else about the Bob Rae socialist government.
We can talk about all our other concerns with them. We can talk about the labour law reform and we can look at this list of legislation that they now want to ram through in the next eight sitting days of this House, which is necessitating sitting to the evening. Personally, I want to say I wouldn't mind sitting through the night if it meant we could get some solutions to the problems of these people who had to come to Queen's Park last Thursday, but it wouldn't matter if we sat around the clock with this government. They cannot make their commitment to the people who need their help the most.
When I look at the legislation they are hoping to have second reading on before the end of next week, we have long-term care and we have the advocacy bills: these advocacy bills that this government has done such an impossibly shoddy job of drafting that it has already had over 200 amendments, plus another 100 at the committee of the whole stage. We're talking about bills that were so badly written that they needed 300 amendments. There is something very wrong, and I think it's a sad day for this province.
We can talk about all the resignations of the cabinet and all that horrible stuff that has been referred to earlier this afternoon that I don't wish to comment on, because that stuff will come and go. But the people who need their help the most, the frail and vulnerable people in our society who were out here last Thursday, need their help every single minute of every day.
I simply say in closing because, again, I'm limited in the amount of time I can speak, would this government please, once and for all, prioritize in terms of human need first.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Mrs Coppen has moved government notice of motion number 21, pursuant to standing order 6(b):
That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on November 30, December 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1992, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion, until the next sessional day.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will pleased say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members. This will be a 15-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1714 to 1729.
The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Coppen has moved, on behalf of Mr Cooke, government notice of motion number 21.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.
Ayes
Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.
Nays
Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Murdoch (Grey), Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull.
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): Mr Speaker, the ayes are 61 and the nays 33.
The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 61; the nays are 33. I declare the motion carried.
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
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for York East, you have the floor.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I've wrapped up, and I'd like to hear some response.
The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other persons who wish to participate in this debate? There is so much noise, I can't hear a thing. Are there any questions or comments?
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Following the remarks by the member for York East, I would like to know how this member is able to rationalize his position. As I read his remarks and listened to him the other day, he sounds as if he's someone who's opposed to market value assessment. I wonder how he is sitting in the New Democratic caucus and advising the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs on how they're going to settle on this bill. Is he going to vote against it? That would give me an indication of what his true position is.
Because you can't have it both ways. You can come along on one side and say there should be some kind of economic study, and he goes on to say there should be an economic analysis. There hasn't been with this bill and he's saying there should be. Why doesn't he then call upon the minister to postpone the introduction of this bill until there has been a full economic analysis?
I then hear him talking about how seniors in his riding are impacted if you have full market value assessment. If that's the case, what about seniors in other ridings who are also going to have very heavy increases? I'm glad he's interested in seniors. I happen to know the honourable member as being one who has a genuine interest and concern for the care of all people. I don't think he can vote on this bill the way it is with the kind of opinions he's expressed.
What I'd really like to know is whether the member is strongly opposed or weakly opposed, whether he is so opposed that he can still vote for it and yet retain his NDP membership. There is a sense here that he wants to be all things to all people. What it really comes down to is, how can he vote for this bill based on what he said?
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I am delighted to hear that the member for York East is going to oppose this legislation. In line with what the member for Markham has indicated, he certainly has a good point. What we'd like to know today is, how will the member for York East define his opposition to this bill? Will he, like other members, abstain from voting? Will he, like other members, stand up and let his vote be counted? What will he do to oppose this legislation?
I think the member for York East is quite right when he points out that economic rot will set in within the city boundaries when this bill has been proclaimed and passed. In addition, I had hoped that he would especially have expanded a bit on the limiting problems of the caps in some areas of land use. For instance, he knows full well that there are certain classes of properties that will not have secure caps on them, meaning that certain areas that have no houses or apartment buildings on them -- empty land -- will now triple in tax. Some of the people who are going to want to expand and enhance that property will obviously be unable to do it with that kind of tax structure.
I had hoped that the member for York East would have expanded a bit on these kinds of caps and limits on these caps. But I want to congratulate him that he comes out, appears here today and says he is opposed to this kind of market value reassessment.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The member for York East has clearly made an excellent political speech, because it's obvious that nobody knows what his position is. The member for Parkdale is suggesting he's opposing it. I spoke with the member for Markham in front of me, and I got the impression he was in favour of it. If the members of the House are confused, then his constituents must be absolutely --
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Utterly confused.
Mr Stockwell: Well, dazzled with his brilliance.
This time has been set aside so members may stand up and issue their specific concerns or positive notes about this piece of legislation, and I think it's incumbent on the member for York East to be very clear. Rather than taking up a significant amount of time in your speech, if you haven't made up your mind, then say you haven't made up your mind.
In his two-minute response, the question I have is very simple, direct and straight to the point and something I am certain his constituents would like to know: Are you in favour of this piece of legislation or are you opposed? If you're in favour, I can understand why you're in favour, and if you're opposed, I understand there could be reasons for being opposed. But for goodness' sake, the least you could do for your people in the democratic process is tell them where you stand.
I know full well that in your riding -- I know it well -- a lot of people are going to get reductions and a lot of people are going to get increases, and that's going to make it very difficult for you to make a decision. I understand that very well, knowing the mayor of East York and the members who represent East York council. But the fact remains that it's incumbent on you to tell the people in your riding where you stand so they may know how to vote next election if they consider this to be a very important issue.
The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments?
1740
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I listened to the member for York East's speech the other day. Unfortunately, it's not very clear to the opposition but maybe if they'd pay a little bit closer attention, I think what the member tried to describe in his speech is that this issue, from either side, when you take a look at it, has some fairly strong arguments. I think the member for York East has expressed within this caucus his feelings, which he'll make clear when he has an opportunity to do so in his two-minute response.
But what he was trying to say, and I think what we have to take a look at, is that there are two sides to this issue that are very strong, depending whereabouts within the city of Toronto you happen to live. The reality is that it's awful easy for someone in the opposition to take either side on an issue because they're not responsible to anybody but themselves. Let the member for York East respond for himself.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for York East, you have two minutes to reply.
Mr Malkowski: It's been a pleasure to hear the response of the opposition members, the member for Markham and the members for Parkdale and Etobicoke West. As they talk, I want to be direct with them. I've brought the concerns of the people of my riding and also of the people of Metro because the government of Metro has failed to have any economic or social impact studies. That's the responsibility of a Metro government and it is truly a Metro issue. I believe that I have been direct and that the people of my riding recognize, it's very clear, that the tax system as it stands is unfair.
My role, as I said in the election, was to represent the concerns of the people of my riding and that's what I'm doing. I believe that this is a Metro issue and my position is very clear. I'm totally against full market value assessment and that's all I have to say on it. I'm very clear about that. It's going to have impact on my senior citizens, on single parents who live in my riding.
There is a lot of confusion among the public out there. You know, opposition parties and other governments blaming each other, I don't believe that's helpful. Let's be clear about it. Let's have less misunderstanding. Let's have some accountability, especially at the Metro level, this is its plan, and let's look for a fairer tax system for everyone.
Most importantly, I think we have to be aware that this government at least is looking at proper and fair tax reform, the disentanglement process, all those things that we're dealing with, education, all the proper things that we're doing to clean up the system and we'd like some cooperation from other levels of government on.
People of my riding know where I stand. I believe that Metro has total responsibility for its own plan and I'm here to bring and share the concerns of the people of my riding who elected me. I'm very clear: I'm totally opposed to market value assessment. That's clear.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to be sure that the member understood the question. The question was, "How are you voting on this legislation?" Just curious.
The Deputy Speaker: Please take your chair.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: If you have a point of order, I haven't heard you at all.
Mr Stockwell: I was just wanting to make sure that the member understood the question was, "How are you voting on this piece of legislation," and he didn't answer.
The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order. This is not a point of order.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?
Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We appreciated the remarks that were made, but does that mean he's going to be here voting against this bill?
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole, you have the floor.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise today and participate in this debate on the legislation the NDP government has placed before this House that will permit Metropolitan Toronto to implement its plan for the reassessment of property taxes in Metropolitan Toronto.
As a member of North York council -- I was elected in 1978. The issue of fairer property taxes, the issue of property tax reform, had been discussed in this council for many years. That's the city of North York council. From 1978, when I was elected to this council, I was a participant in numerous debates at that local level. The reason that I was a participant in those debates -- and I felt very passionately, Mr Speaker, and I know that you're interested in that -- the reason that I discussed those debates, those issues, those questions at the municipal council level was that it was in the mid-1970s that the Conservative provincial government gave to the municipalities the right to reassess, to redefine, to change their property tax system to make it fairer. They did this under the legislation by what was called section 63. Across this province, municipalities began in the mid-1970s to try to make sure that their property tax system was as fair as it could be.
Let me tell you what the situation was in the city of North York at that time. We had a situation where people in North York -- this is just within the boundaries of the city of North York -- who were living in older homes were paying a very small amount in their property taxes when you compared it to people who were living in newer homes even though those two homes may have been of equal market value. The way that the property tax system had evolved and developed over the years was that it often depended on the number of square feet in your home, the number of rooms, whether your basement was finished, how many bathrooms you had, if you had one or two kitchens, and that benchmark for assessment had not changed in many years.
When we at the local council, having been given the responsibility to see if people were paying their fair share, discussed and researched and looked into many ways of making that property tax system fairer, one of the things that we discovered was that there was no benchmark that satisfied everyone. What seemed to be developing as a consensus -- I would stress it wasn't unanimous -- was that what was fair was to use the benchmark or the ruler, if you will, or the guideline of how much that home was worth in the open market, and we started to call that benchmark market value.
What happened when the provincial government gave the responsibility to the regional municipality -- and I want to clarify that the responsibility was not given to the individual municipality. It was not given to the city of North York or Scarborough or Etobicoke or East York or the city of Toronto. That responsibility was given to the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and every other regional government across this province. They were given the responsibility under the legislation to look at reassessment, reform of property taxes.
In many municipalities, as they proceeded under section 63, they developed plans, and often the province intervened in one way or another to assist them, as our Liberal government did in Sudbury. Often the provincial government did not intervene in any way but allowed the municipality, because it had the responsibility and the authority, to move forward to implement its plan and then those municipal councillors, those regional councillors, stand fully accountable and are judged by their constituents every three years in municipal elections to determine whether or not what they have done has achieved the fairness and the reform that is appropriate in that community.
I believe that this explanation of some of the history is important because many people are confused as to who has the responsibility and historically what happened in this issue of property tax reform. One of the concerns that I have is that it's important for people to understand this history and to know clearly who has responsibility for what.
1750
One of the problems we have in Metropolitan Toronto is that the Metropolitan Toronto council was not given the authority many other municipalities already had, which would have allowed it to implement its plan for tax reform, because it is the municipalities that have responsibility for property tax. They are the ones who levy the mill rate and collect the property taxes both for themselves and for the local school boards.
It is the regional councils, in this case the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, that have the responsibility, and yet they do not have the legislative authority. Over the years, certainly since I was on North York council starting in 1978 and continuing until 1985, the debate over how to reform property taxes to make them fairer was the great debate.
What I found was that it often depended on where you lived. Those people who lived in a part of North York that was going to benefit rather liked market value assessment, or they liked property tax reform by whatever name it was going to be given, and those people who lived in a part of North York that was not going to benefit under the plan, even though they may have been paying more than their fair share for many years, didn't like the plan.
What happened was that when the regional municipalities began to look at this, what they said was: "You know, we all live in Metropolitan Toronto, whether it is North York or the city of Toronto or Scarborough or Etobicoke or East York or York. When we travel and leave this great municipality and people ask us where we're from, most of us say we're from Toronto." So it became important to have equity within and fairness within and reform within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. The debate went from North York council and the councils of the partners of the federation of Metropolitan Toronto to Metro council, and it had been working for many years to develop a plan that would reform property taxes.
Mr Speaker, 80% of my constituents, over 80% of the people who live in Oriole riding, will benefit from the plan Metropolitan Toronto has put forward to the provincial government. This legislation which is before us today, Bill 94, would result in a benefit to over 80% of my constituents.
The problem is this: Any plan that would bring property tax reform, any plan that would bring greater fairness within Metropolitan Toronto, would be a benefit to the overwhelming majority, well over 80% of my constituents. This particular plan is but one small step on the road to fairness, because it has many parts to it and it is very complicated, but it does not achieve as quickly as many of my constituents would like the kind of fairness and the kind of reform they have been seeking and waiting for, for a long time.
They are very concerned because they have listened to what this NDP provincial government has had to say, and they've looked at the piece of legislation. I've had conversations with my constituents as they've asked me: "What does this mean? Does this mean that we're going to have fairness in Metropolitan Toronto?" The answer I have had to give them is: "This does not do everything that you had hoped it would do."
This plan, as put forward, is Metropolitan Toronto's plan. It is not a perfect plan. It contains many compromises. Many people who should be getting greater increases are not going to be getting them as quickly as many of my constituents feel they should, but they understand the need to phase things in. Similarly, many people who should be getting decreases will not be getting those decreases as quickly as they would like to get them. They're a little less understanding about that, because quite frankly, they feel that they have been paying their fair share -- more than their fair share -- for a long, long time.
But we are not here in this Legislature to debate the plan. It is Metropolitan Toronto's plan. There is nothing we can do within the legislation that has been brought forward by the NDP to change that plan. That's where my constituents are confused, and frankly, many of them are feeling deceived. They're feeling deceived because they hear the government say things like: "We are opposed to full market value assessment. We are not going to permit Metropolitan Toronto to do that in five years." On the other hand, they see this legislation which enables Metropolitan Toronto to move ahead with its plan without any interference in Metropolitan Toronto's plan. They don't understand how the provincial government can say one thing and do another. Maybe I'm not expressing it well, Mr Speaker.
What they're really saying is, "Here's another example of the NDP doing one thing and saying another." The people in the riding of Oriole who I talked to about this particular piece of legislation feel it is very deceptive. They feel that they are hearing from this government that it believes in fairness. How many times do we hear Premier Bob Rae say: "It isn't fair. We want fairness"? They look at this plan, they hear what the NDP has to say, they see this legislation, and they say, "Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario, is saying one thing and doing something very different."
They are disappointed, they are upset and they feel in many ways betrayed. Many of them believed, especially when the NDP government established the tax commission, which they called the Fair Tax Commission -- I don't call it the Fair Tax Commission any more; I call it the tax commission, because I don't believe this NDP government believes in fair. I don't think it understands that you can't say one thing to people and do something different and expect that people will either believe you or believe that you have been fair with them and to them.
So this legislation is before us. We have the government telling us what it's going to do in five years. I can tell you that the constituents in the riding of Oriole are determined to see to it that the government in five years is not the government of Bob Rae, is not the NDP government. They are determined that five years from today they will have a government in place in the province of Ontario that is responsive, that is open, that is willing to listen to people, that will be fiscally responsible and make good decisions, that will understand the issues of the day and not approach them with an ideology that is destructive. But mostly they want a government that will tell them what it's going to do and then proceed to do what it said it was going to do, or explain fully and honestly why it has had to change its mind.
1800
Part of the problem with this NDP government and with the government of Bob Rae is that it has not done any of that. They have not explained to people why they changed their minds; they have not explained to people why they are acting unfairly; they have not explained to people why they have abandoned their principles; they have not explained to people that they are wedded to their ideology and determined to damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead, regardless of whether it is fair or unfair.
While on the one hand they say, "We are not going to let Metropolitan Toronto do full market value assessment in five years," this piece of legislation permits Metropolitan Toronto to implement its plan today. The obfuscation, the muddying of the waters of the communication strategy of the spin doctors of the NDP has done nothing to instil confidence in the people of Ontario, nothing to reduce the cynicism we see every day because the people and the people in Oriole are terribly disappointed when they hear Premier Bob Rae and his ministers say one thing when they know they may not be here in five years; when they know that their utterances are often for partisan, political purposes rather than fairness, truth and clarity for the people of this province.
I have great difficulty with Bill 94 because under this bill my constituents will have one small step improvement towards property tax reform and fairness, but this bill gives Metropolitan Toronto the right to implement a plan that does not achieve property tax reform and fairness in total for my constituents. I don't want them to be deceived. I want them to understand. Metro made some very difficult decisions.
Metropolitan Toronto Councillor Joan King, the representative for a good portion of my riding, has spoken eloquently on their behalf at Metro council and is very supportive of Metropolitan Toronto's plan. Councillor Marie Labatte, who also represents a very significant portion, a number of residents in the riding of Oriole, has represented her point of view on Metropolitan Toronto council and she has been opposed to the development and the implementation of the plan. So of the two councillors representing my riding one is in support of Metro's plan and the other is not supportive of Metro's plan.
Again, when I speak to my constituents about this, I say to them, "It's very important for you to call your Metro councillor and find out what the impact will be for you and see if you can have explained to you the impact of the plan and how it's going to work so you understand fully what the implications will be for you next year."
The concern I have is that this NDP government, this government under the leadership of Premier Bob Rae, has repeatedly stated that this legislation gives to Metropolitan Toronto the same power that every other municipality already has and there have been reassurances and repeated assurances that the decision to implement market value assessment is Metro's decision alone. We've heard that from speaker after speaker.
Yet despite the assurances that implementation of property tax reform is Metro's decision and that the province was simply going to empower or enable Metropolitan Toronto to implement its plan by giving it the same authority to implement market value assessment as already exists across the province, there are a number of elements in Metro's plan that are different than what has happened elsewhere in the province. Therefore, this enabling legislation is precedent setting. Nobody from that side, from the government benches, from the government caucus, has said that clearly to the people of this province.
The member from Cochrane goes like this, like "Who cares?" I care. My constituents care. We care if you're setting precedents and we care if you're doing that, especially if you're not telling people that you're doing this. I find it shocking that the member would sit opposite and shrug as though he doesn't care that this is precedent-setting legislation.
There are a number of people in this House who have a great deal of knowledge of the history of Metropolitan Toronto, many who know how important and controversial the discussions of property tax reform have been. If the province doesn't like Metropolitan Toronto's plan, it doesn't have to give Metropolitan Toronto the power to implement that plan. If the province wants to change Metropolitan Toronto's plan, by legislation it could do that.
I want to be clearly on the record as a former municipal alderman. I don't think the province should take either of those powers. It is my view that Metropolitan Toronto council, with a budget of almost $4 billion annually and elected representatives who are directly accountable to their constituents, should have the responsibility, the authority and the power to have fairness in its property tax system. I believe that Metropolitan Toronto councillors are reasonable, mature people and I believe that Metropolitan Toronto council should have the same powers that every other municipality in the province has.
What upsets me is that you have on the one hand the province saying, "We're giving them the power," and on the other hand you have the province saying, "But in five years we may not let them do these things." That is a sham. That is a shameful thing for this government to be saying and doing, because all it does is confuse the electorate.
On principle, this government could, and in my view should, be saying, "We believe that Metropolitan Toronto council has the right and the responsibility and should have the authority to adjust its property tax system to achieve greater fairness." They should be able to do that, and it should be within their authority and responsibility. The legislation, in my view, should simply give them the power to do that.
The provincial government is not and should not be Big Brother. As a former municipal councillor, I believe very strongly in local autonomy, local control, local responsibility and local accountability. I believe that those who are responsible for setting the plan should be accountable for the plan that they have put forward to the people who will judge them at election time. That is the essence of our democracy.
For the province to confuse that issue is disgraceful. For the province to act contrary to those basic democratic principles, in my view, does not do justice either to the members of the municipal council of Metropolitan Toronto or to any of the federations which are part of that regional government or in fact to the property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto.
I have one last thing I'd like to say. I'm very disappointed that this NDP government is forcing a vote tonight at 9 pm. I'm disappointed because by extending the hours, they have made it impossible for me to be here for the vote. I would like to be on the record. I've made a commitment to speak in my riding, in the city of North York, and I'll be in the middle of a speech.
I want to be on the record that I will be and would be voting in support of this legislation, because even as flawed as it is -- many members rightly will be voting against it; it is flawed legislation -- over 80% of my constituents will benefit to some degree. As their representative, I believe in representative democracy. This legislation allows Metropolitan Toronto to take one very small step to get on with it.
As far as I'm concerned, this legislation doesn't do what I think it should do. It's not the way I would have suggested moving forward. I would have given Metropolitan Toronto council the power and had the province stay out of the debate on the actual plan. I would have said it is the business of Metropolitan Toronto council to do that.
Over 80% of my constituents will benefit under any plan that moves to greater fairness. They will benefit somewhat, not fully, under this plan, and I will be supporting this legislation. I want to say, however, in my final summation, that this legislation is a great disappointment. My constituents are very disappointed in Bob Rae. They are very concerned that this legislation does not do what it is purported to do.
I would also suggest that my constituents would like to have seen an impact analysis. The reason for that impact analysis of this plan is that they have heard a lot of rhetoric from people living in different places and they honestly don't know what the result is going to be.
For those who have grave concerns about the legislation, I want them to know that I understand. For my constituents in the riding of Oriole who say, "We have been paying more than our fair share for too long," any step towards greater fairness is a benefit to them.
As I yield the floor to the next person interested in participating in the debate, I would say to the government: Please be clear in the future. Do what you say you're going to do. Tell people exactly what your powers are, what your principles are and how it is that you're going to proceed. That's the only way you will deal with the disappointment the people have in all of us and the cynicism that is pervasive in this province.
[Report continues in volume B]