Journal des débats 1993-oct-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I would like to inform the House of an incident in Timiskaming involving Ontario Hydro that occurred on September 18 at approximately 1:30 pm. What happened was that Ontario Hydro transmission lines were crossed as a result of a beaver felling a tree.

What this did was to cause a transformer to blow and a power outage. What happened was that we had an accompanying voltage surge that caused a lot of damage to people's appliances.

In fact, over 100 households had electronic appliances that were damaged or totally destroyed by this power surge. Resulting damage could be well over $100,000, and virtually all this damage is not covered by standard household insurance policies.

The Ontario Hydro office, when contacted, reviewed the circumstances and could find no evidence of responsibility on the part of Ontario Hydro. The residents of Cobalt feel that Ontario Hydro is to blame for not ensuring that the clearance area around the hydro line wasn't completely free from a tree fall.

Three years ago, there was a great deal of alarm when beavers caused a flood which resulted in a tailings spill in the Montreal River in Matachewan. In that instance, the mining company was held responsible and heavily fined.

It seems there's a double standard in effect here. Why is it that a mining company is held responsible for what beavers do on its property, but Ontario Hydro can shrug off this blame? I believe Hydro not only has responsibility to produce and deliver electricity, but to do so in a safe manner.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My statement is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Mines closing in Ontario now outnumber the amount that are opening. This is happening not for a lack of natural resources and development potential, but is a direct result of government policies that are killing the industry.

Ontario's mining interests are moving their capital and skilled workforce to the United States, to Central and South America and to Europe. One reason companies are leaving is because nearly three quarters of the province is under exploration freeze due to negotiations with natives.

Another major obstacle to mining in Ontario is environmental regulations which overlap federal measures and make mining more expensive and time-consuming than it should be. Instead of running this government's obstacle course, mining companies are simply going to other countries.

I remind this government that 30,000 Ontarians are employed in the mining industry and another 56,000 Ontario jobs are directly dependent on mining. Furthermore, the mining industry provides the province with over $280 million per year in tax revenues.

I urge the minister, the government, to rethink policies which are driving the mining industry out of Ontario and realize how important the industry is in terms of employment and in terms of the minerals we need to maintain our standard of living.

TAXATION

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): In today's world of tight money, the ordinary men and women in my riding of Durham East are left wondering, when in this crazy world is something going to be done about sharing the pain of doing with less?

According to the Fair Tax Commission, 23% of all Ontario's wealth is owned by 1% of the people and 46% is owned by 5% of the people. I'm left wondering why so few people have so many toys to play with.

The working men and women in my riding have all searched their tax forms and they can't find that box where they check off 50% for restaurant meals, and they can't find that box either where they can claim the SkyDome seat, nor can they claim the oxygen to get up to the top to breathe when they get there.

It's just crazy that the workers in my riding pay taxes on 100% of their wages while the barons of business only pay tax on 75% of their profits. It's time we come to grips with things in Ontario and make the few ultrarich people in the province share the pain with the rest of the working folks who have no choice in this matter.

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I would like to comment on a couple of the NDP initiatives that have been highly touted as their way of doing business in the province of Ontario.

It was just a year ago that they came to an agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to allow the Ontario Beekeepers' Association to do certain programs to monitor the expansion of some predatory mites as they affect the beekeeping business in Ontario.

After having come to an agreement with these people in the association to privately do the monitoring required to ensure the health of the bee population of this province, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food cut back $30,000 for this year and $50,000 for next year, really meaning that it has withdrawn almost totally from the business of protecting the bee population in this province.

Some people may not think this is a big issue, but this is a huge issue for the over 4,500 producers in Ontario, and it really is a prime example of how the New Democratic government of this province has pulled away from providing service to the people of this province, and then letting the blame fall on the private providers who have agreed, by contract, to take over the program.

The New Democrats haven't got the guts to tell the people they are withdrawing from providing service to the people of this province. They haven't got the guts to tell people they are pulling away from their responsibility of providing health care services in this province. They haven't got the guts, they haven't got the stamina to govern this province in an honest and fair way.

The Ontario Beekeepers' Association knows what they've done. The rest will soon know.

1340

FIRE EXEMPLARY SERVICE MEDALS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On October 29, 16 firefighters in Mississauga will be decorated with the Fire Exemplary Service Medal from the Governor General. This distinguished award is presented to persons in high-risk professions "in recognition of 20 years of loyal and meritorious service to public security in Canada."

There are few experiences as terrifying as being trapped in a fire. In just minutes, a fire can spread from the point of ignition to a house-engulfing blaze. Anybody who has escaped from a fire realizes that firefighters demonstrate incredible bravery, risking their lives on a daily basis in order to save ours.

Firefighters also provide emergency medical help, rescue trapped people, contain hazardous spills, plan for emergencies, inspect for fire safety and educate the public.

The residents of Mississauga join me in offering our deepest respect and gratitude to the firefighters who will receive the Fire Exemplary Service Medal. They are:

-- Captains Bernie Charron, Charlie Duncan, Jim Haight, Jim Lawton, Larry McPhail, Al Mooring, Andy Parkinson, George Shering, Doug Wilson; and

-- Firefighters Jim Chormier, Chic Cyr, Phil Dorval, Errol Doddridge, Peter Halter, Mike McBride and Trevor Robinson.

I am honoured today to convey our heartfelt thanks to these veteran firefighters and to all the men and women who risk their lives in order to protect the public.

PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): This week is Public Library Week in Ontario. It's an opportunity for you to visit your public library and see what's new.

Ontario libraries are so important to our social and economic wellbeing, as well as offering a wealth of culture and literature. In Niagara Falls, our library is truly a community centre, with meetings going on morning, noon and night in the beautiful Judy LaMarsh Room at our library. It is a place of beauty and it is at the very pulse of community life.

Public libraries across Ontario are now at the forefront of the information age. I visited our library yesterday morning to launch the new provincial database, INFO, on CD-ROM. With this new computer database, I was able to call up any of four million books, records and videotapes from all across the 200 libraries in Ontario. With INFO, everyone across Ontario can use this information.

Niagara Falls library now is raising $4,000 for a feasibility study so it can apply for provincial funding to computerize the collection, certainly much needed in this day and age. Once we are computerized, we can put our Niagara Falls records, with many unique records, into the Ontario INFO system and not just access the collections of others.

I want to welcome librarians from all over North America to Niagara Falls for their international convention beginning November 3. I encourage all MPPs and everyone watching to see the new INFO system in your library.

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today to relate to the House the comments from many of the constituents in my riding over the negative advertising by the federal Progressive Conservative Party where they concentrated on the facial features of Mr Chrétien. My residents, who are Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals, were appalled by that type of advertising.

I didn't make this statement yesterday because I was waiting for members of the provincial Conservative Party, and for that matter the government, to perhaps rise to take exception to this and represent the views of those people.

We all saw in the 1960s the US influence on our advertising. Mr Muskie: They revealed that he had seen a psychiatrist once. I think the problem the federal Conservatives had was that they employed a US assistant. I think the US assistant will no longer be hired by anybody. I think for once we've realized that Canadians are different than Americans. We do not allow this kind of conduct in our advertising.

It was Mr Chrétien's facial features. Who knows if they'd do it again? Perhaps it could be someone with another disability. It could be a cultural person.

I stand here today waiting to hear from the other parties to see whether or not they're going to speak out about this unfortunate and distasteful type of advertising.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): The council of the township of St Vincent has passed a resolution that reads as follows:

"That, in view of a large increase in traffic, including large trucks, the Ministry of Transportation once again be requested to consider the construction of a passing lane on Highway 26 for Bayview Hill."

The minister will know that Bayview Hill, between Meaford and Owen Sound, badly needs attention, but there are other troubled areas as well.

I very much appreciate the work that has already been done in my riding on Highway 10 between Dundalk, Flesherton and Markdale and on the small stretch of Highway 6 north of Mount Forest. But, as my colleague Ted Arnott, the member for Wellington, has reminded the House on several occasions, much more needs to be done.

Highways 6 and 10 between Chatsworth and Owen Sound are very heavily travelled and highly congested. Four lanes would greatly improve driving conditions and would reduce the danger of accidents as well.

Highway travelling is a way of life for people in Grey, and our small businesses and our tourist industry, which welcomes thousands of cottagers, hikers and skiers every weekend of the year, rely on good roads to keep them afloat.

I would ask the minister to strongly consider St Vincent's request and to proceed with the construction and improvements needed in other areas of the county. We need safe highways and we need them now.

CANADIAN FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On behalf of the government and all members of this House, I am pleased to join the Canadian Foster Family Association for the third consecutive year in declaring this Canadian Foster Family Week.

This is a very significant week, with a number of special events planned by children's aid societies and foster parent associations throughout the province. It provides an opportunity for all of us to celebrate and recognize the very important role that foster families play in our communities.

There are 54 children's aid societies in Ontario that provide substitute care to more than 20,000 children annually. Many of those children are being cared for in the more than 4,800 foster homes across the province.

On a personal note, my family has been involved with foster parenting and I have seen many examples of the kind of satisfaction that comes from providing this kind of assistance to young people.

We have a number of guests in the gallery today representing the Foster Parent Society of Ontario and the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. The foster parents in attendance today are Barbara Ptashynski, Alexandra Irish and Sally and Alex Barthomeley. Also in attendance today are Vincent Taylor and Siobhan Devine from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

I think all of the members of the House would join me in congratulating these representatives for the very important work they are doing in providing safe, secure and caring foster homes for children who need these services.

Our guests have brought some buttons with them today to promote awareness of Canadian Foster Family Week, and I hope that many of the members will put on a button to demonstrate their support and enthusiasm for Canadian Foster Family Week.

One of the purposes of this week is to raise the profile of foster parenting and perhaps to let people know how they can become involved. If you are interested, you can contact the children's aid society or the foster parent association in your region or neighbourhood.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ASSISTANCE TO CO-OPS

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This week, members of cooperatives throughout the province are celebrating Co-op Week.

This event highlights the unique contribution that co-ops make to Ontario. For more than 140 years, people have formed cooperatives to help each other and to help their communities. The co-op sector success has played an important part in economic development and creating jobs in Ontario.

Because co-ops are locally based, they respond to local needs. Furthermore, their earnings stay in the community. Last year, for instance, Ontario co-ops had more than $1 billion in revenue, all of which remained in the province.

To enable cooperatives to have an even stronger role in our economy, we believe we must give them the tools and resources. I am pleased to announce today, during Co-op Week, the government's strategy to foster the growth of cooperatives.

This strategy is the result of a year-long review coordinated by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Scarborough Centre, Steve Owens.

1350

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Where is he sitting?

Hon Mr Laughren: He is sitting beside me. The cooperative movement has no better friend in this province than Steve Owens. This review included more than 20 public meetings across the province and a lot of hard work by an advisory group representing every major co-op organization in Ontario.

The consensus from this consultation was clear: Co-ops need improved access to business assistance programs, they need more flexibility to raise capital and they need to heighten awareness of cooperative entrepreneurship.

This government is acting on these recommendations:

-- To improve access to business assistance programs, we have targeted co-ops for all three components of Jobs Ontario Community Action.

-- We are giving the Ontario Worker Co-op Federation a $1.8-million grant under Jobs Ontario Training to develop worker cooperatives.

-- In addition, we will broaden the Ontario investment and employee ownership program to allow employees who buy out their companies to convert them to worker co-ops.

-- We are going to extend programs like new ventures, youth ventures and student ventures to include co-ops as well. These programs have already helped entrepreneurs get started. The changes we are announcing today will give cooperative entrepreneurs an opportunity to get their businesses going.

-- In response to requests for more flexibility to raise capital, we will examine how we can reform the Co-operative Corporations Act to give co-ops more ways to raise money to start up and grow. Our review of the act will begin this fall.

-- To raise awareness of cooperative entrepreneurship, we will put information on co-ops in the government business assistance publications and workshops. We will also develop educational materials for schools. We want more people to know about this model because we are certain many more people will find the cooperative approach suits their goals.

By supporting the development of cooperatives, this strategy will help co-ops do more for their communities.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the sectoral advisory committee who are here today in the members' gallery. They are Brian Ashford, Bob Bethune, John Brouwer, Sophie Edwards, Pierre Lacasse, Allan Lanctot, Carol Mitchell, Michel Paulin and David Westbrook and Judy Goldie.

Their dedication and hard work is appreciated not only by the government and the co-op sector but also by the hundreds of communities in Ontario that in the future will benefit from the work they've already done and will do in the future.

Mr Elston: I was interested to see that the Finance minister, who used to be called the Treasurer but now the Finance minister, has taken credit for a year-long study into this through his parliamentary assistant. Mr Owens has obviously met and heard and listened -- well, he didn't take credit, he's talking about the government taking credit for Mr Owens's work.

It seems to me that what has happened, though, is that while they have moved the co-ops into several areas where other traditional business forms in this province have already been before, they have moved them into areas that have had dubious records with respect to successful rates of investment in the province of Ontario.

While the people in the movement of cooperatives around the province may wish to be involved and show their abilities to achieve success for the government's initiative, it seems to me that we ought to examine some of the problems that currently are being dealt with in the communities.

For instance, the Jobs Ontario strategy has not been able to match the people who have enrolled with positions to be trained, and whatever organization is allowed to participate in the Jobs Ontario activities, they must have healthy and successful economic communities within which to allocate the funding for those new Jobs Ontario Training positions.

The Treasurer of this province knows full well that one of the really big problems with creating a positive economic atmosphere in which the cooperative movement or the business movement in this province can actually become successful is to honestly present what the books of the province show, where he's making his expenditures and how in fact he is spending the dollars which he collects.

If the co-ops are to participate successfully, then the Finance minister must set the standard of honesty and integrity in bookkeeping that allows investment successfully in the economy of this province. That's not me speaking, that is the auditor of this province telling us that the books aren't really that good in this province.

I just issue a very small warning to the people in the co-op movement that, while they have an ability to do things that would appear impossible to some others, this Finance minister and the manner in which he is handling his books is conspiring against the energy with which the co-op movement has traditionally attacked problems like this.

It is also interesting that we have only spent one year doing the studies of the capitalization problem for cooperatives. I don't understand how the member for Scarborough Centre could fully bring into this House, with the Finance minister's help, a recommendation that we begin this fall to study the means by which capitalization can be taken off the problem agenda for co-ops in this province.

The member for Scarborough Centre rightly noted that when I was Minister of Financial Institutions, that issue was raised with me and we weren't able, in the short time I was there, to tackle it successfully. However, that is more than three years ago or about three years ago now. It seems to me that, after a full year of study by the member for Scarborough Centre, something more than another study being announced could very well have been put in place.

In fact, had this government been willing to move forward, they would have put forth for a consultation their version of what they wanted to happen with the capitalization problem for cooperatives in this province. It is interesting to note that if they start this fall, they will be able to take this study right through 1994. I would speculate that there will be an announcement with respect to cooperatives and capitalization to be made probably very early in the calendar year 1995.

These people have a timing that is --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: It's very interesting, Mr Speaker, they're trying to yell me down, but let it be seen that the timing for the report on this study, the timing for the report on the study on education and the parents' council on education, all of those will take a calendar year and all of those will be available for the release of a platform which I suspect Mr Rae and the others over there believe will save the New Democrats from the same fate as Audrey McLaughlin is now about to feel.

It seems to me that these people have cynically set the timing to deal with issues of real economic concern for the cooperative movement, of real economic concern for the men and women in this province who face the loss of their jobs, who would like to build workers' co-ops as a matter of fact, as an alternative to the current ownership situation. They have set the timing for those initiatives for the timing of their re-election bid, and I do not support that in the least.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There's little, if anything, in this announcement today that could simply not be applied to any business, small, large, medium, in this province as far as the applicable recommendations brought forward by this government are concerned. There's not any doubt in this province today that everybody is having a very, very difficult time with the flexibility to raise capital. Everybody's having a tough time.

There's no doubt, in my mind, that every single business in this province is having a difficult time dealing with government's level of debt, level of taxation and level of red tape. I myself will not think that this will be a huge boon to the Ontario economy. I don't believe this is going to turn us around. It may be a public educational program for the people out there to have a little bit better understanding of the cooperative program.

A grant of $1.8 million that the government is going to give out is simply not going to resolve the situation we're faced with today. If you read page 2, we are giving the Ontario Worker Co-op Federation a $1.8 million grant under Jobs Ontario Training to develop worker cooperatives. You know full well that they're giving this money through Jobs Ontario because they're not out there accessing the money because Jobs Ontario is so messed up. They have extra money. They're trying to figure out how to spend it because they're not using it appropriately and it's not creating the kind of work they hoped and prayed it would create when they announced it in the first place.

"In addition," they say, "we will broaden the Ontario investment employee ownership program to allow employees who buy out their companies to convert them to worker co-ops." Why do we need $1.8 million and why do we need this? Because there are a lot of businesses out there that the banks aren't lending money to because of the recession, because of government debt and because they're very risky businesses. So we, the government, have decided that we're going to try and get involved and take

risks that standard lenders won't take because they're concerned they won't see any return on their investment.

1400

That's what happens when you get involved in government grants and government loans to businesses out there because the standard lenders either are not comfortable in the environment that they're in today or they're concerned about the risk. That's why we, as governments, end up lending money. So to think that this is some kind of panacea that's going to resolve the economic woes we're faced with, it's not. To think it's going to, as the Treasurer suggested, cover hundreds and hundreds of communities in a breakout pattern that's going to create prosperity out there is another panacea that will not exist.

I'm not a huge fan of government-sponsored, subsidized programs to create short-term economic growth, because they're not long-term. If we want to help the people in the province in business, if we want to help the cooperatives out there, they're asking us to do a couple of things that this government can do: Cut the red tape, cut the political, in-your-face bureaucratic attitude that all governments have today, cut the taxes, cut the deficit and cut the debt. That would go far further in rebuilding this economy than any kind of scheme that's worked up, with all due respect to the member for Scarborough Centre, by this government in hopes of rebuilding the economy.

I give the Premier more credit, I suppose, than the member for Bruce because I know he's a Rhodes scholar and he knows that this program is not going to rebuild the hopes of the NDP and get them re-elected. He may well have a plan put together just in time for the next election to announce the whole new NDP slogan on cooperative programs, but I will caution this government: Before you go about giving out $1.8 million expanding Jobs Ontario to create opportunities for businesses to borrow more money, be very, very careful, because in my opinion, any time governments have been involved in joint venture programs, most have gone the wrong way, and the wrong way is the taxpayers end up footing unfairly a huge proportion of the costs. If you, as a government, want to help business --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have an idea. Let's sell the airport.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Yorkview.

Mr Stockwell: -- get out of their face, cut the taxes, cut the deficit, get the debt under order and tell your Treasurer to start reporting the deficits in this province more honestly and be more straightforward and have a meeting with the auditor to straighten the mess out that you've created in three years.

I'm sorry, the member for Scarborough Centre: You spent a year on this but you've come to the wrong conclusions. Get out of their lives; don't continue complicating them.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you offered many words of defence and explanation yesterday when I raised the very real concern of the people of this province about access to treatment for cancer. You even suggested at one point that it was a somewhat partisan approach that I was taking. I can assure you that for me this is a very real issue for very real people.

The bottom line of my questions is that it is absolutely inexcusable that the waiting lists for radiation therapy in the province of Ontario can now be as long as six to eight weeks. It is absolutely intolerable that any cancer victim should have to wait for treatment while the disease grows worse, perhaps even to the point where it is being diagnosed as incurable.

Minister, you acknowledged yesterday, and we agree, that we have all known for years that a crisis in cancer treatment would develop if steps weren't taken immediately. The planning and the work was being done so that the crisis we face today could have been avoided, and I say that all of the planning has been thrown off the rails by a series of ad hoc, crisis decisions that have been made since you became Minister of Health.

Yesterday you said the problem that we face today in treating cancer is primarily a shortage of trained cancer specialists. Your response to that was to send out a call for foreign-trained specialists. I ask you, Minister, what have you been doing to encourage the cancer specialists who are trained here in the province to stay and practise here and provide the care that people need?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me correct what the Leader of the Opposition has said.

I said the problem was an increasing incidence of cancer and a change in the protocol of practice which is appropriate and which calls for greater amounts of radiation or people needing radiation than were anticipated even in 1985 when the previous government received the initial report of the fact that we were facing a crisis. I also said we lacked enough machines as well as personnel. I indicated that we were moving to address the shortage of machines and that in the next three or four years there would be more. We have to, at the same time, move to make sure we have the personnel available. There are graduates coming from our medical schools who will be available in time: not enough of them. In response to her question, we have identified this as an area where we need more students to take the post-graduate studies that will enable them to be available.

But I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that earlier this year there were a great many graduating physicians who wished to go into fee-for-service practice in Ontario and were very critical of this government for suggesting that there were in fact specialties and areas where there were enormous shortages.

I stood outside the cancer treatment centre in Sudbury, having just been told about its difficulty in finding radiation oncologists, met outside with graduating doctors who were saying they wanted to do something different. So in this province, graduating doctors choose their specialties. What we can do is make sure that they are aware of the need and that, as we develop for the first time human resource planning --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- we identify the priorities and help to direct people to meet them.

Mrs McLeod: I wonder if it ever occurred to this minister to ask herself why people who are graduating from our medical schools want to do, as she says, "something different."

Minister, yesterday you said that part of the problem in providing access to cancer treatment was that there was a shortage of cancer specialists, specifically radiation oncologists, the very people we need in order to provide the radiation therapy where we're seeing such long waiting lists. You said there was a worldwide shortage; once again, it was not a problem of your making.

Let me take you back to a situation we raised last spring, last June, when 1,100 young doctors crowded into the Royal York Hotel to talk to American recruiters about jobs in American hospitals. I don't know what clearer evidence there could be that doctors in this province, that new graduates in this province, are finding it less and less attractive to work here. In fact, you may remember one of those recruiters saying he'd have to give the NDP a donation for making his job so easy.

Minister, I believe this is something that you must take responsibility for. It is a clear result of your policies. Your only response to that issue has been to say you will now recruit doctors trained outside the country. There are graduates being trained here. I ask if you have any idea how many of the cancer specialists who are currently being trained here in Ontario are leaving, and are leaving because of your policies.

Hon Mrs Grier: I reject categorically that people who leave are leaving because of our policies.

In response to the member's specific question, let me tell her that in 1994 there will be 16 graduates in radiation oncology, in 1995 there will be 20, and in 1996 there will be six. It is certainly our hope and our expectation that there will be positions in Ontario for all of those graduates, and I hope indeed that all of them will remain and fill those positions. We are contributing massively, as you pointed out much earlier this year, to the cost of their education. I hope that they will work in Ontario.

1410

Mrs McLeod: Once again we have hopes and wishful thinking instead of planning and direct action on the part of this government. I asked this minister a very specific question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I asked you a very specific question. I wasn't talking about the future or your hopes for the future; I was asking if you knew how many graduates, trained cancer specialists trained in Ontario, were staying to practise in the province.

I am told that in June 1993 there were 11 graduates in radiation oncology, the very specialists that you say we need to deal with the current crisis. Four of those 11 have stayed to practise in the province of Ontario. That means less than 40% of the physicians we trained in this speciality are staying to provide care to the people of this province. More than 50% of the graduates that we trained here have left the province of Ontario to practise elsewhere.

I believe it is absolutely inexcusable that you did not know this. It is absolutely inexcusable that you did not even want to understand how your policies are affecting the willingness of the people we trained here to stay and practise in the province of Ontario and provide the kind of care people need.

I ask you, why are you now looking to bring in people who are trained elsewhere rather than trying to understand why the people we trained in this province are not staying here and what you can do about it? Why are you not willing to recognize what you have done to make this crisis worse?

Hon Mrs Grier: The Leader of the Opposition, as is the wont of leaders of the opposition, is trying to make very simple and black and white a very complicated situation. If there were in fact 11 graduates in radiation oncology in this province last June, I don't know where those 11 came from, whether they were all Ontario students who wanted to remain in Ontario or whether they perhaps came from another province or another jurisdiction to train in our first-class facilities and then wanted to return to where they had come from. I would have to know that information before accepting the premise of her question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: What I want to say to her is that medical and other specialists leaving Ontario, leaving Canada to practise elsewhere, is not new.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): When you set 25%, you gave them their walking papers.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Mrs Grier: It has happened all the time. What fascinates and is important to me is that 85% of those specialists who leave eventually return, and I think that kind of ratio will continue.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with her second question.

TAX INCREASES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Premier. There's a report just recently released by Global Economics that shows that Ontario taxes have increased by $3 billion, that the average family is paying $663 more each year in taxes. The figures are familiar to us, but we have seen how these new taxes are affecting jobs. The economic recovery that you so hopefully again predicted in your spring budget has yet to occur, and the Conference Board of Canada has projected that the taxes you brought in that budget alone have slowed our economic recovery and will cost jobs. Surely it is obvious that no government can impose $3 billion in new taxes without killing jobs.

Premier, will you now tell us how many jobs have been lost in Ontario as a result of your $3-billion tax bill?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can tell the honourable member very directly that since the recovery in the province began over a year ago, we have seen a growth in jobs of over 100,000. There are over 100,000 more people working this year than at the same time last year and there are 25,000 fewer unemployed people in the province than there were last year.

Those are the facts which the Leader of the Opposition would choose to ignore. The Leader of the Opposition may want to have one question on one subject and one question on another subject, but let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this. She's saying to us: "Spend all the money you can on health care. Forget about your budget; just let everything go on that. Solve the problems by spending, spending, spending, and don't raise any taxes, and lower the deficit." That is a proposition which does not add up. It will not work, it has not worked and it will not work in Ontario. It's a strategy that cannot succeed in this province.

We have to tax responsibly and fairly, and I would say to the honourable member that's what we have been striving to do in the face of enormous economic difficulty. I stand thoroughly behind the Minister of Finance in terms of the steps we've had to take to deal with the crisis.

Mrs McLeod: It's also a fact that in Bob Rae's Ontario, the new definition of "economic recovery" is a slowing down in the rate of bankruptcies.

Premier, we understand why you brought in the job-killing taxes. We understand you brought in your job-killing taxes in order to deal with your financial problems. But what you don't seem to understand is that it hasn't helped. You brought in over $3 billion in new taxes, but your revenues are actually down by $1.5 billion.

What you don't seem to understand is that the new taxes mean that businesses are leaving Ontario, that jobs are being lost. The Global Economics report is predicting a brain drain of trained professionals leaving Ontario because of the tax increases, and people don't pay taxes when they don't live and work in this province any longer.

How do you justify $3 billion in new taxes to shore up your sagging revenues when taxes are clearly killing jobs, hurting the economy and, ironically, lowering government revenues?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that there's a partisanship and a superficiality to her analysis that literally defy description. That was true of her first question and it's true of her second question.

The province has been going through a difficult recession. That is a fact. We can argue about the causes and consequences of that for a long time, but its impact is undeniable. It's not unique to Ontario. It didn't start on September 6, 1990. Your leader called an election in 1990 because he saw the writing on the wall with respect to the recession; that's why he called the election early.

You talk about the NDP's sagging revenues. The province's revenue situation has been difficult. The fact of the matter is that taxation as a percentage of GDP is lower today than it was when the Liberals were in office four years ago. It's lower today than when you were in office, and that's a hard fact. Revenues have declined as a result of the recession. We're trying to deal with the recession, and we're trying to deal with it in a responsible way.

I can tell the honourable member that the approach she is advocating is one that has zero credibility. Perhaps in due time, as events unfold across the country and with the election under way which will take place on Monday, we will then see just how straightforward and just how clear-cut are some of the solutions that the Leader of the Opposition has been putting forward. I look forward to those days.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Leader of the Opposition take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Before the election actually arrives, perhaps we could have at least one more question.

1420

Mrs McLeod: After that response, I'm going to have to go back to the dictionary and look up the definition of "partisan," obviously. It's something like the new definition of "economic recovery"; it's not something I ever understood before.

In all seriousness, I want to say to both the Premier and the Minister of Health, who have accused me of being partisan because I raised the very real concerns of very real people, I thought that's what politics was supposed to be all about, and that's what I'm going to keep doing.

If the Premier is not prepared to listen to me, if every issue I raise seems to him to be a partisan issue, maybe he'll respond to people across the province who write to us and talk to us about their concerns. Maybe you will say something to a small business operator from Thorold who says his business is being taxed to death, that he is now on the verge of going bankrupt. Maybe you'll say something to the farmer from Essex who says, "We are deeply concerned about the negative impact to the economy of any further tax increases," or say something to the small business operator from eastern Ontario who complains that the NDP's tax policies have hurt his business and have forced him to cut back his staff from nine to five employees.

Premier, that is just a sample of the kinds of concerns we hear from very real people every day. I ask what you have to say to these very real people in Ontario. How do you explain your $3-billion tax increase to the people who are losing their businesses and losing their jobs?

Hon Mr Rae: I hope when you're writing back to the small business owner from Thorold, you'll say, "The NDP has lowered the small business tax in comparison to what it was under the Liberal government of which I was a member." I hope you will say that while you supported every one of the 50-plus tax increases put in by the Liberal Party, which hit small business, which introduced the employer health tax, which applied it across the board and which hit those people, while you did that, of course you suddenly changed your mind on September 7, 1990. In terms of any of the increases which have been described as progressive, even by the Liberal advocate who put forward the report yesterday, you suddenly find yourself unable to believe in those. You will of course point out that the capital cost allowance for corporations has also been lowered and that's one of the reasons that's put in place.

I say to the honourable member, I hope you are telling the people who are writing to you the truth about what has happened with the Liberal Party, what the Liberal Party did in government and what this government has been doing with respect to the tax system. We've made it fairer and we're going to make it fairer still. We're certainly going to make it a lot more fair than anything that took place under the Liberal Party of Ontario when it was the government for the last five years.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I don't think the question to be decided here today is: Who taxed the most, the Liberals or the NDP? Quite frankly, the Liberals are the master taxers. There is no question that they have taxed and hiked taxes, job-killing taxes, far more than you have.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: However, Premier, here's the question for you. Not only weren't the Tory taxes enough for you, but you wanted the cumulative effect of all the punishing, job-killing Liberal taxes. But all of those combined with the former Tory taxes weren't enough for you. You had to bring in $3 billion more on top of even all those taxes. That's what we are talking about here: the cumulative effect of all the tax increases.

At the same time we read yesterday that Ontario is one of the high-tax provinces, we also read that we're also the fourth-highest borrower in the world on the international markets and the biggest borrower of any government in the world on the international markets. At the same time as you're out borrowing that money, you now, according to the Canadian Business Economics journal study, are officially classified as a high-tax province.

Let me ask you this, Premier: When can the taxpayers of Ontario expect a tax break from your government?

Hon Mr Rae: When I hear a Tory on the subject of taxation, where was the honourable member when the federal government raised taxes across the board? Where was the honourable member for the GST, three little letters that have led to the tax revolt across this country? The first bill we introduced as a government was to say that we're not going to put the retail sales tax on top of the GST. Where was he on that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is having difficulty now because he can't decide whether he's the pal of Presto or whether he's the pal of Kim, and he's got five more days to make up his mind.

I can tell the honourable member that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this province who know full well that this government has succeeded in making the tax system fairer. I admit we've had to raise taxes to pay for programs, but those senior citizens who are on low incomes, those people who are making less than $20,000 a year, those people who face the greatest difficulty in terms of their lives have had consistent tax breaks from this government. We've insisted on making the tax system fairer.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I can tell the honourable member we've got more budgets to go and we've got more fairness to come and greater things ahead for the people of this province, and it won't be because of anything that's been asked for or sought by the would-be Reformers and once-were Conservatives who are on that side of the House.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary to your comments, Premier, I think you will find that I am a pal of all taxfighters all across this country who will fight taxes, and that means on this issue I am no pal of yours. That's what that means.

It's not surprising that every day we see and hear how frustrated Ontarians are. Here is the first ever NDP government in Ontario, the self-professed champions of the downtrodden, and what have they done? They have stuck it to all of us, even the working poor.

The report released yesterday shows how even families earning as little as $15,000 to $20,000 a year are having more money picked from their pockets by you, your government, your cabinet, your budget. You have grabbed, as the report indicates, almost $3 billion new tax dollars on top of all those ones that were already there, an average of $633 per family this year alone.

But every year we get the same answer from the Treasurer: Revenues are falling short of projections; the deficit target is in jeopardy. Premier, the reason is simple: You've hiked our taxes well past the breaking point.

I ask you now, when will you admit that this approach of the last eight and a half years of hiking taxes is the wrong approach, that it's not working, and will you take a different tack and give taxpayers a break?

Hon Mr Rae: He says "eight and a half years." I thought the Tories had been in power federally for nine years. Eight and a half or nine; we can argue about the six months.

I will say to the honourable member this: With respect to his facts, which he has wrong, as he does every single day he raises the question in the House, 400,000 --

Mr Harris: The Canadian Business Economics journal.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I can't help it if after all the research help you get, the best you can do is quote from a newspaper article. I would say to you, the facts are that there are --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Ask about those facts, Bob, cooking the books.

Hon Mr Rae: If the honourable member for Willowdale will control himself for a second; I know it's difficult.

There are 400,000 people in this province who are either paying no income tax who were paying it before --

Mr Harnick: Ask the auditor about the half-billion dollars you're trying to hide.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Rae: -- or who are paying less as a result of the steps that have been taken by the Minister of Finance. Those are the facts. Those are the facts which the honourable member chooses not to admit.

1430

When we look at the situation with respect to the deficit in this province, over $16 billion of the $38 billion that we have seen the deficit increase can be accounted for alone by the cutbacks in federal transfers -- alone by the federal transfers, alone by the Tory party, by a Tory government which has systematically neglected the interests of the 10 million people who live in the heartland of Canada. You've stood in your place and said and done nothing --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- except go out and tell people to vote for Kim Campbell. That's been the extent of your activity in defence of Ontario. I can tell you we are going to stand up for the people of Ontario. We're going to bring in a fairer tax system despite the treatment and the neglect on the part of the federal government, and we're going to continue to fight for that in the face of the kind of reactionary proposals that come from the leader of the third party.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: The first Premier, the first cabinet, the first Treasurer in the history of the Ontario government where the auditor said, "I refuse to sign those books; they're fudged," and you're talking to me about disagreeing with the numbers from the Canadian Business Economics.

The Speaker: Is this the member's second question?

Mr Harris: My final supplementary: The headline on today's Toronto Sun spells out pretty clearly, "$600m Metro Tax Crisis." Metro Toronto is facing a total tax default rate of $600 million because individuals and businesses just can't pay any more.

Given that you are far and away the biggest tax culprit, that you have intruded on the municipal jurisdiction, that you have continually grabbed, now, $3 billion more of their dollars, I submit that your government deserves the bulk of the blame. It's an inescapable conclusion. You have broken the tax camel's back. You have done that.

I would ask you the same question: Will you finally see the light? Will you acknowledge that you've got the message and will you bring in some targeted tax relief to take the burden off the people of this province of Ontario and give Ontarians a chance to get on the path to a real and lasting recovery? Will you provide tax relief for the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I, of course, expect the honourable member to blame this government for everything that happens, for everything that walks, but one thing I want to make very clear: When he says that I and this government are the straw that broke the tax Campbell's back, I want to say to the honourable member, that is something which will be settled on Monday and it'll be the people of Canada who will decide what to do with the tax Campbell. That's who will decide what to do with the tax Campbell. The tax Campbell is up in Ottawa.

If the honourable member doesn't realize it, I will have to remind him of it time and again. He has not been fair and I can't understand why. Given the support that I know exists in his caucus for the Reform Party, I'm surprised that he is not as vigorous in his understanding of what has happened to this province as a result of the leadership of the federal Conservative Party.

I can't understand how a leader in this province would not recognize just the extent of the unfairness and the extent of the tax burden that's been placed on us, and the extent of the neglect that we've had to fight against and live with in the face of the deepest recession, which we are now coming out of, since the 1930s.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I will be watching on the 25th. We'll see how Audrey McLaughlin fares. Maybe that will answer some questions for the Premier as well.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question as well is to the Premier. Recently, Ontarians were saddened by the senseless shooting of a police officer. As you know, one of the suspects was on provincial parole. The outrage that has followed has been directed at many sources, including your government and at a parole system that many Ontarians believe is failing us.

According to Metro police, 1,269 charges had been laid in Metro in the first eight months of this year against persons while on parole. Many police and citizens believe that public safety is at risk. What have you done to address this serious situation?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that to the Solicitor General.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As the honourable member knows, the parole system in this province is at two levels: at the national level and at the provincial level. At the provincial level, we deal with people who are sentenced to terms of two years less a day or less. Many of the issues he raises deal with very violent offenders, which of course both systems are very concerned about.

In terms of what we are doing about this, there's a growing concern and acknowledgement in this nation that we need to be focussing more on violent crime and on prevention. Let me say that both this government and the federal government have been working on measures that would see us deal with the reasons for --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Christopherson: We continue to get into this and the honourable members want to do more heckling than listening.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The intent of these focuses: One of the primary ones was a recent all-party committee report that came out of the federal government which has drawn a lot of attention in this country, at the provincial level and the federal level, talking about working at the root causes of crime as well as focusing more and more on the violent offenders and on physical assaults and things that are deemed to be of the greatest importance.

I believe that we continue to work with the federal government on these issues so that we're dealing appropriately with the matters at hand.

Mr Harris: I appreciate that the minister is talking about the federal government and working with it, because this morning my office spoke with detectives at Metro police, the bail and parole unit, and they told us that one, not the only but one of their great frustrations is their inability, under federal legislation, to apprehend a parolee who is clearly breaking a condition of his or her parole.

For example, if a convicted sex offender is prohibited from being in the presence of an unaccompanied minor as a condition of his parole, an officer cannot arrest him if he or she sees him in that violation. The Metro police services has recommended that the legislation be amended to address this. You ought to be aware that there have been attempts in the federal House over the last year to make those changes to the legislation. I would ask you, will you endorse these changes to the federal legislation and lobby the federal government on behalf of those who feel this change is necessary for the police to be able to do their job?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm certainly aware of the issue the honourable member raises. I believe that it was also a recommendation contained in an inquest jury's recommendations. We are now looking at that recommendation. We are obviously taking into account the significant opinions of agencies such as Metro police and other police agencies, as well as victims' groups across the province, and we will be responding to that recommendation in the time frame set out.

Mr Harris: Every time we ask this minister a question it's: "We're studying it. We're looking at it." This has been going on for over a year now. We've been crying out for provincial action and support and there has been none. There's been silence.

Premier, my caucus task force on crime, justice and community safety has been travelling the province over the past few months. One of the things we've been consistently hearing is that bail and parole practices pose a threat to the public by allowing convicted criminals out of jail without adequate screening and without adequate supervision. The frustrations of police are evidence and unfortunately the shooting of the Sudbury officer is proof.

Minister, yesterday you said you didn't have the legal authority to place a moratorium on all early releases until we can get a closer look at the parole system, but you clearly have the right, and I suggest to you the obligation, to offer an advisory opinion on behalf of your government and the people of this province, indicating that you and your government agree with me that it is not in the interest of public safety that our parole board continue to grant early release to those individuals responsible for crimes involving violence. Will you make that statement now pending the completion of the board's decision to release Clinton Suzack?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think we all take the issue of this matter very seriously. It's touched the hearts of all Ontarians, I believe.

On seeing and hearing the questions that have been raised around this, the honourable member knows that I've responded with an immediate review of this decision so that we here in this place, as well as the public, can have some assurance as to whether or not the procedures that are there were followed, that those procedures are appropriate. Then when we have those determinations, when we have the answers to those questions, if indeed it's necessary to take the appropriate steps, we will take them.

I believe that is the appropriate action to take, and I believe it will ultimately lead to the right kinds of changes if we need to make them, or to answer to the public the questions that they deserve to have answered.

1440

MENINGITIS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The Minister of Health knows, as I asked her yesterday, about the two young people who died last week in the region of Peel, allegedly from meningitis. There are still some examinations being undertaken, but apparently there is certainly a meningitis scare in Peel region.

I asked a question yesterday in the hope that there might have been a minister's statement. I thought that at the very least there might be a minister's statement today from the Minister of Health on this issue.

Dr Peter Cole, the medical officer of health in the region of Peel, and his staff are doing everything they can to keep things calm, but in fairness to them, it's not working. Your own provincial medical officer of health has met with local officials. In spite of the best efforts of all these people, parents and students in the region of Peel are very close to panic.

Minister, I have to tell you that this is not a partisan issue, but you have done nothing and you continue to do nothing. On behalf of the public health officials in Peel and on behalf of all the citizens of Peel, will you clarify how the vaccine will be made available by your government, when it will be available to family physicians, and who will pay for this vaccine? Will you further ensure that any patient who needs and wants this vaccine will have access to it immediately?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member that I know very well how very worrying and serious the situation is and how people in the region of Peel are feeling and that they are concerned about it. I was very glad that there had in fact been adequate briefing and communication by the chief medical officer of health of the province as well as of Peel, and I understand some of the local members took advantage of the opportunity to meet with officials and get the information earlier today. I hoped that might have helped to clarify the questions the member was concerned about.

Let me say to him that the chief medical officer of this province, Dr Richard Schabas, as well as the medical officer for Peel, have been involved from the immediate identification of this issue in protecting the public health of the people of Peel. On their advice, anybody who is at risk is being vaccinated and has the vaccine made available to them.

The people in Peel who are concerned have a hotline where they can phone and get information with respect to whether or not they should feel they are at risk, and if the medical officers of health, who are the people with responsibility for protecting the health of all of us, believe they are at risk, then the vaccine is available to them.

Mr Mahoney: I would have thought that as the Minister of Health, you would accept some responsibility for protecting the health of the people of this province. Today at Peel regional headquarters, there was a demonstration by several hundred young people who were wearing masks and bandannas to demonstrate their fear when they go to school. They were holding up banners and they were demonstrating, calling for this vaccine to be made available.

The issue is not what Dr Cole or Dr Schabas is doing; they are doing their jobs, and I frankly think they're doing a good job. The issue is, what are you doing?

Clearly, if the medical officer of health calls for a vaccine to be made available, it is provided. If a family physician requires that the vaccine be made available, it is not provided by your government, it is not paid for by OHIP; it is left up to everybody to fend for themselves. The message is very disconcerting.

Minister, you have a frown. It's the facts. I've talked to doctors, I've talked to parents, I've talked to students, and the question is, will you make it available?

You have said here, in the Toronto Sun, "Ruth Grier says OHIP will pay for meningitis shots for students outside the affected schools only if a local" --

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

Mr Mahoney: If these people aren't concerned, we had two young people die in Peel region, and I'm concerned about it.

The Speaker: Could the member please complete his question.

Mr Mahoney: The minister has said that OHIP will pay for meningitis shots for students outside the affected schools only if a medical officer of health recommends the shots. Minister, we need some leadership. Will you ensure that the vaccine is made available to family physicians, that it will be paid for under OHIP if it is recommended by a family physician, and will you make a statement in this House today about your government's clear leadership on this very, very serious issue?

Hon Mrs Grier: I take great exception to the allegation that there has not been leadership and in fact direct involvement in this situation by the Ministry of Health. The chief medical officer of the province, Dr Schabas, is an official of my ministry, and it is on his recommendations that I act. His recommendation is that anybody who is at risk get the vaccine.

I have to say to the honourable member that there are many people in Peel who are frightened. Let me say to him that my grandson is in a public school in Peel, and I am frightened that he might be put at risk in this situation.

But I think the situation is not helped by acknowledging or encouraging the widespread vaccination of people who are not identified as being at risk, and the responsibility for identifying that risk lies with the officials who are charged with that responsibility. It is their advice that I seek; it is their advice that I follow.

Anybody else in Peel who is concerned needs to talk to their family physician, and if the family physician believes that patients are at risk, they can be referred to the chief medical officer of health.

If the family wishes to have the vaccination but is not considered to be at risk, then they can proceed through their family doctor to have that prescribed, and yes, they will pay for it themselves or their drug plan will pay for it.

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, you will be aware that an American show entitled A Current Affair will air a program on October 26 about the deaths of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, and the program will also deal in detail with the manslaughter trial of Karla Teale.

On October 26, Canadians are going to have an opportunity to learn the horrific details of a trial that was under a publication ban and currently is. This not only affects the integrity of our justice system, but also the lives of the families of the victims, who will suffer revictimization as a result of this program.

My question to you is simply this: Have you or members of your ministry staff taken the time to contact the victims' families to determine if Mary Garofalo, the interviewer, and her team from A Current Affair misrepresented their activities and wilfully broke the law and your publication ban while they were in Ontario and obtained interviews under false pretence in order to even have such a horrific story to put on the air in one week?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Officials in my ministry have certainly been monitoring the activity that we have learned about, and certainly when the show was attempting to get interviews with a wide variety of people, including reporters and television commentators who were allowed into the trial, we were made aware of that.

1450

The ministry was taking what it felt were appropriate measures to try and persuade people to be very wary in terms of the publication ban. We are very, very conscious of the real difficulty for the families around this issue and the very serious jeopardy in which we find our criminal justice system. We certainly are attempting to do what we can.

As for me, no, I have not been in touch with the families and that was not considered to be appropriate.

Mr Jackson: As the chief lawmaker in this province as the Attorney General, I would like you to receive -- and the Premier -- personal letters which the families gave me today to give to you so they can express to you their concerns in this regard. I think you are losing an opportunity as the minister responsible here to examine all aspects of this case.

I have within the hour received four pages of the crib notes used by Mary Garofalo to do her show. It is clear to me on the face of these notes that she fully intended not to deal with the story of serial killer cards but to expose and to flaunt your publication ban.

If you were doing your job, Minister, you would know that this team while in Ontario hired a sound man from Toronto who during the course of the interview was so distraught at the facts around this case that he broke down and the interview had to be stopped momentarily. If you were doing your job, you'd be trying to find out if the A Current Affair team was successful in their offer of money to both Bernardo and Teale.

Minister, I ask you, as we have expressed on this side of the House, we want you to do your job. We want your ministry staff to do thorough investigations of these matters and --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- not to necessarily point a finger at what is perhaps limiting your capacity. There are opportunities within our laws that they came to this province, wilfully broke our laws, misrepresented themselves and now may put in jeopardy a very important trial to Ontarians and Ontario victims.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member has made some very serious accusations, and obviously those accusations will be investigated. When he makes these kinds of comments about people wilfully breaking the law and wilfully doing this and that, he speaks as though he is investigator, judge and jury. Quite frankly, that's not appropriate in our legal system.

We are consistently investigating on this issue. We have been very, very firm on this issue. We have very severe difficulties. I have spoken of those before in this House, about controlling what goes on in terms of cross-jurisdictional publications, an issue with which the member is surely well acquainted, given his seeming belief on his own private member's bill that we can put a fence around publications in Ontario, knowing very well that we cannot.

It is very, very difficult in the midst of an investigation when the show has not yet been broadcast. He may have copies of crib notes and I'm not sure where he obtained them and I'm not sure that our investigators don't have them, but I can tell him that we are monitoring very carefully what is going on and if in fact there is a breach, it will be handled very, very severely.

The Speaker: The Minister of Health with a reply to a question asked earlier.

HEALTH CARDS

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Yesterday the member for Simcoe West raised an example in this House of an individual who had received two OHIP cards. I expressed my concern and undertook to investigate the incident.

Let me tell him that, as I can find out, an individual lost her wallet and went to the ministry's office on Yonge Street to get a replacement card. When the card did not arrive within a specified period of time, the person again contacted OHIP to report the card stolen and to ask for another card. An error was made. The additional request did not go in indicating that it was a follow-up.

On September 8 the individual was issued a card which had the version code PN. On September 12 a second card was issued with a different version code, ER. The card with the ER version code is the only valid one. It supersedes the earlier one at the time of issuance.

I understand the individual has spoken to staff of the ministry and has been advised that only the card with the ER version code is the valid one.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I thought the minister would answer the question. My first question yesterday was: Given that 12.5 million health cards have been put into circulation since 1990 when the health card system was introduced and we have a population of 10.5 million, I wanted to know where the extra million and a half health cards are and whether they are accounted for. None the less, she chose to answer a different part of that question.

With respect to this case, as a follow-up and as research behind the question I asked, we tried to get through to the OHIP verification line you've set up in Toronto. I couldn't get through to that number, so we contacted the office in Owen Sound. The OHIP office in Owen Sound confirmed that this is the third time in as many weeks that two cards have been issued to a person who simply asked for one replacement card.

You know that the more cards are out there in circulation, given the current state of your database, the greater the potential for fraud in this province. What are you doing specifically to ensure that when people simply apply for one replacement card, you're not sending them two cards within two days? Those extra cards out there, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, can be used by people who are dishonest.

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

Mr Jim Wilson: Mrs Poole, who brought this to our attention, was an honest person and she reported this. What about the hundreds of thousands of people out there --

The Speaker: The question's been asked. Would the member take his seat, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: I worry for the member's blood pressure, but I'm happy to be able to tell him that as a result of the efforts of this government in trying to cope with an inappropriate database and an inappropriate card system, 1.8 million cards have in fact been cancelled. So we are making some progress.

But I want to say to him, I agree with him. One error of the kind that I've outlined is too many. I'm also happy to be able to tell him that by the end of November, the system will be in place that will ensure that no replacement cards will be issued unless the request is accompanied by a completed application and original documents verifying residency.

Those are the kinds of steps we're taking. We are succeeding. There is more to be done. I acknowledge it and I look forward to working constructively with the member as we have ongoing discussions about this issue.

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Attorney General, the minister responsible for women's issues. For many months now, my colleagues and I have been pressing your government to release the report into sexual abuse at the Grandview school. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has said the report can be released. The Divisional Court of Ontario has said the report can be released. We now read in the Toronto Star that your government is arguing on appeal that the report cannot be released because it could harm provincial officials named in it.

The Grandview survivors want the report released. They want to know that justice will be done. They want to know that your government wants justice to be done. Minister, I ask, how can you, as Attorney General, minister responsible for women's issues, justify further victimizing these women in the name of protecting government officials?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I do not. That last line in that article surprised me as well, and I have asked what that argument was all about. The major part of the article, the whole column, was about our concerns around this report being released and destroying the possibility of a successful investigation and a successful prosecution in this case.

The member has recycled this question again and again. We have been very clear that we were going to appeal the decision. We are appealing it. We are appealing it on the grounds that it is not going to assist us in ensuring that there is a successful prosecution in this case, which is, as I would remind the member yet again, the only way in which we can ensure justice is done for those who may have been victimized at Grandview.

Mrs McLeod: I recycle the question because I simply cannot understand yet why this government refuses to act in light of the fact that both the freedom of information commissioner and the courts have said that the report can be released without jeopardizing the investigation.

This government has said in the past that it would never cover up the truth in order to protect those in power. I truly believe, as I ask this question yet again, that on this matter this government has violated those principles.

1500

On October 1, Will Ferguson himself called on his government to release this report. He said: "I think the report should be released. The perception is that the NDP government is hiding something."

Minister, by continuing to suppress this report, you are doubly victimizing these women who are already victims. I believe it is completely unacceptable to go beyond what the courts have said is necessary in order to protect government officials.

I ask you once again: Will you not allow the Grandview report to be released, as the courts have said it may be? Will you not give these women what they are asking for?

Hon Mrs Boyd: This matter, even as we speak, is in front of the courts. It is up to the Court of Appeal to make a decision in this case.

I have taken the position that I have taken precisely to ensure that prosecutions are able to proceed and that in fact we will come to the bottom of the truth. For this member to suggest that this government -- this government -- has anything to protect, as opposed to the two previous governments, is a joke. We have nothing to protect. We are trying to get to the bottom of the truth. We are investigating. We are prosecuting. Where were you for five years?

MENINGITIS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, the same medical officer of health in the province today, Dr Schabas, made a different decision regarding how to treat cases of meningitis --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga South, my apologies. I cannot hear the question, nor can the Minister of Health.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I hope I'll get my sup from all that noise.

Minister, your medical officer of health, Dr Schabas, made a different decision last year in the Ottawa-Carleton situation regarding the same number of cases with meningitis than he has made today in the region of Peel with Dr Cole. My parents and my students want to know: What is different between the region of Peel, on a region basis, and Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I can't speak to that as a non-physician, but as I am aware, the number of cases has not been in fact as many in the region of Peel. This is a situation that is monitored very, very carefully. We have been fortunate in this province that the incidence of meningitis has been decreasing. It is usually isolated cases, and the number of cases that have occurred in Peel is cause for concern.

I can assure the member that we will be monitoring it continually, and should the situation change or should it appear that the risk is greater, any decision that is made will be revisited constantly.

Mrs Marland: Madam Minister, you should be able to speak to that because, I want to tell you, a publication that is being handed out today in Peel does not say what you just said. This publication says: "Ontario has experienced an increase in meningococcal disease since 1986 [with] several clusters occurring as described below. Since 1989 the increase has been observed in school-age children and teens."

This is what is being handed out today in the region of Peel. This is why the parents and the students in Peel are saying, "Why inoculate three high schools in the educational environment and ignore the fact that within those schools they intermingle with students from other schools in the immediate area?"

In my area of Mississauga South we have six high schools, including the separate high schools, and we have the separate board, with their students playing hockey and sports and socializing, and your medical officer of health and their medical officer of health seem to ignore that after school, these students still get together.

The Speaker: Would the member place her question, please.

Mrs Marland: Minister, I'm asking you on behalf of these parents and students if you will, first of all, have the same standard in Peel as Dr Schabas, the medical officer of health, made for Ottawa-Carleton and, secondly, will you pay for that vaccine for all students for whom their own physician prescribes that form of treatment?

Hon Mrs Grier: I would ask the member to be careful about throwing out statistics about various strains of a disease. I think it is commonly accepted that incidents of meningococcal disease in Ontario in the last number of years have declined, but one is too many, as it is with any disease or any fatality.

Mrs Marland: The printed item says that it has increased.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I want to say to the member that given the extent of the concern and the knowledge, I think everybody in Peel is aware of how careful they need to be and how this can be prevented.

What I am saying to her is that if on the advice of the chief medical officer of this province, anybody is identified as being at risk, they will then get the vaccine. If somebody wishes to meet with their own physician and to discuss with their own physician whether or not they are at risk, if that physician thinks they are at risk and that is confirmed by the medical officer of health, they will get the vaccine. If their own doctor does not think they are at risk but the patient wants to have the vaccine, then it will be a transaction, a visit, a procedure by their doctor in the same way as any other procedure, which is that the patient, unless he has drug coverage, buys his own drug.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

I have signed the petition.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes;

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that moneys obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into Ontario law."

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We respectfully request that the Legislature of Ontario take action on the matter of Bill 21 to protect people living in mobile homes and living on leased land from being removed from their homes."

I have signed my name in support of this petition.

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed in its spring budget of 1993 to impose a tax on beer produced by the general public for their own consumption at brew-on-premises facilities in the province of Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, will not accept an attempt to tax our own labour and efforts to make our beer and wine at brew-on-premises facilities for our own consumption.

"Further, we feel this attempt is shortsighted and extremely counterproductive. The brew-on-premises facilities we support contribute to our local and provincial economies and represent the true entrepreneurial spirit which will drive our economic growth in the future."

I support this petition and I've added my name to it.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into Ontario law."

1510

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We respectfully request that the Legislature of Ontario take action on the matter of Bill 21 to protect people living in mobile homes and living on leased lands from being removed from their homes."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payment for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payment should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crime will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and the services for victims of crime;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

CASINOS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

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

"Whereas an MRI is an imaging modality superior to the CAT scan which is particularly useful in diagnosing diseases of the brain, spine and joints;

"Whereas it eliminates the need for other invasive tests and procedures such as angiology and anthroscopy;

"Whereas patients from the Sudbury area have been having MRI examinations in other centres since 1985, when the first unit was installed in Toronto;

"Whereas the MRI scans are now available in all parts of Ontario except northern Ontario -- there are 12 units approved in the province;

"Whereas an MRI is needed to maintain the team of neurosurgeons that have been recruited for the Sudbury area;

"Whereas the approval of a unit for Sudbury is long overdue;

"Whereas Sudbury has been designated the northeastern centre of health;

"We, the undersigned, support the neurosurgeons at the Sudbury General Hospital in their request for a magnetic resonance imaging machine."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and we respectfully request that the Legislature of Ontario take action on the matter of Bill 21 to protect people living in mobile homes and living on leased lands from being removed from their homes."

I have signed my name to this petition.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payment should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and the services for victims of crime;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

That's signed by a number of residents of the province of Ontario including in my own riding of Don Mills, and I affix my signature to it.

OPP DETACHMENT

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I am bringing forward this petition on behalf my constituents who are concerned about the preservation of law and order in their community. The residents are concerned about an article that appeared on the front page of the September 28 edition about Brock council wanting to know whether they're going to lose their police station. I've got a resolution from the council dated September 20 calling for this petition to be brought forward:

"Whereas the Beaverton OPP station has been a long-standing, integral part of the Beaverton area; and

"Whereas many officers have established permanent homes in the Beaverton area and have become a strong voice in the community in volunteer and non-profit groups; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides an economic benefit to the Beaverton community and all of Brock township; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides a much-needed policing presence;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario maintain the OPP station in Beaverton, as closure would be detrimental to the interest of security, safety and the wellbeing of all the residents in Brock township."

I have signed my name to this in full support.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

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

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crimes; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

I'm very happy to lend my support and sign this petition.

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

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized; and

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

I'm pleased to sign this petition on behalf of my constituents, and I certainly extend all the best to my colleague Cam Jackson in the hope that his private member's bill will become law.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition, which reads as follows:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized; and

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

I fully endorse this petition and have signed it.

1520

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized; and

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and the services for victims of crime,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

I totally support this petition and have signed it as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF HASTINGS ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the County of Hastings.

COUNTY OF GREY ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the County of Grey.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

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

Bill 106, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 106, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any remarks, Mr Tilson?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This bill amends the Workers' Compensation Act as follows:

It replaces the definition of "industrial disease" with a definition of "occupational disease"; stress will be no longer compensable unless it is experienced as a result of an acute reaction to a traumatic event; the maximum compensation payable is reduced from 90% to 80% of the net average earnings of the worker before the injury; top-up provisions in collective agreements that provide compensation to a worker by an employer, in addition to compensation paid under this act, are deemed to be amended so that the total compensation received does not exceed 80% of the worker's net average earnings; a three-day waiting period will be imposed before compensation is payable for accidents.

The bill imposes a restriction on the application of the indexing factor to existing awards made by the board. Indexation will be calculated on the anniversary date of the first payment, rather than on January 1 in each year.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

Consideration of Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos / Projet de loi 8, Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We were debating section 6.1. Mr McClelland?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Thank you, Mr Chairman. We're still dealing with 6.1, as you indicate, as I moved yesterday.

Not to revisit the matter in great detail, at that time I indicated that the genesis of this particular amendment was largely the result of concerns raised by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Mr Phillips, together with the member for Wilson Heights. I think the amendment is pretty well self-explanatory, although the rationale for it could perhaps be summarized as we pick up from where we were yesterday.

Essentially, the concern we have is the fact that the government has stated throughout the process of discussion of this legislation and the contracts that will be pursuant to the legislation that --

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: I thank the member for Grey very much for his best wishes and compliments.

We're concerned that the government is saying, "Trust us; there's no fear in terms of the taxpayer being on the hook for any resultant operating deficit or costs associated with the operation of the casino."

We in the opposition are saying that if that's the case, put your money where your mouth is and enshrine that in legislation. Make it a deemed part of the contract so that it's absolutely clear from day one for any proponents, whoever they may be, at whatever point in time in the history of casino gambling in the province of Ontario, that the taxpayer at the end of the day will not be responsible for any costs associated with the management or the operation of the casino.

It's fairly evident and it's self-explanatory on that point, and we would hope the government sees its way clear to support this.

I remind you, Mr Chairman, that yesterday as we concluded, after some discussion on this matter, the parliamentary assistant repeatedly said, "Trust us; there's an arrangement," which he subsequently qualified by saying a contractual arrangement, a contractual obligation that has been guaranteed by the government for the specific operation in Windsor.

We're saying that's not good enough. I say very candidly that the public would say that as well. The public, as I watched a town hall meeting last night on the people's network, was saying that it wants politicians to come clean and come straight and say things they can stand by.

If in fact you're prepared to stand by this, I say to my friend the parliamentary assistant, put it in the legislation. Allow the people of Ontario to know that you're prepared to stand by what you say and enshrine it in the legislation.

1530

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I believe that when we adjourned just before 6 yesterday, we were still waiting for an answer from the parliamentary assistant as to whether or not he's prepared to give that unequivocal commitment to the people of Ontario that nowhere, under any auspices, under any circumstances, will the debt or liability of any future casino be passed on to the province or the Ontario taxpayer.

We've heard him say very unequivocally that in the Windsor casino project that will not be the case and that there will be an understanding or an agreement that the private operator will be responsible. I believe I've heard him say, but I'm sure he can speak for himself, that there won't ever be a situation in which the Ontario government or taxpayer will be expected to pick up any deficit or liability. If that is so, then why will the government simply not agree to accept the amendment proposed by the member for Brampton North and supported by many people in the Legislature?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Again, I can assure the people of this province that as long as there's a New Democratic Party government, the people of this province will not pick up any operating deficit for the casino in Windsor.

Mr Eves: Will he be agreeing to this amendment then, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Mr Duignan?

Mr Duignan: No.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): The assistant deputy minister at the time, in a question during the committee hearings, when he was asked about whether or not there would be any possibility of the citizens of Ontario being saddled with any losses incurred in the operation of the casino, and notwithstanding the fact that both he and the deputy minister assured us that would not be the case, stated that he did not want it included in the proposal call because it would send the wrong image to the proponents and might be to the detriment of the process.

It would seem to me that this very comment is all the more reason why it should be included in the legislation, and when I say it should be included, I'm referring of course to the amendment proposed by my colleague which states that under no circumstances will the government of Ontario, the Ontario Casino Corp or the taxpayers of Ontario be saddled with any losses incurred as a result of the operation of this or any other casinos.

The question then comes up, why is the government objecting to something that it has unequivocally affirmed? Everybody from the parliamentary assistant to the deputy minister has said that under no circumstances will the citizens of Ontario be obligated to pick up any losses incurred in the operation of the casino. Yet there seems to be a reluctance on the part of the government to safeguard that by enshrining it in the bill.

Yesterday, the parliamentary assistant said that it would be included in any contractual arrangement. Of course, when we talk about contractual arrangements, that automatically implies that for everything that goes in there will probably be some provision so that it can be, under certain circumstances, circumvented. That is what causes me some concern.

Lawyers and politicians have a term they use, and it's called "weasel words." When you get into a situation where you start negotiating these things under a contractual arrangement, it leaves ample opportunities for lawyers on both parts to make sure there is some kind of escape clause or some sort of provision whereby the arrangement can be modified at a later date.

I have but one question to the parliamentary assistant; it has been asked by my colleagues, my colleagues in the third party and me. If this is a principle that you endorse, if it is something that you have assured the people of Ontario will not happen, that there is no circumstance under which the taxpayers of Ontario will be called upon to pick up any shortfall in the operation of this casino, why would you object to having a provision in the bill that states that this is the case? All we're saying is that we have put forward a reasoned amendment, an amendment that is very simple in its concept. What it says is that under no circumstance will the citizens of Ontario be obligated to pick up any shortfall incurred as a result of the operation of this or any other casino.

It's a simple prospect, it's a particular statement that everybody seems to agree with, yet I have not received a clear and definitive answer from the parliamentary assistant as to why he is not prepared to include it. That is what causes me some concern, because the implication is that if you're not prepared to put it in, then there is the very strong possibility that you're not prepared to stand behind that particular commitment that the citizens of Ontario will not be called upon under any circumstance to pick up a shortfall.

If there is a concern, then I think the parliamentary assistant and the government have an obligation to come clean and to tell the people of Ontario, "There may be a circumstance where in fact we're going to have to come back to the citizens of Ontario and, yes, you are going to have to pick up any shortfall." If that is the case, I think everybody should know about it. If it isn't the case, and we have been consistently reassured by everybody in authority on the government side that it isn't the case, why would you object to making that a part of the bill and outlining very, very clearly to everybody who is getting involved that this is an operation where the operators have a chance to share in the profits but also have to understand that they're going to have to be solely responsible for any losses? I would welcome the parliamentary assistant's response to that very, very simple concept. Are the citizens of Ontario going to be on the hook or are they not going to be on the hook? I would ask the parliamentary assistant to respond to that.

Mr Duignan: It's a pity that the honourable member for Wilson Heights was not part of the negotiating team for the SkyDome, because maybe if he were, we wouldn't have the $400-million debt that people of the province have to pay for the SkyDome. But I can tell you right now, that's not the way this government operates. We're going to make sure that the proper legal, binding contract states, and I've said it before, that the proponent will be responsible for any operating deficit of the Windsor casino.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The previous answer that was given by the parliamentary assistant was, at least according to the notes I wrote down: "As long as the New Democratic Party is in power, you can trust us. The government of Ontario, the province of Ontario, will not assume the debt." It's a very glib and cute answer, quite frankly, and I don't think the polls suggest that you're going to continue for another term. But let's assume that you're not. Let's assume the possibility that you're not going to resume for another term.

The only guarantee you can give on this situation, which has been suggested by the member for Brampton North, is that there is an amendment and that you accept the amendment that's been put forward by the member for Brampton North or that you tell us there is a contractual agreement with whoever the operator is that the province of Ontario would not assume any debt. Of course, you're then going to say that there's an arrangement. You mentioned yesterday that there's an arrangement. I don't know what that means legally, as to what an arrangement is as to this specific issue.

1540

It brings to mind the lack of trust that's developed particularly since your party has come to power. It's fine for you to talk about the Dome. Whether you're talking of the Conservatives, the Liberals or the New Democratic Party, we're talking about the trust of the people of Ontario. Quite frankly, when you look at the subject of the Dome, which you've raised, when you look at the topic of Teranet, that wonderful topic which we've raised in the past, which I've raised in the past, there is a genuine fear, particularly when a government enters into a partnership arrangement, which I suspect you're suggesting is going on in this province with respect to gambling casinos.

You're going to enter into a partnership arrangement with an operator, and of course we saw what happened at Teranet. As you know, the issue with Teranet is a situation where the province of Ontario was going to computerize the land registry system, an admirable position to take. The difficulty is that you won't tell anybody who is with that corporation, Teranet, who is going to be in partnership, or what the financial arrangements are.

In fact, in that particular contract that's exactly what happened. The province of Ontario guaranteed the debts of Teranet, the partnership with Teranet. That's the very thing the member for Brampton North is trying to avoid, that if you get into that situation, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pick up the tab for a goof that's been made by an operator you have no control over. Of course, then you're going to plead, "Oh well, you can't see the agreement with the operator because of the privacy legislation."

The problem is that we have no idea of this guarantee that the province of Ontario will not pick up the tab. The taxpayer in fact will be left holding the bag for this debt, a debt that conceivably will happen, particularly if you get a gambling casino in Detroit, particularly if you get a gambling casino around the outskirts of Windsor. That's a possibility as well, but more likely it will be a gambling casino in Detroit. You're dreaming, you're simply dreaming if you think that it's going to be a success.

It's a genuine fear, particularly with the lack of studies that was revealed as a result of the committee process. My goodness, there was one study that you commissioned after the whole project was under way. The one day I sat there, Coopers and Lybrand or whoever it was showed up to present its report, an hour-long report that had been commissioned after the whole project was under way. I must say there's a great deal of scepticism --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Yes, you're right. It doesn't matter, but the fact of the matter is you retained --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): You got the wrong name.

Mr Tilson: I apologize if I got the wrong name, but the fact of the matter is that you retained a consultant after the decisions had already been made. That is the problem with the whole project. You should have been investigating many of these matters before the project even got going. However, we're now into it, and it's unfortunate we're into it, because we don't really know where we're going.

One of the fears we have is this particular fear that it's going to fail. If it's going to fail, if the government isn't going to be operating it, if you're going to be allowing a private operator to carry on with this process, I think it's fair for the taxpayers to understand that the province of Ontario won't be picking up the tab for a goof that's been made by a private operator. There's no reason for that to take place.

The arrangement answer that you give is simply inadequate, the answer that simply says: "Trust us. There's been an arrangement undertaken." I don't know what "arrangement" means, and until you tell us about that or whether that's in fact a contract and how long that contract lasts -- I mean, is the contract for the duration of this government? This government eventually will fail, and I suspect that will be in 1995, and at that time we may or may not have a gambling casino that's run up an unbelievable debt. Are you going to leave office with this unbelievable debt for the next government, whether it be the Liberal Party or whether it be the Conservative Party -- in fact the taxpayer of Ontario -- to pay off?

It's simply irresponsible for you to stand in this House and simply say: "Trust us. There's an arrangement." That's inexcusable, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, and I would hope that you would rise in your place and properly answer the member for Brampton North that you'll be pleased to support this amendment because of its sound purpose.

Mr Kwinter: The parliamentary assistant made a comment after my last intervention in which he said it was too bad that I wasn't sitting on the committee that approved the SkyDome, because if I were, the problems the Skydome now has may not have happened. I think that all that really does is highlight the problem. He's absolutely right, and we should be learning from our mistakes. To suggest that because it didn't happen with the SkyDome it probably shouldn't happen with the casino is kind of bizarre reasoning.

I would suggest that it's obvious, from the many responses from the parliamentary assistant to my particular comments and the comments of my colleagues both in my caucus and in the third party, that the government does not intend to enshrine this in the legislation.

So I would like to take a slightly different tack and I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant, if you're not going to do it, could you tell us why you don't want to do it? What is your concern with making sure that this is put into the legislation? There must be a reason, because -- and I say this, I think, with some certainty -- any reasonable person watching this debate, hearing what the issue is, would say, "Why not?"

Everybody agrees that this is the intent of what the government's plan is, that the taxpayers of Ontario will not be at risk. Why would you not include it in the legislation? There must be a reason. Otherwise, as it happened to me, to my surprise, in committee, I made a couple of suggestions and they were accepted immediately.

Mr Duignan: Don't you think I'm a good guy?

Mr Kwinter: I know you're a good guy. I can't believe it. I made a couple of suggestions. You wouldn't even let me make the argument. You said: "Okay, we agree. Okay, done."

But we now have a situation, when there is a proposition that seems to be so eminently reasonable, that we include in the legislation provisions that prevent the taxpayers of Ontario from undergoing any obligation of losses in the operation of a casino, that I don't see how anybody could argue that, yet we have the parliamentary assistant, representing the government position, refusing to include it in the legislation.

Again I ask you, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, what is your problem with that particular inclusion? What is the reason that you are resisting what seems to me to be an eminently reasonable amendment?

Mr Duignan: I always seem to be going over and over this argument for the last couple of hours in committee of the whole. Again, as I said, we feel that this type of arrangement is better handled through a business contract between the proponent and the government and that's simply the best way to go.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Just to continue the debate on the motion, just so everyone I think understands what we're dealing with here, we're talking about playing potentially with hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. Every one of these casinos will cost, according to the testimony we heard, $200 million to $300 million to construct, and my judgement is that we're going to be seeing seven or eight of these things around the province in the next three or four years, with an enormous outlay of expenditures.

I think the public demands that they not be finally on the hook for the costs of this operation. I think the public demands that they not be the ones finally paying the bill on this.

I agree with my colleague earlier, surely we've learned that from the SkyDome experience. We've got a wonderful facility in SkyDome and it's an enormous asset for particularly the people of Metropolitan Toronto, but in the end, several months after the new government came in, the province wrote off around $300 million of SkyDome debt. So if there's any --

1550

Mr Huget: Well, who incurred the debt, Gerry? Where were you?

Mr Phillips: There's someone heckling. If there's any reason why this should be in the legislation, there it is. I cannot for the life of me understand why the NDP is stonewalling on this thing. What are you hiding? Why will you not put it in here? The more you resist it, the more suspicious, I hope, the public get; certainly the more suspicious I get.

We had testimony at the committee. The staff said: "Listen, we'll tell you we'll include this in the contract. We have no difficulty in including it in the contract. So just trust us. We'll put it in the contract. None of this bothers us, but we don't want it in the legislation. Just trust us to put it in the contract." Well, I don't buy that. If you're saying you will put it in every contract, why won't you put it in the legislation?

I hope the people who are watching this debate are getting as angry as I'm getting at the answers, because people are no longer prepared to simply accept: "Trust me. I know best." If that's what you intend, there is no reason why it can't be in the legislation; if it isn't what you intend, then let's get it out in the open.

We had testimony at the hearings from a Mr Alfieri, who is probably the most knowledgeable person in the staff dealing with it, again saying we have no trouble with this. "I think we are very much in concurrence with the proposed amendment," he said. "The difficulty we have is to enshrine in legislation and engrave in stone," because we think this sends a "very, very negative message." That's what the testimony says.

While we believe this is exactly what we're going to do, we don't want to tell anybody who may bid on this, because it sends a very, very negative message. So what's going on here? The people who bid on these contracts, you don't want to tell them that this is what you have in mind because they may think this is a very, very negative message.

Well, I say to ourselves and the people of Ontario, if this is what we intend, let's get it on the table. That's precisely the reason for the amendment. I want people who bid on this to know what they're getting into. I don't want them to find out later on or not bid because it's a very negative message. As a matter of fact, the litmus test for me of the commercial viability of these things is if the private sector is prepared to live with the terms of being held accountable for the debt and deficit.

Mr Duignan: Yes, it's clear.

Mr Phillips: The parliamentary assistant may laugh, but that's what you said was your intent.

Mr Huget: No, he said it was clear.

Mr Duignan: I said it was very clear.

Mr Phillips: Well, put it in the legislation then. He says it's very clear that's what the intent is. Can any of the NDP backbench members understand what the reluctance is to put it in the legislation? You say this is the intent, you say that this is what you want to do, but you won't put it in the legislation.

I say to the public that something is going on here. There must be a reason, because the parliamentary assistant, representing the government, has not given us an answer to the very simply question: If this is what you intend and if you have no difficulty at all with the intent of the motion, why not put it in the legislation so that we all understand exactly what we're getting into?

I am convinced that some of these casinos will work and some won't. I am convinced, as the experience in the US shows, that some of them will be white elephants; tragic but true, some of them will be white elephants.

The public are already being asked to buy something they never thought they would be asked to buy by Bob Rae and that is casinos across the province. I think many people are desperate. Many people believe this may create some jobs so they're prepared perhaps to accept it; prepared perhaps to accept casinos. But I don't think they should be expected to also pick up the debt and deficit tab.

If the partners that the government finally gets believe strongly in these proposals, then it should be them that are finally on the hook. If the government doesn't agree with that, they should say that. If the government agrees with that, it should be in the legislation.

I return to the fundamental question that we cannot get an answer to. I know you don't want to put it in the legislation but give us a credible response to why it should not be in the legislation and why the public who are taking this piece of legislation as the opportunity for the Legislature to set the terms on which the province is going to embark on full-scale gambling, to set those terms -- if this is a fundamental term it should and must be in the legislation.

I go back to the question of the parliamentary assistant: If it's fundamental to the operation of it, what possible reason do you have for not including it in the legislation?

The Chair: Do you wish to reply, Mr Duignan?

Mr Duignan: Very briefly, again I would point out that there is more than one way of achieving the particular objective, and that is to put it into a legal binding contract. That is what we intend to do with whoever the proponent is. The proponent will be responsible for any operating deficit in the Windsor casino. We're not talking about an Atlantic City-style casino strip; we're talking about one casino in Windsor, and the proponent will be responsible for picking up any operating deficit of that casino.

Mr Phillips: This legislation is only on Windsor; it only applies to Windsor?

Mr Duignan: Again, at this point in time the government has only talked about one particular pilot project casino in the Windsor area. That's what we're dealing with at this point in time; that through a contract, a legally binding contract with the proponent, the proponent will be responsible for picking up any operating deficit of that casino.

Mr Tilson: The problem with this issue is just what you said: This is a pilot project. It may not even work; otherwise you would not be calling it a pilot project. It may fail, and if it fails, why in the world is the province of Ontario going to be guaranteeing this debt?

Mr Duignan: It's not guaranteeing any debt.

Mr Tilson: Well, that is exactly what it is. It's a pilot project; it's an experiment. If it's an experiment it is totally irresponsible for the province of Ontario to come forward and say, "We're going to guarantee the debt of an operator that we have no control over." Oh yes, there'll be regulations and requirements, but basically if the experiment fails, and that's what the pilot project is, then the taxpayer of the province of Ontario is going to be stuck with the debt.

Now we have a new clause that's come out. In answer to one of the previous speakers, you've used the words "business contract." You have made it quite clear to us now that there's going to be a contract. The problem I have with that is it gets to a new issue that this debate really hasn't got into, and that is the issue of accountability.

You as a government have an obligation to account to the taxpayer of the province of Ontario for everything you do. Otherwise you shouldn't be governing. You can't do things in secret, and that's what you're going to do. Because, you see, you're going to have a contract that the privacy legislation says you or I or any of the other members of this place cannot look at because of the privacy legislation.

We have no guarantee that clause is going to be in that contract whether it be in the experiment, the pilot project at Windsor, or whether it be in another site such as Niagara Falls, Sault Ste Marie, Ottawa, any of the other various places that have been suggested where there may be a gambling casino.

I quite frankly do not agree with your entering into a contract of this magnitude that we cannot look at. We cannot look at the terms of this contract.

1600

I give you the prime example of Teranet. We're now going to be stuck with a debt in this province because of goofs made by your government in not insisting the proper financial arrangements of Teranet be followed through. Why? Because there was a secret contract, a contract that we can't look at, "we" being the members of this House, members of the public and, more importantly, the taxpayer.

Now we're entering into another contract, so you say, which we can't look at. All this amendment is doing is saying, notwithstanding the fact that you're going to have a secret contract that we can't look at, one of the terms of that secret contract is that the province of Ontario should not guarantee the debt of the operator. So it's very fine for you to say that there's a secret contact, that there's a business contract, but the amendment is perfectly reasonable. We're saying that as a matter of law, the province of Ontario will not assume the debt of the operator, which, with due respect -- and I don't know anything about this operator. This operator may be responsible. It may be a fine operator. It may be economic reasons such as Detroit that the gambling casino may fail. There may be a whole slew of reasons as to why the project may fail, and keeping in mind it's a pilot project, that it's an experiment. In fact, when you use those words, you're certainly raising the possibility that it may fail.

So why in the world would you not make it a matter of law, aside from the member for Parry Sound? His question is even more important, not just with respect to the experiment in Windsor, but all the other gambling casinos that are going around the province of Ontario, all the other contracts that you say are going to be signed but which we will not know. You can say, "Trust us"; we will not know. There's no way that we will know because the privacy legislation precludes us from looking at those contracts.

So all you have to do is to make it law: The province of Ontario will not assume the debt of an irresponsible operator or bad economic times or whatever other reason such as competition from Detroit or from some other place that has outdone the plans of the Windsor experiment, the Windsor project. That's all the amendment is asking to do. It's a most reasonable amendment, and I would hope you would take that into consideration.

Mr McClelland: The parliamentary assistant, in his remarks that preceded the member from Halton-Peel -- I think I have that right --

Mr Eves: Dufferin-Peel.

Mr McClelland: Dufferin-Peel; I apologize. In his comments just prior to the comments from the member for Dufferin-Peel, he repeated a phrase that I've heard oft-times in his responses. The phrase is "at this time." He was speaking specifically to the fact that he does not anticipate a strip of casinos at this time. He has said that there will be a casino only in Windsor "at this time." Indeed, throughout the course of the hearings, not all, but virtually all, of his statements were qualified by that phrase, "at this time." I think that, again, it lends rationale for the necessity to legislate clearly and definitively exactly what the government's intentions are. The government repeatedly throws out that little escape clause.

Now, I know why the parliamentary assistant is doing that. He's doing that because, I presume, and I think appropriately, he's an honourable man and doesn't want to be caught out suggesting something that is in fact not the case or proves down the road to be subsequently untrue. I respect him for that. But I think, concurrently with that qualification "at this time," he should understand that members of the opposition -- indeed, people from all across this province -- have a lot of concerns about what the future holds. You say that there will only be one casino "at this time," the one in Windsor. There could very well be, I think, by admission or implicitly in that statement, a whole change of plans, a whole change of operations, a whole change and a different way of doing business in the future. It's for that reason, and that reason specifically, we feel that this type of amendment is necessary.

I can only, I guess, keep beating a dead horse. I hate to do it, but if the parliamentary assistant can provide to myself and my colleagues in opposition a good and reasonable answer as to why the government is not prepared to proceed with this amendment, the matter would be resolved. But it seems to me that what we have here is a little bit of a stand-off. The member, I'm sure, because he's been given marching orders by his minister, was told, "You get up there and find out whatever escape clauses you need or whatever, but keep the matter at bay and don't allow this amendment."

We're curious as to why. What is it that the government has to hide? I presume they have nothing to hide. I'm going to make that assumption. I want to in good faith suggest that there's nothing untoward taking place. I don't think there is in terms of the contract or the proposals that are being submitted. So if that is in fact the case and you have nothing to hide, lay it out, put it in writing, make it something that's referable in the future for all projects in all locations, thereby not finding yourself caught in the bind of having to qualify your statements by using words such as "at this time."

I think the parliamentary assistant recognizes that, that he can understand why there would be a degree of cynicism. We want something that is definitive and that will stand the test of time, that isn't qualified for the present but in fact will give some assurance to the people of the province of Ontario over the course of the next number of years. Should circumstances change -- and the member has said this. The parliamentary assistant has said that should circumstances change, we may not be able to, I suppose -- maybe I'd like to hear his comment and maybe he'll respond to this question: Is in fact your concern that things will change and you want to have a situation where in fact the government may be responsible for some of the debt?

If that's the case, surely at that point in time it would be incumbent upon whichever government is in power to come before the people of the province through the legislative process and say: "We're about to change the rules of the game. We are now taking a major course or a point of departure and we're looking at other arrangements or another way of doing business that may in fact hold out some responsibility and financial obligation to the people of Ontario."

If that in fact is not the case, then it begs the question over and over again. Come out and say it, lay it down in the legislation and get on with the work here and provide the people of Ontario with the assurance I think they would want.

Mr Phillips: I want to follow up on a comment the parliamentary assistant made on what this bill purports to do. Again, I'm still on the amendment that we proposed, designed to ensure the public isn't going to be on the hook for the debt.

The parliamentary assistant indicated that this bill really just provides for the Windsor casino. I had read the bill slightly differently, and that is that this bill establishes the legislative framework for all of the future casinos for the province and that once the legislation is passed, the new authority that's established here would be permitted to establish casinos elsewhere, that there would not be a need to come back to the Legislature for legislative approval. The parliamentary assistant said something different, and that is that this bill is just to establish the Windsor casino. Maybe he can clarify for me where the misinterpretation comes in.

Mr Duignan: As I said, this is enabling legislation to allow a casino, or casinos, to be established in Ontario. What I said was that this government at this point in time has made a commitment to one pilot project, and that's in Windsor.

I'd also point out to the honourable member for Brampton North that as soon as possible, the contract between the proponent and the government in relation to the Windsor casino will be made public, that part of it that's not subject to the FOI act, just like we made public to the opposition parties today the lease between the government and the art gallery in Windsor.

Mr Eves: I'm still a little troubled, as indeed are several of my colleagues on this side of the House, about why the parliamentary assistant will not give us a direct answer to a very simple question. So far the only explanation I have heard is that he has said on numerous occasions now that absolutely as long as there is a New Democratic government in the province of Ontario, the province of Ontario, and hence the taxpayers of Ontario, will not ever be responsible for any operating deficit or liability as a result of a casino being located anywhere in the province. I don't think I'm misquoting or misrepresenting what he said, and if I am, I'm sure he'll correct me.

However, in response to the member for Wilson Heights, he said that the reason why they will not agree to this amendment is because they think the matter is better dealt with by contract than by putting this in the legislation.

1610

I find that very strange. Why don't you do a lot of other things that are in this bill, and a lot of other bills for that matter, by contract as opposed to by legislation? I think the answer to that question is very simple, because when a government believes in something enough and it wants to proceed with whatever initiative or policy it chooses to proceed with during the course of its government, it enshrines into law, which is what these bills are and become, what it wants to accomplish.

I would think that if one is looking out for the taxpayers' interests, and accepting the fact that some day there will not be a New Democratic government in existence in the province of Ontario at some future date, wouldn't you want to ensure that no nasty Liberal or Conservative government or, heaven forbid, Reform government in the province of Ontario will dump on to the Ontario taxpayer any debt or liability?

Certainly this bill applies to not just the operation of the Windsor casino, but any casino. This is enabling legislation, as the parliamentary assistant has just said, to enable the operation of any casino anywhere in the province of Ontario in the future that the government chooses to proceed with. There has to be an underlying reason. I don't know what the reason is. I don't know if the deputy minister is very adamant that she absolutely will not accept any amendment of this nature. I got the distinct impression when the assistant deputy minister, Mr Alfieri, and the deputy minister, Ms Wolfson, appeared before the committee and explained to us why they didn't like such an amendment, there were two completely different answers given by the ADM and by the deputy minister.

The ADM, and I'm paraphrasing what he said, said we might scare or frighten off potential investors or future operators from the province of Ontario. When the deputy minister responded, she said absolutely that is not the case, that's not the problem. "I don't care what the assistant deputy minister just said," she may as well have said. "I'm the deputy minister and I'm telling you that's not the reason. The reason is because there may be different arrangements for different casinos in the future in the province of Ontario."

I think that's the underlying crux of this matter right here. I think indeed the government may be contemplating different arrangements for different casinos for the province in the future, and indeed it may even be, heaven forbid, contemplating the Ontario taxpayer picking up some or all of the tab or the operating deficit or liability of such casinos under different arrangements in the future, and I think it hasn't decided what it's going to do on that. I'm not suggesting there is some mysterious plot that the government has hatched and it knows exactly what it's going to do in the future, but I think it wants to leave that option open. I think that's exactly why they won't agree to this amendment, because they might want at some future date to hold the Ontario government and the Ontario taxpayer responsible in whole or in part.

We're going to continue to raise this question until we get a very direct and upfront answer as to why. Perhaps we need the deputy minister to visit the chamber and consult with the parliamentary assistant beneath the Speaker's gallery here so we can get a direct answer to a direct question. I've been around party politics long enough to know that there is no way any NDP government would prefer to do anything by business contract as opposed to by legislation, so I'd like to get a direct answer to that direct question.

You say you agree with everything that's in Mr McClelland's amendment, the member for Brampton North. You say you agree with the purpose of it, you agree with the wording of it, you agree with the intent of it. Under no circumstances would you ever consider doing anything different, ever, ever, ever, but you don't want to put it in the legislation. Why? If there is a reason, we'd like to hear it.

Mr Duignan: Again, what's contained in this amendment we'll deal with in a business contract. I've listened to the opposition, both Liberal and Tory, for the last three hours on this particular amendment. I can't speak for what a Tory or a Liberal or the Reform government is going to do when, by chance, we may not be government in the year 2005 or the 2010, but I hope they will have the same common business sense as we've had to make sure that an operating deficit like we had with the SkyDome or Minaki Lodge will never happen again by making sure that there's a proper business contract between the proponents and the operators.

Mr Phillips: Just so the Legislature and those who are viewing it are clear, this isn't legislation designed to set up one casino in Windsor; this is legislation that enables a brand-new commission and an arm's-length crown agency, outside the purview of the Legislature, to establish casinos for the future. The parliamentary assistant is perhaps not being as clear as he should be to the public in saying this is just legislation to set the Windsor casino up. Make no mistake about it: The government and the commission do not have to come back to the Legislature to establish any number of casinos around the province. This sets the framework. This will be the last chance the Legislature has to deal with the way casinos are set up in the province.

Something strange is happening here. We cannot get a straight answer out of the government on why it will not include this in the legislation. The public is extremely cynical, and the public will not understand why the government is refusing to put this in the legislation. Make no mistake: The commission can set up five, six, seven, a dozen or more casinos around the province; will never have to come back to the Legislature for approval; can sign the contracts with the operators. We can see seven, eight, nine, a dozen casinos around the province, and according to the estimates out of Windsor each of them can cost between $200 million and $300 million. We are not prepared to assure the public that in the end they won't be held accountable and responsible for that debt and deficit.

The argument we're having here, the debate we're having here, is the government's refusal to put in the legislation what it says it wants in the legislation, what it says it wants in the way it's going to operate. If this is the way the government wants the legislation to operate, there is no reason that I can determine why it shouldn't be in the legislation.

The government member has indicated the SkyDome. SkyDome is a classic example of why at the outset, in legislation, there should have been a clause in here; then all the people involved in it would clearly understand legislatively the ground rules for this. Surely we've learned from the past, and surely the lesson is, let's make absolutely certain --

Mr Duignan: That is why we will make the proponent pick up the deficit.

Mr Phillips: The parliamentary assistant's barracking. I assume he will choose to answer my question rather than barrack when we're attempting to raise the issue. If he's got an answer, I'd like the answer when I'm finished speaking, not heckling.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Every time he answers, you yell at him, for crying out loud. You don't let him finish.

Mr Phillips: Someone else is in the background barracking from the NDP. Some of you must be embarrassed by the government's refusal to put this in legislation.

1620

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the member address his comments through the Chair.

Mr Phillips: Somebody must be embarrassed over there. Surely there is one backbench member who says this is right, this is reasonable and this is what the public expects, that the legislation should spell out that it won't be the public paying out for these casinos that may not work in the future.

As I have each time we've asked a question, I will give the parliamentary assistant all the time he needs, without any comment from myself, to answer this very simple question. This is the legislation that will allow the government to set up any number of casinos. This is the legislation that will allow hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent constructing these casinos. This is the legislation that will establish that. Why will you not agree to this amendment that essentially says the public won't be held responsible for the debt and deficit of these casinos?

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further comments to the amendment put forward by Mr McClelland?

Mr McClelland: I think he is rising to his feet, Madam Chair. I'll defer. I invite the parliamentary assistant to respond.

Mr Duignan: There are many ways of dealing with this particular issue, and the way we've chosen to deal with it is through a contract between two individuals. This is between the proponent and the government. The proponent will be responsible for any operating deficit in the casino.

I can't make this any clearer, but it appears to be very hard for the opposition to understand that. Maybe they're not used to doing business deals. When we look at SkyDome, it's a clear example that the Liberals have no idea how to construct a good business deal for the people of this province.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I think what the member does not understand is that not only do we not trust you but the taxpayers don't trust you, your own supporters in the last election don't trust you, the doctors don't trust you -- I can go on and on.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Nurses.

Mr Stockwell: Nurses don't trust you, 900,000 workers don't trust you, child care workers don't trust you, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union workers don't trust you.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Farmers.

Mr Stockwell: The farmers don't trust you.

Mr Carr: The CAW.

Mr Phillips: Steven Langdon.

Mr Stockwell: Steven Langdon, of course, doesn't trust you, and the Canadian Auto Workers don't trust you.

Mr Murdoch: Howard McCurdy.

Mr Stockwell: Mr McCurdy doesn't trust you.

Mr Murdoch: I don't think McLaughlin trusts him either.

Mr Stockwell: I'm not sure about that. But what it comes down to --

The First Deputy Chair: To the member, would you please address the amendment.

Mr Stockwell: I'm doing my best. What I'm trying to point out through the Chair is that this would be very important to put in the legislation because they've broken their promises on a whole series of issues.

They used to have a lot of supporters who now don't trust them. Nobody would do business with them on a bet. It's important that we understand all this so the parliamentary assistant can understand that practically the entire province doesn't trust them.

We think it's important, considering their track record and considering the fact that nobody trusts them, that they put this in the legislation so that those people involved in this province, who may have their pockets picked when it comes to the deficits and so on of these casinos, would have a certainty that it wouldn't come from their tax dollar.

To the parliamentary assistant, considering the list of people you've broken promises to -- and I can get out the Agenda for People and list the promises you've broken there -- and considering all those people who don't trust you any more and the fact that your friends don't like you and your enemies are laughing at you, maybe you can understand at that time why this would be important to put into legislation.

Mr McClelland: I want to walk through a bit of a scenario that I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt began to touch upon. I'm not sure that everybody understands what's taking place here, and I think it bears repeating perhaps over and over again until some light goes on at the end of the tunnel.

The fact of the matter is this: Bill 8, the legislation, sets up a legislative framework wherein a government in the future can set up any number of casinos with a variety of models, a variety of different types of contracts, a variety of types of arrangements. In fact, it's not even really the government per se that can enter into the contracts. It is a corporation established under this legislation that has authority to do this.

I say this with great respect, Madam Chairperson, but you've been in here in question period from time to time when I have put questions to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the development of the process and the request for proposals surrounding the Windsor casino specifically. What she will say is: "I don't want to get involved. I want to stand back and allow that process to be delegated to a select group of competent" -- and they are -- "deputy ministers to make a decision."

But there's an issue here in terms of political accountability, and one of the basic, fundamental issues of political accountability is when the taxpayers' money is involved: It is those of us who put our names on the line and go to the people every few years and allow that consultation to take place with the voter to render judgement on how we have managed the affairs of the province and their money. It is not ours in this place; the money and the resources of this province are the resources of the people of this province. That's what we're talking about.

What this legislation does is delegate to a corporation, a group of women and men, the authority to enter into contracts that will potentially have the taxpayer responsible for debts. The parliamentary assistant will hasten to add, "That's not going to happen; trust me." We're saying that you can't even give that assurance in good faith, in good conscience, save and except "at this point in time," as you say. I say with respect, none of us is prophetic and you don't know what's going to happen down the road. You don't know what kind of "arrangement," to use your own terminology, will be made with the corporation; not with the government directly but with the corporation established by the government, a group of women and men empowered by this legislation to enter into contracts on behalf of the people of this province.

Surely the people who sit on the government side would understand that none of us is here for ever. Many of us in this place will not be back after 1995 or whenever the Premier has the courage to go to the people to have a judgement made on the leadership of this government. When that happens, some of us won't be here. The opportunity we have to speak on behalf of the citizens of Sarnia or Scarborough-Agincourt or Brampton North or Niagara region is now.

What we have is an opportunity to say to the people of our respective communities, those who have entrusted us with the responsibility of governing this province now and making decisions that will impact not only the affairs of the province today but, in this instance, potentially the affairs of the province for many years to come, that will impact our children and the economic realities for many years to come -- what we want to say to them and what I want to say to them is that the decisions made with respect to casino gambling in the province of Ontario will not cost you, not only, as the parliamentary assistant says, at the present time, but will not cost you down the road either; that it will not be for your children or others to pay for decisions that are made not by the government of the day but by a corporation established by the government.

I think that point is very, very significant. This is not a process that will be brought back for review on a contract-by-contract basis. When we establish through this legislation the rules of the game, we are saying to the people of the province of Ontario, "We are setting up a corporation that will have the legal authority to enter into contracts on your behalf." You know what would happen if I were to call a member of Parliament?

Let's just say that I don't run or I'm not re-elected and I call my MPP and she or he is a member of the government. He or she would say: "You know, we can't do anything about that contract because in 1993 the government of the day gave the authority away. They gave it to a corporation. At that point in time, the government had an opportunity to say to that corporation, 'One of the rules of the casino game in Ontario is that the people of Ontario will not pick up the tab,' but do you know what? The government of the day chose not to do that. They said, 'Trust us,' and that government's changed and many of the women and men who've sat in that committee on October 19 and listened to it, quite frankly, were getting tired of hearing the argument over and over again and said, 'Let's get this over with and vote on it and move on.'"

1630

I say that is not good enough. It's certainly not good enough for the people of Brampton North and it's certainly not good enough for the people across this province. Moreover, it's not good enough for the kids in this province who may have to pay the price down the road.

I'm not prepared to allow the government to just get off the hook by the rhetoric of the parliamentary assistant, which is always qualified by his catchphrase, "At the present time," or, "Today we're not contemplating." This is not only about today.

As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has so ably set out, this is the legislation that allows an arm, a corporation established by the government, to enter into contracts, not for Windsor only and not for 1993 or 1994 when we get around to inking the paper, but for years and years to come, and that concerns me.

I think there's something very, very fundamental here. Apart from our political argument that we may have in terms of the genesis of this particular amendment, as my friend from Dufferin-Peel says, "We'll let you reintroduce it and say it's your amendment." If you want to take credit for it, fine, that's not the issue. The issue is that we can't give away the right to a corporation, in my opinion, to put the province and the people of Ontario on the hook for potential loss. It's that simple.

There's a very fundamental principle here. I would hope that members of the government -- certainly members of the opposition I think are prepared to say this, that we want to go back to the people in our community and say, "You know, we made a decision that we think gives you some assurance and some protection down the road."

That's what this is about. It's not about carving out who's got the right to enter into contracts, whether it's the government or the opposition trying to meddle in their legislative agenda. This is something, and I say it over and over again in the hope that maybe somebody in the government, in the back benches, will begin to understand this: You are giving away, if you don't allow this amendment, the right to control expenditures on behalf of the people in your constituency.

The people who elected you from northern Ontario, from eastern Ontario, from all across this province have charged you with the responsibility to act judiciously and carefully and wisely on their behalf today and for the future. This is not only about today; it's about tomorrow and next year and the year after that.

Providing the rules of the casino game that this government wants to enter into and putting the rules, if you will, into the hands of a corporation without direct legislative accountability, I can predict, I think, fairly reasonably -- and I'll say this very candidly at the risk of offending and angering some of my friends opposite, the minister, with whom I enjoy a reasonably good working relationship: The people of Ontario will not accept a government whose minister stands day to day in his or her place and says: "I'm sorry, I've given away the authority to somebody else. It's your money, but I don't want to get involved. I'm the minister" -- as my friend from Mississauga West says -- "I have the limo and the driver and all the perks, but I'm not going to get involved in the decision-making process."

That's not good enough. I think we need to get involved in the decision-making process specifically on this issue. This is your opportunity to all members in this place to get involved and make a decision. The decision is simply this, that you will not allow casino operators to leave the bill on the table to be picked up by the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

Are you in favour of that position? Are you prepared to go back to Brantford or to Rainy River or to Yorkview, Sudbury, Cochrane, the various areas that you represent and say, "You know what? I was prepared to say that we're not going to allow you to be stuck with the tab," or, alternatively, do you want to go back to your communities and say, "You know what? I didn't have the courage to make that decision today." It's that simple. This business of politics is about accountability and about us being responsible for the things that we do.

I say that I for one want to be very, very clear on this matter. I am not prepared to let it go simply without -- I hate going over this over and over again -- saying to the government, "We'll allow you to delegate the right to a corporation that may cost people money." The parliamentary assistant jumps to his feet from time to time and uses examples and says, "Well, there have been other experiences and you've been guilty of it and the third-party government in times past made mistakes." Yes, but one of the interesting things that I heard for years, and I'm trying to engender a sense with my son, is that when you make a mistake, try to admit it, try to learn from it and get on and remedy it in the future.

I don't remember a lot of things from high school. One of the things that I remember a lot is my sports activity. Reverend Bob Rumball, who is very much involved with the work of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, spoke once at an athletic banquet and here's what he said. He said there are two types of people in the world. There are the wise and there are the otherwise. That goes back some 25 years or so when he said that, but I'll remember that.

It's very interesting because he said that the wise person understands that when you make a mistake, you admit it and you try to remedy it and make sure it doesn't happen again. The otherwise person says: "You know, I made a mistake, but it won't happen to me again. I can dance out of this one. It's okay. I don't have to do anything about it. I'm going to depend on luck."

We are not prepared to allow the corporation to gamble and try to play out luck for the people of the province of Ontario when the tab could very well be -- and I think quite frankly the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, whose judgement I respect a great deal, is being somewhat conservative, if he would forgive me for saying that, in terms of the $300-million to $350-million costs.

I predict quite frankly, and let me put this on the record, that the casinos will be double and triple the size that this government will no doubt want to announce shortly for Toronto -- the three locales that I presume they will announce in Toronto, one probably at the CNE, one in the east end and one in northern Toronto, no doubt -- some time before the great consultation with the people in 1995, and will cost significantly more in terms of land acquisition, in the size and all of the proceedings that will be necessary to see those projects come to fruition. And you know what? This amendment protects the taxpayer from those projects, from being charged with costs associated with those projects, not only in the first instance of their construction but in the ongoing operation.

I like to be optimistic about virtually everything in my life. I figure that life's too short to not be optimistic. I would hope that if the government entrance into this continues down this path, as it is bound and determined to do, it will meet with a measure of success. But I'm not prepared to guarantee that.

The parliamentary assistant, it seems, is prepared to stand in his place and guarantee to the people of his particular constituency and indeed the people of the province of Ontario that there's going to be no problem in terms of cost down the road. I'm not prepared to make that guarantee here today or quite frankly in perpetuity. I would hope that, with a fair measure of optimism, the projects will be successful. But it may not be, and in the event that it is not successful, let's give, if you will, an insurance policy or a clause to the people of the province of Ontario.

To my friend the parliamentary assistant from Halton North, I know you mean well. I know you're giving the government line on this one, "Today, don't worry." I would ask you, sir, if you're prepared to stand in your place and say that you're prepared, as an honourable gentleman in this place, to give assurances to the people of the province of Ontario, particularly the people of Halton North, on behalf of your government, that they need not worry, ever, about costs.

1640

If you're prepared to do that, I ask you, as an honourable gentleman, to stand in your place right now and say: "On behalf of my Premier, Bob Rae, and my minister whom I serve as her parliamentary assistant, don't worry. I can guarantee you that the taxpayers of the province will never be held accountable for any project pursuant to or under the legislative framework of Bill 8." You can say so at this time, without the qualification of "at this present time on this project." Say it unequivocally. It won't give me any sense of measure, because there's no disrespect to you, sir, I say to the parliamentary assistant. I have the utmost faith in your integrity. But, quite frankly, it's beyond your control, and that's my whole point.

I would dare say that the member for Halton North is not prepared to stand in his place today and make that kind of statement because he is an honourable man and he knows he can't give that kind of guarantee. But you know what? He has an opportunity to give a guarantee -- not his, but a legislative guarantee -- to the people of the province of Ontario. That's what we're asking him and his colleagues to do.

I would put that question to him, not to embarrass him, but simply to make the point: Is he prepared to stand in his place today and say unequivocally, "I will guarantee the people of Halton North, whom I represent today, and the people of the province, in terms of any project pursuant to Bill 8, that they won't be on the hook"? Alternatively, maybe he'd like to consult with his minister. I'd be prepared to give him an opportunity to adjourn and say, "No, we can't in good conscience give that guarantee, but maybe we can give them a legislative guarantee."

I'd like to pause for a moment and await the response of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Duignan: I was thinking, I recall my comments yesterday evening. Again, I said I can only speak for a New Democratic Party government. I can't speak for Tory governments and Liberal governments, given their past records and how they dealt with business deals. But I can assure you that so long as there's a New Democratic Party government, the people of this province will not be picking up any deficit for the operation of the casino.

Mr McClelland: Let me just say in response to the parliamentary assistant: Sir, you can speak today. You do have an opportunity to speak, and you have an opportunity to speak through the legislation and to incorporate into the legislation an amendment that would speak volumes. You could speak personally to the people you represent and you can speak on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario. I say to you, sir, with the greatest respect, you can speak. You can speak by legislating protection for the people of this province.

Mr Tilson: Listening to the parliamentary assistant, he appears to be agreeing in principle with the philosophy that the province of Ontario, or the corporation, which is in fact the province of Ontario, should not be responsible for the debt of the operator; in other words, for the deficit. He appears to agree with that, and I gather the government agrees with that in principle.

Where he varies is that he says, no, it should not be a statutory requirement, it should not be a mandatory requirement that is set forth in this or any other piece of legislation, but that it will be in individual contracts, whether it be with this operator or another operator who's going to operate one of the several Toronto casinos or so on across this province, and that it's going to be a matter of trust. That is going to get back to, again, the question that was asked by the member for Parry Sound: Are you going to give us some sort of guarantee? Are you going to give us some sort of guarantee that this clause that you say is going into this contract will be in other contracts, whether it be under the jurisdiction of a Liberal government or a Conservative government or indeed another New Democratic government in 1995? We can all be cute in saying that there's no chance, but the fact of the matter is, whatever government it is, will it be mandated? The answer to that is no.

It's a very straightforward principle. Clause (a) of the amendment says that,

"All contracts entered into between the corporation and an operator of a casino shall be deemed to contain provisions stipulating that:

"(a) the operator shall be solely responsible for an operating deficit."

You seem to agree with that principle, but you're simply saying, "No, it shouldn't be a statutory requirement." I quite frankly don't understand that. There are all kinds of pieces of legislation in this province that have been passed over the years that put forward statutory requirements that must be in certain contracts. I can think of the Landlord and Tenant Act, where leases are signed between a landlord and a tenant, and there are clauses in those leases that must be there, because that's the law of this province. Those have been proven to be most reasonable, and there is discretion between the landlord and the tenant to enter into any other form of lease agreements with the exceptions of these provisions. That's all this amendment is asking for.

This amendment is saying, well, you can enter into your contract with the operator, whether it be this operator in this experiment or another operator. We're simply saying that the province of Ontario, the taxpayer of this province, will not be responsible for the operator's debts, for the deficit. That's all we're saying. My goodness, we've got enough deficit going on in this province or this country or businesses that are being operated in this province. People are getting very cynical, and that's been said by many of the debaters before me.

Notwithstanding the admission by the parliamentary assistant that his government agrees in principle that the province of Ontario should not be responsible for a debt, by saying that is he then saying it's possible?

I have two questions for the parliamentary assistant. The first question is, is it possible that this agreement he is talking about, this agreement between the operator and the corporation that he is speaking of, which we won't see but of which he has said: "Trust us. There will be a provision in this agreement that says the province of Ontario won't be responsible for a debt" -- is it possible, in a matter of law, that this contract could expire, that this contract, for whatever reason, could be amended to say that, well, we're having trouble in Windsor, and we want to keep it alive and we'll pick up the debt? "Notwithstanding that clause, we're going to amend the agreement, so therefore we're going to pick up the debt." Is it possible that a contract could be amended, as the first question, this particular contract that you've spoken of?

The second question is the question that the member for Parry Sound has asked several times and I've asked at least once and which, with due respect, you have not given an answer to. Is it possible that the other contracts, if indeed you're going to have other contracts, and I assume that you will, involving other casinos around this province -- I don't know how many there are going to be. There have been all these predictions of five or six or whatever different casinos around this province. If the pilot project works, is it possible that those contracts could be different from this one and that there could be clauses put in for whatever reason? Maybe the economic circumstances are different, maybe the whole operation of the casino is different or maybe they have a different proximity to another casino.

Maybe it's a more risky operation. I'm trying to foresee things. But is it possible then that the new contract that would be entered into would be different from this contract that you're asking us to rely on, trusting you that there will be a clause that the province of Ontario won't pick up the debt of the operator?

Those are two questions I would like the parliamentary assistant to answer before these proceedings continue.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further comments? No further comments to this amendment?

Mr Tilson: I don't know why the parliamentary assistant -- those are reasonable questions.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Those are reasonable questions that I put forward. One has been phrased differently, I'll admit, and is similar to a question that's been asked, but one is certainly a brand-new question. Is this process that we have in committee of the whole simply when we ask questions? Is the parliamentary assistant going to be silent? They're reasonable questions and I would expect an answer, because I'm going to keep asking them. I'm going to give a speech every time. If you don't answer them, I'm going to keep talking.

1650

Mr Phillips: I thought the member for Dufferin-Peel asked a good question, and frankly I'm surprised there wasn't an answer.

I'm going to pursue a similar question. What we're driving at is that this isn't a Windsor casino piece of legislation; this isn't a one-time piece of legislation. It's An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos.

This is what the people of Ontario are dealing with as a piece of legislation that will give the authority for this crown corporation to go out and set up as many casinos as it wants. What the member for Dufferin-Peel was getting at is a very fundamental issue. We're being told not to worry: "Just trust the NDP government. There's no problem here. We'll make sure we tell the bidders in the future that they are responsible for the debt and deficit."

What this amendment attempts to do is to incorporate that into the legislation. The reason for doing that is that in my opinion -- and this is where I hope the parliamentary assistant is listening carefully, because I'm going to want an answer to this -- two to three years down the road, or indeed a year down the road, we could see approval being given not by the government but by this new agency to establish additional casinos. We could see the contract being set between this new agency, called in the bill the Gaming Control Commission, this independent, arm's-length agency -- we could see the gaming commission as the body that signs the contract with whichever organization is going to run these casinos.

What I want from the parliamentary assistant is for him to point out to the public where in this legislation is the guarantee that the public won't be held accountable for the debt and the deficit of that. Can he tell me where in this legislation that assurance is given to the public of Ontario?

Mr Duignan: Again I make it very clear that what we're dealing with is one pilot project in Windsor. No decisions have been made to expand the casinos beyond the city of Windsor. As I said before, the proponent will be responsible for the operating deficit if there's any in the Windsor casino.

Mr Phillips: The parliamentary assistant is either confused -- well, he's confused. That isn't what we're dealing with. We're not dealing with the Windsor pilot project. We are dealing with the legislation that establishes all the future casinos for the province. If you just want to deal with Windsor, then throw this bill out and bring in a bill for Windsor and then we could deal with it. But we're not dealing with that, and for him to say that's what we're dealing with, there's a sense of confusion on the government side.

For the public, there should be no mistake: This legislation will enable all the future casinos to open up without anybody having to come back to the Legislature. If I'm wrong on that, the parliamentary assistant should stand up and tell me I'm wrong. This isn't the Windsor bill. Again I go back: It's an act to provide for the control of casinos. Let's be very clear with ourselves and with the public about what we're dealing with here.

I go back to the question I just asked: Where in the legislation is the assurance for the public that as future casinos are established they won't be on the hook for the debt and the deficits of it?

Mr Duignan: This issue, as I said before, can be dealt with in many ways. We've chosen to deal with it through the contractual process; that's a contract between two individuals. As I said before, I can assure you that in this bill, while it's enabling legislation to establish casinos in this province, at this point we're only dealing with one casino in Windsor. The contract with whoever the proponent will be will state very clearly that the proponent will be responsible for the operating deficit of that casino.

Mr Tilson: I asked two questions before and I got absolutely no response to those questions. I will just revert back to one question.

The parliamentary assistant is making himself perfectly clear that he's going to the contractual relationship between two parties to assure the members of the public, the taxpayers, that they won't be picking up any potential debt that may arise out of this pilot project. I understand that. I may not agree with it, but I understand it.

However, the philosophy is perfectly clear from this government. It seems to be almost disregarding the possibility that after a period of time, unless this contract goes on for ever, and I doubt that because of the terminology "pilot project" -- and I'm ignoring the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's statement that this legislation applies to all potential casinos around this province; I'm looking strictly at the pilot project. It seems to me that after a period of time, from the government's point of view, this is going to be a successful operation. Does that mean there will be a new contract? Does that mean this contract will never under any circumstances be amended, that it will go on for ever?

The answer to that is, I would hope, that the contract will not be open-ended, that it will not go on for ever with the same operator, that there may be different operators down the line, for whatever reason. That operator may go out of business; it may be appropriate that a new operator be chosen to operate the casino; there may be any number of things that occur. It may require a new contract, which would be negotiated by a new government, whether it be any of the parties that seem to be surfacing in this country today.

Again I'm going to ask the specific question to the parliamentary assistant: Is it possible that this agreement that will be entered into or is perhaps already entered into with the operator can be amended? Can it be amended now? Can it be amended when it expires? Is it possible that this agreement can be amended, or can it be terminated?

Mr Duignan: Like any contract, as the honourable member well knows, they don't go on for ever. I would suspect that at the end of whatever time period negotiated for the contract, we will look at the performance of the proponent or the operator and see whether it lived up to the obligations of its contract. If it has, I would suspect that the contract will be renewed with the proponent; if it hasn't, I would suspect it won't be.

Mr Tilson: I know the parliamentary assistant thought that was a silly question. I know that, but I asked it for a reason, because of course a contract is going to expire. I can't believe that any government, notwithstanding my shots on the Teranet principal, would enter into a contract that's going to go on for ever. I can't believe that. That would be totally irresponsible.

Mr Stockwell: Ontario Place.

Mr Tilson: Ontario Place is another one, but I'm simply saying that in dealing with this issue -- and I'm not looking at the parliamentary assistant in particular -- I can't believe this particular government would enter into a contract that would go on for ever, and I quite agree with you. Many of the shots that I take at you -- I don't believe you're as irresponsible as to enter into a contract with an operator that would go on for ever.

1700

It is for that reason I'm asking the question that, if you believe in the principle that the province of Ontario should not assume the debt of an operator, then why not make it a statutory requirement? Why not do that? Otherwise you're saying that somewhere down the line, for whatever reason, this contract, the next contract, which could be made by another government, a government that may not be of your same philosophical belief -- it could be of a Liberal belief; it could be a Conservative belief; it could be some other belief -- might simply say, "Well, it's not part of a statutory requirement, so I'm not going to do it."

Now is the time, if you're going to enter into a project that's going to cost the taxpayer, or could cost the taxpayer, of this province as much money as we fear and has the potential of as much failure as we fear, I hope you would want to make sure it's right in the first place. One of the ways in which you can guarantee that it's right in the first place is to say it's mandatory, it's a statutory requirement that the taxpayer of this province will not be responsible for the debt.

I cannot understand your answer and it leads me to the second question which I hope you'd give me an answer to. The second question has to do with the other casinos around this province that may surface. I gather from what you are saying, it seems to me, that the terms of those contracts may be different from the pilot project in Windsor, for whatever reason: a different part of the province, a different operator, perhaps the experiment in Windsor failed and maybe we must have a different type of contract, perhaps a charitable organization may be the operator. There are any number of possibilities.

My question again to you is: Is it possible that these contracts could be different from the Windsor contract? If they are, it would seem to me that the clause you promise us will be in could be left out.

Mr Duignan: As the member well knows, if a decision is made to expand casinos into other municipalities across this province, of course there will be a different contract with each and every proposal. I can assure the honourable member, as I can assure the taxpayers of this province, that we'll be entering those contracts in a sound business sense which will include a clause that'll make sure the proponent will pick up any operating deficit of any casino located anywhere in this province.

Mr Tilson: Would you not agree then, and I understand what you've just said, but would you not agree that by the time these other contracts are entered into it is possible that another government who might not make the same commitment you have could simply leave that agreement out?

You've given us examples of how it happened with the Liberals or the Conservatives or whoever, on different tragedies that have occurred in which the taxpayers picked up the tab. This is your golden opportunity to make sure that won't happen. This is your golden opportunity.

You may not be in power after 1995. You say you will be and that's fine for you to believe that, but you may not be in power after 1995 or whenever you call the next election. That's the problem. You are setting up this thing, this whole plan. It seems to me most logical that you should say it's a statutory requirement, it's a mandatory requirement, that the taxpayer of this province is not responsible for the debt.

Having heard the rationale that the promise you've made with respect to the Windsor project may not be able to be made because you may not be where you're sitting right now, it may be another government, now is the time to grasp on to the opportunity. Having seen that possibility, would you not agree that the amendment that's been put forward by the member for Brampton North is a most reasonable amendment?

Mr Duignan: We believe that what's included in the honourable member for Brampton North's amendment can be dealt with in many ways. One of the ways of dealing with it is in a contractual situation between two parties. I can't speak for any government that's elected if we're not elected and I know we're going to be around here until the year 2010, so I don't believe the taxpayers of this province have anything to worry about.

However, say it's not the case, I'd be very surprised. I'd be very surprised at any government getting into a situation like that because, I can tell you, the taxpayers in the following election will turf that government out.

Mr Stockwell: To lend your answer any credibility would be certainly overstating anyone's degree of common sense. Your responses are painfully shallow and your defence is equally hopeless. You sit there completely unprotected from these frontal assaults that bear complete resemblance to fair and reasonable questions. Your responses are just literally hopeless endeavours, an attempt to divert public attention from the issue before us. You sit there and you stand in your place, and it's absolutely embarrassing to see a member stand in his place and try to defend the indefensible, trying to convince all in this province that what he has to say has any credibility or any sense of realism.

The position that's being put forward, I say to the member, is you're tabling a template of what you choose to see the province's casinos operate under. To make the laughable suggestion that you treat these questions with "We'll be in power till 2010" is treating the taxpayers' dollars with complete --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: With complete contempt. Thank you. I thank the member from Brampton. It's beyond speech in some instances how ludicrous and insane and absolutely stupid your arguments are. It really comes down to that. I don't like to use that word, but they're just stupid, stupid arguments.

I put to the member, the parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton North, we in this chamber understand contract law. We understand that two parties can agree to a contract, a binding contract, and we understand the difference between contract and legislation.

But the question I'm asking -- and I look across the floor to the member for Rainy River, the one who wrote that damaging report in his younger years about casino gambling. You'd think the member for Rainy River, if he had any sway in this cabinet, would have this kind of piece of legislation built in.

I look to the member for Halton North and say, we understand that agreement can be made between two people. It's called a contract. But to make the suggestion that you give this chamber, you give this Legislature and you give the province of Ontario complete undertaking that you will ensure that no casino ever will be constructed in this province, ever, where the taxpayers will not be on the hook for some losses they incur if it so happens, without including it in the legislation, is bordering on the absolute insanity of your argument.

Can you not see the insanity of your argument when you're saying, "Never, ever will the taxpayers be responsible for debt at any casino at any time in the history of the province of Ontario, but I'm not going to put it in the legislation"? Can't you see the argument that's being made and how phoney and absurd your defence is?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills):I would suggest that if an officer of a public company -- and I find it absolutely obnoxious that the parliamentary assistant who has passage over this bill is walking away and having a chat and a joke. This is pretty serious business.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Stop your self-righteousness and get on with it.

Mr Turnbull: Don't give me any of the self-righteousness. I'm telling you, this is serious business. You are putting at risk the finances of this province.

If an officer of a public company were to put the corporation at risk by exposing it to potential debt by some other company through some activity they'd engaged in without the proper protections, I would suggest that the shareholders of that company would probably have a bona fide case against those officers.

That is what the government is proposing to do here, because it is putting at risk the taxpayers of this province for the liability that could be incurred unless this very simple amendment is accepted. The amendment is very clear and very specific in that it spells out what the government claims is obvious. So why on earth could they have any possible objection to enshrining it in law if they say this is the case? I would like to hear a response from the parliamentary assistant on that argument.

1710

Mr McClelland: I'm saddened that the parliamentary assistant sits there and shakes his head and says, "No, I'm not going to answer." The least we could expect is an answer from the government. I recognize it's not always an easy position to be in. I served as a parliamentary assistant in the former government to a fairly flamboyant and fairly notable minister, namely the Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, and it was a difficult position to be in, from time to time, to be called upon to respond.

I would say to you, sir, that it is, however, the responsibility you have. I remind the people of this province that you are paid a stipend because you accepted that responsibility. You draw a salary of some, I believe, $12,000 a year additional -- how much is it?

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: It's some $9,000 to sit in your place and shake your head and say, "I don't want to respond." You, sir, are the spokesperson in this place today on behalf of the government with respect to Bill 8. There have been a number of questions put to you. The member for Halton North has put to you a series of questions and you refuse to answer them. The member for York Mills has asked you a question; you refused to answer it. The member from Etobicoke has put to you a question, albeit in a rhetorical format, as is his wont and inimitable style, and you sit there and shrug your shoulders and shake your head and yawn. I have asked you a series of questions. As I recall, I asked you three questions. I'll repeat them and give you, I hope, an opportunity.

Earlier, close to an hour ago, I asked that as an honourable gentleman in this place and an individual who has taken your oath of office, I believe, seriously, who accepts the responsibility entrusted to you as parliamentary assistant in the carriage of this legislation through the legislative process, you would at least have the courtesy to respond to the representatives of the people of the province of Ontario.

You may disagree with our position. You may disagree with the logic of our argument, which on the face of it I find difficult inasmuch as you haven't provided any direct response to the arguments raised.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. There are a lot of inflammatory comments going from one side to the other and it will serve us no useful purpose.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. The honourable member for Brampton North has the floor. I want to remind all other members that interjections are out of order, particularly when you're not in your own seat.

Mr McClelland: I can understand the frustration. I'm not condoning it. I have been known from time to time, although perhaps not as frequently as some, to interject inappropriately. But, Mr Chairman, I'm sure you understand -- you've sat here as a very effective member of the opposition and asked questions from time to time -- that the least you can expect is an answer. You sit there and you get a shrug of the shoulders, you get a shake of the head.

I say to the parliamentary assistant that when you do that, you're not just doing it to the member who asked you the question. Whatever ill will or lack of respect you might hold for myself or any other member of the House, so be it, but we represent a group of people. I represent all of those people in Brampton North. Obviously, not all of them voted for me; in fact, a good number didn't. But I represent each and every one of those individuals to the best of my ability, and from time to time I ask questions on their behalf and I believe that you, sir, have a responsibility to answer them.

I would hope that you would answer my question that I asked earlier. The question was this: Are you prepared to make again many of the statements that you have by removing the qualification "at this point," or "at this point in time"? Are you prepared to do that as a gentleman and as a member of this House, to stand before the people of Ontario and say, "I want to personally guarantee you, as a member, that you don't have to worry?" Alternatively, are you prepared to put it in legislation?

Your argument that suggests, "You can trust us and we'll take care of it" and that there are other ways to take care of it, but yet refuses to respond to the questions with respect to the specifics of those ways, leaves absolutely nothing that members in this place can take back to their caucus colleagues, to the people they represent in their ridings -- some of them in the capacity as critics here literally from across the province, and, I might add, from other jurisdictions as well. They have some very, very pointed and direct questions.

It's not, quite frankly, good enough for me to just go back and say, "My colleague from Etobicoke asked a question and unfortunately the representative, the spokesperson for the government, shrugged his shoulders and shook his head and didn't answer." What the people in my community want to know is, why didn't I push him for an answer? So I'm doing that now. I'm asking you if you will respond to the questions that have been put to you.

Mr Mammoliti: They are all waiting to ask you that question.

Mr McClelland: The member for Yorkview sort of trivializes and said they're all going to be lined up tomorrow asking questions.

Mr Mammoliti: At your constituency office. They are all going to be there.

Mr McClelland: The fact of the matter is that many of them do, from time to time, ask me questions, and I feel I have a responsibility to try and address them. Indeed, as critic, I get calls from literally across the province. Some people who call me reside in ridings that are represented by government members, and I find it curious that many of the calls come from ridings represented by government members because they have said when they call that they don't get answers. Maybe that's telling us something here today when the parliamentary assistant's response is a shrug of the shoulders and a shake of the head.

I asked earlier, are you prepared to stand and say that you're prepared to give the guarantee, personally, without the qualifications that you have? I would hope that you'd do that. I would hope you would find within yourself the courage of your convictions as a member, as a parliamentary assistant who draws a salary to fill those responsibilities, to at least respond. You may be challenged on those responses, as you have been today, and no doubt you will be unless you, quite frankly, add some substance to your responses, but surely you owe the people of the province of Ontario, as the parliamentary assistant, as the spokesperson for the ministry that has carriage of this legislation, a response.

You can give a response in whatever fashion you wish, but I would ask you, as an honourable gentleman in this place, to at least respond to the question that I have put, and I'll leave it up to my colleagues to ask for a response again to their questions.

One of the questions I want to ask you, and I'll pause for a moment and hopefully will hear a response, is, are you prepared to give the same assurances as you have without your qualification "at this point in time"?

A supplementary question is, if you're not prepared to do that, why are you not prepared to put it in legislation so that you could, with honour and with your integrity, which I know you cherish, stand in your place and give the assurance that you have at least done your best?

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Oh, please.

Mr McClelland: The member for Sudbury says, "Oh, please," and moans on. I in fact will say to the member for Sudbury that it's because I do have some regard for -- perhaps the member for Sudbury would like to put on the record what she just said. I'd be interested in hearing her elucidate on that matter a bit further.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Brampton North has the floor.

Mr McClelland: I was just giving the member for Sudbury an opportunity for what I could only consider to be sort of a shot if she wants to take it. I would suggest that she might want to do so and put it on the record and live by the comment. Be that as it may, she's neglected to do that, and that's fine.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You need a thicker skin.

Mr McClelland: Not at all, I say to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I was just giving her an opportunity. I in fact have no difficulty with it. I just believe that the member for Sudbury, if she feels strongly about a matter, would want it to be a matter of record.

I'm wondering if the parliamentary assistant would stand in his place and indicate that he is prepared to make the same statements without the qualification "at this point in time."

1720

Mr Duignan: I'm going to be repeating myself again, as I've answered this question a number of times over the last couple of days. What I've said was that there are many ways of dealing with this particular issue. The way we chose to deal with it is through a contractual arrangement between the two parties. In that contractual arrangement will be that the proponent will be responsible for picking up any operating deficit in the casino. I can guarantee you that if the decision of the government of the day is to expand the casinos beyond that of Windsor, I will ensure that this particular clause will be in any contractual arrangement.

Mr McClelland: Then I ask the question, why not put that assurance in writing? Why not put into the legislation the assurance that the arrangement, as you refer to it, will be a point of law as opposed to a point of assurance given by the parliamentary assistant?

Mr Duignan: We are dealing with this issue through a contractual arrangement. How more can I answer that question? It'll be in the contract.

Mr Tilson: The problem with what the parliamentary assistant is saying is that he's simply saying it's going to be in a contract. The amendment deals with the very contract he is speaking of. The member for Brampton North is saying "all contracts," including the contract you speak of, including a contract that could be negotiated down the line with another operator --

Mr Stockwell: In 2039.

Mr Tilson: The member for Etobicoke West says in 2039; whenever -- or a contract with respect to Windsor or Toronto or Sault Ste Marie or Ottawa --

Mr Stockwell: Or Alton.

Mr Tilson: -- or Alton, in all the various places that are being suggested and contemplated as being for the location of a casino. That is his point: The words are "all contracts." You haven't dealt with that adequately, Mr Parliamentary Assistant. The member for Brampton North has referred to "all contracts," not just the contract you've spoken of with respect to the Windsor experiment. That is your response. You simply say it's going to be in the contract involving the Windsor project.

Well, that isn't what the amendment deals with. The amendment specifically deals with "all contracts": now, in the future, in 1995 and after 1995, after the year 2000, whenever you want to say that you're going to be vacating this place. Quite frankly, with the attitude you've been taking I hope it'll be a lot sooner. With due respect, it simply says "all contracts." That includes all contracts with respect to Windsor and all contracts with other municipalities; a most logical proposal.

If you believe in the principle that the taxpayer of the province should not be responsible for the debts, the "operating deficit," to use the words of the amendment, of the operator, then you should make it a statutory requirement, you should make it a mandatory requirement, because to do anything else simply says it's possible that you might think the opposite or another government might think the opposite.

That's the very fear you've heard and I've debated with the parliamentary assistant in another forum than this with respect to Teranet, the whole issue of Teranet: the fear that we don't know what's going on, that we don't know what's in those contracts. You may say that this contract is going to be renegotiated in Windsor, and you've indicated it will be, but you may be in the opposition by that time and you'll never know. You'll never know what's going to be in that contract because of privacy legislation. You -- you as a member of the opposition or you as a member of the public or you as a taxpayer anywhere in this province -- simply won't be allowed to be informed because of our privacy legislation.

That's why the amendment is being suggested. That's why the member for Brampton North is suggesting to you by his amendment that it be made a mandatory requirement that such a clause be put in all the contracts, not just the contract you've spoken to.

You've admitted today that it is possible that your government or another government could amend the Windsor contract. You've admitted that your government or another government, albeit I would agree an irresponsible government, could take this clause out down the line. You've admitted that in another contract with another location, another municipality across this province could take it out or the government negotiating a contract for that particular municipality, albeit an irresponsible government, could take it out. You've admitted that. This amendment is to preclude an irresponsible government, whether it be a New Democratic government, a Conservative government or a Liberal government, but an irresponsible government, allowing that to happen.

You've stood up in this place and you've criticized the opposition members for SkyDome. You talked about the millions of dollars that have been wasted because of irresponsible positions. That's why this amendment is being proposed: to avoid that situation. For the life of me, I can't understand why you cannot guarantee to taxpayers now and in the future that this will not happen.

But you've left it open. By turning this amendment down, you have left the door open for this to happen, that the taxpayer could in some situations, either because of an economic situation in the particular municipality or because of an irresponsible government -- and we all acknowledge, particularly the members of the opposition today, that there are irresponsible governments; you've indicated that there are irresponsible governments. You in your responses have talked about the Conservative government in Ottawa. That's a favourite heckle, particularly to the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, that the federal government in Ottawa is an irresponsible government. I don't agree with you, but having acknowledged that there are irresponsible governments, that's why this amendment is being proposed, because governments are irresponsible.

I have news for you. Your government has proven to be irresponsible in many matters in this province, and that's exactly why the member for Brampton North has put forward this amendment. If you're asking whether he trusts you, no, he doesn't trust you. He's never going to see the clause in that agreement, and do you know why he's not going to see it? Because of the privacy legislation. As a private citizen I will never be guaranteed that this clause exists. Why? Because of the privacy legislation. The privacy legislation precludes anyone, whether it be a member of the opposition or a member of the government, any individual, from seeing to see the clause that you have spoken of. That's why one of the requirements should be that all contracts now or in the future should have that statutory requirement that the member for Brampton North has been suggesting, that the province of Ontario, the taxpayer of the province of Ontario will not be responsible for any debts.

Having looked at the issue of Teranet, which we've examined in this House and in committees, or when we look at the example of non-profit housing -- there's an example. Where the province of Ontario guarantees every mortgage in the province of Ontario that a non-profit housing development undertakes, that debt currently is well in excess of $7 billion that the province of Ontario is guaranteeing.

What happens if the value of these houses, the fair market value of these non-profit housing developments decreases? They have already. I can tell you that there are many buildings across this province where the building has been purchased for a certain amount of money and now, because of the recession, it's worth considerably below the value of the mortgage that the province of Ontario has guaranteed.

If there were power-of-sale proceedings, the province of Ontario would lose an unbelievable amount of money. The taxpayer of this province is going to be left holding the bag with respect to the failed non-profit housing developments that are going to occur in this province.

1730

Teranet is another example. Teranet has already proven that it's failing. Real/Data wasn't able to come up with the financing. They had three opportunities. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for some reason has failed to inform this House that Real/Data is unable to come up with the financing that it agreed to in the original contract.

The contract was breached. Yet we continue on with this experiment of the computerization of our land registry system, knowing full well that the taxpayer of this province is going to be left holding the bag.

Now we've got another adventure, the casino adventure in the city of Windsor. The fact of the matter is you cannot give us a guarantee, whether it be to the members of the opposition or whether it be to the taxpayers of this province, that they will not be left holding the bag in the event the casino project in the city of Windsor, the pilot casino project in Windsor, fails.

I would hope that the parliamentary assistant would instruct the members of his caucus to vote in support of this amendment, because to do otherwise, you cannot provide that guarantee. We've already listed a number of examples where the taxpayer is getting burned right now, and that's going to continue with this project.

Mr Murdoch: I've been listening to this debate all afternoon and Noel, or the parliamentary assistant, seems to be agreeing. Now I have a motion here and I want to make sure this is the right one, and maybe he can correct, but it says:

"I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Liability for casino operation

"6.1 All contracts entered into between the corporation and an operator of a casino shall be deemed to contain provisions stipulating that,

"(a) the operator shall be solely responsible for an operating deficit; and

"(b) the corporation shall not assume any debt or liability resulting from the operation of the casino."

That's what we're talking about. Is the reason that the government doesn't like this because it says at the top it's a Liberal motion? I don't know. And it's got Carm McClelland's name on it. Is there a problem with his credibility? Is that it? I notice the parliamentary assistant said "Windsor."

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: I'm asking them if there's a problem here with you. If that's the case, maybe we could add somebody else's name to this and you would like it. Maybe if I put my name on it here -- I'd have to change that "Liberal motion" at the top, but maybe they'd allow me to do that.

Mr Mammoliti: You're a little more credible.

Mr Murdoch: It doesn't mention anything about Windsor in here. It's "An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos." So we're talking about all casinos, not just Windsor.

The parliamentary assistant, every time he stands up, says he agrees with this, but then he won't vote for it. So I would like him to stand up and tell us again if there's a problem with who put the motion through because we can change that, because everybody over here would like to see it go through, and I think everybody over there must.

I mean, only common sense would say that this was a good amendment. I can't understand why he wouldn't accept it, other than maybe there's a problem. It may be the colour of the paper you put it on, I don't know. It's not red, I noticed that. Maybe the parliamentary assistant could stand up and really tell us what the problem is. Let's not talk about Windsor or anything else, because the bill doesn't talk about Windsor, it talks about casinos. So would you please stand up -- there you are, you see, "We've got a majority and that's the way we operate."

Maybe George would like to put his hand up and help us out.

Mr Mammoliti: Have you read the bill?

Mr Murdoch: Get your parliamentary -- I've read this, this is all that matters. I notice the bill does not talk about Windsor, George.

Mr Mammoliti: Have you read the bill, Bill?

Mr Murdoch: Yes, my name's Bill, thank you very much. If the parliamentary assistant would please stand up and explain to me, because we've been going around and around here, talking about this, and tell us, is there a problem with who put the amendment in? Could he answer that?

Mr Duignan: To my dear friend from Grey-Owen Sound, I have no problem with the integrity of my good friend from Brampton North. Indeed, he has a good deal of integrity. I can assure my honourable friend from Grey-Owen Sound that what's being proposed in this amendment is being proposed in the contractual agreement between the two parties.

Mr Murdoch: We have one thing settled then: It's okay if Mr McClelland makes an amendment. I don't understand what the problem is by putting this amendment in. If it's going to be covered in the contract, then let's put it in and then we can get on with the next one. We're going to be here for three weeks debating this unless you can come up -- sure, I hear him shake his head no because --

Mr Stockwell: You hear him shake his head?

Mr Murdoch: Well, I heard something rattle there, but I'm not sure what it was. But the problem is, what you'll do is just say, "Okay, we're going to come in here and we'll force you to go on to the next one." We don't want to have that and I don't think you people want to do that all the time. You've been doing that quite a bit lately, but maybe this is an important bill and you won't do that.

Stand up and tell us what the real problem is. Just because you have a contract with the casino in Windsor or whoever's going to run that, what about the other casinos? This bill covers casinos -- it's plural -- so explain that situation.

Mr Duignan: To the honourable member for Grey-Owen Sound, I've already explained on and off over the last couple of days that indeed what's proposed in this amendment will be dealt with in the contractual arrangements between the proponent and the corporation.

Mr Murdoch: Is that in all cases of casinos, if there happens to be one on Wasaga Beach, if there happens to be one on one of the boats that sail out of Owen Sound?

Mr Duignan: Again, to the honourable member for Grey-Owen Sound, as we're dealing with only one casino at this point in time, the Windsor casino, it will be in the contractual arrangements for the Windsor casino. If the government of the day wishes to expand the casinos to any other municipalities in this province, the same clause in the agreement will stand for any casino.

Mr Stockwell: Well then, why not put it in the legislation?

Mr Murdoch: Thanks for the help from the member for Etobicoke. But that's right: Why not put it in the bill? What would be the problem of having it in the bill? You'd shut us up over here. Wouldn't that be nice?

Mr Mammoliti: I don't think we could ever shut you up.

Mr Murdoch: There's George. He doesn't think he can shut us up. That's fine. You would help to do that. You don't have a good reason why you won't put it in, because the act is not talking about Windsor casinos, it's talking about casinos in Ontario. That's the problem. Can you not understand that, Parliamentary Assistant? We're talking about an act that covers all casinos in all of Ontario; you're talking about the ones in Windsor. That's fine if you want to make a contract with whoever operates the one in Windsor, but this amendment would cover all of them for all of Ontario. You never explained the difference there. Maybe I'll let you try that.

Mr Duignan: Again, to my good friend the member for Grey-Owen Sound, there are many ways of dealing with many subjects, and this particular way you can deal with it through legislation or you can deal with it through contractual arrangements. We're dealing with it through contractual arrangements.

Mr Stockwell: But why?

Mr Duignan: I love listening to the member for Grey-Owen Sound and the musings from the member for Etobicoke West, but as I said, we are dealing with these particular items contained in this amendment through contractual arrangements.

Mr Murdoch: So the bottom line here is that you're telling us on this side of the House that we should trust you, is that right? Is that what the bottom line is? Can you answer me that?

Mr Duignan: Yes.

Mr Murdoch: We've got something done today. The parliamentary assistant is asking us to trust him. He just said that. Now that you've said yes, that's the first thing you've said today. You've answered a question honestly, I think, because the other ones have been sort of telling you this and that. Now we can talk about all the things we should trust you with. That's going to bring everybody in here and everybody's going to have to talk now for an hour or so to tell how we can't trust you.

Mr Duignan: What your government did and what all the other governments did.

Mr Murdoch: We're not worried about what our government did or what the Liberals did. They're not in power now. You guys have got to figure that out over there: You happen to be the government. I know there's no one in Ontario wants you to be the government, but you are the government and you have to do some things that help everyone, and now you're telling us that we should trust you?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Where did you get that idea from, Bill?

Mr Murdoch: That you are the government?

Mr Mills: No, no.

Mr Murdoch: Somebody told me that. It's hard to believe, I understand that, the member from wherever, from one of the Durham areas. I know it's hard to believe you are the government, but I tell you, it's true, guys.

Mr Eves: It's even harder for us.

1740

Mr Murdoch: Yes, that's true, it is harder for us to believe that too, but it is true and you are the government, and for another year or whenever you decide to let the people tell you.

Now we've found out that the reason you don't like this amendment -- and unfortunately the member from the Liberal Party is not here right now, but I'm sure he's listening. He's listening; there he is up there. It's not because you don't trust him; we found that out. It's because you want us to trust you.

Mr Mills: Trust us.

Mr Murdoch: That's trouble, boy. I mean, I'd love to trust you. As a person, I could trust the parliamentary assistant, but when he gets in with the rest of the socialists, then they have a problem. We all have a problem over here, trusting you. If that's the only reason you can tell me that you can't put that into the bill, then we have problems. We really have problems over here, and I don't think we're going to solve them.

I'm sorry, Parliamentary Assistant. You, as a person, I can trust, but when you get with the rest of the socialists, we're in trouble, as everybody in Ontario knows. I'm glad, though, that we got out of you that that's why this amendment is no good: because we should be trusting you.

Mr Stockwell: Quickly to the parliamentary assistant: Will you guarantee the taxpayers of the province of Ontario that they will not have to underwrite any losses to casino gambling on native casino gambling or ferry boat casino gambling? Will you give them that same undertaking?

Interjection: How does he know?

Mr Stockwell: How does he know? He just spent the last two hours guaranteeing us.

Mr Duignan: Again, to the member for Etobicoke West and indeed to the member for Owen Sound, we're dealing with the casino in Windsor. The contract with the proponent in Windsor states that the proponent will be responsible for any operating deficit. If the government so chooses to expand the whole question of casinos into other municipalities in this province, I would suspect that particular clause will carry forward into other contractual agreements.

Mr Stockwell: Now it's very apparent what's happened. Mr Noel Duignan, the member for Halton North, is suggesting all along that he would give us an undertaking that the government would guarantee that there would not be any --

Interjections.

Mr Mammoliti: Hurry up.

Mr Stockwell: I want to make sure he hears the question, Yorkview. Just hang on.

All day, I say to the member for Halton North, you've been guaranteeing us that the taxpayers would not underwrite the losses at any casino. I just happen to say "native casinos," and you've changed your tune. You're shaking your head no, but you did, if you'll check Hansard. You have changed your tune.

I ask you directly: Will you give them an undertaking that the taxpayers will not underwrite the losses at native casinos?

Mr Duignan: Again, to the member for Etobicoke West, I can say to him that the taxpayers of this province will not be picking up the operating deficit of the casino.

Mr Stockwell: No. The question is native casinos.

Mr Duignan: I'm not aware of a native casino in this province. What we're dealing with is the casino in Windsor. The contractual arrangement with the proponent from Windsor will simply state that the proponent will be responsible for the deficit, if any, of the casino in Windsor. I would suspect, if a decision is taken by this government or future governments, that that particular arrangement will be in any contractual agreement.

Mr Stockwell: Just quickly, through you, Mr Chair: Let's get this clear. When you make up stories, the trouble is you've got to remember what you made up. Earlier when you answered questions in this House, you said that you gave a guarantee that no casino anywhere would receive any moneys from the province for its losses. That's what you said, and you said you'd give us that undertaking through contractual agreements. I ask you specifically about native casinos, and you've changed your tune.

I ask you directly: Will this government, will you, will the minister, will anybody give the taxpayers of the province of Ontario an undertaking that they will not be subsidizing any future native casinos?

Mr Duignan: Again, there are no native casinos in the province of Ontario. Again, I'll say to the member for Etobicoke West that the taxpayers of this province will not be responsible for any operating deficits of the casino.

Mr McClelland: I'm curious as to the parliamentary assistant's statement that there are no native casinos. That in point of fact is the case as of today -- to use his words, at this point.

Parliamentary Assistant, do you know what Sodak is, S-o-d-a-k?

Mr Duignan: To my honourable friend the member for Brampton North, at this time I don't.

Mr McClelland: If you would undertake to find out, as parliamentary assistant, what Sodak is and who owns Sodak and then maybe come back to us with respect to the answer on native gaming, I would be interested in that answer. Maybe you can undertake to do that as soon as possible when we return to this issue, perhaps a few days out.

The Second Deputy Chair: I want to remind all members we're dealing with an amendment here, section 6.1. This may or may not be relevant, but we would like very much to stick to the amendment. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: The debate this afternoon has, for us in the opposition, heightened our concerns about why the government is refusing to put this amendment in the legislation. In answer to my colleague from Etobicoke West, it's becoming, I think, increasingly clear that the government is unwilling to put in the legislation the same guarantees that you indicated you were prepared to ensure future contracts had. I will just say that as the afternoon has gone on, you have indicated a rather different tune. You said, "Well, perhaps future governments might include this guarantee in the contract."

I think the people of Ontario should realize we are not dealing with the Windsor casino in this bill. The Windsor casino is a part of the bill, but every future casino in this province, when this bill is passed, can be introduced into the province with no legislative agreement, no further legislative authority. This bill sets the entire legislative framework for all the future casinos. I have personally, as I've said, no doubt that we're going to see several casinos introduced in the province, and they can do that, never coming before the Legislature again.

My belief is that the parliamentary assistant is not being as forthcoming as he should be. He's saying, "We're dealing just with the Windsor casino." We're not. Does anybody in this Legislature believe we are just dealing with the Windsor casino with this Bill 8 except the parliamentary assistant? Does anybody else believe this is just the Windsor casino? It isn't. It's all casinos, and there is no doubt that another casino can be approved with this legislation, never having come to the Legislature, that the arm's-length, independent agency can sign a contract with whoever they agree is the person they want to operate the casino and that contract will never come to the Legislature. They could do it legally, without any question of a doubt, without a provision in that contract guaranteeing that the province won't pick up the debt and deficit. All of that can be done legally. There is no assurance in this legislation that that won't happen.

The public, I think, should understand that. I think the public ultimately will be as outraged as we are that that will be permitted in the legislation. The contract can be signed without it ever having come to the Legislature. Another casino can be approved without it ever having come to the Legislature, and that contract can in the end have the taxpayers of this province assuming the debt and deficit.

Yet we've heard through this entire debate the parliamentary assistant saying: "That isn't our intent. We believe the way the casinos in the future should operate is with the same assurance" that I gather will be in the Windsor contract.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the government is refusing to put this in legislation. There can only be one answer, and that is that the government contemplates future contractual arrangements that don't have it. There can be no other answer. "Trust us. We're going to make absolutely sure it's in the contract. Believe me, it's going to be there, but we don't want it in the legislation," is not an answer. That's not a logical answer, and I don't know who in the government back bench is buying that argument.

1750

If it is the government's intention that all future contracts for casinos have that provision that the taxpayer's not on the hook for the debt and deficit, if that's your clear intention, there is no reason to not have it in the legislation. The public may think the legislation doesn't deal with those sorts of specific areas, but the legislation deals with things like how old you can be to go to the casino. It deals with, "The corporation shall post in a prominent place...a copy of the rules of play." There are all sorts of detail in the legislation, but something this fundamental the government doesn't want in the legislation.

I say to all of us, is there any logic to the parliamentary assistant's answer? There isn't to me. If you say this is how we want all future arrangements to work, if you say this will be in all future contracts, I say the only way to guarantee that is to put in the legislation. Otherwise, this commission will look at the legislation and say: "These are my marching orders. I, the commission, with this legislation have the legal authority to enter into contracts. I have the legal authority to establish new casinos." Now, I might inform the government I'm going to do that, but legally they have that authority and they have the authority to set the relationship between the commission and the operator. Without that provision in here, the commission has every right to, in the end, get the taxpayer on the hook for the debt and deficit of the casinos.

In government, you may think it's acceptable to the public to say, "Trust us," but for those people who are listening to this debate, we're talking about literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Each of these casinos is going to cost between $200 and $300 million, and there are going to be seven or eight of these things at least, so we're talking a public expenditure of perhaps $2 billion. The public, I will tell you, has enough difficulty accepting casinos.

It was not too long ago that the NDP had a belief that this kind of gambling was a tax on the poor. Many of our elements in the public are having real trouble accepting the concept of casinos. Make no mistake about it: There are jobs created by this, there's revenue created, but there are problems created by this, and all of us understand that. The public is having difficulty accepting that. Then you're asking them to take another real step, that in the end, without this amendment, the public may very well be held accountable for the debt and the deficit of these things.

For those of you who have looked at casino operations around North America -- I happened to sit on the committee for a couple of weeks of hearings, and I was a bit amazed by the enthusiasm for it. It's almost like a gold rush; communities are really anxious to have these things. But make no mistake: There is going to be a proliferation of casinos around North America because every community wants them now. And where does that lead you? It leads you to the fact that some are going to work and some aren't going to work. There is no doubt about that. You look at most of the neighbouring US communities bordering Canada and you can see them all looking at it. Montreal, as we all know, opened a very major casino recently. Any sensible business person would recognize that we are embarking on a high-risk proposition now. Some will work and some won't work.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: There's the Minister of Finance coming in and barracking about high risk. There is no doubt. Why the Minister of Finance, of all people, would not insist in this legislation that the taxpayers not be on the hook for the debt and deficit --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): It's built in.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer's saying it's built in. I will tell him, I've been there. It is not built in, Treasurer. He thought it was built into the legislation, but it's not built into the legislation. I'm glad the Minister of Finance has arrived here. The home viewers can't see that, but the Minister of Finance said that guarantee's in the legislation. I will say to the Minister of Finance that it's not in the legislation. Mr Duignan: It's just a commercial from the guy that built the SkyDome.

Mr Phillips: The member across is talking about SkyDome. It's exactly because of the SkyDome that it should be in here; exactly.

The Minister of Finance is confused about the legislation. He didn't realize that this guarantee to the public was not in it, so it's useful that the Minister of Finance has now interjected, albeit out of order, to say that he believes the legislation should have that guarantee in it.

The reason for this entire debate is that we are talking about substantial amounts of public funds. We are talking about the risk that the public will be on the hook for an enormous debt and deficit, and the government is saying this to the opposition: "We agree that the public shouldn't be on the hook but we won't put it in the legislation. Trust us." There's something wrong here.

To the parliamentary assistant, what did you mean when you said, "Some future government I am sure will make certain that it's in the contract"? Earlier, you assured us there was some mechanism that it would be in all the contracts. Now I heard you say in response to the member for Etobicoke West that you felt that some future government would make sure it's in there. Why did you equivocate on that, and why would you not acknowledge now that there is no mechanism to ensure it will be in future contracts except good faith? Why will you not now acknowledge that it is necessary to enshrine this in the legislation?

Mr Duignan: To the honourable member, we have no problem. We'll make sure that clause will be in the contract, that the proponent will pay for the operating deficit, but I can't speak for future governments. Given the past record of that government and the irresponsibility it had in such projects like SkyDome, it could be possible.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: Miss Martel has moved that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 20, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1759.

19 octobre 1993