Journal des débats 1993-déc-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the chief election officer and laid upon the table a certificate of a by-election in the electoral district of Essex South.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers):

"Mr Claude L. DesRosiers

"Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

"Room 104, Legislative Building

"Queen's Park

"Toronto, Ontario

"M7A 1A2

"Dear Mr DesRosiers:

"A writ of election dated the 25th day of October 1993 was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and was addressed to Everett deJong, returning officer for the electoral district of Essex South, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Essex South in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Remo Mancini, Esq, who since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Essex South has resigned his seat. This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in Essex South on the second day of December 1993, Bruce Crozier, Esq, has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated the 10th day of December 1993, which is now lodged of record in my office.

"Warren R. Bailie

"Chief election officer

"Toronto, December 13, 1993."

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Sir, I have the honour to present to you and to this House Bruce Crozier, the member-elect for the electoral district of Essex South, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

The Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I wish to report to the House on the work of the Liberal task force on northern concerns and issues. Over the past year, as members know, this task force has been touring northern Ontario and has been investigating the needs and wishes of northern Ontario.

Two weeks ago we heard of a concern regarding stumpage fees. We have raised this issue in the House many times, but I think for the benefit of the Minister of Natural Resources we should read this bill into the record.

"Here are the figures that I was able to compile regarding the loss of revenue to Fort Frances and Atikokan private logging contractors for the month of July, 1993....The contractors could not deliver the wood due to the high stumpage rates charged by the Ontario government, resulting in a loss of income for local contractors" -- and, I might add, local workers.

Boise Cascade did not purchase $764,000 of wood; Atikokan Forest Products did not purchase $922,000 worth of wood; the loss of revenue to the local economy was $1.686 million and the loss to the crown, to the province of Ontario, in lieu of stumpage fees was $230,000.

The government's forestry policy is totally inadequate and kills jobs.

WOLF POPULATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. A proposed decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources will result in the decimation of deer populations in Renfrew county and a substantial loss of livestock.

This will occur if the MNR proceeds by changing the predator control policies to place a total ban on all hunting and trapping of wolves from December 15 to March 15, 1994. This policy, which is supposed to protect wildlife, will threaten wildlife and create a severe ecological imbalance.

If the minister allows the wolf population to go unchecked, more sheep and other livestock will be destroyed by wolves. The people in the affected areas have told us that the elimination of the bounties on wolves has already led to an undesirable increase in the wolf population.

Your new proposal to ban hunting and trapping will make matters worse. The townships of Sherwood, Jones, Burns and Bromley have passed resolutions requesting that you reconsider this ban and consult the public on this issue.

Minister, I ask that you act upon these resolutions, scrap the proposed ban and consult the people before developing a strategy. By listening and consulting, you may find that you can avoid a policy which will bring harm to our farmers and to the ecosystem.

OPPOSITION MEMBERS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This point in time in the calendar is one of traditions, of goodwill and all the good stuff for Christmas. But I've got a message that I want to dish out today to Mrs Gloompot of the opposition and Mr Gloompot of the third party.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No. The member knows better --

Mr Mills: I want to talk to the associate members of gloom and doom, then.

1340

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I respectfully bring to your attention that the member is using unparliamentary language. The word he has used has connotations that I'm not sure he realizes.

The Speaker: In fact, members may not have heard. I asked the honourable member to rephrase his statement. Would he do so now, please.

Mr Mills: That's awful. I'm just saying that you people, all you gloom-and-doomsters -- and I can name all the members over there, the member for Etobicoke West and the member for Finchley, I mean Don Mills -- it's time to get your act together and become a gloom-buster and not a gloom-and-doomer. You'll do this province a great deal better if you get on and stop being so full of gloom and doom every day you stand in your places. The people of Ontario are sick to death of it.

JORDAN BRIDGE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Unfortunately, this past week we've had a fatal accident near the city of St Catharines on the Jordan Bridge.

Members of the House may recall that on June 19, 1991, I directed a question to the then Minister of Transportation, Mr Ed Philip, now Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I said the following. I was quoting Ray Konkle, the mayor of Lincoln, and said: "'It is not a question of if the bridge will fall; it is a question of when. They've got an accident waiting to happen. Three pieces of the Niagara-bound bridge have already fallen into the harbour, with the last piece measuring about 46 centimetres by 20 centimetres.' The St Catharines Standard in an editorial on 17 June has called for its replacement."

The accident happened last weekend. It was not as described previously, but "the accident has prompted the mayor" -- and myself and others -- "to urge the province to fast-track the construction of a new bridge over Jordan Harbour....Not only is the existing bridge unsafe," according to the mayor, "but accidents create potential hazards for Lincoln when heavy highway traffic -- which increases steadily each year -- is diverted through the town's side streets, often for hours at a time....Lincoln Fire Chief Clair Rouse said the bridge is a magnet for accidents and said its replacement 'won't be soon enough.'"

I call upon the government now to commence immediately, I'm sure with the support of my Niagara colleagues, the construction on the bridge over the Jordan Harbour for purposes of safety.

BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I was delighted to attend the 96th annual meeting of the Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce on Saturday, December 4. One of the highlights of the meeting was the presentation of the 1993 business awards.

Interjection.

Mr Eves: Yes, all two of them.

We all know the Parry Sound district is one of the province's premier vacation destinations. Tourism is the mainstay of the economy in the riding and the Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce recognized the dedication and determination of Ingrid and Ernie Muller with its tourism award.

The Mullers have owned and operated the Jolly Roger Inn in Foley township for 10 years. In that time, they have expanded their facility from a staff of nine to as many as 50. The Jolly Roger Inn has undergone several major expansions and now boasts recreational and conference facilities as well as luxury accommodations serving the traditional summer clientele and the ever-expanding winter tourism market. Just last month, the Mullers were awarded the prestigious Northern Ontario Business Award.

Northern Computer Systems Inc was honoured by the Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce with its entrepreneur award. Thirteen years ago, this father-and-son team of John and David Cox began a business specializing in software programs. Today, Northern Computer Systems Inc lists in its clientele such major corporations as Inco and General Motors. It is internationally known for its aerospace programs and exports to clients in South America, Ireland and the United States.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Last week, there were two very important elections in my riding of Perth also. On Tuesday evening, the Perth County Board of Education trustees elected Mr Peter Stulp as their chair and Mr Paul Parlee as vice-chair of the board.

Both Mr Parlee and Mr Stulp have served as trustees on the board for many years. They join Ms Louise Martin who, the week before, was renamed chair of the Huron-Perth separate school board.

As well, on Wednesday afternoon the Perth county councillors elected Mr Robert Mathers as the new warden for Perth county. Mr Mathers represents Elma township on county council, as does Mr Stulp on the board of education.

I'm very proud to represent Perth and to work with such dedicated leaders as these four individuals, as well as the mayors, reeves and councillors of our other cities, towns and villages. We work together for the people of Perth, and I congratulate Ms Martin, Mr Mathers, Mr Stulp and Mr Parlee and look forward to our continued cooperative efforts.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As this House comes to a close, I thought it might be appropriate if I provided the Legislature with an overview of Mike Harris's year.

In March, Mike told us that he supported the Mulroney government's disastrous economic policies.

In April, we learned that the tax fighter was really the tax hiker. While a member of the PC government, Mike Harris had voted for over $1 billion in new taxes.

May was the month when Mike Harris promised that his government would eliminate the deficit and deliver a balanced budget in two years, yet he was unable to say just how he would do that.

In June, Mike Harris supported the social contract on second reading. "Bang, bang, bang," he said. Yet in July, Mike performed his famous flip and voted against the social contract on third reading.

It was August when Mike met Helle Hulgaard. Enough said about that.

Then in September, we saw Mike Harris following Kim Campbell around the province. I remember Mike saying he wasn't sure if he was going to vote for Kim, yet he did.

In October, after the election, the province heard that Mike Harris shares the same goals as the Reform Party.

November provided Mike with an opportunity for yet another flip -- I would say a flop. He said he was in favour of beer and wine in the corner store. I guess he simply forgot that he had voted against this proposal when the Liberal government proposed it. Also in November, Mike told the Ontario Hospital Association that he wants to destroy medicare with user fees for health care.

Finally, in December, he was left speechless when the people of Essex South elected Bruce Crozier and gave the Tory Harris team only 18% of the vote.

What a year 1993 was. I look forward to 1994.

COUNSELLING AGENCIES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Waterloo region's eight community counselling agencies provide counselling on a wide range of personal and interpersonal problems to individuals and families who are on social assistance or UIC or are low-income earners. Family concerns, couple conflicts, personal problems, financial difficulties, a variety of addiction issues and emotional, physical and sexual abuse are among the many problems which these agencies help people resolve. Last year, these eight agencies helped over 6,200 families.

Under this government's expenditure control plan, employment and counselling services were given a target reduction of $2 million and the government indicated that it would be reviewing and restructuring these services.

The counselling agencies of Waterloo region are very concerned that the government's actions will have a negative impact on the people who rely on their services. These agencies play an important role in improving the quality of life of the people in my community, and I strongly support their efforts.

I urge the Minister of Community and Social Services and his colleagues to support the counselling services in this province so that they can proceed with the fulfilment of their mission and prevent the erosion of funding that everyone has worked so hard to achieve for these people who are socially and economically disadvantaged.

JORDAN BRIDGE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I'm going to comment on the statement which the member for St Catharines, Mr Bradley, just made about the death of a young woman on the Queen Elizabeth Way at Jordan Harbour.

I can tell you that this has been a problem for over 20 years. Right now, work is progressing on the Queen E on the replacement of this bridge; the north service road is under construction, as it is right now, which will take traffic off that bridge. At 11 o'clock tomorrow, the mayor of Lincoln, Mayor Konkle, will also be coming up here to Toronto with other issues involved in the relocation of the bridge in Lincoln.

My heart also goes out to the family who lost their mother in that particular accident. It happened on Friday, when I had a meeting in my office with other people coming from the peninsula, who said there had been a bad accident but had no details. I read it in the paper later on.

This government is moving ahead to improve safety on the Queen Elizabeth Way in the corridor from Toronto to St Catharines.

1350

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would the minister have any extra copies?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): If they haven't circulated them, we'll certainly obtain them for you.

The Speaker: If the minister would wait just a moment.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'AMÉNAGEMENT ET D'EXPLOITATION

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'm pleased to rise today to introduce the government's response to the recommendations of the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario, headed by John Sewell. Today we are reforming the system that we set out to change two years ago when the commission was first established. The reason the commission was established was because the public had lost confidence in Ontario's land use planning system.

The current system is a problem. It is slow, costly, full of duplication and is an obstacle to the current economic recovery. The commission heard complaints about delay, about red tape and the time it takes to have a decision made. Some people thought the process was difficult to gain access to and that everything was up for negotiation and nothing was certain. Across the province, many thought the process failed to adequately protect the natural environment. This red tape is more than a frustration and an extra cost to builders, developers, municipal representatives and environmentalists; it is a barrier to development and the jobs in the construction industry and other sectors.

Our government agrees with the framework for planning recommended by the commission in its final report in June. The system must be changed. The building and development industry demands it, the municipalities need it and public confidence depends on it.

We are adopting the commission's main recommendations as a framework for a new planning system, one that is faster and less confrontational, with clear rules on policies, roles and responsibilities. Green planning and good, efficient planning will work together to help us meet our environmental and economic goals.

The commission's final report is a tremendous body of work. Commission chair John Sewell and commissioners George Penfold and Toby Vigod deserve to be recognized and applauded for their efforts. I suggest that they rise. They're in the east gallery.

Following up on their excellent work, we have embarked on a three-part plan to fully reform the system: streamlining to speed up the process, policies to strengthen environmental protection and greater local control over the development process.

Our three-part plan begins with efforts to streamline the system. We are announcing today that we intend to establish specific time frames for provincial and municipal planning decisions. To speed matters, once a decision is made by approval authority or time has expired, appeals can be made to the OMB. As well, there will no longer be appeals to the OMB of minor variances, local matters such as lot sizes which we believe should be handled locally.

We also make the Ministry of Municipal Affairs the lead ministry in planning. It will coordinate land use planning in various ministries and provide better customer service through a one-window approach. And we will expand planning boards in northern Ontario on a voluntary basis to put control of local development in the hands of local decision-makers.

These reforms will complement the initiatives already under way by Dale Martin, the provincial facilitator, and by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. They have a number of projects in place to shorten the approval time, to provide upfront and more comprehensive information to developers so that they know what to expect in the process and to speed up the existing system of resolving planning disputes by handling appeals that can be dealt with outside of the formal OMB hearings.

Our expectation is that these reforms will speed up the system substantially. This will help us get shovels in the ground and create badly needed construction jobs across Ontario.

The second part of our plan involves the implementation of a comprehensive set of policy statements which will strengthen environmental protection and give direction to all planning activity in Ontario.

Today, I am releasing six provincial policy statements for a 90-day consultation period, as recommended by the Sewell commission. These policy statements will clearly set out provincial interests in environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural lands and other lands with specific features.

As a province, we have a responsibility to promote sound development. We want to protect significant environmental features and keep prime agricultural land in the hands of farmers. We care about protecting and using mineral and petroleum resources and providing a supply of affordable housing.

We want policies in place that will remove uncertainties so that those involved in making planning decisions and planning applications will know what is acceptable under provincial policy. Certainty will result in faster, better and more consistent decisions. Good development will be able to proceed more quickly, creating jobs and economic opportunities.

We will also consult on an amendment to revise section 3 of the Planning Act and tighten up the legislation to require that planning decisions "shall be consistent with" the provincial policies rather than the current "shall have regard to" provision. This new standard should give more strength to provincial policy direction while at the same time providing enough flexibility to allow for innovative and practical implementation.

The third component of our plan involves putting decision-making power where it belongs: in the hands of local government. We are clearly defining the roles and responsibilities between the province and municipalities in land use planning to improve efficiency and reduce overlap. At the same time, our reforms will reflect the diversity of the municipalities in Ontario, large and small, urban and rural, and allow some flexibility to local needs.

We intend to give municipalities greater local control over the developmental process. Local governments will have the power to plan and to improve development applications, while the province will primarily set broad policy objectives and have a reduced role in development approvals.

The Ontario Municipal Board will continue to resolve disputes. We understand some people are concerned about the division of planning roles between upper- and lower-tier municipalities. This issue has not been resolved yet, and we want to hear the views of the municipalities. Clear provincial policies mean that the province will have increasingly less involvement in individual development applications.

If developers can get quicker decisions because rules are clear and decisions are made at the local level, then they can bring good development on stream faster and create employment. We will listen to and take into account the feedback we get throughout the reform process, especially in our consultation on policy statements, before we issue our final reform package next spring.

There is an urgent need to have a planning system that is efficient. We have not had it in the past. There is clearly an urgent need to have a planning system that is not an obstacle to development. It is especially important that we consider the significant expenditure of provincial dollars in public works and infrastructure. We need a system that will get good, environmentally sound development on stream quickly to create jobs and economic opportunities.

I'm sure that future generations of Ontarians will look back on this work as the turning point in the way we see it and the way we plan good, healthy communities.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses, official opposition.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Although the NDP promised to streamline the approvals process, today's announcement will result in increases in bureaucracy and will increase the length of the planning process. Our concerns are that the NDP plans will make the system even more costly and cumbersome and will not improve efficiency, and this comes from AMO as well.

1400

Sewell started out by saying the right things about streamlining and speeding things up, and they need to be, but this $2-million project quickly fell off the rails when it recommended banning all septic systems and it never really got back on.

The minister wants to increase provincial intrusion into local planning decisions. Let local planning be local. We seriously question how the approvals system can possibly be made faster if provincial approval is still needed for many planning matters. Rather than setting an appropriate framework and removing itself from the process, the province would continue its patchwork approach to planning and the system will not be speeded up at all.

The final Sewell report also recommends that yet another layer of bureaucracy be added to the planning process, ironically in order to streamline the process. The report recommends that regional planning review committees be established and that provincial approvals be delegated to ministry staff on these committees.

Planning decision by bureaucracy is not acceptable in my riding, I'll tell you, Mr Minister. This recommendation is very, very disappointing, giving the approval to the commission's original intent to speed up the planning system by delegating these approvals to municipalities and decision by bureaucracy.

The housing industry is upset, AMO is upset and has very, very many concerns. I don't have time at this time to elaborate them, but I would say that they feel the report's recommendations will remove local decision-making authority and will lead to further delays in the planning process, and they're worried about the scope of the provincial policy statement. But thank you for giving us -- and realizing more time is required, I defer to the member for Ottawa East.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Je comprends qu'il est important pour le ministre de faire son annonce aujourd'hui. Mais, par contre, j'ai sur mon bureau justement une lettre du maire de Toronto et de l'Association des municipalités de l'Ontario qui critiquent déjà, même avant la consultation, même avec la consultation du ministre et du ministère. Aujourd'hui on a des objections.

J'ai toujours pensé que M. John Sewell avait un agenda assez précis du gouvernement non d'aller défaire le système qui existe aujourd'hui, mais par contre de l'améliorer. Je ne vois aucune amélioration dans la présentation du ministre aujourd'hui.

J'ai assisté à sa conférence de presse et je vois que les municipalités de l'Ontario vont avoir encore à s'agenouiller devant le ministre et le ministère pour faire accepter les changements dans les plans directeurs des municipalités.

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi John Sewell a pris deux ans pour répéter à peu près les mêmes choses dont tout le monde se plaint. Les municipalités se plaignent qu'il est encore plus difficile aujourd'hui de se présenter devant la Commission des affaires municipales, l'«OMB», comme on l'appelle, dû à ces complications, et le ministre, ou même M. John Sewell, n'a pas voulu toucher ou défaire la Commission des affaires municipales.

Le bobo, le problème inclut la Commission des affaires municipales. Le ministre se devait de faire un changement au niveau de la Commission des affaires municipales pour faciliter la tâche non seulement des municipalités mais pour faciliter la tâche du commun en Ontario, des Ontariens qui veulent se présenter sans avoir accès à un avocat, à un ingénieur et toutes ces choses-là.

Je crois que c'est la responsabilité, avant de remettre un rapport final et complet, qu'on fasse les changements nécessaires au sein de la Commission des affaires municipales pour que, enfin, les municipalités, les Ontariens connaissent vraiment les intentions du gouvernement.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I and several other of my caucus members wish to comment on the statement that the minister has just made.

You've got all the rhetoric right. You want to streamline. Never have I seen anybody bring a proposal in to streamline by adding another layer of bureaucracy that has to be gone through.

Obviously we support the goals. We've supported many goals, though, of rhetoric that you've brought forward, and when it comes to the incompetence of acting on it, it gets to the ridiculous.

First of all, you started with John Sewell, the man who left Toronto in a mess, and now has taken those same intensification solutions -- pack more people into less square footage -- and he wants to take those policies and ruin the rest of the province. He fits right in with your cabinet and with your government and with Bob Rae. Everything has to be intensified.

Here we have on page -- you've got so much here and so little time to say it. Municipalities have been given greater control of the development process. There'll be nothing left for municipalities. You talk on page 7 of the document A New Approach -- by the time you put in all the criteria of policies, there'll be no land left to develop; none. The only thing left to be developed will be that which can't be sold.

This policy is so ridiculous, the limitations that you've put in on this, that we don't see anything happening, any movement, and it's supposed to streamline.

We support the goals, but once again, you've shown your incompetence, you've shown the ridiculousness of how you think this is going to be worked out. You talk about the five areas, 90 days. You're going to solve to everybody's satisfaction natural heritage and ecosystem protection, community development and infrastructure, housing, agricultural land use, conservation of energy and water and mineral resources, all that's going to be resolved in 90 days. I will be here 90 days from now. You will not have resolved to the satisfaction of Ontarians one of those. Not one of those will have been resolved with this new layer of bureaucracy that you're going to bring forward.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you this: This government talks about cutting red tape and you, like the Liberals before you, try and cut red tape lengthwise, and the more you cut, the more red tape you've got in front the people of this province.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to speak briefly with regard to the statement from a municipal point of view because there are a lot of municipal politicians out there today who will be looking at this announcement and will be wondering what it's all about.

I've got to say to you, Mr Minister, the fact is that if you're going to develop the policy, what input is the local municipality going to have? The Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Environment, I would be interested to know the input that they had to this and what input they're going to have to what the projects can be all about.

When you look at doing away with the 18 months of the ministry review in the 22 ministries, I think that is a step in the right direction, but I'm going to tell you, when you're laying out the policy of what's going to take place, there'll be no severances, there'll be no septic systems. Are there not going to be any dumps on good agricultural land? Are you going to continue to put dumps on good agricultural land like you're promoting?

I say to you, Minister, your policy is flawed, and when the municipal people get to speak to you at ROMA, I know that they will give you a piece of their mind because it's not what they want.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): First of all, we had the Sewell report and now we've got the Philip report. Neither one of them are worth the paper they're written on. Both of them should be put in the garbage and burned together because what happens is, there's no local autonomy here. The minister again says, "We'll let you decide in the municipalities, but we're going to tell you how to decide."

Typical socialists -- they want to run everything and let no one else decide.

1410

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in thanking our group of pages, who have served so diligently and with great enthusiasm the last few weeks. Thank you.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I also invite all members to welcome to our chamber, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, a very special delegation from the National Assembly of Quebec. The delegation is headed by Robert Lesage. He is joined by François Beaulne and France Dionne. Please welcome our guests. Bienvenue.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I wonder if I could have unanimous consent of the House to make a few remarks on the passing of Fred Young.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

FRED YOUNG

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Fred Young passed away yesterday. As many members here will know, even though they may not -- as a matter of fact, none of them did, or almost none of them -- have served with Fred Young, he served in this chamber from 1963 to 1981. It is almost a cliché to say that people serve with distinction, but those words really truly apply to Fred Young. He served with great distinction.

Before he came to this place, he had served as a councillor in North York township and I believe also one term as deputy reeve. He was an ordained minister before he got involved in political life, and I must say that all of his speeches, his comments, his work, in fact his life, reflected that value system. Virtually everybody who came into contact with Fred became his friend and became very fond of Fred.

He pioneered in this province in a couple of areas. One had to do with the way in which we view highway safety. He was a pioneer in the development of seatbelt legislation and the fact that it is now mandatory. He also talked about -- and people at that point used to roll their eyes a bit when Fred talked about it -- air bags as being a factor as well and something that should be built into all new cars.

A lesser-known fact of Fred's crusades was when he established on a voluntary basis something he called a riding service centre when he was an elected member for Yorkview. Although that service centre consisted of volunteers who provided service to Fred's constituents, in 1975, of course, legislation was passed which introduced the constituency offices that we know today.

I can only speak for myself, but I can't imagine any of the members in this assembly being able to do their job in this place, let alone back home, and to represent their constituents to the degree they do now if we did not have that service, and Fred was the one who pioneered it at the beginning on a voluntary basis.

I was elected in 1971, and my first term in office, sitting over there, I sat beside Fred and was the recipient of an enormous amount of gentle wisdom that came from Fred. He was gentle, but he had a dogged determination to pursue the causes in which he believed so very, very strongly. I know the causes that he pursued invariably were designed to improve the lives of other people and not his own.

I shall always remember Fred with great fondness. On behalf of our caucus, the government caucus, we extend our condolences to his wife, Winnifred, and their two children.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to join, on my behalf and certainly on behalf of my Liberal colleagues, with the Minister of Finance in expressing our condolences to the family of the late Fred Young.

I remember well serving in this assembly for two terms with Fred. He was a courtly and very focused member of the Legislature who was involved in a number of things but probably, as the Treasurer has indicated, most famous for his very long-standing involvement with highway safety. In fact, when I heard yesterday from the Premier that Fred had died, we were in the midst of discussing photo-radar and I thought, "I wonder what Fred would have thought about that." I'll never know. He may have in fact spoken on the subject. But he certainly was a tireless advocate for improved measures in the area of highway safety. I remember speeches he made about helmets. Bicycle helmets, I believe, at one point were very much on his agenda, and he served with distinction on a number of legislative committees focused on the whole question of highway safety.

What is perhaps not known by a number of people is that Fred ran for the leadership of the CCF. In 1953, he and Andy Brewin contested the leadership in Ontario with Donald C. MacDonald. I think Fred led on the first ballot. He was overtaken by Donald on the second ballot and went on for many years to serve very faithfully under the leadership of Don MacDonald.

Fred, before being elected -- and he used to talk about this over coffee -- spent years and decades as a field worker for the CCF, first in Atlantic Canada and later in Ontario. Fred did what probably most of us wouldn't do; he ran and I think he was elected in 1963, after four or five unsuccessful efforts federally and provincially. He worked for the CCF in the Maritimes in the 1940s and 1950s, where, he would tell you, the vineyard was not all that promising.

He also represents an important, very significant stream in Canadian political activity, and the member for Hamilton West knows this better than any of us. Fred Young, as the Minister of Finance has indicated, was a United Church minister and I believe he was the son of a United Church minister. He represents what I consider to be the finest aspects of the Woodsworthian tradition of democratic socialism in this province and this country.

Fred was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying, in the midst of a debate about the way in which we got paid around here, that Fred Young was prepared to do the work of Parliament and the public's work for whatever salary was determined. His life's work is a tribute to that commitment, and we have lost in this province a wonderful public servant who will be remembered rightly for an enormous and positive contribution in this province and elsewhere in the country. We mourn his passing.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I would like to associate my party's feelings with those of the two previous members who have spoken about Fred Young. I knew Fred for a period of four years, from 1977 to 1981. As a government backbencher at that time, I want to indicate that at that time he had tremendous respect in the Legislature. I know the Premier of the day, William Davis, had a great deal of respect for Fred Young, for what he said and for what he stood for.

I can't really add much to the words of the others. In reading about him and knowing about him, he cared very much for not only what he did in the Legislature, but for what he did outside of the Legislature for each and every one of the constituents he worked for, and he worked for many of those on a personal basis.

I'd like to express our condolences to his family as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to thank the honourable member for Nickel Belt, the member for Renfrew North and the member for Carleton for their kind and thoughtful comments, and add that this distinguished parliamentarian leaves, among other things, as his legacy the prayer which we say each day before starting our daily business.

The comments by the members will be forwarded to Fred Young's family.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I rise to seek unanimous consent to make a few comments on the retirement of William Fowler.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

1420

WILLIAM FOWLER

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): William Fowler is going to be retiring after 27 years in the Ontario civil service. Twenty-seven years, of itself, is a long time, but some of us, in life, go through journeys that take us not only through many years but through many places as well.

Mr Fowler was born not too far from here in 1929 in the Bathurst-St Clair area and went to school at Oakwood Collegiate, but then went on to Carleton University, which was a new university at the time, and then on to his first employment in Montreal with Shell Canada. It's often the case that we may move around in life but often end up back not too far from where we began and with those roots that spawned us.

In 1966, Mr Fowler began his service with the Ontario government as a manager of systems development for the Ontario medical services insurance plan, which later became known as OHIP. During his career with the government, he has held various positions such as director of systems and processing for the Health Insurance Registration Board, director of information systems for OHIP, director of the Leaside data centre for the Ministry of Government Services and director of customer services for computer and telecommunications services in the Ministry of Government Services. In 1987, he became the director of the legislative information systems branch, where he's taken the branch through many technological changes.

His career has obviously been a very full one, and his work in the civil service on behalf of the Legislature and the public of this province has been a task which has been well accomplished and should be well remembered by the members here and those of us who know how important are the civil servants who deliver many services on behalf of the people of this province in sometimes difficult circumstances.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation and congratulations to Mr Fowler on his retirement, to wish him all the best in his future endeavours and to hope that his family, some of whom I think are here with us this afternoon, will take the time to enjoy his retirement in ways that they've missed while he worked here with us. Thank you.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to join with the government House leader in wishing Bill Fowler the very best as he takes his retirement.

It is significant, in looking at his career -- and I would note in addition that when he came to the government, in 1966, was when I first came and started working, not in this place but across the street. One of the things that I can recall being discussed a great deal at that time was this whole area of information systems, and especially what was happening to what we called OMSIP and OHIP. I think Bill was part of a group that in the mid-1960s did something that really was quite extraordinary, which was to put in place the OHIP system that we have come to know.

We know that sometimes there are problems with it, but the kind of revolution in information technology that took place at that time and which Bill and his colleagues had to try to sort out to get that system up and operating was really quite an achievement. I would not want, during this opportunity to speak about Bill, to not mention and stress that, because I think if you go back and look at the newspapers of the day, the commentary of the day, this was really a very significant undertaking and he was very much a part of it.

I think it's also interesting to note, and I don't know if my career to a certain extent interconnects with Bill's, because when I first came to the Legislature in 1987, that was when he came to help really put our information systems into the modern age. I think for any member who was here prior to 1987 or who came in 1987, when you think back to what was in your office, the kinds of services you had, we have really seen over the last six or seven years a tremendous change in our ability to communicate, to gather information, and again we owe a debt of gratitude to Bill Fowler.

Finally, I only want to say that there are times when people comment about the public service in Ontario. It is people like Bill Fowler and many others who serve within the Ontario public service and indeed in the broader public service who really bring a good name to being a public servant.

One of the ways we can show our appreciation is through a time like today where we say to Bill and his good wife that we wish you all the very best in your retirement and thank you for all your service over the past 27 years.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On behalf of the PC caucus, I'd like to share in the remarks that have already been given to Bill Fowler.

In one person's lifetime to span three and a half generations is really quite a feat, and that's what he's done when you think of the technological changes he's lived through, going back to the days of the vacuum tube, the transistors and then the microchip, going back to the days of the punch-card era you would have been part of -- you were at Atlas, and back in OHIP -- then getting into tape processing, batch systems, and then moving through transactional systems to the networking we know today.

Here we see before us someone who's gone through at least three and a half generations of data processing in his lifetime. I knew him back in the days in OHIP, when I was working with Honeywell in the computer business and had the occasion to meet him then.

If there's anything that you have done, it is that you have continued to stay on top of the technology as it's gone through the different stages of evolution, to continue to be on top of it, service-oriented, providing service to the end user.

If anything, your last several years have been a crowning achievement. To educate a bunch of politicians and their staffs on data processing has, in its service to humankind and the people of the province, been one of those things that I think will go down in history as an excellent achievement.

On behalf of our caucus, I say congratulations for the life of a public servant who has, number one, kept at the height of his own mind that sense of service to the people of Ontario, to the people who were looking after his pay and so on, but ultimately to make sure that in his service that he gave in return for a job that was important, the very best is what he gave, the very best to the people of the province.

I commend you for what you've done. May you enjoy your retirement, and may you get someone else in here to continue to do the kind of work you've been doing. We need to have that kind of leadership from the people who are helping us do a good job. Good luck.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On behalf of the assembly and the staff, I would like to tell Bill Fowler that he has served as a highly skilled professional with tremendous enthusiasm, imagination and creativity for nearly three decades. He has always served with tremendous dedication this Parliament and indeed the people of the province of Ontario. For that we are grateful, we thank you, we congratulate you and wish you the very best in the future. Thank you, Bill.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Attorney General. Minister, there are now new concerns that have arisen that affect public confidence in the special investigations unit of your ministry. You will be aware of reports that Fred Winston, a former US police officer who was hired by the special investigations unit, apparently claimed his experience was as a homicide investigator and that this experience may not in fact be accurate.

There are also reports that Mr Winston was fired from a previous position as a law enforcement officer, apparently after a number of criminal charges were laid. Through some incredible circumstance, it would seem that the SIU was unaware of this particular recruit's rather questionable history.

I ask you today, Minister, if you could explain to this House and to the people of this province exactly how this could have happened, what you are now doing to investigate the situation and whether you will take action to remove this investigator from the special investigations unit if the accusations prove to be true.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): My understanding of the hiring process was that reference checks were indeed done, as they normally are with individuals who are going to be doing this kind of highly sensitive investigatory work. I must say that until there is the completion of an investigation that's being done by the human resources division in our ministry, I'm not prepared to make any comment on the allegations that have been made. I would remind the member they are allegations only and, as the opposition has indignantly pointed out in this House many times, we must make assumptions that people are innocent until they're proven guilty.

The member is also aware that in any kind of a human relation situation, misrepresentation of qualifications is a very serious issue, and we will take it seriously if indeed those allegations are shown to be true.

1430

Mrs McLeod: I raise the issue I hope with sensitivity but as well with very real concern. We believe that the special investigations unit of your ministry is entrusted indeed with a very special responsibility. They're entrusted with investigations that have a very significant bearing on public confidence in their safety and security, and as well investigations that have a very direct bearing on the careers of individual police officers. So the nature of the people who are hired to carry out those investigations to us is a very critical issue.

Minister, your response and the response earlier today of the director of the SIU, Howard Morton, raises some concerns for us about the way in which the SIU goes about hiring staff for its investigations. We wonder if in fact routine checks are made, the most routine check being to call an employer for a reference.

We believe that if the routine check had been made that involved calling the recruit's former employer, they would've known at least some of the facts about this individual's background. Our research staff called the Broward county sheriff's office today. They spoke to the supervisor of the crimes against persons department, and this individual also used to be in charge of the homicide department.

The supervisor did confirm that Fred Winston did not work on homicide cases, even though apparently the background for his coming onto the SIU was his record of investigating some 75 homicide cases. This individual also indicated that he has been unable, since receiving calls on this issue over the last few days, to find any record of Ontario authorities calling to check into this individual's background.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader place her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: If we were able to find out some of the facts of this individual's background by making one phone call, I think it's a reasonable question to ask why your ministry was not able to find this out, why the head of the SIU was not able to find this out. Why didn't the SIU do what every good employer would do: pick up the phone and call the former employer?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Whether or not the individual to whom Liberal research was speaking was aware of a call or not, my information certainly is that reference checks of former employers were done in this case, as they are in every case. If that is shown not to be the case, then obviously I would share the concern.

I would remind the member that it is not only police officers who have to be concerned about the very serious and very sensitive mandate of the SIU but all of us and all citizens, because this is an extremely important part of our community accountability of our police forces, and it is of interest to everyone in the province that the integrity of the unit be maintained.

I would caution, again, that the member not, as she has done in the past, make assumptions and allegations until an investigation is completed.

Mrs McLeod: We all do need to be concerned and that's exactly why we raised the question in this Legislature. We raised the question fully aware that this is only the latest controversy that has surrounded the special investigations unit. You know well, Minister, that there have been allegations of interference, legal advice being offered to people who are involved in investigations. There have been continuing concerns about delayed investigations and concerns about mismanagement at the SIU.

We raise the issue because we believe the role of the special investigations unit is important, but for it to be effective confidence in that unit is absolutely critical, and each of these issues continues to erode faith in the special investigations unit.

We have been urging you and your government for some two years now to review the mandate and the operations of the special investigations unit. We ask you today if you will conduct that review, bring forward recommendations and act to restore confidence in your special investigations unit.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Indeed, as I have said in this House before, we are in the process of reviewing the mandate and the issues around the SIU. We have increased the resources to the unit. We have increased the space in which they are. There have been a number of hirings that have been done.

But I would remind the member that it's very interesting that no matter who seems to be hired or what seems to be done, there are attacks on the SIU. We need to always be aware that they are, as any other investigatory service would be, always in the public eye and there are those who do not agree with the findings that they make. That's true of any police force, it's true of any court and it's true of the SIU.

The member is well aware that the director of the SIU has denied categorically that any legal advice was offered in the case that she mentioned and that there is indeed an ongoing concern that's been expressed by the director of the SIU about the difficulties that are faced by a unit that has been underresourced.

So I would say to the member that we are as committed as she is --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- to ensuring that the SIU's effectiveness is improved. We would call on the opposition to support the efforts that are being made to try to resolve some of these issues and to at least give credit where credit is due.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the chairman of Ontario Hydro announced that Hydro's deficit this year will be significantly higher than the $1.6 billion that it had forecasted. I see that the minister is looking for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I specifically wanted to address this question to the Minister of Finance because our concern with this question is the issue of deficits and debt, and that is an issue surely of concern to the Minister of Finance.

Minister, the announcement that the performance of Ontario Hydro is going to lead to higher deficits than predicted earlier has come to have a rather familiar ring when we recognize that your own projections of deficit are now going to be far higher than you originally had thought and that the WCB costs are escalating beyond what anybody ever imagined. So another indication that another public agency is going to encounter even higher deficits than it had expected is surely a cause of concern to everyone, including you as Minister of Finance.

My question is a very direct one to you: As Minister of Finance, can you tell us what exactly "significantly higher" will mean?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I assume the leader of the official opposition is talking about the provincial deficit and not the WCB unfunded liability and not Ontario Hydro's debt or deficit.

Mr Speaker, in a serious way, I am seeking clarification, because if the leader of the official opposition is asking me about Ontario Hydro's debt, then I will refer the question to the Minister of Energy. If she's asking me about the provincial deficit, I will respond myself. I would seek your approval to get clarification from the minister.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Leader of the Opposition quickly clarify.

Mrs McLeod: My question to the Minister of Finance is, does he, as Minister of Finance responsible for the overall financial health of this province, know what the chairman of Hydro means when he says Hydro's deficit will be significantly higher than projected?

Hon Mr Laughren: In view of the fact that every minister of this cabinet is concerned about deficit and debts, I'll refer this question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): As my colleague the Minister of Finance indicated, all members of this government and I suspect all members of this House are concerned about questions related to the financing of Ontario Hydro and any projected losses that public corporation will experience.

We have had ongoing discussions with the chair of Ontario Hydro and senior staff with regard to the financing of Ontario Hydro. When the overall picture is clarified, I'd be happy to report to the House.

1440

Mrs McLeod: I was prepared to be somewhat amazed that the Minister of Finance would not know what kinds of deficits Ontario Hydro is now projecting. I am even more amazed that the Minister of Energy is not able to tell us today what the chairman of Hydro means when he says that the deficit is going to be significantly higher than the $1.6 billion that was originally predicted. This is debt, whichever minister wants to respond. Debt is debt is debt, and that's the issue that we're getting at.

The minister is well aware of the commitment which we all applaud of the chairman of Ontario Hydro to freeze hydro rates so that the deficit, the poor performance, cannot be passed on through rate increases if that commitment is to be kept. That means that we are potentially facing much higher deficits, much higher debt. My question, which would have been to the Minister of Finance, is to ask, how will that significantly higher deficit, that greater debt, affect the province of Ontario's credit rating and affect our capacity for future borrowing?

Hon Mr Wildman: The preamble of the question leads me to understand that the Liberal Party and the leader of the Liberal Party are opposed to the freezing of Ontario Hydro rates for 1994. If that's the case, then I wish they would make it clear to the commercial and industrial sector across the province that the Liberal opposition in this House is opposed to the freezing of Ontario Hydro rates.

Having said that, the question of the debt guarantee and how that will affect the bond rating of this province, I'd like to assure the member that the government is confident that this will not have a significant impact in any way on the bond rating of this province.

Mrs McLeod: The protestations of absolute confidence would be better borne out if we knew at least what the deficit was going to be, if we knew how it was going to be managed or if we knew that this government was prepared to refer Ontario Hydro's plans to an independent review. Our concern is not that Ontario Hydro has decided to freeze rates. As I said, we applaud that. Our concern is that the plans that Ontario Hydro is putting in place to get its own house in order, to be able to keep that commitment to control rates, has escaped all public scrutiny.

Minister, you will recall that when Hydro announced there would be no rate increases last year, your government, you, decided that there was no need for hearings by the Ontario Energy Board on Hydro's financial plans. You decided that in spite of the massive restructuring that was being undertaken to get Hydro's financial house in order. We urged you to allow the Ontario Energy Board to hold hearings to examine the kinds of changes that Hydro was undergoing and allow these significant matters to be publicly debated, and you refused to do so.

Minister, I ask you again, will you refer to the Ontario Energy Board Ontario Hydro's most recent plans so that there can be public debate of its plans and how it is going to manage its cost and its rates?

Hon Mr Wildman: I hate to disappoint the Leader of the Opposition, but I would just refer her to a letter that I have in my hand that I have sent to the Ontario Energy Board, which I'd already done long before the question was asked:

"In light of the fact that there was no rate increase this year and therefore no hearing, I would like the Ontario Energy Board to review as early as possible the implications of Ontario Hydro's restructuring plan."

The Ontario Energy Board I'm sure will take this into consideration and hopefully will move as quickly as possible to review the whole issue. This government had taken that action long before it even entered the head of my colleague across the way.

I would also point out for the information of members that they should take into account that the situation of Ontario Hydro is indeed improving thanks to the restructuring that has taken place. There are positive signs in terms of the sale of heavy water, for instance, as it relates to the Bruce and in terms of the overall impact of rate freezes on our competitive advantages or disadvantages, however you look at it, with regard to competitors in the United States.

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Later this week, your $8.6-million commission on taxation will release its report. When the commission was formed, you said it was to assist in implementing a fair tax system. The problem is that fair taxes for your government, just like the Liberals before you, are synonymous with more taxes. This isn't really a Fair Tax Commission; it's turned into a new tax commission. What assurance can you give beleaguered taxpayers that the Fair Tax Commission's report will not translate into yet another round of tax increases in 1994?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): In light of his significant expertise in this area, I'm going to refer the question to the Deputy Premier.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I'd like to thank the Premier for that acknowledgement.

The leader of the third party is correct that the Fair Tax Commission will be bringing down its report on Thursday; it will be released on Thursday afternoon. I can give the member assurances that it will be a balanced, thoughtful, analytical, insightful report. It will take the leader of the third party some time to read the thousand pages or so, but I'm sure he will find the time over the Christmas break to wade through that report.

I think as well that the leader of the third party has heard the Premier say on several occasions, and I've said it myself, that because of the rather significant tax increases that were introduced last spring, this will give us the revenue base that is necessary to sustain the essential programs of this province and that the taxpayers of this province should rest assured that there will be no major tax increases in the next budget.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): "Major."

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I use the word "major," before the leader of the third party jumps all over me, which I would not want to have happen, because --

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

Hon Mr Laughren: -- because of the recommendations in the report, there may be some rejigging or reshifting of existing taxes, but no major new tax increases.

Mr Harris: First of all, I'm pleased that the Premier acknowledges that he does not have any tax expertise, something he's amply demonstrated throughout his career. So my supplementary then is to the Treasurer.

One of the expected tax increases in the report coming out from the new tax commission is a tax on every newspaper in Ontario. As the St Catharines Standard says, it will boil down to a new $270,000 annual tax on reading for their subscribers. For the hundreds of newspaper businesses in Ontario, this is not a fair tax; this would be a new tax. They can't afford any new taxes.

Treasurer, in view of the fact that you have said no major tax increases and that after the last budget your own Premier said, "More taxes can't solve the problem," the problem being the mess we're in in Ontario, can you assure taxpayers this: that as a result of the new tax commission, there will be no new taxes on reading of the type that you will introduce in your budget in 1994?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm surprised that the leader of the third party would be so transparent in trying to curry favour with the press gallery in this place.

I want to indicate to the leader of the third party that I have no intention of responding to every surmised recommendation in the Fair Tax Commission report. There are 135 of them in the report, and I wouldn't want to respond to every one of them before the tax commission report is even released.

1450

Mr Harris: Treasurer, this afternoon we are going to be debating a motion of non-confidence in your government. This lack of confidence is shared, I tell you, by some 85% to 95% of Ontarians. I want you to know that as well. It's a direct result of your continuation of the previous Liberal government's high-spending, high-taxing agenda, and you have carried on with it. That's the problem.

It's a direct result as well, since you've taken over, of your inability to develop a long-range economic plan that sends any sense of confidence to the business community, to investors, to taxpayers, indeed to recipients of government programs in this province of Ontario. They do not have confidence that you have either the will or the ability to bring forward programs that make sense.

Treasurer, will you do one thing as we approach Christmas and enter 1994? Will you today commit at least to this minimum requirement, that there will not be any new taxes in 1994 for beleaguered Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Mr Laughren: I must say I was somewhat offended by the wording in the third party's motion of non-confidence. I thought that the leader of the third party had a more balanced view of public life in this province.

I must say that the people in this province know better than to think that all of the problems currently being faced by Ontario Hydro and all of the problems currently being faced by the Workers' Compensation Board were invented or began when this government came to office. They know, as we know and as you know, that many of those problems began when the Progressive Conservatives were in office in this province for such a very, very long time.

I would say to the leader of the third party that this government, as no other government has done, has tried to tackle those very serious problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, at Ontario Hydro, and indeed in the overall restructuring of government. At the same time, we are determined to preserve the essential services in this province. For the leader of the third party to think he can get away with standing in his place, pointing fingers and saying that all the problems in this province belong at our doorstep, that none should be shared by the federal Tories when they were in office and none should be shared by him when his party was in office, simply doesn't wash any more. The public in this province is sick and tired of that kind of finger-pointing.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General and is in regard to the special investigations unit. It appears that every week we have evidence that the Keystone Cop is running the SIU.

Let me just set the scene for you. Mr Morton, the head of the SIU, hires a new gentleman whose name is Fred Winston to investigate homicides. He takes Mr Winston to meet senior officers of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force at the C.O. Bick police college. He then introduces him and says: "This man, Mr Winston, has investigated 75 homicides. He's just a crackerjack."

Then we find out less than a week later that the closest Mr Winston has ever got to a homicide investigation is guarding the scene so that other, real homicide investigators can perform the investigation.

It is quite obvious that the SIU has turned into a laughingstock. It has no credibility and no respectability among law enforcement officers or among the public. The only person who seems to have any confidence in the SIU is the Attorney General, who refuses to take any steps to deal with this problem. My question to the Attorney General is, what more do you need before you find someone to head the SIU who can do the job as mandated in the legislation?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I need a great deal more than virulent and unsubstantiated accounts in the Toronto Sun. I have already answered in this House that if indeed any of the concerns that are raised in that article are correct, then obviously action will be taken. But as I would again remind this House, a great deal was made of the issue of presuming people innocent until proven guilty earlier this year, and I am constantly amazed at the kinds of attacks the third party in particular launches when all it has to go on is an account in a tabloid.

Mr Harnick: The problem is that you say you've gone out and checked out this person's background. Well, it's obvious you haven't. He worked somewhere for 12 years and he didn't have a letter of reference. You didn't even check. Nevertheless, let's go on to another topic.

In July 1993, the SIU was asked to investigate a motor vehicle accident where an off-duty constable by the name of Darren Jonasson was involved and unfortunately, very tragically, a young child was killed. The OPP asked the SIU to come up and investigate so there would not appear to be a conflict of interest -- quite proper for the OPP to do that.

So what happened? To investigate a motor vehicle accident where you didn't have to apprehend a criminal, where that was admitted, they ended up sending out to northern Ontario Mr Morton, his communications director and four investigators.

Minister, do you think it's appropriate that six people were sent out, including a communications officer, to investigate a motor vehicle accident, or is there more to this than Mr Morton has advised us? We are now about six months from the time the investigation began. Tells us what's happening.

Hon Mrs Boyd: In comment to the early remarks of the member, I did not claim in any way that I had checked this person's references. I said my understanding was that they were checked as they normally are in the civil service and that I had asked the human resources division to ensure that was the case.

In response to the next question of the member, as that is an ongoing investigation, obviously I am not going to respond in this House to his question about the details of an ongoing investigation.

Mr Harnick: I can't believe that someone worked somewhere for 12 years and nobody checked to see what his record was like there. Well, I've obtained that record. It took about five minutes to get it.

In 1975, Mr Winston left his post without permission, he was late reporting for work, he failed to return to service and he was suspended.

In 1984, he was given a written reprimand. In 1984 again he was given an oral reprimand. Get this: He was using his police officer's uniform to receive Michael Jackson tickets. That's the guy they hired to head up the homicide investigations.

Then in 1985, he was convicted of violations of seven complaints. I suspect that's the fraud and the theft.

The SIU is out of control. There is nobody running the shop. No one has any confidence. What more do you need to undermine the credibility of this body? Minister, we cannot go on any longer without you doing something. What more do you need before you, as the Attorney General, step in and make this body work? To date, we've had two years of nothing, and it appears we're going to have two more years of nothing.

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

Mr Harnick: What are you going to do? What are your plans?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As I said earlier, I certainly intend to have a thorough investigation of the allegations that have been made in the newspaper and in this House, and I am not prepared to comment on those allegations until they are verified.

1500

Secondly, it is my intention, as I have said very clearly, to work with the SIU to clear up some of the issues which they themselves agree are problems in terms of the operation. I again am pleased with the indication that the member opposite would support us in trying to strengthen the mandate of the SIU.

NATURAL GAS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Over the last two months I've knocked on many doors throughout the riding of Essex South and I've talked to many people. One thing that many of the people in my constituency wanted to talk about was the recent issue of retroactive increases in natural gas prices. As you may know, last year the Ontario Energy Board granted to Union Gas an interim rate increase for the fiscal year 1992-93. However, in September 1993, the Ontario Energy Board okayed a final rate, which is higher than the interim rate customers had already paid.

You can imagine how astounded many of my constituents were when they opened up their October 1993 gas bill and saw that they were being charged an adjustment that was reflecting the change between the interim and the final rates for gas used over the past 18 months. In fact, I have a copy of a bill sent to me by Thiessen Greenhouse in Leamington. They're being charged an extra $1,073 for gas they used over one year ago, which is an additional input cost they can't recover.

I would like to ask the minister if he will ask the Ontario Energy Board to overturn this rate increase, which is devastating to my constituency.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm sure on behalf of all members of the Legislature, I'm pleased to welcome the new member for Essex South and to congratulate him on his success in the recent by-election and to wish him well in his years here in this exclusive club that so many of us have been happy to serve for many years. I would also anticipate that he will serve with the same distinction as his predecessor in that seat.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): That's a low blow.

Hon Mr Wildman: I would say in response to the question, the member knows well that in this current --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That wasn't nice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: You don't think that Remo served with distinction?

I would remind the member that in the unregulated regime that we're in today, the question of wholesale rates for gas is not a subject of government regulation and that the Ontario Energy Board regulates the retail price and allows the gas companies to pass on their increased costs for the wholesale price in the purchasing of gas to their consumers.

That's the reason for the recent decision of the Ontario Energy Board; it's not something that is a matter related to retail pricing. The portion for the distribution cost is only 1.2% and it was previously approved by the OEB. So, no, I'm not prepared to accede to the member's request, and I do sincerely welcome him and welcome his question.

Mr Crozier: Mr Minister, thank you for the kind words, but I do plan to serve with distinction because I swore to do that today.

At the same time the Ontario Energy Board finalized the 1992-93 rates, it granted Union Gas a further 9.8% interim rate increase retroactive to April 1993. This means that not only did customers find the adjustment for last year's gas bill on their October bill, they found a 9.8% adjustment retroactive to April of this year.

On the Thiessen farm gas bill, this translates to an additional $2,986. Both adjustments add up to $4,059. The 9.8% increase for this year is only interim. This means that the Ontario Energy Board could decide to allow an even higher finalized rate. Customers would again be forced to pay twice for gas they used 18 months ago.

I would ask the minister, will you guarantee that in October 1994 my constituents will not be faced with another retroactive increase as they have faced this year?

Hon Mr Wildman: Would that I had the kind of omnipotence that the member attributes to me. I would say that the member is well aware, I'm sure, coming from the part of the province that he represents, that, as I said in my previous response, the OEB regulates retail prices and has authorized these increases based on the increase in the wholesale price of gas. As we all know in this Legislature, natural gas prices have been increasing, and that's in relation to factors that are beyond the control of this province or the OEB at the wholesale level.

However, we should remember that gas prices will remain substantially below other types of fuel prices and electricity prices, both for residential and industrial consumers. While there has been an increase, residents who purchase gas are still experiencing prices that are below other types of energy in this province.

HOME CARE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, last week I met with Margaret Toni, who is the national director of Community Homecare and Rehabilitation Services, or CHARTS. It's a non-profit home care agency. CHARTS meets all of the conditions and requirements as outlined by your government for not-for-profit agencies that enter into contracts with home care programs. In order to save taxpayers' dollars, CHARTS outsources a small portion of its business to Comcare, which can provide administrative services more effectively.

As a result of this arrangement with a private-sector home care agency, CHARTS has been blacklisted by your government and its share of the home care business has been capped at 10%. CHARTS employs 1,200 people, and again I say it is in complete conformity with your new home care policy.

Minister, after announcing last June your government's policy to drive the private sector out of the delivery of home care services in this province, why have you now decided to turn your guns on the not-for-profit sector by blacklisting CHARTS?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The member's choice of words is particularly inappropriate in view of the fact that they are entirely premature. We were aware in November of the existence of CHARTS. We asked them, after a meeting with some of the representatives of the company, to submit some documentation to the ministry with respect to their operation. We are reviewing that documentation and have not made a determination.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, the decision to drive CHARTS out of business has been made and it's contained in a letter that I've received from your ministry. The letter says, "Consequently, for the purpose of the not-for-profit, in-home services policy, the ministry will consider services obtained from CHARTS as services obtained from a commercial provider." In other words, Minister, it couldn't be clearer. The letter clearly says that because of a practical and logical association with a commercial agency, your government will automatically blacklist companies like CHARTS.

Minister, I want to explain this. CHARTS has asked Comcare to run a small portion of its administrative services because it recognizes that Comcare can provide those services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. This arrangement avoids duplication and allows services to be provided at the lowest cost to the consumer and the government.

Your decision effectively means that CHARTS has to stop buying pens and paper from Grand and Toy or bandages and gauze from a medical supply company. Minister, why don't you come clean with the public and admit that your decision to blacklist CHARTS is driven solely by your socialist ideology and has nothing to do with ensuring that the public receives the highest quality and levels of service that can humanly be provided?

1510

Hon Mrs Grier: One is always tempted to counter accusations of ideology by counteraccusations of ideology, but let me try to get across to the member what the facts of the situation are, which are that the decisions of this government are driven by our determination that the taxpayers' dollars will be spent in the most effective way and that the health care services of this province will be delivered, in accordance with the Canada Health Act, by non-profit agencies.

Accordingly, in November, as I said in response to the first question, we informed CHARTS that we considered them to be a commercial agency. They responded with documentation. We met with them. They have provided more information that disagrees with our conclusion and we are still reviewing the documentation. That's what I said in my first answer.

FIRE PREVENTION

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Fire protection in this province is an ongoing concern and one that I know you share with me. The old adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" seems most appropriate in this context.

Fire prevention measures reduce the cost of fire suppression, enhance public safety and keep insurance rates at a reasonable level. What has our government done to promote fire prevention initiatives in this province?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The honourable member raises an important issue today. Let me say that the Ontario fire marshal's office, an important part of my ministry, sees as its mandate the need to provide not just leadership on fire prevention, but public education and firefighter training. In having this three-pronged approach, we've seen over the 10 years from 1983 to 1993 a 20% reduction in the number of fires per 100,000 population, and the fire death rate since 1981 has dropped by 36%.

However, not satisfied ever to relax in his efforts to continue to fight to prevent fires, our current fire marshal, Bernie Moyle, has indeed created the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council, a new entity within this ministry that will allow groups and individuals who have an interest in fire prevention to have a public input access to the development of programs and initiatives that will contribute to the prevention of fire in Ontario.

Mr Winninger: As part of this initiative, will fire prevention programs and fire services be made mandatory?

Hon Mr Christopherson: As the honourable member is aware, in the province of Ontario we have not had a significant change to the Fire Departments Act in over 40 years, and we do not now have any mandatory requirements for a minimum standard of fire service in any municipality in this province. That of course is unacceptable. There have been a number of initiatives over the last few decades to try to tackle this; however, none has resulted in any real legislation being introduced.

We now have the Fire Services Review Committee report, which I released in the summer. It's now in the hands of the groups and stakeholders in the province. I have met with them and received their submissions on that report. We'll continue to meet with them to develop a piece of legislation, and in that legislation will be the mandatory requirement for fire prevention initiatives in every community across Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Finance. A number of my colleagues and I, as the member for north Renfrew, have received considerable representation from community newspaper publishers in our constituencies, all of which publishers are deeply concerned about the rumoured green tax on newspapers.

I want to ask you on behalf of the community newspapers and the daily publishers' association in Ontario directly: Do you intend as Minister of Finance and as a government in this province to impose the two-cent or any kind of tax on newspapers in this province as part of an environmental initiative or any other kind of initiative?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Renfrew North asks a serious question and I will attempt to give him a serious answer. At this point, I haven't had a conversation with a person on the face of the earth dealing with any kind of tax on any kind of newspapers.

Mr Conway: I think it is fair to say, on the basis of my conversations with newspaper publishers in communities like Eganville and Pembroke -- my colleagues from St Catharines, Belleville and Trenton have reported a similar concern -- that every newspaper publisher whom we have encountered in small villages, medium-sized cities and larger communities is petrified at the notion that the government of Ontario is about to impose a tax on newspapers at a time when many of these newspapers, particularly community newspapers, are struggling to hold on.

Will the Minister of Finance for Ontario, recognizing the widespread concern that's out there in the newspaper community --

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Did you generate it?

Mr Conway: I didn't generate it. We've all been receiving representations.

I say very seriously, because the Minister of Finance is right, this is a serious concern: Will the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government of Ontario, today set these newspaper publishers at ease with an assurance that there will be no green tax or any other kind of tax on newspapers, large or small, in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope the member for Renfrew North will assure the people who approach him that the thought of imposing this tax on newspapers never entered my mind until he, the member for Renfrew North, mentioned it in this House.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Last night, our egg, poultry and dairy producers found out that border controls were a thing of the past, and of course, controls at the border are the mainstay of supply management. Last week the Premier said we should stay the course, but the federal government gave up on its red book promise very early and without much of a fight. Without border controls and with tariffs lasting only a few years, how does the minister expect supply management and similar-type endeavours to survive here in Ontario?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I wish I had an answer as good as the question. I want to tell the member, however, that I talked to the federal Minister of Agriculture in Geneva last night. He has tried to reassure me that he believes that through tariffication, we will have some protection. However, the producers in the supply management commodities are not convinced of that. They feel betrayed by the federal government. A lot of people voted for their local Liberal candidate in the last federal election and farmers believed that they were getting some strengthening of our position in terms of article XI at the GATT discussions.

That has not happened. The formal announcement has not been made in terms of tariffication. We're not sure what levels of tariffs will be in place. The minister in Ottawa believes there will be some protection through tariffication. I'm going to have to wait until I see what the levels are and what other adjustment programs the federal government is willing to do before I'll be able to fully answer the member's question.

Mr Villeneuve: Tariffication was never considered by the Liberals during the election campaign leading up to October 25. They didn't even talk about it. They were going to strengthen article XI. It's now a major problem. It's obvious much will have to be done to ensure the viability of the dairy, egg and poultry industry. It's equally obvious that nothing has been done to date, because no one expected the sellout that all of a sudden we're faced with.

1520

Under the Canada clause, provinces will be able to substantially support their supply-managed industries. Quebec in particular produces more of these products than it uses. Is the minister and is this government aware of what the cost will be of this new provincial support and is this government prepared to provide financial assistance?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I don't want to get ahead of myself here in terms of what we're prepared to do as a provincial government. We as a provincial government are certainly prepared to support the supply management producers and do everything we can, but I do not think it's appropriate for the provincial government to be leading with its purse in this case. The federal government are the ones who have negotiated this deal, and I hope the farmers and the provincial governments will support us in talking to our federal counterparts, who will provide any financial assistance, if necessary, in the first instance. Once we have evaluated that, of course the provincial government will do what we can to support the producers of supply management.

I would add one other point, though. When we talk about supply management, we are talking about 30% of the farmers here in this province. The other 70%, though, or some of them in those commodities, believe this deal will be of some benefit to them. I want to point that out as well. We're not simply knocking the deal from a political perspective, but we want to make the point that those 30% are going to be affected and we'll be there to support them when they talk to the federal officials.

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. First I want to tell you two things: Since September, Niagara area has had the highest unemployment in Canada, and it is not ending. The Ford glass plant is closing in January and the layoffs at GM continue. Another sign of distress is that 24% of our municipal taxes are in arrears in my city. Secondly, I want to tell you that if you ask the ordinary person in Niagara Falls or in fact across this province or this country, they will tell you that Niagara Falls is an ideal location for a casino.

Why? First of all, we have 10 million visitors a year and they stay an average of three hours. Secondly, it's an ideally suited place to bring in foreign currency. Thirdly, a casino is a legitimate form of entertainment and as such is a part of tourism.

Madam Minister, Niagara Falls is anxiously awaiting the evaluation of the pilot project to see how this will be done. Yesterday, the Niagara Falls mayor, and also Alderman Norm Puttick who is the chair of the casino committee, presented these two reports to the minister. What they are asking is, will you consider the clearly compelling case for the city of Niagara Falls?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): To the member for Niagara Falls, we've had discussions about this before. As I've said all along, the Windsor casino is a pilot project. We said when we introduced that casino that we would be moving slowly, carefully and cautiously. I think it would be irresponsible for the government to move ahead with any new municipal casinos until we have evaluated the Windsor casino. We will be doing that as quickly as we can, but we want to be able to have a reasonable look at the social and economic and infrastructure impacts of this casino.

I don't believe the member has a supplementary, so I'd like to say that once the evaluation is completed, I know Niagara region was included in the Coopers and Lybrand study and it would certainly be considered as a potential future site.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He's busy breaking another strike.

Mr Elston: This is one of the founding members of the strikebreakers' hall of fame, the member for Windsor-Riverside, and I'd like to ask him a question about the social contract and its effect on some of the people in the teaching profession.

The social contract resulted in the freezing of the grid for those people who had not already been maxed out in several of the boards around the province of Ontario. I want the people to know that in some cases -- in most cases where the grid has been frozen -- that will mean that those people in the grid will be postponed by some three years from reaching what is called the maxed-out position.

I want the Minister of Education to help me out and help the people of the province out by explaining to us: What happens to those people who were frozen in the grid during the term of the social contract, and what plans has your government now got ready to deal with March 1996?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think the member knows that in each of the major sectors in the government, and Education is one of them, there are groups representing the teachers and the boards and the ministry that were working on some of these particular items, and in fact earlier this week, there was an agreement that some of the outstanding items for what they call the templates of the overall approach in the sector will be referred out to mediation-arbitration.

The decisions on those items will speed it up as a result of an agreement by the federations and the trustees' organizations to take the three or four outstanding items and refer them to mediation-arbitration.

Mr Elston: Will the Minister of Education therefore confirm that the price tag of these meddlings in the collective agreement process and in the bargaining process in the education system at least -- the price tag is not yet known for the people of Ontario, and in fact what has happened is that the Ontario government has manipulated the numbers just long enough to get by, perhaps not only this fiscal year but perhaps next fiscal year, and the taxpayer of the province will be left with a very large bill indeed at the end of March 1996.

Hon Mr Cooke: I know the price tag is that there's been $2-billion worth of savings through the social contract process, and more importantly than that, there've been 30,000 or 40,000 jobs saved, that if we'd followed the prescription the Liberal Party has advocated of just passing on the costs and the decreased grants to the local sector and then another $2 billion that his leader has talked about, there would've been 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 jobs lost across the province. That's what they advocate; we've advocated a responsible way to control costs and save jobs.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. On December 2 this House supported my private member's resolution which called on the government to reform its financial support for adults with developmental disabilities. In the presence of 150 visitors, including adults with developmental disabilities, their families, care givers and advocates, this resolution passed by a vote of 51 to 4.

The Minister of Community and Social Services did not attend the debate. However, to my great disappointment, his parliamentary assistant, the member for Chatham-Kent, spoke and voted against the resolution. Minister, did the parliamentary assistant for Community and Social Services reflect your views and vote as the minister?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I find that an odd question from the member opposite, as she knows my strong feelings about private members' hour and how strongly I feel about members voting of their own wishes, and so no one in this House, other than myself, represents my views or the ministry's views other than at official times that the ministry indicates that I will or other people will represent those views. Obviously, whatever the parliamentary assistant decided to do in that particular instance was his own decision, as he's free to do during private members' hours.

Mrs Marland: My resolution did not ask for the impossible. It asked the government to spend the existing allocation of funds in a way that better meets the needs of adults with developmental disabilities. For instance, the government could provide funds directly to adults with developmental disabilities and their families, allowing them to choose the support they most require. My resolution also asked the government to redirect money from other areas where spending cuts can be made.

The government has a moral obligation to act on the vote in support of my resolution. The government also has a moral obligation to help these people who are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Right now many of them receive no government support whatsoever.

Minister, what action can persons with developmental disabilities expect as a result of the vote in support of my private member's resolution, and had you been in the House, would you have voted in favour of the resolution?

Hon Mr Silipo: What the people of the province can expect, particularly these individuals the member speaks of, is that we will continue the efforts we've undertaken to first of all continue as we did this year to add more funds, $21 million this year, to help us expand the services for people with developmental handicaps, and to continue to do the planning work that is now under way that also will help us, we believe, in expanding the services that are being provided.

As the member knows, we have under way a process that pulls together some of the groups and agencies that are responsible for delivering with us these issues. That's the way in which we want to approach and need to approach these issues. This is an area that needs to be addressed, I think, in this way, and that's what I can look forward to offering to the member opposite and, more importantly, to the people who are affected by these services.

1530

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I'd like to protect my reputation. If there's anything --

Interjection: You don't have one.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Cousens: I know, what there's left of it.

Mr Speaker, is there any chance that the Minister of Finance could make my Christmas and make some kind of an announcement on the home ownership plan for the province of Ontario? That's what I want most of all.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): On a point of privilege, if I might respond to that very briefly, because there's nothing that would make me happier than to make the member for Markham's Christmas a happier one than would otherwise be: The Ontario home ownership savings plan, as designed by the former government, was due to expire on December 31. We have decided to extend the program indefinitely, except for the land transfer tax component. But the income tax credit component will be extended indefinitely.

The Speaker: The member for Markham does not have a point of privilege; however, his interest in protecting his reputation seems to have been acceded to.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate what the Minister of Finance just said. I think it's entirely improper that he would use the time after question period, instead of the allotted time for minister's statements, on an important announcement.

I'm serious about this matter, because I have had numerous real estate agents in my riding, I have had numerous constituents, who are extremely concerned about this matter. They have all been waiting for a response to questions that have been asked by our Housing critic and by many other members of this House. The proper time to have made this announcement was during ministerial statements, not oral questions.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Nepean, he will know that I have consistently urged ministers to make announcements in the House during the time allocated for ministers' statements, as opposed to making statements outside the House. However, that is out of my control.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I would like to make a personal point of clarification. This afternoon at 1:30, thereabouts, I stood in my place to make a member's statement, which was rudely interrupted by a point of order. There was absolutely no evidence available that I said anything unparliamentary in that statement. I just want to put that on the record.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I'll deal with this first. To the member for Durham East, indeed he will note that I did not tell the member that he had used unparliamentary language. There may have been some misunderstanding on what was said. None the less, there was some disorder in the chamber and I asked, therefore, that the member rephrase the statement which he was making. I appreciate that the member has brought some clarification to the situation.

On a point of order, the member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Since the Minister of Finance is responding to a Christmas wish, I too would have a list and it would be headed by the request, could we have an election in the short-term future? I wonder if perhaps he would like to respond to that.

The Speaker: The short answer is you have to see the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given that this is likely the last day that this House will sit this year, I wonder if the Minister of Education and Training might be prepared to make a statement as to the proposed tuition fee increases for colleges and universities in the new year.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for a statement? No? I heard at least one negative voice.

PETITIONS

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by about 60 or 70 residents of my riding and others. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas child poverty is one of the most important issues in Canada, requiring clear and innovative public policies if child poverty is to be eliminated by the year 2000,

"Be it hereby resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to initiate immediate policies to alleviate child poverty in this province."

It's signed by those residents, I'm affixing my signature thereto and I'm in total agreement.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Bill 55 will make it illegal for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way would be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties. At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

As you know, the member for Markham has indicated that he is withdrawing this bill.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and I'm presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Sarnia, Bob Huget. This petition is in opposition to private member's Bill 55, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code. This petition has been signed by 307 constituents in Mr Huget's riding of Sarnia and he has affixed his signature to it.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition signed by about 60 residents of Ontario, including constituents of my riding of Mississauga East. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We oppose quotas for university entrance."

It's short and to the point and I'm adding my signature to show my support.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition directed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the NDP promised to reduce auto insurance rates over the previous two elections; and

"Whereas the NDP decided one year after the election to abandon its pledge to reduce auto insurance rates; and

"Whereas the NDP has passed and implemented legislation which will force auto insurance rates to increase by over $100; and

"Whereas the NDP has also implemented new taxes on auto insurance which will raise rates even further; and

"Whereas the rate increases will hurt drivers across the province who need to use their vehicles in their businesses or to drive to work; and

"Whereas during the recession most businesses and employees cannot afford the additional costs of NDP auto insurance increases,

"We, the undersigned, demand that the NDP repeal its costly auto insurance legislation or call an election to allow the taxpayers of the province to have their say on this damaging legislation."

I affix my signature to this in agreement.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

"Liberal Tim Murphy's Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate" --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for Downsview and the member for St George-St David, order please.

Mr Runciman: "We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and therefore could include sado-masochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Human Rights Code and Bill 45."

Several hundred of my constituents have signed this and I affix my signature.

1540

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the taxpayers of St Thomas Aquinas, St Bernadette's, Our Lady of Good Counsel, Good Shepherd and Prince of Peace. Subject: a high school for the East Gwillimbury-Georgina area.

"Whereas our children and the students of East Gwillimbury-Georgina currently travel over two hours each day to attend overcrowded Sacred Heart school in Newmarket and are now being required to add one more hour each day to reach Cardinal Carter school in Aurora. Three hours of commuting for a 14-year-old is just too much. York region separate board has put the last unreasonable request upon its family and community in the north; and

"Whereas the experts of planning and service within the school board recommend a new school for the Georgina area,

"We, the parents of these children, are requesting that the Ministry of Education consider our plight when processing the distribution of allocations of new schools is implemented.

"The attached signatures support the above indicated and rely upon your impartial and good judgement to do the right thing."

I know this petition is well out of order from the students from St Bernadette's in grades 6, 7 and 8.

ORIENTATION SEXUELLE

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai neuf pétitions de commettants de la circonscription qui demandent, et je cite, «humblement la nullité totale du projet de loi 45 qui modifie le Code de la personne en ce qui concerne l'orientation sexuelle.»

«Nous désapprouvons les changements suivants :

«(a) enlever l'expression 'sexe opposé' de la définition de l'état matrimonial ;

«(b) accorder le droit à l'adoption pour un couple homosexuel ; et

«(c) ajouter aux droits de la personne l'expression 'orientation sexuelle.'»

LE JEU

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une dixième pétition, contre l'établissement de casinos en Ontario et de vidéo-loterie, et j'ai apposé ma signature sur ces dix pétitions.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Order. Order. I forgot the leader of the third party. Would you please read your petition.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): You and the majority of the voters in the last election.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): This is rather a lengthy petition. I don't wish to read it all. But it is signed by 64 of 68 of the nurses at the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital, all objecting to Bill 117 forcing them to join a union which they do not wish to join. I have affixed my signature to the petition as well.

SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): My petition:

"Whereas sickle cell anaemia is a serious medical condition with 10% of the population of African origin carrying the gene and controlled studies show a significant reduction in the number of childhood deaths by long-term treatments with penicillin to such a degree that it must be considered an essential drug,

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Ministries of Health and of Community and Social Services to ensure free provision of the drug to all affected children."

I'm signing my name to this.

TRAILER PARK RESIDENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 89 owners of mobile homes in an area of Thunder Bay known as Hillcourt mobile home park are in jeopardy of losing their homes through no fault of their own;

"Whereas the owner of the park owes the city of Thunder Bay in excess of $400,000 in tax arrears;

"Whereas a grave injustice has crept into the law in that provisions of the Municipal Tax Sales Act and the Assessment Act entitle the city to sell the trailer park, mobile homes included, to satisfy tax arrears in March of 1994,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to examine this matter forthwith and implement amending legislation to protect those mobile home owners and all other Ontario mobile home owners who could face the same situation in the future."

I've affixed my signature in full support of their concern.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): To the Parliament of Ontario:

"We urgently request that paramedic services be supplied to the Ottawa-Carleton area as soon as possible."

That's straight and direct from 100 residents of the Stittsville-Richmond area, which I represent. We want paramedic services in Ottawa-Carleton and I've signed my name.

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas, since September, the Niagara area has had the highest unemployment in Canada;

"Whereas, in January, the Ford glass plant will close and layoffs at GM continue;

"Whereas 24% of the municipal taxes are now in arrears;

"Whereas Niagara Falls is a natural site for a casino, because we already have over 10 million visitors a year and we are ideally suited to bring in foreign currency and a casino is a legitimate form of entertainment and as such is a part of tourism,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, request (1) that the evaluation of the pilot project be completed as soon as possible and (2) that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations consider the clear, compelling case put forward in the two reports submitted by the city of Niagara Falls on December 13, 1993."

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single, local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating use of commercial providers,

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition and I've affixed my name to it.

TAXICABS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"That under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter M.62, part XVIII, section 278, to investigate the activities and the relationship of Metro and the MLC, and as a result legislate that Metro and the MLC establish a separate Metropolitan Toronto taxi authority with appropriate taxicab industry representation."

I have affixed my name thereto.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by many people in the London area opposing Bill 45, the bill moved by Mr Murphy of the Liberals.

TUITION FEES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have petition from many people to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the NDP promised throughout many election campaigns to eliminate tuition fees for college and university students; and

"Whereas the NDP broke this election promise in its first year in office; and

"Whereas since the NDP took office they've already raised tuition fees by 22% and are planning to raise tuition fees by an additional 14% over the next two years; and

"Whereas the NDP government has cut over $250 million in funding to colleges and universities, forcing many institutions to raise non-tuition student fees to make up the missing revenue; and

"Whereas the government has cut the student grants program for post-secondary students and replaced it with a smaller loans program; and

"Whereas everyone agrees that we need to encourage students to become more highly trained and skilled through post-secondary education to ensure that our province can compete in this changing economy; and

"Whereas student unemployment is at an all-time high, double-digit levels already, leaving further education as the only hope for real jobs for many of our young people,

"We, the undersigned, urge the province to restore quality and accessibility to the post-education system by holding the line on tuition increases and making it more affordable for our youth to receive the skills and training they require."

VIOLENCE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it is signed by several hundreds throughout North Bay, Oshawa, Whitby. Rather than read it all, so that others may get petitions in, it objects to the serial killer trading cards featuring Karla Teale being sold in Canada and petitions that the Ontario Legislature will do whatever it can to stop that.

I too have affixed my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I'm presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Sarnia, Bob Huget. This petition is in opposition to private member's Bill 45, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code with respect to sexual orientation. This petition has been signed by 299 constituents in Mr Huget's riding of Sarnia and I, on his behalf, present the petition to the Legislature.

SALE OF LAND

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

"Whereas the NDP promised during the election campaign to protect agricultural areas surrounding Metropolitan Toronto from future development; and

"Whereas the NDP demanded during the last provincial election campaign that provincially owned land in the Pickering area known as Seaton should be used only to build affordable housing; and

"Whereas the NDP government is now planning to sell land in the Pickering area for private development because of its sagging revenues;

I've signed it.

1550

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES

On motion by Hon Mrs Boyd, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et à la Loi sur les juges de paix.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I am pleased to introduce for first reading a new version of the Courts of Justice Statute Law Amendment Act that replaces Bill 68 which was introduced on July 7, 1993.

Our ministry has had many helpful comments and suggestions concerning the previous bill from lawyers, judges and the broader community. We have responded by making technical improvements in a number of places and by making substantive changes in two areas.

First, we have changed the administrative framework for the expanded Unified Family Court, making it a distinct part of the Ontario Court (General Division) rather than a freestanding entity. The Unified Family Court will remain a full-service specialist court comprised of superior court judges.

Second, we have improved the procedures by which the Ontario Judicial Council examines complaints brought to it.

I hope that the House will give this bill early consideration in the spring.

LOTTERY LICENCES ACT (BINGO CARDS FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED PERSONS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES LICENCES DE LOTERIE (CARTES DE BINGO POUR PERSONNES ATTEINTES D'UN HANDICAP VISUEL)

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

Bill 137, An Act to Ensure Access by Visually Impaired Persons to certain Lottery Schemes / Projet de loi 137, Loi visant à garantir l'accès à certaines loteries aux personnes atteintes d'un handicap visuel.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Chiarelli, do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The purpose of the bill is to ensure that visually impaired persons may use CNIB bingo cards when playing bingo at bingos conducted under the authority of a licence.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

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

Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, a brief statement?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This bill, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, was introduced with the May 19, 1993, budget and was tabled as Bill 30. After many informative consultations with the industry and others affected by the changes to the retail sales tax, this bill has been fine-tuned, taking all clients' and stakeholders' viewpoints into consideration.

These changes are a vital part of our three-pronged plan to ensure a fair and balanced approach to Ontario's fiscal challenges. These measures are designed to help deal with the provincial deficit while not impeding the strength of the economic recovery.

Retail sales tax will now be applied to various insurance contracts, to commercial parking, to various sand and gravel products and beer or wine made at a produce-your-own outlet. The $5 tire tax will be removed and the Ontario -- Incredible! program discontinued.

WINDSOR TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT DU CONFLIT DES ENSEIGNANTS DE WINDSOR

On motion by Mr Laughren, on behalf of Mr Cooke, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 139, An Act to Settle the Dispute between The Board of Education for the City of Windsor and its Elementary School Teachers / Projet de loi 139, Loi visant à régler le conflit entre le conseil de l'éducation appelé The Board of Education for the City of Windsor et ses enseignants des écoles élémentaires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I will now leave the chair and proceed to the committee of the whole.

House in committee of the whole.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ET LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Deferred votes on Bill 117, An Act to revise the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, to amend the Public Service Act and the Labour Relations Act and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 117, Loi révisant la Loi sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne, modifiant la Loi sur la fonction publique et la Loi sur les relations de travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This will be a 10-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1558 to 1608.

The Chair: Order. We'll now deal with Mr Turnbull's amendment, clause 1(1)(c). All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

We will now deal with subsection 21.2(3), Mrs Caplan, and that deals with the dentists. Same vote?

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

We will now deal with subsection 21.2(3), which deals with the landscape architects and the veterinarians, Mrs Caplan. Same vote?

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with subsection 21.2(3) again, this time with only the landscape architects, brought in by Mrs Caplan. Same vote?

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with subsections 21.3(2.1) and (2.2) brought in by Mrs Caplan. Same vote?

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with section 22, by Mr Turnbull, an amendment. Same vote?

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 22 carry? Carried.

We're now dealing with Mr Cooper's amendment, section 34. Same vote reversed? Is there a no?

All those in favour of Mr Cooper's motion will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 60; the nays are 34. I declare the motion carried.

Shall 34, as amended, carry? Carried.

We're now dealing with the amendment to section 49 by Mr Turnbull.

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 49 carry? Carried.

We're now dealing with section 53.1, Mrs Caplan's amendment.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 17; the nays are 77. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with section 53.2, Mrs Caplan's amendment. First vote?

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with Mr Turnbull's amendment, section 56.1. Same vote? Agreed?

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with Mr Turnbull's amendment, section 56.2.

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with subsection 58(6), Mr Turnbull. Same vote?

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

Subsection 58(6), Mrs Caplan. Same vote?

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

Subsection 58(6), Mr Turnbull.

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

Subsection 58(6), Mrs Caplan.

The ayes are 33, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Subsection 58(6), Mrs Caplan.

The ayes are 33; the nays are 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 58 carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: Mr Charlton moves that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before we move to the first order, I believe we have an agreement among the House leaders to sit beyond 6 o'clock this evening but not beyond 12 o'clock midnight.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is this agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, just before we move to the first order, which is a non-confidence motion that will be put by the Conservative Party, I think we also have an agreement to limit the debate on this non-confidence motion to one hour. The time will be divided: 25 minutes for the Conservative Party, 10 minutes for the government party and 25 minutes for the official opposition.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

VISITOR

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I am pleased to introduce a very important person in the gallery, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Mrs Mabel Dougherty, and welcome her to the House. Indeed, if I had the opportunity, I would invite her to address us.

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION

Mr Harris moved pursuant to standing order 43(a):

Whereas the NDP government continued to follow the job-killing tax policies of the previous Liberal administration, including 22 new tax increases in its first two budgets on top of the 33 tax increases of the previous government; and

Whereas this government continued the trend set by the previous government to increase expenditures annually well in excess of the rate of inflation; and

Whereas this government continued the Liberal government's trend to increase the size and scope of government in Ontario to a level we can no longer afford; and

Whereas this government compounded this bad fiscal policy with multibillion-dollar deficits; and

Whereas this government failed to recognize the long-term damage these policies created in the economy of Ontario and did not begin to develop new direction and policy alternatives until over two and a half years after assuming office;

Therefore, this House has lost faith in the ability of this government to develop long-range economic plans for the prosperity of Ontario and pursuant to the provisions of standing order 43(a), the House no longer has confidence in the government.

1620

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I am going to lead off the debate on this motion of non-confidence with some abbreviated remarks. I'm going to touch on, essentially, law-and-order issues because certainly there's no doubt in the minds of most Ontarians in respect to law-and-order and justice issues that the people of this province have virtually no confidence whatsoever in the government of the day.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We don't want you being soft on law and order now, Bob.

Mr Runciman: I don't have an awful lot of time, so I want to touch on a number of things. There's some heckling coming from the Liberal ranks. I don't think the people of Ontario have too much confidence in the Liberal Party in terms of justice and law-and-order issues in this province either.

We simply have to look back at the attitude of the former Attorney General of the province, Mr Ian Scott. I can recall a couple of police officers who were concerned about the fact that drug dealers were coming in and out of the court system, back on the streets. Police officers were devoting weeks and months to trying to achieve convictions and these people were turned out into the streets. They were being critical of the judges who were dealing with these cases. And what happened? The Liberal Attorney General of the day, Mr Ian Scott, criticized the police officers and, in effect, threatened them in terms of their ability to continue on the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

That's the sort of approach that was taken by the previous Liberal government and certainly it's an attitude that's been reinforced with the NDP. In fact, in many instances they've gone many steps further.

We just look at the Premier's own parliamentary assistant, when she made comments in respect to police officers shooting members of the visible minority community: an outrageous, and many would deem a racist comment, but the Premier was not prepared to do anything about his own parliamentary assistant making those kinds of very provocative comments.

I want to talk about a couple of cases specifically that have concerned me to a great extent. One is related to the shooting death in Sudbury of Constable Joe MacDonald. I think it's something like 68 or 69 days ago that Constable MacDonald was executed -- effectively executed -- while pulling over a car for a routine check in Sudbury; shot 12 times. Two individuals, following the shooting, were arrested.

It came to light that one of those individuals had been released on early parole by the Ontario parole board. It's a responsibility of the Ontario government, an arm of the ministry of corrections. Then of course, as matters flowed, charges were laid against this individual, one Clinton Suzack. Then matters, through the media, came to light in respect to Mr Suzack's record: the fact that he had an outstanding warrant against him in the province of Alberta, and a whole host of things that came to light following the murder of Constable Joe MacDonald.

In response to my questions and my leader's questions, the Conservative Party's questions to the Solicitor General and the Premier, the Solicitor General initiated what he said was going to be an open and objective study of the decision taken by the Ontario parole board in respect to an early release for Mr Suzack.

Instead of getting that open and objective review, we had an in-house review by a member of the Ministry of the Attorney General's staff. This is not objective. This is in-house; this is an in-government study conducted. It came back within the 30-day time frame, as indicated by the minister. But then we were told that not only was this report not going to be made public, but indeed, even as to the recommendations in the report, or any recommendations or actions flowing out of that report in terms of the operations of the Ontario parole board and how it dealt with the Suzack case, let alone how it deals with the thousands of other cases on a monthly and yearly basis, no reference whatsoever.

We're simply supposed to sit back and take comfort in the bland assurances of the Solicitor General that, "We're going to take appropriate action." We know for a fact that no appropriate action is being taken. We know the chair of the Ontario parole board is still in office. He's still sitting there warming the chair, drawing a significant salary at taxpayers' expense, when he has significant responsibility to accept for Mr Suzack being out on the streets.

What does the minister do on a daily basis? He falls back on a recommendation from Mr Michael Code, who was appointed by the NDP government to the Ministry of the Attorney General, and I want to say that when Mr Code was appointed there was significant concern, not simply about his connections to the NDP in this province but about his objectivity and how he would approach this job.

I want to quote Arthur Lymer, president of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, who warned that his group would oppose appointing Code. He said, "The police association wants the assistant deputy Attorney General to be a crown attorney who has worked with police and has a feel for the crime that is escalating in Ontario and in Toronto is out of control." That's from the head of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association.

There were other concerns expressed by crown prosecutors in this province, because Michael Code, despite his NDP connections -- put that aside -- was seen by many prosecutors in this province as anti-crown. That's indeed reflected in the decision which this Solicitor General is hanging his hat on, and it's shameful. It's not only shameful, it's sickening, and it's sickening to the people of Sudbury, it's sickening to the people of this province that he's trying to justify not releasing that report, but beyond that, not even telling the people of Ontario what he's doing in response to these shoddy actions on behalf of the Ontario parole board which probably resulted in the death of a police officer. That's shameful, as shameful as you can get.

I'm upset. I'm terribly upset about this. The people of Sudbury are upset.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): No use losing it.

Mr Runciman: I don't know who's interjecting here, but I want to comment on something. I'm imploring the people of Sudbury, the regional council of Sudbury to get involved in this, and the people of Ontario to get involved in this. Simply don't accept what this government is doing in terms of stonewalling on this matter. Don't accept it.

We have three NDP members in the Sudbury area. What have they done? What have they said about the death of Constable Joe MacDonald and the fact that Clinton Suzack was on the streets? Absolutely nothing. Two of them are important members of the Ontario cabinet. They're not saying or doing anything. Sharon Murdock may be a nice lady. I don't know her at all, really, sat on committee with her a couple of times, but I want to say, approximately a month after Joe MacDonald's shooting, Ms Sharon Murdock got up in the House on October 20, 1993, and made a statement in the House. What did it deal with? It dealt with Trivial Pursuit for the Sudbury Rotary Club. Only days after the shooting of Joe MacDonald, the backbench member for the government stands in this House and talks about Trivial Pursuit.

I get terribly upset about these kinds of matters. I don't care. The minister can get up and say I'm insulting Mr Code, that I'm insulting him. Well, they deserve to be insulted, because they're insulting the intelligence of every Ontarian in the way they're dealing with this matter. We have every right to be upset about it.

The Minister of Community and Social Services is here as well and we can talk about the Bellingham case and the fact that he's hiding behind that matter as well. The argument is that they don't want to infringe on the rights of the accused. I think that's a false argument. When you review Mr Code's justification for it, it's from the Manitoba Court of Appeal and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny either.

Clearly we need an independent third party to enter into this discussion, to deal with matters like this so that the government cannot, on a continual basis, stonewall the public of Ontario. We have no confidence in them. They have given us no reason. The people of Ontario have no reason to have confidence in them when it comes to justice issues in this province.

The balance has swung too far in favour of the criminal element. It's time to swing it back in favour of the law-abiding innocent people in this province who are getting no representation from the NDP government.

1630

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I would like to address largely the content of the non-confidence motion. Unlike the previous speaker, who didn't deal at all with the content of his own party's non-confidence motion, I would very briefly remind the member who just spoke that one of the reasons that ministers of the crown cannot speak on this matter and cannot come out with public statements, which on the surface he seems to want, is of course because of the danger of prejudicing a court case. That's not the opinion of the government; that's legal opinion based on case law. To do otherwise would surely be outrageous, and I know who'd be first on his feet if that was the case, declaring that we had in fact prejudiced the outcome of a court case.

I think it needs to be put in perspective that in this world you cannot have it both ways. You cannot get up on your feet and yell and scream and ask for intervention and then, if that intervention in fact resulted in prejudicing a court case, be on your feet, that same member, claiming that we had indeed prejudiced the case and calling for our heads.

While all of us on this side regret very much the death of that police constable, the way to handle it is through the proper procedure so the court case will not be jeopardized, and the member opposite should know that. Indeed, he may even know that, but he certainly should if he doesn't.

I wanted to deal more specifically with the content of the non-confidence motion by the third party. What I would like to say to members of the assembly is what it is they are actually expressing non-confidence in.

What the third party is expressing non-confidence in is the record of achievement of this government. That's what they're doing. They're saying that we have not done what is required to have earned their confidence in our right to continue to govern. That is basically what they are saying.

If they're saying that, let me read you just a short list of what it is in which they have no confidence: to retrain workers this year, $1.2 billion -- twice as much as the official opposition spent when it was in office; sectoral training agreements with labour, industry and the federal government; training for 37,000 workers -- apparently the opposition doesn't like that.

We have brought pay and employment equity legislation brought into this House. I know the third party doesn't like employment equity, doesn't like pay equity, but we think those are responsible policies for the 1990s and beyond.

Changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act: I understand the third party doesn't like, can't stand, cannot even countenance, progressive labour legislation. I understand that. They're union-bashing in here every day of a session. I understand that. We expect it from the Tories, and now and again we also get it from the Liberals.

We are in the process of reforming labour legislation for crown employees and construction workers, both long overdue.

We've established the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board to make sure training occurs in a sense of partnership with management, with labour, with government, and decisions are made at the local level for training. That's where the expertise is, not a highly centralized training system that the previous governments had.

We've increased the minimum wage up to $6.70 on January 1, 1994. I know the official opposition and the third party do not like a minimum wage that even allows people to subsist in this world. They would remove it, probably, if you gave them their choice. They certainly would not increase it to $6.70 an hour. If they would, I'd like to hear them say that.

We've established the employee wage protection program, a program of which we are very proud, because it provides protection to workers when an employer goes out of business or simply disappears and the workers have no source of money for work they've already done. This is to protect them in that regard.

We have put in place Jobs Ontario programs --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): A failure.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- Jobs Ontario Community Action, Jobs Ontario Capital, Jobs Ontario Homes, Jobs Ontario Youth, Jobs Ontario Training. The member for Markham can say it's a failure, but those programs support over 90,000 people in the economy of this province. The member for Markham can say he doesn't like that and it's a failure, but he is dead wrong. This government has done more on capital spending and on training, proportionately, than any other government in this country. You can call it a failure if you like, but I can tell you those programs are good and they are working.

We also saved between 20,000 and 40,000 -- I believe the number is closer to 40,000 -- jobs through the social contract. I know what Conservative governments are doing elsewhere. Look to Alberta. The Conservative answer is simply to lay off people. "Lay off 40,000 people," they say. "That's the solution." We said: "No, that's not the solution. We want to protect those 40,000 jobs and we're going to bring in a social contract that will do just that and preserve essential services at the local level as well."

I know what the official opposition would say. The honourable Lyn McLeod, the leader of the official opposition, says we should have taken another $2 billion out of the system. There go another 20,000 jobs or so. The leader of the official opposition said that. She's on record as having said that.

The third party makes no bones about it: It would have laid off those 40,000 people, no question about it. They would have cut all sorts of programs. The official opposition is a little cuter about it, if I could be kind in my characterization. They don't come out and say in this assembly, "You should have laid off another 2,000 people or 20,000 people." What they say outside this chamber is, "You should have cut another $2 billion out of expenditures." At the same time, of course, they're in here demanding more spending on every conceivable program in the province. So there we have it in spades, the official opposition calling for a reduction in expenditures of $2 billion. At the same time, day after day after day, their members are in here calling for more spending on social programs.

The public is not going to allow you to get away with that for ever, my friends. You may think you're getting away with walking both sides of the street today, but that is going to catch up with you, I guarantee you that.

Mr Bradley: It has really caught up to us in Essex South, I know that.

Hon Mr Laughren: The official opposition thinks, because right now it is higher in the polls than the government or the third party, that therefore it can continue to get away with its program of misleading the Ontario public about exactly where it stands. The public is getting on to you. They're getting on to the leader, they're getting on to Lyn McLeod's tactic of saying one thing out there, one thing in here one day and changing the whole tune the next day.

It's coming back to haunt you, folks; it's coming back to get you. You're not going to get away with it any more, I'm telling you. Go out there and ask the people in the province of Ontario how come we've got a deficit as big as we have and they will tell you that the former government misled the people when it called the election in 1990. They didn't say what the real deficit was. Everybody out there in the province of Ontario knows what you said; you said there was going to be a surplus. We ended up with a deficit. You are no longer going to get away with fooling the people. That day has come to an end.

We take great pride in what we have been able to do at a time when we've faced the most difficult fiscal situation since the 1930s. Admittedly, we've struggled with keeping the deficit under control, we've struggled with unemployment that's very high, we've struggled with a federal government that reduced our transfers to us in a very dramatic way, we've struggled with all those and at the same time worked extremely hard to keep our expenditures under control and to make sure that in the future we have the revenue base that will continue to provide the essential services I think the people in this province really want.

I would conclude by simply saying that the third party, by bringing forward this non-confidence motion, has voted against every progressive motion we've brought forward in this chamber.

Mr Bradley: I'm going to simply deal with a couple of issues this afternoon very briefly and allow my colleague the member for Renfrew North to speak at some length on this resolution.

But one thing I did want to mention that I know he will mention in detail as well, because I recall standing almost in this very place directing questions to the former Premier of the province of Ontario on an every-second-day basis. The questions were about the new jet that Premier Davis was going to purchase for the comfort and convenience of the Premier, members of his cabinet and senior government officials. This jet was going to be purchased by the Davis government in the midst of a recession.

1640

I know we had Mike Harris, who was a member of Parliament, a member of the Conservative caucus, and I would have guessed that he, as a member of the Conservative Party, was probably writing letters to Premier Davis instructing Premier Davis not to proceed with the purchase of the Challenger jet, which was being constructed in Houston, Texas.

Day after day after day, those of us in the opposition who wanted to be careful with the taxpayers' dollars, who wanted to see that they were spent on only the highest of priorities for the people of this province, had to stand by and watch the Premier purchase a new Challenger jet because he wanted to keep up with everybody else.

Well, finally one day he capitulated. I remember he got up in the House and he read I guess a confession you would call it. Although he wasn't Roman Catholic, there was a time in 1985 or 1984 where one could say he probably went to confession. In any event, he got up in the House and it wasn't until page 16 that I saw in the notice from the Premier that they were going to trade the jet in for two water bombers.

This is what I detected as being Tory care with the tax dollars. Then of course, and my colleague will want to elaborate on this, they decided they'd purchase an oil company or at least a good portion of that oil company, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Suncor, which finally one of the two governments that followed had to get rid of at a fire sale price. Again, I know Mike Harris probably would have advocated against this, the way he talks today.

I recall Darcy McKeough rising in the House and for one of his budgets announcing an increase of some 37% in OHIP premiums. That's back in the days, by the way, when we had OHIP premiums, which mean that some people who couldn't afford them had to pay those OHIP premiums while other people didn't have to. So those OHIP premiums, the largest tax probably in the province of Ontario, were removed by the Liberal government. The Tories had wanted to raise it by some 37%.

Perhaps the member for Etobicoke West and his leader, Mike Harris, have stayed in Minaki Lodge. We all remember Minaki Lodge, where millions upon millions of dollars were spent on a lodge in northwestern Ontario and very few people attended this lodge except rich Conservatives and Leo Bernier. They were the people who managed to go there.

I well recall that we didn't have a sales tax in Ontario at one time at all. We were like Alberta, and what happened? The Progressive Conservative government brought in a sales tax. Not only did they bring it in, but they increased the sales tax. I did not hear, on any of these occasions, Mike Harris complain at all.

I know that my friend and colleague from Renfrew will want to elaborate on many of these particular items. I'm going to stay around this House this afternoon to listen to his eloquent speech.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I gather that there is a time allocation, and I'm pleased to have an opportunity to take a few moments this afternoon to speak to the motion standing in the name of the leader of the third party.

I want to say that I look forward this afternoon to taking a few moments to address the motion standing in the name of Mr Harris. I want to deal with some of the issues that his motion raises. My colleague the member for St Catharines and the Treasurer before me dealt with some of these issues. I want to bring somewhat of a different perspective.

I've been in this Legislature for 18 1/2 years. I've now watched parties of all three stripes engage in this debate and I am here to say to you, Mr Speaker, and to people watching that my sense of this issue is that each of the three parties has had its successes and each of the three parties has had its difficulties. But I must say that over the last while I've been very interested to hear what Mr Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party have tried to put out as their view, as their promise in this respect of taxation and government spending.

It is, I think, fair play for all of us in each of the three parties to say what we will do when we get to government. But I think if the Rae government has left one very powerful residue in the public, it is that everyone in Ontario now knows that there is no magic -- and the spectacle of this articulate, eloquent young man from York South having to stand in his place for days, now months, and admit that that which he solemnly promised three, four, five, six, seven years ago, whether it was in the Agenda for People or in the election campaign of 1987 or 1985, was in significant measure unachievable.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): It is now coming to pass.

Mr Conway: The member for Hamilton West says, "The undressing of the NDP has now come to pass." That is not what we are here, however, to discuss today.

I want to say we have a Conservative motion which would have us believe and would have the public believe that elect Mike Harris and we are going to be on Easy Street. The member for Etobicoke West applauds.

Well, I think the public of Ontario and the public of Canada, now hardened by a variety of experiences with the New Democrats in office and, yes, in Ontario the Liberals and the Tories, would want to understand something of who these people are, because we all know we have a more cynical, more sceptical electorate.

I look at the Harris motion today, I listen day after day to all the commitments from the Tories about what they will do and I ask myself the question, who are they and what have they done? I'm not going to indulge in too much history, because it is not fair, quite frankly, to hold this legislative cohort of Tories to account for what was done a long time ago. A long time ago is in my calculation perhaps most of the ancien régime from 1943 to 1985.

But I want to begin by making a couple of observations. I have in my hand a budget that the Tory party offered the year I came to this place in 1975 and I just want to take a moment, because I've heard the palaver about what the Tories will do.

I remember the good old days of 1975, the halcyon days of uninterrupted growth and prosperity under the ambit of Progressive Conservatism in Ontario. It was 1975. Actually, it was April 7, 1975, when the Duke of Kent, the legendary W. Darcy McKeough, read in this place the budget of that year.

I'm just going to cite one piece of data. In that fiscal year, the Tory government planned an expenditure of $10.334 billion and it intended revenue of $9.109 billion, so that in 1975 when the Tory government planned an expenditure of about $10.3 billion, we had an operating deficit of $1.2 billion.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Say it ain't so.

Mr Conway: Well, I say to my friends, say it ain't so. That was what it was like when I came back in the mid-1970s, and that's not a New Democratic record; that's not a Liberal record. That is a Tory record, and I have a great deal of regard for Darcy McKeough. He was one of the ablest people with whom I ever served. But in that year, I want members to remember this and I want the public to know that 20 years ago almost, when the Tory government was spending $10 billion, it was raising $1.2 billion less.

As the Provincial Auditor has observed and as my friend the shadow chancellor for the Liberal Party, Mr Gerry Phillips, has reported to the House on a number of occasions, there were 15 consecutive years of Tory deficits between 1971 and 1985, 15 consecutive years of very significant Tory deficits. That's the record.

1650

When people come to me and say, "Elect us, elect me, and I promise you that you will get what I say I promise," I think they've a right to be inquired into, and when I look at those years the Provincial Auditor has commented upon, boy, look at the deficits. Look at the deficits in the Tory years, good and bad: 1975 was a good year and there was a $1.2 billion-deficit on an expenditure plan of $10 billion.

So what right does any Tory have to come in here and say, "My, my, what a terrible thing it is that we've got this kind of multibillion-dollar deficit on a $50-billion expenditure plan," or, "Those terrible Liberals"?

The terrible Liberals that the Provincial Auditor observed offered up the only budgetary surplus in the modern period? Yes, I say, we were not perfect. I say that honestly. But the Provincial Auditor has said that there was but one budgetary surplus in a 20-year period from 1971 through to 1992, and that was in the Peterson administration in the fiscal year -- I think it was 1989-90.

But look at these deficits in those good old Tory years: 1980-81, $1.3 billion; 1981-82, $1.8 billion -- I'm just picking the years when Mike Harris was a distinguished member of the Davis-Miller administration -- 1982-83, $3.2 billion worth of deficit; 1983-84, a budgetary deficit of $3.15 billion; 1984-85, a $2.5-billion deficit.

The motion here tells us, "Oh, we are worried about deficits, and oh, we are worried about tax-and-spend types." Mike Harris and Ernie Eves -- good people, good friends of mine -- sat here in this place and supported their friend from Muskoka, Frank Miller, the Treasurer. Yes, and my friend the Reverend Cousens, whom if you heard him now you would take as a paragon of Presbyterian rectitude and fiscal conservatism. But Don Cousens, the Reverend Don Cousens, has a record, and he stood here and sat here silently with Mike Harris and Ernie Eves in 1981 and 1982 and 1983 when, with the support of the Tory caucus, they voted for Frank Miller's whopping tax increases, some of the largest Ontario has seen in the modern period. I remember Frank Miller's speeches, and I remember neither jot nor tittle of criticism from Don Cousens, Ernie Eves, Mike Harris or Bob Runciman, and that is their record.

Yes, now it is easy to come to this place and talk about what they would do if given a chance, but there's more; happily, there is more.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Remember the 1985 throne speech.

Mr Conway: June 4, 1985. I will go to my grave remembering the day. Frank Miller was a fine fellow and a man of some well-known ideological proclivity. He was, by his own description, the Ronald Reagan of Ontario. I didn't happen to agree with him on much of that, but I respected Frank for that view. He campaigned in the March to May campaign of 1985 on that basis. It was a deadlocked election. The House met on June 4, 1985, and we had a speech from the throne, read by his Honour the then Lieutenant Governor, John B. Aird, to the House.

I tell you this is relevant, Mr Speaker, because this was a speech from the throne outlining a legislative agenda written by Frank Miller, and then two of his most senior advisers were Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. He was ably supported in a very large cabinet by people like Don Cousens and, yes, the member from Brockville who spoke a moment ago.

What did the speech from the throne offer? After 42 years of Tory government, and I will say honestly, some of which was very good and some of which was very progressive and much of which served the province reasonably well, though I might have disagreed with it, what did we get? We got one of the most pathetic and abject deathbed confessions this assembly has ever seen.

I am not viewing this as a laughing matter, to hear these good, right-wing, Reaganite, Progressive Conservatives in Ontario. We were offering, I say to the House, a legislative agenda based on our campaign manifesto, and we had a speech from the throne where Frank Miller and Mike Harris and Bob Runciman bought, lock, stock and barrel, just about every policy they had denounced for months and years. What did we get in this speech from the throne? They accepted and embraced pay equity, employment equity. They had a superfund. They were all in favour of the spills bill. On it goes.

Mr Speaker, you can read it for yourself. It was an embarrassing, abject deathbed confession where a proud Conservative Party prostituted itself before this Legislature and before the people of Ontario because they saw it as the only way to retain the seals of office. Let there be no confusion about that, and that too is the record.

Mr Speaker, this motion today is a very easy piece of business, but I'm telling you, the record, to a substantial extent, speaks for itself.

Mr Stockwell: That's it, Sean.

Mr Conway: The members for York Mills and Etobicoke West are exempt from this. They were not here. I understand how they would not have ever wanted to embrace this kind of manifesto. But Frank Miller wrote this, and Mike Harris and Ernie Eves and Bob Runciman and Don Cousens and Norm Sterling sat there and they presumably consented to it.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): You implemented it.

Mr Conway: Well, we went forward, I say to my friend from Wellington, who is also exempt from this criticism because he was not here, but I am focusing today on the record of men and women in the Conservative Party of Ontario who were here.

You will have to go a long way and I don't think you will find the match of this June 4, 1985, speech from the throne where, as I said earlier, Frank Miller embraced a whole raft of initiatives: the spills bill, employment equity, all kinds of other initiatives that they had denounced in the election campaign. By the way, they were going to do all of this, spend billions of dollars doing it, but at the same time they were by magic or some other kind of legerdemain going to bring the deficit down. This is the same kind of hocus-pocus they offer today and the public has had their fill of it.

Now let me say one other thing to my Tory friends that perhaps I alone can say. I think I know the electoral history of Ontario relatively well, and I'll tell you, the Liberal closets are full of our problems. Let me be frank. I just reread some parts of the old Hepburn biography and I'm telling you, I'm embarrassed that some of that belongs to me.

But I want to say this, that in the long and storied electoral and political history of Ontario, I don't think there has ever been a more dramatic about-face on a matter of very substantial public policy to match what William Grenville Davis did in this House on June 12, 1984. I remember it well, June 12, 1984, the separate school reversal, an unbelievable, unprecedented, dramatic about-face, without consultation, without any prior indication.

1700

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Who brought in the legislation?

Mr Conway: My friend says, "Who brought in the legislation?" I did, and proudly so, because my party for decades, together with the New Democratic Party, has stood for that principle, and understandably. Proud Progressive Conservatives have stood on the other side of that argument, and I understand that too.

I remember well the campaign of 1971. I remember well the pain of that campaign, I remember who stood where and I remember the verdict of the people. I accept that. But there you had it on June 12, 1984.

Mr Stockwell: It's over.

Mr Conway: Ah, but I just want to say to my friends, we are now being told: "We, the Tories, are a new group. We are a blank sheet. Elect us and we will raise spending on very important programs and we will reduce taxes and we will reduce the deficit."

I want to come back, though, to that day in 1984. Without notice, the Conservative leader and Premier of Ontario reversed himself dramatically on a public policy, did not apparently consult his own Minister of Education and gave the caucus the most perfunctory last-minute briefing. In that caucus sat Norman Sterling and Mike Harris and Ernie Eves and all the rest of them, and Bill Davis said when he did that it would cost about $40 million.

Who introduced the bill? I did. Who got to explain that Tory arithmetic? I see the member for Dovercourt is here. I got to explain that arithmetic, and it made Wacky Bennett's Social Credit economics look good. That, my friends, is not that long ago.

Mr Turnbull: That's why you implemented it, eh? Because you're a Liberal?

Mr Conway: That was a Tory initiative, and anybody who knew anything about public finance had to know that those numbers were bogus from day one. But that was an enormously important, sensitive and controversial decision made with the consent of Mike Harris, Ernie Eves, Don Cousens and a variety of other distinguished, front-bench members of the Conservative caucus today, and that's not that long ago.

I simply submit to the House today and to the public beyond: Be careful. Be very, very careful. When people who have done that -- and by that I mean reverse themselves on issues like separate schools, like the June 4, 1985, deathbed repentance speech from the throne, the whopping tax increases of the early 1980s --

Mr Bradley: Didn't they lose the AAA rating?

Mr Conway: They lost the AAA rating, precisely. Those were many, many good years.

You know, it's interesting to look back at these budgets. I was looking again at that 1975 budget. I've heard the Tories rail about housing initiatives and I will say honestly that they're not all wrong. But look back into the 1970s. Wow! In the election year of 1975, when we were spending about $10 billion, they launched housing initiatives of about seven different kinds totalling $530 million.

I just want to say to the House that this Tory leopard has spots, spots that are detectable not just in broad daylight but in darkness as well. If my friend the leader of the third party thinks that he is about to hoodwink and bamboozle this Legislature and, more importantly, the thoughtful, critical and increasingly sceptical public of Ontario with this kind of specious politics, I think he is making a very, very serious mistake.

I thought this afternoon it might be useful for at least one member of this caucus to take some few moments to reflect upon some of the recent Conservative record, because the record speaks much more eloquently than the rhetoric of this afternoon's motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. The member for Markham.

Applause.

Mr Cousens: I don't think that applause is for me.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): That depends on what you say.

Mr Cousens: There are times.

This is a very important want-of-confidence motion that I am very pleased to support that's been presented by our leader, Mr Harris, the member for Nipissing. We have outlined a number of the issues that are part and parcel of the anger and frustration of the people of the province of Ontario over the very bad government we've had under Mr Rae and the previous government of David Peterson.

When we put together this motion, we identified first of all 22 tax increases from the present New Democratic government and the 33 tax increases of David Peterson's government. When you start getting 55 tax increases over the last seven years, is it any wonder that the people of the province of Ontario have reached that level of frustration where they are saying: "Why stay here? Why invest in this province?"

The Liberals before and this government afterwards have continued to destroy the environment for people to make money. "Profit" is an unpopular word, because if you have a profit or you make money, the NDP, and the Liberals before them, taxed it away from you; in other words, destroyed what you were building.

That's what's happened. We have somehow turned aside that whole environment of business and prosperity that this province did enjoy for some 42 years and turned it into a place now where people are backed into a corner. They have no place to turn because the tax person is about to get them. It started under Mr Peterson and it has continued under Mr Rae.

We're saying these are job-killing policies. For every $40,000 of taxes raised, there is an additional job gone. This year, with some $2 billion more in taxes, and the billions before that by the previous administration, it has seriously eroded the opportunities for jobs.

Jobs, jobs, jobs -- the single most important issue in the minds of people today, and not once did the previous two speakers talk about that. They fail to understand that the issue in the province of Ontario today is jobs. To create jobs is to create an environment where people will have an opportunity to participate realistically and meaningfully. The governments both now and before failed to understand the dynamics that are required to create that environment for business to prosper and to create those jobs. That underlies the motion of lack of confidence by Mr Harris.

When you've had 55 tax increases over the last several years, is it any wonder that business is not investing fresh, new money in the province of Ontario?

We go on in our motion to indicate that the previous government and this government continued to increase their expenditures. It's with abandon that they continued to spend money. The Liberals took the whole Housing ministry from $7 million or $8 million for rent control in 1985 and in a very short time had it up to over $50 million spent just on that one portfolio.

They added to the staff of ministers, they added to the number of ministers and they continued to build government at the top. We now have a bureaucracy at the top which is huge. We have forgotten how to administer successfully and efficiently and competently, but the governments, both now and before, have added to the levels and layers of government.

Our motion also touches on just the size and scope of government. It is now at a point that wherever you turn there's more government interference. As a result, is it any wonder that the underground economy has become such a massive business in the province of Ontario? That, in part, is because of the way government has just overcharged for its services, overtaxed for its services.

Finally in our motion the fourth point is when we talk about the multibillion-dollar deficit. I chuckle. There is no better orator in the House than the member for Renfrew North. Although it's painful to listen to him on some of his points, it's also worthwhile noting that when the Liberals were in power, they couldn't even add.

1710

He complains about when the Tories in 1975 had a deficit of $1.2 billion. That amounted to 10% of the budget roughly. Now what we have from the New Democrats is that 25% of the budget is in deficit. When we go to look at the Liberals, they couldn't even add correctly, because when they started talking about the great days when there was a surplus, that had to do with the $888 million that came unexpectedly through a federal transfer. When you start having that kind of lucky arithmetic, is it any wonder you're able to do something?

So I can sit and hear what they say and understand what happened, but may the public at large understand the true context of what has been going on. We deal with every level of politics, where everybody is trying to explain away what they've been doing. I think it's very easy to say that all government in this country, and particularly in this province which we are called to serve, has failed to recognize the long-term damage that these policies have created in the economy of Ontario.

That is the thrust of the want-of-confidence motion presented by Mr Harris and our PC caucus today. It really means that our school system is eroding -- the quality, the value for money. That's one of the things that comes out of the Provincial Auditor's report. Value for money is a concept that we want to bring back and re-instil, re-create, to have as a focus for government. What has happened is that wherever we turn there has been this erosion, not only of confidence but of the spending power, because of the way the government has been spending that money.

Finally, in our motion we have said that this House -- and it's pretty obvious from the previous speakers that neither the Liberals nor the NDP will be supporting our motion -- and certainly our party and the people we represent have lost faith in this government to develop long-range economic plans for the prosperity of Ontario.

That's the question I asked in the Legislature last week of the Minister of Finance: What is his plan for the future of Ontario's economy? He does not have it. Is it any wonder that the credit agencies around the world are beginning to see Ontario as a place where the investment is questionable and indeed where, because it is questionable, the interest rates will increase?

The issues are legion. The auditor recently came in with his report; it was just last week. When he talks about this government's mathematics, he is showing that when the government talks about the deficit of $11.9 billion, it really is $12.4 billion. What he's saying there is: "We concluded that the treatment of the pension payments was an inappropriate shift of expenditures between two fiscal years. As well, it illustrates the permissiveness of the current accounting rules."

The government is responsible to the people of Ontario to come back and report to us honestly on how the spending has been going. What has happened here is that it is truly a stark announcement on how the government has misspent, misappropriated and misrepresented the books. So the auditor in his review has come back and said, "Bad books." To me, that calls for the government to review its whole way of doing business.

I receive many letters, as the Finance critic, from people discussing their concerns about the problems created by this government, and they have to do with just the fundamental lack of confidence that business people have.

One letter that I have from a business in my riding touches upon four points, and I'd like to just briefly read them in because they again tie it in to the issue that we have.

First, "The budget released in May added tens of thousands of dollars to our costs through the extension of the provincial sales tax to warranty repairs and to the health insurance premiums."

Just a moment ago, the member for St Catharines said: "Look what the Liberals did. We removed OHIP payments." That is just the hypocrisy of the Liberals to say they removed OHIP payments. They moved it from one way of collecting it, through participants, to companies, and then they forgot to include professional people. They had a whole loophole in the system so that many people didn't pay it. What a mockery of accounting principles followed by the Liberals during their time. Now we continue to pay health but it's in one other way, through the payroll tax deduction where corporations have to do it.

The next point he makes is: "We have spent over $25,000 in consulting fees and tied up staff for days on end in connection with pay equity programs to find that only a minor adjustment was needed for one single individual."

Pay equity has come into the province of Ontario, providing opportunity, but I'm telling you we have not increased our productivity and we have not increased the ways of doing business. What we've done is to clamp down on business and make it more difficult for it to compete on the international scale and to compete successfully even within our own country.

He says thirdly, "Training for the joint health and safety committee: We are required to provide it and it will result in added costs and again absence of several employees." We all know how the administration of this province is adding on the load of business in order to succeed. "The employment equity bill will once again involve staff time and most likely expensive use of consultants." On it goes.

Another constituent wrote a letter and explained:

"The bottom line, however, is that you have expanded government operations way beyond the willingness and capacity of taxpayers to support. You have undermined future tax revenues by making Ontario a more hostile environment for business investment. Deep deficits, higher taxes, pay equity, work equity and pro-labour legislation -- ridiculous timing for all these things."

You go and you look at the number of letters I've received from people saying, why is it that the government continues to make it so difficult to survive in Ontario? It started under Mr Peterson. It has continued and been expanded under Mr Rae. We see the spending spree continuing.

When people say, "Ontario, you're cutting back with the social contract and with the expenditure control plan," and yet at the same time, the horror of horrors of the spending that's going on with the annual operating subsidies in Ontario amounting to over $1 billion in housing subsidies; that will be by 1995. We're seeing the government putting out money into areas where in fact we have more vacancies now than ever before. Yet the government continues to spend money with total abandon.

But I have to say that behind Mr Harris's motion and behind our caucus is a statement of principles. I want to just give you the five principles in brief because we believe strongly that to govern this great province of Ontario we must have some very firm principles that will guide us in our thinking.

First point: "Higher taxes are no longer an option." We have reached the point where higher taxes are killing jobs, killing investment and stalling Ontario's economy, and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party has a strong statement on how we will fight higher taxes.

Second point: "Spending cuts are the key to deficit reduction." This government and all governments have to learn to do things more effectively with less and find ways of cutting back on programs and saving money.

Third point: "The fiscal deficit contributes to the human deficit." Left unchecked, interest payments will soon become Ontario's biggest program expenditure, eating into the very health, education and social assistance programs which enable Ontarians to reach their human and economic potential. We believe that this fiscal deficit of the province of Ontario is only a deferred tax.

Fourth point: "The private sector must be upsized while the public sector is downsized." Let the private sector have a chance to succeed. Create an environment in which private investors will invest again in the province of Ontario and create jobs. That is what we want, to create an opportunity for young people.

I have young people coming through college. Are there jobs waiting for them today? Do they have a future where they can see that they have as good a future as many of us had when we started out? I am concerned about that. I believe government can help create the climate and environment for prosperity.

Finally: "Public service reform must involve programs as well as people." It makes no sense to enact reductions to the staff of the Ontario public sector without a parallel review of the programs that these personnel deliver. We have to look at every level of public service to see that it is giving us value for money.

I, on behalf of the PC caucus, will say categorically that we have no confidence in Bob Rae and his government to lead us into the future. They have no plan. Like the Liberals before them who had no plan, they are perpetuating the lie that they think they can do the job but they are failing to do it.

We stand here strong and firm, knowing that there is a future for Ontario when fiscally we run this province soundly and economically. This government is in need of change. We want to challenge them today.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Considering that the time has run out for all three parties and considering that the member for Renfrew made such a good speech, I think the House would agree to unanimous consent just to allow me 10 minutes to respond.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: No?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The time has elapsed and we do not have unanimous consent.

The completes the time allotted for motion number 1, want of confidence, by Mr Harris. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1721 to 1726.

The Acting Speaker: We are now dealing with a want-of-confidence motion by Mr Harris. All those in favour of Mr Harris's motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the table.

Ayes

Arnott, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jordan, Marland, McLean, North, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Harris's motion will rise one at a time and be recognized by the table.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Allen, Beer, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Buchanan, Callahan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cleary, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Crozier, Daigeler, Duignan, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Murphy, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Poirier, Pouliot, Ramsay, Rizzo, Silipo, Sullivan, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 17; the nays are 81. I declare the motion lost.

Report continues in volume B.

14 décembre 1993