The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Hier, nous avons demandé au ministre de l'Éducation de nous informer de ses intentions face au Conseil scolaire public de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Sa réponse m'a beaucoup déçu et je me suis demandé si le ministre pouvait vraiment se permettre d'imposer sa volonté à ce conseil scolaire et de le garder en tutelle indéfiniment.

Comme ses collègues ont pris l'habitude de le faire, le ministre de l'Éducation s'est dépêché de faire porter le blâme sur les conseillers scolaires. Je ne suis pas convaincu que les conseillers scolaires sont la seule cause du problème. Même si c'était le cas, c'est encore la responsabilité du gouvernement d'apporter des solutions au problème. Vous avez toujours refusé de rencontrer les membres du conseil scolaire. Ces gens-là pourraient peut-être vous suggérer des solutions.

La tutelle dure depuis quatorze mois. C'est beaucoup trop long. Je ne pense pas que vous avez réussi à régler les problèmes financiers du conseil scolaire pendant ces quatorze mois. Je ne pense pas non plus que vous avez contribué à offrir un enseignement de qualité comparable aux élèves francophones de la région. Il y a au moins 2700 personnes qui vous l'ont dit hier.

Dites-nous comment vous allez régler le problème. Retirez-vous du dossier si vous n'êtes pas capable de faire quoi que ce soit.

Monsieur le ministre, la tutelle a duré trop longtemps et il est urgent de remettre aux élus la responsabilité d'administrer leur conseil.

MEMBER FOR BURLINGTON SOUTH

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I wish to acknowledge the recent honour that was bestowed on my colleague and good friend Cam Jackson, the member for Burlington South.

In recognition of his outstanding community service, Cam was invested in the Order of St John in October in a ceremony at Christ Church Cathedral in Ottawa by the Governor General of Canada. Also receiving honours were Richard Rohmer, QC, and former Liberal MPP James Breithaupt. The nomination of the member for Burlington South to the order was officially approved by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

The Order of St John was founded in the Middle Ages as the Knights of the White Cross, whose chief responsibility was to protect and defend orphans, widows and the poor. It has since evolved into a charitable organization honouring individuals who live in the spirit of its original ideals.

Cam is the divisional president of the St John Ambulance 406C cadet division in Burlington. He is the founding chair of Burlington Food Share, a coalition of food banks providing relief to the needy. He has organized the first-ever city-wide food drive and has raised funds to establish the first school-based children's breakfast program in his community. It is no surprise, then, that our leader, Mike Harris, appointed Cam as the party's social services and children's services advocate.

The people of Burlington have come to know Cam Jackson as a hardworking MPP who is always ready to come to their assistance. On their behalf and on behalf of all of us here, I congratulate my colleague the member for Burlington South and a serving brother of the Order of St John.

SECOND BASE YOUTH SHELTER

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): Second Base Youth Shelter is now under construction in my riding of Scarborough West thanks to $2.6 million in funding from my government's Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The shelter will provide crisis intervention, guidance and shelter for 40 homeless youth of both sexes. Second Base will help prevent the greater problems that can result when young people from Scarborough and surrounding areas are compelled to leave their home communities and go downtown for help.

In the members' gallery today are the chair of the board of directors, Brenda Ryan, and the vice-chair, Worrick Russell. These are two of Second Base's extremely dedicated and talented board members. They are now engaged in a very active fund-raising drive to raise $190,000 for furniture, equipment and startup funds.

Ms Ryan, Mr Russell and their board are requesting personal meetings with corporate boards of directors, employee charity groups, unions and community service clubs. One company has already assisted them with $2,500 in computer software. Centennial College will be placing co-op students with them next year. Operation Springboard is supplying numerous volunteers. Second Base has a student awareness and school fund-raising program appealing to students to help raise funds.

And Second Base is appealing to public figures like those of us here in this Legislature to help. I have contributed $300 for the purchase of one of the shelter's beds. I challenge the members of this Legislature and other public figures in and around Scarborough to match my pledge.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): The Minister of Transportation knows how important the speedy construction of Highway 416 is for the economy of eastern Ontario. The minister also knows that if his officials award a contract number, the project normally is ready to go.

I was recently told that sections of the 416 project from Century Road to the 401 were given a contract number in early fall. Normally, this means that tenders would be called shortly thereafter; however, for some totally unexplained reason, the contract numbers for the 416 were cancelled, thereby putting the much-needed construction on hold and throwing the whole highway completion schedule into turmoil.

I'm calling on the minister to clear up the confusion. Why were the contract numbers cancelled? Are he and his government still committed to the completion of the 416 from Ottawa to the 401? If so -- and I see the Premier here -- when will the project south of Century Road go to tender, and what is the new time line of the NDP government for having the four-lane link finished between the nation's capital and the 401?

Today I've written the minister asking for an official response. This is an issue of vital importance, not just for the economic wellbeing of the Ottawa-Carleton area but for eastern Ontario at large. Hundreds of jobs are at stake. At a time when employment is sorely needed, the last thing we want is the provincial government holding up projects that have already been approved.

1340

HYDRO RATES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): North York Hydro recently announced that it would be boycotting Ontario's 8.2% rate increase. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly support the efforts of North York Hydro and to convey to the Minister of Energy the message that excessive rate increases will not be tolerated by the people of Ontario.

The public cannot afford the exorbitant tax increases this government continues to implement. As North York Mayor Mel Lastman has pointed out, Hydro rates have risen over 30% since 1991. To quote Mayor Lastman, "Our beleaguered taxpayers have had enough of never-ending price hikes, and something must be done."

The Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario recently commented that Ontario Hydro is helping drive industry out of the province with its whopping rate increases. The association further warned that Ontario Hydro would do permanent damage to the province if it did not clean up its financial act.

Every time Hydro rates increase, jobs are lost. The government must act now to protect employment in Ontario. The government should be implementing policies that encourage investment and create jobs. In these difficult financial times, the government must pursue avenues that ease the tax burden on the people of Ontario. The public cannot afford to pay any more taxes.

I urge the Minister of Energy to listen to North York Hydro and Mayor Mel Lastman and take immediate steps to cut the never-ending rate increases being imposed by Ontario Hydro.

EXTEND-A-FAMILY SCARBOROUGH

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I am pleased to rise today to give recognition to Extend-A-Family Scarborough.

Extend-A-Family was founded in 1981 by a group of parents with developmentally handicapped children who wanted their children to be part of community life. It is the only Metro Extend-A-Family to serve both adults and children.

Their mandate is to connect people with physical or developmental handicaps with other people in their communities through friendship. This gives the person an opportunity to develop a fulfilling and much-needed social network outside of paid staff and family, while at the same time giving parents and care givers some relief. Individuals are matched with volunteers, friendship and support circles, or are assisted in becoming part of existing community groups and clubs.

While preparing this statement, I read through Extend-A-Family's 10th-anniversary book, In Celebration of Friendship, in search of one story that would exemplify the valuable contribution Extend-A-Family has made to Scarborough. But it was difficult to find just one story; this book is full of stories of people who have been helped and have helped each other to form lifelong friendships.

I would encourage all members of this House to read this anniversary book of stories, verse, pictures and poems. I can assure you that it is heartfelt, touching and enjoyable.

The present staff at Extend-A-Family Scarborough are Helen Dionne, Alison Baxter, Jeannie Cooper, Linda Dawe and Cathy Bloomfield. Please join me in congratulating them on their commitment and dedication to this organization and to their community.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As General Motors workers in St Catharines and Windsor face the bleak news about temporary and permanent job losses and auto workers across Ontario become more apprehensive about the future of the auto industry in our province, the Ontario government would be wise to review the suggestions I offered several months ago to assist this vital part of the provincial economy.

I recommend that the provincial government establish a special division within the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to deal exclusively and on a priority basis with the problems confronting the auto industry, and that this new department develop a comprehensive strategy to retain all auto operations in Ontario at present and to encourage new investment in the automotive sector.

I call upon the Ontario government to abandon its ill-conceived and damaging so-called gas guzzler tax and suspend the provincial sales tax on motor vehicles temporarily to encourage consumers to replace their fuel-inefficient and polluting older vehicles with new, fuel-efficient vehicles with modern, effective pollution-control devices. Both the economy and the environment would be the winners, and employees in the auto sector would at last have some reason for encouragement.

Such action would be well received by the purple ribbon movement, the Fighting for our Working Future Niagara-Hamilton campaign, which will be involved in a demonstration in front of General Motors on Ontario Street, Saturday, at 12 noon.

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I will be tabling a petition today which calls on the government to begin supporting Ontario's police officers, to discontinue its effort to restrict the police from performing their duties to protect all law-abiding citizens.

Mrs Christine Edward of Barrie, who is anything but a political activist, felt very strongly about the NDP's negative and confrontational approach to policing and police in this province and gathered nearly 3,000 signatures on a petition. She did so in only four days.

In a letter to the Premier, which still hasn't received a response, Mrs Edward outlines that as mother of children aged 13 and 10, she is alarmed at the increase in violent crime in Ontario. She believes there have been too many incidents where innocent people have been abducted and murdered, and what happened to Kristen French is every parent's nightmare.

She says we need to enhance police enforcement, but the Rae government has moved in the opposite direction. She writes: "There has been irrefutable growing public support; still your government continues to ignore it."

She talks about the Premier's own personal security, the officers with the nine-millimetre guns, saying, "There should not be double standards when protecting you and your family with specially trained bodyguards and up-to-date arsenal while placing further restrictions on police officers."

"Instead of dictating to the police," Christine goes on to say that Mr Rae's "government should be consulting with experienced professional police officials to bring enforcement techniques into the 1990s."

Thank you, Christine, for getting involved and speaking out on behalf of your community.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Yesterday's announcement on market value assessment sent a shock wave throughout many communities in Metro which were expecting property tax reductions commencing January 1993.

While we all recognize that there are many flaws in Metro's plan, it is my understanding and it is our understanding that Metro will proceed to develop a new plan. It is my intention to work with Chairman Alan Tonks and to work with Metro councillors and to work with my many colleagues here today to ensure that a speedy, new plan --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Perruzza: -- is developed and comes back to us for implementation. We are looking to develop a plan that's manageable, acceptable, fair and addresses many of the concerns --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Perruzza: -- that were outlined yesterday by the minister responsible.

I've advised Metro Chairman Alan Tonks --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Bye, bye, Tony.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Mr Perruzza: -- through a letter which I sent to him today that it is my intention to work with them. I look forward to working with many of my colleagues in my party and in the other parties to ensure that the plan that does come back this time is a flawless plan that ensures there will be some fairness in our property tax system throughout Metro, because there are many communities which have been paying far too much for far too long, which are looking property tax relief that they deserve.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Frankly, I was somewhat appalled yesterday by your absolute refusal to answer any questions regarding the Carl Masters investigation. You refuse to give any explanation for Mr Masters's resignation or to discuss the investigations that have taken place or why they took place. You won't even disclose to the taxpayers of this province how much the episode is going to cost them. Frankly, that is completely unacceptable.

Perhaps today you would be willing to be more accountable to the people of Ontario. In March, your government brought in very specific procedures for the investigation of harassment complaints. We note again that you have already trained over 500 employees to investigate harassment complaints, yet in this situation you hired an outside law firm to investigate the allegations at public expense, and now you won't disclose what the investigation revealed.

Premier, surely it would not violate the privacy laws for you to simply reveal why you ordered a special investigation of the Carl Masters case when your government already had a team to investigate precisely these sorts of complaints. If you won't want to answer this basic question for us in the House, will you at least tell Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I really have nothing to add to the answer that I gave yesterday, and I believe I'm really acting on the best possible advice in giving that answer.

1350

Mrs McLeod: Premier, it is clear, and has been clear from the beginning when we first raised our questions about this situation, that you are determined to use the freedom of information act to deny the public basic information about the case.

We are not asking you for confidential personal information. We've not asked you to disclose identities. You will not even tell us why you ordered a special investigation when you already had a process in place. Answering that question is surely not a violation of the freedom of information act. You will not tell us when the investigation concluded or when it presented its report. You won't tell us what the investigation cost. Premier, you won't even do us the courtesy of admitting that you're keeping silent because you have reached a legal agreement to do so. I can tell you that your continued total silence leaves us coming only to that conclusion.

Will you stop hiding behind the legislation and simply tell the people of this province what they have a right to know? When did your special investigators present their report? When you received the report, did you ask for Mr Masters's resignation and did you not reach a legal agreement that puts a gag order on all parties?

Hon Mr Rae: I simply repeat the answer I've given and say to the honourable member that this government has an obligation to protect the privacy rights of many individuals, and we have to live by that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The final supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, you will understand that given your silence, given your refusal to answer even the most basic questions, questions which do not in any way violate the freedom of information act through your answers, we cannot understand the standards you apply.

You have reportedly trained more than 500 employees to investigate sexual harassment complaints, yet when the Minister of Tourism and Recreation was accused, you sent in the Ontario Provincial Police. When your appointee as agent general, Carl Masters, stood accused, you hired an outside law firm to investigate. There is absolutely no consistency in your approach to investigating or reporting allegations of sexual harassment.

Premier, your silence and your stonewalling on this issue have invited rumours and speculation which, I repeat, is unfair to all concerned. I ask you, Premier, why are some people treated differently in Bob Rae's Ontario? Can you explain what it was about these cases that led you to deal with them so differently and outside your normal procedures? Premier, how can you expect the people of this province to have any faith in your judgement and how you handle these issues when you show no consistency?

Hon Mr Rae: I know the member disagrees with many things we do and I accept that, but I simply have to tell her that I really have nothing to add to the answers I gave her yesterday.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I did my very best to place questions which clearly the Premier could respond to without any violation of the freedom of information act and I continue to be appalled at this refusal to hear any of the questions or provide any of the answers.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will turn my attention again to the Premier and to a second issue, because we have today some questions about Ontario Hydro, as the committee has now moved to confirm Maurice Strong's appointment as the new chairman and chief executive officer of the Hydro board.

We all know very well that Mr Strong will become the second Ontario Hydro chair in two years, and what we have seen in that two-year period is that the planning processes in Hydro are in absolute chaos; Ontario Hydro's finances are in a complete state of disaster; this government has intervened in Hydro's affairs on a regular basis, and when we try to get to the bottom of things, such as the firing of former president Al Holt and the awarding of his $1.2-million settlement, the government intervenes once again and places a gag order on witnesses to the committee.

Before Mr Strong takes on his new role, I believe we have a right to know what has already happened and how this government has been involved in the fiasco that has led us to today. I would ask the Premier very directly: Will you now order your Minister of Energy to direct the members of that committee to remove the gag order placed on Mr Holt, on board members, on civil servants, and subpoena them as witnesses to the resources committee so that we can find out what happened once and for all?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister is not here to answer the member's questions in any considered detail, and I would simply say to her that the decisions that were made by the Hydro board with respect to Mr Holt and Mr Holt's decisions with respect to his future have been made and I don't intend to interfere with those decisions.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I hope that in your absence you were following what was happening on this issue and the responses of your Minister of Energy. Your Minister of Energy responded to earlier questions in this House about what happened with the Al Holt firing by first of all saying he had no responsibility for it and then by saying that any questions we had could be cleared in committee and that the committee would tell all.

He then moved to place gag orders on Mr Holt and on others who could have told all at that committee. The government members of that committee by majority refused to act to subpoena those people as witnesses, so the committee could hear no one but your Minister of Energy. Premier, it is your responsibility to direct the Minister of Energy and your members on that committee to subpoena those witnesses so we can get to the bottom of this.

I would suggest, Premier, that your government has already given itself powers to issue directives that Hydro must follow and that your Minister of Energy has directly involved himself in the firing of the president. Now he claims he wasn't involved. He puts a gag order on our attempts to find out what really happened. In the meantime, you've stacked the board of directors at Hydro to make sure Hydro carries out your government's wishes.

It seems to us that your government interferes in Hydro affairs when you want to and you distance yourself from Hydro when it is politically embarrassing for you to be seen to be responsible. So today, as Maurice Strong is confirmed as chairman and CEO of Ontario Hydro, I ask, given your track record, what assurances have you given Maurice Strong that he will be able to do what needs to be done at Hydro without your partisan ideological intervention?

Hon Mr Rae: I can say to the honourable member that I have a very high regard for Mr Strong. I hope she does too. I know there are many members of her political party who have very strong views about Mr Strong and his abilities, and I know there are many members of her own party who are appalled by the kinds of questions that have been posed by some of her colleagues with respect to Mr Strong's integrity and his ability.

I want to say directly to the honourable member that I hope very much that Mr Strong has her support, as well as the support of the leader of the third party. The one discussion I had with Mr Strong recently was where I encouraged him very much to meet with the Leader of the Opposition, as well as with the leader of the third party, to discuss the situation at Ontario Hydro and to discuss as clearly and as fully as possible the challenges Hydro faces.

Hydro does face enormous challenges. It is one of the central challenges of the province in the 1990s. It does face problems because of its accumulated debt of some $37 billion, much of which was accumulated in the last few years, and the fact that because of the recession, Ontario Hydro's revenues have been severely affected.

This is posing an enormous challenge for the corporation. We believe the corporation is equal to the task, and we also believe that the leadership of the corporation is equal to the task of affecting some major changes which are obviously now under way that are going to begin to get hydro rates under control and get a sense of greater openness to the business realities of Ontario in the 1990s from one of the largest corporations in Canada.

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

Hon Mr Rae: It's our obligation to do that. Mr Strong has the full support of the government in proceeding, and I know he will be wanting to talk to the Leader of the Opposition as well as the leader of the third party about the kinds of directions that can be taken.

Mrs McLeod: The question was not a question about the government's or our confidence in Mr Strong. The question was about the authority this government is actually going to give to Mr Strong, given its confidence in him, to do what needs to be done at Ontario Hydro.

I wonder, if the Premier has the kind of confidence which he has just expressed in Mr Strong, whether or not he has given any consideration to allowing Mr Strong to take on the role not only of chair and chief executive officer but of president of Hydro, undoing some of the chaos they created with their changes to the Power Corporation Act.

1400

I would remind the Premier that Maurice Strong is to be chairman and chief executive officer at a salary of $425,000 and that he replaces Marc Eliesen, the former chair and chief executive officer, who was making a salary of some $260,000. There is a difference there of $165,000 in salary.

When Mr Eliesen departed after only 16 months in that office, this government hired an American consulting firm to search for a replacement and paid that firm $100,000. This government then fired the president of Ontario Hydro and gave him a settlement that we believe is $1.2 million, or in that order. The government is now apparently in the process of hiring a new president.

By our calculations the government has already spent $1.5 million beyond what it expected to pay for the senior executives of Ontario Hydro just 16 months ago. The situation is still one of absolute chaos, and we have reason to wonder what's coming next.

I ask the Premier, could Mr Strong, at his salary of $425,000, given your confidence in him, not do the president's job? If you are determined on hiring a new president of Ontario Hydro, are you going to go ahead and hire the same consulting firm at the same kind of cost? And what do you intend to pay the new president you seem determined to hire?

Hon Mr Rae: These are decisions that'll be made by the Hydro board, and the member knows that full well. Mr Strong and the members of the board, yes, it's true, are appointed on the recommendation of the government, but it's also important to stress that at that point the decisions are then made by the Hydro board, and are made obviously in conjunction with the decisions of the views of the chairman.

The member talks about what she describes as the chaos of the last year and a half. How could one describe the neglect that took place under her very nose when she was the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Energy? She knows full well the problems that were faced by the corporation. She knows full well the inheritance that she personally left to the people of Ontario in the form of increases in the double digits into the indefinite future in the 1990s.

That is the inheritance the member is trying to avoid, and those are the responsibilities she is trying to avoid. We are now having to clean up this mess that has been left to us by the Liberal government and by her leadership of Ontario Hydro. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it, and we're prepared to do it.

The Speaker: New question, the third party; the leader of the third party.

Interjections.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): It's been seven years of neglect in so many areas. However, my question is not to the Minister of Natural Resources. Most people in the resource industries have pretty well given up on him.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: He was speaking, Mr Speaker, so I thought I should at least comment to him.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Mr Premier, your appointment, Carl Masters, was paid by the Ontario taxpayers. Mr Masters was in a high-profile position of trust and authority. Serious allegations were made against him. By refusing to provide fundamental answers about this whole situation, you are doing Carl Masters an injustice.

But most significantly, Mr Premier, as I pointed out to you yesterday, you are doing the women who made the allegations an injustice. You are doing an injustice to all men and women in this province who are concerned about sexual harassment in the workplace. By not giving us answers you are once again sending out a signal to women who have been victims that your government doesn't take this issue seriously.

Premier, we want to know, we are entitled to know, why your appointment, Carl Masters, resigned.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Again, I honestly believe, in terms of all the advice I've been given, that the answers I've given to the House are the only answers I can properly give.

Mr Harris: Premier, I want this Legislature and the people of Ontario to be very clear: You cut a deal with Carl Masters to remain silent on the issue; you voluntarily made a choice, voluntarily cut a deal to remain silent on the issue. Now you're using the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as a front for this deal. This deal that your government voluntarily cut is the one that is preventing information from coming forward that those who are concerned about sexual harassment in this province are insisting on and certainly believe should come forward.

You are using legislation that is supposed to be a public safeguard, and you are using it to cover your government's political backside. I ask you this: Do you not understand the very dangerous precedent that you are setting as Premier in using the freedom of information act this way? Do you not understand that, aside from this issue? Do you not understand the very dangerous precedent that you are setting?

Hon Mr Rae: I simply say to the honourable member that all premiers have to take decisions and act on the basis of the best advice that we receive, and that's exactly what I'm doing.

Mr Harris: Premier, we're dealing with your appointment here. We're dealing with an issue that I thought you were concerned about and I thought your party and your government were concerned about. Apparently, all that was just rhetoric to get elected and rhetoric that you've come forward with.

Premier, I pointed out to you yesterday that clause 21(2)(a) of the freedom of information act allows information to be disclosed when "the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the government of Ontario and its agencies to public scrutiny." This was put into the freedom of information act. This was agreed to; they felt it was important to put this section into the act.

I'd like to ask you this, Premier: Why do you think that section was put into the act? If sexual harassment of women in the offices of the Ontario government is not enough reason to deserve public scrutiny, can you tell me what possibly is more important than that and why this section of the act would ever apply? Can you answer me what is more important than that, that perhaps the drafters of the act would have put this section in to have public scrutiny of? What is more important than that?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it's important for the honourable member to look at the whole of the law and to look at the whole of the law with respect to the importance of the protection of privacy. When you put it in the context of that overall, I think the decision that we're making is one that probably other governments would make as well.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. I have a copy of a memo from the auditor, dated June 24, 1992, to Mr Dan Burns, Deputy Minister of Housing. I'd like to share with the Premier a number of items on non-profit housing programs that were in fact included in this memo that somehow did not make it to the final auditor's report that was tabled before this House.

One of the things the auditor spoke about in this draft that in fact was sent to the Ministry of Housing and somehow got omitted was that there was a row house project where the president of a cooperative housing group converted a three-bedroom, second-floor unit into an abnormally large master bedroom, complete with a bathroom en suite, and was in the process of installing a whirlpool tub. Two bedrooms were added to the basement. These modifications were noted by the ministry inspector only after construction was essentially completed. At that late stage, the ministry's only option was to require the president to establish a trust fund to convert the unit back to its original condition when the unit is vacated.

At the time of this audit that the auditor speaks about, this trust fund had still not been established. My question is: How could this, in the draft copy sent to the ministry officials in June, have been omitted in the final copy of the auditor's report that we just received?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the Minister of Housing should be able to answer that question.

1410

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The auditor's report process is one in which the auditor outlines to each ministry, as I'm sure the member will know, what items he or she wishes to question in the review, and the ministry then responds. If the auditor is satisfied with the response, obviously the auditor will decide that it doesn't go into the final report. The ministry has no control over the auditor's final report.

Mr Stockwell: To the minister: I guess the question I'm asking is, one, process; and two, did this happen? If it did happen, I have some very serious concerns about your operation, the non-profit housing program.

Now, why this got dropped, you'll have to tell me. The auditor agreed to drop this. My question to you is, did this happen? If it did happen, why do you think it was not included and what do you think is the reason why this wasn't on the public documentation we have?

Let me quote you another example. In one case we noted that the project was approved in two phases, the first at 156% over MUP, maximum unit price, and the second at 165% of the approved MUP, because of the interest built up from a lengthy OMB process as well as site-specific building requirements imposed by the municipality. The additional costs amounted to $4.5 million. Get this: The result was -- I'm doing my best, Mr Speaker -- that 80 bachelor apartments in the second phase cost almost $16 million.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Stockwell: That's $200,000 per unit. While neighbourhood opposition occurred in only about 20% of our sample, it did add significantly to cost. The question I have for the minister is: Hey, this got omitted. I accept the fact it got omitted. Is this information accurate and, if so, how did this get omitted?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The process is the one I explained in which the auditor raises cases. There are, in the course of the administration of a program of the nature of the non-profit housing program since 1986, a number of cases that will raise problems. The member has raised two which the auditor has reviewed, and the auditor chose, having received an explanation from the ministry, not to put them in the final report. The member would have to ask the auditor why they were not in the final report.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): No. We are asking you.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I should point out that since 1986 there have been 40,000 units of non-profit housing built under this program, and the cases that the member cites which were raised by the auditors are ones which have created problems in the course of that program. I think the auditor probably felt that the way in which the Ministry of Housing had tried to handle these problems was a suitable way.

Mr Stockwell: This is 28 pages, this memo. Right through the entire memo there are entire sections totally omitted. Now my question to the minister was, did they happen? If they happened, this is nothing but an absolute and categorical ripoff of the taxpayers -- ripoff, case closed.

I know for a fact, through calls that I made today, that a few of these instances that were left out in fact took place. I'll read you one last one. The auditor headed this one up "Risky Land Purchases":

"In fact, in three of the 40 projects reviewed, the soil was subsequently found to be significantly contaminated after the land had already been purchased. The cost of removing the contaminated soil was $900,000, $600,000 and $100,000 respectively." The auditor went on to say, "We also noted one project which was opposed by the local municipality because the site was located on a 100-year-old floodplain but which the ministry approved." This ministry approved it without conducting a proper assessment, despite the risk of flood damage. So get this: They built it on a floodplain --

The Speaker: And your question, please.

Mr Stockwell: -- without the proper assessments, and in the spring of 1991 --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Stockwell: This is the question, Mr Speaker. In the spring of 1991, shortly after completion, about one third of the units were flooded for three months. That is unbelievably incompetent.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Stockwell: Absolutely incompetent. So I ask the minister, did this in fact take place, what was the cost to the taxpayers and what has your ministry done about ensuring this does not take place in the future?

Hon Ms Gigantes: If I could speak to the question of the project that was built on a 100-year floodplain, in fact it flooded not once but twice, and the auditor noted that in the initial information that he discussed with the ministry and the ministry pointed out, quite different from what the member is now saying, that all necessary approvals had been undertaken by the ministry in fact, including the conservation authority. There had been approvals for the type of building that was undertaken on that land.

There are many sites in Ontario which may cause problems, and that happens not only in the non-profit building program but in the private development program that is carried on by private developers in this province. It is frequently the case that soil tests, which are routinely undertaken by the Ministry of Housing, will not reveal, for example, that there is a buried oil tank nobody knew anything about on any records that has been leaking for many years. That happens to private developers and it happens to programs that are undertaken with public resources.

Out of 41,000 units that have been built since 1986, which the auditor has reviewed, he cited a few examples of some very significant problems. Some of them he didn't put in the final report because he understood that the explanations he received were satisfactory.

JOHN PIPER

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Premier on the Piper-Grandview scandal. On Monday, November 30, your Attorney General told this House the legal advice his office gave your principal secretary, Melody Morrison, was that Mr Piper did have the right to enter and recover only his personal property, that she should go into the office with him and, the important part, Premier, that the OPP was not aware in advance that Mr Piper was removing two boxes.

All objective observers acknowledge it was a gross error in judgement by the Attorney General in not having the OPP informed in advance about the removal of documents, since the OPP was asked to investigate two days earlier. The Attorney General also said that the OPP has an opportunity to further follow up on Melody Morrison's involvement in the removal of documents.

My question to the Premier is this. As a result of your lack of leadership on November 30, when this issue was breaking, your Attorney General had to stand in this House and report that your principal secretary was under a cloud of suspicion and being further questioned by the OPP about Piper's activities and your Attorney General had to admit facts disclosing his grievous error in not informing the OPP in advance about the removal of documents from John Piper's office. Will you tell the House what discussions you held on Friday, November 20, Saturday, November 21, and Sunday, November 22, with Melody Morrison on any matter touching on the Piper affair?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I've already indicated clearly to the member on a number of other occasions a couple of weeks ago that I would not comment further on this matter precisely because it's now under a police investigation.

Mr Chiarelli: That brings me to my supplementary. The Premier will hide behind the OPP; he refuses to hide behind the truth. Premier, I want to read a short passage to you:

"Many people have begun to question the fairness and independence of the justice system. This erosion of confidence must be stopped and public confidence restored. This can only be accomplished through the unwavering and visible application of the principles of absolute fairness and independence."

That is from the royal commission on the Donald Marshall prosecution.

1420

Premier, my question is this: Given your office obtained Judi Harris's criminal record, given the smear campaign conducted by your office, given your office sending lawyers into the courthouse to get more confidential information, given the release of that information, given the court-ordered sealing of the file, given the Attorney General not notifying the OPP in advance about the removal of documents, given your principal secretary, Melody Morrison, being subjected to unusual OPP questioning, you must now apply the principle of absolute fairness and independence. Will you either appoint an independent special prosecutor to instruct the police and receive their reports, or will you ask an Attorney General from another province to investigate and prosecute as was done in the Milgaard case?

You and the Ministry of the Attorney General are morally foreclosed from having anything to do with the investigation --

The Speaker: Will the member complete his question, please.

Mr Chiarelli: -- and prosecution of this issue. Premier, the credibility of the administration of justice in the province of Ontario --

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: It's precisely because of my conviction and belief with respect to the independence of the process that I won't have any further comment to make.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to ask a question of the Attorney General. The Ontario taxpayers paid for a report, an investigation, to be done in the whole Carl Masters affair. I'd like to ask you, Mr Attorney General, who in the Ontario government authorized and then received that report and I'd like to ask you, Mr Attorney General, where is that report today? Thirdly, could you tell me if that report has been turned over to the Ontario Provincial Police?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I understand the leader of the third party's interest in this issue. However, as I am sure the third party leader knows, this matter has been dealt with and I am not at liberty to comment further on the matter at this time.

Mr Harris: Mr Attorney General, I didn't ask you anything about any details. I asked you who authorized or commissioned the report and the paying of that money, I asked you where the report was and if it's been turned over to the Ontario Provincial Police. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the secret deal your Premier cut with Mr Masters to prevent you from answering that and there is nothing in the privacy of information legislation to prevent you from answering that.

While you contemplate that and answer those questions, I would like to ask you as well if you are aware of any charges in Ontario or any other jurisdiction that are to be laid against Mr Masters, or of any ongoing investigation in Ontario or another jurisdiction that may lead to charges being laid against Mr Masters. Could you tell us that too?

Hon Mr Hampton: I am not aware of any charges, and I can relay that information to the leader of the third party with confidence. As well, I am not aware in any way of a particular criminal allegation that would have happened in this province, and therefore I'd not aware that the OPP have been involved in any matter like this.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. Several weeks ago, the member for Cambridge asked about funding for the community information centre in his riding. York East too is served by the neighbourhood information centre. This centre is an integral part of the information and community services in our area. It is not a library, it does not provide the services of a library, it provides important human services, connections to unemployment, welfare, day care, food banks and shelter. Can the minister tell me why funding is being cut to CICs at the end of this year?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I'd like to thank the member for the question. I know how concerned he is about community information centres. I know how concerned many members are. Just before question period, the member for Grey hand-delivered a letter to me about community information centres and a binder for information, so I know it's on everybody's mind.

I do want to say that we are well aware of their importance, we're well aware of the statistics that show their use and we understand that they are especially important and that times are tough. But it was not this government that cut the spending; it was the previous government that cut spending. They capped the number of centres and they cut spending. It was this government under the previous minister that found one-time funding for community information centres. It was this ministry and this minister who continued that one-time funding solution for the community information centres.

But I want to tell you that one-time funding and interim funding is not the solution to the community information problem. I am actively working with the treasury board, I am actively working with the Management Board to find a long-term solution to the funding for community information centres.

Mr Malkowski: Minister, can you tell me what solutions you propose to replace these grass-roots organizations which know and articulate so well the needs of the communities they serve?

Hon Mrs Haslam: The Treasurer is looking at some scenarios along with my ministry and along with Management Board. We are trying to expedite a solution to the problem. As I mentioned, that would not be just an interim solution. We are diligently working towards that solution and as soon as that solution is announceable, I will be announcing it.

LANDFILL

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. About two and a half weeks ago the minister's Interim Waste Authority finally released its long-awaited short list of potential mega-landfill sites in the greater Toronto area. They identified sites on prime farm land; they identified sites near thriving communities and people's homes; they identified sites in environmentally sensitive areas; they identified sites of natural and scientific interest; and indeed they identified a site within the very area that has been chosen as the Rouge provincial and national park in the Markham-Scarborough area. The park was identified by a citizens' committee set up by the minister's colleague the Minister of Natural Resources.

I want to tell the Minister of the Environment that the people throughout the greater Toronto area are angry, they are concerned, they are offended and they are extremely upset by the choice of sites the IWA has made and the lack of opportunity to discuss real alternatives to the agenda the minister has set for the IWA and waste disposal in the greater Toronto area.

I want to ask the minister simply this: Given that these sites all violate fundamental principles of sound environmental policy, have you had any second thoughts about the IWA process? Do you continue to be committed to that process and the sites they have identified for a new megadump in the greater Toronto area?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Let me try to address the variety of points the member has raised both in his question and in his preamble, and let me start by saying that he has a lot of information about the specific sites. He characterizes them as "unsuitable" or "inappropriate." The hydrogeological testing on those sites has not been completed. The evaluation of those sites has not been completed. That is precisely the kind of process the Interim Waste Authority is undergoing.

If in fact a particular site has the characteristics the member identifies, that will of course be part of the consideration of the environmental assessment and will ultimately be decided by the Environmental Assessment Board, at which time all of the people who the member acknowledges -- and I agree with him are highly upset at the fact that a landfill might go in their immediate community -- will not only have the opportunity but will be facilitated by intervenor funding, by assistance and participatory funding even before that, to make their argument, not before the member opposite, not before me, but before a board established under the Environmental Assessment Act, an independent and an impartial review of the environmental assessment that is being done.

1430

Mr Sorbara: I simply say to the minister, one does not need hydrogeological tests to identify prime farm land. One doesn't need hydrogeological tests to identify a site that's next to a community of 20,000. You don't need tests to identify a site that's right in the middle of the new Rouge Valley park.

Minister, I've been scouring the newspapers, and I can't find one commentator or editorialist who agrees with the process you've set up. I have listened to the people of my own community, who say you simply refuse to take into consideration principles of social equity that say, in the town of Vaughan, for example, that 20 million tonnes is enough.

Even the very environmental groups that you used to consider were on your side oppose the process you've undertaken. I have a press release here from some 39 environmental groups, and if I could just quote what the press release says, at least in part, it says: "The IWA should stop its current site selection process." It goes on to say that the search must stop, and the IWA must stop building megadumps in archaic ways, and that what it's doing flies in the face of sound environmental principles.

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

Mr Sorbara: I ask the minister again, in view of the fact that there's virtually no public support for your policy, not even among the very environmental groups that you used to look to for your support, will the minister now admit that the IWA process has failed and begin to look at new solutions to solve the garbage crisis that you have single-handedly created in the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member is, as so often happens, selective in his use of quotations. Let me point out to him that there's not an environmental group in this province that does not support the initiatives this government has taken to put waste reduction first in our waste management plan, and that there is not another government that has achieved the amount of diversion from landfill that this government has, in meeting our goal of a 25% diversion by the end of 1992.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me also remind the member that the environmental groups he is quoting praise and support this government, and continued, in the press release he is quoting, to say that incineration is not an option -- it is for the members opposite; that transportation to northern Ontario is not an option -- it is for the members opposite.

If the member wants editorials that support the process this government has initiated, let him read the newspapers in northern Ontario, in Marmora, in Halton, in Plympton, in Guelph and all around this province.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. This morning, I had the privilege of being part of the committee to interview your new chairman of Ontario Hydro, and I must say, he is an outstanding statesman, and he certainly has a wide variety of experience. But this morning, the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr Strong, had a great opportunity to come forward and instil some little bit of confidence in the industry and the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario and all users here in Ontario. He failed to do that. We asked him straight out how long it would take under his chairmanship to bring Ontario Hydro rates into line with inflation. We were shocked by the answer. He said up to 10 years.

That is not acceptable to this province of Ontario, that is just not acceptable. I would ask you, Mr Minister, would you please issue a directive to the new chairman to reconsider that period of time?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The member has raised two issues in his question: One is how quickly Hydro can get its rates down to the inflation rate, and whether I will issue a directive. Unfortunately, I wasn't in the committee this morning, so I can't comment on the specific words that Mr Strong used. I have said publicly here in the House and I've said it outside the House to the media that our discussions with Hydro are ongoing. We intend to get the Hydro rate increase to the level of inflation within the next couple of years and to hold it there for the rest of the decade. We will accomplish that goal.

Mr Jordan: We've had several chairmen and presidents since this government took over. Already we're hearing a direct conflict between the minister and the chairman. The chairman perhaps is speaking what reality is, and the minister is looking to give direction of two years.

We met with the Ontario forest industries recently. They advised us that Detroit Edison in 1993 is giving major industry a 3% reduction in rates and in 1994 -- would you believe it? -- they're giving a 16% reduction in rates to major industry to try and keep them operating and keep the jobs.

Mr Minister, you do have a responsibility to inform the chairman that 10 years is not acceptable.

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, two issues have been raised. The first issue is that there is no conflict between the government, this minister, and the new chair. A number of members of the opposition have pointed out, on a fairly regular basis, that the Deputy Minister of Energy is now on the Hydro board. We have been working very closely with Hydro and with the chair, even before he officially takes his responsibilities today, to discuss the rates issue. We will get the rates of Hydro rate increases to the inflation rate in the very near future.

We're also, as I've said a number of times here in the House, working in a joint group with Hydro and industry to deal with the industrial rates question.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm happy to be able to ask this question, before the House breaks for Christmas, to the Minister of Transportation, because this is a matter that is of extreme importance to the folks down in Welland and further south, down in the city of Port Colborne.

The minister knows that on November 10, the clerk of city council sent to the Minister of Transportation a letter containing a resolution that city council had passed requesting a written status report regarding the construction of Highway 406 -- the extension, Woodlawn Road to Merritt Road -- together with an explanation of the lengthy completion dates expected. Of course, they sent me a copy of that.

Not only has Welland city council expressed concern but my good friend Mayor Bob Saracino from Port Colborne has joined with them in expressing concern about what's going on. Not only are they concerned about the delay, but they're concerned about the delay in the response to this letter. It's November 10 that letter was mailed; it was received -- what? -- a few days afterwards.

Can the minister please help us down in Welland and down in Port Colborne with an explanation about why the delay has taken place? This is important to those people.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): It's not a surprise to any member in the House that the fascinating world of sewers and water mains, at times the Ministry of Transportation, at other times MNR, would be subjects that light the passion and commitment of the member for Welland-Thorold.

It was planned for 1992. It didn't happen. Why not? Because of unexpected problems, problems dealing with wetlands, problems dealing with the environment.

So in the collective, the Ministry of Transportation, with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources, echoed by the goodwill and expertise from the Minister of the Environment, have decided that the money, yes, $8 million, which means 100 jobs -- the work will be awarded in 1993 and will be completed in 1994.

I wish, through you, Mr Speaker, and with respect, that the member for Welland-Thorold will alleviate the fears expressed by the representative of the city of Welland.

1440

Mr Kormos: I'm sorely tempted but disinclined to make any further comment about sewage. I appreciate that the minister cannot be aware of all things at all times, I appreciate that the minister relies upon his briefing notes, but the sad thing is that the question posed by the folks in Welland -- because this is more than just a highway; this means jobs in an area of the province that is sadly in the course of being deindustrialized. Not only is the highway important to Welland and Port Colborne, but the jobs are important to Welland and Port Colborne. Appreciating that the minister -- I understand, Speaker, and I'm going as quickly as I can.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would appreciate it if the member would place his supplementary.

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir. I don't get to ask a whole lot of questions and I'm going as quickly as I can. That's why this is an important issue.

I'm wondering, in view of the fact that the minister is restricted as to the scope of his response here in the Legislature, will the minister today indicate that I can take back to the folks in Welland and Port Colborne a commitment that a senior staff person from the ministry will be available during the course of the next two weeks to meet with that council to explain in detail the reason for the delay and an explanation as to when this construction will take place? This is important and it has to be responded to.

Hon Mr Pouliot: A reasonable request from reasonable people. Consider it done.

BUDGET

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The question is to the Premier and it's on the 1993-94 budget. The reason I'm raising it is because the Premier will appreciate that much of the work on the budget will be done before we come back again. I think it's fair to say that the Premier has tipped his hand in terms of the budget, indicating that we are going to see some very substantial changes in the way capital expenditures are funded. It's my understanding that there's almost a steady stream of people from Bay Street coming up to the treasury office and up to the Premier's office with some interesting proposals, whether it be selling the GO trains to foreign investors and leasing them back, whether it be the private sector building subways and leasing them back, or the private sector building roads and leasing them back.

The reason for this question, Premier, is this: If you put the budget together on that basis, before anyone here in the Legislature has had an opportunity to discuss how you're going to plan those capital corporations, I think the budget may have been prepared on a basis on which we've had no discussion. Will you undertake to send to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, when it's doing its pre-budget hearings, your proposals for these capital corporations, so they can form part of the pre-budget process and we can have some idea of whether they're workable or not and how they may in fact function?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member is raising an interesting point with respect to the work of the finance committee. I can't go quite as far as the honourable member would like today, because there's a decision-making process through the government that we have to go through prior to, obviously, any announcements being made, and prior to anything being referred to any committee. But I would want to say to the honourable member that any decisions of the government which have been taken would obviously be something the finance committee could consider.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raised it is the reason I indicated earlier, that is, that in many respects, by the time the Legislature comes back the concrete at least is hardening on the budget. One of the things we're most anxious to ensure is that the people of Ontario have a full and accurate accounting of the finances. Frankly, some of us on this side are suspicious that the purpose of the capital account is to hide the deficit and hide the debt. That is our suspicion.

As you recall, in your budget you said -- this sounds rather detailed, but at least you can give us this assurance that you will follow through on your words in the budget. You indicated there that:

"The reporting of the combined capital and operating funds in the Public Accounts of Ontario will allow users of financial information to see clearly the effect of the combined operations on the debt for provincial purposes and on the total deficit of the province for the fiscal year.

"The surplus or deficit positions of both the capital and operating funds will be clearly shown."

Will you today at least reassure us that you will do that, and will you undertake to get back to the opposition when we will have an opportunity to review how you plan to set up these capital accounts and on what basis you will set them up? Will you undertake to attempt to get that to the finance and economic affairs committee prior to the budget?

Hon Mr Rae: It's precisely because of the need to be fair in terms of -- the Treasurer's words in the budget, I think, are very clear, and that commitment is also very clear.

But since the honourable member is knowledgeable in these areas, I want to just remind him of some of the problems Ontario faces, as we look to the comparisons that are made daily, in the media and elsewhere, with our sister provinces, all of whom carry on their arrangements financially and fiscally in a way that is quite different from the way in which it has been done in Ontario. That's the first issue.

The second issue is that we believe, because of some of the approaches that have been taken to capital financing by previous governments, that there has been less investment in infrastructure than is necessary and than is required and than, as the auditor has stated, needs to be done, and as many others have said needed to be done.

For these two reasons, in order to ensure that our method of accounting compares with that carried on in all the other jurisdictions in North America, so that when we go to capital markets, that's clearly understood -- because, overall, we do not have a deficit, as it's been described, of $10 billion or $9.9 billion.

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

Hon Mr Rae: We have a capital budget of $3.9 billion, which is very substantial.

Also, with respect to other provinces, in the province of Quebec, municipalities are treated differently, universities and colleges are treated differently, all the transfer agencies are treated differently in terms of how they borrow and how they deal with their accounts. I think it's important for that to be transparent and for that to be obvious and for the comparisons to be very clear. It's also necessary for Ontario to be able to conduct the kind of investment in infrastructure --

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- which is going to be so crucial to the future of the province. So it's for those two reasons that we're making the kinds of changes I propose.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is also to the Premier. I might add, on the answer to that question, that he still pays the interest, whatever you call it, Mr Premier. But I'd like to go on to another subject.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I and my caucus met this morning with the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce, and I understand you're going to be meeting with them this afternoon. On two occasions in this Legislature, I've sent across to your Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology some resolutions from the chamber of commerce. They will give you or have given you some of the recommendations, such as this group here, and they are very specific. They go into details of what the problem is and then they put together, very clearly, recommendations that they would like to see happen. Very clearly, they would like to see some answers.

Would you be prepared to stand up and tell this Legislature what you're prepared to do specifically to help the chambers of commerce, like the people from northwestern Ontario, so they can survive and prosper in the province of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can assure the honourable member and assure the members of the northwest chamber how much I'm looking forward to the meeting this afternoon. It's a meeting I always look forward to. In fact, I think I was the first Premier to speak to the northwest chamber in northwestern Ontario, at one of their meetings about a year and a half ago.

The Attorney General has met with the northwestern chamber. We look forward very much to a positive and constructive dialogue with them, and we'll be giving answers that are as specific as possible in the circumstances in response to the concerns that have been raised.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Point of Privilege.

The Speaker: Point of privilege, the member for Brampton South.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: You may recall that yesterday during question period, my colleague the member for Scarborough North put a question to the member for Oshawa, the honourable Solicitor General. It dealt with a young man who had tragically bled to death. This was a result of having run into a window at York University which was not safety glass. I refer you to the question. It is recorded in Hansard.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): What is the point of privilege?

Mr Callahan: The point of privilege is -- and I will read for you in order to help you in your decision -- the member asked of the Solicitor General, after relating the tragic facts to him, the fact that the appeal tribunal was not --

The Speaker: If the member has a point of privilege, I would ask him --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. If he indeed has a point of privilege, I ask him to get to it quickly.

1450

Mr Callahan: Well, Mr Speaker, I don't know how you can rule on a point of privilege unless you've heard the facts. In any event, the point of privilege is simply this: The minister undertook to provide this House with an answer today. I have yet to hear the answer. The family of this young lad has been denied its rights to appeal the verdict of the coroner not to hold an inquest to an appeal board which does not exist.

There has not been one step made by this government to appoint members other than one member to that board, and citizens of my riding and citizens of Ontario, in the tragic death of their son, are being denied their rights of full appeal under the Coroners Act because the minister and the --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I very much appreciate the member's concern on behalf of another member. The member will know that he does not have a point of privilege. Regardless of what undertaking there may have been by anyone in the House, there is nothing at the Speaker's disposal to compel responses. However, your concern, hopefully, has been duly noted by the Solicitor General and perhaps the matter will be attended to in due course.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, I know that circumstance. I think the honourable member did really have a point of privilege on this matter, because when I asked the minister, he said he wasn't aware of any problems and he assured me that he'd be back to report on this. I think the member has a point of privilege.

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough North was here and heard my response. I appreciate very much his concern, and now the concern has been stated twice. The Solicitor General's in the chamber and I'm sure all will unfold to the satisfaction of both sides of the House at some point.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition here signed by thousands of people from the Quinte area who are very concerned about the fluctuating gas prices within that particular area. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, have seen our gasoline prices fluctuate wildly with extreme differences in price in a small geographical area. Seldom, if ever, is any explanation offered for these increases.

"We insist the government regulate this industry and put an end to this intolerable situation now."

I agree with this petition and I add my name to it.

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 agree with this petition and I have signed it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in Parliament assembled:

"We, the undersigned, deplore the passing of Bill 75 into law. We ask that the arbitrator's report be set aside because:

"(1) It does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings;

"(2) It is not in the best interests of the area and its residents;

"(3) It awards too extensive a territory to the city of London;

"(4) It will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex; and

"(5) It will allow for the progressive development of prime agricultural land."

I'm very honoured to affix my signature hereunto.

GUY PAUL MORIN

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas Guy Paul Morin was convicted of first degree murder on July 30, 1992, having been previously acquitted of the same offence on February 7, 1986;

"That the Ministry of the Solicitor General take an immediate review of the mishandling of evidence by the York region police, the Durham region police and the Centre for Forensic Sciences;

"That an immediate review be undertaken of the Attorney General's decision not to continue the prosecution of Sergeant Michalowsky; and

"That a full investigation be undertaken of the three youths who had been sexually involved with Christine Jessop and that such investigation be independent of the York and Durham region police forces."

A number of signatures are affixed to this.

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition from Barrie:

"Whereas we are concerned, as citizens of the province, that this government seems determined to impose further restrictions on police officers to make it increasingly hard and unsafe to do the already difficult and dangerous job;

"Whereas, many of these individuals are prepared" -- dealing with violent offenders -- "to use weapons in the commission of crimes and an increasing number are prepared to kill;

"Whereas we have serious concerns over the proposed use-of-force regulations under the Police Services Act;

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

"(1) An officer cannot be restricted in his/her ability to draw a handgun before entering a potentially dangerous situation;

"(2) An officer cannot be inhibited in drawing a handgun when necessary by the need to fill out yet another form;

"(3) All officers in Ontario should be issued semiautomatic pistols and the proper expanding ammunition.

"(4) We fully support the need for additional training in the use of force and particularly in the use of firearms.

"(5) We feel a committee should be set up to recommend changes to the Police Services Act regarding use of force and this committee should be enlarged to more accurately represent the wishes of the majority of law-abiding citizens in the province of Ontario."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to members of provincial Parliament and it regards the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, the proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday, and it's signed by nearly 80 residents of my riding.

"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 of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my name to the petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have 6,400 petitions signed by tenants in this province, addressed to Mr Rae.

"Tenants refuse to pay three and a half times the taxes our home-owning neighbours pay. We demand that the province institute real tax reform to guarantee equal treatment of all residents regardless of whether they own or rent."

I will present these petitions on behalf of the tenants of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by residents of Middlesex county who ask that the arbitrator's, Mr John Brant's, report be set aside 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 residents. It awards far too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London. It 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.

MENINGOCOCCAL DISEASE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

"The guidelines for control of meningococcal disease developed by the advisory committee on epidemiology state that those individuals who have had 'close contact' with a case of meningococcal disease are to be notified and administered antibiotics. One of the defining characteristics of 'close contact' is exposure through sharing of food or beverages. Since it is common practice for children in all grades at the elementary level to share food, drinks and chewing gum, we ask that the present guidelines be amended so that classroom contacts may be treated as 'close contacts' rather than 'casual contacts.' Parents of children who may have had close contact with an infected classmate have a right to be informed by their public health officials so that they can make the appropriate preventive measure."

This petition from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry was signed by 597 persons and I have affixed my signature.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition signed by in excess of 6,000 people from North York. All of these are tenants in buildings, and this is a petition which has been sponsored by both tenants and landlords. It reads:

"To Mr Rae: Tenants refuse to pay three and a half times the taxes our home-owning neighbours pay. We demand that the province institute real tax reform to guarantee equal treatment for all residents regardless of whether they own or rent."

As I've said, there are in excess of 6,000 names here, and I too affix my signature.

1500

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I have a petition here signed by the Finnish community in Sudbury. It says:

"The undersigned hereby register their opposition in the strongest terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holiday Act.

"I believe in the need of 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 the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment 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 name thereto.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "General Motors' announcement to close the foundry operations in St Catharines, with the resultant loss of 2,300 jobs, adds to the growing devastation of the vital manufacturing sector in the Canadian economy.

"The spinoff effects will result in four to six lost jobs in other sectors for every job lost in auto. The foundry closure also puts the remainder of the General Motors' St Catharines operations in serious jeopardy, which has a total combined employee population of 9,000 hourly and salaried workers.

"I strongly urge the Ontario government to intervene in all possible manners to stop the erosion of jobs and the economic base of our province, and in particular the Niagara region."

This is signed by individuals who are very interested in this, and I affix my signature in agreement.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition here signed by many hundreds of people. It reads:

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injuries and reducing costs, support graduated licensing for new drivers."

I have to affix my signature to this.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition from about 140 residents of Hastings-Peterborough and it reads as follows:

"To the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario:

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injuries and reducing costs, support graduated licensing for new drivers."

I have attached my signature.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "We, the undersigned, citizens of Ontario, have seen our gasoline prices fluctuate wildly."

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, on a point of order -- I'll wait until the clock stops. Go ahead. Sorry.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Allow your colleague the member for Timiskaming to place his petition. No? The member for Parkdale.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition, Mr Speaker, but I do have a point of order after this. In the meantime, Mr Speaker, let me read the petition to you. This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; 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 counterparts,

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

Mr Speaker, I present this petition to you and I affix my name to it.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have another petition, similar to the last one.

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injuries and reducing costs, support graduated licensing for new drivers."

This is signed by several dozen people, and I too affix my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by 84 individuals who strongly protest the actions of the government allowing retail stores to open on Sundays without restriction and calling upon the government of Ontario to uphold the Retail Business Holidays Act and do everything possible to preserve a common pause day for as many people as possible, including retail workers.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I think I have recovered. I felt so badly beating my colleague to read the petition that I lost it. My petition reads:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, have seen our gasoline prices fluctuate wildly with extreme differences in price in a small geographic area. Seldom if ever is an explanation offered for these increases. We insist the government regulate this industry and put an end to this intolerable situation now."

I'll affix my name to this.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have been asked to present this petition from some people in my riding. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Commission in its September 1 ruling extended full family and bereavement benefits to same-sex arrangements; and

"Whereas this is believed by us Christians to be detrimental to the family and society,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of the province of Ontario, to appeal this ruling of the Human Rights Commission."

PETITIONS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Surely there has got to be a more efficient way to pick speakers for these petitions. I am wondering and I'm asking you, could you tell this House on what basis you're making decisions on who gets to speak first on these petitions?

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Height.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No. To the honourable member for Parkdale, I appreciate his interest in efficiency. Indeed, if there was an easy way to make a selection of those who would like to present petitions, I would be delighted to know what it is. We have but 15 minutes, and normally we have quite a number of members who have petitions to present. The best that I can offer is to go in rotation around the chamber and indeed to try to select members as I first spot them on their feet -- a long-held tradition in our parliamentary system. I appreciate the member's interest, and no doubt he'll be back tomorrow to present petitions.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to commend you, Mr Speaker. You get a lot of criticism in this House from time to time from people who have problems with the way the House proceeds. I'd like to compliment you on the manner in which you have selected the members to read petitions in the House this afternoon.

The Speaker: I think you got to put your petition in, is that right?

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the Ontario Building Officials Association

Bill Pr45, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Town of Lincoln.

1510

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies

Bill Pr75, An Act respecting The Canadian Millers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Bill Pr78, An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr79, An Act to revive Duclos Point Property Owners Inc

Bill Pr83, An Act to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr83, An Act to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Grandmaître from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 19th report and moved its adoption.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? No.

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care/Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les soins de longue durée.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Our first item of business is a deferred vote on second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care. There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1512 to 1517.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Ms Lankin moved second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care.

Those in favour of Ms Lankin's motion should please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Beer, Boyd, Bradley, Buchanan, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cordiano, Curling, Dadamo, Daigeler, Duignan, Elston, Farnan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Kwinter, Lankin, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Mills, Morin, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Silipo, Sullivan, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Waters, Wessenger, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: Those who are opposed to Ms Lankin's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Harris, McLean, Murdoch (Grey), Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 84, the nays are 17.

The Speaker: The ayes being 84 and the nays 17, I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, we'd like to direct the bill to the standing committee on social development.

The Speaker: The committee on social development? Agreed.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I'd like to call the want of confidence notice of motion, number 3, and I believe that there is unanimous agreement that the vote will take place at 10 to 6 and that the time will be divided three ways.

The Speaker: Agreed?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We agree as long as the vote is the same as the one that just carried. We agree otherwise as well.

The Speaker: At 6, we'll find out.

We might, with the indulgence of the member, allow a few seconds for members to quietly leave the chamber, so that Mr Elston will have the proper opportunity to put his case.

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION

Mr Elston moved, pursuant to standing order 43(a), want of confidence motion number 3:

Whereas the NDP government has undertaken to make "integrity in government" and "conduct of ministers" the centrepiece of an NDP administration and made specific reference to that undertaking in its first speech from the throne;

And whereas several ministers and parliamentary assistants of the government have, since the NDP government took office, violated the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the general standard of conduct applicable to elected officials and ministers of the crown, and the specific conflict-of-interest guidelines adopted by the Premier;

And whereas last winter the Premier allowed the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, without penalty, to maliciously smear the reputation of a private citizen in order to advance the government's own policy;

And whereas the Premier's own special communications adviser has now wilfully smeared a private citizen with deliberate disregard for the injury done to that private citizen;

And whereas these actions on the part of the NDP government officials constitute personal vendettas against private citizens and a blatant victimization of those who are already victims of abuse at the Grandview reform school;

And whereas the Premier has consistently applied ad hoc, politically expedient standards and sanctions to those who have violated his own guidelines and appropriate standards of conduct;

And whereas the NDP government has abused the power and trust vested in it by the people of Ontario;

And whereas these gross breaches of the public trust have destroyed public confidence in this government and in the integrity of the democratic process;

Therefore, pursuant to standing order 43, the House no longer has confidence in the government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I believe the honourable member would like to begin his comments.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Time is limited, as is the normal course in these places, to speak about what I have perceived as being a very deleterious development in this House with respect to standards of conflict. I named but a few of the incidents which are most highly prominent in the minds of the people of Ontario with respect to miscarriages of justice perpetrated by highly placed, entrusted members of this New Democratic Party government.

It is with a great deal of interest that we watch the transformation from the pure at heart, the people who were in opposition, so pure, so mistake-free, so holier than any other person. Now we see this group of people having fallen into almost every practice which is seen as despicable by reasonable and right-thinking people in the province of Ontario.

I have from time to time been concerned about the manner in which our province and the policies which have been developed have been brought forward by the people in this place and how little concern there appears to be on the benches of the New Democratic Party for the traditions of democracy and the right to speak out freely and openly in this place. But never have I been more concerned -- while I am interested in the rights of members to speak openly here -- than I am now for the free speech that is available to every man and woman and child in this province when I take a look at the types of activity which have been enumerated here in this motion of want of confidence.

A doctor in Sudbury was smeared maliciously and has now left our fair country for an area which he believes will provide him with more satisfaction in carrying out the practice of medicine. A woman who was victimized in earlier days when she was incarcerated at a provincial institution has again been victimized in the most malicious and dangerous way by a man who was not only the trusted friend and confidante of the Premier, but a person who received taxpayers' dollars, with which pay he spent his time undermining the credibility of a woman who was merely seeking the right of redress which in a democratic society is well available to all of us, or so we suspected.

The list can go on, corrupting, as it were, in every sense of the word, our noble democratic process to the extent that I fear, if this government continues, we are in danger of losing our most precious of heritages. That is the reason I have no confidence in this government. It is that reason alone and primarily that makes me move this motion today.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. Further debate? I see many people standing over there. The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The one with his mouth open.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, the member for Mississauga West.

I thank the Speaker for recognizing me during this debate. There is probably as much non-confidence right now in this government today as I would suggest there has been in any government in the history of this province at any time. Their record as opposition party was impeccable. They built themselves --

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Well, not quite.

Mr Stockwell: It was in their minds absolutely impeccable. They built themselves a pedestal that left the Conservatives and Liberals in anything but a subservient role. We could never, ever challenge this party on any of the issues they had taken to heart, predominantly the social issues: women's issues, seniors, disabled and those with less income.

As it turns out, we in the Conservative Party have in some instances stood by with mouths open at the breathtaking hypocrisy of the government. Their position today and in the past couple of years on a number of issues has left both the people of this province and at least this opposition party in a serious, serious dilemma.

The question being asked on the streets of this province is: When was this government not being forthright with the public? Was it when they were in opposition and they had these lofty ideals and goals, or is it simply now? My response to most of the public I speak to is simply this: This government is no different, this party is no different in most instances than this party or the Liberals. They're made up of humans and, yes, humans have certain frailties which, when put into the position of power, become a little more obvious.

But the difficulty this government has that's different from the Conservatives or Liberals is the pedestal they built for themselves in opposition and that they're finding themselves falling from today. The pedestal they're falling from is so high and so far that they haven't hit ground yet.

Every month and every week, generally we discover a new bit of information, a new undertaking this government has done that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not any different than any other political party in this province and in some cases significantly worse.

1530

We have been dealing with some very substantive issues surrounding cabinet integrity in this government. The list is endless. You know, when you pick up the newspaper after the latest scandal, they generally give you a capsule remark about how many scandals the government's had to deal with. Every time you pick up the paper the scandals now seem to stretch a full page as people's pictures appear, from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and Mr Piper and Mr Ferguson, and all the scandals that have taken place from this government.

The thing about this that I find particularly interesting is that the response of the Premier to each individual scandal that takes place is no different than the last one he commented on, sometimes not more than a couple of weeks ago.

We all know about the Premier's government's throne speech:

"My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power."

You said that. That was your throne speech.

The very interesting part about this is that one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight members are capable of sitting here to hear this motion of non-confidence. Eight members are prepared to hear from the opposition about its concerns with respect to the integrity and confidence the people in this province have in your government -- eight members. The very important point that should be made is that they don't care. They fundamentally don't care.

If you want to go quickly through the backgrounds, we can start with the John Piper affair. This is how they encapsulate the John Piper affair, the Peter North affair.

Allan Pilkey lost his job as Minister of Correctional Services in the September 23 cabinet shuffle because of his mishandling --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe there isn't a quorum in the House. I think the government should be here to listen to these criticisms.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, I shall ask the table to ascertain if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Mrs Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Call in the members.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

Mr Stockwell: I'd just like to read through some of the comments made in the press around this province about some of the affairs that took place. I think they can sum it up the best. Obviously, standing here and listing my concerns, which I've outlined on very many occasions in the past, appears to have no impact on this government.

Mr Jim Coyle of the Ottawa Citizen on November 6, 1992:

"The only thing missing on Thursday as Premier Rae fled the country for 15 days in the Far East was footage of him being helicoptered from the Legislature roof seconds ahead of incoming rockets.

"Which is to say it was rather a desperate getaway the Premier made from rather a chaotic scene."

The editorial from the St Catharines Standard, November 24, 1992:

"As a result, Piper has added sleaziness to an image he was supposed to clean up and, at the same time, raised serious doubts about Bob Rae's judgement."

Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun, November 24, 1992:

"And yet Martel remains in cabinet, because by Rae's standards, it's apparently okay to try to smear someone you disagree with as long as you don't use confidential information.

"Well, that is precisely what Rae's pal and former communications adviser, John Piper, now says he did, and yet not only has he resigned to save, he says, the Premier further embarrassment, but Rae says he's appalled by what Piper did.

"Confused? Don't worry. My guess is that so is the NDP."

The editorial in the Toronto Sun, November 24, 1992:

"Let's stick to the real issues, not imaginary ones.

"Starting with Piper's good friend Premier Bob Rae, explaining, in light not only of this case but of the Shelley Martel affair, why citizens who find themselves in conflict with this NDP government should not in fact fear reprisals from the NDP.

"Now there's a question worth answering."

The editorial from the Toronto Star, November 25, 1992:

"Police will only determine whether criminal charges -- obstruction of justice or breach of trust and privacy -- should be laid. It's up to Rae to answer the political questions surrounding Piper's dirty tricks.

"Opposition MPPs want a legislative committee to probe the matter. That's a reasonable proposition, if Rae continues to hide behind the OPP investigation."

Robert Sheppard, the Globe and Mail, November 24, 1992:

"From Shelley Martel to John Piper it has been a straight line. The NDP has become a government of us against them. In recent months, perhaps even because of this perception, the list of those on the "them" side -- doctors, police, civil servants, small business owners, environmentalists, Ontario Hydro employees, educators -- has grown like topsy.

"For the government the cumulative effect of these resignations is bad in itself. If nothing else, it puts into question the competence of an administration that can't even organize a politically correct smear campaign. But the real problem, the real cancer will occur if the public starts to believe the government has a hit list, that it is prepared to lash back -- using a full range of public resources -- even at individuals."

Sally Barnes, Toronto Sun, November 30, 1992:

"The Even More Dumb Judgement Award goes to those senior government officials who let Piper engage in late Sunday night housecleaning duties in his office just hours before the police investigation began. Thanks to them, what began as a dirty tricks campaign has now become a coverup to boot. What a bunch of winners."

Jim Coyle, the Ottawa Citizen, November 28, 1992:

"No one would say the Premier is personally corrupt, but he's guilty of failure of leadership in not making clear what is acceptable conduct in his government.

"There's also a body of evidence he owns a large blind spot when it comes to the tawdrier elements of human nature. There's every sign he is being poorly served by his people.

"The Premier's assurances, therefore, that he's satisfied Piper acted alone is insufficient. A legislative inquiry is a fair request."

The editorial in the Hamilton Spectator, November 26, 1992; I read this because it isn't just this side of the House, it's everywhere:

"It is becoming frighteningly evident that choosing the New Democratic Party to run the Ontario government was the equivalent of giving an inexperienced teenager the keys to the family car and a bottle of whisky. Something was going to be wrecked and someone was going to be hurt.

"The John Piper affair is but the latest in a series of mistakes by either NDP staff or politicians who give the appearance of being drunk with power.

"Make no mistake, there are consequences for the people of Ontario when they have a government that has had five cabinet resignations alone in two years since the NDP came to power. This is a government that is forced to spend much of its time defending itself against the indefensible while the province's economy teeters on the edge and many of its people yearn for effective leadership."

The editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, November 24:

"Firing Piper is only part of Rae's responsibility. He's also got to do something about the increasingly cynical mindset in his office."

The Brantford Expositor, November 20, 1992:

"The succession of embarrassments may give some fleeting satisfaction to some of these opponents, but most citizens will feel no such inner glow. This, after all, is the government that is supposed to represent the people of Ontario. Its bumbles and stumbles reflects on the province itself."

1540

The Windsor Star editorial, November 19:

"Rae's big mistake was taking new, raw talent and plunking it into powerful positions without the benefit of intensive training in the fine art of government etiquette. The fact so many cabinet ministers haven't been able to learn from the mistakes of their colleagues -- the fact that they can't seem to instinctively understand right from wrong -- speaks to a much more fundamental crisis of conscience. And that, of course, challenges Rae's judgement again and again."

Finally, Thomas Walkom, November 16, 1992:

"The common thread through all of this seems to have little to do with Rae's stated principles of fairness and ministerial propriety. It seems to have a lot to do with what appears in newspaper headlines, what gets on the television news."

That is but a sampling, just a sampling of the reporting that's taking place in this province. As a government, you constantly refer every responsibility, every action on to another level, somebody else. In my opinion, the fundamental flaw with this government that has caused this motion of non-confidence to come forward is its complete inability and lack of sensibility to accept responsibility. You are incapable of accepting responsibility. Your Premier is incapable of accepting responsibility. I look at the cabinet ministers. You're incapable of accepting responsibility. The responsibility for the Martel affair, the Piper affair and all the other affairs that have taken place in the past rests squarely on this cabinet and this Premier's shoulders.

In closing, there were two very serious mistakes you made -- I'll itemize them for you -- two very serious flaws that have caused the rest to happen. The first flaw was kicking Mr Kormos out of cabinet because he had his picture in the newspaper. That was your first mistake, because you created a level of expectance of your ministers that cannot be graded.

I dare anyone across the floor to stand up and tell me that what Mr Kormos did by posing as a fully clothed Sunshine Boy was worse than what Shelley Martel did. I dare you to answer that. I dare you to say it was. That was your first mistake.

The second very serious flaw --

Mr David Winninger (London South): Is listening to you speak today.

Mr Stockwell: Well, that's a sad commentary from the member for London South. Listening to me speak today? I didn't speak; I read editorials about the people in this province. You're a sad commentary about this government. The best retort you have is listening to someone who's making very serious charges against your government and your inability to handle the public concerns.

Mr Winninger: It's not serious; it's tragicomedy.

Mr Stockwell: "It's not serious; it's tragicomedy." The member for London South sits in his place and accepts the fact that Mr Carl Masters and the concerns that took place with respect to sexual harassment are now being covered up by the Premier and his ministers. You accept that fact as a member of your party. You should be ashamed of yourself.

In closing, the second-most important issue this government faced down and squarely lost on was Shelley Martel, which you completely mishandled. If any member across there feels in his mind that Shelley Martel should be in cabinet, then he has a fundamental flaw in his ability to measure the way cabinet ministers and premiers are expected to act.

Finally, if it is your opinion that Shelley Martel should still be in cabinet after taking a lie detector test to prove she lied when she said she was telling the truth, then I think this sorry lot of you are in the hopeless category and will never recover from it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise to participate in this debate of the nonconfidence motion. I've read the actual motion. It makes reference to creating cynicism in the public. I want to say that this resolution creates cynicism. The people of Ontario want us to spend the time debating the real issues that are of concern to them, the economic issues.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that, yes, on some of these incidents I've had a couple of calls into my office, but I want to tell you, the people I talk to are concerned about the economy and want us to talk about economic issues.

Let me just say in relationship to the motion itself that the Premier has quite clearly said, "Yes, we admit; mistakes have been made." Everyone accepts that fact. Okay? We accept that. We have admitted that those mistakes have been made, and action has been taken, and it is time to go forward.

You know, the opposition has been trying to portray this government as not having its act together on all kinds of issues. Mr Speaker, I want to tell you quite clearly that on the issues of most importance to the people -- the economic issues, managing government expenditures, managing the changes in the economy to make this province stronger in the future -- this government does have its act together, and I want to elaborate on how that's happening.

Last week we had a debate in this House on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board was first proposed in the Premier's Council on skills development, set up by the previous government. I think most people endorsed the recommendations out of that.

Last week this critic for the opposition said: "No, we don't accept the OTAB model. We want to spend some more time trying to figure out some other model." It was their government that set up the system that developed it, that endorsed it.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, please, don't let him say that. That's a pack of untruths.

Mr Sutherland: So what are we doing? We're acting. We're actually implementing training and adjustment.

Mr Stockwell: That is so far from the truth. Why are you saying that?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Sutherland: We are the ones who are implementing a training and adjustment program in this province -- long, long overdue. The successful economies of the world have much more effective training and adjustment programs already in place, and they can respond much quicker to the types of changes that are going on in our economy right now -- leadership, looking after the economic issues, issues of concern.

This government has made a commitment in all kinds of areas to try to do job creation through our Jobs Ontario Capital program, Jobs Ontario Homes program, putting people back to work. That's what people are very concerned about.

We've also tried to show leadership in supporting those industries in new technologies, in green industries, the new industries that are going to create the jobs in the future. Those are the types of issues.

I also want to talk about management, because there seems to be some sense that somehow, as an NDP government, we can't manage issues. I want to say, the type of management this government has demonstrated in the last two years is the type of management that should have been going on for the last 20 years.

Did the opposition parties, when they were in power, know how to effectively manage spending? No. Which was the government, in the most difficult economic time, that has been able to control spending increases with a minimal amount of layoffs, and in which sector? The health sector. Under the leadership of the Minister of Health and the guidance her office has been able to provide, we have been able to get a handle on increases in health care expenditures with a minimum amount of layoffs. We never saw the opposition parties do that when they were in government.

That type of management and leadership going on in that ministry is going on in many other ministries, and what it will do are two things. It is going to make this province stronger. It is going to preserve the essential services the people of this province expect and want and are willing to pay for. It's going to mean they're going to be delivered in a more effective manner. It also means that in the long run this province is going to become more competitive once again.

Let's be quite clear. Everyone realizes we're in a very difficult situation. This is the worst recession since the 1930s. Okay? We've had to face challenges no other government has had to face. The free trade agreement, whether you support it or are against it, quite clearly has impacted this province more severely than any other province. It has caused a great deal of job losses and layoffs, no doubt about that. People said there'd be adjustment. Adjustment is going on, and I say it doesn't matter whether you support it or are against it; you can't ignore those realities. You can't ignore the realities that in 1991 over 250,000 people in this province exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.

1550

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Bruce on a point of order.

Mr Elston: I would ask you to check for a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: I recognize the honourable member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: As I was saying, this government came into power at a very difficult time. We've had to try to manage through the most difficult recession. The demand on services and the resources of this government has grown tremendously at a time when our revenues have declined. That is a difficult challenge. It takes a change in focus. It takes leadership. It takes a commitment to change. But it also takes a commitment to do that change in a fair manner, to try and do things as they haven't been done. This government has made a commitment to ensure that all parties are involved in the decision-making of the restructuring that has to go on in the delivery of our public services and in the delivery of other types of services throughout this province. That's leadership. That's management. That's demonstrating that the government does have its act together and that it can provide the leadership to take this province into the future.

As I say, the people who come into my office on a consistent basis are concerned about economic issues. They're concerned. They're the people who have been working in a factory for 15 or 20 years and that plant has shut down and they need training and they need retraining programs. Yet we don't have a comprehensive system of training in this province. Why haven't we had that in the past? Have we had the effective management that the opposition claims was provided when they were in government? I don't think so. This government is trying to provide the leadership to manage serious restructuring in the way our economy and the way our government have to operate going into the next five to 10 years.

As I have mentioned, in training, in health and in all kinds of other areas, we are providing that direction, that leadership and that guidance. This government has its act together. It is showing how to carry on a restructuring in an effective way that involves the people and that challenges people to use their creative talents, their resourcefulness and their innovative abilities and is inclusive and involves people. That's true leadership in managing government, and we are going to continue to do that in the next two years.

Let me be quite clear that when the next election comes around, the people of this province are going to judge us on our ability to manage the government and to prove to them that we have dealt with the issues that are of most concern to them: the economic issues and the restructuring. I believe we are going to be successful in convincing the people of Ontario that we have done a very good job in very difficult times.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to participate in the debate on the want of confidence motion put forward by my colleague the member for Bruce. It saddens me that we've got to move this lack of confidence in this government, a government that is founded in scandals, resignations and wanton disregard for conflict of interest. This has been demonstrated by cabinet minister after cabinet minister and indeed by the Premier.

The latest in what is becoming a long line of Rae government scandals, which involved Mr Piper of the Premier's office, was a particularly shattering blow to my confidence and the confidence of many Ontarians: a shattering blow to my confidence because the NDP has proven it has not got the ability to govern. This high-profile member of the Premier's inner circle wilfully and with unbelievable malice attempted to discredit a woman's reputation. His only motive in so doing, as incredible as that seems, was to try to rehabilitate the discredited reputation of one of the former members of the NDP cabinet.

The woman who was victimized by this vicious act is a private citizen of this province, a private citizen who dared to come forward with allegations against a former cabinet minister.

Every person's right in this province to disagree is called into question by the actions of this Premier and his government. How can someone who relies on this NDP government for funding, for licensing, for his or her paycheque, for legislation or whatever, stand up and blow the whistle against abuse when he or she knows that whenever people have done this in the past two years, the NDP retribution follows quickly and severely?

The victims of Grandview with whom I have communicated often over the past several months have become more and more frustrated as time goes by. They're experiencing systematic shutout and stonewalling at the hands of this NDP government.

In 1991 these survivors of violence found the courage to come forward and report the kind of horrific experience which they personally endured as children. They have demonstrated their perseverance in the pursuit of justice again and again, and even came to Queen's Park to bring that message. They have made their painful experiences public in order to prevent other children from experiencing the same kind of nightmare they did.

While the survivors are awaiting the outcome of the police investigation, the NDP government has forced them to continue to go hat-in-hand for the most basic funding to the survivors' support group, a group that the women started in order to provide crucial reinforcement, one to the other.

The survivors are the only people in this province who really understand each other's suffering, who really understand the burdens they have shared and carried for 20 years.

Even the Minister of Community and Social Services has recently been quoted as saying that the provision of financial support does seem to be taking an inordinate length of time, and I certainly agree with the minister.

On June 15 the Solicitor General told me he was hopeful and encouraged that all of the information will come out when the investigations are complete. I would tell the Solicitor General, if he were here today, that his hopefulness doesn't mean a thing to those victims who have been waiting for some action from this government for so long.

On October 22 of this year I presented a private member's resolution calling on the government to immediately take action to see that the needs of the victims were being met to help them deal with their abuse and the devastating effect this tragedy has had on their lives.

This resolution received unanimous, all-party support in this chamber, yet well over a month later nothing has changed; not one thing. In fact, October 22 turned out to be a very sad day for the survivors of Grandview, because on that day we found that the Attorney General had applied for a judicial review to stop the Freedom of Information Commissioner from releasing a heavily edited report that was on the 1976 Grandview report, a report that many, many people in this province know will confirm the allegations of the survivors.

I doubt that Judi Harris has much faith in this government's words or, in fact, in the judicial system. I doubt that the survivors of Grandview, after the deplorable conduct of the Premier's office and the government he represents, can possibly believe that they will ever receive any form of justice at the hands of a system that abused them 20 years ago and goes right on abusing them and their rights day after day.

1600

On November 20 Pipergate occurred. The Premier said that he found the behaviour of his good friend and key adviser frankly appalling and called for a police investigation into the circumstances surrounding this disgraceful matter. Since then we've heard more and more about late-night clandestine removal of several boxes of what were allegedly personal effects by Mr Piper and other senior members of the Premier's personal staff from Mr Piper's office.

I am unfortunately compelled to use the word "allegedly," because there was no person present who did not have a direct personal interest in protecting the Premier, Bob Rae --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mrs O'Neill: There wasn't a member of the OPP, which was supposed to be investigating this chaos, to ensure that what was taken away in the boxes or what was erased from computers in fact did not have a bearing on the case investigation.

How will any of us ever know what was shredded or erased on that Sunday and Sunday evening. During repeated questioning on the issue of how such unethical practices could have occurred in the Premier's office, the Premier repeatedly responded, "As soon as anyone found out about it, Mr Piper resigned."

This phrase repeated over and over by the Premier gets at the very, very crux of the deep concerns we have about the conduct of this Office of the Premier and his ability to manage that office, the very centre and core of decision-making in the political life of this province.

It was only because somebody found out about the behaviour of Mr Piper that he had to resign. The Premier said, "As soon as anyone found out about it, Mr Piper resigned." Even after his resignation, Mr Piper insisted he had done nothing wrong and went on television to tell Ontario so.

We all have a right and a duty to judge the actions of this government. The Premier's assertions in November 1990 in the speech from the throne -- I'm sure he doesn't want me to repeat them, but I'm going to: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist." I hope that includes the Premier's office.

These words ring out today two years after they were first spoken as the most hollow of all platitudes this province has ever heard. "Rhetoric" is too kind a word to use. These words, as every Ontarian knows, have been rendered meaningless by the almost daily list of embarrassments, scandals, resignations and coverups of this government, stonewalling, silence.

The people of Ontario deserve better. They deserve much better from their Premier and his cabinet. There are people in this province with real needs and they come to me like they come to the member for Oxford. There are people who are suffering pain; they must be comforted. Those abused must be assured that the justice system fully supports their attempts to heal the deep and enduring scars some of them suffered from childhood.

They deserve, the people of Ontario, to face their futures with hopefulness and in the faith that the system that failed them once so seriously, in the case of the Grandview survivors, in the end can rectify that fault and restore their faith in Ontario. I sadly state, I do not think that is possible with this NDP government in 1992.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): It's a pleasure to join in this debate in support of the want of confidence motion of the official opposition. The motion makes reference to "integrity in government" and "conduct of ministers" being the centrepiece of an NDP administration supposedly. References have been made to the NDP government's first speech from the throne and the holier-than-thou rhetoric that was involved in that speech, and some of the things that have occurred in the last two-plus years with respect to the government and the complete and utter failure of the NDP to live up to the assurances that were given to the people of this province, not only in the speech from the throne but through a variety of positions taken by the NDP throughout its years in opposition.

I think we talked specifically in this motion, or at least the official opposition has, about ministers and parliamentary assistants and went into some detail in respect to those. But I think another area that perhaps hasn't been touched on but should be touched on briefly in any event today is the question of Mr Carlton Masters and what's transpired in respect to that individual and the fact that there were a number of charges of sexual harassment.

He was a personal selection of Premier Rae to represent this province in the United States, in effect in control of all of the agent general's offices throughout the United States, in effort trying to present a good and glowing picture of the province of Ontario and to attract new investment dollars to this province. Instead, within a few short months in that role, he had allegations, not just one, surfacing from I gather both the New York office of Ontario House and the Boston office.

As we know, what transpired following those allegations becoming public was that Mr Masters removed himself from office and was paid while an investigation was conducted. Now that he has announced his resignation, there's no indication of whether indeed he was responsible for sexual harassment or if he was innocent. There's certainly a cloud over the individual's head, but I think there's an even more serious cloud over this government when we start talking about integrity in government and not just conduct of ministers, but conduct of the appointees of this government.

This individual was a close personal friend, like Mr Piper, of the Premier and someone that he put his confidence in. Now we see what has occurred. I think it draws into question a bigger question about the Premier himself. He not only selected Mr Piper for very responsible roles, but he also selected Mr Masters, and now I think that they're engaged, as my leader asserted, in a coverup of exactly what transpired here.

We're talking about public dollars not only for the payment of Mr Masters, his accommodation, the schooling of his children etc, which goes into hundreds of thousands of dollars, but also the official investigation that was launched as a result of the allegations. We have no reporting mechanism available to us now as to whether those dollars were spent wisely or not or whether indeed Mr Masters was responsible. Most thinking Ontarians have to conclude that indeed there was some substance to those allegations; otherwise they'd be strongly rejected publicly.

I want to talk a bit about the Piper matter as well, because I think that this matter could become the Achilles' heel of this government, the Achilles' heel of the Premier. I think this whole exercise, especially the effort to come into Mr Piper's office only a few hours prior to the official police investigation getting under way, is a serious matter indeed, and I think it was done with the basic premise of "Let's save Bob Rae's neck at any cost."

I think even the good people sitting in the back benches of the government, when they reflect upon this, cannot really come up with any clear, solid justification for why this individual had to get in there under the wire.

There's another element of this which hasn't been raised at this juncture. There was a very serious breach of security of this place, this building, which falls within the responsibilities of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. He's responsible for this building and certain other buildings in the neighbourhood. It's a security practice in this place, and certainly the Premier and the Premier's office should be much aware of this, that when anyone resigns under a cloud like this or is fired, what have you, permission for any access to this building must be secured from the Speaker's office.

In this case, that request was never made, we understand, to the Speaker's office. Indeed, there was a clear breach of security practices of this place that have been in effect for some time and certainly have been followed by senior officers of the government in the past.

1610

Another matter which hasn't come to light, but I will certainly want to make reference to it in respect to Mr Piper, is the fact that Mr Piper and the Premier's principal secretary -- I believe her name is Melody Morrison -- when they signed in the log on Sunday night, they did not sign in to Mr Piper's office; they signed in to Ms Morrison's office.

Again, I think there was a clear intent to try and cover up tracks here. They were doing the best they could, not suspecting that anyone was even going to be aware of their entry into the building late Sunday night, but if indeed there was some sort of a review of the log, that no suspicion would be raised because in fact the entry into the log indicates that they were signing in to Ms Morrison's office and not Mr Piper's office, which was clearly the intent: to get in there and remove files.

I think, as I said, this whole Piper matter is much more serious, and obviously we have to wait and see what the outcome of this investigation is, but I think it's much broader than dealing with the problems of the member for Kitchener, Mr Ferguson, in trying to clean up his problems and perhaps make him presentable for future re-entry into the cabinet.

I think it's much broader than that. I think we're talking about a series of undertakings on the part of Mr Piper, dealings with this government and trying to resolve difficult situations, and some of the activities undertaken by Mr Piper would certainly not be described as aboveboard. I think that's indicated by what we know in respect of his activities on behalf of Mr Ferguson. But I think they're much broader than that and I think that's why it was so critical for Mr Piper and the Premier's own principal secretary to come into this building just under the wire to get out files from that office and at the same time breach long-time standing matters of security about this building.

I think there is a clear question to raise to the Speaker here as well which I will pose and hopefully, Speaker, you will relay this to the Speaker's office. In respect to this breach of security, the Speaker's office had Mr Piper's office sealed on Monday morning. That's my understanding of what occurred. I'd like to know why, since there was some announcement publicly -- Mr Piper's resignation and the police investigation being launched on Friday -- the Speaker himself did not move immediately to seal off Piper's office. It was left accessible, if you will, over the course of the weekend.

It draws into question the whole matter of the Speaker's neutrality, the neutrality of the Speaker's office, and that may be unfortunate, Mr Speaker. I'm not trying to cast aspersions on you or anyone else in that office, but I think the question is there: We have standing security practices in this place, they were violated and I think it's incumbent upon the Speaker and the Speaker's office to respond to this Legislature, this assembly, and advise us indeed of what occurred in respect to the sealing of Mr Piper's office and why it did not occur on the Friday when the police investigation was officially announced. Why was the sealing off delayed until Monday, after Mr Piper and the Premier's principal secretary had an opportunity to get into that office in the evening hours of Sunday night?

I think those are very important questions, certainly ones that the Premier has to answer, I believe, and at some point he's going to have to. I hope indeed this whole matter of Mr Piper's activities can be broadened because, as I said, this touches directly on the Premier.

I mentioned his appointment of a friend, Carlton Masters, who has now resigned under a cloud, his appointment of another personal friend, Mr Piper, and when I raised questions about Mr Piper, I think it was earlier this week or last week, the Premier acted as though he was taking great offence to the fact that I would question him on a matter like this. He's known me for some 10 years, he has a cottage in my riding and we know each other well. I guess I understand where he's coming from, but the reality is that the buck stops somewhere.

In cases like this it has to stop personally on the desk of the Premier, especially in those two cases I've just mentioned. These are personal appointments, personal selections by Mr Rae, personal friends of Mr Rae, people he apparently knew for many years and had some confidence in, in terms of their own integrity and honesty in dealing not only with government but with the public at large. I think he has to accept complete and utter responsibility for those appointments. He can't simply slough them off, and that's what he's been attempting to do up to this point in time.

I want to say, in response to his being offended about my concerns and my suspicions, if you will, that over the 12 years that I've been in this place, power does indeed do strange things to people. People do change once they assume the mantle of power and authority and become dedicated not necessarily to doing good things for the people of this province, but to retaining power at any cost, even if that means smearing private citizens of this province.

We can smile and we can joke about that, but we're talking about a very close adviser to the Premier, a personal friend, someone at deputy minister rank, whom we know attempted to smear a private citizen of this province. We know that happened, and I'm suggesting that Mr Piper's activities were much more widespread than that particular incident that came to public light. Hopefully, a police investigation of this matter is going to explore a whole host of areas and will have some way of recovering either the computer documentation or written documentation and files that Mr Piper and the Premier's principal secretary spirited out of here under cover of darkness.

It's clear, if we just take a look at the list of things that have occurred in the short two-plus years it has been in office, that this government really has no moral compass. I want to say that's unfortunate. I know there are some good people sitting on the back benches of the government who are being kept quiet, or for whatever reasons -- I don't know whether it's advancement opportunities or what have you -- are not getting up on their feet and expressing concern, with a few exceptions, Mr Speaker: yourself on at least one issue.

I'm not saying that simply as an opposition member. I've been on the government back benches. I've been in the cabinet. I spoke out as a government backbencher on the Suncor matter, under the Davis government. I'm encouraging all of you to consider these matters, because they are serious. I know the member for Welland-Thorold doesn't have a high ranking in the caucus at the moment, but I think some of the things he said recently are dead on. He's quoted in an article recently from the Globe and Mail:

"Mr Kormos says the government is ignoring caucus backbenchers and party members in the development of policy. In opposition, the NDP prided itself on creating policy democratically. But in government, important decisions are made by Mr Rae and two or three close advisers."

Well, a similar sort of thing occurred with Premier Davis in my respect. He may have had a wider circle of close advisers, but certainly he did not, for any great part, in my view, bring into his confidence backbenchers of the government. Some of us tried to do something about it, and I know it can be a frustrating experience. But I've been there and I don't think that over the long haul you're going to regret it.

You'll be much more respected for taking stands on principle, issues that you and your party have stood for for many, many years. Now you see this deterioration in terms of integrity, in terms of the conduct of your own government and your own officials. It is time that many of you started to stand up and let your own government, your own Premier, know that this is totally, totally unacceptable.

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

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to participate in this debate. It's an interesting motion. It throws around words like "integrity," "conduct of ministers," and then "public trust," and eventually ends up with the fact that the House doesn't have confidence in this government.

I realize that the role of the opposition is to raise such matters of confidence from time to time, and I know it's traditional and democratic to have such motions debated here in this House. However, at this particular point in time, I believe this motion really doesn't contribute much to the wellbeing of the economy of the province of Ontario or do anything for the people of Ontario at all. It's simply an attempt to take a swipe at the government and particularly at the cabinet, and is not very constructive in terms of its criticism or in terms of confidence.

The government has worked hard at trying to do with less money what the previous governments weren't able to do with a lot of money. If we go back to the previous administration, in the mid-1980s up to 1985, 1986, 1987, their revenues were increasing about 10% per year, year over year. They were spending money as it came in and didn't put any away for the rainy days we now face. We face some very difficult times. I think everyone accepts that. But we have been working hard to try to do the best we can under these tough circumstances.

I would like to outline some of the things we have done, because I believe that when it comes to the confidence the people of Ontario will have in this government, it will be based on our actions and what we are able to do to help people through programs and through new initiatives, and I think it's appropriate.

1620

I'm going to confine my remarks primarily to my own responsibilities in Agriculture and Food. Within a month of being sworn in, we had a review committee set up which went out across Ontario to ask the farmers of this province what the biggest problems they faced were, and the primary problem they identified was finances, high interest rates. Within a year, by March 1991, we were able to have a report issued which made several recommendations -- eight, in fact -- and as of this date, all of those recommendations have been implemented.

At the same time, we have worked to establish long-term programs, as opposed to short-term initiatives, which have traditionally been what governments will use, not only in agriculture but in other support programs. They tend to use very quick, ad hoc programs and make the announcement and the cheques hopefully flow, and then that's the end of that program.

We have tried in Agriculture and Food to initiate long-term programs, which we have done with our ag investment strategy. In fact, we were able to put $120 million into the agriculture and food sector over five years, which is targeted at long-term interest programs; things like the commodity loan program, which allows farmers to borrow in the spring against their crop insurance, and the GRIP program to provide money for planting in the spring.

In May 1991, we also were able to put $15 million into food industry financial assistance to help the food industry. The food processing industry has been under severe threat from the free trade agreement that we've experienced. We've also put money into research, which we think is important for the success and the future of agriculture and the food industry here in Ontario. In May 1991, we were able to put $5 million into that fund to provide for research.

We've also participated with the federal government in safety-net programs, which are long-term programs. The gross revenue insurance plan, known as GRIP, for grains and oilseed producers, we initiated and participated in in February 1991, and by May 1991, we also participated in net income stabilization account, known as NISA, again to help grains and oilseeds and horticulture producers.

This is an example of our participation with the federal government and with the various producer groups to develop programs that are in their interest and provide them with some sense of security in the future.

We also put special money into a cooperative known as the Central Erie Cooperative packing and marketing project, $200,000 to help those dealers work together to market their produce and get a decent return.

Back in the summer and fall of 1991, some people will recall we had an emergency out in the farm community, and we responded to that emergency before the federal government did with $35.5 million to provide assistance in the short term, because the safety net programs were not yet in place, and we do respond when there's a special need.

We've also had a tradition of working with the farm and food groups in the province. A little over a year ago, we thought there was going to be a conclusion of the GATT talks. Instead of going off to GATT with my own staff and officials, we invited six different farm leaders to go with us to Geneva to meet with other countries to make our case in order to maintain supply management, because we believe it's important to work with the leadership in the farm and the food industry in order to achieve our goals.

The five-part agricultural investment strategy I mentioned we announced in April is going to provide long-term programs. It's going to provide for private mortgages to work with the private sector to provide some of the capital that's needed to finance agriculture. We're also putting money into an agricultural education and expertise program which is going to help credit unions and other financial institutions provide the money that's necessary for agriculture. We have an apprenticeship program which is coming on stream very shortly which will allow people to get into farming.

Finally, we have a rural loan pool which is, I think, one of the most exciting ideas that we've brought in so far, which is going to allow local communities to put money into a local institution to be targeted for investment in agriculture.

Another example of the way this government has been able to work with the agricultural sector is in labour relations. I can recall when the Minister of Labour first announced that the exemption for agriculture was going to be withdrawn under the new labour legislation. I have to admit to you that I had some reservations and some nervousness.

But the farm community sat down with a task force which consisted of labour, some government representatives and the farm groups. They sat down and came up with a task force report back in June, with a number of recommendations. They were unanimous. They were willing to work with the government rather than just being opposed to everything the government was suggesting.

The Minister of Labour and I accepted that task force's recommendations and asked it to come back with more specifics. That report has been completed and was brought back a month or so ago. The Ministry of Labour has now, I understand, drafted legislation based entirely on the recommendations of that task force. I think it's a tribute to the Minister of Labour, who has certainly proved to the agricultural and food leaders in this province that we can work together to come up with a unanimous report and, ultimately, legislation that everyone can support. I'm very pleased with the sector I represent in that sense.

Another example of working with groups is the feeder cattle loan guarantee program. It was a pilot project that we participated in with the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Bankers Association. Again, it's a partnership, if you will, working with those organizations to provide loan guarantees for cattlemen so that they can buy cattle up front and have money at reasonable rates.

Another example: Just recently, back on December 1 and 2, we had a Vision 20/20 conference, which was a conference we hosted of all the people in the food chain from the consumer to the processor, the retailers, the Ontario Restaurant Association and right down to the farm leaders and the farmers themselves. They all came together and worked at looking at what the problems of the current situation are and started to focus on the future.

We started to build a vision of what Agriculture and Food should look like in the rest of this decade and on into the first two decades of the next century. For me, it's a real pleasure to be able to work with all these people coming to the table, talking to each other, expressing their concerns and then working out solutions to their problems and having a vision for the future. It certainly makes me very proud to be able to work with these people, to sit down with such a diverse group, consumers and farmers and restaurateurs, to talk about common problems.

If all of us in all the different segments and sectors of government, including the partisanship that we experience from time to time, could work together rather than spend time this afternoon focusing on this particular motion, which simply attempts to take a shot at some of the cabinet ministers who have perhaps made a mistake -- many of them in that situation have admitted that and gone on -- I think it would be a better place if we could focus on the positive.

I don't mind having a debate on the issues that are important, the economic issues in terms of job creation and so on. These are the important issues. I would hope that in future these kinds of motions could focus on something of some substance that would be beneficial to the people of Ontario.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): In the five minutes that I've been allocated to address this matter, I will try not only to respond to what I consider to be shocking comments just made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but I want also to address the necessity and the need for a debate in this chamber on ethics and standards in government.

I can't believe that a cabinet minister in the government of Ontario or any government in this country would consider ethics and standards in government an issue that should not be of the highest priority. I find that shocking. For the Minister of Agriculture and Food to stand in his place and try to tell the members of this assembly and the people of this province who are watching that it doesn't matter at all whether you have men and women in government who believe in certain standards and ethics is one of the reasons why the present government finds itself in the position it's in today.

1630

We did not cause the problems facing the present government. They did it all themselves. And I want to remind my friends and colleagues across the floor that the men and women who ran for the New Democratic Party in the summer of 1990, hoping to be elected as a government, said to the people of the province that the standards that existed were not, in their view, proper, right or at the level the people of this province expected and that all other matters flowed from those ethics and standards. And it was your leader, Bob Rae, who sat just a few seats from where I'm sitting today, who over the course of a decade made ethics and standards in government the centrepiece of the New Democratic Party.

So I am offended to hear one of Bob Rae's appointees in the cabinet rise in the Legislature today to lecture the members of the opposition and to inform his own colleagues that ethics and standards in government really are a waste of time and that the opposition motion is a waste of time, because who needs ethics and who needs standards in government.

I say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food that it is you and your colleagues, more than anyone else in this country, who are in need of ethics and standards in government. By your own actions, by your own words and by your own deeds, you have proved that you as a group are in need of ethics and standards by which the Legislature and the people of this province can judge you.

Because of the limited number of minutes we've been allocated, I want to focus on two particular incidents I believe are a danger, in fact, to democracy.

We sat here stunned when we found out that the Premier's personal friend, a hand-picked deputy minister, working right out of the Premier's office, was engaged in a dirty tricks campaign to smear a citizen of this province who had made serious allegations against a former minister of the government some many years in a different capacity. We were stunned that the Premier's hand-picked deputy minister could run a smear campaign, a dirty tricks campaign, right out of the Premier's office.

And we hear from the Minister of Agriculture, "Oh, these matters aren't important." The whole scandalous activity around John Piper has not been properly handled. It has been covered up by the government, in the same way it's covering up the Carlton Masters affair, the same way it tried to cover up the problems the former Solicitor General had in the fixing of parking tickets. If I was the Minister of Agriculture, after having admitted he didn't read a piece of legislation he introduced, I'd be quite careful about anything I'd say.

I want to say that we are not going to lower our standards here because you don't want to have standards. One of our responsibilities is to ensure that there is a decent set of standards by which all of us can be judged. You may not want a decent set of standards, but we're going to ensure that you at least try to live up to some.

My time's expired, I'm sorry to say, but we'll have more opportunity. We'll have another opportunity to discuss this matter here in the Legislature and elsewhere.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Who would have ever thought that two years into the New Democrat government's tenure we would be debating a motion as powerful as this, which is really calling upon this government to resign? I don't think there is any doubt that I am ready for an election and the people on this side of the House are ready to let the public once again voice their views on this government.

Non-confidence comes through an abuse of trust. You look at one cabinet minister, Shelley Martel, having to go and take a lie detector test to prove that she lied; you get Evelyn Gigantes, Minister of Health, giving the name of a patient; you get Mr Farnan coming along and backing away from the involvement with what his riding office does in his name -- there are many scandals around cabinet ministers; you get Mr Piper, who is close to the Premier and is initiating scandal right out of the Premier's office, under the Premier's eyes.

You're judged by the company you keep. I have to say that Premier Bob Rae has to be judged by the very fact that things are going on around him by the people he has trusted, most recently now with the agent general in New York, Mr Masters, resigning, and not really coming out and giving us the details on what happened and why.

I fault the government on its mismanagement of the economy, not coming clean in the early stages of understanding the effects of a recession and how a government could begin to trim its costs, control its costs and set an example. Now, late into the recession, when we're having a $10-billion deficit blossoming to $14 billion or $16 billion, we're seeing an economy struggling to just somehow get through the tough days that we're in and this government still not addressing the concerns of business and the grass roots that are out there.

Talking about a government that has failed to be as open as it said it would: When in opposition you couldn't find anyone more sanctimonious than the then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Rae. Now that he is Premier he has forgotten that sense of openness he was so anxious to obtain when he was in opposition.

The most offensive thing that has happened to me in the last month -- and I'm going to get into something else in a minute that's offended me more -- has to do with a rally of 4,000 people, largely developmentally handicapped, from sheltered workshops, where their workshops are being closed down because this government is withholding funds for these people who are so dependent on the rest of society for their welfare and their jobs. This government, which pretends to have a social conscience, has withdrawn the money for them in future days. What a terrible turnaround that is. The one party that claimed to have a social conscience is the one that's imposing upon those people in our society who depend on the rest of us to look after them and to care for them. I find that as offensive as anything. We all have our values, but that is a breach of the most fundamental value in our society: to care for those people who need to be cared for.

I worry about a government that has had so many flip-flops and how it can rationalize, on one hand, before it was elected, coming out with a strong statement on auto insurance, when Mr Kormos eloquently talked for days on end about what he would do with auto insurance, and this government's reversed that one.

This government had a position that Sunday was a special day of rest, that it was a quiet day, and it has reversed that position on Sunday shopping.

This government had a view on gambling and is now introducing its first of a series of gambling houses in Windsor. Chris Stockwell, the member for Etobicoke West, described it the best of anyone when he talked about how a month ago the Minister of Municipal Affairs came into the House to announce market value assessment for Metropolitan Toronto, how it had to happen. Then our party was influential in forcing public hearings and then, through the public hearings, you now have the government reversing that position.

You start looking at the number of cabinet ministers who, prior to September 6, 1990, were opposed to market value assessment, and then to see them in this House come along and change their positions -- talk about flip-flopping. So as I look around and say, why would there be non-confidence in the government? There are these and many other points that begin to drive a wedge in the very trust that people would have had and once had for Bob Rae.

1640

I happen to represent the riding of Markham, a community just north of Metropolitan Toronto and a community, along with the communities in York, Durham and Peel, that has suffered one of the biggest problems with broken promises that this government could possibly have perpetrated on our communities.

Before Mr Rae was elected, he stood at the edge of the Keele Valley landfill site and said, "I would never allow this site to be expanded without there being a full environmental assessment." That was a promise he made. He said the same thing at Britannia in Peel. Then he said something different in Newcastle and Whitevale. When he went to those sites he said, "There will never be a landfill site in these communities without a full environmental assessment."

Talk about broken promises. The very man who at the time was Leader of the Opposition and who had called the Premier a liar went and said something before the election that has since not been the case. We're not allowed to use such terms in the Legislature, and I don't want to do it, but it's a broken promise by the Premier of the province of Ontario who before he was elected made statements that were clearly policy and positions of his party. Then when he takes office you start to see quite a different person coming forward, different words, different positions.

You also have his Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Ruth Grier. As an example of where she's flip-flopped with broken promises, in the early stages of 1991 she supported rail haul. In January she was supporting rail haul as a way of dealing with Metro's waste and then in April 1991 she revoked it. Then, on October 24, 1991, she brought in Bill 143.

Here is a government that has said one thing before it's elected and quite another when it's in power. If there is any reason why people in York, Durham and Peel are angry and feel violated, it has to do with the breach of trust and the broken promises of Mr Bob Rae, who is now Premier. On the basis of those positions before he was elected, people said, "I can trust him." I think there is still a residual sense of trust around the man, but when people in my communities and the communities I represent come to think about what he has done, the before and after pictures of the real Bob Rae, they are absolutely angry.

Here is the government that, when it started out, was going to be open and fair. Yet what does Madam Ruth Grier do as Minister of the Environment? She brings in Bill 143 and fast-tracks it. She wanted to have it passed by December 19 last year so that it could be out of the way at the very time when municipal councils are out to be re-elected, not having had a chance to react to it. It was a bill she wanted to have fast-tracked without consultation with the people. She wanted to do it so that the sites would not be released. You wouldn't know where the landfill sites that her new Interim Waste Authority was going to establish were going to be. That would come later.

This government stonewalled everybody on where those potential sites would be. It wasn't until after Bill 143 was passed that we saw the list of 57 sites selected by this government as possible landfill sites within the greater Toronto area. This is the minister who was going to be open and fair. Yet during the discussions of Bill 143 we could not get that minister to release the list of possible landfill sites that were going to be considered.

Then you come along and you have a minister who creates the Interim Waste Authority, which then becomes an arm's-distance relationship for her and the ministry. Therefore, this minister says that the decisions that surround the final resolution of where the landfill sites will be, because there will be one in York, Durham and Peel, are now up to them. She had Mr McIntyre heading it up as general manager and then, when the political heat began to build, she appointed Mr Pitman as the chairman of it. All the politics are supposedly being run by the Interim Waste Authority, and the Minister of the Environment steps aside to let it take the pressure and the heat.

Mr Winninger: I hate to tell you, but this is not an environmental issue.

Mr Cousens: If you want to say something in the House, why don't you stand up and speak, but stop carping and talking. I've got one of the most important things to say in this House. It has to do with your government and your failure to do the right things for the people of the province of Ontario. What you've done to my community and the people in York, Durham and Peel is totally unacceptable, and I don't think you have the right to speak unless you stand up and you have the floor.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Leave him alone.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I ask you and beseech you. I'll keep quiet when they're talking and I expect the same thing for me.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): He's got nothing to say.

Mr Cousens: I'm not in the mood for any fun today from any of you. We're dealing with the confidence of a government which has failed my community and failed the people of York, Durham and Peel. There is nothing funny about what's going on within our province right now. This is probably the single most important consideration of a resolution that we've had in this House, and I will not tolerate your interrupting and interspersing your dumb comments.

If the Speaker isn't going to do something about it -- I have to say, Mr Speaker, I beseech you, make the NDP behave and take the punishment they deserve. We're coming out with the facts today. If they've got something to defend themselves with, they'll have a chance when they can stand up and speak. I'd like to have some extra time because of their interruptions, but I won't get it because they've changed the rules.

I'm talking about Ruth Grier, the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Mahoney: Let's go to midnight.

Mr Cousens: It's hard to get your train of thought when you've got so many people trying to interrupt when they don't have anything to say.

I was trying to touch on the fact that the people of York, Durham and Peel have been violated by the government's way of implementing the decision-making process through the Interim Waste Authority. Ruth Grier, as minister, has set up this authority and is the single shareholder of the Interim Waste Authority. This was voted by the member for Durham West, the member for Durham York and the member for Durham East, three of them who live in Durham and York. Yet now they're coming on and saying, "Oh, we don't like what's happening in our areas." They voted in Bill 143 and this government voted it in.

This government has violated a trust. They've said that York region must take Metro's garbage. I will never accept that and the chairman of the region of York, Eldred King, is taking this bill and this government to court over Bill 143 and the way it invades and takes away personal rights of people. Bill 143 cuts off the rights of people in York region. Why should we have to take Metro's garbage? Why should we have to close the door to the possibility of rail haul just because this government decides on it? That's what I really want to touch on, the politics of garbage.

This government has said the politics will be looked after by the Interim Waste Authority so therefore the honourable Minister of the Environment, who never comes to the rallies, who has not visited the 57 sites -- Bob Rae has never come out to the rallies. He'll come out to other rallies, but he won't come out on this issue, so what happens is that our community is shut off from the real power-makers and the decision-makers and we're forced to deal with the Interim Waste Authority, which is just a technical head who is responsible to Ruth Grier and this government.

I'm telling you, Mr Speaker, this government cannot absolve itself from the political responsibility of the decision it made to set up the Interim Waste Authority, which is reporting to it. We in our community will certainly deal with the Interim Waste Authority on the technical background that is needed to be followed through, but there is going to be a continuing political battle on Ruth Grier and this government that tells this government, "We will not accept your decisions."

Your decisions as a government are political decisions, and not based on a full environmental assessment of the possibility of rail haul. They have not subjected rail haul to an EA, which would then allow it to be not a political decision but a decision based on scientific and technological consideration of things. Then we also suggest that the whole subject of incineration be subjected to a full environmental assessment, and let the technology be considered rather than make a political decision out of the Minister of the Environment's office.

Also, let's see the political decision this government made by saying Metro's garbage goes to York. Come on. This is political as long as you're going to make political decisions like that and as long as you make a political decision that says: "Only within York, Durham and Peel can you find a landfill site to service the needs of those areas plus Metro. You can't look across the boundary line of other areas." Talk about politics.

Then you talk about where they're locating them: on prime agricultural farm land in Caledon, Sutton and Whitevale. You're talking about land that is as ecologically sensitive as the Rouge Valley. You're talking about land that drains into Lake Simcoe. We're seeing the very issues that concern people who live in the greater Toronto area being sacrificed over this government's political decision that says, "We must have the dumps in York, Durham and Peel."

I know that there have to be dumps. I accept that there will be dumps, and I also accept the fact that the government's position on reducing the amount of garbage by 50% by the year 2000 is something every one of us has to work on.

I support the minister, Ruth Grier, on her whole 3Rs program; I do indeed, and strongly. We've got to work on both sides. But don't violate the trust of the people of the province of Ontario by saying Bill 143 must be the case. Nothing has taken away the rights of people more than Bill 143. I will never, ever accept that as anything else than a declaration of war, where this government has declared war on the people of York, Durham and Peel.

1650

I will fight you. I will fight with Greg Sorbara and Charles Beer and anyone else who will come along and go after this government for having failed, for having broken the promise, for having broken its commitment. I'll fight with anyone on this government, because if you want to know, you've kicked a hornet's nest. The people in our communities will not forgive this government for what it's doing to our land and our property and the things we hold dear.

This government has forgotten its promises. When it came to power, it immediately went to work to develop a strategy that is absolutely anathema. Then they come out now. What really has to be infuriating is when the Minister of the Environment, last week, when the member for Durham West raised a question -- he was pretty upset that I, Don Cousens, the member for Markham and critic for Environment, could get confidential documents from the government before he got them. Managing the Impacts of Landfill: A Commitment to Fair Compensation -- I have it right here. I released it first. I got it before the government members got it. Probably the best compliment I've had from Minister Ruth Grier is that she called my actions "irresponsible."

If I want to wear a badge of honour, it is just that. If I am seen ever as being one who's irresponsible for fighting for my community, fighting for what I believe in, fighting for what is true and honest, I will continue to fight that battle. I'll fight it over every one of you, come the next election. All I'm saying to the people of Ontario is, hang in till 1995, survive till '95, because we won't do it today, but you know the day is coming.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): We'll try to bring a little bit of focus back to this. It's really difficult, because I look at this want of confidence motion, and it talks about no confidence in this government because of people. I'm sorry; I'll take responsibility if the government makes a mistake. If the government makes a mistake, sure, we'll resign, you know, if it's worthwhile. We're talking about people here and people do make mistakes.

As far as I'm concerned, we have to have a little bit of forgiveness for these people, because we're human beings, and human beings make mistakes. I think the Premier's taken the right tack. In every case, he's taken these people into their offices and he's talked to them, and where it's warranted, he's called for an investigation. He's never abdicated his responsibility in any of these cases that are listed and some of the ones that aren't listed.

Now, one of our biggest battles down here -- the member for Etobicoke West started out this debate talking about the media. He spent his whole time talking about the media and some of the things that have been listed and some of these allegations and innuendoes. Basically, what you have to do is look at the media's perspective right now.

For a year and a half now, I've been sitting in committee, chairing the advocacy acts, trying to get them through. These are far-reaching bills that are going to affect more people in the province of Ontario and empower more people and give them more rights, and yet where did the media spend their time? They spent their time dealing with Bill 40, which on the whole is going to empower people working in the factories who want to join a union. If they don't want to, so be it.

But the media spent all that time covering that. They brought out full-page ads paid for by themselves, stating their position. So obviously the media are focusing against us. There's a very big war going on with the media. They're against us. The media are doing this.

The advocacy package wasn't even covered. I think one day in committee we had somebody from the press there reporting on this, and these are things that are going to mean more to more people in the province of Ontario, and they'll have more far-reaching implications.

Now, a mistake or an error in judgement is not the only scale of measurement. Let's consider some of the actions taken by this government. Right now we've got the firefighters' immunity. We're bringing in things that are beneficial to all of Ontario. Our firefighters across Ontario are mostly volunteers, and our government has taken action to protect and encourage development for these volunteers.

Our agricultural minister, Elmer Buchanan, announced that his ministry will begin using ethanol-blended gasoline, maintaining our commitment to the use of alternative fuels to gasoline. This product is environmentally friendly, which supports our environmental policies.

What you have to do is look at some of the other things we've done. There are things that aren't really noticed right now, that we haven't done a really good job of advertising because the effects aren't going to be seen for years to come. We've got Jobs Ontario and the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

The initiatives of this government have affected members of my constituency. Right now we've got the Mannheim water recharge system. Traditionally, in our community we've had water shortages during the summer, or threats of water shortages. With this Mannheim recharge system coming on line now, we now have the availability of more water during the dry season, and now they've even announced that they may be able to close two of the wells out in the agricultural area. I know that for a lot of the rural people who have shallow wells, they have run dry during the summer. Hopefully, this will solve their problem.

Lately, we've just given financial assistance to B&W Heat Treating. They've brought in a new fuel-efficient process, and we've acknowledged this and we've helped them out.

This is what we've done. We've gone across this province and we've looked at people who are going to help us with the environment and help us with saving our unrenewable resources.

We've provided education moneys for junior kindergarten facilities across this province. The media got hold of that and they went around saying that we're mandating junior kindergarten but we're not going to give the funding. Well, now we've announced that the funding's coming.

What's happened is that we bring these initiatives out and we go out and consult with the stakeholders, and we're getting hammered every time we turn around because these initiatives are good but everybody says, well, there's no funding or we're not going to follow through. We've built up a lot of expectations over time.

Sure, we need expectations out there because this is the worst time to be in government. I think the Liberals or the Conservative Party wouldn't want to be in power right now. I know a lot of times they say we're an illegitimate government, that people voted out the Liberals. Well, the Liberals deserved to be voted out. In 1985, when they came to power, they had two great years because the New Democrats sat down with them and wrote an accord and we had some of the most progressive legislation at that time for two years. Then they decided, "We'll take a run at it ourselves now," and for three years they did nothing. They sat around and studied the studies and we saw nothing happening in Ontario. During the five best years this province has ever had, they kept raising the deficit.

Now that we're in power and the money's drying up, we're being told, "Well, you've got to control the deficit." Where do we control the deficit? We could close every other hospital if that will serve the purpose, but that's not the way we want to do it. We're looking at it. We're trying to control the deficit and we're trying to protect services.

I know that the people in my community who are looking at in-home care for their children who they've decided to keep rather than putting them in institutions are saying: "We understand there's no funding right now, but we're willing to accept that. Just make sure you keep your principles intact and make sure you save these programs, and in two years or three years when the economy turns around, this process will be there so that we'll be able to get our children into these things."

I think the public are being very patient with us. They understand it's a difficult time. If they look at us as a total government, which will be judged in another two and a half years or three years, I think they'll sit down and look at it and say: "Yes, these people have brought in a lot of programs. They've dealt with the economic situation and the realities of being in government."

I know that when I first came down here, I talked to members of the two opposition parties and members of my own government who had been here for a while, and they said, "Make sure you don't get sucked up in the political process." That's what I've tried to do. I've tried to do a good job. I don't usually get involved in things in the House, but when they bring in non-confidence motions like this which don't address the undertakings of this government or some of the policies of this government -- sure, the Premier set high standards in his first throne speech. You've got to set high standards, because if you set your standards low enough, people will come in and they'll use that. They'll lower the standards.

He set the standards high, and I think the public understands that you can't meet a lot of these standards, but we're making a true effort. I think the Premier's done a good job by calling for requests. He can't make all the decisions because he doesn't have the facts, just like the opposition members don't have the facts. They read something in the paper and they jump all over it.

If you look at one of the recent things that has happened in the press, you'll see that it started out as a huge affair and then it eventually worked down so that it was almost a non-event. These are the things that are going on.

I think the opposition truly, when we get into committee, actually does a good job. But when they're in the House, they're doing the media, and that's one of the biggest problems. They're playing to the media in the House. This is a media event, because you're talking about people here who have made mistakes. I'm sorry to say that I'm probably going to make some mistakes over time, and I hope there will be forgiveness. I've got people in my community, people in my church, people across this province who write to me and say, "We pray that you'll have the wisdom to try and do the job as well as you can."

I'm sure when my tenure's up here -- you all have five years in here -- if I don't get re-elected, they can't take that away from me, because I think I'm really doing a good job for this province. But I hope to be back and I'm sure that for myself and us as a government, it will reflect and we'll be back for a long time to come.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Further debate?

1700

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I don't know exactly how long I have to debate this resolution that's before us tonight.

Interjection: Five minutes.

Mr Perruzza: If someone will just tell me -- I believe I have roughly five minutes, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak for five minutes on behalf of the government and in support of the government and in support of some of the critical things I believe our government has done.

On September 6, 1990, something very dramatic and something very new happened in the province of Ontario. The people in the province elected for the first time ever a social democratic government which is committed to a number of very real and very substantial social democratic principles, which the government has on a systematic basis laid out, a very comprehensive and a very aggressive agenda.

I'll just talk on a couple of the things the government has done and has ruffled so many feathers across the province of Ontario that it'll take quite some time to put those feathers back in place. But I believe that every member of this government is committed to putting the feathers that have been ruffled across the province of Ontario right back in place, because as Ontarians begin to look at the record this government has accumulated and is accumulating on a daily basis on a wide array of issues that cover almost the entire gamut, Ontarians will come to see that this is a government that speaks for the people of the province of Ontario, represents the people of the province of Ontario and does its best, its absolute best, to ensure that it delivers on the services and on the programs Ontarians need.

September 6, 1990 -- and I alluded to this a few moments ago -- something very dramatic happened. A social democratic government was elected, a government which speaks for middle-income earners, which speaks for the middle class, which speaks for the poor in our society, which speaks for the marginalized, and took power.

This almost instantaneously created reaction within the establishment, within the status quo. Business showed up here at our doorsteps with big loudspeakers, microphones, and they played some of the funkiest music you've ever heard in this town, trying to attract who to protest at our doorstep? I'll tell you who they were trying to attract: all the people who hang out in front of Queen's Park here during the lunch hours, who work in the office towers right across here from Queen's Park. They tried to attract them with very fancy music, before Queen's Park, right across our door, beneath our steps.

Well, Ontarians were wiser. They were wise to this. They knew the people who were behind renting the fancy speakers and the high-powered microphones: Bay Street, Wall Street.

Who was facing what? I'll tell you what they were facing. They were facing one of the most dramatic recessions ever in the history of Ontario since the Depression of the 1930s. That's what they were facing. Whether it was free trade, whether it was the GST, whether it was the cross-border shopping policies of our federal counterparts, whether it was because of the gloom and doom, the naysayers, the spin doctors in the opposition parties, who worked aggressively for the first two and a half years into this mandate to undermine consumer confidence, to undermine business confidence in this province and quite frankly to throw us into a worse recession than we already are in. So what were we faced with? That's what we were faced with. We were faced with the status quo taking us on at every corner, at every turn.

Who were the last to line up? The police. They lined up and came to Queen's Park because at the end of the day, when their work is done, they don't like having to sit down and, while they're filling out their daily report of duties, also write out a line that says whether or not they drew their gun and pointed it at somebody that day. So they lined up and came to Queen's Park and protested.

They tried to do to this government precisely what business tried to do before, what the opposition parties tried to do before here at Queen's Park, what the federal government tried to do before by cutting its transfer payments by billions of dollars. Did you ever hear any of the opposition members here at Queen's Park stand up when the federal government lined up and took a whack at this government? Did they stand in their places and say: "Oh, my gosh, how bad these people are. Oh, my gosh, they want Ontarians to pay for it all"? No, they didn't do that.

They proceeded to hack and attack at every government program which was introduced hence. Why? With one sole purpose, and that is: The more you undermine the government, the more gloom and doom you spin, the more you undermine consumer confidence and business confidence, the worse things become and the more popular you become in opposition, because you don't have to present a vision, you don't have to develop a program, you don't have to try to put in place OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which speaks to retraining people in this province, people who find themselves out of work for a number of the reasons which I've mapped out in front of you. You don't have to do that in opposition.

You don't have to develop a wage protection fund which eases the pain that is felt by working-class people when they lose their jobs. You don't have to develop a budget and find the capital moneys to initiate capital works programs and job retraining programs to put Ontarians back to work. You don't have to try to preside over a budget which is ever-ballooning as a result of cutbacks, as a result of failing government revenues, as a result of high unemployment and expanding welfare rolls. You don't have to deal with any of those things.

But when you cut through the fuddle-duddle, Mr Speaker -- because you, I know, are a fairminded member of this place -- when you take away interest payments on the debt, when you take away the rises in social assistance, you will find that this government has managed to control government spending to a level that has never been done before. Zero point three per cent: That's the rise in government spending once you eliminate some of these costs that are beyond government control. That's the reality of it.

Mr Speaker, do you find the opposition standing in their places and applauding the government for having done just that, for having controlled government spending, which rose at unprecedented rates in the past? Our Liberal friends raised taxes 32 times in the span of five years. They took the provincial budget from $27 billion or $28 billion when they took office to $44 billion when they left. That is unbelievable, and they claimed to have a balanced budget when they got there.

In September 1990 they were in a $39-million surplus. We all know what happened to that and we all know how that panned out. Was there a $39-million surplus? No, they were billions of dollars in the red. We were billions of dollars in the red and we've been struggling to manage that, to fix those mistakes, to fix the old Conservative mistakes, to fix five years worth of Liberal mistakes.

Quite frankly our executive, that is, the cabinet of the New Democratic Party, is doing an excellent job of doing just that: managing the finances, managing the legislative framework within which this government is trying to operate and making the lives of middle-income earners and the poor people across the province of Ontario during the worst recession since the 1930s more tolerable.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Mahoney: I would be tempted to go nuts and respond to all of that stuff but I won't bother. It's just a good thing that when he was out there like this, there wasn't a gust of wind. I think we might have had cause for a by-election.

I want to say something quite seriously, and that is that I think this government is doing a really good job.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you, thank you.

Interjection: Screwing up everything.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you said we weren't going to say that.

I think you're doing a terrific job of showing the people in this province what a disaster has been created as a result of the election, by 37% of the population, of the most inexperienced gang to ever come into this place.

Interjection: Any place.

Mr Mahoney: Into any place. Truly amazing.

Then we hear a member of cabinet, the Minister of Agriculture and Food --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I'll get to you in a minute, Oxford. We hear the minister standing up and telling us that really we shouldn't be worried about the confidence the opposition has in this government because of all the good things the government has done and some agreements that have been entered into with his ministry. Well, I would hope you're doing something. I would hope you're meeting with your counterparts in Ottawa and discussing how to help the farmers. You've had two years to try to do something, so I would hope you would do that.

But to suggest that there's no cause for alarm, to suggest there's no reason to put forward a motion of non-confidence in this government is truly mind-boggling. What they don't seem to understand -- they simply don't get it -- is that this motion is not put on behalf of simply the members of the Liberal caucus in this place.

I would like to see the results of a phone-in poll that's conducted every day on the radio stations around this province. CFRB does one every morning. They ask a question and ask people to phone in. I would like to see a question, very simply: "Do you have confidence in the New Democratic Party governing this province? Yes or no?" That's all. I can assure you that if --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, if you don't care what the results of such a poll would be, then obviously you're sticking your head in the sand and you don't seem to understand.

The member for Oxford raised in his comments the fact that we should be getting on to what he termed "other more important items" and we should be ignoring all of these things. We would be delighted to get on with job creation. You know we had another 1,600 people laid off in Windsor today by General Motors. We see the tragedy of the hundreds of people in St Catharines. We see the fear and the anxiety of the people at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie that while, yes, you did ultimately put together a bailout program to help the employees take over, they live in fear of losing their place in the international marketplace and facing restructuring on their own. We see the fear of the same thing happening in Kapuskasing.

We see people in my own constituency office -- I'm sure it must happen in yours -- if you answer the phones, you find people phoning you all the time, predominantly male individuals, 45 to 55, calling and saying: "Mr Mahoney, I'm out of work, I've been laid off. I still have a mortgage, I still have a family, I still have a youngster going to university, I still have responsibilities, but I do not have a job." What can you say to them? It is very frustrating for any member.

I don't lay all of that at the feet of this government, but in two years this government has failed to do anything other than announce a few programs supposed to help. What, $1 billion for Jobs Ontario to create 695 jobs, and they say, "Bear with us, we're getting to the rest of them." You see, we don't have confidence because we don't believe you understand what you're doing. Not just the members of my caucus or the Conservative caucus, but the people do not believe you understand what to do to help this economy. Indeed, that is predominantly the issue we should be dealing with.

But what happens? I just did a quick analysis. Mr Speaker, you might be interested in this. Do you know there are 26 members of the current cabinet? Out of that, sir, as far as I can tell, eight of them have not been tainted with some form of allegation, scandal or impropriety.

The Premier himself has his own staff sending a letter to the Ontario Municipal Board trying to influence the date of a hearing. The most important thing, if you are a proponent of a development proposal, about an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, once the reference there has taken place, is the date. "When are they going to listen to my appeal?"

That's the primary thing any proponent would be concerned about, and this Premier doesn't think it's a problem that a member of his personal political staff, on his behalf, on his letterhead, writes a letter to the Ontario Municipal Board asking it to fast-track the development proposal. It's not a problem to the Premier because the development is important to him.

Mr Mancini: It's in his riding.

Mr Mahoney: It's in his own riding, so that's okay. "It's going to create jobs," he says. "Therefore, we should put our principles on the side burner and simply try to influence the date." You just find it incredible. Talk about moxie.

Mr Stockwell: It is not moxie, my friend.

Mr Mahoney: I think it's called chutzpah --

Mr Stockwell: Not even chutzpah.

Mr Mahoney: -- for someone to stand up in this place and actually defend the record of this government and to pretend and tell us that we should ignore all of these problems when we've got eight members out of a 26-member cabinet, and that doesn't count the seven who have either resigned in disgrace or been fired.

I would love to be in a caucus meeting, wouldn't you? Can you imagine what it would be like in a caucus meeting? If any of these people have the courage to stand up when the Honourable Robert Rae attends -- I assume he attends there more than he does question period, although I'm not sure -- it must be truly an experience to behold.

You must sit there and go: "Premier, how are we going to get elected next time when we've only got eight members of our cabinet who are not involved in some kind of hanky-panky, creating distrust in the province of Ontario? How are we going to get elected next time and go to the people and tell them that you promised this would be a new and open government?"

Go back. Remember not only the throne speech; remember the wonderful swearing-in ceremony at the university, over at Hart House, when I think the comment by the Premier was, "This government will give access to people who have never had access to the halls of power before." He didn't tell us it was going to be John Piper. He sort of left us out there to wonder, "Who's he talking about? He's bringing in some people who are going to influence" --

1720

Mr Stockwell: The OPP.

Mr Mahoney: The OPP all of a sudden have access to our offices. They knock on our door and they walk in. There's a certain tavern in town that has become somewhat famous of late for the --

Mr Stockwell: The Loose Moose.

Mr Mahoney: The Loose Moose. They have wonderful T-shirts they've put out. The phone number on the back is 1-800-SCANDAL. It's gotten to the point where people out there are laughing at you. It's almost past the point of sadness. It's become a comedy show. Some would call it a horror show.

Go down the list: We have the member for Sudbury East. No problem, tell a lie. Get up, admit she lied, take a lie detector test to prove she was telling the truth when she lied. "That's no problem. You can stay in cabinet because your daddy's Elie and I owe Elie big time." That's Bob Rae: good principles. We didn't make it up, folks. That's not a fabrication of what happened. That is exactly what happened.

The only honourable thing I've seen a cabinet minister do is the member for Ottawa Centre, I say, who made a mistake, blurted out the name of someone who was using the system for medical reasons, realized she'd made a mistake and resigned, went out of cabinet and was brought back in later in the Ministry of Housing.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): She did it before she got Bob Rae --

Mr Mahoney: She didn't do it without some anger and without some serious, hard meetings. But at least, I say to the other members from Ottawa, she made the decision to resign, albeit orchestrated and forced, I'm sure, by the Premier's office.

But the rest of them -- let's go back to one we've all forgotten about. What was the very first thing that happened in this place?

Mr Stockwell: The walk in the park in Hamilton.

Mr Mahoney: The secret meeting in Hamilton. Somehow that's not important any more. You see, you sort of grade the scandals from one to 10. It's down there at one, I guess, in importance because now we've got ministers who have admitted they've lied. We've got a personal appointment of the Premier charged with sexual harassment. What does the Premier do? Can you imagine the phone call at Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington? "This is Premier Bob Rae calling." "Who? You're calling us? You want us, that Tory law firm" --

Mr Stockwell: "Do we owe taxes?"

Mr Mahoney: "Do we owe taxes? You want us to investigate one of your appointments? Premier, we'd be delighted to do that. That just sounds like that's going to make our day."

They conduct an investigation and they finish their investigation, presumably. What happens?

Mr Mancini: They send the bill.

Mr Mahoney: I assume they sent a bill to the taxpayer. I assume they got paid. We can't get the results of that information.

He resigns. Now either the Premier is putting Mr Masters in some jeopardy -- his own father, for goodness' sake, in Jamaica, is quoted in the newspapers as saying, "Please, Bob, my son's a good man." I presume that may well be true, but I don't know that. Carl Masters's own father is calling on the Premier to come clean and release the results of the inquiry done by the big law firm.

Why won't he do it? Is there some way we should simply say, as the member for Oxford said, we should ignore that? We could say: "Okay, that's fine, Bob. Sorry to bother you. Sorry to really put you under that kind of pressure. Go ahead. Keep that publicly paid for investigation and information in your sock. We don't really care. We don't have a responsibility as the opposition to try to get this government to come clean with the people of Ontario. We're really sorry we bothered you. Everything is okay." Is that what you really believe?

I just can't imagine how any of you can tolerate that nonsense when he comes out and simply says he can't tell us because he's hiding behind freedom of information. He wants to protect the reputation of the individual involved. Meanwhile, he's destroying it.

Finally, the greatest insult of all -- I want to leave a substantial amount of time for one of my colleagues to wrap up this debate -- the most incredible situation of all is the John Piper issue. What is it they say now, that Piper picked a piece of personal papers from the office in the middle of the night or late at night with some staffer watching this? And we're just supposed to once again sit back and say: "Sorry, Mr Howard Hampton, Mr Attorney General. Sorry, Mr Premier. We don't mean to bother you. We're just curious. Do you have any idea what was in those boxes."

Could it be there was anything important to the good of public business? Could it be that he punched a button to wipe out a computer program? I don't know, but we can't find that out. This government acts in the most sanctimonious way. The Premier's own admission, on a television interview when they asked him why the opposition was giving him such a hard time, was, "Probably because of 10 years of sanctimony in opposition."

Let me tell you, that's only one of the reasons. The real reason is that this Premier's leadership is lacking. He's showing incompetence. He has no backup. He has a cabinet riddled with scandal, inexperience and mistakes. If you people believe we should show any kind of confidence in you, you have got to be kidding.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for London South.

Mr Stockwell: You told me you weren't speaking.

Mr Winninger: It's true that I said earlier that I wasn't speaking, but I was prompted to great heights of eloquence by some of the lofty sentiments expressed across the House just now. I think it behooves me to address the issue of scandal that seems to have taken up much of the debate today.

I represent London South, as you know, and it's only a short time ago -- in fact, it seems like yesterday -- that there was much brouhaha in the House about a certain former Solicitor General and party whip for the official opposition who found herself in some difficulty too. In those days, as an innocent bystander in London, I felt some empathy for her role and position in this House. I was also cognizant that she had brought many things to the riding of London South and that she had achieved a great deal over the course of her illustrious career on the board of education, on city council and finally as an honourable member in this House. Yet due to a late night visit at the Lucan detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police, all of that came crashing down around her.

I'm cognizant that in the spirit of the House at that time, her achievements were obliterated overnight by the fact of this scandal in which she found herself. I find quite distressing that this emphasis on negativity, this emphasis on scandal, this emphasis on trivial matters that detract from the important business of the House can consume the length and degree of attention it's being given today and that it has been through repeated question periods.

1730

It would seem to me that we come to this House with the mandate of our constituencies to address very real problems. The people who call my constituency office in London South have very immediate problems. Their concerns are with the economy, job creation and protecting quality and services in the kinds of programs this government delivers. I think the members of my community respect the fact that our government has taken some very concrete initiatives in protecting vulnerable people, delivering long-term care, delivering advocacy services, as my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot spoke of earlier --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Winninger: -- in connection with introducing for the first time an environmental bill of rights, in connection with advancing the native agenda to a level that is unrivalled across this province, and I have some intimate knowledge of that.

I think we have to put these matters in perspective. We hear time and time again of the negative, but we don't hear often enough and we don't communicate well enough the achievements during two scant years in government of our party, and I think we have to be mindful of that.

At the end of the day, in 1995, when the next election is called --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Winninger: -- I think that when we add up the list of achievements this government can take credit for --

Mr Mahoney: There will be little kids crying all over the province.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Winninger: -- truly state-of-the-art legislation, very progressive legislation -- the voters won't be as concerned as the opposition is today about some of these trivial events. They'll be looking at the achievements of this party and evaluating them and determining, I'm confident, in their own minds the overall policies set forth by this government and whether this government has made an honest effort to meet its commitments in the election of 1990. I think that honesty and integrity in carrying forward our policies will win the day with the voters in my riding and, I'm confident, across Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Before I call for any more speakers, I just think I should say a couple of words. In the last few minutes we've had constant interruptions and interjections from members in the House. That's not acceptable. Interjections in the House are strictly out of order, and it's not fair to the honourable member who is speaking at the time. I would ask that we could please pay some respect to this House and to the honourable members.

Further debate?

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thanks a lot, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to follow my colleague from London South and his very apposite remarks. I think it's true to say that in the face of these flights of rhetorical fancy that stem from the moral rectitude of the opposition, it certainly moves one to, I guess, respond in kind.

But I have to say that this subject doesn't really grab my attention the way it does the opposition's, and in fact it takes incidents like this to remind me that probably all ridings are faced with incidents like this. Of course the thing that comes to mind when I hear the member for London South discuss an incident in his riding is something that became known as the booze cruise in my area, which I'm sure many members in the House will be reminded of. It's remarkable how often that incident was raised, not only in the riding but also in other areas in the province. It gained, I would say, attention far beyond the proportions of the incident, but it just shows how important it is that we put these things in perspective. I mean, what has that got to do with good government?

I would say it's similar to many of the incidents that have been raised here. What has that got to do with good government? I think it's quite clear that people make mistakes and that, too often, in my view, the opposition leaps on these mistakes and rips them to shreds, very often at the expense of somebody's reputation. I think we would all agree that's wrong, compared to what can be done in more constructive forms of opposition.

I think it's quite clear to say we have made some mistakes. It was said right at the beginning that a government that was so new as ours, and including many new members, would make mistakes, but probably the worst thing to fear were the mistakes themselves, rather than try to do things for the people of the province in a way we had long said we could do.

I find it a bit ironic, though, just to talk about how the opposition now calls into question our record in opposition. Why then don't they try to set a new standard of opposition by ignoring some of these incidents they think we used to criticize unfairly? Now they're doing the same thing. Why not set that new standard? However, that's up to them.

I think the worst thing is that they don't then criticize the things we're bringing forward in a way that will make it much clearer to the people of the province to see what we are trying to do, and I'm thinking of things like OTAB, where I think there is a place for constructive criticism, and in our initiatives in the environment and our labour initiatives. All these things should be criticized in a way that will lead to greater understanding and even better kinds of legislation. Instead, the things that grab the headlines are these rather superficial and meaningless, in the overall context, events.

The main point I want to make, as I say, as a new member who really wasn't that well acquainted with what went on in the days of opposition here, is that to be told that this is the way or even to see that this is the way the opposition should act in drawing these incidents before the House day after day and saying nothing new about them and ignoring the kinds of initiatives that we're doing and trying to bring up what should be done today when we all agree that there is a crisis here that wasn't created since we've been in government, that has deep roots and that have to be addressed in a very constructive way -- I would say that there are better ways of doing things. I think the people in the province will realize that. I must say that in my riding I don't get these things thrown in my face very often. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There is sympathy, where it is raised; people realize that there are mistakes that are being made, but they recognize the superficial, meaningless nature in the way these things are done. But I submit that it will be the people who will decide in a couple of years' time just where the truth in this matter lies and whether the things we've been doing for the province have been to the overall benefit. I submit that we will see a good judgement in that case.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to conclude on behalf of the Liberal Party with some remarks this afternoon.

I want to begin my remarks by picking up something that the member for Kingston and The Islands has just observed and something that has been offered by the Premier himself in some comments that I saw. I will refer to an article in the Ottawa Citizen of November 30, 1992, wherein Bob Rae says, listen, we're having some trouble, but you must understand that "we are governing with a group, many of whom have never been in public life before, many of whom have never been in politics before."

The argument being advanced in this connection is, "Listen, give us time, be patient, because we are a group of inexperienced amateurs, neophytes in the business of politics and government." I just want to test that argument to this extent: by asking my friends here and those listening out in television land to compare the record of this government with the records of the McKenna government, the Pawley government and the Romanow government, to take three non-Ontario examples. Because I think it is fair to say that any group of people, particularly a group that has no experience in office and is swept into power after never having been there before, deserves some consideration on that count. The member from Kingston's boss, the Premier, has said that a lot of the difficulty has to be credited to that inexperience.

I'm prepared to make some allowances, but I want to ask my friends in this chamber to look at the McKenna government, to look at the Pawley government, to look at the Romanow government. You will not find the mix of incompetence, nitwittery and -- what else shall I call it? -- scandal, in two particularly serious cases. To get this kind of nitwittery and incompetence you have to go back to the Barrett government 23 years ago in British Columbia.

Mr Sutherland: Oh, no, you don't.

Mr Conway: Oh, yes, you do. I'm telling you, I will be quite prepared to debate my friend the member for Oxford. And that's not to say there are not good people in this government. I accept that. But this parade that we have been witnessing here -- this last six weeks has seen an endless array of maladministration and worse. So I want to ask people to compare the record of the Rae government with the Pawley government and with the Romanow government. Have you been watching the Saskatchewan government, a New Democratic government? I mean, they are not falling over themselves every day of the week with this kind of trouble, nor was the Pawley government, as I remember it, or the Schreyer government in the 1970s and 80s. So let's just put that in some kind of perspective.

My friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot and others say, "You will not engage us" -- I think I heard the member for Oxford say it as well -- "on substantive questions." Let me say, as someone who has been around here probably too long, that when I look at this government and when I look at what it has done on public auto insurance, when I look at its current position on the common pause day, when I look at its position on gambling, when I see Pierre Berton lacerating the Rae government because he can't believe what it's up to, what are we to say about the principles of the New Democratic government?

1740

I don't want to be too provocative this afternoon but let me read a quote from the London Free Press from April 24, 1992. Let me quote an honourable member of the New Democratic caucus sitting in this chamber this afternoon:

"I don't think I have the luxury of a personal opinion in this matter of casino gambling. At a time when our government is cash-starved and trying to keep taxes down, I don't think that morals and ethics should enter into it."

That was my friend the honourable member for London South. I'm sure there is more to the quote and I think I know what he's saying there, but I have to tell you that is the kind of flexibility I never expected to hear from a principled New Democrat. If there seems to be some frustration on the part of the opposition in this matter, I mean, what we are looking at now is Elmer Gantry; we're looking at Jim Bakker in all his sin.

I'm telling you I've sat here for 18 years and I have listened to the saints and prophets in politics, namely, the organized NDP, say that, "If only we have the chance, we would take you to the promised land of ethical purity such that you have never seen before." That has been the consistent line.

I want to say that I served in this place with people like Fred Burr and Fred Young, about whom I had no doubt in so far as their commitment to that kind of politics, but what have I seen now from my friend the Premier of this government -- and I want to focus on two questions, because it is true to say the opposition does a lot of caterwauling about perhaps some trifling matters. I think that's fair to say about any opposition.

All governments have had their problems and that has to be admitted as well. When we were in government we had our share. The Davis and Robarts governments and all the governments have had their problems, but I submit that no provincial government in the history of Ontario has had on its copybook anything to match the Martel affair and the Piper affair.

What enrages me about the Martel affair -- I'm even more angry about it now because I think I understand more about how it came to be that the honourable Minister of Northern Development was put in so pathetically a compromised position.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): You forgot about Patti Starr.

Mr Conway: My friend says I forgot about Patti Starr. Patti Starr was a very serious matter for the Peterson government. It ought to have been treated seriously and, believe me, I think it was.

I was here the day, my friend from Wentworth, when Ashworth phoned in from wherever he was and almost instantly his office was sealed by the police. The idea that Gordon Ashworth would have been allowed, given his offence, to come back to this building and walk in there and clean out his files would have been preposterous.

Mr Winninger: Now he's in charge of the federal Liberal campaign. How did that happen?

Mr Conway: Let me just say that in the case of Ashworth's misconduct, the police investigation began almost immediately. What I remember up in that second-floor suite of offices was a great amount of police tape. He wasn't allowed into this office, nor was anybody else without police supervision.

The notion that John Piper, the dirty trickster -- and think about Piper's crime. Think about what Piper was up to. I know he doesn't represent the views of people like Gordie Mills and I don't believe he represents too many of the views over there. For a government that has professed a concern about the disadvantaged in our society to see some scoundrel -- and I won't use the word that I want to use because I'd be thrown out of here.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): You're right because you never use --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: I just want to say that in the Piper case what we had was a senior official working in the Premier's office who was prepared to take information he ought not to have had and use that with wilful and premeditated intent against a defenceless woman in the court of public opinion and probably in the civil action involving the member for Kitchener, the former Minister of Energy, and that is reprehensible in the extreme. I submit that is qualitatively worse than anything I have seen in this place or know of in the so-called history and index of scandals. If I'm wrong, I will be happy to be shown how I am wrong.

The notion that any one of us, as an elected official or as an appointed assistant, would use our office to take information and to attack individuals in the community who have dared contest the government or the party is a notion so fundamentally repugnant as to make it almost unthinkable. The idea that this scoundrel, this dirty trickster was allowed to go back to this office and, with the help of another colleague, a person whom I know -- I know Melody Morrison. I can't believe that she allowed herself to be caught in such a compromised position. I can't believe that she would allow herself to be brought into that mess. I can't believe that she didn't think or that somebody over there didn't think, "Even if there is nothing," -- and there may have been nothing -- "I want to pay some respect to the police investigation and none of us will go back to the scene of the crime without the police there in a supervisory role."

If my friends opposite don't understand the problem with that, then this speech is for naught. But I say in relation to the Martel matter, and I've said it before, I've known the Minister of Northern Development and Mines longer than most of you and I know her to have been and, I believe, to be a decent, honourable person. I don't know what happened in that situation in Thunder Bay a year ago this week.

I can imagine the circumstances, because I know the combatant with whom she did battle. But it was absolutely unforgivable for her or any of the rest of us to have behaved the way she did, and that she did not, as a matter of honour and principle, offer her resignation is unacceptable. In the absence of her offering that, the Premier's not demanding it was equally unthinkable, and for her own benefit, if she had done so, her honour and her integrity might have been rehabilitated. As it is, she will carry that scar for the rest of her public life, and I don't blame her so much as I blame Bob Rae and that skunk Piper, who probably was in there advising in that --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I'm sorry. It may be too much.

Mr Fletcher: A little low.

Mr Conway: Listen, if I did what John Piper did in the matter of Judi Harris, I would consider that I got off lightly to be called a skunk. I think what he did was reprehensible and I don't need to be given a button or a ribbon to feel that way, because that happens to be my view.

But I simply say that in allowing the Martel matter to go unchecked, what was John Piper or what was anyone else to conclude about what was permissible? If ever there ought to have been a clear message sent to the cabinet, to the caucus and to the Legislature, it was surely in the matter of the Martel case.

I have somewhere in my papers a copy of a letter the Premier was sending out to people on that matter. The Premier says to an Ontarian writing on the Martel matter, and I'll just quote the last paragraph:

"Since the beginning of this issue, Miss Martel has clearly acknowledged the seriousness of her mistake. She apologized for her remarks and she did everything in her power to make amends. She remains committed to serving the people of Ontario."

I don't doubt she remains committed, but she and her government did not do everything within their power to make amends. When she signed her oath of office, she committed herself to serve this province honestly and faithfully, to be vigilant, diligent and circumspect in the performance of her duties. Clearly, by her own admission, she failed the test of her own oath. But I simply repeat: In allowing the Martel matter to go without any penalty, Bob Rae created the environment where his good friend and adviser Mr Piper could contemplate and move to execute the dastardly deed against Judi Harris.

I say to my friends opposite, I think those two cases, the Martel case and the Piper case, are qualitatively different than any of the breaches of conduct that I've seen around here in a long time and I'm quite prepared to debate with you some of the other issues.

I see the member for Scarborough West here. I wasn't here the day that she and the member for Sudbury East had the difficulty with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I wasn't here, but I'll tell you that in my view that was not an offence for which they ought to have withdrawn from cabinet. It was a breach, but I'm quite prepared to say, personally, that it was not a capital crime.

But I'm telling you, the Martel and the Piper cases are serious, qualitatively different issues. They have brought, rightly, the opprobrium of this Legislature and of the province down on the head of this beleaguered government. That's why we're here today debating this resolution, because while there are other issues, Bob Rae was right when he said three years ago that character and integrity are at the core of any good government.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Elston has moved want of confidence notice of motion number 3. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed to the motion, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1752 until 1757.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the members to please take their seats.

Mr Elston has moved want of confidence notice of motion number 3. All those in favour of the motion will please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed to the motion will please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 43, the nays 61.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 43 and the nays 61, I declare the motion lost.

[Report continues in volume B]