Journal des débats 1994-mars-30 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): For the past three years I have been working with local officials to lobby the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to approve some sort of an agreement which would reopen the parks of the St Lawrence Parks Commission that were closed by the commission.

Raisin River and Charlottenburgh parks have attracted investors from the private sector who want to make an economic contribution to the area by leasing these campground areas and paying a percentage of revenue back to the province. There is no doubt that the economic spinoff would be great. Students are also looking for summer jobs, but they won't get them at these parks if the government doesn't act immediately to allow the private sector to invest the capital and draw the tourists.

People in eastern Ontario are tired of NDP ministers talking about partnership and then refusing to even meet with municipal officials, union representatives and individuals who want to see the parks open for this summer.

The Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation have all told me they're aware of the importance to the tourism sector. However, they can't be that interested in tourism since OPSEU sent an alternative proposal to the government last fall, but again there has been no response. The union is fully supportive of these parks being open.

I urge the minister to meet with the local municipal governments, the union and the private sector so that these parks can be reopened this summer.

HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION POLICIES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement is directed to the Minister of Education and Training on behalf of many concerned students, faculty, support staff and citizens at our universities.

Last October, the ministry published its Framework Regarding Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities. Colleges and universities were asked to review their harassment and discrimination policies and procedures using the ministry policy framework and submit them to the ministry by March 1, 1994.

Many university professors and students have reacted with anger, claiming the policy is flawed and that the term "zero tolerance" is inappropriate and could lead to jeopardizing academic freedom. They claim that with rules like this in force, it's hard to imagine forthright discussions on many controversial issues as they may trigger formal complaints.

This afternoon, I will introduce petitions that have been signed by over 200 faculty members and students from the University of Western Ontario. They state:

"Although firmly committed to ending discrimination of all sorts, we view the Framework Regarding Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities as an infringement on traditional university autonomy and a threat to academic freedom."

Minister, universities and colleges are also concerned with issues surrounding harassment and discrimination, but had already developed policies on their own without the interference of this government. You have managed to turn what used to be a situation under control into a chaotic mess.

YOUNG VOICES REPORT

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I rise today to praise the work of Ontario youth.

As part of the work of the Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice, more than 200 children and youth from communities across this province were involved in identifying the important issues which affect their lives and require change and resolution. Issues such as educational funding, the need for health information, violence, housing, transportation and employment, to name a few, were identified, addressed and recommendations made in this report, Young Voices.

Certain facts are important to emphasize:

-- These consultations and discussions with children and youth were conducted by youth, and this report reflects their own ideas and their own recommendations towards solutions.

-- The report also contains a description of some of the initiatives that the youth themselves have taken within their communities to effect change. This demonstrates that they are not depending totally on government and other institutions to do this.

-- But the report emphasizes repeatedly the youths' desire to be involved in the solutions to the issues that concern them, not just as a group to be consulted after the decisions are made but sitting at the table, wrestling with the issues, with an equal part in those decisions.

We have heard the voices of children and youth. The question remains, will we listen?

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to once again raise the issue of the Minister of Finance's decision to impose a new tax on the wine and beer made at brew-on-premises operations in Ontario. This tax of 26 cents per litre on the beer or wine a customer makes for himself or herself is having a devastating impact on the you-brew operators.

The numbers have been in for some time now and the minister will be quite familiar with them. You-brew operators across Ontario are reporting that since the imposition of the tax on August 1 last year, sales volumes have dropped by 50%, and that in these terrible times of high unemployment, over 400 people have been laid off.

Another tragic aspect of this new tax is that it's killing something we ought to be nurturing to the very best of our ability in Ontario: a small business industry which had actually been thriving in the recession.

The new tax isn't even accomplishing the government's objective of bringing in additional revenues. Revenues have dropped by one half since the new tax was put in place.

I'm asking the minister once again to act responsibly in this matter by removing this tax and by at the very least imposing a moratorium on the two additional taxes he has on his schedule to hit the you-brews.

1340

ELMVALE MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Another exciting event in Simcoe East: The people of the township of Springwater are ready, willing and able to invite everyone to the 28th annual Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival and the third annual arts, crafts and antique show on April 15 and 16.

Ontario farmers know that "frosty nights and warm sun make the maple syrup run" at the second largest maple syrup festival in the province.

The 28th annual Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival gets under way Friday, April 15, with a variety night featuring local talent at Elmvale District High School.

Join with family and friends on Saturday, April 16, for pancakes and maple syrup at the community hall. Take free bus trips to the sugar bush and the arts, crafts and antique show. Midway rides are available for kids of all ages. Visit vendors and displays on the main street and enjoy a full day of dancing and displays and music.

Last year the log-sawing contest was an exciting event. Last year the winners were myself and the reeve of Essa township. I'll tell you, we can sure cut off a piece of wood when we need to.

The maple syrup festival wraps up on Saturday night with two grand dances, an adult dance at the community hall and a teen dance at the Elmvale District High School.

The village of Elmvale is located at the junction of Highways 27 and 92 in Simcoe county. For more information on the 28th annual maple syrup festival, you can call 705-322-3183. The sap is boiling, skies are clear and maple syrup time is here.

PANORAMA PROGRAMS

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): This week several communities in Cochrane North have been the focus of TVOntario's Panorama. Panorama is TVOntario's French-language flagship current affairs and arts series. Each night, Monday to Thursday at 7 pm, Panorama tackles one of the many big burning issues of the day, and in Cochrane North four special programs will be completed on how the towns of Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Hearst and Timmins are faring economically, socially and culturally in current times.

Starting on Monday, series host Adrian Cantin and his team reported from Timmins on the economic impact the mining industry will have on northern Ontario beyond the year 2000. They visited Malette Inc's premier sawmill -- it also operates a sawmill in Hearst -- and its kraft pulp mill in Smooth Rock Falls.

On Tuesday, program highlights included Norbord, a plywood manufacturer, and Nord-Aski, an organization that encourages economic development in the Hearst community.

Today, there's a special interview taking place with Frank Dettori and Norm Leybourne, respectively president and union coalition leader of Kapuskasing's Spruce Falls Inc. They will discuss how the employees bought the faltering pulp and paper mill to keep it from closing. This part of the series will be broadcast live from Kapuskasing at 7 this evening on TVOntario.

Tomorrow, viewers will discover Hearst's École Clayton Brown, the only school in Ontario with three official languages: English, Cree and French.

Interviews will be conducted in French and English with some subtitles. Each program will also feature performances by local musicians.

Today, Peter Herrndorf, TVOntario's chairman and chief executive officer, will be in Kapuskasing to meet with the people in the community and discuss La Chaîne's many programming initiatives that serve Ontario's diverse francophone population.

Tonight, turn into TVOntario at 7 pm and watch the program.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mr Speaker, I want to take a moment of your and my colleagues' time and comment on the ever evolving and changing policy of the government with respect to casino gambling. Not only do they sort of roll the dice and say, "What are we going to do today? Cut the cards and see what cards we're going to play tomorrow"; there's a sense of not knowing where we're going to go.

The minister on the one hand says, "We're only going to have a pilot project and it will run for a while and we'll see how it goes." Then they float stories that maybe it will go in Niagara Falls, particularly if it's politically expedient. Maybe we'll go to teletheatres. We know that there are some circles that would want to see that expand at a great rate. Perhaps video lottery terminals are next on the agenda, and who knows what will happen after that.

Last week, I asked the minister how much the estimates were for the renovations for the interim interim casino, which in all probability, with the back wall being knocked out and costs escalating, may very well become a permanent casino. We'll wait and see on that. That's my latest prediction, and so far we've been fairly accurate.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Wrong.

Mr McClelland: She says, "Wrong," but she was wrong about other things before. We asked what was the cost, and she didn't know, notwithstanding the fact she was in charge of that at the time, and referred it to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. She very kindly indicated to me that the initial costs were estimated at about $6.5 million, but now they're about $11.5 million. That was last week. This week they're about $12.5 million or $13 million. Next week, who knows?

The whole policy with respect to casinos evolves on a day-to-day basis. We would hope the government would give us some certainty and some exactitude, that the people in this province would know what the government's plans are and that they don't change from day to day and from whim to whim.

WETLANDS

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, your wetlands policy has abrogated property rights and destroyed property values. Under this policy, private property is identified and classified as a wetland. The municipality is then given a map outlining the area and it must designate that wetland and a 120-metre buffer zone within which all development is frozen. Without any prior consultation, the property owners suddenly discover that their land has been rendered worthless.

This policy is a clear example of how this government assumes control but evades responsibility. While the ministry can declare an area significant for the ecosystem, it does not see the land as being significant enough to cover the costs incurred by the owner. The net effect of the wetlands policy is that of expropriation without consultation or compensation, and it is an absolute affront to Ontario's democratic recognition of property rights.

The ministry must consult property owners and local government to determine if lands should be classified. If land must be protected, all stakeholders should be consulted relative to the value of the land, multiple uses, and possible compensation.

DON VALLEY BRICKWORKS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm very pleased to announce that our government has contributed $2.25 million from the Jobs Ontario Capital fund towards the restoration and regeneration of the Don Valley Brickworks located in East York. Funding of this project is in partnership with the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and augmented by private funding through the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto.

About 10 years ago, this part of the Don Valley was in danger of being developed for housing, but people like Jeffrey Smyth and Charles Sauriol, members of Friends of the Valley, felt that this land should belong to the public because of its historical, environmental and archeological significance. This week's announcement marks the beginning of a crucial phase in the Don Valley restoration.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those people who made this vision a reality. In addition to the Friends of the Valley, I want to mention the efforts of members of the Brickworks Task Force, the Don Watershed Task Force and the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. It is by the support and persistence of these community members that we now have a plan to create a park at this site and preserve its important historical and natural features.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I believe there's been some discussion among House leaders that would give all of us in the House today an opportunity --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Actually, one from each party.

Hon Mr Rae: -- one from each party -- to express our gratitude to Bud Tangney, who's retiring as the deputy clerk of the executive council.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

BUD TANGNEY

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Perhaps it's appropriate, on a day on which there's discussion of activities within the cabinet, to reflect on Bud Tangney's retirement as the deputy clerk of the council and as the person, as all people who have been in the cabinet will know, who basically runs the meetings, who keeps count of all the organizational work in the government in terms of the management of cabinet minutes, the management of orders in council, the management of the business of cabinet and of its committees. Bud Tangney today is being recognized in this Legislature for the wonderful job he's been doing on behalf of the people of the province.

It was a wonderful celebration a few short weeks ago when former Premier Davis and I had an opportunity to congratulate Bud on his many years of service and on his incredible dedication to the people of the province.

Bud Tangney is a very distinguished graduate of the Lindsay Collegiate Institute as well as of the University of Western Ontario, where he received his master of business administration in 1964. He worked for the University of Toronto, where he was an active participant in the International Student Centre and in the registrar's office, where he worked just as I was arriving there. But I think I know many of the people whom he worked with, who are very distinguished and fine people.

He then went on to become an administrative trainee in six different ministries. He then was an economist-researcher and an executive assistant to the deputy minister. In 1974, he became secretary to the cabinet committee on social development. Then he was coordinator of operations. Then he was also deputy clerk of the executive council. And from 1985 to 1990, as all of you will know, Bud Tangney has been director of cabinet operations, deputy clerk of the executive council, special assignments, and since 1990, as I say, we all know he's been serving this government as well with enormous distinction and with great ability.

1350

It really is a pleasure for me to say that coming fresh into government as we did in 1990, to have the steady hand, good guidance and tremendous sense of public service of Bud Tangney was, I can tell him, as I've told him on other occasions, a tremendous source of support to us all. Bud Tangney doesn't have the opportunity to speak in cabinet meetings but now that he's retired, I'm sure that he will in conversation be able to remind many of us of the remarkable similarities as well as the contrasts in experience.

He has truly been present at some very dramatic and emotional occasions. I'm sure he will want to reflect on some of those, but members of the Conservative Party who served with him will know some of the historic decisions that were taken. He served the province extremely well in the transition from the Davis to the Miller premiership, from the Miller to the Peterson premiership and, as I say, in terms of the transition to our own government in 1990, he was an absolute consummate public servant.

I want to take this opportunity to wish him and Barbara well on this occasion, and to say that he's not widely known. If you were to ask reporters or television journalists, "Who is this man?" as he emerges from cabinet meetings, I'm sure many of them wouldn't know, but he is representative of the very, very fine public service that we have in this province, of the extraordinary professional dedication which has been shown by them in some major political transitions which have occurred since the 1980s. He has served each government with tremendous loyalty, with consummate good judgement and with enormous professionalism. The fact that government works at all owes a tremendous amount to Bud Tangney and to the thousands of people like him.

On behalf of my colleagues in the government, those of us who have served with him, those of us who have gotten to know him, I want to say we shall miss you, we appreciate the work that you've done on behalf of the people of the province and we wish you and your wife a marvellous retirement and an opportunity to do some of the things which we have successfully prevented you from doing for all these many years. Good luck, Bud, and thank you very much for your years of service.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's a pleasure and an honour for me to say a few words on behalf of the Liberal caucus today.

I knew when I first met Bud that I liked him, although he did at one point, as I was Minister of Health, I remember, require us to go through those onerous processes all the way through all those committees; always made us do what was proper and correct. Sometimes I had some reluctance, I guess, to follow some of his directions, just because I was in a hurry, but then when I looked at his CV and found out that he'd been trained at the University of Western Ontario, I quickly and most completely complied with his great judgement and his valuable skills in making sure that the world was operated properly.

As a graduate of the same institution, we quickly, I think, got to know each other and understand each other very well and I think his good common sense and good judgement, having come from the University of Western Ontario, has certainly played a major role in bringing good sense and judgement to the cabinet area.

I was a cabinet chair for a little bit of time during our government, and I'll tell you, it was a great comfort to know that when things got to us they were properly there and in most cases the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed and when we had finished our meetings all of the steps that should be taken were taken, because there was a watchful eye, if not anybody who was there prompting the work to be done, someone who knew what had to be done to make sure that the business of the province was done in a proper and correct fashion -- not involved in the policy, but when you took a policy decision, it was there to be done properly.

If anybody wanted to call on how many days you needed after a regulation was passed or how many days it would be before the order in council was posted, the wealth of knowledge was just at hand in that very cabinet office. For that, Bud, we thank you very, very well indeed.

He comes from Lindsay, I understand, and that, of course, is a marvellous sense of small-town Ontario represented in the very heart of the government of the province, and I think it probably explains a lot about why there was such a meticulous care to detail, so much of a dedication to professionalism that Bud brought to his station.

I'm always going to remember, I guess, that in the midst of all the really big decisions and big discussions that were carried on, when we were in cabinet, there was always one calm oasis in the entire area and that was around Bud Tangney's chair and desk, because he had to make sure that while the rest of us were all flying off in discussions on this issue or that issue and getting up and answering phones, sitting down and bringing papers in, order was the way the ultimate decision was communicated.

I have to say to Bud, in some ways I guess it would be great if you could tell everything. I know that's not in your mandate or your character. But at the same time, he has been through a tremendous series of great provincial movements in terms of policy implementation and discussion. He's seen it all. I think, in fairness, he really has seen it all and he has been there to oversee but not to tell what has been going on in the province of Ontario.

With those few shaking fingers on the other side, I wish I could apply for Bud's job. I would really like to be there even now as we go through some of these issues.

Bud, to you, from somebody who's in politics and who hadn't been involved in it from the government side until 1985, who didn't really understand all there was to know, I can tell you that your strength and your determination to be highly professional and to be quietly guiding in making sure things were done correctly was a great help to me, and I'm sure it was for the rest of us who were in government with the Liberal caucus from 1985 through the end of September 1990.

It was always a sense that things were going to be done properly and that we could have our head and do our discussion the way it should be done, but at the end of the day it would all work out just fine in terms of the technical side of government.

You have tremendous experience, and perhaps you will be doing some writing, or whatever, with respect to how things should be done and how they have been done. If that's in your future plans, I wish you very well indeed. We wish you personally, to you and Barbara, the very best of times, and I hope, because I can't imagine you not doing something, that you will be successful in what you and Barbara choose to do. Please have a very long and happy retirement.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): It's my pleasure to wish Barbara and Bud a happy retirement as well on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. You know, Mr Speaker, one of the things that I find amazing, and have found amazing over the last 16 years that I've been in government, is the loose use of the word "secretary." We use the word "secretary" for just about everybody in the government. We have principal secretaries to opposition leaders; we have secretaries to cabinet; we have secretaries to cabinet committees; we have secretaries of all different kinds and functions. To the layman, the word "secretary" means somebody who actually organizes and keeps things in order and makes certain that the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted and the records are kept in an orderly fashion.

I want to tell the people of Ontario that the real secretary of the provincial government of Ontario for the past 15, 16 years has been Bud Tangney. It hasn't been all these other people who carried that particular title. At least that's what most of the people in Ontario would understand. Bud is an extremely well-organized individual who has been loyal to his masters, whoever they be. I'm sorry for you in the last 10 years, Bud, but notwithstanding that, he has done a good job for all three governments which he has served, under three parties.

During my period in cabinet from 1981 to 1985, only Bob Welch and Bud Tangney saw eye to eye with me. Although Bud is small in physical stature, he is huge in stature among all of us who have had the pleasure to serve with him. I wish you the very best, Bud and Barbara, in your retirement.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have in my hand a cabinet document from the Rae government, a document of just a few days ago. This cabinet document makes it very plain that the Rae government has developed an action plan for the dying days of its desperate mandate, and I'm not surprised that some senior official in either a minister's or a deputy minister's office leaked this document, because I'll tell you, this tells us how far the saints have fallen.

I want to say to the Premier, it is very clear from this document that all work in the Ontario government for the remaining days and weeks and months of this mandate of your government will be set aside and only those items which support your re-election are going to receive any kind of priority attention: page after page after page after page confirming that the only principle left in the Rae government at this point is its re-election.

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

Mr Conway: Can the leader of the government confirm that this cabinet document of a few days ago is in fact the policy of his government for the remaining part of this mandate?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I perhaps could return the favour by referring to the feverish fumblings of a frustrated opposition. One form of alliteration is as good as another.

I would say to the honourable member that if he objects to the government focusing on jobs, if he objects to the government clearly focusing its efforts in terms of the things that we have to do as a government on behalf of the people of the province, if he objects to a government setting priorities and deciding that there are some things that have to be done sooner rather than later, if he objects to getting a clear sense in the public of the fact that the government is focusing its efforts on improving the economy, on simplifying, if you will, the work of government, then I could only say to him, let him stand up in his place and say that's what he objects to.

What citizen of the province could possibly object to a government which is focusing its efforts, to a government which puts jobs clearly first and which asks ministries to bear that in mind in the work that they do? If he objects to the construction of subways, to the establishment of the capital corporations, to the work that's under way --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- if he objects to the kinds of things that are under way, to addressing the issue of employment equity in terms of its administration and its management, if he objects to these questions, then let him stand in his place and say so.

I can't see what citizen could possibly object to the fact that this government has got its act together. We know what we're doing, we know where we're going, and we think it's a good direction for the province.

Mr Conway: Three and a half years ago, when the Rae government met this House for the first time, on November 20, 1990, Bob Rae told the province that politics under his administration was all about what we owe one another; that politics in the world of Bob Rae, politics in Bob Rae's Ontario, was about earning the trust and the respect of the people of Ontario; that politics in government in Bob Rae's Ontario was guarding against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power.

Now, three and a half years later, we have this cabinet document which indicates that the only principle left is re-election. If it doesn't support re-election, forget it; we're not going to do it.

My supplementary is, a key part of this plan, this most cynical plan, is how -- let me read from the document. "A critical challenge facing this government will be managing expectations relating to those initiatives which we will not be pursuing." The document goes on at some length to explain how the government is going to take valuable public sector time and resources to manage the damage because of broken promises.

In this cynical, Mulroney-like manipulation, my question to the Premier is: Do you have the guts to directly communicate with all of those people and all of those groups and all of those communities with whom you have broken faith and with whom you intend to break faith to tell them that they're on your B, C and D lists and that they will not get any consideration between now and the next election?

Hon Mr Rae: If one wants to engage in a discussion about cynicism, I would be more than happy to do that. But let me say directly to the honourable member, whose rhetorical flights of fantasy exceed even the rational and the reasonable in terms of the interpretations here, if you're opposed to focusing --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa West is out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- if you're opposed to the government focusing and saying that that's what we need to do, that's what government needs to do, if you're opposed to a cabinet setting clear priorities, if you're opposed to our saying there are things that have to be done right away and there are some things that are more difficult for us to do, either because we don't have the money or because it's unreasonable to do, I know we have an opposition over there which is going to be promising everything to everybody for as long as they're there, everything to everybody. Every concern, every grievance, everything that's out there, you'll be arousing all that.

All we're saying is that we're going to have to deal effectively with the people of the province in terms of the issues we have to address. We are clearly putting the jobs issue at the very top of our priority list, because that is where we believe the majority of the people of this province want their government to be, and that's what we have to focus on.

The people of the province also understand that there will always be more good ideas, by definition, than there is money to pay for them. When you're in government, you have to make the difficult decisions and say, "Here is where the focus is going to be."

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

Hon Mr Rae: That's what being in government is all about.

1410

Mr Conway: The author of this cynical and manipulative document, which among other things contains sample letters for the ministers and the deputy ministers to send out to those people with whom the government has broken faith, is none other than the Premier's long-time friend and campaign manager, David Agnew. It's obvious from this document that David Agnew remains in March 1994 what he was four years ago, Bob Rae's campaign manager.

We have said before, and I will repeat now, that your appointment and your maintenance of your good friend and confidant, David Agnew, as secretary of the cabinet while he plots your election campaign is a corruption of the public service.

My question to Bob Rae, the self-appointed saint of Ontario politics, is twofold: Will you today remove your campaign manager, David Agnew, from his $135,000 public service salary and put him over at NDP central and let him run the campaign from there? And will you, if you feel so buoyant and so confident about your record as the fourth year of your mandate concludes, submit your record, call an election in this province and let the people of Ontario decide?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, with respect to his preliminary comments, I think all members of the House recognize that from time to time the honourable member opposite shows he's really incapable of rising above this kind of character assassination as a way of resolving the issues. That seems to be the approach he always takes.

The second thing I would say is that no doubt it was his advice which caused his predecessor to call an election after three years. I have no intention of following that particular advice.

Let me make one last point. The people of the province, when it comes to cynicism and when it comes to judging how politics work in the province, I think will always remember the name of the political party that told the people there was a perfectly balanced budget when it had a budget in the spring of 1990, and then in the middle of the election campaign chose to announce a tax change which it thought would buy votes, and then was singularly repudiated on election day. I don't need to take any lessons on the subject of integrity from the member for Renfrew North, ever, ever, ever.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): From the handbook on how to break promises to a broken promise, to the minister in charge of auto insurance: He promised the public that the increases in auto insurance would only be, at maximum, 4%. The result is in. The increases are well beyond the double-digit figures. I want the minister to tell us what he intends to do about that.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I very much appreciate the question from the member across the way. Unfortunately, his question is an extremely confused question. This minister stood in this House last fall and announced publicly to this House that we had reached an agreement with the insurance industry for a maximum 5% rate increase this year as a result of Bill 164, and no company in this province has exceeded that 5% increase.

Mr Elston: The minister is really going to have to explain to my constituents and the people across the province, then, what it is that makes up what is looking like more towards 17%, 18%, 19%, 20% increases in auto insurance. He is going to have to account for all the scuttlebutt out in the areas in my part of the province that indicates that Bill 164 is contributing to a substantial part of that 18% increase. Indeed, people are being required to pay more for considerably less. In fact, if they take any part of the policy which will allow them to have a policy that covers their lost income as a result of injuries, the increases will be in the neighbourhood of $200, $300, $400 and $500 more in price.

I want the truth from this minister. Why did you break the promise, and why are you making the people of this province pay for your broken promise?

Hon Mr Charlton: Not only did this government not break its promise, but the member across the way has asked for the truth, so let us deal clearly and straightforwardly with the truth.

There is a handful of people in the province of Ontario whose policies were being renewed in January, February and March of this year who got caught by a double hit, who got caught by the 5% associated with this government's legislation and who got caught by an 8% to 11% associated with the Ontario motorist protection plan, because the companies didn't implement their increases last year until March.

All of the increases last year were a result of the legislation which the Liberals passed in June 1990, and all of those increases are now coming home to roost for the people of this province. The member is going to have to explain that to his constituents, because I'm sure we will.

Mr Elston: It's interesting to note that there were no increases under OMPP from June 1990 until last year, that in fact the program was running rather smoothly until this minister started screwing around with it.

I want the minister to tell the people the truth, that the Minister of Finance added 8% to the cost of insurance premiums by putting the tax back on, and I want that minister to come clean with the seniors in this province on fixed incomes, whom they are requiring to pay 18%, 19% and 20% increases on their auto insurance premiums when he guaranteed, as the minister in charge of auto insurance, that there would be less than 4% increases for all causes.

What are you going to do about the fulfilment of your promises you have broken, just like the Premier is telling you ministers now to break the rest of them?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member across the way is obviously extremely exercised about truth, and the member across the way is going to get more exercised about truth as this story plays out.

1420

The member across the way is correct. There were no increases in OMPP until last year. As a matter of fact, in the fall of 1991, this minister sat down with the insurance industry in this province and negotiated decreases of 5%.

Mr Elston: Oh, sure, just like you negotiated to decrease the $14-billion budget -- a figment of your imagination.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly, any of the major CEOs of the major insurance companies in this province would kindly and happily tell the member across the way that the 5% increase that impacted on residents of the province as a result of Bill 164 saved them from about 10% increases in 1994 as a result of OMPP and from about 15% increases in the following year as a result of OMPP. All of those insurance industry executives are clearly saying that Bill 164 and the work we did through the task force to stabilize price and cost in the industry will cause the rates in this province to be significantly stable in the future.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Today we've heard the response to the member for Renfrew North, and we read in the Toronto Star, and we now all have the cabinet document. Anybody who has read this document, as the Toronto Star has concluded, can draw no other conclusion but that you have given up governing for the sake of electioneering. You cannot read this document, in my view, and not come to that conclusion. Many policies have been shelved.

I would ask you this simple question, Premier: How can you come to this Legislature today, how can you continue to collect your paycheque as Premier when you've clearly given up?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say to the honourable member, as I assume he's trying to ask a serious question, that he perhaps will tell me what it is he objects to in terms of focusing on jobs, because I understand that's what he's been telling us to do over and over again. I don't understand why that would be something that his party would object to.

He's out talking to people, talking about choices to the people of the province. So am I. I don't see anybody suggesting that he should give up his paycheque or that he should stop being the leader of the third party. I'd like him to continue to be leader of the third party for as long as is humanly possible.

I can tell the honourable member that I am enormously proud of my colleagues in government. We're very proud of the work we're doing as a government. I want to say, by the way, that I have been underestimated by many others before, and if he thinks this government is going to stop doing its best in trying to serve the people of the province, he is sadly mistaken. We are going to continue to do our best and we're going to continue to serve the people of the province, and I would call on the honourable member to do the same.

Mr Harris: First of all, the Premier should know, as I have stated on many occasions, that never have I underestimated Bob Rae, the Premier of the province today, and never will I underestimate him. What I am talking about is you giving up.

I would like you to answer this to the people of Ontario. You're collecting a paycheque from the people of Ontario; the taxpayers are paying you. I would like you to explain to those taxpayers who are paying your cheque to be Premier, how it is in their interests that you now suggest that the priority for cabinet time and for bureaucratic time, directed by your 1990 campaign manager, is to develop a communication strategy to explain to the people of Ontario why you are not going to do what you promised you were going to do. How is that in the interests of the people of Ontario, who are paying your salary?

Hon Mr Rae: I can honestly say that in any sessions in which I've talked with the people of the province or with my own colleagues, I haven't heard anybody saying that the solution to the problem is for this Premier to give up. Should I give up?

Interjections: No.

Hon Mr Rae: That's good enough for me.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say directly to the honourable member that when we look at the issues we're facing, when we worked through the weekend, as we did as a government, with respect to the Hydro situation; when we have dealt with business and labour on the reform of workers' compensation, which we've been working on intently, we're working all day Monday on; when we've been working to attract investment, as we've been doing across the province; when we've been working with people to build more; when we've been negotiating with Metropolitan Toronto for the construction of not two but four subway lines; when we've been working with community after community to retain jobs and to expand jobs, whether it's with Bombardier in Thunder Bay, whether it's with Algoma in Sault Ste Marie, whatever community it may be, there is work to be done and there are things that must be done on behalf of the people, and that is precisely why this government has given clear direction to the public service and to everyone else that jobs are number one.

That is the priority we must establish as we begin the work of getting this province clearly back on its feet and headed in the right direction.

Mr Harris: Let me agree with you on one thing, that people think jobs are the number one priority. Second, if you're prepared to take your question and challenge outside this Legislature, they think the number one job creation action you could take would be to quit, to give up, to call an election. That's what they tell me. That will create more jobs in this province than anything else.

Premier, let's talk about your priorities. You spent all your energy this week mud-slinging with the federal Liberals over an environmental office, but not once did I hear you say you were upset about the loss of 30 jobs.

You were upset about being blamed. You entered into the mud-slinging, but I never once heard you -- you were concerned about being blamed -- talk about the 30 jobs.

Your number one priority to create jobs, aside from quitting, should not be finger-pointing; it should be creating jobs right here in Ontario. There are things you can and you should be doing that will achieve this: cutting taxes instead of hiking them, repealing Bill 40, cutting regulation, putting a sign out saying, "We're open for business."

If you're not prepared to get on with these job creating measures in the province of Ontario, and on the basis of the priorities we see in this document and in the Toronto Star today, will you do the honourable thing and call an election?

Hon Mr Rae: The member refers to priorities and he refers to the document. Let me quote from the Toronto Star today:

"Category A: The highest-priority items on the government's agenda, which include jobs initiatives such as capital investments (subways, highways, Metro Convention Centre), Jobs Ontario Training programs, infrastructure programs, cutting red tape for small business and strategies for international and interprovincial trade enhancement.

"Also included in this category is Workers' Compensation Board reform, social assistance reform, dealing with fraud in Ontario's health care system, drug benefit plan reforms, long-term care, an education reform package and employment equity implementation."

What is wrong with that? That's a good program, and that is a program not for an election; that's a program for governing, that's a program for implementation, and that's a program for doing.

With respect to his earlier point with respect to the federal government, let me say to the honourable member that I am proud to have defended this government against what Brian Mulroney did to Ontario, and I will be defending Ontario and the people of Ontario and this province.

Part of the task of any Premier is to defend the collective interests of this province because we have been so sorely and badly shortchanged by Tory and by Liberal administrations. I intend to stand and fight and defend the province of Ontario and defend all the people of the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Mr Harris: I concede that when it comes to slinging mud, you're the best, Premier. You're the best.

1430

HEAD-INJURY TREATMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, as you know, OHIP has been paying for out-of-country care for head-injured Ontarians since the late 1980s. In fact, there are currently about 120 Canadians being treated in the United States.

Unfortunately, being in the States, away from family and friends, often lengthens the rehabilitation process. Recently, private sector clinics and treatment facilities have opened here in Ontario. Minister, can you explain why your government will pay for patients in private sector clinics in the United States, but you refuse to pay for private sector clinics in Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I would be delighted to, and to say to the member with a great deal of pride that we have created here in Ontario, over the last three years, public sector health care delivery systems that deal with people with acquired brain injury. In fact, we have spent $7 million since 1990. We have enhanced the facilities in Thunder Bay and in Sudbury -- these were announced last October -- and we have a $2.2-million facility now in Hamilton at Chedoke-McMaster.

I agree with the member. People in Ontario need to have those services here in Ontario, close to their friends, close to their families, and the practice of past governments of sending those people out of country to very expensive private sector clinics in the US is not one that our government wishes to follow any longer than we have to.

Mr Harris: You don't want to do it, it's not your policy, but you do it. That's the question, why do you continue to do it?

My office spoke with Shirley Athoe. Her son, Mike McClary, is currently living at Anagram Centre in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Because your ministry will not pay to keep Mike at this private facility in Ontario, he will be forced to go to the United States, to a private facility, to access funding and to access care.

Private clinics such as Anagram, Progressive Rehabilitation Opportunities in Hamilton as well, are willing to take and have the expertise to take head-injured victims. But you have clearly declared "our preference for supporting not-for-profit health care providers." That's your rationale for paying and forcing these people to go to private sector clinics in the United States.

Why do you continue to force head-injured Ontarians to go south, when facilities exist right here in Ontario, with capacity and expertise, willing to take these people?

Hon Mrs Grier: There are some services that we are not yet in a position to offer in Ontario through our hospitals and through our rehabilitation systems. In those cases people continue to go south.

The policy of this government is to begin to rehabilitate and return those people to facilities in Ontario as part of our long-term care and our health care system. That's the progress we've made and that's how we will continue to spend public dollars.

Mr Harris: The members for Burlington South and Oakville South also have constituents at facilities in the United States. You are paying, you are wasting precious health care dollars for no other reason than some ideological reason.

While you sit on your hands, it costs $500 more per day, on average, for every patient who goes to the United States for care. That's also payroll and jobs that are in the United States that could be right here in Ontario. That also is nearly $200,000 per year more per patient that you are spending in the United States than taxpayers would have to pay for the jobs and having these facilities and patients closer to home here.

More important even than the jobs and the dollars are the great emotional and physical costs of being away from community and family and friends. Will you immediately withdraw your ideologically driven policy and provide more compassionate and less costly care right here in Ontario? Will you do this today?

Hon Mrs Grier: That is precisely what our government, as the first government in this province, has begun to do. We have begun to create those facilities here in Ontario, because we believe that's a part of our health care system that has been missing and that needs to be provided here, and we have put the money into the expansion of those services.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Why are they in Detroit when they should be in Hamilton?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Parry Sound please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said in my response to the second question, there are still some very specialized services that are not available here in Ontario. People who need those services continue to go to the United States as we continue to expand both the range and the availability of services here in Ontario.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Name one service.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: That's our commitment and that's what we are continuing to do.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Workplace Health and Safety Agency is in the process of shutting down three agencies currently delivering health and safety training throughout the province: the Care-Givers of Ontario Safety and Health Association, known as COSHA; the College, University and School Safety Council of Ontario, known as CUSSCO; and the Tourism and Hospitality Industry Health and Safety Education Program, known as THIHSEP. These three agencies are being closed down arbitrarily, unilaterally, and all three of them are being moved into the workers' centre for all future health and safety training.

Minister, people from all three areas, health care, education and tourism, are very, very upset at this unilateral action by the agency. Will you use your authority under the act and will you intervene and call a meeting of all the participants and try to resolve this dispute?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member across the way should know that studies done in 1991 at the agency made the point that we could have more efficiency and less cost if we could amalgamate some of the 14 different delivery agencies we had. The joining of these three is part of that exercise. The member should also know that the recommendation was a bipartite recommendation that they come together.

I can tell you also that we have heard the arguments and the points being made that the member across the way raises, and the board will be dealing with that particular issue at its meeting, which I believe is today.

Mr Mahoney: I am just delighted with your answer that you would suggest that this decision was a result of a bipartite effort on the part of the health and safety agency.

Let me share with you, Minister, a letter dated March 28, just the other day, from the management caucus, all seven of them, signed by all seven members of this agency, of the management caucus. It is to your Batman and Robin of health and safety, Bob McMurdo and Paul Forder, the self-anointed CEOs and vice-chairs of this agency. It's to "Dear Mr McMurdo and Mr Forder." It says:

"We have not been kept fully apprised of the agency's activities in regard to the future of these organizations and are distressed that the agency appears to be operating without direction from the board of directors. We strongly oppose the action taken regarding COSHA, CUSSCO and THIHSEP until such time as this issue can be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all stakeholders."

This is supposed to be the model for bipartite cooperation between management and labour. The ship is sinking. Chaos exists at the health and safety agency. Cooperative bipartism, Minister, thanks to your bungling and inept work with this agency, has been destroyed.

Will you act now? Will you intervene? Will you exercise your authority as the Minister of Labour for this province and convene a meeting immediately of all interested parties to resolve this matter and try to save the bipartite process in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have some difficulty in understanding why the member across the way would want this bumbling minister to now step in and resolve the problem. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Mr Mahoney: Just get out of the way.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Mississauga West.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Let me also say that nobody is doing more damage to the institutions of the province of Ontario than the member across the way with the kind of hatchet attacks he's doing on both management and labour who chair this agency.

1440

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services and it concerns social assistance for 16- and 17-year-olds. Yesterday, in response to a question from the member for Nipissing, the minister said that in order for these teenagers to get welfare, "They have to demonstrate, and the worker must be satisfied, that there is an issue of abuse."

The minister is not informed of what's going on today, because today in Wellington county there is a 16-year-old girl receiving welfare who lives in a self-contained apartment attached to her parents' house. She collects welfare and pays rent to her parents.

She had applied for assistance from Wellington county social services but was denied by the county youth case worker, who found no evidence of abuse, not even an allegation of abuse. This young girl then appealed her denial to the Social Assistance Review Board, and without checking with our youth counsellor, Rico Sabatini, they ordered our county to pay her welfare until her appeal can be heard.

Will the minister explain to this House why he's allowing this to happen?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): Assuming that the information the member has given us on the particular instance is correct -- and of course if he says that it is, then I assume that it is -- in that particular instance I think that what he himself would conclude and can conclude from what he has just said is that the only thing that has happened so far is that the Social Assistance Review Board has ordered interim assistance, which is its full right to do under the legislation, pending a final determination on a full hearing of the case as to whether this individual is eligible for social assistance.

Everything seems to be in order in terms of what the member has indicated. There are clearly some broader issues that, as I indicated yesterday, we are addressing. But I think in terms of a particular instance, that has been addressed and dealt with in the appropriate manner.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): We have example after example after example where up to 12 months of welfare can be obtained on an interim basis, as the minister calls it, clearly knowing that "interim" is six to 10 to 12 months -- 10 months in this case.

The minister says, "If the information the member quotes is correct." It's quoted from a copy of a letter to you dated September 29, 1993, so you should know that the information is correct.

"It infuriates me" -- this is from the counsellor, the social worker -- "to know that in cases where I have contacted the parents, sometimes several times, spoken to doctors, youth workers, family counsellors and the client several times and can establish no special circumstances after hours of assessment, that the youth, by simply appealing and with no investigation, no follow-up, can get six to 10 to 12 months of welfare."

Minister, what we are finding out now is case after case of this. This is not an isolated case. The youth counsellor says, "I now have several other youths using the same strategy to get assistance," yet you say there isn't a problem.

I ask you this: Do you know of even one example -- one, all across the province -- where a 16- or 17-year-old who claimed he or she needed welfare was refused? Can you give us one example of that? If not, will you stop this silliness where every 16- and 17-year-old now in the province knows that they've got six to 10 to 12 months --

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

Mr Harris: -- without any verification of the allegations they make? Can you give me one case? If not, will you stop the abuse?

Hon Mr Silipo: I have to say this: I find it really unfortunate that the members from the third party are choosing to deal with this issue, with what I think is a very delicate issue, in this kind of way.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Silipo: At the risk of continuing to puncture the balloon of the third party with some straightforward information and facts, I'm going to try to continue to deal with this issue in the kind of calm way that I think we need to deal with it and in the kind of calm way that I think we were able to deal with it yesterday when the member for St Catharines addressed this very same issue in a question to me.

There is a problem. I have never denied that there is an issue and that there is a problem. I said that very clearly in the House yesterday. I've said that on other occasions publicly and privately. I think the approach we are taking to this issue is not to assume, as members of the third party seem to want to assume, that every single 16- and 17-year-old who is receiving social assistance is not entitled to receive social assistance.

What we are doing is trying to ensure that those young people who legitimately have a right to receive social assistance are receiving it, and let's, for the record, be really clear about the number and the circumstances under which those young people can receive.

We have about 8,100 16- and 17-year-olds across the province who are presently in receipt of social assistance in this province. For them to be eligible to receive social assistance, the rules are that they have to be able to establish that there is some element of abuse that is going on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Silipo: It is true --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: I'll try. It is true that in terms of an interim situation, the Social Assistance Review Board has the right to order interim assistance, not on the basis of a full hearing but on the basis of whether it deems that there is financial hardship.

But I think, unlike the six- to eight- to 10- to 12-month time lines the leader of the third party was indicating, it's my very clear understanding -- and I've had this discussion very directly with the chair of the Social Assistance Review Board -- that they in fact have managed their workload down to the point where decisions are being rendered in a matter of weeks in instances like this, not in a matter of months. So I would ask the leader of the third party to update his information.

Having said all of that, I think we do acknowledge that there are problems in this area, and I've said to the members in this House that we are looking at this area to see what improvements we can make, from starting with setting out the rules in a very clear fashion to ensuring that they are being applied in a very consistent fashion.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response.

Hon Mr Silipo: I would conclude by saying we also agree that we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of the province, but we have to balance that responsibility with the responsibility that we have to a group of young people who may be legitimately in need and who may be suffering some form of abuse, and we have to also address that issue.

1450

The Speaker: The Minister of Environment and Energy has a response to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Mississauga North.

WATER QUALITY

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member asked a question yesterday and I made a commitment that I would get back to him with the response.

As the member knows, the ministry for some time has been working with Uniroyal to identify contamination in the water system at the Grand River and to carry out a monitoring program under an existing control order for the rectification of the situation.

Shallow groundwater contamination at the local creek has been identified in the past through investigative studies that were conducted under the control order issued in November 1991 by this ministry. This same order requires the company to contain and treat contaminated groundwater on the site before discharge to the creek. This contaminant system is to be installed this year. The water quality in the creek is expected to improve markedly with the installation and operation of the shallow groundwater containment and treatment system.

In direct response to the member's question, on March 28, Uniroyal Chemical Ltd advised the members of the Uniroyal public advisory committee at a meeting in Elmira of the results of a groundwater contamination investigative study begun in July 1993. The ministry staff had been previously informed of this study and its results on Wednesday, March 23. The ministry encouraged Uniroyal to make the results public as soon as possible.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Come on, Mr speaker, this is a statement for heaven's sake.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Wildman: Uniroyal advised it would release the study results to the public at the Uniroyal public advisory committee on Monday the 28th.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. I just want to assure the member that the company will submit to the Ministry of Environment by the week of April 4 a feasibility study to address the toluene contamination and to ensure that there is a remediation plan put in place.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): By way of supplementary, I think it's clear to everyone that though the information for many in the community was made known just this week, it is also clear that the ministry knew there was an investigation and an examination being undertaken by Uniroyal as long ago as last February. They weren't advised what the results were but they knew something was going on in February 1994.

I would also like to say by way of supplementary that under your expenditure control plan, your government delayed the cleanup of the activities at Uniroyal. It was your government that cut funding that was previously allocated for the cleanup of this project and now, after you've delayed this matter, you restart the matter. That is just much too late. The people in the communities deserve more from the government. You took away the funding that was directed at not only Elmira, but also Smithville. You took it away under your expenditure control plan. It was your delay --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Offer: -- which has caused this particular problem.

My question to you is, what do you say to the people of Elmira whose health and quality of life have been put at risk by your government's negligence in taking this issue seriously, by your reduction in the amount of money that should have been allocated to the cleanup in this area?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is just completely wrong. The fact is that Uniroyal has been working with the ministry to do the studies that have determined the contaminant. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, despite the fact that the members of the third party don't care about the people of Elmira, the fact is that as a result of this study which was published within five days of the ministry becoming aware of it, at the ministry's encouragement of Uniroyal, the discovery of the material will now enable the company to remove much of the toluene by pumping and disposing of the material offsite, as required in the existing control order.

As a matter of fact, we are working with Uniroyal to respond to the genuine, serious concerns about water contamination that have been known for some time near Elmira and we are working to ensure that the people of Elmira's health and safety is protected.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Environment knows full well that the third party is very concerned about the people of Elmira and I would ask him to withdraw that statement.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I just want to reiterate that when I was giving the answer about what was being done to assist the people of Elmira, there were choruses from the third party asking me to stop talking.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: I think the Minister of Environment and Energy will shortly know that his officials had first known of that investigation last February.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, that's not correct.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Minister, last week your government announced a massive hike of tuition fees to students and their parents. I have been informed that in the same week, last week, your social contract secretariat took a two-day retreat to the Eaton Hall inn and conference centre in King City. This facility advertises the complete conference package: accommodation, hot breakfast, buffet lunch, dinner, morning and afternoon meeting break beverages, main meeting room, audio-visual equipment and full use of onsite recreation equipment and facilities.

These people in your ministry in this secretariat all work in the same building on the same floor, the same office at Queen's Park. What justification do you have for the spending of money on this junket?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board): I'm not specifically aware of the event in question. I'll get the information and get back to the member.

Mr Offer: I hope the minister will also report back to this Legislature on this matter as to information we received that this junket was commandeered by a facilitator, Howard Fromkin of Johnston Smith Fromkin McCulloch, receiving $1,800 a day for every day worked in preparation for this junket.

Minister, I believe that you and your government have an obligation to this Legislature and to the people of this province. How is it that you can spend money wantonly on retreats and junkets of this kind on the same day, in the same week that you imposed a tax on every student and their parent in this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: I've said to the member that I will get the information in relation to the specific event and get back to the member.

In respect to the member's use of the word "junket," and the word "high-flyer" that some of his other colleagues used, and "excessive expenditure," in every single operational case that the Liberal Party of this province has raised, we've reduced spending by anywhere from 10% to 40% over what those characters across the way spent. During their term of office, they raised costs in those particular sectors by 40% to 60%. We don't need to take any lessons from them about good financial management.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Transportation: Minister, you'll be aware that before the last federal election the Liberal member for Leeds-Grenville stated that he had full authority from Prime Minister Chrétien to announce that the Liberal federal government would pay one third of the cost of the completion of Highway 416. Have you entered into any talks with the federal government regarding the $60 million or $70 million that is forthcoming on the promise of the completion of Highway 416?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I welcome the question from the member opposite vis-à-vis the need to have a high-quality access road to ease the congestion to our nation's capital. We don't receive, in terms of the national highway program, any participation from the federal government. We never did. Maybe when my phone doesn't ring, it must be Ottawa calling. Those people don't participate. We would welcome them, because we've earmarked $34 million, 640 jobs this year, 1994. The overall cost of the project, 416 north and 416 south, is upwards of $200 million.

What we're doing now is looking at presentations from two consortiums, but that's for the 407. Once we have made a decision on which one will get the contract, and it's the largest contract in North America, then we will be in a position to welcome the opportunity to create yet more jobs by way of a presentation from the private sector, channelled through the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, and maybe some tolls, maybe a bit of users pay so we can accelerate the project, because we're looking at well over $200 million.

1500

Mr Villeneuve: There's supposed to be correspondence between the Minister of Transportation from Ontario and the federal Liberal government. The promise is there in black and white, $60 million to $70 million. The Premier, in his reply to the lead question from Mike Harris, the member for Nipissing, said highways were a number one priority.

You will know also that the federal Liberal government, in the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister this week, was very generous to the province of Quebec, and it got the attention of Bob Rae, the Premier of Ontario.

This money has been promised. We have had deaths upon deaths on Highway 416. I keep sending you the clippings from the newspapers. I keep pleading with you personally and through correspondence. The money has been offered, Minister. Don't wait for your phone not to ring. The initiative is yours. Go after the money. Are you ready to do that?

Hon Mr Pouliot: If we're ready to do our job, to be at our post? We're funding 100%. If the federal government wishes to fund one third, half, it's like going to heaven only to get there and it's even better than you thought it was. Of course we will be at our post. We're looking at 4,000 jobs. You're right: It's high time that the federal Liberals honour a commitment with real cash. Put it on the table. Start treating Ontario like you're treating some other provinces -- food for thought, and real cash for Ontarians to go to work.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: According to the rules, and I just want to bring this to your attention, there are a lot of members here on the government side, and we're entitled to some time during question period. I just want it noted for the record that they hogged all the time, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and we got no time. I would ask you to be more conscious of that in the future, because we have a right to ask some questions in this place as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): If the member, who's been here since 1990, would read the standing orders, he would know that the response by the Minister of Environment and Energy to a question previously asked and which he was unable to answer is a time allocated to the New Democratic Party of this Legislative Assembly, and that member is wrong in saying that they didn't have any time at all.

The Speaker: To the member for Downsview, as by coincidence I was reviewing the time sheets this morning from the previous week, on balance what happens is that both sides utilize on some occasions a great deal more time than would be appropriate in order to accommodate more members. One day it may be a bit more on one side of the House than the other, but over a period of time it balances out. Today was probably a fairly typical example of some questions being too lengthy and some replies being too lengthy. All I can do is to encourage all members to make both questions and replies as short as possible.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the members of the New Democratic side of this Legislature should also be aware that in the future the minister of Management Board is also going to be taking some of their time because he was not able to respond to my question about the junket that the social contract --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): In the spirit of goodwill, I would only ask that we give unanimous consent to allow the member for Downsview to ask his question.

The Speaker: The member has a point of order. Is there unanimous consent for the member for Downsview to pose a question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice. The member for Parry Sound.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I have recognized the member for Parry Sound.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Yesterday my colleague the member for Mississauga South attempted to raise a point of privilege with the Speaker with respect to comments made by the Minister of Housing. I believe that my colleague the member for Mississauga South had a bona fide point of privilege, but I wanted to obtain a copy of Instant Hansard before I addressed the issue myself in the Legislature. I was unable to obtain Hansard until late yesterday between 5 and 6 o'clock, and I was in a meeting at the time, so I have raised it at the first available opportunity. It is unfortunate that neither the minister nor the member for Mississauga South is here in the Legislature this afternoon --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Why are you raising it now, then?

Mr Eves: Because, if you knew anything about the rules, sir, your smart-ass remark, you would know that you're supposed to raise a point of privilege --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I will be pleased to listen to the honourable member's point of privilege after he has withdrawn the unparliamentary remark.

Mr Eves: I'd be more than happy to withdraw the unparliamentary language I used. As I was going to say, you're supposed to, from my experience around here, raise a point of privilege at the first available opportunity. That is why I'm raising it now.

I have had an opportunity to review Hansard, and I would suggest to the Speaker that the comments made by the Minister of Housing yesterday in response to a question from the member for Mississauga South are not only a breach of privilege but I believe contempt of the House as well.

As you may be aware, Mr Speaker, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms acknowledges that attacks on individual members can constitute a breach of privilege. As well, Beauchesne's sixth edition, section 62, quotes a Speaker's ruling as follows, "...in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit."

I would argue that the Minister of Housing's comments about the member for Mississauga South fit these definitions. To say that the member for Mississauga South "is attempting to stall, delay and impede" Bill 120 does a disservice to every member of this Legislature. Our role as parliamentarians, to quote Erskine May, "is to examine legislation, to have an opportunity to amend it and to propose alternatives."

To impute that the member for Mississauga South is not fulfilling her role as a member of this Legislature and to suggest that her actions are detrimental to the parliamentary process is a fundamental breach of the member for Mississauga South's privileges, in my opinion.

There is not one single bit of evidence to justify the statement made by the Minister of Housing. The minister was obviously imputing motive to the member for Mississauga South. She also stated an untruth. I am sure the Minister of Housing is well aware that all members of that committee who are dealing with Bill 120 agreed that the bill would not be proceeded with any further in committee until April 7. Knowing all these things, she still made the comment she made about the member for Mississauga South yesterday.

I would ask you to review the comments made by the Minister of Housing, to review the circumstances and I would ask you to treat this point seriously, please.

Hon Brian Charlton (Government House Leader): On the point of order, I, unfortunately, don't have a copy of yesterday's Hansard, but there are just a couple of issues in respect to this point of order that I'd like to deal with, and to deal with very briefly.

First of all, the member for Parry Sound has suggested that in the exchange that occurred yesterday between the Minister of Housing and the member for Mississauga South, the minister had imputed motives. If my recollection serves me correctly, at the time that exchange occurred, Mr Speaker, you quite rightly pointed out that there was a difference of opinion.

But the motive is not the accusation; the imputing of a motive is the reason for the accusation and not the accusation itself. The minister, as has been quoted by the member, suggested there was a delay. I think anybody who reasonably looks at the circumstances of that committee would suggest there had been a delay. We, the three House leaders, spent considerable time before Christmas allotting to this piece of legislation the longest amount of hearing and clause-by-clause time of any piece of legislation that was dealt with during the intersession.

1510

Having given that bill more time than any other, the bill finished in the intersession on clause 2. The comments of my colleague I think are a reflection of that fact, not the imputing of motive. Mr Speaker, I think that's the way in which you have to approach this question. I didn't hear anything coming from my colleague suggesting what the member's motive for doing the things she was suggesting the member was doing was, simply that she was doing certain things.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I wasn't going to join in the discussion of the point of privilege that's been raised by the member for Parry Sound, but I do have to indicate quite clearly that the people in House leaders' meetings and other places clearly understood that we wouldn't be moving on this until April 7. We've discussed the items; we've been asked about 120. We have communicated on several occasions the issues of difficulty affecting the development of the --

Hon Mr Charlton: -- progress was made by the end of the intersession.

Mr Elston: I'm sorry; I guess the member for Hamilton Mountain wasn't finished with his joining of the issue.

We knew quite a long time ago that this issue would take up some time. For the member for Hamilton Mountain to stand in his place and defend the Minister of Housing, who has accused another member of this Legislature of doing something with some deliberate purpose, which was obviously not the intent that the member for Mississauga South had on her mind at all, is in fact a breach of the privilege of a member by imputing a motive.

The words that are used are quite clearly on the record. I don't think you can be swayed by the interjections from the member for Hamilton Mountain in this case, because we all knew it was going to be an issue of some contention and we all knew it would take longer than other bills. That having taken place, it looks to me like I'm going to have to support the member for Parry Sound on this. I think it becomes a very serious issue when a minister can stand up at any time and accuse some member who is raising a reasonable issue to be enjoined here for discussion in the Legislature of doing it for a purpose of delaying the passage of a very important piece of legislation.

It seems to me that the member for Parry Sound has a point of privilege on behalf of the member for Mississauga South. I would ask you, as a result, to bring to the attention of the member for Ottawa Centre that she has transgressed the rules, ask her to issue the apology and then maybe we can move on with the business of the House.

The Speaker: May I say first to the honourable House leader of the third party that, as always, he makes a very thoughtful and thorough presentation of his point of privilege, which I appreciate. Indeed, he has raised it at the earliest possible moment. I appreciate also the suggestions and helpful information from both the government House leader and the House leader of the opposition. I will be pleased to take a look at Hansard, at the remarks which he speaks of, and to consider the points which he has brought to my attention.

May I say that in general I believe the member knows, as I believe all members know, that I take language quite seriously in this chamber and on occasion am quite unhappy with the level of language that we unfortunately endure from time to time. When intemperate language is used, often it creates an even worse atmosphere and leads to unfortunate comments being made.

I always, as the member will recall from yesterday, allow the member who has been identified an opportunity, if he or she wishes, to withdraw remarks which have been found to be offensive to another member in the chamber. Obviously, at that point it's up to the member whether or not he or she wishes to withdraw.

I did not find the remarks at the time to be unparliamentary. However, I take very seriously the points that the House leaders brought to my attention. I will look at them and I will get back to the member as quickly as I can.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'm asking for your consideration, and I will be brief, in respect to this matter.

In reading the standing orders, and I may be the only one who is very concerned about this matter, under standing order 21 in respect of privileges, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes" -- and, Mr Speaker, this is what I think is important, and perhaps I'm misinterpreting it -- "or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Over the weekend, a matter was drawn to my attention and created significant concern with me as a member of this House for almost 13 years, something which in my view was unprecedented. That was a report in the Toronto Star, a column by Mr Thomas Walkom, which was a detailed report on what transpired in a recent meeting of the executive council.

Clearly, the Premier was quoted; members of the executive council were quoted. There was obviously a breach of cabinet confidentiality, a breach of the oath of secrecy which is taken by all members of the executive council upon entering cabinet.

I am personally very concerned about this unprecedented breach, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to consider this and take it under consideration if indeed it is a violation of the privileges of members of this assembly.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Leeds-Grenville raises an interesting point and one which I will be very pleased to take a look at. In addition to the member for Parry Sound, he's given me some work to do this afternoon and this evening, and I will be delighted to take a look at it.

PETITIONS

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly, and specifically to Premier Bob Rae. It reads as follows:

"Our company cannot afford to pay exorbitant Workers' Compensation Board rate increases at a time of economic hardship and wasteful compensation board expenditures. The financial viability of Ontario industry has been put at risk by the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board. Our company will consider withholding any rate increase due in April 1994 unless the Workers' Compensation Board can guarantee that there will be no operating deficit this year.

"We request that the Office of the Premier intervene at the Workers' Compensation Board by forcing the board to act to stem this crisis."

This is signed by 181 employers in Ontario who are members of the Employers' WCB Crisis Committee, 446 Dupont Street in Toronto, Ontario.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist that they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years;

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

I've signed that petition, and I obviously agree with it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have 56 petitions, containing 598 signatures, sent in by St Rita's Catholic Women's League. I'd like to read it for the benefit of the Legislature.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount,

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that the sale of these serial killer trading cards is restricted to people over the age of 18 years and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

These petitions are sent from the towns of Hagersville, Jarvis, Victoria, Simcoe, Woodstock, Norwich and Burgessville. I'm very pleased to affix my signature to these.

1520

HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION POLICIES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition from the University of Western Ontario on prevention of harassment and discrimination and on free inquiry and expression which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned faculty and staff members of the University of Western Ontario, firmly reject the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training's Framework Regarding Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities.

"Further, we call upon the minister, Mr David Cooke, to withdraw this document immediately. Although firmly committed to ending discrimination of all sorts, we view the Framework Regarding Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities as an infringement on traditional university autonomy and a threat to academic freedom."

This petition has been signed by hundreds of faculty and staff and some alumni. I've added my name to it.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide the needed protection of owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and the owners of modular homes in land-leased communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and the loss of investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord,

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible to third reading."

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Ballinger is kicking in his television set right now. Ballinger can't believe he lost to you. Billy is having a stroke right this minute.

Mr O'Connor: In spite of all the heckling from the opposite side, I support this legislation. In fact, those people don't want it to come forward.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and specifically to the Minister of Labour.

"Whereas in 1986 the present Minister of Labour, then the New Democratic Labour critic, and Premier Bob Rae, then the Leader of the Opposition, introduced a private member's bill to protect building cleaning workers; and

"Whereas the employees of Modern Building Cleaners, the contract cleaners for the Ontario Science Centre, have been on strike for the last two weeks; and

"Whereas the employees, all members of OPSEU, have filed a grievance with the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that management of the Ontario Science Centre have been performing the cleaning duties during the strike in direct violation of Bill 40; and

"Whereas the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, the Honourable Anne Swarbrick, last Thursday evening crossed the picket line to attend a dinner with the trustees of the Ontario Science Centre; and

"Whereas the striking workers are holding a rally at the Ontario Science Centre today while the board meets to make a decision on whether or not to close the centre,

"We therefore petition the Minister of Labour, who only 10 years ago was the standard-bearer for building cleaning workers, to intervene to bring about a solution in this strike action and prevent the closing of one of Ontario's main tourist attractions."

I agree with this petition and I also have affixed my signature thereto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

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

"To Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearm safety course or examination."

I agree and have signed this petition.

DIETITIANS

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition prepared by Dana Barack and signed by hundreds of citizens of the province of Ontario, from Ottawa to Toronto to London and elsewhere. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly and says:

"We, the citizens of Ontario, Canada, petition the government of Ontario to reinstate stipends for dietetic interns, or to otherwise provide another form of assistance.

"Whereas this is a necessary, accredited practicum for the completion of a dietitian's education and membership in the Ontario College of Dietitians;

"Whereas this is a profession recognized for its contribution to health promotion and disease prevention, the basic determinants of health;

"Whereas we do not have any form of income during the internship and do not qualify for unemployment insurance, welfare or Ontario student assistance program funding;

"Whereas we are expected to begin full repayment of OSAP loans (both Canada and Ontario) immediately after university graduation...."

They petition to return the assistance and I sign my name on this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. This petition has been signed by many, many people in my riding, and it's to Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are extremely objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearm owners and hunters, and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearm safety course or examination."

I have also signed this.

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition sent to me by Dr Berger in Uxbridge concerned about the periodic medical exams and all that review that was taking place. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, believe all Ontarians should be covered for preventive health and periodic screening procedures and money would not be saved by delisting preventive health exams."

They'll be happy to know that hasn't happened, as a result of that very public review. I've signed my name.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I too have a petition, that is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's from the citizens against Bill 45. I'm not going to take up the time of the Legislature with reading through the whereases, but apparently the undersigned are petitioning the Legislature to stop this bill and any future bills of the same order.

Although I do not agree with all the content of the petition, on behalf of my constituents I'm submitting it to the Legislature and affixing my name as the submitter of the petition.

1530

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 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 there will be enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"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 may include sadomasochism, 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 such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile homes by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

I'm speaking on behalf of the thousands of residents in my constituency who are absolutely appalled at the stalling tactics of both the Liberals and the Conservatives when it was in committee.

Interjection: Can I sign that petition?

Mr Mills: Yes, sign it. It's just awful.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a petition addressed to Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from the Anglers and Hunters.

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously" -- they've got "strenuously" highlighted -- "objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and 'grandfathered' those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination, and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;" -- a good point,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearm owners and hunters, and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearm safety course or examination."

I think that's a pretty straightforward and reasonable course of action. I'm going to sign this petition and submit it on behalf of the anglers and hunters of the great riding of York Centre.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr78, An Act respecting the Township of Huron and the Village of Ripley.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr63, An Act respecting the Township of Glanbrook

Bill Pr89, An Act respecting the Town of Bothwell

Bill Pr91, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Given the suspicion cast on the principal secretary of the government earlier today and with the reports that have been reported in the paper, I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent of the House to dissolve the Parliament and let the people have an opportunity to pass judgement on the government. Unanimous consent, Madam Speaker, for dissolution?

The Acting Speaker: Is it the wish of this House to agree to his motion? No.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: I would have thought that by now the Liberals would have learned what happens to parties that call an election after three years.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I move that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, and that it be now read for the very first time.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Laughren moves that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act and that it now be read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Carried. The Minister of Finance may address the bill.

Hon Floyd Laughren: And I think this perhaps would answer some of the queries coming from the opposition. If not, I would like to know.

I am pleased today to introduce the Corporations Tax Amendment Act, 1994. This bill replaces two earlier pieces of proposed legislation, Bill 133 and Bill 66, which received first reading only, and combines additional measures proposed in the 1993 budget.

You will recall that Bill 133 contained legislation to implement a corporate minimum tax as announced in the 1993 budget. Bill 66, the other bill this replaces, contained proposals made in the 1992 budget and included other changes to parallel amendments to the federal Income Tax Act.

This bill includes the proposal to reduce the portion of meals and entertainment expenses deductible for corporate income tax purposes from 80% to 50% and other measures to close corporate tax loopholes and improve tax fairness.

This bill includes a special additional tax on life insurance corporations announced in the 1992 budget designed to ensure that life insurance corporations assume their fair share of taxes. It also includes a revised definition of what constitutes an insurance company for the purposes of the insurance premium tax.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your patience, and the members of the opposition for their interest.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I just received the notes -- they're quite lengthy, I might add -- on this amalgamation of two previous pieces of legislation, plus new. I will say this: There seems to be some difficulty with the government officials and people --

Interjection: Get to the point.

Mr Stockwell: I am.

-- in supplying information to the opposition parties, and I won't speak for the Liberals, but certainly the Conservative caucus, with respect to explanatory notes and compendium notes when introducing pieces of legislation.

We've had this discussion before with respect to the Minister of Transportation. Now I will rise again and say that when the Treasurer stood to introduce this piece of legislation, he was seeking a vote on first reading. When he's seeking a vote on first reading, it's usually in the course of business that we in fact allow that vote to take place. It's a common courtesy that we give the government.

I will add this: We give them that common courtesy because previous to hearing what the minister says on the piece of legislation and understanding what is before the Legislature, we receive compendium notes or explanatory notes about what is being introduced. Once again, for a significant number of times, at least three or four times, we received the notes after the minister has introduced a piece of legislation and asked this Legislature to vote on it.

I would say once again, through you, Madam Speaker, to the government officials, the assistants and the workers who are supposed to bring these notes forward, that it's in the best interests of making sure this place works properly and having up-to-date and well-informed opposition benches that we know, when the minister stands to introduce a bill, what bill he is introducing.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I appreciate your comments. That is up to the government to try to accommodate the opposition.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): No, it isn't. Madam Speaker, on a point of order, if I might, in view of the comments raised by the member for Etobicoke West, which I appreciate, and I understand his concern. However, I would remind the member for Etobicoke West that the purpose of introducing the bill for first reading is simply to do that: to put it in front of members so they can have an opportunity to read it before debate in substance starts, which is the second reading debate on principle.

I'm not sure why the member would object to us introducing a bill so he can have a look at it and think about it and consult with his colleagues before second reading debate occurs. That's the purpose of first reading introduction, so there's time to think about it before the second reading debate occurs.

1540

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I heard the comments from the Treasurer, and although I agreed with him up to a point, the point where I stopped agreeing with him was that in the standing orders it says -- I can't find it at this very moment, but if you take the time to review the standing orders, they say very clearly that before a bill is introduced by a government minister, compendium notes or explanatory notes would be distributed to the opposition parties.

Now, that isn't just to have the critics figure out what is being introduced at the time. Sometimes, party politics being what they are, some opposition parties would vote against introduction on first reading. It's not unusual; it has happened. It happened with government when they were on this side of the House on a number of occasions.

So I take great exception to the Treasurer's interpretation of the rules, and I take great exception to the fact that again, as has happened on a number of occasions, we didn't get the compendium notes, the explanatory notes, before the bill was introduced.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to review the standing orders on the compendium notes and when we're supposed to get them, whether it's not before first reading. If in fact I'm wrong, I certainly will stand corrected. If I am correct, would you please advise the ministers of the government to supply us with the notes.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Since the member opposite has raised this issue a number of times, it's time we got the issue clearly resolved in this House, both for the purpose of the House and for the purpose of the member for Etobicoke West.

The delivery of documents to the member opposite today and on all occasions he's arisen has been precisely the same as the delivery of documents to every opposition leader and opposition critic on introduction of every bill, because the standing orders call for the delivery of the compendium on the introduction. A member who is a minister of the crown stands in his place and begs leave to introduce, and when that introduction occurs is when the compendiums are delivered. That's the point at which the first reading vote happens.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On the same point, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to finish. In the standing orders, 38(c) does say, "On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics." So you are correct, and it is on introduction of the bill, which would be today. I hope that clarifies.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: When we move to voting on the introduction of a bill at first reading, that is beyond the introduction of bills. There is a clear differentiation between introduction and voting on first reading. The House rules are very clear in this case: It shall be on introduction. No matter how the government may twist and turn this, you cannot vote on something if you are --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Could the member take his seat, please. I have ruled according to the standing orders.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing April 1, 1994, and ending July 31, 1994.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We are resuming the debate on interim supply. When we adjourned yesterday, the member for Etobicoke West had the floor, if he would like to continue.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Timely, very timely. Eight minutes left, and I want to cover maybe two quick subjects, the last one very briefly.

I understand what the standing orders say. I just want to make the point that on the introduction of the bill, we're supposed to get the compendium notes. When they introduce the bill, we get the compendium notes before a vote is taken. That way --

The Acting Speaker: To the member, I would appreciate you dealing with the interim supply.

Mr Stockwell: I am. This is interim supply. It's a tax matter. We get the compendium notes on introduction of the bill, so before it goes to the first reading vote, we know what bill were voting on. The difficulty on opposition benches -- which you may well find out; I don't know -- is that when you just hear a couple of numbers, what bill number they are, you have no idea what bill you're debating or expected to vote upon.

Let me give you a quick example. Photo-radar was introduced. It was introduced by a bill number. We wanted to oppose photo-radar in the first reading. We did not receive the compendium notes --

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Do you want them a half-hour before?

Mr Stockwell: No, we'd like before they ask us to vote on first reading. I don't think that's a lot to ask. Just get the compendium notes before you ask us to vote on first reading. There have been two or three pieces of legislation that we wanted to vote against on first reading. We couldn't vote against them because all the member did when introducing the bill was quote a bill number. We couldn't possibly know what that bill number incorporated, and therefore we couldn't vote against it.

Yesterday, the member for Oxford -- I wish he were here -- suggested to me during my speech about the deficit that in fact the numbers were contained in the budget of 1993 with respect to the deficit figures for the crown agencies and how much debt they would incur, that it was included in the budget book.

I want to make it very clear to the members opposite that the member for Oxford was absolutely wrong and I was absolutely right. If you go to page 93 of the budget book, you'll note that there is a deficit subtotal figure for non-budgetary items of some $804 million. Included in that are education, colleges, universities, school boards and hospitals, where you transferred debt to those agencies to acquire on your behalf that you'd pay for. Below that were the crown corporations: environment and energy, Clean Water Agency, Ontario Realty Corp, Transportation Capital Corp.

In total, they are going to accrue $804 million worth of debt. When you look at the carry-forward column on table C4 --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Will that show up in the budget?

Mr Stockwell: That's exactly my point, I say to the member for St Catharines. I want to make it clear, because the member for Oxford gave the impression I was misleading the House, and I was not. When you take page 93 and look at the debt, the debt total comes in at, planned, $3.096 billion capital. Underneath it is the $804 million, so the gross total is $3.9 billion including those non-budgetary items.

When you flip over to the deficit figures announced by the Treasurer, the deficit figures show capital expenditure to be $3.096 billion. It doesn't include the $804 million for education, where you ask them to build the schools and acquire the debt, it doesn't include colleges and universities or hospitals, where you ask them to acquire the debt on your behalf, and it doesn't include the crown corporations and the debt they're going to acquire over the next year.

In reality, the member for Oxford was saying that people know that new debt is on the books, but the Treasurer did not include that in his deficit forecast figures in his 1993 budget. It may seem a little picayune, but it's very important. It's nearly $1 billion of debt that you didn't show in your books. It's nearly $1 billion of debt that you didn't count in your 1993 budget book.

I take the member for Oxford to task. He is convinced that somehow this is included in your budget book. He's categorically incorrect. I've heard him say, not just in this place but in other places, that it's included, and I wish he'd stop. The proof is in the pudding. It's your Treasurer's budget book. It is not included in the deficit figure originally called for of $9.159 billion. Some $804 million was left off, and this money you're moving off-book to separate corporations and not including in your deficit figures.

Stop telling the public you are. That's all I'm suggesting. Stop telling the public that you're including these deficit figures, because you're not. Your original estimate was $9.1 billion; it should have been $10 billion. The reason it wasn't $10 billion is because it was a magic figure the Treasurer didn't want to go over, so he took out $800 million, moved it off-book and said he had a $9.1-billion budget deficit.

1550

The other point of interest that I had was with the member for Downsview.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: No, Downsview, and I'm sorry he's not here. He was rather vocal yesterday on my numbers that I examined with respect to Jobs Ontario. So last night I went back to my office after hearing his complaints and I went through the budget and went through the numbers that you said you would create as far as jobs were concerned through Jobs Ontario.

In your 1992 budget book, when you announced Jobs Ontario, you called for 90,000 jobs to be created. You said 90,000 jobs. I reviewed the job figures that came forward from the minister yesterday, and this is two years down the road. In fact, you said you'd have 90,000 jobs created by the second year; you said you'd have 30,000 created in the first year. Today, there are 20,000 created and 10,000 waiting to be filled. Give the benefit of the doubt to the government: You filled 30,000 jobs. You're a full year behind your timetable. You're not even close to the 90,000 jobs that your ministry said it would create with Jobs Ontario.

It's very good sometimes to adjourn debate in the House because it gives you an interesting opportunity to go back to the budget, back to the figures, and come back the next day and say categorically, without debate, the figures I quoted yesterday, the deficit numbers the member for Oxford was talking about, were right. He is thoroughly uninformed. The member for Downsview was uninformed with respect to his heckling of me with respect to 100,000 jobs that were supposed to be created.

I think it's a good opportunity for the people out there to realize that there's a spin put on everything by this government. Mr Piper used to put the spin on. He's now gone. I think it's Mr Weppler, is it, who --

Mr Bradley: Yes, Murray Weppler.

Mr Stockwell: Murray Weppler now puts the spin on all product that leaves this place, and what the problem is with spin is this: Sometimes the spin doctors cross the line and they cross the line between spinning and outright untruths. The point the member --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Outright untruths. I'm not saying he's lying; I'm just saying he's spun it so much that it loses its tap to reality. The member for Oxford and the member for Downsview have bought into these so much so in some instances that they don't look at the figures, they don't read the book and they don't understand that just by flipping through this you know that the spin has been spun so much it's absolutely incorrect.

I wanted to get those two on the record. "Absolutely incorrect" I don't think is unparliamentary. I want to get those kind of things on the record because I was challenged yesterday by the two members with the statistics and the analysis that I did with respect to the deficit numbers and Jobs Ontario and I can come forward in good conscience today and say the numbers that I gave yesterday were absolutely accurate.

The numbers I gave yesterday were the numbers that your government used, the numbers I gave yesterday were the numbers that you approved in your budget that I quoted back to you some year or two years later. The only difficulty this government has is how inaccurate its prognosis for growth in Jobs Ontario and how inaccurate its prognosis for the deficit was.

I thank you for the time, Madam Speaker. I look forward to questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Now we have time for questions or comments to the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd just like to comment in regard to the question of spin that the honourable member talks about. I think when it comes to the question of spins, the Conservative Party of Ontario, like the Liberal Party of Ontario, doesn't have a monopoly or a virtue on that particular issue. I think all political parties look at issues from their basic ideology. I grant you the Conservative Party has a particular ideology that it feels is right and it advocates for it. For that, I give them credit because that's what this House is all about. Every political party looks at issues from their particular perspective.

As for the question of off-book financing, I would say to the member -- and I think he's alluded to that and actually he said that in his remarks yesterday -- not every government, but a number of governments within the country of Canada look at off-book financing when it comes to capital by way of doing their accounting and by way of doing their business. I think they recognize that.

To the member for Etobicoke West, I've got to say, at least in his debate he's being somewhat fairminded in being able to point that out, but I just want to say to the member, to you as a Conservative member looking at this, you want to be able to put your spin on it. I understand that and I respect that, because that's what your job is. You're here to represent the members you're supposed to represent in your riding and those people who are affiliated to your party with your particular ideology.

But to pretend that all of sudden Murray Weppler or Mr Piper before is the only one or the only ones who have any intention of being able to put spin on anything I think is just stretching it a wee bit. I think, in all fairness, you put your spin on things according to the way that you see it.

What the Treasurer has done is basically followed the practice of a number of provinces across the country of Canada when it comes to off-book financing. We're not the first ones to do this, and I think the member has already recognized that in his speech.

I want to say, just in wrapping up, I always enjoy listening to the member for Etobicoke West. I find his comments to be most entertaining and I look forward to hearing yet again on some other interim supply the comments from the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Bradley: I found particularly interesting the explanation the member for Etobicoke West offered on the manipulation of various crown corporations. This is nothing new. Members of this House who have followed politics for a number of years would know that the Social Credit in British Columbia, under the man who was known affectionately as Wacky Bennett, W.A.C. Bennett, used to do the same thing.

In order to make the deficit look lower, they simply established crown corporations and then assigned the debt, as the member has appropriately pointed out, to those crown corporations. Then the Treasurer of the day, now called the Minister of Finance, could wave the budget book and say that the deficit was either non-existent or much less than they had anticipated.

I'm pleased that the member for Etobicoke West has pointed that out to those who might be watching this program, because what happens is, on the day when the budget is announced, people tend to zero in on simply the headlines or what the government presents, and I hope that everybody knows what the government will be up to: taking, for instance, the water and sewer grants and operations out and putting them in the so-called clean water corporation. That is simply moving that debt off the government debt and putting it on some crown corporation's debt load.

I think they will not fool the rating agencies in New York and in Canada and other places that look at what the real debt is. If they were up front and said, "Here is what the deficit will be. We're going to try to deal with it appropriately," there wouldn't be the same problem as if they try to hide the debt in various places, fooling no one and simply not addressing the problems that confront the province, as the member has mentioned appropriately.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I rise to make just a few brief comments on the discourse from my colleague the member for Etobicoke West. He has pointed out, as have many people in our party, the absolute deceit of the numbers which the government has been bringing forward. Yesterday in debate there was, as the member has pointed out, a lot of heckling across the floor from the members from the NDP disputing what he was saying.

The fact is, the numbers are very plain in the government's own documents. We have repeatedly pointed out that, according to the budget documents from last year, the government was taking off book $600 million of debt which it was going to have the school boards raise, because they recognized that the government didn't have any more borrowing capacity. They were just simply saying to the school boards, "Okay, we will have you borrow the money and then we'll let you debt-service it." That was $600 million that otherwise would have been on the books, but if you read the budget, it is very plain what they did.

Also, they created the capital corporations, which took $804 million off the books, and the $804 million was verging on fraud. The Provincial Auditor pointed this out. This is the first time in history that a Provincial Auditor has refused to sign the books, and it was quite simply because the government was playing fast and loose with numbers.

The capital corporations had the infusion of money from the government to buy the properties and then they promptly gave the money back, which is a very unusual transaction, because it was funny money. It was just as good as Monopoly money. The sale really hadn't been consummated. If a corporation transferred to its subsidiary on that basis, they would have taken a paper back.

1600

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. We have time for one more question or comment from any other member. The member for Etobicoke West has two minutes to reply.

Mr Stockwell: I thank the members who participated in the questions and comments. I think it's fairly clear now, and accepted by probably all parties about, that the brinkmanship kind of financing that's taking place is not healthy for an economy in a state such as Ontario's, and pretty much everybody, including the bond-rating agencies and those people in the know, have understood what has happened.

I just want to take time to comment with respect to the spin business. You see, I don't think you can argue with a government or an opposition party putting a spin on a particular issue, because we all think differently; there's just no two ways about it. We come at an issue differently than the government and the Liberals come at it differently than we do, and I understand that.

I guess the problem I'm having is that I don't think there should be any spin involved with respect to the finances of the province of Ontario. I think we should standardize accounting practices. They should be reported exactly the same, not mattering which government's in power or which politician's in charge of the treasury. I think there should be standard accounting practices, like in business. If you don't follow the standard accounting practices in business, you can literally be thrown in jail. You can be charged and thrown in jail if you're on the trading floor and you're not in fact following standard accounting practices, and no accountant would sign off on them.

If there is anything I would ask this government to do and ask any government in the future to do, it's to standardize the accounting practices of every government so that when they report their books out, you don't have to ferret through and dig up these examples of trickery.

They're nothing more than trickery, because they don't fool the people for long, at least the people in the know. You get caught. And you know what? You never fool the bond agencies, because they've got people ferreted away in offices down in the basement figuring out what government is trying to trick us.

Every time they find it, they get a little bit excited because they've found another government who's tried to pull the wool over their eyes, and you get downgraded anyway. They're going to try it again, mark my words. Prepare for the downgrading when your next budget gets announced.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the interim supply bill? The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I hope in my 30 minutes I will have for the purpose of delivering this speech this afternoon that I will be able to touch on a number of areas, both of local interest and of province-wide interest.

The first I wish to deal with is that of the secret document that was leaked today and discussed in this House by Mr Conway, the member for Renfrew North, who I think appropriately pointed out that it indicates that the government is now clearly in an election mode and isn't about to do much in the way of governing and working any more.

If you look at the fact that there's going to be a significant reduction in the number of cabinet meetings, then you recognize that the ministers are going to be out spinning their particular slant on all of the issues, trying to extol the virtues of the government.

While this is one of the responsibilities that they have of promoting what the government is doing, my concern is that as they reduce the number of meetings, problems will arise. They will find out that some issues will not be addressed in an appropriate fashion, that many more mistakes will be made when the members of cabinet and various committees are not there to analyse the decisions as they should.

In this secret document it says, "The focusing decisions make it feasible to reduce the number of cabinet committee meetings." It also says: "A critical challenge will be managing expectations relating to initiatives which we will be unable to pursue. To this purpose, each minister and deputy minister will meet soon with representatives of the Premier's office and Cabinet Office to discuss how best to manage these issues. We will also be developing a communications strategy for the exercise as a whole."

What this tells me is that in fact the government, led in this case on the civil service side by the former campaign manager, and I would suggest present campaign manager, of Premier Bob Rae, will be attempting to manage the news, will be attempting to put the appropriate slant on the reasons why the government is not proceeding with matters that it indicated were of some importance in months and years gone by.

I have expressed in this House before my concern about this government putting socialist operatives into key positions. I'd be concerned whether it were people of any particular strong partisan slant. I don't know if the member for Durham Centre is aware of this, but out west what has happened is that when an NDP government is defeated, because it has put clearly partisan people in key civil service positions, the new government coming in ends up removing almost all of those people and then they head to the place where there's another NDP government. This has happened in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba and in British Columbia.

What is much better has been the tradition in Ontario. We had Bud Tangney this afternoon in the House being honoured. In my view, he exemplifies a totally non-partisan civil service.

When the Liberal government came to office, I was suspicious, as some might be, because when you're in opposition you don't necessarily understand the workings of the civil service, that these people must be Progressive Conservatives, since they had served under a Conservative government for 42 years.

I in fact found that for the largest part the people were non-partisan; they were professional people who had moved up through the ranks or come in from the private sector and joined the civil service, the public service, and had served the previous government well and were serving the next government well.

What I see now are key positions being filled by those who have a socialist background and socialist slant. I would be equally concerned were it another political party constantly filling these positions. I understand in some cases this does happen, and I'm not being critical in certain circumstances.

I think it was particularly unwise of the Premier to choose David Agnew, his campaign manager, a clear NDP partisan, for the position of secretary to cabinet, because that position, while it works carefully with the cabinet, is a position which in my view should not be given to the campaign manager of the New Democratic Party, because this is what we see, this document which indicates clearly what is going to happen in terms of the government's future. This is not a cabinet document in essence; it is a political document, and clearly a political document.

It talks about category B items, which are obviously going to be dropped down in terms of the importance to the government, and it states, "These items will usually have second priority on the agenda for the remainder of the term." A lot of people who are supportive of the government probably thought a lot of these issues were going to be brought to the forefront by this government.

Category E is the most interesting. It says many items will require changed work plans. This will involve "(i) substantially reducing work; (ii) stopping all work; and (iii) withdrawing most or all resources devoted to these items." It will be most interesting to see what those items happen to be.

The meeting time for cabinet committees will be reduced as follows:

"(a) cabinet continue to meet weekly" -- and this is what's important -- "but with increased time made available for strategic planning and communications issues." That means "for politics" in case anybody didn't know.

"(b) policy and priorities board reduce its meeting schedule by one meeting per month with at least one of the remaining three weekly meetings being devoted to strategic planning and communications issues, recognizing that additional meeting time will be required to finalize estimates and budget-related issues.

"(c) treasury board, Management Board and the jobs committee to meet biweekly, except that treasury board will meet more often for estimates review."

Clearly, where there is a straight partisan agenda, there will be a considerable number of meetings and where there is a government, a management agenda, there will be a great reduction.

It says, "To provide closure, Cabinet Office" will "be directed to prepare a report, potentially for public use, summarizing the implementation of the status of previous categories." It mentions what the government is all about in this.

I think this was a most revealing document. What is quite shocking, as a matter of fact, is how it ever got out. I hope that the Premier, who has sicked the -- or at least he would say he has not -- but has allowed the OPP or allowed his government to direct the OPP to investigate the opposition when they get hold of these documents and the civil service and members of the news media, does not allow this to happen again, even though this is a serious breach in terms of the security of government documents.

It's obviously somebody who is genuinely concerned about the agenda of the government and the mode of action of the government who has felt strongly enough to make this available to one of the news outlets.

1610

Also, I would like to deal a bit with some of the tactics that I see being employed by the Premier of this province. A lot of us who watched Bob Rae -- and I use that name rather than Premier Rae because of when he was in opposition -- in the federal House when he used to have those glib little comments, those quick turns of phrase that used to get him on television. We well remember the criticism he used to level legitimately at governments for various of the tactics that he employs today. We remember well that he was seen or at least featured himself as a national figure with a national commitment.

All we have seen -- it's quite obvious -- is that the Premier does not intend to run on his record. Were I a Premier with the record this government has, I might be inclined not to run on that record either. But what he has engaged in, quite obviously, and will engage in from now till the election, is blaming everybody else but his own government for the problems that confront this province.

You have seen on a number of occasions that in a humorous fashion I have held up numbers for members of the House. They represent essentially the basic answers the Premier will give. My colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt presented a suggestion on what some of these mean. The first four deal with the federal government and how it must somehow be the federal government's fault. I have added a fifth and a sixth. The fifth is that it must be the previous government's fault and the sixth is that it must be the opposition parties' fault.

I think that if the Premier would look in the mirror, he would find the number one problem and the number one reason for the problems that this province confronts. I think that people are sick and tired of politicians at one level of government blaming another level of government. I say this even in terms of watching municipalities blaming the provincial government. They have some legitimacy in doing so, because this provincial government has done to the municipalities, to the local agencies, to local people, what it accuses the federal government of doing, and all with a straight face. But when those municipalities and other agencies have complained, they have not received the same kind of sympathetic hearing they might have in years gone by. I think the reason for that is that people now see through this idea of blaming somebody else all of the time.

Indeed, there are times when another level of government has a greater responsibility. But I think the Premier can wear that out rather quickly. The people I talked to out there are really not fooled by that. Instead, they're looking for the Premier, with the resources that he has, dealing with the issues that he has as well as he possibly can.

Something else I notice is unusual for an NDP Premier. It really is, when you get down to about 6% in the by-elections, as the government has been in the last couple of by-elections, what happens in desperation. I never thought I'd see the day that Bob Rae would engage in, for political purposes, Quebec-bashing. It's good politics. Don't get me wrong; that is very good politics. But somehow I could never envisage Stephen Lewis -- who used to stand in the House not far from where I am, being critical of the Davis government when it used to engage in that kind of federal-provincial relations, shall we call it -- doing that.

I was quite surprised to see that a person who features himself as a nation-builder -- and he was lecturing others on nation-building the other day -- would in fact engage as bluntly and clearly as he has in the good old politics of Quebec-bashing. I don't want for a moment to say it isn't effective politics; I just want to say that it's unusual for the New Democratic Party, which has stood for different things over the years, to engage in that. I suspect if the Premier were at 40% or 50% in the polls, you wouldn't see that happen.

I also want to say that we've seen a new tactic develop with this government. It's not really new; I saw Larry Grossman try it in 1983. That was that whenever there's an announcement coming up with the government, you'll notice that the word goes out, "I'm going to kick you in the face." I use that as an analogy rather than actual wording. In other words, the word is out that it's going to be a tough economic message. Then, when the government doesn't kick the transfer agency in the face but instead kicks it in the shins, everybody is supposed to applaud and say, "Thank goodness, the government gave us nothing," because they thought it was going to take something away.

It's an effective tactic with some. But, again, I think members of the news media have seen through this, and others are seeing through this particular tactic. I certainly will never allow this government to get away with lowering the expectations only to come through at the last minute and gather the praise.

I want to touch briefly as well on the effectiveness of, and my support for, infrastructure renewal. There are those out there who are critical of infrastructure renewal as a job creation tactic. I think it's very positive for two basic reasons. The first is that it is an investment in jobs that are good jobs. They are effective jobs, they are jobs that people can look at and say, "Yes, they have to be done." It creates employment with its spinoff effects. The second part of it is that there is a tangible result at the end. For instance, there is a new sewage treatment plant built for increased capacity so that when businesses want to come to invest or people want to expand, all of the infrastructure is there. It makes Ontario a much more attractive place to invest.

I know there are people who are critical of it. I remember seeing a television commercial where they had people who work in construction shovelling things from one hole to another. I think that misrepresented what infrastructure renewal is about. I noted with glee that the province that received by far the most infrastructure dollars from the federal government was in fact the province of Ontario. I'm delighted to see that. I'm glad because I saw that in the last budget the capital spending, that is, largely construction spending of this government, of the Rae government, was cut by $300 million. Of course, that will be restored now as the federal government comes to the rescue with its money.

The municipalities are participating. That does cost them some money as well, but I see that as an investment in the immediate future with jobs and in the medium- and long-term future with the roads that are built, the bridges that are constructed, the various things that are done in communities to improve them. I hope that has a positive effect, and I think it will, on our economy.

I dealt in this House previously with the issue of student welfare, and it's an issue which has been there for a while. Let me just explain very briefly for members of the House the program that was there.

The student welfare program was one which was designed to assist those students who were genuinely abused and came from a totally intolerable situation at home. Those people, in order to keep them in school productively -- these were kids, usually 16 and 17 -- were provided with a student welfare grant, with some funding, with some assistance. What has happened -- and certainly the regional municipality of Niagara is aware of this -- is that it has become abused. The problem with this is that we are liable to lose the whole program, because there will be those who say: "Let's throw the whole thing out. It's obviously being abused. We don't need it. Let's get rid of it."

I don't think that's the best tactic to take. I think what you have to do is to bring it back to its original purpose, for students from homes which are terrible circumstances, where there may be abuse of various kinds that is accepted by independent people and everyone is knowledgeable that this is the case, and those students agree to keep a commitment to go to school. That's the condition under which it should be used, not under other conditions.

One problem is that many of those students are not attending school. The second is that some of those young people are using it as a lever against their parents and almost get to the point, in some circumstances, where they say, "I'm leaving home and I'm going to live in the streets," to the horror perhaps of the parents, and try to encourage their parents to sign a paper that says there are irreconcilable differences between the two.

1620

I got a letter from Regional Councillor Tim Kenny. Tim Kenny is a secondary school teacher, an individual very concerned with young people. It reads as follows:

"On February 17, 1994, I moved the attached motion respecting students in receipt of GWA at the council of the regional municipality of Niagara. The motion, which carried unanimously, requested the Minister of Community and Social Services to set attendance and/or grade standards which students must attain in order to be eligible for general welfare assistance.

"As a high school teacher, I was astounded to learn there were no such standards contained in the GWA legislation. It is my belief that such standards would provide GWA case workers and school administrators the leverage they need when dealing with chronically absent students who are in receipt of GWA.

"In addition, these standards would clearly define the responsibilities of the student.

"It is my hope that you will pursue this matter on behalf of the regional municipality of Niagara. Should you need any additional information please feel free to contact me."

It's signed by Tim Kenny, regional councillor and teacher.

The resolution reads as follows. It's not, again, a resolution which calls for the abolishing of the program, but simply a bringing back to its original narrow, appropriate focus.

"Whereas under general welfare assistance regulations, individuals who qualify for general welfare assistance may continue to be eligible while attending selected educational programs such as secondary school;

"Whereas general welfare assistance provides needed assistance for youths who have experience involving dysfunctional families, mental, physical and sexual abuse;

"Whereas some eligible students register as full-time students but fail to attend classes on a regular basis;

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services does not set attendance standards;

"Therefore be it now resolved that the regional municipality requests the Ministry of Community and Social Services to set attendance and/or grade standards which students must attain in order to be eligible for general welfare assistance."

I think it's a reasonable resolution. It deals with part of the problem that I have brought to the attention of the minister, the second part being the terrible agony faced by parents who have yet another sledgehammer that can be used against them in attempting to bring about rules and regulations in the house. In other words, where discipline is exercised, where rules are set down for someone residing in a house, a student has that opportunity to use this against the parents as leverage to get easier discipline at home, easier regulation at home, and also has the opportunity to leave.

This is subject to a lot of abuse. If the program is going to continue to exist, it's going to be exceedingly important that that abuse be removed as quickly as possible, and the minister has given that undertaking to me in the question that I asked in the House.

I want to deal as well in a parochial sense, because interim supply allows me to do so, with the matter of funding of universities. Brock University in St Catharines does not receive what I consider to be appropriate funding under the formula that is applied for universities in this province. In fact, it receives at the present time about 93%, or 93 cents on the dollar, of what it might expect to receive under a fair funding formula, while other universities receive perhaps 106 or 107 cents on the dollar.

I would hope that the minister of education, colleges and universities would look into this matter and would resolve it to the satisfaction of Brock. The people at Brock University -- the students, the administration, the faculty, the parents of those who attend Brock -- are not looking for something more than others have, but simply a fair application of a formula which will give them 100% of that to which they are entitled, and I certainly am supportive of that.

I want to deal as well with the issue of gambling. I hate to dwell on this in every speech, but I am very, very concerned with the route that this government is taking in terms of gambling.

I notice that when Pierre Berton came to Niagara, he had some interesting things to say. Pierre Berton, as I recall, has been a strong supporter of the New Democratic Party over the years. Let me read to you what he said about gambling.

I'll do that after I note that "Ontario to Expand Options for Sports Gambling." They're going to allow Pro Line betting on World Cup soccer matches this June. I guess if you've got Pro Line, you'd allow that to happen, but allowing the Ontario Racing Commission to add another 300 off-track betting teletheatres to the 75 already operating in bars and restaurants in the province, what does that do? That allows people to spend more money on gambling. As a government in this province, we keep allowing more opportunities for people to spend their money on gambling rather than on consumer goods or services that may be of direct benefit to people.

Who are largely the people who gamble? They're those people who want to take a chance to get ahead. They're often people who are lower-income people, who are desperate to make their way in life, to make a better financial life for themselves, and get involved in gambling.

What is appalling to me and discouraging and disappointing is that it's the New Democratic Party which is expanding all of these gambling activities.

I got a letter from a friend of mine who is a New Democratic Party supporter -- I think still; I'm not quite certain -- who wrote to me at Christmastime. I won't reveal the person because I don't want to embarrass him, but he wrote to me and said: "I saw your speech on gambling in the Legislature. The problem is, a New Democrat should have made it."

That's what I'm thinking about the NDP caucus. There must be a lot of people in there who remember what over the years the New Democratic Party stood for in terms of gambling, in terms of a tax on lower-income people, in terms of a tax, voluntary as it might be, on vulnerable people.

I've come to the conclusion that governments, not only this government but some other governments, have come to the conclusion that they can't levy new taxes because no one will accept them, so the only tax they're prepared to embark upon is the so-called voluntary tax of gambling.

Here's what Pierre Berton had to say:

"Niagara's efforts to promote itself as a world-class tourist attraction will be jeopardized if Niagara Falls manages to land one of Ontario's first casinos, a noted Canadian historian says.

"Warning history is destined to repeat itself, writer and broadcaster Pierre Berton told Niagara business and political leaders yesterday that legalized gambling will scuttle Niagara Falls' long-time struggle to overcome its reputation as a second-rate tourist designation."

I've never agreed with that particular observation, but Pierre Berton says that when you want to enhance a reputation, you won't do so with a casino. He goes on to say:

"'If I were you, I would resist with every atom of your being a casino in Niagara Falls.'

"Berton warned casinos will bring few economic benefits and many social ills, including organized crime.

"'Ask the police what they think of it,' he said later. 'They'll tell you they have to double the police force because of the prostitution and the thievery that goes on in a casino area.'

"Once legalized casino gambling gets a foothold in Niagara, the industry will mushroom just like the lottery business has, he predicted.

"'I think they produce a something-for-nothing attitude, which is the worst kind of education you can give the future,' he said."

I agree with Pierre Berton in that regard. It does give a bad education to people, and it is moving entirely in the wrong direction. I hope this government will not continue to expand gambling opportunities in this province.

I want to touch very briefly on Hydro, because time is running out. I'm very annoyed, I have to say, as are many of my constituents, with this self-serving advertising of "the new Ontario Hydro." I would prefer them to spend the money on making it more efficient rather than in promoting itself to the people of this province. It reminds me of the old Tory days when the Ministry of Energy used to say: "Life is Good, Ontario. Preserve it. Conserve it." They always denied there was anything political about it, but it was of course to make you feel good about it.

I think we need to do this, and it is nothing radical and it's nothing anybody outside of this place cares about much. I think we should re-establish the select committee on Hydro affairs so that elected members can monitor Hydro on an ongoing basis. Some of the best committee work I've seen done was done in the select committee on Hydro affairs. It held it to account, to a certain extent; it made members knowledgeable of energy affairs in this province. I'd like to see that return.

1630

I want to touch on the question of tuition. It seems today that a lot of people are prepared to simply abandon the students out there. The government knows -- it obviously is doing all this polling, even though they were all opposed to polls before, and they found out that people aren't going to become overly angry about tuition increases. But again that's a pretty vulnerable group.

If the economy were booming, if there were lots of jobs in Ontario, if the summer job situation were bright, as it was when many of us who sit in the House today went out into the world of work as students, one could say students are able to earn those funds. But with jobs scarce and with even the government announcing it is reducing the amount it's going to pay students for working in the summer, it's an increasing burden on those students. I think it's going to lead to restrictions on the number of people who can go to university. I am very concerned about that. I was somewhat annoyed when I listened to my favourite network, where one person was saying: "I listened to Bob Rae in that caucus room, and boy, was he prepared for the students. When they asked him about tuition increases, he said, 'Don't you realize we're just taking you back to what it was in the 1960s?'"

Well, indeed. I thought the man with sideburns and the thick glasses and the radical words of the 1960s was there to fight that kind of system. Today, he's extolling the virtues of it. I'm surprised by that, but even more surprised that the commentator would be taken in by that particular answer by the Premier of the province.

I hope the government will reconsider. I hope we will not punish the students. Everybody recognizes that they have to pay a share, but the tremendous increases, over 20% over the next two years, and the increases we have seen point to the fact that this government is not prepared to go to the defence of those it used to talk about with a good deal of enthusiasm when it talked about abolishing tuition at colleges and universities.

I regret that the amount of time available has expired under the new rules that Bob Rae has established in this House, and for that reason I will have to await the comments and questions of members.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Comments and/or questions?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): When the Liberals were putting through their interim supply, we had a few problems in those days, and the honourable member who just finished speaking wasn't very happy when we'd start asking about the 33 tax increases and the way this government expanded and enlarged itself. I wouldn't mind if, in defence of the Liberal regime of David Peterson, the honourable member would take a few moments to tell us how he can defend his 33 tax increases against the 32 tax increases. I guess you didn't have time to get to it, Jimmy.

The thing is, the people of Ontario still haven't forgotten the legacy of the Peterson years. During that period, you saw a government, in one of the biggest booms Ontario has ever seen, spending the money with great abandon: allowing the bureaucracy to increase in size; suggesting that we move offices out of Toronto to different parts across the province; all kinds of efforts to make junior kindergarten mandatory in schools; adding extra costs to municipalities on the regulation of the court systems. As that government went ahead, it just thought there was no limit to the amount of money.

Then when they left office, they said, "Oh, there's a surplus here." I wouldn't mind if you'd comment on the wonderful surplus your government described, some $23 million, that turned out to be a $2-billion deficit. When you come to the mathematics of government, I know the honourable member would enjoy recounting how he justifies the misappropriation of public funds during their years in office. The people of Ontario still haven't forgotten, and I just thought I would take this happy moment to ask you why you didn't include some of those thoughts in your recent speech.

Mr David Winninger (London South): The member for St Catharines addressed many different subjects during the course of his remarks today, but I really have to take issue in my response to some of the remarks he made about tuition and access to post-secondary education.

We know for a fact that the province of Ontario has the highest level of access to post-secondary education of any province in the country. The problem right now, however, is this: With more and more people unemployed, looking for new jobs and seeking training and further education, it's paramount that we have spaces available at our post-secondary facilities, be they community colleges or universities, to accommodate this thirst for retraining and education.

One way to do that is to ensure that the level of tuition is at a level comparable to many other provinces. Many learned studies have shown that the student should contribute approximately 25% of the cost of education. This has been the case in the Maritimes, for example; it will now be the case here.

The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, which includes the University of Western Ontario in my area of London, called for annual increases of 10% over this and the next two years, to ensure that we can protect the quality of our educational programs and also to ensure access.

David Stager, an economist of note at the University of Toronto, did a rather conclusive study on the subject of tuition and access to education. He found, to cite Australia as an example, that increases in tuition bore absolutely no relationship to access to education.

In conclusion, experience and academic studies have shown quite the converse of the argument that the member for St Catharines put forward with respect to tuition.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I want to congratulate the member for St Catharines, who always speaks so well on any topic, but I think particularly on money matters. He certainly did mention a number of things we are very concerned about with this government.

It seems we have proof that the election buses are being revved up by this government. I'm really concerned, as we all are over here, about the legacy this government will leave for the future group to take over. It really doesn't appear that deficits right now are uppermost in their minds.

One thing I know the member for St Catharines is always very concerned about, and I am as well, because we were privileged to be teachers at one time in our careers, is the incredible continuing deferral of payments to the teachers' pension fund. This taking a three-and-a-half-year holiday from making any payments against the $8-billion unfunded liability is something we should be very concerned about.

I remember that when our government attempted to make sure the unfunded liability in the teachers' pensions was addressed, we had incredible opposition from the teachers' group. Now I have to wonder just what is going to happen at the end of three and a half years, when a government has to all of a sudden come up with payments. Of course, they are going to be incredible lump sums. This is very, very worrisome, and the member for St Catharines is always concerned about this, as many of us are.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If not, the honourable member for St Catharines has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Bradley: From 1981 to 1984, Mike Harris supported the Conservative government in 16 tax increases totalling $1.823 billion. I've sat in this House since 1977 and I've seen Tory governments raise taxes, particularly regressive taxes, on people constantly. But I didn't get into that, because I think we have to look to the future of this province. I don't think we can dwell on partisan bickering. I can list all kinds of Tory taxes.

I know we're the enemy now. The Liberal Party is the enemy because we happen to be ahead in the polls. I think we'd all be wise to dwell on what's going to happen in the future, what we are going to do about the future, not fighting the old battles of the past.

1640

I've got plenty of ammunition. I remember when Premier Davis was going to buy a jet. It was going to cost in excess of $10 million. It was for the comfort and convenience of members of the cabinet and senior government officials. I had to get up virtually every day and ask him about the jet until he finally withdrew that. I understand those old days, but they're in the past and you don't hear me talk about that much any more.

In relation to the comments of the member for London South, all I'm saying is I find it appalling that anybody from the New Democratic Party, which advocated the abolition of tuition for students at colleges and universities, would get up and somehow defend these very significant increases in costs to students, because they used to stand for access, they used to stand for the little person. I suspect many members of the government are uneasy about that.

Lastly, I'd like to commend the member for Northumberland, Mrs Fawcett, for bringing up the issue of pension funds. I wish I had time to address that because, when I look out at young people in this province, I wonder where the money is going to come from to pay for their pensions, as this government continues to rob the pension plans of this province in order to make the books look good at this time.

The Speaker: Is there further debate? The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: When we look at what this government has done, we have to look at the failure of this government to look after the responsibilities of the finances of the province in a good way. Anything you have touched as a government has in some way lost its shine and lustre.

I'd like to talk for a moment about one of the issues that may have dropped off the front pages of the newspapers but it sure isn't off the front pages in York, Durham and Peel. It has to be this government's singleminded decision to build three megadumps in the urban shadow of Metro Toronto.

When you think of the process that was started by the Honourable Ruth Grier, who brought into the government in October 1991 Bill 143 -- Bill 143 at that time gave the government the authority to establish the Interim Waste Authority, which would become the agency of the government to establish three huge megadumps. They identified 57 sites and then they went through an artificial process of looking at those sites.

They caused communities in York, Durham and Peel unbelievable anxiety by virtue of selecting sites that were in the Rouge Valley, in the Oak Ridges moraine -- prime agricultural farm land, sites that are on the headwaters of the Don and the Rouge, sites that have archaeological value beyond belief. This government began that process. As they began that process they began to spend money and began that whole ideological war with the rest of the province as they said, "We are going to have dumps in the urban shadow of Toronto."

They made an ideological or political decision that prevented consideration of other methods of getting rid of waste. They became lords and masters of all wisdom based on the political ideology of their members, and that was to discard the whole thought of the possibility of energy from waste or incineration; to disregard the possibility of transporting waste to other sites where there may be willing hosts.

No, the only option open by this government was going to be through the Interim Waste Authority's review of possible sites. Then, as they got down to the short list, you saw finalists. Aren't they lucky people? In York, Durham and Peel you had three major sites in each area that were considered.

Meanwhile, the clock was ticking. Meanwhile, money was being spent. Now we're down at the final stage where the government has selected its final choice in Caledon, over in Peel, one in York region -- and the one in York region will serve all of Metropolitan Toronto and it's located right at the border of the city of Vaughan and on King township -- and then one over in Whitevale: three sites, huge megadumps.

How much do you think it has cost to carry out this terrible process of governing that this government has followed with the Interim Waste Authority and through Bill 143? Have you any idea? It's in excess of $50 million already spent on this process, $50 million wasted, thrown away because the government has failed to look at other options.

They have failed to look at the possibility of rail-haul. Mind you, they can live with garbage being shipped to Ohio or to Detroit, where it may be incinerated, or other options, but within Ontario this is an unrealistic, unfair approach to dealing with it.

The communities are incensed. I share in their anger, because if there is anything that will lose every seat for every New Democrat in York, Durham and Peel, it's going to be the garbage question, because if anything identities this party as being a failure, as being a group that has misappropriated government funds to pursue ideological warfare against the people of those areas, it is this government.

If it's any government that has come along before it was elected and said, "We will open this up to a full environmental assessment" -- Mr Rae, who was then Leader of the Opposition made those promises and assurances in Whitevale, at York, at the Keele Valley site, and he made them at Britannia and Peel. There are witnesses to it. When he was elected, he backed away and has pursued this wrong agenda to build megadumps in these communities, and has done so at the cost of $50 million.

That's part of what we're talking about today, the interim supply and the government paying salaries for people to do what the government wants them to do. What a horrible waste of money. What's it going to cost before it's finished? The estimates of the expropriation of the land will be in excess of $65 million more.

It's over $5 million in Peel, another $29 million in Durham and another $30 million or so in York, at least by now $115 million spent on a wasted exercise, because when a new government takes over, I can assure the people of Ontario, there will be a new approach to dealing with this. Certainly the Liberals have already committed to backtracking on what the government has done, and our party has as well.

There is pain, the hurt, the anguish of the thousands of people in these communities who continue to fight. Today I just received the latest edition -- I mean, here's a community fighting for its life -- of The Impact Zone, citizens opposing the proposed King-Vaughan landfill. They carry on the battle, a lonely battle as they come along. They can do cartoons that show rats welcoming people to King City, but it's just a horrible thought of what's going on within our communities.

The people of our communities will not forgive Mr Rae, Ms Grier, Mr Wildman and the New Democrats for their failure to understand our communities. If the Toronto Star is accurate in forecasting that this government is beginning to get ready for an election, then it's not too late to stop spending and wasting government money, our tax dollars, on a process that is flawed and that is wrong, that is going to lead nowhere. Those dumps will never be built. What you're doing is just throwing away the money of the taxpayers of Ontario.

I say, as a constituency issue, that the people of my community in Markham were angry then when we were fighting for our community, to prevent those sites from being selected in Markham. We continue to fight with the people of York, Durham and Peel who continue that lonely battle to fight the Bob Rae government.

On constituency issues, I have one today. I can't mention the name of my constituent, but a very fine gentleman who is in early 50s was in my office today. He lost his job back in, I guess, May 1993. Within the time frame that's allocated, he went to the offices of the province of Ontario on Bloor Street and entered in his application for the Transitions program. He saw himself as one who really met the criteria for Transitions. He's a resident, a citizen of Ontario, he's older than 45, he's been laid off in the last six months, he's out of work. So now he's saying, "What can I do to get some help?"

1650

The Transitions program says there's a $5,000 training credit to people who apply. So this constituent of mine applied and has applied and has applied. He applied for the funding and has not had a response; he hasn't had acceptance. Instead, he's gone ahead and he's applied for programs at George Brown, he's had high costs in what's going into it; still no response from the Transitions program, which has been moved from the Ministry of Labour over to the Ministry of Education and Training.

I say, if this is a government that wants to do something for people, and it has all the words that indicate that it wants to do something for people, then why don't you have systems that work, that respond to the applicants, the supplicants, the caring people who want to get back to work?

Here is a 53-year-old who is out of work and wants to get back in the workplace. He knows that his skills need upgrading. He's prepared to do everything to do that. He's demonstrated that already by attending courses. Yet why has the system under this government become so archaic and antiquated and rusty that people who do apply don't get a response?

It is inconceivable to me that this government doesn't stop and get its house in order so that those who are on the line and have skills, capabilities and interest to do something are in some way helped. That's the intention of the Transitions program and it is failing. We're dealing with a specific instance and I illustrate it in this presentation today, and I will attach these Hansard remarks with the name of my constituent and the detailed backup information, and I will call upon the Minister of Education and Training to do something about it, to respond to his personal need.

I have had in my constituency office, on an average of one a week, people who are trying to apply for funding and support from the province of Ontario through existing programs and they're caught up in a quagmire, they're caught up in the quicksand of a government that seems to have lost sight of those people who are the ones who have responsibilities to fulfil. They don't want to be out of work; they want to get going, and in order to get going, they need to get into a program and learn.

I had a situation of a woman who had applied and was to start a special program in March and the funding wasn't available. Now she's going to apply for May and she's told that the funding won't be available till June. She's now going to be expired; that program will not be offered again. She's losing her chance. Time is running out and the government has not corrected the problem.

I write letters to these people, we all write letters, and we're not getting answers. If only someone within those ministers' offices could understand the urgency of the people's needs -- men and women who have been part of the building up of our province, caring, good people with children, families, responsibilities -- who for circumstances beyond their control lost their jobs. Don't we owe something to them, if we have all the words in all these documents that the government puts out on its special programs, to follow through on them?

Maybe what you need is another Mr Martin. Dale Martin has been doing something in a positive way to help cut the red tape within the government when it has to do with the developmental process of new growth within the province. In fact, one of the surprises to me is that Mr Martin has succeeded in speeding up some of those processes that were caught in the red tape of government. Maybe what this government needs to have is a few more ombudspersons who will be available to people like the ones who I'm seeing in my riding office, because it goes into the system.

You're just wasting your time when you write to the Ministry of Labour, and it's almost as bad to Education and Training to get a response. If I could get some commitment from these people as to the speed and dispatch that they're going to deal with the situations of people, then it would be a sense of having fulfilled my purpose as an MPP. But I'm not getting those answers and I go away more and more frustrated.

One of the questions I have on the order paper is, I'm asking each minister to give me an answer on how long it takes them to answer letters, what their letter response policy is. Because I have letters coming back from ministers in response to my earlier correspondence that are six and nine months old. How incomprehensible that the ministries can allow their systems to be so lax and so unresponsive as to not get back to other members of the Legislature sooner than that. When we write letters on behalf of constituents, we're hoping to expedite something; we're hoping to get a solution. What we get is stonewalled.

It's tremendously grievous to all the people we're trying to serve when a government is closing its door and closing its mind to the responsibility of serving the public. That's what we're here for. We're here to serve people, and if you can't have the courtesy to respond to people and to react to the needs they've got, find a way to do so. The mail must just pile up because of the lack of response coming through. You've got the computers, you've got the people, you're going to get the money approved for the interim supply that continues to pay the salaries of the offices of the bureaucracy. Then why in the Sam Hill can't we start to get some real answers to the questions that we're asking?

The question I ask about this good person who came to me today who is applying for help within the Transitions program typifies something of the frustration and the problem of people who are saying, "Please help me." They come to me, a member of the Legislature, and all I can say to this good man, and the woman the week before, is, "I'll do my best." I'll tell you -- I'm sure members from the other parties as well would share this -- I'm not satisfied with what my best is. It hurts me. I'll do everything I can to help people. I plead, in the most positive way, may this government understand the urgent need to respond to the individual needs of people who are out there who are crying for help.

Those are my two local stories. When I talk about the Interim Waste Authority and Bill 143 and that whole process, that will go down in my memory as the worst three years of my life in fighting Mrs Grier and Bob Rae and this government on their stupid positions with regard to having huge landfills within the Metro Toronto area.

The second biggest upset that I have as a member of the opposition is the lack of respect and regard by the government and its systems. When you talk to the individual ministers -- and there have been a number of instances where those ministers have been very, very forthcoming in trying to help find a solution -- the system isn't working right now and I'm pleading that they will look at the urgent needs that are coming through their offices and do something about it, not just words. Get it so the system starts to work.

I'd like to comment for a moment, if I may, on the failure of this government and the social contract. Last year, when the social contract was brought in, on behalf of our party I introduced some 29 amendments that would have modified the social contract in a way that we felt it could become more workable, and none of our amendments was approved. At that time the Liberals, who were opposing this social contract, made no amendments to the bill whatsoever. They were so opposed to the process, for whatever reasons -- I'm not to comment on the Liberals -- that they at least made no amendments at all to the legislation. We at least tried to bring in amendments that could have made it more workable. None of those amendments was accepted, not even the easiest one of the lot, where I asked the government to report to the Legislature within a year following the introduction of the social contract to tell us just how well it was going and give us a report card on the money saved and jobs lost, just a report card on the accounting of the effect of the social contract.

The government turned down that amendment, along with all the others we had. So doing really means the government doesn't have to come clean and tell us just really what is the net impact of the social contract.

Further to the whole debate on the social contract, I put order paper questions in, and these are the questions you write out carefully. I was asking to gain access to look at some of the social contract agreements that the different sectors had agreed upon and submitted to the Minister of Finance, as was required under the bill. The government has prevented myself and my researcher from having access to review those contracts. We're now into 10 months since those contracts were submitted and piled up in rooms somewhere in Queen's Park Crescent, and I still haven't seen them, so how do I really know what transpired between the province and those different sectoral groups? I get the reports once in a while, but I have not been satisfied. What the government has done is successfully stonewall the opposition from gaining true insight into the impact of the social contract.

1700

A lot of people will give credit to the Premier for at least having had the courage to stand up to the unions and the public service. If you call that courageous, you might also have started to think about the long-term impact, because the social contract, in my view, provides only short-term savings. At the end of the three years, there will be significant payouts and catch-up days given under the terms of the social contract. We don't know what the total cost of the future impact of the social contract is going to be. Not unlike wage and price controls, when they were lifted from Ottawa a number of years ago, there was a bubble that had to burst after it was over, and we're going to taste that not too long from now.

I don't think this government can eliminate the layoffs and the economic damage all this is going to cost, because when the social contract is over, there is going to be still more work to be done to bring the bureaucracy and the civil service into the kind of condition and shape it should be.

Probably one of the worst things that's happened during the past year with the social contract is that the eye of the government is off the issue of serving people. So many people have been wrapped up in social contract discussions and debates and issues and the days off -- the Rae days, as they're so often called -- that they really haven't been able to concentrate on how to do the job better, how to serve the community better. Maybe that becomes part of the reason my constituent I just talked about on the Transitions program hasn't been able to get answers. People would use the excuse, "Well, we had a Rae day," or "We had a day off," or "We were doing social contract things."

The priorities of this government have become confused and unfocused during this period, because the effort that's gone into the social contract is not worth all the damage and everything else it has created. There are ways this government could have provided for the savings and the downsizing, and it could have been done without the kind of damage that has been perpetrated on both the public service and the people of Ontario by virtue of the way this has been done.

I believe the government has chosen to trample the rights of workers and management throughout the public service in a way that is almost irreparable. For us to sit by and be able to do nothing about it is one of the most frustrating things as a member of opposition: conscientiously presenting a series of amendments, hoping to do something about it, hoping to find a way to build compromises into the system, and singlemindedly the government went ahead with its plan. They did not restructure our government system to ensure long-lasting savings. They came out with a program that will make it look good for them for one or two years, but the next government to come into office is going to have a very major cleanup to perform.

During the last several weeks, our finance and economics committee has been meeting in preparation for the future budget, and there are a number of recommendations our party put forward. With the help of Mr Carr, the member for Oakville South, we came forward with a 20-page document outlining some 20 recommendations. I'd like to touch on a few of those, because the danger exists right now that the government may be acting on a number of assumptions that people are going to support their changes.

First of all, we are asking the government to reject all the recommendations of the Fair Tax Commission. I don't know how many millions of dollars it cost to come out with their 1,000-page report. We are just saying that the recommendations of the Fair Tax Commission really will discourage saving and reduce the saving rate in the province of Ontario. We see the Fair Tax Commission suggesting that there is room to increase payroll taxes in Ontario. They make a number of suggestions about how we move around the property taxes, to move educational funding elsewhere, yet they leave within their recommendations the possibility for educational taxes to come back again. I suggest that this government just let the dust accumulate on it and let it be set aside for the foreseeable future. The Fair Tax Commission really has nothing to offer to bring us out of the doldrums.

May the government also recognize the profoundly negative impact on the business community of the Workers' Compensation Board assessment. I had another call this morning from another constituent. He had just received his assessment, and he just can't believe how big the bill is. If there's anything that kills the incentive for job creation, it is just this kind of bureaucracy we're building in Ontario.

Our party is suggesting that workers' compensation become an issue of importance to the Bob Rae government. Let there be an immediate freeze on all entitlements to people within the WCB who are calling on it for help. Let there be a reduction in benefit levels from 90% to 80% of their net earnings. Let there be a replacement of the political appointees in the WCB management structure and bring in insurance professionals who can help set that ship of state in the right direction. Introduce spending controls and value-for-money audits within the WCB. Let there be a cost-benefit analysis of the privatization option and of the option of contracting out certain services and functions.

The WCB is a mess. It's got beyond a $10-billion unfunded liability. It's just beyond the ability of the people of Ontario to understand how the WCB will ever get out of it. This is going to be a continuing cost to the taxpayers of the province.

I'm suggesting as well in our report that the government of Ontario eliminate the $50 corporate registration fee, as the compliance costs for that fee for businesses are greater than the fee itself. You don't call it a tax any more; you just levy a brand-new fee. Companies have to pay the $50 fee: Either they pay it or they're deincorporated. There are lists and lists and lists of those companies now delineated in the Gazette. I suggest the government should just eliminate that process; that the system is just another gouge on businesses, another inconvenience for them, and it's also another cost for this government to process.

We as a party are committed to repealing Bill 40, the labour legislation brought in by this government last year. We would like to bring in legislation that would democratize -- that's the new word: democratize -- the organized labour movement in Ontario, and we would include requirements for broader use of the secret ballot within the labour movement.

We believe also that the government of Ontario should adopt a balanced budget law, modelled on the one introduced in New Brunswick and Alberta, so that we as a government are moving towards the day when we will have a balanced budget, not living beyond our means, not building a deficit of over $10 billion. I mean, $1 billion or $2 billion was bad enough, but now when you look at the accumulated deficit -- and "deficit" is just another word for deferred taxes -- it's over $70 billion. The cost of paying the interest alone on this deficit for Ontario now almost exceeds the cost of our health care, the cost of our education. Let's start bringing our money under control. Any organization or any government that is overspending to that extent is living beyond its means and should move towards a balanced budget law.

There should be a moratorium imposed on the non-profit housing program. I have an excellent article here, and if I had more time I'd get into it, to just describe the cost of the non-profit housing program in Ontario. It isn't working. It's going to cost, for every 5,000 units that are built, over a 35-year period, when you look at the cost of those units and the subsidies that are going into it, it's going to be $1.75 billion.

You're making decisions that may offer short-term jobs and opportunities, you may have an opportunity to help people, but there are definitely other ways of addressing the housing needs of people in the province of Ontario rather than the housing program that has been endorsed and built up by this government.

1710

We believe strongly that the government has to act immediately to link the welfare budget to skills training and job creation initiatives, to improve the management and accountability of the social assistance program and to reduce the losses due to fraud and poor administration.

The whole problem with social assistance -- the question was asked in the Legislature today by the member for Wellington as he was talking about the way in which people are abusing social assistance in Ontario. The cost of social assistance in Ontario -- if you had it to the same terms and guidelines as in other provinces, we could save over $1 billion a year.

Let's begin to look at reform of social assistance, not only to look at getting rid of the fraud, but tying it into future opportunities so that people will not see it as such a huge, comfortable existence but as a safety net that allows them to get back out and work. We are supportive of a strong, wholesome social assistance program, but let's have it so it's balanced; let's have it so that it works for people.

Reading articles about what's going on in Wisconsin and different jurisdictions, there are ways in which we can work together with those who have the need. The government can come up with these innovations. It just can't continue to do it as it is. I will close off at that point.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Markham for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I want to comment on my friend from Markham here and some of his comments and maybe some of what he left out. It's easy, I know, and you can fall for that trap, so I've been told, when you're in opposition, to only criticize and not look at the good things.

He didn't mention, for example, something that I think is a good benefit for the good folks up in Durham-York, like the FarmPlus program. There's a program that wasn't talked about -- I think it was just an oversight; he probably would really have liked to talk about it as the Finance critic -- where there can be credits given to people who are going to lend so that we can continue on with the farming community that active stuff that does take place.

There is some political rhetoric that takes place in a debate on a monetary issue like this. My friend and colleague here might argue that Bill 40 is a terrible piece of legislation that shouldn't have gone forward, but of course he doesn't reflect on the fact that you know for the past couple of years we've had less downtime in this province due to strikes because of things like Bill 40. Labour relations are really moving along quite well.

I know over the last few days there were lots of arguments in this Legislature that, "Let's see your plan. Let's see what you're going to do. Let's legislate those Hydro workers back to work," before we even allowed that negotiation process to take place. My colleague here talked about a few of those things, talked at length about welfare, but didn't talk about the child and family support plan, which can help those women get the payment that's been court-ordered to them so that they don't end up on assistance or the drain on assistance itself isn't so high.

It's easy when you're in opposition to only be critical. I just caution the member not to get caught up into the opposition rhetoric of it all but put a little bit of balance into it, as I'm sure he would have if he had maybe more time. Maybe he'll do that at the end, in his two minutes.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I actually was quite impressed with a number of things the honourable member for Markham had to say. I must admit that normally I'm a little more used to him entering into a tirade against former Liberal governments and I congratulate him for concentrating on some of the issues of the day and, as the member for St Catharines said earlier, not perhaps dwelling in the past or continuing just to throw unwarranted attacks around this place. I thought many of the points were quite valid.

The $50 fee to business is something the member raised. That is something I've heard from a lot of people in my constituency who are quite upset about that. I think what upsets them more than anything is they don't understand what it's for. Imagine you have a business, you have a corporation that has been functioning for a number of years; you even have one that's just sitting on a shelf and is not particularly active, and you get a notice from the government simply demanding that you've got to fill out this application to keep your charter alive and, by the way, send in $50.

They don't say that there's a purpose, that they're attempting to, I don't know, perhaps solve some problem in the relationship between the business community and the consumer division of the government. We don't see any attempt to turn around and explain these kinds of things to people.

It seems to me that in the middle of the middle of the night a light went on and the Minister of Finance said: "Aha! If we charge every corporation registered in this province $50 to send us in their address, whether it's changed or not, to send us in information, whether that information has changed in years, $50 times a whole bunch of companies can make a lot of money."

I think there are a lot of things that the member has pointed out that this government is doing without any reasoned approach to the taxpayers who pay the bills in this province.

Mr Turnbull: The member for Markham has brought cogent comments to this debate, but the most important remark that he made was on the need for balanced budget legislation. He spoke about that, and it's something I feel very strongly about, because all of the people of our generation have piled up debts for future generations to pay off.

The pages who are here should pay particular attention. Your parents and all of the people in this assembly are not going to pay off the debts that are being built up, that have been built up by all political parties, but none more so than this current government. We have about $70 billion worth of debt in this province today. It's unconscionable. There's always the belief that somehow around the corner there's going to be the moon and the stars to pay off this.

It's not true. These young people are going to end up paying for it. That is why we need balanced budget legislation, so that we stop any political party from any of the malarkey that this present government has got into, where it is piling up debts, it is hiding debts. As we pointed out, it isn't being hidden from the bond-rating agencies.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Cut social services. Cut the education for young people.

Mr Turnbull: I hear one of the NDP yapping away. They should pay attention to the fact that debt is being piled up for the young people to pay off in the future. It is not fair. If ever there was something that the whole of this Legislature should be unanimous on, it is the fact that we should stop piling up debt and we should have balanced budget legislation so that no government of any political stripe will be allowed to pile up those debts. For that, I compliment my friend the member for Markham.

Mr Winninger: I'm really quite disappointed to hear the member for Markham, who should know better, fail to acknowledge many of the constructive initiatives this government has taken, not only to protect existing jobs but also to create new ones.

The numbers are quite impressive. We're looking at 300,000 jobs the government has been involved in either protecting or creating just over the past few years, starting with the anti-recession fund and then the Jobs Ontario Capital, Housing and Training programs, and more recently our participation in the Ontario-Canada infrastructure program, just to name a few. I forgot to mention the community action fund.

The member for Markham denigrates a program for older worker adjustment which has proven to be quite successful. There are 24,000 people currently receiving benefits under the program, there are 1,000 individuals applying each month to the program and the total budget for the program is $17.1 million. Clearly, we're not only interested in protecting and creating jobs for younger workers; we also have a very concerted campaign to see that older workers are not forgotten, that they're given the necessary skills they need to continue to compete in a changing economy.

The member for Markham also mentioned social housing. Quite frankly, many have noted that the majority of housing starts in Canada are right here in Ontario, and the majority of those housing starts are due to social housing funding from this government, which not only creates affordable housing, an enduring asset for the people of Ontario, but creates a number of short- and long-term jobs that this economy so desperately needs.

1720

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Markham, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Cousens: I thank other members for their comments generally. Especially, I'd like to thank the member for York Mills. I compliment him for the leadership that he has given to our party and the very commonsense approach that he brings to this House. The member for York Mills, as a businessman, certainly understands the reality of the real world and is trying to bring that kind of leadership here. I appreciate his support on these fundamental issues of the economy.

I also thank the member for Mississauga West. He raises the point again about the $50 fee, and the question is unanswered by this government, why that extra tax? If you look at the cost of these taxes that have been raised by this government in the last several years, it has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, because those jobs have left Ontario for ever. Chesebrough-Ponds, in my own riding, has just announced that it will be closing down its operations and consolidating elsewhere in the States, and some 200 jobs of some of the best people in our community are now disappearing. Those are people whom I care about and I think we all do.

The problem we have is that the member for London South fails to recognize that I support the Transitions program, but isn't it tragic? People who are fully eligible, with the dream and the hope and everything else, are turned away. They don't get the help and they don't even get an answer. So the process for letting those applications be clear and understood just doesn't work. I'm in favour of doing the right thing to help people. You say the right words but it's not happening for them.

To the member for Durham-York, I appreciate it's hard to come out with balanced, positive statements, but one thing I'll say that the government has done and done well, and it followed through from the Liberals: 407 is under way. When Bill Wrye announced it that was good news, and when this government continued the promise, that was good. We have to continue to build an infrastructure, and that is essential to make this province strong.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Any further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Her Majesty's government needs supply and of course the old maxim applies, "No supply without a redress of grievance." I have two or three items, at least a couple of which could be categorized as grievances, that I would put before the Assembly this afternoon. But let me begin on a positive note.

As the member for North Renfrew, where the concern is overwhelmingly about jobs, one of the sectors in our part of the province that is most important to economic growth and job creation and job protection is the forest economy. To its credit, the Ontario government, under the Ministry of Natural Resources, has just produced what I call the Brown report, which looks at critical issues of forest policy and timber supply to the sawmills of Pembroke and Barry's Bay and Mattawa and Eganville, those small and large communities in my part of the world which employ hundreds and thousands of people and which, without the forest economy, would be staring at unemployment.

That sector has been through an extremely painful four-year downturn, though there are some indications that the worst is now behind us. I think the government is to be congratulated for this Brown report, a review of wood supply and distribution in the southern portion of the central region of Ontario, authored by W.J. Brown of the Algonquin Forestry Authority, which is a crown agency of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

This is I think a very good blueprint for the government to consider. There must be an action plan. The people of the Ottawa Valley are expecting that this government and any subsequent government will take the necessary steps to address the key issues and the very constructive advice which the government has received in this report.

One element of the report I want to focus upon, however, is that the government is warned by Mr Brown, a distinguished forester and well-known public servant in our part of Ontario, that if there are any more withdrawals from the forest economy -- in other words, if the government reserves or withdraws any more of the timber supply in east-central Ontario -- communities like Pembroke and Barry's Bay and Bancroft and Eganville are going to face a more difficult time and those withdrawals will in fact aggravate the unemployment situation rather than help it.

Anyway, a good report, I was pleased to receive it and I hope the government moves forward with its implementation, as I believe it will.

As Energy critic for the official opposition, I want to take a moment today to say how pleased I am that we have apparently averted a Hydro strike, and I will be very interested to see what the terms of the tentative agreement involve. As has often been observed in these matters, the devil is in the details, and I expect that we will find some measure of devilment in the details of this agreement, but I do want to congratulate both parties for coming to a resolution.

I note the intervention of the Premier. Bob Rae has carried on the tradition of Bill Davis and David Peterson and John Robarts, which tradition is simply this: that in any matter of significance at Ontario Hydro, the Premier is in fact the minister in charge, as it should be.

There has been some interest, by the way, on the part of some in the media and in the community as to where we stand as legislators in so far as Hydro as an essential service, and I'd like to take a moment to simply put on the record my view and the view of the Ontario Liberal Party.

We of course support the collective bargaining process and we think that it should in fact be given every opportunity to produce a resolution. But there is no one, and certainly no one in the Liberal caucus and no one in Ontario in my view, who would dispute the obvious fact that Hydro and electricity are essential, vital services. There is no dispute of that. The Liberal Party of Ontario believes electricity to be a vital, essential resource.

But it does not follow, from our point of view, that then the only option is to lock the giant utility and the government into the cumbersome and very expensive and not at all satisfactory option of compulsory binding arbitration. We believe that this is not the best alternative in this connection. We think, recognizing that Hydro is an essential service and recognizing now, with the preponderance of our electricity coming from the nuclear plants, that we cannot take a strike -- and everybody who knows anything about the electricity business in Ontario today knows that we cannot take a strike. There's certainly no one at the bargaining table, no one from CUPE 1000, no one from the professional society of engineers at Hydro and certainly no one in the utility business, whether it's Hydro or the local utility, who really believes that, with 65% of our electricity now coming from the nuclear plants, we can actually take a strike.

Having said that, there is another instrument I think that is there to protect the vital public interest, and that is the instrument which we saw used last weekend: the Premier of the day standing in his place, whether it's Bob Rae, David Peterson or Bill Davis, and saying, "If you don't settle in the collective bargaining process, I will settle it for you, and we will intervene as a government to legislate that there will not be a strike." It seems to me that this is, as a practical matter, an instrument that has evolved over the last number of years and is useful, is practical and it works, apparently.

I want to say to the House and anybody who's watching that I was surprised to hear my friends in the third party asking almost for -- I believe it's their position -- automatically compulsory binding arbitration for the giant utility, because any of us who know anything about the problems of that in the areas of police and fire don't want to bring those problems, those costs and those rigidities to the very complex subject of electricity and utility management across the province.

In summary on the Hydro question, I'm pleased that we seem to have a tentative agreement. I hope the deal holds. The devil will be in the details. I expect to see some devilment in the details, and stay tuned, because I think the debate will continue as we come back after Easter.

I believe in the collective bargaining process. Though my colleagues and I affirm that Hydro is an essential service, a vital service, we can't take a strike, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to lock into compulsory binding arbitration, which is certainly not our preference.

We think the vital public interests in this whole area, which are obvious, can be protected, as they were protected this time and in the past, by a prime ministerial directive, usually fairly late in the process: "Settle, or I and the Legislature will settle it for you." I want to be clear on that so there is no confusion as to where the Liberals stand on the question of Hydro as a vital or essential service, and the second issue: What is the best instrument to achieve and protect the public interest, which is real and obvious in this respect?

1730

Mr Winninger: Why didn't Lyn say it?

Mr Conway: Well, I'm the Energy critic, and I'm simply putting the party position, as I have just done, on this aspect of the question.

I want to move to two other subjects, quickly to tuition. I am really upset about the government's policy of increasing tuition for college and university students by 10% this coming year and 10% the year after.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): What would you have done?

Mr Conway: I want to say to my friends opposite, what would I have done? By your deeds, ye shall be judged. I want to say, in the pit of one of the worst recessions in memory, where youth unemployment is, as a practical matter, now probably approaching 25%, we have said to young people, who are still the largest group of college and university students, "You can afford to pay another 20% by way of a tuition increase over the next two years."

I am not saying that there ought not to have been a tuition increase, but never before has there been an increase of such magnitude. No government in my memory or in my research has ever imposed such a huge increase in tuition on students, particularly young people. And we've done it when? We've done it in the late winter of 1994, when all of us, whether we're Liberal, Tory or New Democrat, face a parade of bright, talented, well-educated young people coming to our offices, coming to our homes and saying, "There is simply not much, if anything, for us in this apparently jobless recovery."

I want to say to the government, and I want to say to anybody else who's listening, including the Toronto Star editorial writer who wrote that piece on tuition increases the other day, more or less agreeing with the government, that my point is simply this: We have stuck these kids, these young people with a walloping increase at a time when their futures are more clouded than at any point certainly in my lifetime.

I ask this question, and I ask it to all in the House and everyone beyond, but particularly to the university community: What corresponding sacrifice have we asked for and exacted from my tenured professorial friends and from the university bureaucrats? I think this is unfair and it is unseemly, and it is a terrible, terrible signal to send to the young people of Ontario and of Canada, that somehow in this awful recessionary environment, "You young people can afford to pay 20% more."

When I talk to my tenured professorial friends, I don't get any sense that they have given this kind of blood. When I talk to university bureaucrats, I don't get any sense that they have been asked or have in fact offered up this kind of sacrifice. I say, I hope in a -- I was going to say "in a non-partisan sense." I suppose it can't be that. But what are we telling young people? I've been here 20 years, and I have never seen the despair and the hopelessness facing an enormous group of extremely bright, want-to-work, want-to-succeed young people. What kind of signal, what kind of priority?

It's obvious to me that these young people are not organized. They don't have a Bob White or somebody leading their parade in the corridors of power. They don't have the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or some big business lobby. I'm telling you, we'd better think about this.

I understand the government's fiscal problem. I'm not arguing for 0%, but 20%. An unprecedented, record high increase at a time when these kids are facing horrible choices, in a decade where apparently it is going to be increasingly difficult for young people to find permanent, satisfying employment. So more and more of these people are going to college and to university to upgrade their skills, to improve their education, and we nail them at the door with a 20% increase. And we have the Premier, a bright guy, a good guy, I've got to believe, saying: "Don't worry. All this does is put the tuition back to where it was, in relative terms, in 1967 or 1968." I can't believe that.

I was a student in the late 1960s. I asked the research department to get me the statistics. Do you know what the youth unemployment stats were in Ontario in 1966 and 1967? About 3.5%. That's about full employment. I remember those days in the late 1960s. For guys like me and Jim Coyle, sitting up there in the press gallery, and many of the rest of you who are roughly of my age, when you graduated from high school --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I'm just saying he's someone I know who's roughly my age.

I say to my friend Mr White, who I was reading about in the Waterloo Lutheran Alumni Review the other day, for anybody who's 40 or 45 years of age, you will remember well those days in the late 1960s when there were two jobs for every one of us. Now we have unemployment rates in the youth category, 15 to 24, of well over 20%. They're actually reported at 19.5%.

We are sending a terrible signal to the young people of Ontario that somehow they can afford to shoulder a very disproportionate share of this current burden. I ask again, have we asked a corresponding sacrifice really from the tenured professors and from the university bureaucrats?

Oh, they'll tell me at Western and at Queen's and at Laurentian that they've given a tremendous amount of blood. I am not convinced. Before the president of the University of Toronto and the president of the University of Western Ontario and the president of McMaster or the president of Queen's say, "Now, Conway, you're a former minister; you should know," all I know is that the young people I talk to today are extremely concerned about their prospects, and Bob Rae has sent them a signal that I think is altogether the wrong signal. We should be concerned about the kind of priority or lack thereof that shows to the group that is, in my view, the most disadvantaged in our society at the present time, particularly in terms of employment.

I want to turn, as a last matter today, now that I've got myself a bit worked up, to another subject that really has me bothered.

Next week, I say to my colleagues, the House will welcome a new member, the member-elect from the district of Victoria-Haliburton, Chris Hodgson by name. I want to congratulate Mr Hodgson. I don't know him, but I know the family. He comes from a very distinguished public service, political and business family in the great county of Haliburton.

He will come to this place like his uncle Glen did in the 1960s and 1970s, and I think it was his great-uncle Claydon Wesley Hodgson, who sat for a number of years as a distinguished Conservative member of Parliament in Ottawa for Victoria-Haliburton. He won a hard-fought battle, and I congratulate him for that victory.

I want to say to the House that I was involved in that by-election and I was deeply concerned by one aspect of the campaign. I want to say to my Conservative friends that they had an excellent candidate and they ran in all other respects a creative and very innovative campaign. The video, the postcard I thought were excellent, and I want to congratulate them for that. As I say, I know Mr Hodgson and I think he is a fine young man and will do very well in this place. But he comes here with a cloud over his head, and he did not put that cloud there.

We saw in the Victoria-Haliburton by-election a politics of prejudice that deeply troubles me. We are also witnessing in this province today a very significant development, a very significant development in Ontario today. We are witnessing the death of one of the great parties in this province in the 20th century: The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, which was the colossus in this province for many a decade and which governed as a moderate, centrist party, in the main, for much of the middle and later years of this century is dead and it's buried.

We have in its place a new party being born, called the Ontario Reform Conservative Party, led rather vigorously by Michael D. Harris, MPP from Nipissing. Mr Harris has taken his new party, the Ontario Reform Conservative Party, radically to the right, and he makes no apologies for that. That is of course his right as a party leader and as a politician.

1740

What I saw in Victoria-Haliburton on the question of same-sex benefits is a deeply troubling issue for me as an elected official. I want to say at the outset, I say sincerely to all members, I understand the room for an honest difference of opinion on that sensitive subject. I've said to my constituents that I will not be supporting Mr Murphy's Bill 45. I explained that to them months ago. I understand how others in this place will have a contrary view and that's the health of our system. That is the health of our system.

But what I saw in Victoria-Haliburton -- and I have just one of the ads, they were radio ads. This ad appeared and it was no doubt written by Tory central here in Toronto, because the Hodgson family, in my experience, would not stoop to conquer in this fashion. Let me just read the ad that appeared in the Victoria-Haliburton press in mid-March. It is sponsored, authorized, by the Progressive Conservative Party.

"Vote for job creation, not same-sex benefits. The Liberals and the NDP are pushing a new priority, giving gay and lesbian couples the same benefits as married couples. Only Chris Hodgson and the PCs are opposed. Chris believes that government should be focused on job creation, not on new spending schemes that will increase the cost of doing business in Ontario and drive jobs away. If you think that jobs should be the first priority for Victoria-Haliburton, vote Conservative on March 17."

My late grandfather sat in this place for the better part of 20 years, a long time ago. He used to talk to me about what he called the poisonous vapours of the back concessions.

He remembered until his dying day, and he was almost 102 years of age, a notorious by-election in eastern Ontario in November and December of 1936, the famous and awful battle of Hastings East where religion was the issue. It was probably one of the most expensive and one of the ugliest campaigns this province has ever seen.

One of his colleagues at the time who became a friend of mine later on was David Croll, then the only Jewish member, one of the very few Jewish members of this assembly. David Croll had a very distinguished public life. I remember David Croll telling me, very late in his life, that he had never seen such prejudice as he saw in that Hastings East by-election in 1936, when a calculated effort to make religion and prejudice around religion was made in that connection.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Listen, I am trying to be straightforward, and listen, none of us, I suppose, has the exclusive province on virtue in this respect. I know enough about the political history of Ontario to know that.

But I can't remember, when I think about east Hastings -- when I remember in the national capital in November 1980 when again, and I'm sorry to say it was the Tories in that campaign injected the language question into the Carleton by-election that perhaps the Minister of Housing will remember. And boy, it was Tory code, again eliciting all of the expected prejudice that you could imagine.

Now we have Victoria-Haliburton. I mean, how else would you take this? The Tories are for job creation and the Liberals and the New Democrats have as their top priority same-sex spousal benefits.

My friends, we are as a group of elected politicians in very bad odour and there are a whole series of factors for that. Our currency is debased. In some ways I think it is the most debased coinage we have seen in a long time and some of that debasement originates outside of our immediate circle.

But I want to say, and I want to say particularly to Michael Harris, that he would engage in what I can only call this kind of malicious fabrication, appealing as he did knowingly to base prejudice, he is playing with fire, because we live in a very complex, multifaceted, multiracial society.

I simply want to say, Mr Speaker, through you to the House, that this is a fire that, once started, may not be controllable.

A hundred years ago, there was a guy named George Marter, who succeeded a very progressive Conservative leader who never did win high office, W.R. Meredith. George Marter decided that the future for the Conservative Party then was a sharp turn to the right and exploit issues of prejudice. He came to nothing, and the very much more centrist and moderate J.P. Whitney, from my part of the province, took over the leadership of the party and brought that party into a moderate mainstream.

Mr Harris is perfectly within his rights, I suppose, to lead his Reform Conservative Party wherever he wishes to lead it. But I want to say that that ad campaign around that subject -- and I say again, I recognize that it is a debate that affords a range of opinions, and it is sensitive. If you know anything about politics, you will know that issues around language, sex, religion are very, very explosive, and we have an obligation, and party leaders most especially have an obligation, as Abraham Lincoln once said, to appeal to the better angels of ourselves.

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, this ad campaign produced a victory contaminated by disgrace. And I can say, after six campaigns and after having been here 18 1/2 years, that I do not want office so badly that I am prepared to stoop to this kind of politics, because I'm going to tell you, if I have to win with this kind of incendiary pitch, then what I have won is worthless.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Yes, but they don't see it that way, Sean.

Mr Conway: Well, I say to my friends everywhere, we are on the eve of an election campaign. We are on the eve of an election campaign, and we all know it is going to be a hard-fought campaign. We are also now a political culture where each of the major political parties has won the responsibility of government. And surely, surely, that experience in each of our parties has taught us something. It has taught us something about the sensitivity and the responsibility of government in office.

When I hear party leaders, as Michael Harris did in this case, blowing the dog-whistle of prejudice, when I hear the radical right-wing code being punched on all those highly sensitive buttons, I worry for my community and I worry for my province.

You know, the member for Markham, the Rev W. Donald Cousens, I believe the human rights critic for the third party --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I'm telling you. The Rev W. Donald Cousens, who has made many a passionate speech in this place about human rights, I find out is in the business of drafting petitions, very pointed petitions calculated to incite on this subject, and in fact circulating the petitions on a calculated basis out into the hinterland as part, I think, of some kind of devil's pact with the radical right, asking for these petitions to be signed and, "Please return to Don Cousens, MPP for Markham and PC critic for Citizenship and human rights," the same Don Cousens who presented this House not long ago with Bill 55, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code.

The fact of the matter is, when I see this Harris campaign, this malicious fabrication, calculated, aforethought, to exploit the most sensitive issues and some of the most delicate divisions in home, community and province, I look to my friends in the Conservative Party. I look to people like Liz Witmer and Dianne Cunningham and Charlie Harnick and Ted Arnott, to name but four, people whom I know, whom I respect as good and decent and honourable people, who have stood in their place here and have gone home to London and to Arthur and to Willowdale and made I believe the right commitment on these issues. I ask myself, does Charlie Harnick, does Dianne Cunningham support this radical move to the right and this premeditated calculation of exploiting some of the baser prejudices in our society?

1750

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I simply want to say --

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: How dare you.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills, please.

Mr Turnbull: Sir, I ask this member across the way, the member for --

Mr Conway: My time.

Mr Turnbull: -- the member for Downsview to retract his comment.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I haven't heard anything. If the member for Downsview has said anything wrong, you are an honourable member and I expect that you will apologize. Please do so.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, all I suggested --

Interjection.

Mr Perruzza: Yes. If by saying to the member for York Mills that he was part of the train --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, I'm asking for an apology.

Mr Perruzza: I'm trying to --

The Deputy Speaker: Do you have an apology?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: It was once written that politics was at one and the same time the most noble of the arts and the most soiled of professions. I want to say that in Victoria-Haliburton a few weeks ago we saw a pile of soiled linen. We would all do well, as we consider an approach to the people of Ontario, to remember Lincoln's very wise injunction. Let us all, and party leaders especially, remember to appeal to the better angels of ourselves, for to do otherwise would be further, in my view, to debase the already discounted currency in which we deal.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills, you have a point of order?

Mr Turnbull: No, not a point of order. I wanted to comment on the last speaker's speech.

The Deputy Speaker: Two minutes' comment.

Mr Turnbull: Unfortunately, two minutes is not adequate to respond to it. I appreciate my colleague the member for Renfrew North and the forthright way that he presents matters in this Legislature usually. I believe that he is fundamentally trying to play politics in this issue, because I will say to you, sir, that I very proudly campaigned with Nancy Jackman in the St George-St David by-election. She is an avowed lesbian. I will fight for the right of anybody of any sexual orientation to have fair representation.

The point that was made during the by-election was this, sir: It was only that jobs should be the top priority of this government. Instead, we have heard that the government's priority list, according to the press that so royally likes to flail the Conservatives as having moved to the right -- that same press are the ones that have reported that the number one priority of this government is to introduce same-sex benefits.

I will not be supporting the same-sex benefits legislation, for the simple reason I believe that we have too many expenses for both companies and for governments today. We must concentrate on jobs and only jobs.

I am annoyed that I do not have a fuller opportunity to respond to the member for Renfrew North, whom normally I have a lot of agreement with, because I think he is for political reasons trying to cast the Conservative Party, through that tactic, into the far right. We are not, sir, a far-right party, but we are a party that believes that the marketplace should work and that we should remove a lot of legislation and a lot of the tax burden which is on companies, which should be the priority of this government.

Mr White: I'd like to compliment the member for Renfrew North on his very eloquent speech and to comment as well upon the very difficulty that he brought out at the tail end of his speech -- very difficult times. At the last he cited a by-election during the Depression and the difficult times that we as a government have during this recession.

Winds of intolerance are blowing across this land when we see people rising to positions of power, when we see political victories, based upon the basest of what we are as a people. I think it is very difficult for us to resist those, and those are the things that this government has stood for very strongly and very keenly: not just jobs, but we see there to be no contradiction between social justice, social equity and a jobs agenda. There is no contradiction between people having a fair share in our community and there being jobs created for our entire community. We see that with the numbers of jobs that have been created and with the level of social justice that has also been created during these last several years.

I know that my friend from Renfrew North would have no disagreement whatsoever with many of the planks that we have put into place. I think these reflect the better parts of our community and I'm sure they have his support. I think this combination of jobs and justice is difficult to withstand when we have an attack from the far right of inequity being trumpeted and, frankly, some of the worst community spirit.

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : Je voudrais également féliciter mon collègue de Renfrew-Nord pour l'exactitude de sa présentation. Nous connaissons mon collègue de Renfrew-Nord depuis nombre d'années et nous savons très bien qu'il est éminemment capable de décrire très fidèlement une situation qui est très grave.

En ce qui a trait à la dernière partie de son discours, je n'ai pu que noter, justement, qu'il a touché une corde très sensible auprès de mes collègues du troisième parti. Effectivement, ce que nous avons vu dans l'élection partielle de Victoria-Haliburton, c'est une situation que les gens ont vécue quand même assez difficilement, et malheureusement je pense que ce sera un peu un augure de la prochaine élection provinciale générale qui aura lieu en Ontario dans un avenir pas trop lointain.

Je pense que la description qu'a faite mon collègue de Renfrew-Nord, c'est une description très fidèle de ce qu'ont ressenti les gens. C'est très inquiétant lorsqu'un groupe parlementaire va viser et préciser et se concentrer sur certains points en particulier lorsque l'économie de tout l'Ontario et de tout le Canada est en train de subir une révolution qui ne s'annonce pas pour le meilleur.

Donc, moi, j'admire le courage de mon collègue de Renfrew-Nord. Je trouve qu'il a décrit très fidèlement une situation qui était très difficile à vivre, et je pense qu'il dit très fort ce que plusieurs personnes ont pensé tout bas mais qui n'ont peut-être pas la verve et la facilité de dire la vérité de la façon dont mon collègue de Renfrew-Nord est capable de le faire.

J'espère que la prochaine campagne électorale ne sera pas une répétition de ce qui s'est passé dans l'élection partielle de Victoria-Haliburton. J'espère que non, mais j'espère que ce sera une campagne qui va être beaucoup plus propre et qui va se concentrer sur les vrais dossiers de l'heure : la création d'emplois et le bien-être de l'Ontario globalement et du Canada.

The Deputy Speaker: Further comments?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I want to make some brief comments in response to the comments made by the member for Renfrew North in respect to the Conservative Party in Ontario and the Victoria-Haliburton by-election.

Clearly, the comments were inappropriate in respect to the debate today on interim supply. Aside from that, they were extremely offensive, but I'm not surprised, having watched the member on the night of the by-election and the venom that spewed forth on television that evening from the member for Renfrew North.

We've heard the NDP member supporting his very nasty remarks in this chamber, but I want to point out to the viewers that these comments are coming from members of parties who lost a by-election. I think the viewers should keep in mind that what we're hearing here are sore losers trying to address one issue in a campaign, when the reality is that we had an outstanding candidate in Victoria-Haliburton, an outstanding organization and an outstanding leader in Michael Harris.

Mr Perruzza: For this kind of politics you strap yourself in.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr Runciman: I think, again, the member's comments are not surprising. Frequently, we have this holier-than-thou response from the member for Renfrew North. His arrogance was typical of the Liberal government. That's why they're no longer in office.

In respect to Victoria-Haliburton, I think his remarks can also be construed as a significant insult to the people of Victoria-Haliburton. They did not make their decision based on one issue alone; they made it based on a host of issues and they made the right decision.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Conway: Let me say again, I know the Hodgson family. He is a very fine young man. He will, I think, do very well in this place, as his uncle did and his great-uncle did in Ottawa. The Conservative campaign I said in most respects I thought was very creative and very innovative and I give them full marks for that. Of course I don't like to lose, but I understand what happened there. The public is never wrong, and I've lost before.

I say to my friend from York Mills, I thought I said that there were a lot of good things. Chris Hodgson ran a good campaign. I believe he is a good guy. The brochure and the video were great, very creative, very innovative, and I give full marks for that. I don't believe this is sour grapes.

I am angry about one thing. I'm angry about this ad which says, "Vote for job creation, not same-sex benefits," print ads and radio ads that said: "The Tory priority is job creation. The Liberals' and the NDP's only priority is same-sex spousal benefits." I repeat: That was not done by Chris Hodgson; that was done by Mike Harris and Tory central. That was, in my view, premeditated and it is a malicious fabrication.

Then I see the petitions which are being distributed presumably by Don Cousens, the Rev W. Donald Cousens, MPP, PC human rights critic. I ask you to look at these petitions and ask yourself, who's playing with fire?

I say in conclusion that we have an obligation on all sides, most especially as political leaders, on the critical and divisive questions, to rise above the base prejudices, for if we do not, we will run the risk of propelling our society backwards into an abyss where government for any of us will not be worth a jot or tittle.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr White: No. It's after 6.

Mr Eves: I'm already up on a point of order. The member for Renfrew North was eloquent, as usual, if not somewhat opinionated during his remarks. I only heard about the last five minutes of his remarks, but perhaps you, as Speaker, could enlighten me and tell me what they have to do with interim supply.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1804.

30 mars 1994