Journal des débats 1994-mai-12 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Mr Martin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 158, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation de renseignements sur les adoptions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It is indeed a great honour for me today to be able to stand here in this place and present to the House for its consideration a package that has been worked on by a number of people over quite a period of time: the Minister of Community and Social Services, Tony Silipo, and his staff, and members of various coalitions and organizations across the province and across the country who have an interest in this subject, a very personal and vital interest in this subject.

It is in fact a package that is very much part of a larger agenda which we as a government in this province have been aggressively moving on and doing some creative and courageous things around, an agenda that in our country and certainly worldwide is gaining in momentum. It's an agenda of empowerment and of allowing people to reclaim their right to celebrate who they are and where they come from and a right to know everything there is about that, something that many of us take for granted in our society today.

Today's package is about integrity, honesty and sharing, and particularly about openness. Openness means empowerment for those who are directly affected. This special contract is better served when each participant has an equal say in the process. We wish to readdress the balance of justices not practised in the current legislation.

I want to focus for just a few moments on the philosophy surrounding adoptions and say that openness will create better relations for everybody involved in this process. The present laws are discriminatory in nature and create great difficulties when it comes to people trying to work their way through it so they can get the information they need to get on with their life.

This bill is supported widely across this province, and indeed across the country, but most particularly here in this jurisdiction, by all known adoption advocacy groups, and they see this piece this morning as a major first step towards meaningful reform of the adoption process.

This bill represents the overwhelming support of adoption advocacy groups province-wide. These groups include, but are not limited to: the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario; Parent Finders Inc, Toronto; the Adoption Council of Ontario; Adoption Support Group, from Barrie; Adoption Awareness Support system, Thunder Bay; Citizens Concerned With Adoption, out of Ottawa; Parent Finders, from the Hamilton district; Family Finders, from Kitchener-Waterloo; Adoption Awareness Self Help Group, from Timmins; and Searchline, in Nepean.

These groups are made up of everyday Ontarians who share a common role, purpose and understanding. They are members of what has classically been known as the adoption triangle: They are birth parents and birth relatives, members of families who for various reasons had to relinquish their biological children; they are adult adoptees, those who were surrendered at birth or afterwards and have since grown to adulthood; and they are adoptive parents, couples who chose adoption as a viable way to create and participate in a loving and caring familial relationship.

Statistically, one in five Ontarians is touched by adoption either directly or indirectly. There have been over 206,000 adoptions in Ontario since the early 1920s, and presently there are 9,000 adoptees waiting for a search to be done on their behalf by the reunion registry staff. Currently, there is a seven- to 10-year wait for service. It is costly and not as effective as many of the private practitioners' methods used by various search and support groups. It has become obvious that the reunion registry does not work, nor does it encourage honesty and integrity in its practices.

There is absolutely no doubt that adoption plays an integral and essential part in the formation of families in Ontario and in Canadian society. However, it is also a modern institution in desperate need of reform.

1010

This bill represents a crucial first step in addressing some of the inadequacies that have been perpetuated under the present legislation. These adult adoptees, who at the time of the adoption had no choice in the arrangement, find themselves in a position of intense bewilderment surrounding some very basic issues of identity. This bill can readdress these problems and retain one of the most basic human rights, one that every other citizen in Ontario has, and that is the right to know where you came from.

We have seen numerous government studies, commissioned reports, briefs to successive governments, petitions by adoption advocacy groups over the years, with subsequent agreement by these governments that change was coming. We have seen the McLelland report in 1976 calling for open records; we have had the ground-breaking Garber report in 1985 which called for open records; and most recently the adoption disclosure consultations from October to May of last year, in which province-wide consultations were undertaken by ministry staff with adoption groups and private practitioners also recommending a more open approach to adoption.

We have supporting data and stats from other jurisdictions around the world that have open records: England, Scotland, Australia, Israel, New Zealand and some states of the US, to name a few. What I've read is, they are working and working well, and the practice of disclosing identifying information upon request has not proved to be harmful to any of the parties involved. Our closed and antiquated system encourages oppression, dishonesty and secrecy, and no longer reflects the will of the majority of its participants. We have an opportunity here to take a progressive stand and one that other provinces will soon emulate.

To date, I have not seen any organized opposition to the required changes, although I know there are some people out there who have some concerns. I invite members in the House who are sceptical that these new laws would threaten the stability and function of those adoptive and birth families and the role that adoption plays in Ontario to come forward with these names and organizations.

Key arguments that have been levelled against the rights of the adoptee having access to identifying information are: the historical argument that this kind of legislation would breach the right of privacy promised the birth parents by the social worker who facilitated the adoption as a matter of policy. This contract does not exist. There was never a contract that stipulated such a demand. Besides, even if there is a verbal agreement, the third party in the process, the adoptee, was not informed nor did he or she have any say as to the lifelong nature of the conditions of the right-of-privacy philosophy. This bill would readdress the discriminatory nature of this misunderstanding.

This next step in the reform of adoption legislation is for each party, once they have reached adulthood, to have equal access to identifying information on persons they are related to through birth or adoption. This means that birth relatives would have access to the adopted names of the adoptees once they have reached the age of majority. This rebalancing of the rights would address the issues of the right of kinship inherent in the adoption, regardless of the adoption taking place. There would be a contact veto in effect for the adoptee as well as the birth parents, with identical provisions for each.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill 158, which would amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act respecting adoption disclosure.

As you know, this is a subject that must be treated with the utmost sensitivity. Sadly, I see no real commitment to sensitivity in Bill 158.

For more than 20 years the NDP and indeed the Premier himself have made written promises that they would give adult adoptees access to their original birth records. In fact, I recently received a letter from a member of the Adoption Reform Coalition which stated, "We feel betrayed [by] Mr Silipo['s] lack of response and...the failure of the NDP to keep their word to 'open adoption records to adoptees and their parents.'" Now, when this government has the power and the opportunity, it is retreating, it is regressing.

As late as December 6, 1993, the Minister of Community and Social Services wrote to members of the Adoption Reform Coalition that he, the minister, not someone else, would "pursue amendments to adoption disclosure provisions." In other words, the minister would present a government bill.

Follow-up meetings promised in February and March never took place. It's now obvious that those promises will not come to pass. I remind the House that Bill 158 is a private member's bill, not a bill introduced by a minister as a government bill, and I suspect that adoption disclosure reform is not a priority of the NDP government. Some interested parties are labelling this bill as a weak-kneed and lame-duck attempt to right wrongs being presented by a dying NDP government.

Of special note is the fact that there is no commitment, no commitment at all, to startup costs to initiate the changes contemplated in Bill 158. Each of us knows that the minister will not or cannot proclaim the bill until the resource issues are settled.

The questions that stare us in the face are, will the Minister of Community and Social Services really approach the Treasurer, will the Treasurer support his request, and when will this all happen?

I again remind the House, this is a private member's bill. A positive financial commitment is therefore much less than certain. There's absolutely no evidence in the recently released budget of 1994 for the implementation of this complex piece of legislation to have the necessary accompanying resources.

In a meeting in January of this year, I urged the minister to undertake changes within the parameters of existing legislation. In his letter of December, which I've already referred to, this minister committed himself to "take all action possible within the confines of existing legislation." I challenged and encouraged the minister to do so, as soon as possible.

Regretfully, I must say that to this point I personally have seen very little evidence that these modest initiatives really got off the ground, initiatives such as publicizing the adoption disclosure register, the production of a pamphlet containing information about agencies willing to provide counselling or assisting in a search for birth relatives or improvement of accessibility to application forms. Each of these initiatives could be a small but helpful step that would indeed give adoption disclosure a higher profile in our province.

Administrative and regulatory changes, such as broadening existing discretion on the part of the registrar and the reallocation of staff resources, could provide some overdue efficiencies to a very overburdened registry. However, many believe, and I agree, that the opening of the records, as suggested in Bill 158, could be, and likely would indeed be, the best cost-saving measure this minister could take.

1020

If I may turn to the no-contact veto provisions of Bill 158, which are complex but important, these provisions place the onus on the birth mother to press charges or obtain a restraining order should she consider her privacy violated, and they impose financial sanctions which some view as very difficult. My hope is that the compliance will be as high in Ontario as it is in other jurisdictions if this bill ever sees the light of day, thus making very difficult circumstances as positive as possible.

I believe that Bill 158 represents a Queen's Park solution which does not address many real concerns. The real concerns of birth parents, adoptive parents and indeed some adoptees are left wanting. If I may quote again from the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario, "The limited proposals of Bill 158...do not...meet the demands of support group leaders from most of the...province...other than as a first step in a procedure to be continued as quickly as possible."

Some members of the Adoption Reform Coalition have suggested that an outside body at arm's length from the government, such as the Ontario Law Reform Commission, for example, could have been assigned the task to develop comprehensive reform which would've taken into account all the legal, social and economic ramifications of adoption reform in a systematic and professional way. But of course that was not attempted.

The fact that this is a private member's bill confined within the very limited debate of but one hour demonstrates that even in the light of significant and growing problems with the disclosure dilemma of people in this province, it is still very, very clear that the minister does not have cabinet support for his initiative, and we won't even know until after today's vote if he has his caucus's support.

Despite my lingering concerns about the NDP government's commitment to its promises and some of the provisions of Bill 158, I will be supporting this bill on second reading. I do, however, believe that placing it in a legislative committee will give this issue the public profile it deserves and give all affected parties across the province an opportunity, with sufficient notice this time, to present their views.

It is true that in late 1992 and early 1993 consultations took place, a process which has been described by some as undemocratic, biased in intent from the outset and indeed limited in scope. This very limited consultation process was by invitation only and took place in but six centres across the province. Now we have a very limited debate.

I end as I began. This is a subject that must be treated with the utmost sensitivity, and it has a broad area of interest of many across this province. The members of the NDP government have an opportunity to take real, positive initiatives. I challenge them to do so.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'll be extremely brief on this. I rise to support this bill today, but I do want to get some issues on the record.

It certainly is true that successive governments have failed to act on repeated recommendations that it should be easier for adoptive children to get access to their records, and when I say "adoptive children" I misspeak myself; I should say "adults who have been adopted."

I have been lobbied, to use the popular word, by one of the staff who works for our caucus and is just somewhat alarmed about some of the implications, and I hope that I've been able to assuage some of her concerns. She feels very strongly, the person who lobbied me, that it is tremendously important that it be a mature person who receives this information, and she felt that somebody who was legally of age, at age 18, with all of the pressures of growing up, may not be the best age to accept information about birth parents. But it is indeed important that we make the information available, and this bill goes a step towards that. I believe the government should have brought in more sweeping legislation, as it has promised in the past. Instead, they've sloughed it off on a backbencher bringing forward legislation. That's unfortunate, because what we do need is more sweeping changes to legislation.

I will tell you of a situation that occurred in my riding. There is the aunt of a child who is in the care of a crown wardship who has visitation rights for this child. I believe the child is six or seven at this moment and has a good relationship with the aunt. The child has been put up for adoption, and the aunt is most concerned that the visitation rights will be removed if indeed the child is adopted, based upon information that she has been given.

She wrote to a federal member last September, and the letter was then passed on to Marion Boyd's office. After repeated requests for information as to what was happening with the letter, she was always told, "We're doing further research and we can't sign off on the letter, but an answer will be forthcoming." Finally, in March of this year, my constituent received a letter which reads:

"Although in my former portfolio as Minister of Community and Social Services I had responsibility for the Child and Family Services Act, in my current position as Attorney General I do not have any direct authority to review that act. Accordingly, I can only suggest that your concerns be addressed to my successor, Tony Silipo, the present Minister of Community and Social Services...."

This is six months later. This constituent had continually been told, "We're working on a response." Why didn't they tell the constituent in a more timely fashion?

My constituent has written the following:

"I'm attaching the letter I received from the Attorney General's office, which I found to be very disappointing. I was extremely angry to receive such a letter after patiently waiting for a response for over six months. This doesn't help my situation at all.

"I find it difficult to believe that Marion Boyd does not have 'any direct authority to review that act.'

"Where does this leave me? Am I to start all over again with Mr Silipo, or am I simply to give up at this point?

"The matters that we have been discussing since September will soon be finalized."

What she's speaking about is the adoption. She doesn't want to lose contact with the nephew, with whom she has a loving relationship.

So I think the government should move expeditiously with a piece of government legislation to respond to this. I notice the minister is in the House, so I would say this is something which reflects very badly on your government. When there is a concerned relative corresponding with the government, they shouldn't be treated this way. We should have a reasonable response so that the constituent can appropriately go to another minister if that happens. I will leave that with you, Minister, and I hope maybe you will respond during this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further debate.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am glad to have the chance to both be here this morning and to spend a few minutes speaking on this bill. I know it's not particularly useful -- usual, rather -- that a minister participate necessarily in private members' debates. But I wanted to be here because I think and I hope that my presence will be useful. I wanted to express in this debate, as I have done both privately and publicly, my own very strong support for this bill and my thanks particularly to the member for Sault Ste Marie for taking this initiative and putting forward this piece of legislation.

I have to say, before speaking directly to the issue, that not having participated for some time in discussion on private members' bills, I find the atmosphere hasn't changed very much from when I used to attend these sessions very regularly. What we hear, at least judging so far -- I don't want to predetermine what we're going to hear from other opposition members who have yet to speak on this, but I find it a bit unfortunate, particularly on an issue like this, that members of the opposition tend to spend much more of their time focusing on attacks on the government than dealing with the issue of the particular piece of legislation that's in front of them.

1030

While I understand the views around the issue of private legislation versus government legislation, I would also hope that we not lose sight of the issue that's before us. The importance, it seems to me, at the end of the day is whether we can achieve legislative changes to this area, which is a very important area. I think people have at least noted that and I'm glad to see, at least from the speakers we've heard so far, that there has been support expressed for the bill even with all the reservations they may have about either the content and/or the fact that there isn't government legislation.

In any of the discussions I've had, in any of the letters I've written, I've been quite clear in saying that there is not as yet a position of the government to support or bring in or give me the authority to bring in legislation. That's a question of fact and I think that's clearly there. What we will see today is the expression of this Legislature in what I hope will be support of this bill.

I think that is significant, because I hope also, particularly for members sitting across the way but I know very strongly also felt by members on this side of the House, that the role of private members is something that needs to be supported and strengthened. If a member brings forward a piece of private legislation, as the member for Sault Ste Marie has done today, and if that warrants support, we should give it support and we should collectively put all of our energies as individual members of this Legislature to have the issue carried forward, have the issue debated and result in some changes and some improvements.

I will continue to do everything I can to support the direction that's in this bill. I hope the bill will make its way to committee. I will certainly be supporting that, because I think there are some issues that need to be discussed. We will continue from the ministry to pursue, together with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the issue of additional resources that are required to put this piece of legislation into action if it is passed, but I hesitate not at all in saying to you that I will continue to do whatever I can as the minister responsible to ensure that the issue is pursued and that the changes in the law take place, because I believe very strongly that they need to take place.

I believe that what is in this bill strikes at the heart of what people have been saying to us for some time, which is that people, particularly people who are adults and have been adopted, have a right to the original statement of birth, and this bill would give them that right. We have to balance that right with the right of birth parents who do not want to be contacted. This bill also gives those individuals that right by the establishment of a no-contact veto; that added to the steps that we have already taken.

I'd be quite happy to send again to the member for Ottawa-Rideau a list of the changes and improvements we have made already under the present legislation and the ones we are working on, fairly actively I might say, beginning with better publicizing of the registry, which is right now under the present law the only mechanism available for people to be able to make the connection. It shows that within the confines of the existing law we are doing as much as we can to pursue this issue.

There's a lot more I would want to say, but given that other people on this side of the House also want to speak, I will sit down. I'll just conclude by reiterating my complete support for this piece of legislation, and I urge all members of the House to support it.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Je dois féliciter le député de Sault Ste Marie pour avoir le courage et la volonté intestinale pour présenter un projet de loi privé. Je dénonce cette façon-là de présenter un projet de loi privé parce que je crois que nous avons tous une grande connaissance dans ce genre de projet de loi.

On vient de recevoir l'assurance du ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires en nous disant que oui, le projet de loi de M. Martin va passer devant un comité parlementaire. Je regrette que le ministre des Services sociaux n'ait pas eu le courage de présenter ça au nom du gouvernement ; alors on emploie un député de l'arrière-ban. Je suis fier parce que j'en suis un et je suis fier que M. Martin ait eu le courage de le faire. Mais par contre, depuis mon arrivée à Queen's Park, on parle d'un tel projet. Je me souviens, en 1990, des grandes sorties du premier ministre de l'Ontario et de tous les gens qui voulaient faire partie du gouvernement NPD. C'était une priorité que de donner accès aux gens qui voulaient avoir accès concernant leur adoption.

Ce matin on se retrouve dans une Chambre presque vide et on parle d'un projet de loi aussi important que celui-ci. Je dénonce encore le manque de courage du Ministre et du gouvernement de l'Ontario de ne pas avoir le courage de dire : «Oui, c'est la volonté du gouvernement. C'est la volonté de tout le monde en Chambre.»

On se cache, et je ne veux pas dire qu'on se cache en arrière de celui qui présente le projet de loi aujourd'hui, mais on emploie d'autres outils pour dire que le gouvernement fait quelque chose. Ce n'est pas le gouvernement qui fait quelque chose aujourd'hui concernant ces gens inquiets depuis trop longtemps. On se cache derrière les arrière-bans pour présenter un projet de loi aussi important.

It's unacceptable for us to sit or stand this morning having to listen to the minister responsible for this type of legislation just stand and say, "I will be supporting this bill, and this bill will go to a committee." Why didn't the minister have the courage to do it on his own? It was part of your agenda. You never had the courage to do it. You received thousands of letters, I'm sure, and petitions from people asking you to move on this very important bill.

This morning I will support the private member's bill because it's long overdue and I'm anxious to go into committee and to fully debate this very important bill. I'm sure the Minister of Community and Social Services will receive many more letters criticizing him personally and criticizing the government for not taking on that responsibility, because I think it's most important for all of us today to support this bill and to show the government that it lacks the courage, because it had the support.

Whenever a government doesn't introduce a bill entitled a government bill, it shows that they don't have the courage and they have to use other tools to improve their situation and to try and satisfy the needs of Ontarians. I will support the bill, but I denounce the lack of courage of this minister.

Mrs O'Neill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member for Ottawa East has reminded us there is no quorum in the House, and I think for this important bill there should be.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The debate may resume.

1040

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I am very pleased that we'll have an opportunity today to devote an hour to debating private member's Bill 158 dealing with adoption disclosure and amendments to the various acts in Ontario.

I am going to be supporting this bill, as I have consistently indicated, both personally and on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, our support for these reforms for so many adoptees in this province.

I hasten to add, though, that it's unfortunate that the process is unveiling itself in the fashion that it is, because it is extremely important that the citizens of Ontario understand how important and how sensitive an issue this is, yet it will, in and of itself, be mired in a whole debate about political second-guessing.

I guess the groups that represent adoptees in Ontario have every right to be angry and almost cynical with the process, because, in all truth and honesty, they've been spoken to by three different governments, they've seen the results of three substantive investigations and commissions looking into this issue, yet today, as we sit here in Ontario, they are no further ahead in terms of accelerating the agenda for reform in order that they can have the dignity of access to their birth records.

I want to caution all members that we all own a bit of the responsibility for the fact that we have failed a very large number of Ontario citizens.

I'm pleased that the minister is in the House; it's a rare occasion. At least to have his presence during private members' time, as he indicated, is important to this debate. He has invited both the Liberal Party critic and myself to a variety of meetings, and I want to thank him for that. I must say I don't think we've made an awful lot of progress in the process of those meetings, but they have been open and frank discussions, and for that reason much of what we are about to say in this debate is also fair and open, for the record.

First of all, let me say how pleased I am that the minister found a backbencher who would sponsor this bill. I want to commend the member for Sault Ste Marie for coming forward. We had been told by another member of the NDP caucus last June that the minister and the ministry were seeking a member of caucus to carry forward this bill. Although the member for Sault Ste Marie may be late to this public debate, he is to be commended for using his precious private member's time for such an important issue. I want to publicly thank him for that.

When he states in his opening paragraph that this is part of his government's larger agenda, moving aggressively and straightforwardly on a rights issue, I think he's exercising a literary licence which is extreme at best.

In fact, three of the adoption rights organizations were present at Queen's Park earlier this week on Monday, in the shadow of Mother's Day, to demonstrate their concerns to everyone here at the Legislature in their press conference. Holly Kramer, who is a reform activist with Parent Finders Inc, indicated, and I quote from her comments:

"While the content of the bill agrees with our proposals, many are outraged that the NDP government would use the lame vehicle of a private member's bill to introduce it, when they have the power to enact such legislation."

Those are not my concerns. Those are the very people this bill purports to help. This is the area of concern: There has been considerable debate about the content of the bill and it is fully supportable. It is thoughtful. In areas that are extremely sensitive there is a compromise which I think is supportable. We have not heard serious objections from all the participating families and their emotions that are involved here.

However, what is of concern is how this bill might actually get enacted. So there are very legitimate concerns. Some are interpreting this sort of machiavellian approach to bringing forward to the House a bill and then allowing it to die in obscurity on a committee agenda or not ever to be raised by the government -- that is a legitimate concern.

All members of the House will be familiar with the debate on the social worker act. A private member from the government brought it forth. Has anybody heard of or seen the social worker act for Ontario since it was last debated during private members' time? The answer is no. It has fallen -- it hasn't even fallen to the bottom of a list, it's fallen right off the table at cabinet discussions. So there are legitimate concerns.

When Holly Kramer makes these statements, she has good reason to be concerned. The minister has expressed comments. The minister has said he hopes we can achieve legislative changes. I hate to break the news to you, but you're the person who sits at the cabinet table.

Minister, I would like to say that I'm really anxious to hear what it is you're doing over there. When I attended the meeting on adoption reform, you said, "Honestly, Cam, we can't bring it forward because I've got welfare reform to do and I've got child care reform to do and I'm under pressure to get resolutions to our ministry's responsibility with the Young Offenders Act."

Minister, I hate to break the news to you again, but your cabinet has taken all those things off your plate. According to your legislative agenda for this year, you have a lot of time on your hands. We would really like you to get more active and involved. If the issue is who's listening at the cabinet table on children's issues, that's another issue, and I would like to relieve you of the responsibility for that. I think that's a larger issue for your government and of course the Premier of Ontario.

I want to also indicate and contribute to this debate about a new and emerging compelling reason why we should be listening to this bill and we should be approving it and we should be moving quickly to approve this bill. One of the reasons is that, as you know, the bill says that one year after a non-disclosure registry is created we'll allow the process to begin.

If the minister hasn't even gotten a confirmation about approximate costs from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who'd be responsible for the registry, we could be two or three years, even if we got approval today, the way this legislation is drafted.

But one of the compelling arguments has to do with a child's right as a young adult to have access to some of their medical history. Their medical history is part of their biological history, which is not the purview of the adoptive parent but of the birth parent.

I have a case that I brought to the Minister of Health's attention, not that this is a typical case, but a case where an eight-year-old child in my constituency -- the children's aid society lied to the adoptive family. It said this child came from a healthy, happy family, there are no medical problems.

This child is suffering serious problems with his health and what we've been able to uncover by finding the birth parent -- the mother's 28 years old, she's confined to a wheelchair and she's gravely ill, the father was a persistent drug user. This information at the time of adoption, if it had been shared, may have changed the parents' minds in terms of adopting, but more importantly, it holds the key to the child's understanding of their medical problems and their condition.

I say to the members of this House, there are some very important rights issues about a child's right to have their medical access to opportunities for their own health and safety. There's much more I would like to say. I'm concerned that there's no costing for this bill. I'm concerned that the government is perhaps going to move it to committee of the whole House or off to a committee for study.

In conclusion, if this government has indicated that there be no more social assistance or rights legislation for any citizen in this province until adoption rights for same-sex couples are approved by this government, I want to say to this government that's an offensive set of priorities. These people have been before the government for 17 years asking for justice and to be heard, and I challenge this government to respond.

1050

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am very pleased to stand in my place this morning and support my colleague and friend the member for Sault Ste Marie in what I see as a very important piece of legislation that we must be committed to, crossing party lines to pursue this once and for all.

I think, and I have shared this with a lot of adopted people, that adopted people have the right to know who they are. They have the right to know who they are just as much as a person from a normal married family. That child has a right to know who he or she is.

The reason I say that information needs to be up front is because these days we live in a society that has become very health conscious, very conscious of their background, where they come from, their ancestors. Why I think it should be public is because, for instance -- and I'm going to talk purely from a human issue here -- if you come from a family with heart problems, it would give you an opportunity to tailor your lifestyle to deal with that. But if you're an adopted person you don't know that, you can't deal with that.

Likewise, as you get older and your own family grows, how on earth can your own family deal with some of these medical problems? For instance, you know that cancer is becoming very prevalent in our society and breast cancer is very prevalent in women, and I think that adopted people need to know the background of their family so that they can advise their own children and their grandchildren that "You come from a family that is prone to some certain disease and you should be that much more aware." Also, the adoptee needs to know her history of psychological background too. All this is very important.

I think that the confidentiality of birth parents is more myth than reality. It's a fact that since the 1960s the full birth surname of the child, which was usually the surname of the birth mother, was always on the adoption order papers to the adoptive parents. So it doesn't really take, in my opinion, too much ingenuity to track certain facts down.

I was so pleased to stand in my place this morning and hear the minister talk of his desire to see this go forward. I'm rather upset that we all seem to get a partisan sort of gibe in here, blaming this person and that person. I don't blame the previous government or the other government. I say it's time to act, it's time to get together and it's time to push on with this.

I just want to briefly talk, and I know some of my colleagues want to talk, about the process in Great Britain, where I'm from. Since 1975 in the United Kingdom people have been able to apply to the Registrar General for access to the original birth certificate, and that birth certificate gives the name of the mother and the original record of birth. As far as I know, this hasn't presented any great problems. At the same time, it also has no restrictions on people to use their own initiative or their ingenuity if they want to follow up who their natural birth parents are.

I know in Great Britain they've got an adoption contact register. Once you've identified and you've got your birth certificate and you can't find your birth parents, you can put your name in an adoption contact register and then that will be matched with someone who may also want to put their name on it and that comes to match.

I don't see any great problem at all about this. I think, and I'm going to say again, adopted people want to know who they are, they have the right to know who they are and I implore all members of this House to support this bill, and may it go to committee, may we have some really meaningful debate and get this out into the open.

I thank you for this time, Madam Speaker.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I regret I have a minute and 32 seconds to try to speak on a bill today, which is ridiculous, but that's the way it goes, I guess, in this Legislature.

I would like to speak at great length on why I oppose this piece of legislation. I spoke on a bill in October 1978 which was a very small movement in the direction the member is talking about. It's a very emotional debate, and I understand strongly the views on both sides of the issue and I appreciate them.

I have some very close friends who have gone on the search and found their birth parents. I also have people I know who are adoptive parents. I admire people who will take on that responsibility. It's difficult. There are a lot of challenges when there's an individual, a couple out there who are prepared to adopt a person, and some of the real emotional stress that can result about the age of 14, 15, 16 and 17.

In addition to this, I worry about the birth mother or the birth parents who have made a decision at an early stage in their lives, only to have, many years later when they've had a new life out there, made a new start, somebody knocking on the door and saying: "Guess who's here? I'm here to see you." It's a great disruption for that person's life.

As I say, I wish I had a lot more time to discuss this matter, but I will not be supporting it. I appreciate the member's sincerity. I appreciate the sincerity of those who are promoting this. But for the same reasons I've opposed my own government and the Conservative government previously for it, I do so today.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I also am pleased to rise in support of Bill 158. As a lawyer in private practice for 10 years before I was elected in 1990, I dealt with adoption in a variety of contexts.

First of all, like many other lawyers, I participated in step-parent adoptions. But as well, when acting on the child representation panel of the official guardian, there were children I represented who had been taken out of homes where the mother or father, or both, were unable to continue to provide a warm and nurturing home for the children, and frequently these children, unfortunately, were adopted to adoptive parents by the children's aid society.

Finally, as a lawyer, one of two in London licensed to do private adoptions, I frequently was in a position where parents had written to me offering a home for children they weren't able to bear themselves and would be sometimes desperately seeking knowledge of children whose parent or parents might be willing to have them adopted.

But I always thought to myself, "Ultimately, whether it's a step-parent adoption, a private adoption or a children aid's adoption, these children are going to grow up and they will want to know where they came from," and what I see is an increasing demand for access.

We know that access is quite limited under the present adoption disclosure registry because both birth parent and adopted child have to consent to that sharing of identifying information. But these days I think attitudes have changed substantially. There's more openness. There's more sharing of information. Frequently, adopting parents will allow more visitation between the adopted child and the birth parents.

We're also seeing more children who were born on first nation reserves being repatriated to the first nation once their ancestry becomes known to them, and this is important for those cultural ties.

There are strong advocates, I know, for opening adoption records completely. I think, though, this offers a very balanced package. First of all, it starts with the presumption that every adopted child has the right of any ordinary citizen to know about their family history, particularly, as my colleague from Durham said, for medical or, sometimes, psychological reasons. I'm told this need to know their parents, to know their siblings, sometimes becomes so overwhelming that it actually interferes with their everyday life.

1100

On the other hand, though, there is a lot of confidential information in these records -- social history, home studies -- and there are many natural parents who have legitimate and valid concerns about the effect it would have on their present-day lives, and possibly turmoil, particularly in those delicate situations involving rape or incest, for the full particulars to become known. There's also the concern that there was an agreement years ago to enter into a contract for adoption, and now these parents may feel they've put that part of their lives behind them and are very reticent to have it reopened.

So I find the ideal of a no-contact provision a very appealing one, where those birth parents, and I imagine they will be the minority, who choose not to reopen these contacts can have that provision enforced by registering on the register, having under this provision one year to do so. I do hope there would be widespread public education around that. But for those parents who want to maintain active contact with those children, who don't want to view them from afar, who may want to share updated medical information with them, information regarding their family or cultural backgrounds, this kind of legislation is a godsend.

Alberta has passed similar legislation on second reading, and I also know that in Australia and New Zealand this no-contact provision has worked very well in 90% to 95% of the cases, and no harm has resulted where it's been breached.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Now the mover of the motion, the member for Sault Ste Marie, has two minutes to respond.

Mr Martin: I want to thank all those who contributed to the debate this morning, particularly those who are supporting this important piece of legislation. This bill amends the Vital Statistics Act to give adult adopted persons access to all the information contained in their original statement of birth without requiring anyone else's consent. This bill also establishes a no-contact register to be administered by the registrar general of the province. The bill also amends the Child and Family Services Act to ensure that counselling is available but is no longer mandatory.

Therefore, I call on all members of the House to support this bill. I believe there is broad support for these amendments that will empower adoptees with the vital information about their history.

Finally, I ask all members to drop their partisan politicking on such a vital matter, to work cooperatively with me in committee so that we as legislators representing the needs of the people of Ontario can begin to address the inequity and the secrecy and allow all affected parties to reclaim their fundamental rights.

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to discussion with members of the House and others in the broader community out there who want to participate in making sure that this bill indeed responds to the very sincere and strongly felt needs of the groups that are part of this triad, who have waited so long and are now anxious to see this happen quickly.

The Acting Speaker: There will be a vote on this bill at 12 noon.

Orders of the day.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: Ballot item number 56, 105th order, second reading of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, Mr Mahoney.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Thank you very much. I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of a private member's bill --

The Acting Speaker: Would you move the motion, please?

Mr Mahoney: Oh, I have to read it into the record. I don't even have a copy of it. How am I supposed to read it into the record?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Do you want a copy of my Bill 142, Steve?

Mr Mahoney: Bill 141 is An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. Pardon me for being such a neophyte.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Mahoney moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 141, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Mahoney has moved second reading of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, and now Mr Mahoney has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You see how eager I am about this bill? I just can't wait to get on with the debate. I know there's going to be widespread support, certainly from the member from that area -- thank you very much, Mr Wilson -- who's just provided me with a copy, and I'm sure from members opposite.

One of the reasons that I think and hope there will be widespread support is that we are not calling, in this bill, for the total elimination of successor rights in Bill 40, and I know how important Bill 40 is to this government. I well remember, as I'm sure you do, the rancour and the level of debate that occurred in the province, the billboards and everything, the whole campaign that surrounded Bill 40. While I certainly don't agree with the bill, I remember the strong defence on the part of the Minister of Labour and indeed the Premier and the entire government.

I just want to be clear that while on any other given day I would be quite prepared to debate the problems surrounding Bill 40, I think we have an opportunity here this morning, with this private member's bill, to do something that, as the member for Oshawa said, would be in a non-partisan way that could in fact resolve a problem. Let me explain, first of all, where this came from, and then what the problem is.

Some time ago, his worship Raymond Barker, the mayor of the town of Collingwood, wrote a letter to my leader, Lyn McLeod, dated January 31, 1994, so this has been around for a little bit. He informed Mrs McLeod that the town of Collingwood had formed an association of interested parties in appealing to the National Transportation Agency of Canada with regard to the closure of certain rail lines that would impact greatly on the business community in Collingwood and indeed in Barrie.

What we have here is CP and CN applying to the National Transportation Agency to actually close sections of rail lines because, for their purposes, being large railways operating nationwide lines, it is not profitable for them to run a line between Barrie and Collingwood. That's what really started this, from my perspective, and led to the introduction of this bill.

It has expanded, though, beyond just the communities of Barrie and Collingwood, although it is of critical significance, as I'm sure the member for that area, Mr Wilson, will tell us. He'll tell us about some of those specific problems in those communities, where there are some estimates of as many as 700 jobs being at risk if something is not done here.

What we're talking about is providing an opportunity for communities like Collingwood. The mayor has formed an association to try to get an amendment to Bill 40 that would allow for these associations to acquire the rail lines.

You might ask, why do they need an amendment to Bill 40? In essence, what section 64 of Bill 40 says -- and it's there for a purpose -- is that if you close down a business, you can't turn around and open it under a new name and thereby avoid assuming the rights and responsibilities under the collective bargaining agreement that went with the old company. I understand that. I understand that that particular thing is important to the NDP and indeed important to labour.

We're not asking the government to scrap section 64 for these purposes. To give you an example, there are, I understand, 17 collective bargaining agreements that apply to this one section of rail between Barrie and Collingwood. So a new operator coming in without the resources and the backup of CP or CN says: "I can't assume all of these responsibilities. I would go broke. I'd go out of business. I can't afford 45 or 55 employees to simply run a spur line, almost, between the communities of Collingwood and Barrie. If I can buy this short-rail line and make it profitable, I can operate it with two, three, four or five, at the most, employees."

I recognize that there's job loss involved here, but surely the government and the union would understand that those jobs are equally in jeopardy if nothing is done on this exemption, because the rail line is applying to the transportation agency to shut it down, to abandon it. It will simply grow weeds. Maybe a snowmobile club will take it over and turn it into a snowmobile run. Better that than nothing. But why not allow it to continue to function as a rail line?

1110

Somebody's got to do it, and if it's not the government doing it, which I'm not proposing, then it's going to be the private sector. What would possibly be the motivation of the private sector? Could it be they'd like to make some money out of this? I think that's fair; I don't have a problem with that. It would also be that they want to continue shipping their supplies, their finished products, their raw materials, whatever it is, between those two communities, perhaps to other transportation terminals that would then access southern and southwestern Ontario and perhaps even the United States of America.

The reality is that it's a very simple request from these people. They're saying to the government: "Don't scrap your section. Stand by your principles of supporting that section of Bill 40." But to the members of the government, who, if they decide not to support this bill, can defeat it quite easily, you have a simple opportunity, without impugning the integrity of Bill 40, without even impugning the integrity of section 64, to say to communities like Barrie and Collingwood and indeed communities all over the province, "We understand and we want to help you keep those rail lines open, and therefore we're going to support a bill that simply grants an exemption."

I think it's a win-win. This has been a huge issue, about the successor rights, in the communities that are affected around the province, and people are very concerned. It's not just wind, it's not just hot air. These are people who are concerned for their jobs.

There has to be some common sense applied, and I would ask members to seriously look at what the implications are, because there is a deadline to this. June 17 is a deadline where this particular line in question may well be abandoned. Once it's abandoned, there is not going to be an opportunity. A large company's not going to come in and assume all the responsibilities under the labour contracts. Once it's abandoned, there will be layoffs issued by CN in this particular regard, because it is not going to continue, through some magnanimous gesture, to operate something that, to it, is surplus.

That's the problem. We can get mad at the railways if we wish. We can say, "Why are the big railway companies doing this?" The facts are that big railway companies in this country are really undergoing a major metamorphosis, a change. They are faced with reality just like everybody else. It seems almost every day that we hear about businesses that are reorganizing and recognizing the change when governments, all governments of all stripes, fail to recognize those changes that are required.

This is a very simple, short bill. It is very specific. In my view, it is innocuous in so far as the government is concerned. It does not gut their legislation, it does not compromise their principles, yet it says to communities like Barrie and Collingwood, "We understand, and we're prepared to help."

I would plead with members, who would notice that I'm not being, in this particular debate, my usual rancorous, testy self. I say to the member for Durham East, because this is very significant for those communities, that it is important we understand that this is not about differences in principles between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the New Democrats. As a government, as members over there, you will get letters thanking you for supporting this, you will get phone calls thanking you for supporting this, you will get people who will call you up and say, "By supporting this private member's bill, you saved my job," and that will be very important. I would ask for all members in this House to give strong consideration to supporting Bill 141.

The Acting Speaker: Each party has 15 minutes to debate Mr Mahoney's motion.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to begin by expressing my support for this bill and complimenting the member for Mississauga West for joining me and my colleagues in our fight to maintain the rail lines and, in the process, save jobs in Ontario. While I wish we were debating my bill, Bill 142, which is virtually identical to the member for Mississauga West's, except my bill is more detailed, I am pleased that we are dealing with this important issue. I should point out for members of the public that the member for Mississauga West simply won the draw a little quicker than I did and his bill came up prior to mine. But I am pleased, as I said, that we're dealing with this issue today.

I do feel, though, that it's unfortunate that we even need to be here today in the middle of May debating legislation that common sense suggests we should be adopting in order to save thousands of jobs in Simcoe county and perhaps many thousands of jobs more across Ontario. I find it unfortunate that the provincial government is quite stubbornly playing brinkmanship with the economic future of Simcoe county and its residents.

The government has known of the significance of this issue since 1992, when I wrote to the Minister of Labour warning him of the economic dangers contained in his government's Bill 40 Labour Relations Act changes. I told him then that CN knew of five potential private investors who were interested in purchasing abandoned rail lines. However, these private investors were scared off by the new successor right provisions introduced by the NDP government's Bill 40, and those provisions made these short-line rail purchases cost-prohibitive.

Regrettably, the government didn't listen then and it refuses to act now. More than a year later, in October 1993, I wrote again to both the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade pleading with them to amend the successor rights provisions of Bill 40 so that private investors could purchase the Collingwood-to-Barrie rail line which CN applied to abandon. Unfortunately, months passed while a succession of government ministers -- Economic Development and Trade, Labour, Transportation, and Agriculture -- all stated that they were working on a resolution to this problem.

On March 21, the first day the Legislature came back after the winter recess, Mike Harris and I asked the Premier what he was doing to save the 2,000 jobs that would be lost in Simcoe county if CN abandoned the Collingwood-to-Barrie rail line. A full six months after my letter asking him to show leadership and to save jobs, the Premier could offer nothing when we asked the question in this Legislature on March 21. The Premier could not even say there had been any tangible movement on the issue.

However, to the Premier's credit, on that day he did meet with officials from Collingwood and with me to discuss this matter, and he pledged during that meeting in his office to act immediately to help find a solution.

But here we are again, almost a full two months later, still waiting for the Premier's solution. The government still has not been able to get all parties around the table to negotiate a settlement. The government refuses to move on the most viable option, the commonsense option, and that's amending the Labour Relations Act, as suggested in this bill and the bill I've tabled. Regrettably, the clock continues to tick away on the Collingwood-to-Barrie rail line, and the National Transportation Agency will decide the fate of the line on or before June 17 of this year.

My bill, Bill 142, and the bill we have before us today provide that solution. Simply amend the successor rights provision of section 64 of the Labour Relations Act and the problem is solved. Private investors will invest in rail lines; CN will not abandon; jobs will be saved and will remain and hopefully expand in Ontario.

But this government will not amend Bill 40. Regardless of what common sense suggests, they do not want to be seen as once again backsliding and risk alienating organized labour. They believe that a short-line operator, who may employ a total of eight to 10 employees if they do buy the line, will somehow sit down and negotiate with the CN unions that have as many as 17 collective agreements. The Premier believes that a private entrepreneur will come in and the first order of business will be to sit at a table and negotiate 17 collective agreements into one. This is pie-in-the-sky thinking on the part of the NDP government, a recognition that it doesn't know how business operates.

I urge all members of the government, come to your senses, save the jobs in Simcoe county and Ontario, and support this private member's resolution.

1120

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm hearing the words "common sense" and "simple solution." Let me start off very clearly here.

Recent negotiations concluded by the Wisconsin Central Railroad in the purchase of the Algoma Central Railway included a labour agreement with the affected unions. In this case, the unions agreed to waive their successor rights in order to negotiate a new agreement.

If we're talking common sense, what is wrong with bringing in all affected parties and all involved parties? This is what I can't understand coming from the opposition parties.

This isn't a Bill 40 issue. Right now, the three key ministries -- Transportation, Labour, and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade -- have agreed to formulate a corporate strategy aimed at finding solutions to the short-line rail issue in this province.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: We're again talking about something that's important, particularly important to a certain part of this province, and there's not a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot may resume.

Mr Cooper: I think what we're doing here is getting into a philosophical debate. They're talking about an exemption. There's no need for an exemption in this case. What we want to do is bring the involved people, who are the workers that are being abandoned also, into the negotiations.

I think you'll find in most cases you aren't going to find 12 collective agreements; you're going to find a situation where the unions will get together --

Mr Jim Wilson: Seventeen.

Mr Cooper: -- 17, whatever you want to talk about -- and they'll bring it in, because there's no way a union wants to service a single employee. So you'll find a negotiated settlement within the union movement where you'll have one union representing all the affected people that will be maintaining their jobs on these rail lines.

As I was saying, the first step we've done as a government is there's been an interministerial work team of senior representatives from the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and representatives from CN. The team is currently identifying and obtaining information needed to develop solutions for the proposed abandonment of rail service in the short term for the Simcoe county area, and in the longer term for abandonment proposals on a province-wide basis.

We all know that short-line companies have very small, flexible workforces with two to four people. Some companies say they cannot operate in Ontario because of the successor rights provisions of section 64 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I think some of the companies that are involved have quite clearly stated that they want no union involvement at all.

Here again, we're into a philosophical thing. That's why we're trying to find some community-based people who are willing to invest in the short-line rail, because they realize that the local solutions are the best for local problems and it's the municipality and the community that are going to benefit most from something like this because, as the members have quite clearly stated, economic development is good for the communities.

To say that Bill 40 is blocking the sale of abandoned lines is wrong. It's an oversimplification of the problem, as I've stated. Most rail lines are abandoned in this province because they are not profitable and, in many cases, because the federal government has made a decision to cut the subsidies that allow them to operate.

Where there are viable short-line operations, the government is committed to working with labour and the business to keep these lines operating. The government agrees that this is an important economic development issue. To this end, the government has been identifying potential short-line operations and has had some discussions with the interested parties. This requires cooperation on all sides in order to be successful.

The economic benefit of retaining short-lines should be enough incentive for all the parties to work together towards an agreement. From the government's viewpoint, this should include the recognition of existing bargaining rights and protection for employees.

We understand, as I said, that some investors have some difficulty with this view, but there's nothing stopping provincial investors from negotiating an agreement with the unions right now.

Right now, the purchase of short-line operations that consist of 10 to 12 employees should not be saddled with 10 collective agreements, as has been stated by the opposition; but, as has been stated earlier, there are solutions to this and the question of whether short-line operators should be exempted from the successor provisions of the Labour Relations Act because the rigid craft distinctions in the union contracts are not compatible with the business plans of the investors.

As I said, they can work it out. The unions are really fearing what we're going to be doing, but I might say right now that we are committed to everything that we've done under Bill 40, and there can be local solutions to local problems on this. I'll leave some time for my colleagues.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I rise today to speak on Bill 141 to represent the views of the agricultural community and fully support my colleague for bringing this forward.

As we all know, Bill 141 sets out to create an exemption whereby successor rights set out in Bill 64 of the Labour Relations Act do not apply on the sale of branch or spur rail line business. The agriculture industry has identified this as a necessary step, particularly in the light of recent uncertainty over the future of some rail lines in the province.

Several farm organizations and municipal leaders have joined on the issue. The Ontario Corn Producers' Association, which is working very hard to add value to their product to promote the ethanol industry, the Wheat Producers Marketing Board, the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Grain and Feed Association have met with us and expressed very strong views on the labour legislation. The coalition says that without an efficient, cost-effective and competitive rail system, the livelihood of farmers across the province could be threatened.

As we all know, CN and CP have announced that they may amalgamate operations, and it could result in the elimination of some of their lines. Brian Doidge, an economist with the corn producers, has responded to the potential changes by saying, "The outlook is very bleak."

This need not happen. Several of the branch lines which CN and CP Rail have abandoned could serve as short-line operations and sold to private investors. But this will simply not be possible without Bill 141 affording an exception to section 64.

Under the current rules, no private investors will be interested in taking over a short-line operation. Even current short-line operators are refusing to take on any additional short-line operations because they fear the NDP government will force them to retain all union contracts and agreements.

Clearly, we have a problem. CN and CP intend to abandon some lines. Those who should or could be interested in taking up the slack are afraid to do so under this NDP government. The NDP's section 64 is counterproductive and a major barrier to the development of an efficient rail transport system.

This is not the first time the NDP government has punted private enterprise and potential investors in the province. I know first hand, from the continuing yet unnecessary closure of parks in eastern Ontario in my riding, that the NDP government is not allowing the private spirit to thrive. Private enterprise wants to invest, with the support of the unions and government. The government lacks the political will, and I feel sorry for some of these people in this area.

1130

Time and time again, it seems they are determined to pursue onerous job-killing and restrictive legislation rather than seek measures to improve the province's overall economic situation. By supporting the private sector all Ontario could prosper, but it is difficult, almost impossible, to get the message through to this government. I insist that Bill 141 provides a reprieve to oppressive NDP legislation and it serves as a positive function. Bill 141 will preserve some local rail branches we might otherwise lose. This would translate into saving jobs and assisting agricultural transportation. This must be a government priority.

I might point out the example being provided by the committee in Collingwood. This group has requested an exemption under the NDP's successor rights legislation to allow them to purchase and operate the rail lines in the area when CN would like to abandon service. Obviously, if CN were to undertake the abandonment, there would be an impact on all the jobs and the local economy. It just doesn't make any sense: We have the owners of a rail line wanting to give up the operation and, on the other hand, we have private investors wanting to step in and provide the same service. I feel sorry for all these residents who depend on the service and the hassles that may follow with this government.

The issue at hand is not simply about a few rail lines. As a former municipal politician, I know the headache that municipalities and property owners have if a rail line is abandoned. It is about allowing private investors to step in, it is about the NDP government getting unrealistic and impractical philosophies, it is about assisting those who rely on rail service, including the farmers, and it is about allowing and encouraging local economies to prosper.

I thank my colleague Mr Mahoney for bringing this bill forward and I hope that many in this House will support the bill. I will support Bill 141 and I'm sure many of my colleagues will too.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to provide some comments on the member for Mississauga West's private member's Bill 141, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

I will be supporting this bill, as I will be supporting a similar private member's bill from my colleague the member for Simcoe West. They both have identical goals: They would exempt the purchasers of branch or spur lines from the successor rights provision of the government's job-killing labour bill.

The NDP government must amend this job-killing labour law, or we're going to see thousands of jobs in Simcoe county disappear. If the Collingwood-Barrie rail line is abandoned, the Bradford-Washago line will be the next to fall.

Officials from Simcoe county and Warden Bob Drury made this government aware last fall that private investors would not purchase short-line rail operations because labour laws made it uneconomical to do so. Seven months later -- the clock is ticking -- CN and the NTA have run out of patience. The successor rights portion of Bill 40 is sending an unfortunate pro-union message to business and will make it uneconomical for short-line operators to take over abandoned rail lines.

Eighty jobs in Stepan Canada near Orillia are in jeopardy. The soap manufacturer depends on 140 cars annually for raw materials shipped to the plant by rail. Stepan Canada pumps about $4 million into the local economy and has an additional payroll of approximately $3.5 million.

Several US and Canadian firms have expressed interest in purchasing all or part of the short lines, provided the labour laws are changed to eliminate successor rights. But these potential buyers are balking because successor rights would force them to assume costly collective agreements signed with CN. This could mean that a short-line operator with fewer than 10 employees might have to deal with up to 17 different unions.

On April 26, Allan Deegan, vice-president, CN North America, contacted my office and indicated CN had filed a notice of intent with the National Transportation Agency to cease rail operations on the Newmarket subdivision, that's from Bradford to Washago, and on the Midland subdivision, Orillia to Uhthoff. In 90 days or less following the filing of the notice of intent, CN plans to formally apply for permission to abandon these lines.

Mr Deegan indicated CN invited proposals from short-line operators for five lines in Ontario, including the Barrie-Collingwood and Midland-Uhthoff lines. Mr Deegan said, and I quote, "Potential bidders withdrew from this process when changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act were enacted."

Government members can join with the opposition in supporting this bill or the one from the member for Simcoe West to amend the successor rights portion that makes it uneconomical for short-line operators to take over abandoned rail lines.

I'm surprised today that the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay is not here speaking on this bill, because it affects his riding when we're talking about the Midland-Uhthoff line. I would have thought he would have been here supporting this bill.

Last evening, there was a meeting in the county building in Barrie with the warden, Bob Drury, and many of the industrial development commissioners. I talked to my colleague Terry Brady from the Orillia development commission this morning; he indicated he was at the meeting. He was concerned that the member for Simcoe Centre, Mr Wessenger, was there and was not very effective in trying to get this whole issue resolved.

Gary Sullivan from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade phoned me and wanted to know if there were any people in the area who would be interested in purchasing these spur lines. He indicated to me that the government was not going to change its position with regard to the successor rights legislation.

I find it hard to believe that this government talks about jobs, jobs, jobs, and here what it's doing is losing jobs, jobs, jobs. So I say to the people of Simcoe county and I say to the warden of the county, who I understand took a very strong initiative -- when the committee meets with the Premier, he wants those people to be part of that meeting, and they should be part of the meeting. If the ministry has a plan to solve this problem without amending this bill, then it's about time it came forward with that plan and told us how it's going to resolve it and save these jobs they're talking about.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'm very pleased to be able to join in this debate about short-line rail. Let me just start by saying that the member, my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot, did present an argument and facts that were consistent with what this government has been saying for a long time and consistent with the thinking of many people on this side of the House.

Again, I have to look at it. This is not a Bill 40 issue. As Mr Cooper, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, said before, it's just an oversimplification of the problem. If this passes, and I know that I will not be supporting it, I see this as the beginning of a systematic way of derailing -- that's a nice play on words -- Bill 40, because if we exempt here, we will exempt there and exempt there and eventually Bill 40 is no longer an effective piece of legislation.

One of the emphases of Bill 40 was that business, labour and government should work together to find solutions to the problems that are addressing our society today, and I think Bill 40 goes a long way in recognizing that fact. To say that one piece of legislation is destroying the province -- we've heard the naysayers say, "The sky is falling," and the sky did not fall; businesses haven't been running away from the province of Ontario. In fact, they've been coming to Ontario. To say that Bill 40 is the one piece of legislation that is blocking jobs is too simplistic. Then again, I expect it from the Common Sense people, and we all know that sense is not common.

What strikes me is that a regulatory change would probably accomplish what this legislative change is trying to do. The Ministry of Labour is very supportive of a regulatory change that would encourage business, labour and the government to work together to find a solution to the problem. We don't have to go out and destroy legislation.

I don't believe there is one union in this province that is blocking the sale of anything. It just comes down to the fact that perhaps some business groups and some investors just don't like unions. Unfortunately, if you're going to do business in Ontario, then you should abide by the laws of Ontario.

1140

It's a strange piece of argument that we are looking at primarily US-based investors who are going to be coming to Ontario to buy up these lines. If they don't wish to work within the parameters of the laws of Ontario, then perhaps they should invest elsewhere. It's strange that the member for Mississauga West one day was waving the American flag and pointing to the leader of the third party. Perhaps he should keep his American flag, because if he wishes to change the laws of Ontario just for American interests, I really have a problem with that. Maybe he should get his Mike Harris flag out.

One of the interesting things with short-line railways -- I've been to a lot of Hike Ontario and Rails-to-Trails meetings with some groups, and I think one of the best ways to encourage tourism, encourage the use of our natural environment, is to allow some of these short-lines to be used by such groups as Hike Ontario and Rails-to-Trails. People would be out cross-country skiing in the winter; people would be out walking the routes that were part of our history and part of our heritage. I believe in that sense the abandoned rail lines could be of even more use to the general population.

Again, I wish to thank the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for bringing forward such a good argument and some good information as far as where the ministry is going and how we can help everyone to get away from the antagonism of trying to do something with these rail lines so we can help facilitate a solution to this problem.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Let me say first of all that I'm really pleased to participate in this debate, because I think this morning we have a very good example of what private members' hour should be all about. All too often I think some arcane subjects are discussed on Thursday morning, but today we have two issues, the first one being certain adoption changes and now certain adjustments to Bill 40 that will hopefully protect jobs in the province, that are very, very important.

It's unfortunate that especially the members of the government are not there. Right now there are only four members of the government side in the House, on issues that are really of great importance for people who want to work and who deserve to work. This is not something that one should take lightly. It's very unfortunate that the government is not showing sufficient interest to send its members in here. For example, I'm totally missing representatives of the Ministry of Transportation; the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Transportation is not here. Be that as it may, and it is unfortunate, nevertheless the issue we are discussing is extremely important.

As critic for Transportation for my party, I feel an obligation to participate in this debate because it's not just philosophical. Or perhaps I should say it's philosophical, but because philosophy always has a great impact on real life as well, this is a philosophical debate that has great practical implications. This bill that is being discussed has implications on possibly saving jobs not just in the Barrie area, but across the whole province.

I would like to read into the record a letter that I received a copy of in April. This letter was sent to the Minister of Transportation, and perhaps several of the members who are here and who have spoken basically from the Ministry of Labour perspective are not aware of this letter.

This gentleman, in my opinion, has put together extremely well what the issues are and why this is so important. I'm not in the habit normally of reading long sections from documents, but this particular letter is so well spoken and identifies the concerns so well that I do think it deserves to be read into the record. More importantly, it deserves to be acted upon, and I'm very pleased that the Liberal Labour critic is in fact proposing action that I do think would satisfy this gentleman.

His name is Mr Aitchison and he writes from Barrie. Here's what he says:

"No doubt, you are aware," meaning the Minister of Transportation of Ontario, "that both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways have outlined their intentions to significantly reduce their respective rails networks in order to ensure their financial survival. This will result in the accelerated abandonment of hundreds of kilometres of branch lines in Ontario. Already, rail lines no longer serve a number of communities, and many more are at risk. Particularly at risk are rural communities along branch lines in southern Ontario. Additionally, in many northern communities the railway is the lifeblood.

"Rail line closures impact in many areas:

" -- the direct loss of railway jobs,

" -- increased reliance on truck transportation, with all their attendance costs,

" -- the potential loss of industrial jobs in industries that are either rail-dependent or rail-favourable but have the misfortune of not be situated on a high-revenue line, and

" -- limiting the ability of communities to attract industry.

"The very structure of our two national rail systems compels them to seek maximum system profitability. High labour and maintenance costs inherent in a rail operation has forced them to abandon those lines that do not produce a corresponding return.

"The emergence of 'short-line' rail operators has the potential to preserve portions of our rail infrastructure. They have proven very successful in the US since deregulation, and have emerged in several provinces, including Ontario. Since reduced labour costs is crucial, these lines rely on the efficiency of a small number of employees, whether unionized or otherwise, who are able to perform several tasks. This is in contrast to the current 'trade distinction' which requires strict task adherence.

"A number of potential investors have expressed interest in acquiring some of the lines identified for abandonment, in addition to the ones already in successful operation. However, the current labour legislation in Ontario stands as an impediment. Short-line operators cannot operate profitably if they are compelled to honour existing, costly collective agreements through the 'succession rights' provisions. Some have indicated that they will not invest in Ontario because of this impediment....

"Mr Minister, these are real jobs or real people. Our Premier has been quoted as believing that effective solutions must not be driven by ideology. Effective policies and solutions must be made for the benefits of all citizens in all areas of the province."

Mr Aitchison is challenging the NDP government to do the following:

"(1) Amend and update provincial legislation regulating railways. The current legislation and regulatory process is woefully outdated, through no one's fault, as the chartering of a railway likely has not occurred in many, many years.

"(2) Review the current labour legislation to assess its impact on job creation and investment as it relates to railways."

Then Mr Aitchison concludes: "I'm not related to the rail industry nor any particular political party in any way. I am simply a concerned citizen with a hobby interest in railways and rail history, and deep concern for the economic infrastructure and future of Ontario."

As I said, I think this letter very well describes the issues and describes the importance of this issue. I think the bill that we have in front of us today, while it clearly does not throw out all of Bill 40 in the way the Conservatives would like to do it, does address a specific issue.

As my leader has said, we will reform and revise those provisions of Bill 40 that have clearly proven to be negative towards job growth. Here we have clearly a provision that has been pointed out already that has to be changed and this bill will change it.

1150

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I rise this morning again, and I will quote right off the bat. It's not coming from politicians, it's coming from a farm paper and it reads as follows: "Labour Laws Derail Vital Grain Arteries." That's what it says, that's the headline. In part it says, "Ontario farmers could lose access to the US as line closures at CN and CP continue and labour laws keep short-lines from filling the vacuum." That's pretty straight.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): What about the main line, though? Are you going to protect the jobs on the main line?

Mr Villeneuve: I will be quoting a little bit from -- this is not coming from in here. It tends to be a little bit slanted when it comes from in here. This is coming from outside. "Crop prices will fall as farmers become captive of local grain markets and plans for new ethanol and dry-milling plants could well be scrapped." We have to have low-cost movement of grain.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): That's a little slanted, that thing. I read that one, Noble.

Mr Villeneuve: It's amazing how the government only has a selective type of hearing. Read this -- "captive." The major markets for our soybeans grown in Ontario -- and we have a very extensive soybean production; half of it is in the United States. Soybean producers are very concerned about the successor rights and the labour laws that are now in place.

"Ontario Labour Relations Act under section 63: The purchaser of a business is bound by any bargaining rights or collective agreements in effect. This provision of the legislation has virtually stopped the expansion of short-line railway operations in Ontario, resulting in the likelihood that rail lines that may have the potential to be operated successfully by short-line rail companies will be abandoned."

The jobs are there. This government complains about the cost of operating government programs such as Jobs Ontario. Well, you know, the exemption under Bill 40 of successor rights for short-line railways or, for that matter, for the St Lawrence Parks Commission -- because we will have some of these parks staying closed again this year because of successor rights, nothing else. These are jobs. They may not be in the union shop jobs but these are jobs. They will cost the government absolutely nothing to create, will be created by the private sector.

Bill 91 is coming in, forcing labour law on Ontario's farmers, yet this type of legislation is cutting --

Hon Mr Wildman: You voted for it.

Mr Villeneuve: This type of legislation, we will do away with it immediately upon being elected government of Ontario.

Hon Mr Wildman: Then why did you vote for it?

Mr Villeneuve: Vote for it? Mr Speaker, we have not voted for it. We are committed to repealing that within 100 days of taking office. We had agriculture exempt from any labour laws. This government saw fit to include agriculture and in so doing will destroy many jobs within the rural agricultural communities.

The development of the provincial railway act I want to touch on, because two of the Canadian provinces, Nova Scotia and Quebec, have developed their own provincial railway acts. Although Nova Scotia has not yet proclaimed its recent railway legislation, the Quebec railway act was implemented in December 1993, because some short-line rail lines in the province of Quebec have been purchased by the private sector.

I don't always agree with the government of Quebec, but I give them credit for this one. They saw fit to change their labour laws to allow their short-line railways to operate so that rural Quebec would at least not be left out in the cold completely. They do have labour laws similar to those of Ontario.

I found it strange, when we spoke of Bill 40, the government of the day, the NDP government, kept saying they have similar labour laws in the province of Quebec and there are no problems. We know there are problems with the labour laws in the province of Quebec, but at least the government has recognized that successor rights had to be taken out of their labour laws in order to create jobs and promote the rural sections of Quebec.

I have very little time left. It's a rather sad situation that in the riding I represent we will have prime waterfront property staying vacant, which could be drawing tourists and providing jobs, because of successor rights. Farmers will pay the cost because of successor rights and short-line railway closures.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It's a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the reason being that we talk about short-line railways. What I'd like to talk about is the York-Durham Heritage Railway. This association has come together to try to do something around tourism, around creating jobs in rural Ontario. Their dream is to set up a railway that is going to run right through the Oak Ridges moraine. It's beautiful rolling countryside. It's going to be just wonderful: the town of Stouffville at one end, the town of Uxbridge on the other. Could you imagine? Here we are, the train just rolling through there. Talk about economic development.

Here's a railway that is about to be abandoned, and we hear the government won't cooperate with anybody. Well, I'll have you know that not only has the government cooperated, here we've got GO Transit sitting down and working out with the CNR about trying to preserve those lands so that the small association in my riding can come together to develop a heritage railway.

I've got with me here today the Hansard from November 24, 1993, not that long ago. But the fact of the matter is that the treasurer, Eric Button, came down that day; the president, Rob Paré, and Ken Harding, who of course is the secretary of the association, came down to the Legislature and brought forward the proposal because they wanted to incorporate.

You know, it's coming together; there's a lot of work coming together. To support this work, they set up this miniature railway in little community fairs, the steam thrashing show. They had this little train and they charged people a loonie a head for a ride around this little train track. This is community development. This is a community coming behind something. For the opposition members to say there's no government cooperation, well, that's bunk. That's just bunk.

Here we've got a case where the government is actually working. Let me quote from Mr Button. He says, "The Ontario government, through GO Transit, has been negotiating with CN." Talk about cooperation. Here we've got an opportunity where we can offer some economic development out in rural Ontario and we've got the government right in there cooperating with them, and then the opposition stand up and say that's not the case, that's not the facts.

That's unfortunate, because I support the York-Durham Heritage Railway Association, all the work that they've been doing. Stouffville council on one end has supported it fully, and so has Uxbridge council. We hope that cooperation will continue, in spite of the opposition.

Mr Klopp: Just in closing, the motion from the Liberal Party is an example to me of simplicity. Probably tomorrow, maybe even on Monday or Tuesday, they'll get up and defend that we're not doing enough for workers' rights.

The fact of the matter is, the argument that the government doesn't recognize the importance of these short-lines is just totally not true. In fact in our area we were one of the first ones. Railtex actually took over one in our area and it was a heck of a lot more complicated than about the labour laws in this province or anywhere else. There were a lot of irons in the fire that had to be worked out.

We talked a little earlier about the private short-line and what would happen to a community, but we forget that even the same paper that was noted from my colleague, who does a lot of reading and is interested in rural Ontario, but down in the southwest region in Pat Hayes's area, where he's worked hard, there is actually a private company, nothing to do with the labour laws, that's threatening to shut down a line, a private line company. So the argument that "Oh, it's Bill 40 and that's the problem" just isn't fact.

Up in the Algoma area, Algoma Central Railway is near negotiating and is working with a company that's going to be buying their line. That company has no problem and has worked with the Bill 40 issue, recognized the labour. They've negotiated a new deal. It might not be as good as their other ones, but they've negotiated.

I know Railtex as a company. I've known them personally. I've worked with them. They're business people and they're asking for the best deal possible. I understand that. We have made a commitment in this government. We have many ministries working with the communities and Railtex to come up with a deal that gives everyone a fair opportunity.

As I say, I'm sure next week the Liberal critic will stand up and say we're not doing enough to help workers. Today we're talking about how we're giving too much. I think there's a balance here. I think this issue will be accommodated so that everyone can have the respect of a job, respect of the communities.

In closing, to say that we don't recognize the problem is just ridiculous because we have done more as a government to work with these organizations and allow everyone an opportunity, because the communities lose too if they have cheap labour and cheap attitudes. I know a lot of these companies don't want that and it's not good for the workers. A deal will be reached because I know that common sense will prevail.

Mr Mahoney: I'd like to thank those members who spoke in support, particularly the member from Simcoe West -- as he said, through the luck of the draw my bill came on ahead of his, and I know that he shares the concerns -- and all members, particularly those in my caucus and in the third party who also spoke in support of the agricultural community and the impact there.

I'm really disappointed to see that it's quite obvious, since the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour has spoken, that there's a full-press whip on this bill to defeat it.

Hon Mr Wildman: We don't whip private members' bills.

Mr Mahoney: I will be delighted if I'm proven wrong.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): That is a typical Liberal thing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Mr Mahoney: I'll be delighted if I'm proven wrong, but the vote will take place in a very few moments and time will tell. It's very, very sad and a very sad day to just say to those people: "We've decided we don't care about your jobs. We care about the sanctity of Bill 40 more than we care about the impact on the people."

The day I asked a question on this in the Legislature, the Premier agreed that he would meet with those people. He did have a meeting with them, and since then nada, nothing. Nothing's happened to help these people save their jobs. It's obvious that this is just a sop on behalf of the Premier to try to kid people that he either understands the problem or is prepared to act on it.

Alex VanVoorst heads up a group of employees who want to buy this short-line rail line. For this government, which goes around taking all kinds of credit for supporting employee buyouts, to ignore the request of the employees is an absolute shame. You should all be ashamed of yourselves if that's what you're going to do.

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the member would not in any way have wished to impute motives and I'm sure he's aware that there is no whip on a private member's bill. That would be a complete subversion of the whole process.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' business has expired.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 55 standing in the name of Mr Martin. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Martin has moved second reading of Bill 158, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1205 to 1210.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Abel, Bisson, Carter, Charlton, Cleary, Cooper, Crozier, Cunningham, Daigeler, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kwinter, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Silipo, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Bradley, Mahoney, Tilson.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 49; the nays are 3. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Mr Speaker, I request that it be sent to the standing committee on social development.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on social development? Agreed.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 56, standing in the name of Mr Mahoney. If any members are opposed to this vote, will they please rise.

Mr Mahoney has moved second reading of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1213 to 1218.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Bradley, Brown, Cleary, Crozier, Cunningham, Daigeler, Grandmaître, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kwinter, Mahoney, McLean, Miclash, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sola, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Abel, Bisson, Carter, Charlton, Cooper, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Owens, Perruzza, Silipo, Sutherland, Waters, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 23; the nays are 35. I declare the motion lost.

All matters related to private members' business have been completed. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1222 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND RECREATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Speaker, I'd like to bring to your attention and to the attention of the members of the Legislature a very disturbing matter which has arisen in my riding.

On July 16 of this year there is going to be a very important event held in my riding at the Meadowvale Theatre in Mississauga. It's an event put on by Eastern News, which is an important multicultural group. The event is an annual singing competition, and this really does bring over 120 singers participating in such an event.

The disturbing matter that I bring to your attention is that the president of this association, Mr Masood Khan, had invited the Honourable Anne Swarbrick to the event, and did so by letter. He wrote a letter to the minister dated April 26. Her office called him back and indicated that they had three other invitations for the same day and that the staff had to decide where to send the minister. At that time, a member from the minister's office asked if Mr Khan was a member of the NDP, because she is a president of the NDP riding in Mississauga. His answer was that no, he was not.

"A day or two later," I read from his letter, "she called again" to tell them that the minister was going to be on holidays.

There is great concern by this association and by members throughout the community that the places the minister will attend will only be those that happen to be sponsored by NDP members. I find the actions by the minister absolutely reprehensible.

NURSES WEEK

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today to encourage all members of the Legislature to join in recognizing Nurses Week, which began on Monday and concludes this Saturday. The theme for national nursing week is aptly titled "Nurses Make the Difference."

On a daily basis, in hospitals, in clinics and in homes, nurses are making the difference. It's ironic that nurses represent the largest group of professionals in our health care system, yet their contributions and commitment to maintaining excellence in Ontario's health care system are often overshadowed.

National nursing week is critical because it heightens the public's awareness of the important role played by Ontario's 50,000 nurses who serve as the gatekeepers to our health care system. The closing of more than 6,000 hospital beds since 1986 and the layoff of thousands of hospital workers and professionals, many of these being nurses, have placed an added burden on to the shoulders of Ontario's nurses.

The nursing ranks have shrunk by 1,000 persons since the social contract was legislated, yet Ontario's nurses have responded positively and continue to provide high-quality care in a sensitive and responsive fashion. By their contributions, they go beyond the care that they provide. They are active in fostering a health care system premised on health promotion, disease prevention, education and improving the system to maximize all resources. The utilization of nurse practitioners is certainly one important step in the direction towards better utilization of our scarce health care resources.

Our great thanks to the nurses of Ontario.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): The leader of the third party is out promoting his party's document which he labelled the Common Sense Revolution. It's too bad that rules that require truth in advertising don't apply to the political parties. The public will be wise to look beyond the fine-sounding promises of lower taxes and job creation which, if true, would deserve support.

Ontarians should take a hard look under the hood of this Tory vehicle before they buy. What they will find under the hood is a collection of parts that don't fit anywhere. On the one hand we have a few commonsense suggestions which we can support, like reducing red tape for small business, and on the other hand we have blatant nonsense such as the suggestion that jobs will be created by reversing the reform of labour legislation. That's the most screwy thing I've ever heard.

What is hidden in the Mike Harris plan which needs to be exposed is the severe hardship this plan would create. The cuts which are suggested will result in job losses and cuts to essential services and downloading costs to municipalities at an unprecedented level.

Ontarians should be mindful of the Tories' track record, not only here but in Ottawa and in London, England. They're a disaster. Like the Premier said yesterday, take your revolution and stick it in your ear. That's where it belongs, where the sun don't shine --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Health. For over 25 years, the Lake of the Woods hospital in Kenora has operated a training program for registered practical nurses, formerly the RNA program. This program, which operated out of Kenora, has been very successful, receiving praise from the medical community as well as Ministry of Health officials.

I am looking for an explanation from the Minister of Health as to why no decision has been announced on the review of this program that her staff has undertaken. We have heard that she has decided to go against the recommendation of her officials to continue the RPN operation in Kenora. To quote the minister's officials, "We will be recommending the Kenora option to the minister, which in our view is the only sensible one."

Minister, my constituents are getting tired of being used as a political football by you and your government. In past years, the Lake of the Woods District Hospital would have selected candidates for the following year's program in April. It is now the middle of May and they continue to be told by your ministry that the file is in your office and a decision will be announced soon.

Why have you and your colleagues chosen to pit community against community in the north? The residents of Kenora, the local medical community, the hospital board and administration and, I'm sure, the Minister of Health herself would agree that this issue reeks of political interference.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to urge the Minister of Environment and Energy to use his influence at the cabinet table to put a stop to the proposed development on the Toronto Islands by the Flying Toad co-op. To build these 100 units would involve destroying significant wet meadows, dunes and eastern cottonwood woodland. The Flying Toad development would destroy the last remaining shoreline habitat remaining on the western side of Lake Ontario.

The Federation of Ontario Naturalists has told me that these natural areas have been recognized by various levels of government. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has designated them an environmentally significant area, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has identified them as regionally significant areas of natural and scientific interest, and the Crombie commission has recommended their full protection.

Together with my colleague, the member for Mississauga South and PC Housing critic, I have written the newly appointed Environmental Commissioner under the bill of rights to formally ask that she look into the Flying Toad co-op proposal and to do everything in her power to stop any development on the west side of Algonquin Island, Centre Island and the eastern portion of Wards Island until all of the environmental concerns of the people of Ontario can be addressed.

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm pleased to rise today to announce that the week of May 15 to 21 is Intergenerational Week. One hundred thousand seniors, children and young people in Ontario are involved in intergenerational programs that partner youth and seniors through schools, child care centres, seniors' centres, homes for the aged and hospitals. Programs also exist in private homes and apartments, anyplace that young and old can come together for mutual benefit.

Intergenerational programs began as a response to the segregation of generations, to the prevalence of negative images of both the elderly and youth in our society, to misunderstandings that exist as a result of differing lifestyles across the age divide. By bringing old and young together, age segregation is reduced and prejudices and misunderstandings are challenged.

From May 15 to 21, thousands of Ontarians, old, young and middle-aged, will be celebrating Intergenerational Week in a salute to sharing and caring between the generations.

This is the first year that Intergenerational Week has emerged as an organized, province-wide event. A wide range of programs and projects has been planned in celebration of intergenerational collections.

Our government has been pleased to support the work of all those who contribute time and effort to bringing together the generations in a truly sharing and caring way.

I would like to congratulate the intergenerational committee of the United Generations of Ontario whose vision and work have made possible the announcement today of Intergenerational Week, and to welcome the presence of Mel Shipman and his colleagues in the gallery today.

1340

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I would like to share with you my top 10 reasons why Mike Harris needs an American campaign adviser.

(10) Mike Harris is setting his sights on being Dan Quayle's running mate in 1996.

(9) He wants to change the Tory campaign song from Ontario, a Place to Stand, a Place to Grow to America the Beautiful.

(8) Look at the wonderful things the Americans did for Audrey McLaughlin.

(7) He wants to move further to the right than Reg Gosse and Preston Manning.

(6) The Conservative caucus is still looking for the best and the brightest.

(5) He really does want to be the governor of the state of Ontario.

(4) Whitewater rafting looks like a lot of fun.

(3) The negative ads written for the federal Tories by John Laschinger and John Tory just weren't mean enough.

(2) He really wants a golf membership at Pebble Beach.

The number one reason Mike Harris needs an American campaign adviser: If your campaign team had you sharing the stage with Helle Hulgaard, wouldn't you be looking elsewhere for advice?

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise today in response to a remark from the Premier in the House yesterday. Allow me to quote Hansard, "You can take your revolution and stick it in your ear."

For the benefit of the Premier and others in this House, I would just like to clarify who is being asked to stick it in their ear. This document is the culmination of four years of hard work and community involvement by tens of thousands of ordinary Ontarians in cities and towns across this province. It is them the Premier is telling to stick it in their ear.

The recommendations are the product of hundreds of town hall meetings, written submissions, task force hearings and unsolicited ideas from people of every walk of life. The Premier is telling them to stick it in their ear. They are middle-income Ontarians. They are lower-income Ontarians. They are fourth-generation Canadians and they are recent immigrants. They are urban and rural. They are employers, employees and the unemployed. The Premier wants them to stick it in their ear.

In fact, the only common bond they share is the firm belief that their province is indeed in deep economic trouble and needs a new direction. They have expressed the belief that they want lower taxes, less government spending and a better way of life for their children. The Premier's response is, "Stick it in your ear," to those Ontarians.

If this is the response they get from their Premier to their ideas, their aspirations and their hopes for prosperity and opportunity, maybe they'll get a chance to stick it in somebody's ear on election day.

STEVE BAUER TRAIL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I'm going to sing a different tune. I rise to tell the House about another success story involving Jobs Ontario Community Action: the Steve Bauer trail.

For years, the town of Pelham wanted to create a recreational trail in Fonthill, but the money just wasn't there. So they turned to the community and to the province for help. It wasn't long before everyone came through in a big way. Over a period of two years, the town of Pelham, the Fonthill Rotary Club and the province of Ontario worked together to develop a six-kilometre network of public trails.

They named it after home-town cycling hero Steve Bauer who two weeks ago attended the official opening of the trail.

At least $100,000 was invested in the project, one third, or $33,000, through Jobs Ontario Community Action.

The new system of paved and gravel paths is not just for cycling; it is something for the whole community to enjoy while jogging, hiking, walking or rollerblading.

The new trail system is a model of what can be accomplished when a municipality, a service club and plenty of dedicated volunteers work together. The result is a safe, alternative route for pedestrians tired of being restricted to sidewalks and shoulders, and cyclists sick of being crushed and squeezed off the streets and highways.

The recent trail opening is only the beginning. The people of Pelham are planning to connect the Steve Bauer Trail to a larger network. A trail to nearby Fenwick, where Steve Bauer's parents live, is one of the next links in the system.

Congratulations to the people of Pelham. The Steve Bauer Trail will be enjoyed for many generations to come. Please put on your rollerblades, Mr Speaker.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I may ask you to review the statement today by the member for Durham East, who referred to my leader as saying something that was not truthful, I don't feel that his statement was in parliamentary language. I'd appreciate your comment on it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member raises two matters which are not connected. With respect to parliamentary language, I listened carefully. I did not hear anything that I would determine to be unparliamentary, although there was a phrase that perhaps is not as polite as language that is encouraged here.

On the second matter, with respect to statements that are made, there will often be disagreements in the House as to the validity of statements made by various members. It's not up to the Chair to determine what is the validity of those statements. If statements are in error, it's up to the member who made the statement to correct his or her record.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, today I rise on a point of order under standing order 33. It talks about question period.

Today, we will have 12 ministers unavailable to answer questions, including almost every minister about whom there is a public issue being discussed in the media, among the people who are politically astute in the province. It appears that the real object of these absences, particularly with respect to the Finance minister -- who generally is in his place, but has been in this House only once since he introduced his budget a week ago to answer questions on that most important government initiative.

When a party diligently works to defeat the purposes of the standing orders, and standing order 33 does allow us 60 minutes to ask ministers questions which are of public import, it appears to me that you must have a role someplace in making sure this place can function. If those ministers responsible for the issues of the day are unavailable, we cannot ask the questions of driving public import of anyone.

I'll bring to your attention in a couple of ways why that is important to us. In the press today there is a follow-up with respect to the questions asked by my colleague the member for Renfrew North of the Minister of Environment and Energy, who, by the way, was here this morning but is not available this afternoon.

There are issues with respect to the budget which are not going to be answered, because my friend the Finance minister is not available, and as I raised with you a week ago, his junior minister is also not available. At this point, I again underscore that this junior minister is never here, ever, when the Finance minister is away. You can check, if you have records. On every occasion, he is not in his place when Mr Laughren is away.

There are questions with respect to crime, and again today the Solicitor General is not available.

1350

I understand that on occasion some people are absent, but the reason I'm so upset about the way today's performance appears -- and by the way, I talked to the House leader earlier today about my concern in this regard, as I did to the member for Parry Sound -- is that we have had 31 sitting days so far, and the total number of ministerial absences, and this doesn't count people who arrive late or leave early, has been 193. The average number of ministers who are away has been seven, although it reaches 12, as it does on today's date.

The Premier has been absent on 13 of the 31 days. When the Premier is in the House, he has stayed on average just around 30 minutes, and to be quite honest, the 30 minutes is a very liberal interpretation of the amount of time he is able to be with us. We understand he is busy, but there are things required by the standing orders that allow us to do our work.

Mr Laughren has been absent 11 days. Particularly when he is absent, we know he is working. I have the highest regard for Floyd, because I know how his work habits are. But he delivered a budget last week, and while I expect that he had to be in Ottawa one of those days, it is difficult for me to understand why, since he sets the date for the budget, he can't arrange to be here to answer questions of the details of his budgetary policy for the people of the Legislative Assembly.

To me, that underscores more than anything else I could say why I believe standing order 33, the 60-minute question period available to us only four days a week -- it's one hour -- is being violated, that there is a ploy being used to frustrate the ability of the opposition parties.

In fact, I have to say I have been encouraged by the manner of presentation of some of the questions by the backbench people in the New Democratic Party.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Thanks, Murray. We appreciate you representing us.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: The member for Oxford just woke up again, Mr Speaker. I apologize to the House.

It is for me to declare my concern on behalf of my caucus that this type of record really does underscore how much there has been in undermining our ability to get our work done. Mr Speaker, while you may not be able to drag those people here, it is the only available forum I have to express our disappointment, our concern that this place is not meant to work, and that our jobs are being systematically frustrated by the persistent absences of key ministers of the crown.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point, just briefly, I note that at the commencement of question period today there were seven ministers of the crown present -- there are now nine -- out of a cabinet of 27. Of course, this is the Premier who downsized his cabinet from 25 to 27.

I would like to reiterate the point made by the honourable member for Bruce, that the whole point of parliamentary democracy, otherwise called responsible government, is that ministers of the crown are responsible to the people of the province, or the particular jurisdiction in which they serve, each and every single day during question period. That's what differentiates our system from the republican system of government. If this government is not going to pay any more respect to the populace of Ontario than to have a third of its cabinet bother to show up for question period, isn't this whole thing pointless? We may as well all go home. We'll just elect a dictator every four years and that's the way it will be done.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The points the two opposition House leaders have raised are points of concern that the opposition has expressed on a number of occasions here in the House. There's one thing, Mr Speaker, I'd like to point out to you and to them, because I don't think they've thought this through quite as carefully as their words would suggest.

The member for Bruce has very carefully set out the numbers in terms of performance. What he neglected to note is that we have probably had the two opposition House leaders on their feet fewer times during this session making this particular complaint than any of the sessions since the last election. That is because this government has made an effort to ensure that whenever possible, as the House leader for the official opposition says, the ministers who are responsible for the issues of the day are here, for the most part, including pulling ministers back from very important events to be here.

It is unfortunate that from time to time a number of things come together. The member for Bruce, for example, mentioned the absence of the Minister of Environment and Energy today. Unfortunately, he has returned to Sudbury, where there is a memorial service going on for his departed daughter. He was here on the other days this week around which the members across the way wished to pursue questions. But from time to time these things do impose themselves on individuals.

We have a Premier in this province and a Deputy Premier, and when those ministers are absent, there is always someone -- in this case today, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade -- who is prepared to take questions on behalf of the Premier and to respond to them.

We do our very best to ensure, as best as is humanly possible, that the ministers whose responsibilities, as best as we can anticipate, are most likely to be demanded that day during question period are here.

The Speaker: I listened very carefully to the remarks by the three House leaders. There are a number of items that come to mind, as an observation.

The member for Bruce and the member for Parry Sound raise some very legitimate concerns with respect to question period. I am very mindful of the severe pressures that are put upon ministers of the crown as they attempt to discharge their public duties. Of that I am most aware and most mindful.

At the same time, all members will know that in a British parliamentary system, a focal point for the public's business is oral questions, the opportunity for the opposition to question the policies of Her Majesty's government. That's an important principle of a British parliamentary system.

I cannot be of assistance to the honourable member, no matter how much I may believe that his concerns are valid and legitimate, no matter how deeply I believe that, as much as possible, all ministers of the crown should be present for question period. The standing orders do not compel attendance in the House of any member. All that's required is that there be a quorum in the House and that there be ministers present. Both of those conditions are met here today.

As I have mentioned on other occasions, if the House has a willingness to change the standing orders with respect to attendance by cabinet ministers or by other members, the House of course is free to do so and may wish to consider that in the Legislative Assembly committee.

I can only urge, as I have on other occasions, that all members, including cabinet ministers, make every effort to be here as often as possible and to be present during oral questions, when the policies of the government can be questioned by members of the opposition, and indeed backbench members of the government.

It is now time for oral questions.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS AND FISCAL OUTLOOK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I would have much preferred that my question go to the Premier, but I will go to what I gather is the acting Premier. Minister, in your budget material, as you know, the government says it is investing $3.8 billion to build Ontario's infrastructure. Can you confirm that this $3.8 billion includes the $250 million that the federal government is spending in Ontario on the infrastructure program?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm aware that the member asked a similar question yesterday and directed it to the Premier, and the Premier indicated that the member was wrong in asserting that that money was reflected in the $3.8 billion. In fact, the Premier made an error on that and has written a note to the member opposite to apologize for that.

If you look in the Ontario budget -- I would direct the member to page 113 -- he will see that under "Payments from the Federal Government," towards the bottom of the page, the $253 million is reflected as a revenue.

Two pages over, 115, in terms of the capital plan, he'll see both under "Budgetary" and under "Loan Based" the reflection of that same amount, including the Ontario matched expenditures as expenditures. So it's accounted for; it doesn't affect the deficit in any way. It's a revenue coming in, like all other transfer payments, CAP etc, and an expenditure going out.

Mr Phillips: Mr Speaker, you can understand why I was so angry yesterday with the Premier. I said this federal money was in the reported spending of the province and in my opinion was misleading the people of Ontario, and he was wrong, but here's what he said about me:

"The member is completely and totally wrong.... I would say to the honourable member...very directly that he is flat wrong with respect to what he's saying."

He goes on to say: "Of course we're doing that, since that's provincial dollars. But the suggestion that somehow there's something else included in capital dollars is false, completely false, and is quite erroneous. I hope the member will withdraw it."

He couldn't have been clearer and meaner and nastier, when in fact we were absolutely right. It's not the first time that the Premier, when he's wrong, goes on the offence and says that someone else is not telling the truth.

Now that the Premier has been proven wrong -- flat wrong, completely wrong -- is he prepared to issue a public statement clarifying that, and is he prepared to tell the public that the document you put out was erroneous?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think what provoked the Premier yesterday was the assertion that there was some sleight of hand and misleading of the public that was going on. What I pointed out to the member opposite is that very clearly set out in the public budget document, on pages 113 and 115, it shows the money. It's here: "CanadaOntario Infrastructure Works," under "Payments from the Federal Government"; and under the expenditures, under "Budgetary" and "Loan Based," "Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Works," including the federal and the provincial dollars. I think the Premier was provoked by that, although he was incorrect in saying this money wasn't reflected in the $3.8 billion.

I also pointed out, in response to the first question, that the Premier sent a personal, hand-written note to the member opposite apologizing to him.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): He was provoked by the truth.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: At the very least, we have a Premier of the province who apologizes when he makes an error in the House.

Mr Phillips: Does that answer make any sense to anybody out there?

First, yesterday the Premier said publicly that no -- it's very clear -- the federal money is not included in the $3.8 billion. That's what the Premier said. It's clear; everybody should know that. "The member is completely wrong."

Now when I find out that the Premier was wrong and I was right, he's turning the argument completely around and saying, "Well, you should be able to read the fine print in the budget and realize that in fact it's there." I find that answer absolutely bizarre.

Another thing the Premier said yesterday, threatening me, was, "I look forward to talking with the construction workers in the member's riding and saying that it's the kind of...do-nothing Liberalism" that he worries about.

Now that we find out, now that the construction workers find out, that you are reporting the federal infrastructure money, the $250 million that's coming directly from the federal government for the infrastructure program, as your own expenditure, will you instruct the Premier to tell the construction workers in my riding that he is misrepresenting the federal infrastructure program?

Hon Ms Lankin: I find the member's response to my response bizarre, quite frankly. Let me suggest that the Premier has apologized and said he made an error with respect to whether or not that money was reflected in the budget, the $3.8 billion. The member opposite is making a capital case -- I don't mean to make a joke about this -- of $253 million. It's an important contribution to job creation in Ontario, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the remainder of that $3.8 billion, of which that money is reflective.

With respect to the construction workers in the member's riding, I would suggest to the Premier and any other member on this side that we go into that riding and we say with pride that we have invested more in infrastructure and creation of construction jobs in this province than any other government ever has. We have the most ambitious infrastructure program of any jurisdiction in North America.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, stop it, Frances.

Hon Ms Lankin: We're the ones who are pursuing the four subways, to the critics across the floor there saying we shouldn't be doing it. We're the ones who are making the 407 a reality much faster than it would have been. Those are the sorts of things that I would say to construction workers in the member's riding.

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

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a bit of a problem. As my House leader pointed out, there are so many cabinet ministers missing, and the one I want to ask is not on this list.

The Speaker: To whom do you wish to address your question?

Mr Mahoney: Well, he's not on this list and he's not here. I wanted to go to the Minister of Labour. Let me try --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): We have more cabinet ministers here than you have members there.

Mr Mahoney: Well, if you give us a list, we develop our business based on the list.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please. First, it would be very helpful if the member simply addressed his questions and remarks to the Chair, and second, if he would identify the minister to whom he wishes to place a question.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I asked this question or a similar one before. I asked it to the Premier; I would have liked to have gone to the Minister of Labour. I will try going to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you might get a connection here, Elmer. Stick with me.

The Ontario Corn Producers' Association, which I'm sure you're familiar with, has written a letter to me, and I assume to all members of the Legislature, expressing concern over the abandonment of some short-line rail lines that they use throughout the province to transport their products for various uses, be it distilling or feed or whatever it happens to be. They state in the letter:

"It is our view that a certain degree of branch-line rationalization must occur if there is any hope of the remainder of the system ever becoming competitive. However, several of the branch lines slated for abandonment by CN and/or CP Rail could function very well as short-line operations and would be sold to entrepreneurs if it were not for the onerous burdens imposed by section 64 of Bill 40 dealing with succession rights."

Would you tell us what you, as the Minister of Agriculture, can tell the Ontario Corn Producers' Association about amendments to this particular section of Bill 40?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'm aware of the situation, but we do have a lead minister on this topic. It's the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I appreciate the member's interest in this issue. I'm aware of his private member's bill. I assure him that there is a group of ministers and ministries that have been working on this issue. We've been working together with businesses, farmers, others, who are likely to be affected by any elimination of transport possibilities through these short-line rail operations.

It is a problem that needs a solution. It is one I'm committed to finding a solution to. I'm not prepared today to say that his recommended solution is the only solution that is possible. We have a group of people meeting with the affected communities and businesses and others and with CN. We are actually pursuing a couple of opportunities for a takeover of the rail situation which wouldn't involve amendments to the legislation.

What I commit to the member is that we'll keep him informed as the process unfolds. We're committed to finding a resolution to this. The resolution may not be the one that he has put forward, but I share his interest in finding the appropriate solution.

1410

Mr Mahoney: I'm sure the minister is aware that there is more than just the Barrie-Collingwood short-line situation involved here. There's concern over a line between Picton and Trenton, between Fergus and Waterloo, another spur in the Waterloo community, between Orillia and Midland, as well as the Barrie and Collingwood one.

Your suggestion that my solution is not particularly the one that you would adopt was made clear this morning when, unanimously, the caucus here rejected my private member's bill that would have granted an exemption specifically for short rail to the succession rights; not to eliminate succession rights in Bill 40, but simply an exemption.

Now, I understand that you and ministers Pouliot and Mackenzie have met with the Premier and with the affected parties, but they have entered into a tentative agreement and have said to you that they want one of two things: either an exemption to section 64 or some lead by your government to mould the 17 labour contracts that affect that one line into one single contract. Will you commit to us today that you will do one or the other to allow the line between Barrie and Collingwood at least, and hopefully the others that I've identified, to survive the abandonment by CN and/or CP and to save the jobs in these communities? Will you commit to us to one of those two programs today?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member suggests that those would be the only two possible solutions by virtue of the way he posed the question. We have been meeting with people about the possibility of amalgamation of a number of separate collective agreements and unions into one. That's one of the possibilities you put forth; it's one of the possibilities we're pursuing. We are looking at a number of particular options.

I am well aware of the fact that it is an issue that goes beyond the Collingwood and surrounding communities. Those are potentially the first three lines that would be affected by the abandonment decisions of CN and if confirmed by the National Transportation Agency of Canada. But we are aware of plans by CN to abandon a number of other lines in Ontario. From our analysis and discussion with communities and with CN, not all of them but some of them would be potential candidates for short-line railways.

We understand that the resolution that we find, while we're working particularly with respect to the immediate case of Collingwood right now, is one that would have to also have some provincial applicability. So we're looking for the specific and the provincial resolution at this point in time.

Mr Mahoney: The concern and the fear that the people have is that since -- and it was some time ago when this issue was first raised in the Legislature when I asked the Premier about it. The Premier made a commitment to look into a resolution as quickly as possible.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Try October 1992.

Mr Mahoney: October 1992.

He had a meeting with some ministers and these people and, Minister, the fear is, the clock is ticking and nothing is being done. The corn producers are very upset. The mayor of Collingwood and the mayors of all of these communities are very upset. They fear that the red tape that you like to talk about eliminating is going to bog down, and the meter runs out on June 17.

Will you commit to us unequivocally today that before June 17, on behalf of the people in Barrie, in Collingwood, in Picton, right across this province, you will find a resolution -- you've been given two choices here -- to this problem to save the many thousands of jobs that are of serious concern to the people in these communities? June 17 is a little more --

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Where are the federal Liberals who cancelled the program?

Mr Mahoney: If the minister would stop chirping -- is a little more than a month --

Hon Ms Lankin: Which minister?

Mr Mahoney: Not you; him -- a little more than a month away, Minister. And the way your government moves, we're very nervous that you're simply going to drop the ball and not come up with a solution in time.

Hon Ms Lankin: I may be able to give an answer here that will actually satisfy the member. I'd like to perhaps send him over a copy of correspondence to bring him up to date -- although I did answer this question weeks ago in the House -- and assure members that the June 17 deadline wasn't one which people had to be concerned that the clock was ticking away on, because I asked for and received an undertaking from CN that as we're making progress on finding a resolution to this issue, it would not abandon or lift up the rails for a minimum of six months past that June 17 deadline to give us more time to find a resolution to this problem.

So I hope that assures the member that that June 17 deadline doesn't have the import that it did for all of us about a month or so ago before I was able to receive that undertaking.

I just want to put one more comment on the record, in a way to give a different perspective to this. This is a problem for us to deal with. It is a problem that the Ontario government is dealing with, but it really, truly, we must remember, is the result of a continuation of a decision by CN, which is a crown agency, to abandon rail lines and the services to communities right across this province and in fact right across this country. That is not a policy that I agree with, and I wish we could also join together to try and reverse that direction at the more senior levels of government as well.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training.

Yesterday, the Premier told thousands of Ontarians who had direct input into the message in the Common Sense Revolution to stick it in their ears. That's what he said. Thousands of Ontarians who had direct input into this document, he told them to stick it in their ears. Today, in the Toronto Star a poll shows overwhelming public support for a key commitment in that document. I refer to the strong demand for cuts in the numbers of school boards, administrators and trustees in our province which we call the educrat empire and which is responsible for siphoning millions of tax dollars out of the classroom and into the hands of bureaucrats and consultants.

Could the minister tell us his views on these poll results as reflected in the Common Sense Revolution, or will he invite these concerned Ontarians who answered the Toronto Star poll to stick it in their ear too?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I find it interesting that the member needs to raise this question. I read the article in the Toronto Star today too. What the article said was that the poll results were a complete endorsement of what this government is doing in the education field. That's what the poll said, so just read the story.

I would agree that there is a need to reduce the number of school boards and the number of bureaucrats in the education field. We very much say that. I just want to know whether, and I read through your document, I read it very carefully on the weekend --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: I've got it. Yes, it is there. This is that.

I just would really like to have a clear idea of which school boards the Conservative Party is talking about closing, whether they have enough guts to take their policy and make it very specific across the province. For example, does the member believe that there are too many school boards in Metropolitan Toronto, in Ottawa or in Windsor and, if so, will the member go to those communities and talk to those boards and publicly state that they're prepared to downsize and to eliminate those particular school boards? Because all your document says --

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Cooke: All the document for the Conservative Party says is that it wants to downsize the number of school boards, but in order to do that they will consult widely with the trustees. Well, I can tell the member: Consult all you want with the trustees. Their position is, do not decrease the number of school boards.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm sure, then, if the minister believes what he just said, he has not read the Ontario Public School Boards' Association's school board structural change document, Investing in Our Communities, where they are looking at the consolidation of school boards, or the working paper number three on accountability. I recommend it for his reading. He will get some direction from the elected school boards across this province.

While you sit back and wait for voluntary action at the local level and for endless consultation and study, Mr Minister, the Premier of New Brunswick has taken action. By reducing the number of school boards two years ago from 42 to 18, Mr McKenna saved taxpayers in his province a whopping $5 million in the first year alone, and that's big money for a small province.

By contrast, here in Ontario you have studied reducing the number of school boards in Windsor-Essex, Ottawa-Carleton, where the actual number rose by one board, and now you are studying Metro.

1420

I should say that the board I refer to was the umbrella French-language school board, which will now be a French-language school board for both the public board and the separate school board, two boards; I'm being very specific. So in light of the mounting pressure that we see on behalf of parents and from taxpayers as well, will you instruct the Metro task force to complete its work in the next 90 days so that you can take some action?

Hon Mr Cooke: The Metro task force that has been set up will in fact be discovering and implementing saving measures before the final report comes in. But while the member sits in the House and raises this question -- and I congratulate her for finally doing it -- we have been out there across the province, day in and day out, talking to school boards, talking to communities and really doing it in terms of cooperative services and shared services and decreasing the amount of money going into administration and increasing the investment into our classrooms, decreasing the number of trustees on school boards. So we've done that. No matter how you try to spin it, the fact of the matter is that we're way out in front of you. We congratulate you for finally catching up.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm happy that the minister does agree, therefore, with our Common Sense Revolution document, because that's exactly what we're proposing. We're just saying he should move more quickly.

In my last question, I'd like to give the minister an example of tax dollars which are at stake. If the minister has changed his mind on the reporting time -- the interim report is due April 30, 1995; the final report, June 30, 1995 -- I think he should announce that in the House just like he announced those dates in the House just last week.

Simply by immediately approving the sharing of computer services -- which I told the minister last week -- warehousing and purchasing in the Metro Toronto school boards, we could save $55 million a year in board administrative costs; just in one year.

How many millions of tax dollars in waste, duplication and overlap do we and Kent county have to identify to convince you that time is passing quickly and the time for genuine reform is now? Are you going to move more quickly and move now on this duplication of services and bureaucrats in our system?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Years, and you did nothing.

The Speaker: The member for Oxford is out of order. Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's exactly what we've been doing through the establishment of the cooperative services and shared services. I think if the Conservative Party with its Common Sense Revolution is going to be honest with the people of this province, it is going to point out that in education what it is suggesting is the wiping out of junior kindergarten and the elimination of grade 13, which will mean 10,000 lost jobs; 10,000 teachers out who are now in the classroom. So don't give us this bull that you're going to save all this money in administration and bureaucracy. You are cutting back in a way that no government in this country has contemplated in the classrooms of Ontario.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. I know she's aware that this morning the public accounts committee was reviewing the highly controversial mismanagement at Houselink and the Supportive Housing Coalition. I hope by now the minister has been briefed on what took place this morning. We had a highly regarded civil servant by the name of Karim Amin, who is the director now of supply and financial services but he had been the former director of audit. Mr Amin did a creditable job this morning, highly professional, in directly answering direct questions.

I would now like to ask the minister some direct questions. We learned this morning that with some of the examples of mismanagement at Houselink -- for example, where the staff overpaid themselves a quarter of a million dollars in benefits and excess salaries without approval and used public funds for unauthorized travel, board dinners, parking tickets, wine and liquor for a residents' party and on and on -- when the internal auditor identified that, it was then referred to the senior staff in your ministry, who said, after the fact, "That's okay; we'll approve it." Do you agree with that kind of bookkeeping and that kind of approval of the misuse of public funds in this province?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member will recall that this government came to office on October 1, 1990, and that the discussions which took place around Houselink at the Ministry of Housing were occurring at about that time. I'm sure she will take that into account and recognize that the changes which have come to the non-profit housing program are changes which have been put in place after that time.

In particular, I hope she will acknowledge that in the creation of the new non-profit program following our public consultation in 1991 and the establishment of the policy goals in 1992 through the document Consultation Counts we have in fact instituted a very different kind of program and that the Ministry of Housing now has a very different kind of mandate in implementing that program.

Mrs Marland: What I do remember is that since this government came to office, you appointed the campaign manager of Bob Rae to the high position of agent general in Tokyo. Then you allowed his mother, Meg Sears, to go on a free trip to Germany with the executive director of Houselink.

You approved the misappropriation of funds after the audit. The audit reports were received by your government, not the Liberal government. Admittedly, the mismanagement took place when the Liberals were the government, but the approval of the expenditures after the fact was made by your government.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Cochrane South, come to order.

Mrs Marland: I simply ask you again, do you agree that all you have to do to make something right after the fact is to pat everybody on the head and say: "No, those expenditures weren't approved. We didn't approve the fact that the agency didn't get competitive bids to make contracts. We had sloppy accounting practices. We had cost overruns of up to $1 million"? If you approve that kind of process, is that the message you're sending to all the other non-profit housing agencies in this province?

I ask you again, do you approve the approval of expenditures after the fact, without substantiated documentation, which was identified for us this morning in the accounts committee?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly don't approve the unsubstantiated kind of allusions the member for Mississauga South is making. First of all, the agent general to whom she refers was appointed before our government was elected. She should get a little bit of her history in place.

Second of all, she is suggesting that there was a blanket approval of an audit situation in which it was identified that there were moneys owed to the Ministry of Housing and to the Ministry of Health. If she continues her work in the public accounts committee with goodwill, which I'm sure she will, then she will discover, which she somehow hasn't recognized yet, that the Ministry of Housing has retrieved all the moneys identified in that audit.

Mrs Marland: It's really depressing to know that this minister is head of this corporation that wrote off $29 million in the non-profit housing program in the last two weeks and stands here and defends a process. In fact, she is wrong: All that money hasn't been accounted for; we were told that this morning. All that money hasn't been returned. This misappropriation of funds has simply been approved by senior staff.

What we're saying to you is that your message to the people who run non-profit housing agencies in this province is, "It's okay whatever you do, because if it's not approved before, we'll approve it afterwards." I'm simply asking you again to defend how this money was spent.

1430

Why was the money not asked to be returned? Was Mrs Sears asked to pay for her trip to Germany? Was the executive director asked to pay for her trip to Germany? What about all the wine and liquor that was used for parties? What about the antique furniture?

I ask you once more, if staff around this province can appropriate funds to give themselves raises and change their salaries --

The Speaker: Could the member complete her question, please.

Mrs Marland: -- and all they need is the approval after the fact, is that the kind of accounting your government believes is creditable and responsible for the people of this province's tax money?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The question that is being asked, the so-called question, is neither creditable nor responsible. First of all, the write-off of the land loan program was a program that went back, as she knows, before the election of this government, and the land that was acquired for those projects was not allocated under this government. She knows that. If she's suggesting we should have continued with bad projects, I don't know why she would suggest that.

When we say we received all the moneys that were owed the Ministry of Housing in return after the audit, is she just refusing to accept that fact? I don't know how to get the facts clear for the member, and I wish she would take a question period position and let us know what she thinks should have happened, for example, on the non-profit housing land loan program.

Mrs Marland: I'm asking you. You're the Minister of Housing. I'm asking questions.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If she suggests we should continue pouring good money after bad, then I think that's very unwise.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I'm tempted to ask a question of Mr Wilson, the chief government whip, whose seat is occupied, but I will instead address the question to my friend the Attorney General.

Tomorrow my leader, Lyn McLeod, and the Liberal caucus will release a paper on safe communities, including in that, among other things, a request that the sentence under the Young Offenders Act be doubled in cases of murder. I ask the Attorney General if she supports such an initiative.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): We have been in discussions with the federal Minister of Justice for some time. As you know, Mr Speaker, the federal minister, whose responsibility and jurisdiction the Young Offenders Act is, has indicated his intention to introduce legislation during this session of the federal Parliament to increase sentences for first degree murder to 10 years for young offenders and seven years for second degree murder offences and asked for the opinion of the various ministers of justice across the country.

We have responded to the federal minister's letter, indicating some concern about the effect that that kind of mandatory sentencing would have, particularly in terms of the present system we have and most provinces have where the youth justice system does not include juries and where a sentence longer than five years would include juries, but have indicated our recognition of the clear need for longer sentences and suggested ways in which that might be accomplished.

We believe that it might be better accomplished through a presumption that people be tried in adult court, where a variety of sentencing might be available, rather than the mandatory sentences that are being proposed by the federal minister.

Mr Elston: I appreciate that the minister has given us some of the details, but perhaps she would want to give us an undertaking here today that she would provide us with the full script of some of those other options she's talking about.

The minister will know that an application to try certain people in adult court could in fact be refused and that would take away any ability to do anything with the sentencing. I want the Attorney General today to tell me if she disagrees with my leader's position, which is the doubling of the sentences for young offenders who commit first degree murder.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Certainly I can consider whether or not and can consult with my colleague as to whether it's appropriate to release a full text of a letter that went between us. I can indicate very clearly to the member that we recognize and are clear about our support for longer sentencing. We have some concerns about how that is best accomplished, and we simply want to work out with the federal Department of Justice how that can be best accomplished in a way that's going to achieve the ends.

The end of longer sentencing, of action in this area, is deterrence. The issue that the public has is the deterrence issue, whether it's the individual deterrence for an individual offender or a general deterrence within the general population.

The clear view that is held by Ontarians and Canadians in general is that the Young Offenders Act at the present time does not offer clear deterrence for these very serious crimes. We are very clear that we support in every way the necessity for the Young Offenders Act to achieve deterrence of these very serious crimes. We will work with our federal counterparts, whose responsibility it is to make a determination on the Young Offenders Act, to try and support the accomplishment of greater deterrence through the use of longer sentences through a transfer to adult court, whatever means is going to be most effective in achieving that kind of deterrence.

WATER QUALITY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Health. The state of California has initiated a number of lawsuits against three manufacturers of submersible pumps used in residential wells. These three manufacturers use lead in submersible pumps, which in turn leaches into the drinking water in that state.

Studies have proven, Minister, and you may know of them, that the water tested from wells that use these submersible pumps was contaminated with unacceptable levels of lead during the first 30 days of use. Are you aware of this problem, and what is your ministry doing to ensure that the pumps are not being sold in Ontario and contaminating drinking water during their first 30 days of use?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Yes, I am aware of the problem, and my ministry has been in contact with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which issues well permits, as to how we can best determine where these pumps might be and how we can contact people and make them aware of the problem. I do not have any further information I can share with the House today, but I would be glad to report to the House when I have more details.

Mr Tilson: I'm pleased that you'll be doing that, Madam Minister. Of course, this a problem particularly in rural Ontario, where many submersible pumps are used throughout the province.

This is a problem which has been occurring in other provinces, particularly the province of Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island's minister of the environment and health issued a press release earlier this week that warned of the health risks associated with newly installed submersible pumps during their first few months of use.

Would you be prepared, as the Minister of Health, to protect the people of Ontario by issuing a similar press release and advising Ontario residents of the risks of using these types of pumps?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm happy to assure the member that once my colleague the Minister of Energy and the officials from his ministry and my ministry have determined what the facts are, then we will take whatever action is required to protect the people of this province.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding the plight of the ex-psychiatric patients' residence in the town of Ridgetown. This is a privately operated home for those needing 24-hour supervision.

In 1989 Kent county withdrew from the domiciliary hostel program, and subsequently the CMHA, Kent, received the contract to provide case management programming services for the residents as well as funding the contract with the operator to provide residential services, mainly accommodation and food. In 1990 funding for the residential services was dropped, and the mortgage holder foreclosed in 1992. Now the facility is being operated by a receiver out of compassion for the plight of the residents.

There have been many studies which have concluded that there are no suitable alternative facilities in the county. In any case, the residents, many of whom have lived there for some 10 years, wish to stay together.

Madam Minister, what we want to know is, what support can the residents of Ridgetown residence and the citizens' committee expect from your ministry, and how soon? Even though the Liberals over there don't care about these people, I want to know and so do my constituents.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I can assure the people of Ridgetown and the surrounding area that the member does want to know about their wellbeing and has discussed this with me on many occasions. I want to say to him that recent meetings between my ministry and officials of the Kent county Canadian Mental Health Association have discussed the future residence and support systems that people need.

1440

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Then why did he ask you now?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Why did he have to ask you again here?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it is appropriate for the member to raise the question now, in response to members of the opposition who wonder why he's doing so, because we have not been able to resolve the situation. The house is in receivership, and I share his concern that appropriate support services be available. I want to assure him that we are prepared to fund the Canadian Mental Health Association to provide those additional support services.

When he says that extensive studies have indicated that there is no alternative to the present accommodation, I would have to differ with him and to say that it is not at all clear whether in fact this is the most appropriate location or residential setting for the patients concerned. That's our primary concern and we will continue to work to make sure that's resolved.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question for the Minister of Health on the subject of constructing a new facility for the criminally insane.

Two days ago we had a public meeting which was attended by over 400 irate citizens and three reps of the Minister of Health. All of us who were attending there were relieved that the reps said they had agreed that the decision that the ministry had made for this new facility at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre was a wrong decision.

I'm asking today, if the minister should receive a recommendation from the regional director of mental health program services and the regional head of forensic operations, will she then halt this construction and review this decision?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am amazed at the member's characterization of the submissions made at the meeting by representatives of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre. Certainly one of my staff attended the meeting -- I regret that I was unable to do so -- and that was not in fact any position taken by representatives of the Ministry of Health.

I certainly understand the community's concern. I have met with representatives of the community. The member for Fort York has made me well aware of the fact that a number of his constituents don't believe that they had an opportunity to participate in this discussion. I have visited the facility.

Let me say to the member, there is nowhere in the greater Toronto area that is a medium-security facility for people with mental illness, and I think it is long overdue that there be those facilities. This is not an addition to Queen Street; this is a change of one floor in one building into a medium-security facility to accommodate 20 patients. At this point I have no reason to believe that it is not badly needed in the greater Toronto area.

Mr Ruprecht: That certainly was not the question. The question was, Madam Minister, will you change your mind and review this decision if your regional director is giving you a new recommendation? That was the question, and I would expect that you would answer it.

My supplementary really is, you might have heard from previous reports, especially in the Toronto Sun, that your own NDP colleague the MPP for Fort York was totally clueless, as you left him out to dry, to defend this ill-advised decision. I quote for you, should you have forgotten this. "'Nobody has been consulted,' a disgruntled Marchese said. 'I was surprised it was happening without my knowledge. You can't say it's a good idea if no one even had the opportunity to talk about this proposal.'"

Madam Minister, the residents want to talk about this proposal to you, and they have requested to hear from you personally. The question is, are you prepared to meet and to speak with them at a public meeting or forum, either in Fort York or in Parkdale, to explain what you so beautifully explained in this House of how this decision is going to affect or not going to affect the residents?

Hon Mrs Grier: I and members of my staff have met with the community advisory board. There have been extensive meetings with the member for Fort York and local representatives of the area. The member's question continues to puzzle me. There has been a lot of discussion about lack of consultation, and I agree that the consultation was perhaps not as wide as it might have been, or the public was not aware of it. But I understand that at the meeting to which the member refers, a member of his constituency rose and read a letter, dated March 1993, to the honourable member raising concerns about the forensic facility. He said at the meeting that he hadn't had any response and he wondered why his MPP had not responded to his concern.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General, and it deals with masters of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Minister, you know that masters of the Ontario Court of Justice look after pre-trial motions in civil matters. In Metro Toronto they do mechanics' lien trials. They look after family law matters, and yesterday and virtually every day of the week they deal with approximately 100 to 150 matters. Your government and the Liberal government before you came up with a plan to get rid of the masters of the Ontario Court of Justice. When all of these masters are gone, who's going to look after these 100 to 150 items every day?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member asks an excellent question and one that certainly concerns all of the legal profession and those who participate in the commercial law sector. He is right that the changes in the court system were brought in under the previous Liberal government, and our government, in looking at those changes, made a determination to carry through with the alterations that had happened.

There has been a steady attrition in the number of masters. I believe there are nine who continue to work in the Toronto area. What the member didn't say was that these masters have only ever existed in two jurisdictions, actually at one point three jurisdictions, in the province of Ontario, and that the rest of the province has dealt very well without the operation of this particular office.

In the civil justice review that the Chief Justice and I have jointly initiated, one of the aspects of that that is being considered is indeed how to do this work in a different way, what kinds of experts might do this work, whether it needs to be the judiciary or whether in certain circumstances, certainly with the consent of the participants, it could be an expert who could look at these issues.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: We're deeply concerned, as the member is, and are determined to work together with the judiciary to resolve this issue.

Mr Harnick: It's passing strange when the minister says that someone is going to have to do this work. The only someones left, if the masters are no longer available in Metropolitan Toronto, where lists reach upwards of 150 a day, are judges.

Are you going to tell me now and stand in this place and say that judges have time to do this, when at the same time you've appointed a committee to look after the fact that there's a backlog of civil cases in this province that has reached almost epidemic proportion? Who's going to do the work?

If you're going to replace them with other people, why don't you just keep the masters, as the profession has asked you to do over and over and over again, and at the very least, stand here and say that this committee that you've now struck will review what the job of the masters is, whether the masters should remain, and that you will accept the recommendation they make.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I will be very clear. We're not contemplating reintroducing masters. What we are doing is working together with the judiciary because together we recognize that indeed if judges need to do all this work, it is a very serious impediment to access to justice.

The committee's job is not just to study but to come up with solutions to this issue. We do not believe that in every case it is necessary for a judge to make these determinations, and we are looking at the circumstances, the protocol and the standards under which other solutions might be made. There have been suggestions over many years about other solutions than judges doing this adjudication, particularly with the consent of the parties involved, and that is the work we are doing, together with the judiciary.

I fully expect that we will come up with solutions that are mutually satisfactory, that indeed have not only the consent but the enthusiastic participation and agreement of both the ministry and the judiciary as we go through the process.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would urge the member not to try and assume that one solution or another will be recommended by that committee, because the committee has been very clear that it is keeping an open mind and seeking solutions, not necessarily rolling the clock backward to a solution that may have been appropriate at one point but may no longer be appropriate at this point.

1450

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. At the recent Oxford County Federation of Agriculture day called Oxford 2000, a pork producer raised a concern about testing for the pork industry. He was concerned that testing that formerly was performed at Centralia College and was supposed to be transferred to Guelph is being done in the United States instead because Guelph does not have the ability to do the tests or analyse the results.

Minister, is it true that the specialized testing that had been done at Centralia for the swine industry is now being done in the United States?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'd like to thank the member for the question, because sometimes rumours circulate around rural Ontario that are not accurate and I think it's important to give the opportunity to correct the record and dispel any rumours.

The member is right: There is one test that we have always sent to the US, that in fact we send to Iowa. It's a test for a disease that's known as porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome. When we test for that particular disease, which is also known as mystery swine disease, we've always sent the samples to Iowa. But I want to assure the member and all the pork producers in the province that all the tests that were done at Centralia before are currently being done in Guelph. We will continue to provide all the tests that were provided before by Centralia.

Mr Sutherland: Thank you for that answer, Minister. The pork producers were also concerned about the support the Quebec government was providing its hog industry compared to provincial support for our industry in Ontario. Minister, can you tell the pork producers in Oxford and across Ontario what you are doing to support the pork industry to ensure it is competitive with its fellow producers in Quebec?

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): This is not a pork barrel.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I know the member across the way from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry can't wait to get on the order paper to ask questions about the budget.

At any rate, in terms of supporting the pork industry in Ontario and especially in the member's riding of Oxford, a couple of things we have been trying to do in this province are make sure that pork producers have access to all national programs, current and future.

In fact, we're in the process of phasing out what's called a national tripartite program for pork producers. We'll be looking at a new, whole-farm approach. The ministers will be talking about that in Winnipeg in July. We certainly want to make sure that Ontario pork producers get treated equitably by the federal government.

One other point I want to make on what we have done: Ontario Swine Improvement Inc is an organization of producers that we have allowed to be set up to make sure that we continue to have superior breeding stock in this province. We actually have a very good record in terms of bacon and pork production that we export to the US. This government will continue to support that industry and make sure that it continues to be a viable agricultural industry here in this province.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Minister of Health. The following statement was made recently in St Catharines: "People with mental health problems would be better off moving out of Niagara, the regional committee was told yesterday. The residents of Niagara are not getting a fair deal when it comes to mental health services." Dr Art Comley, a Niagara family physician and head of an advisory committee on mental health issues had that to say. He said there's a great dearth of psychiatric care in Niagara, and a person who's working with him, Brenda Coleman, who joins Comley on the advisory committee, said: "If you have a mental illness, you should move. The Niagara area falls short compared to services in places such as Hamilton, Waterloo and Oakville."

Would the minister tell us, within the allocation that is provided to her, what she intends to do to improve the circumstances for those suffering from mental health problems in the Niagara region?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The kind of debate over the need for mental health services that I'm sure is occurring in the Niagara region and other parts of this province is exactly the kind of debate and the planning that will lead us to be able to have in this province a mental health system that meets the needs of everyone.

It's now almost a year since we released the report on mental health reform in this province, Putting People First, which was based on the work that had been done by the Graham committee and under previous governments.

The planning that is evolving from that is well under way by district health councils and I suspect the comment you refer to was part of the discussion in Niagara region. As the district health councils prepare their plans and submit them to the ministry, then we'll be in a position to respond, setting out clear priorities and making it very plain that the need to meet the needs of people with mental illness is one that involves both care in the community and care in institutions.

Mr Bradley: One of the problems we encounter in the Niagara region when the local members meet with the Niagara District Health Council or others to discuss issues of this kind is that it is said we can acquire these services in a place such as Hamilton, because it's a regional centre. Yet when people from St Catharines and Niagara Falls and other places in the Niagara Peninsula endeavour to receive those services, they find that in fact they've been largely occupied by the people right in Hamilton and the immediate district.

Would the minister tell us whether she believes that the appropriate answer is going to be for people in St Catharines and Niagara Falls and Welland and Port Colborne to always have to go to Hamilton when apparently Hamilton appears to be serving its own people first?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me assure the member that my colleagues from the peninsula have made me well aware of this concern and sometimes this perception that Hamilton is better served than the peninsula. I see them nodding. We have had those conversations.

Let me say to the member that I think it is highly unlikely that a new psychiatric hospital would be built. The Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital serves a regional need, but the purpose in planning for mental health services on a district health council basis is precisely so that we can identify those services that are not being provided in various districts now and where they need to be enhanced, because I see the services to serve the severely mentally ill and to serve the families and the supporters of those people as being best placed in the communities where people live.

That doesn't mean we will not always have the need for the institution which will serve the region, but yes, I agree with him that it is important to look at the specific needs of the area he represents and of the peninsula and meet those needs. I hope the plans will allow us to do that.

SPOUSAL BENEFITS

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Attorney General on same-sex spousal benefits. Attorney General, considering the fact that there's been a free vote declared on that side of the House as well as on this side of the House, I would like to know if your ministry or any ministry within the government has done any polling on this issue. If they have done the polling, considering your track record in opposition, I would assume that with the free vote declared, the polling would in fact be made available to all parties. Have you done any polling on this and, if so, may we be able to look at this before the vote is taken?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I know there has been some polling done on this and in recent months we've devised a number of questions, but frankly I have not seen the results of any and I'm not sure whether the poll has been conducted to this point. I can find that out for the member, and certainly anything that is made available to me as a result of that polling, I have no problem with sharing.

Mr Stockwell: That's good. Thank you, Madam Minister.

I would also ask further that if this passes second reading, will it be referred to committee so the public in the province of Ontario may have an opportunity to comment and have input on the legislation?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I know that the member knows that we were very, very supportive of the previous bill, Bill 45, that was brought forward by the Liberal member for St George-St David going forward to committee, and indeed had done a good deal of work to try to ensure that all the various views on this issue would be presented to the committee. At this point in time, I think that decision will be up to the members of this House as to whether they wish it.

I can tell you that we're of two opinions here. We believe that given the kind of legislation we'll be bringing forward, it's relatively straightforward. We're talking about a human rights issue. We're talking about an issue that is a very straightforward one of whether we as a Legislature here believe that it is appropriate for one small group of people to be exempted from equal human rights in this province. It may well be that this Legislature will clearly determine that it is not necessary for lengthy hearings. I can't imagine that there wouldn't be some hearings at all.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: I can't imagine that would be our decision, because it is a very important issue, but I can't tell him the extent to which that would be or to which committee at this point in time we would recommend it be sent.

1500

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Health, and I would like to thank the member across the way for his concern about mental health needs around Niagara. It is a great need.

Madam Minister, chronic care beds at my local hospital are closing, and placement is in long-term care facilities through the placement coordination services that are being set up. I have had several constituents in my office who are worried about this placement, and I'll tell you why.

For example, a spouse is being placed in a long-term care facility which is not in Niagara Falls. The other spouse has been used to visiting daily and helping out their loved one. They are very much afraid that if they're not able to go daily, their loved one's health will go downhill. In Niagara Falls we have only one regional home and that's Dorchester Manor, and virtually no public transit between Niagara Falls and Fort Erie, and Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake.

What criteria do you use to place people and make sure that they have access to their loved ones in long-term care facilities?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me respond by saying that placement coordination is placement coordination. It's not placing people in facilities; it's providing the information in one spot that makes it easier for people to choose the facility in which they want to be. Placement coordination is now available, through our expansion, across most of Ontario and soon will be throughout the province.

It is the consumers who decide where they want to go. The placement coordination service provides the consumers with all the information about the options available to them and avoids what's happening currently, which is consumers having to be on seven waiting lists, if there are in fact seven facilities, and not know when they might be able to get into one.

I can't say strongly enough that the applicants choose the facility they want to stay in. The placement coordination service makes it as easy as possible for the consumers to find the homes that most meet their needs and provides them with the information about the care and the services offered.

Of course, I agree with her completely that everyone wants to be close to their home and in their own community. That's what our reform of long-term care is all about, and that's what I believe it will make possible for people all across this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question, given by the Premier, concerning federal-provincial infrastructure spending. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you just read, pursuant to standing order 34(a), I too wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction. It's with the response of the Minister of Health to my question on the expanded facility at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre for the criminally insane. I wish to have that debated tonight at six.

The Speaker: I trust the member will send the necessary document to the table.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, I have notified you in advance that I rise on a point of privilege and I have given you documentation. I would crave your indulgence so that I may get everything on the record and so that you may rule.

My privilege of freedom of speech, on my behalf and on behalf of my constituents, has been circumscribed by the fact that this government has not sought the approval of this House for any of its budgets.

As set out in the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, paragraph 976, page 264, "What distinguishes a budget from any other financial statement is the motion 'That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government'...."

One of the basic tenets of responsible government is that government seeks support of its policies from the House. The budget is the clearest and most fundamental statement of the government's policy and, as such, members of the House should be afforded an opportunity to vote on the legitimacy of the fiscal course being charted by the government.

The government has control of the order paper, and the way in which it's choosing to conduct its business is a violation of my right to vote on the item of business which the people of York Mills have deemed to be fundamental and vital.

The 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice confirms that some privileges rest solely upon the law and custom of Parliament and notices that the most important sources from which existing forms and rules of procedures are drawn are "Practice," followed by "The standing orders" and then "Rulings from the Chair" -- Erskine May, 21st edition, page 2.

With respect to the handling of the budget, it is the practice of this House to debate the main budgetary motion and then vote on it. We have not voted on any of the budgets introduced by this government and are now in the unusual circumstance of having two budget motions, pertaining to the 1993 and the 1994 budgets, on the order paper simultaneously.

We do debate and vote on interim supply motions and other taxation bills at other times during the year, but the budget stands alone in being treated as a significant policy statement. The lockup exercises and corresponding media circus which ensue on budget day underscore its significance. The cameras are not trained on the Legislature when we finally get around, in a midnight sitting, to a debate of interim supply.

The traditional handling of the budget in this House, as described by Dr Graham White's definitive study, The Ontario Legislature, is to table it in the spring, debate it and then vote on it as the last order of business before the House adjourns for the December break.

Mr Speaker, I have provided you with excerpts from the final status of business for the period of 1980 through 1992, and a summary of the way in which the budget was handled by the House during the period, to illustrate that there's a tradition in this House of fully debating the main resolution and then voting on the motion. The House has deviated from this practice for good reasons in years when an election is called, but I repeat that the usual tradition of this House is to vote on the budget after a period of debate which is longer than has been offered by this government.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule on this violation of the custom and traditions of this House, noting that under standing order 1(b), in ruling on questions not provided for in the standing orders, you shall base your "decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition."

I thank you for your consideration in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May I say to the honourable member for York Mills first that I appreciate the manner in which he brought this item to my attention, and indeed he has supplied me with the information of which he speaks. I am aware of the situation he draws to my attention. While I'm not sure whether or not the member has a point of privilege, I will be most pleased to examine the documents he has brought to my attention, the situation which he describes, and I will report back to the House as early as I can. I thank the member.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mr O'Neil (Quinte) and Mr McGuinty exchange places in the order of precedence for private member's public business.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1510

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have the consent of the House, and you can test that, to deal now with the motion which was tabled earlier this week regarding the appointment of the Environmental Commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have agreement? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: "To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario now assembled, request the appointment of Eva Ligeti as Environmental Commissioner for the province of Ontario as provided in section 49 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, to hold office under the terms and conditions of the said act, and that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker."

I believe we had agreement among the three parties that one member from each of the parties would speak to this motion. The member for Oxford will be speaking on behalf of the government.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's a pleasure for me to participate in this discussion on the appointment of Eva Ligeti as the Environmental Commissioner.

First of all, before I begin, let me say that I want to thank the work of Ellen Schoenberger, director of human resources for the Legislative Assembly, for all her assistance in going through the applications and assisting the committee in going through a formal interview process.

We had more than 200 applications for the position, and I think that reflects and bodes well for the degree of public interest in the Environmental Bill of Rights but also in the Environmental Commissioner, in seeing this as a very important position, not only being an officer of the Legislative Assembly but of the people of Ontario and what the role of the Environmental Commissioner can be.

As I was saying, there were more than 200. Obviously, we didn't interview all 200. We narrowed it down to a group of 20 who were interviewed. Let me say too that I have not participated in this type of interview process before here at the assembly for choosing one of the officers, but I was most impressed by the level of those 20 candidates and some of the others we didn't interview. It was very impressive.

All the candidates we interviewed had tremendous backgrounds, either specifically in environmental areas or in public policy or participating in some type of agency or public commission. I got a great sense that all the candidates had a very strong desire and strong interest in serving not only this House and the assembly but also the people of Ontario.

Not everyone could be chosen, of course, and we had to choose one person. I was very pleased with the selection of Ms Ligeti. I believe she brings to the position a wide degree of experience. Ms Ligeti has a background in law; she is a lawyer. Although my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville is not present, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Ms Ligeti is a graduate of the University of Windsor law school, of which the member for Windsor-Walkerville is also a graduate. Besides that, she also received a master's in law from Osgoode.

Her last position before taking on this one was as chair of the school of legal and public administration at the Sheppard campus of Seneca College. So she has a great deal of involvement and experience within our community college system, which does serve this province very well.

She has experience in working within the court system. She did spend a couple of years as legal counsel for the Canadian Environmental Law Association. She has experience there. She has operated in general practice. She also worked for a couple of years with the office of the Chief Judge of the provincial court (criminal division), working for Chief Judge Hayes.

As you can see, Ms Ligeti has a proven track record of working in many different areas not only of the law but also of the environment, but also has a very extensive background of working in many community groups and different organizations. That extensive experience will serve her well in the challenges she will face as Environmental Commissioner in terms of having to deal with many different interests: those who have a strong interest in the environment, business communities, rural Ontario, those involved in agriculture, and many other community groups. I think she has very strong skills, particularly communication skills, and will do a wonderful job of engaging the public in the issues around the Environmental Bill of Rights and making sure they're aware of that.

To those who are listening and watching today, I know there is already a great deal of interest in it, people wanting to use the Environmental Bill of Rights to look at a lot of areas. I would only ask that they be somewhat patient and understanding that not only do we have a new commissioner, but this is a new office, and there are always challenges and difficulties that need to be worked through when you're establishing a new office. I hope the many people who want to use the office of the Environmental Commissioner will be patient and understanding as they work to get the office up and running to serve the people of Ontario.

Let me say in conclusion that we have a very, very good person to take on the position of Environmental Commissioner. I want to again thank all the other members of the committee who were involved in the interview process, and Ellen Schoenberger in human resources at the Legislative Assembly, for all their assistance.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Let me say at the outset on behalf of the Liberal caucus that we welcome and congratulate Eva Ligeti on her appointment as the Environmental Commissioner. As the Environment critic for our party, I went through the deliberations on the Environmental Bill of Rights and then had the opportunity of going through the appointment process for the Environmental Commissioner. Something like 280 people expressed interest in the position, submitted résumés, and they are very talented people from a broad cross-section of this province.

I'd like to thank Ellen Schoenberger for her work and assistance to the committee in terms of going through the résumés and helping us in our assessment about who we felt might be best for the position. It is not an easy decision to make. It took a great deal of time and a great deal of deliberation, and there were many very qualified people who did take the time and effort to apply for the position, who came before the committee for interviews, and some for second interviews.

I have no hesitation that Eva Ligeti, through her past experience, will bring a great talent to the position. It's a new position. It's an untried position. It's an untested office. There will be many people who will be watching how this Environmental Commissioner and this office will work, how the operation of the Environmental Bill of Rights will proceed.

As you know, there have been concerns raised that the office of the Environmental Commissioner is one that should not be expanded to a size that does not serve the people of the province in their best interest. I believe the current choice, Ms Ligeti, is sensitive to the concerns that have been raised that this type of office should not become more of a bureaucratic maze, as has been seen in the past. Without question, that will be a major challenge and one which I feel Ms Ligeti will be up to meeting.

There is an expectation on the part of the people of the province about what the Environmental Bill of Rights is, what it will do, what it holds itself out to be. There is an expectation about what the Environmental Commissioner is, what the Environmental Commissioner's functions are, how they will serve members of the Legislature and indeed be a servant to the Legislative Assembly.

1520

I believe there are still many questions that are yet to be answered, but I believe the selection of Ms Ligeti is in keeping with what I hope is a consensus of opinion about what the office should be, what its functions should be, how the Environmental Bill of Rights should operate. We, of course, as members of the Legislature, will be very cognizant of what goes on in that office and how it operates. I know all members of this Legislature, and all people, will be very cognizant of how the office is set up and the size of the office. I believe that is a function and a responsibility that Ms Ligeti will hold well.

She, as I have said, brings a wealth of experience. She brings, in my opinion, a certain humanistic quality to the office which I believe will bode well for the successful operation of the bill of rights and the office of the Environmental Commissioner.

I would like, on behalf of my caucus, to congratulate Ms Ligeti on her selection. I would like to thank Ellen Schoenberger for the help she rendered to the committee in its deliberation and the assessment of candidates. And I would like to congratulate all of those who saw fit to apply for this position, for taking the time and the effort to come, either through résumé or through application and interview, to the committee.

We will all be watching how the office of the Environmental Commissioner evolves, the growth of that office, how it deals with the issues and its report to this Legislature. We are well aware of the provisions of the Environmental Bill of Rights. We are also well aware, through the deliberation on the legislation itself, of the concern people had that the office should not grow to a size that would be a detriment to its successful and effective operation.

Having said that, once more I would like to congratulate Ms Eva Ligeti on her appointment as Ontario's first Environmental Commissioner.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate Ms Ligeti. I guess it's Dr Ligeti. Is it Doctor? Anyway, she's certainly a well-qualified person for this position. I sat on the committee, along with the previous two speakers, and we interviewed 19 individuals, I think it was. All of them were well qualified, and many others, from their curriculum vitae, were certainly well qualified as well. But Ms Ligeti did impress us and I think the committee was unanimous in that choice. Looking at her qualifications, her legal background, her public background, her educational background, she certainly will be qualified for the job.

The concern I have is of course the operation of the Environmental Bill of Rights office. We in our party are concerned about the issue of the cost, about whether it will be another layer of bureaucracy over which we'll simply have no control.

One of the questions I asked on the committee of all the applicants for the job was that if in their first few months of office there was a tremendous deluge of applications of people concerned with issues in the environment, would the commissioner's office be able to handle these issues? Some of the answers were fair and some of the answers were poor, because obviously there's a great limitation of staff, notwithstanding the fact that the government has seen fit to appoint a number of individuals to the Environmental Bill of Rights office even before the bill was passed. This office is established at the office of the Minister of Environment and Energy and has been described in the provincial telephone directory. There have been a number of people working for several months. At least 10 people have been working in the office of the Environmental Bill of Rights, without the commissioner, for a great many months.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What are they doing?

Mr Tilson: I don't know what they're doing. There's a director, there are several senior analysts, there's an administrative coordinator, there's an environmental commission analyst, there's an implementation coordinator, there's a coordinator of the environmental commission training and communications and then there's another senior policy analyst. I don't know how many more are going to be hired.

The Board of Internal Economy, of course, approved Ms Ligeti's salary. They also approved her budget. Quite frankly, one of the concerns I have is that we have absolutely no idea what this bureaucracy is going to cost and whether they're going to be effective in dealing with concerns about the environment.

One of the issues that has come up in this Legislature recently has been the topic of the Flying Toad co-op on the Toronto Islands. Bill 61 was passed and literally enables the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and other ministries to bypass the traditional planning standards we've had in this province.

This morning, Mrs Marland, the member for Mississauga South, and I made an application to the commissioner -- I presume it will be one of her first applications -- to deal with this issue, because this is something a number of groups have expressed concerns about with respect to environmental problems in the province.

In a statement earlier today in this place, I expressed concerns that notwithstanding the fact that the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has designated these lands as an environmentally significant area, that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has identified these lands as regionally significant areas of natural and scientific interest and that the Crombie commission recommended their full protection, notwithstanding all these things, the government is proceeding in building these co-ops. In fact, the provincial government is literally building a dike around the outside of these floodplain lands to stop water and others from affecting the co-ops and this building.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party are concerned with the environment of the Toronto Islands. I had my staff telephone the commissioner's office this morning -- because we know their office; they have the same office and address and I believe telephone number as the Minister of Environment and Energy. They said they would be unable to handle that application for a considerable period; in fact, that the earliest they would get their office up and running would be by the end of the summer. That's before they could even look at it.

So we have a lot of concerns about the effectiveness of this operation. For example, on the issue of the casino in Windsor, a number of people in Windsor are concerned about whether there should be an environmental assessment in the city and whether the Minister of Environment and Energy has overstepped his discretionary powers in refusing the right to have an environmental assessment in Windsor. I expect this issue will be raised with the Environmental Commissioner's office.

So those are two issues alive today that we know will not be dealt with for a considerable time.

On the issue of cost, the Minister of Environment and Energy did state in a press conference last year that the government would probably spend $4.5 million over the next two years to implement the legislation. That is one of our major fears: that this is extremely low and that the cost will far exceed $4.5 million.

At a time when this government is cutting back on the number of staff for the various ministries, you may recall that in the Environmental Bill of Rights there's an obligation for various ministries, I think 14 of them, to prepare environmental statements. That will require the staff to spend some time preparing those statements. As well as that, there will be time in investigations on various issues. The cost to those ministries will be high, in terms of the time that's required for properly preparing those statements. This is at a time when the staff of the Ministry of Environment and Energy and other ministries is being cut under the social contract and other cost-saving measures because of the high deficit of this province. So the very ministries that are being criticized for not being effectively operated are being cut back in staff, and yet here we're hiring a whole new bureaucracy.

1530

To be fair to Ms Ligeti -- and I don't mean to attack her personally, because certainly I was one who supported her retention as the commissioner -- my concern is that she's going to be operating a system that will be impossible for her to effectively operate, particularly when the earliest that she can even look at an application such as mine and the member for Mississauga South's is this summer.

Now, $4.5 million is a very conservative estimate and I'm certain that this number would not include, as I say, the cost to the 14 ministries to formulate their statements of environmental values, a process that will probably involve considerable financial and human resources simply to prepare those statements, aside from the commissioner getting into various environmental concerns around this province that range from all kinds of subjects, from the building of co-ops on Toronto Island to the construction of a temporary and permanent casino in the city of Windsor.

Our party still has a concern with respect to the ability of the government, particularly the Ministry of Environment and Energy, to enforce this legislation. We know as a fact, because it's come up at estimates and other committees at this place, that there has been some difficulty. The Ministry of Environment in particular, in enforcing its regulations and its requirements, simply doesn't have the person-power to make those inspections.

Now they're going to be asked to do all kinds of things. My recollection was there were something like 51 cutbacks in staff at the Ministry of Environment -- I could be corrected on that -- last year, yet it's going to be asked to do even more. So our fear is that this implementation not only of the commission but what the commission will be doing to the various ministries will create many problems.

In the very near future, the commissioner's office, I believe, will be simply buried with requests for investigations and reviews. The strain on many branches of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, particularly investigations and enforcement, will be simply unbelievable and enormous. I say that the Ministry of Environment is having difficulty enforcing these things now. With this whole new bureaucracy, not only the commissioner's office will be unable to effectively operate, but the Ministry of Environment and the other 13 ministries will have difficulty as well.

During our questioning of candidates for this position, we made comparisons on the subject of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Environmental Bill of Rights. The fact of the matter is that applications to the Human Rights Commission take at least a year and, in many cases, over a year -- a year and a half -- to process. We believe that a similar problem is going to exist with the whole subject of the environmental commission.

There will be so many applications that only one thing is going to happen. Either it's going to get buried in paperwork and applications, or it's simply going to have to come back to this place and ask for a larger budget with more staff to effectively operate. I, quite frankly, don't think that the whole process has been properly thought out.

Voters in Ontario are well aware of the problems of the Human Rights Commission with respect to the backups and the speed of processing complaints. The potential, as I've indicated, for a similar scenario arising at the Environmental Commissioner's office certainly exists.

I have often referred to a quote from a Toronto lawyer, Ian Blue. Mr Blue, to anyone who has been involved in environmental matters, is a well-known specialist in environmental law. He has stated that this legislation is an admission by this government that the Ministry of Environment has not been doing its job. Why do we need another bureaucracy to deal with the complaints that have been going to the Ministry of Environment that the Ministry of Environment hasn't been able to deal with?

We're going to have a bureaucracy that will be weighted down with complaints that simply can't do what the Ministry of Environment already can't even do. It's a double negative, I know, but it's a concern of this side of the House, particularly when we're in a period of restraint and have grave concerns as to deficits and high budgets and other matters such as that.

Michael Crawford, the executive director for Canadian Lawyer magazine, has noted that the problem is with the Ministry of Environment. If they aren't powerful enough to go after offenders, why not fix that problem and give them more power? That has been another criticism that we on this side have raised, that there already was a process. There was a process in environmental assessments and environmental protection so that individuals could deal with certain environmental issues in this province, and that didn't work. I can tell you that this system is going to be even worse.

I wish Ms Ligeti well in her process, but I'm afraid that the government hasn't given her the tools that she's going to be required to deal with in solving many of the problems in this province. I am especially concerned with the information that I've received this morning, as I indicated, that the commissioner's office simply won't be in a position to effectively operate until at least the end of this summer. By that time, I don't know how many applications are going to be before her or before her office, I don't know how many staff are going to be required for her to deal with that, but I have grave concerns and I worry about the effectiveness of the whole operation of the Environmental Commissioner's office.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'll be extremely brief, because our member spoke for only two minutes here today.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines, there was unanimous consent earlier that one person from each of the three parties make a few brief remarks regarding the appointment of Ms Ligeti.

Mr Offer: I ask for unanimous consent for one further speaker.

The Speaker: The request which the member wishes to make is certainly in order. Is there unanimous consent to hear one more person?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): From each party? No, I don't agree to that.

The Speaker: No. Agreed.

Mr Bradley: Thank you for the unanimous consent. I'll be extremely brief because of that.

I simply wanted to first of all congratulate the new commissioner and note that if the commissioner is going to be able to do the job appropriately, I urge all members of the House, particularly on the government side, to ensure that there is sufficient funding. Because of the economic circumstances that have faced the province, the budget, for instance, of the ministry operating end -- and you'll know the difference between the operating and capital -- has gone down some $161 million in the period between 1992-93 and 1994-95.

The only reason I mention this is this will put a new onus on the Ministry of Environment to be able to carry out its responsibilities, so I urge all members of the House on all sides to support the Minister of Environment in securing the necessary funding, which will require some increase if the commissioner is to be very effective.

The ministry now is facing, as all ministries do, significant cutbacks in resources, money and personnel. I think it's extremely important, to help out the new commissioner, who I know will want to do a good job, that we have that sufficient funding available.

The Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable members for Oxford, Mississauga North, Dufferin-Peel and St Catharines for their words of welcome to our latest officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Shall the motion carry? Agreed.

Before petitions, pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Parkdale has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning the Queen Street Mental Health Centre expanded facility. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

1540

PETITIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep getting these petitions on this expanded facility for the criminally insane. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming-houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and

"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents and business community; not leaders of community organizations; not education and child care providers and not even the NDP member of provincial Parliament for Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

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

"Whereas continued government funding cutbacks will force the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital to close eight more hospital beds and these cutbacks are having a continued negative impact on employment in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government is failing to adhere to their own 'principles of restructuring,' which state that restructuring of the hospital sector must be linked to equitable funding, appropriate and accessible community-based health services, and that restructuring initiatives must address the impact of these changes on hospital staff, the local economy and the health care needs of the community;

"Whereas the government refuses to give the green light to redevelop the General and Marine Hospital even though the provincial government announced funding for the project in 1987, and even though the General and Marine cannot achieve additional operating efficiencies unless the hospital is redeveloped;

"Therefore, we demand that the provincial government immediately approve the redevelopment of the General and Marine Hospital and that the hospital be given some financial breathing space to assess the impact of these bed closures on the labour and health care needs of the Collingwood community."

I support this petition and I've signed it and would note for the record that it was comprised originally of just over 6,000 names.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I have a petition here that reads:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

It's signed by some residents of Ontario, and I submit it for your perusal, Mr Speaker.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Minister of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination;

"Whereas we believe that the Solicitor General should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and 'grandfathered' those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years;

"Whereas we believe that 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 the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

That's signed by a good number of constituents from across my riding and I too attach my name to that petition.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition which reads:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most effective method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

It's signed by some of my constituents and constituents of Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding region.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here from quite a number of women in my riding, women such as Nancy Bolton, Helen Kerry, Vicky Dalton, Bonnie Sormin, Margaret McGrady, women who are all concerned about tobacco use. Their petition reads:

"A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's progressive tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people who become hooked, addicted and eventually ill; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most effective method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

I agree with this petition and affix my signature thereto.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is imperative that we make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens;

"Whereas any person in Ontario can freely purchase ammunition even though they do not hold a valid permit to own a firearm;

"Whereas crimes of violence where firearms are used have risen at an alarming rate;

"Whereas we must do everything within our power to prevent illegal firearms from being used for criminal purposes;

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

"To immediately pass Liberal Bob Chiarelli's private member's bill, Bill 151, to prohibit the sale of ammunition to any person who does not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate or Ontario Outdoors Card."

I affix my signature as I'm in agreement with this petition.

1550

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 they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for over two years; and

"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 this petition. Thousands of other individuals have signed this petition. This particular petition is signed by the residents of the New Tecumseth area, and we received hundreds and in fact we're well into the thousands of names from people in the Collingwood area demanding dialysis satellite services. It's time the government responded to this issue.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national packaging strategy the most effective method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

It has been signed by people from Claremont, Uxbridge, Stouffville, Sunderland, Port Perry and right across the good riding of Durham-York. I sign in support of this. In fact, I went to Ottawa to talk on this very issue just Tuesday.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like to read a petition from constituents of mine into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is imperative that we make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens;

"Whereas any person in Ontario can freely purchase ammunition even though they do not hold a valid permit to own a firearm;

"Whereas crimes of violence where firearms are used have risen at an alarming rate;

"Whereas we must do everything within our power to prevent illegal firearms from being used for criminal purposes;

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

This is signed by the residents of 45 Dunfield, residents on Saint Clements, Redpath, Edith Drive, 3 Roehampton, Glengrove, Broadway. I'm pleased to affix my signature.

DON MILLS CENTRE

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition with regard to the Don Mills shopping centre. It's entitled Save Our Stores.

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Bob Rae to implement a rollback of the 1994 reassessment and reapportionment of the Don Mills Centre to the 1992 assessment rolls.

"For 1994, the small retailer share of the tax burden has jumped to 80% from 45% at the same time that the total mall property and business taxes have increased by 24%. The net result is a 119% average tax increase for the small retailers. In many individual cases, the increases are in excess of 100%. This will cause job losses and/or business closures in the Don Mills Centre."

This petition is signed by many of the merchants, many of the residents of the Don Mills riding and residents looking down here from the riding of York East as well. I affix my signature to it.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): A point of order. Would you address the remarks from your chair.

Mr Jim Wilson: Sorry. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did have the wrong chair there. Before my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel speaks to this assembly about the government's budget, perhaps we should have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government (1994).

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to rise to participate in the topic of this 1994 budget. I must say that many of us had been waiting anxiously for a good sign from the province as to where philosophically it was going, particularly in this year of an election, whether it's held this fall or next spring or whenever it's going to be held. I think we were looking for good things, specifically because of the last --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, it could be next fall. I hope it's not that long. I hope we get rid of you sooner than that.

But we have witnessed a number of devastating budgets in this province that have seen the debt in this province increase to heights that we would never have believed. We have literally had the heck beaten out of us, we the taxpayers of the province, with respect to where we're going in this province.

I can remember the Treasurer standing in his place for his first budget and telling us that he felt that economically the best way to proceed in this province was to spend his way out of the recession. That obviously hasn't worked. He has completely reversed his position. He was forced into a social contract that didn't work and other matters of restraint that haven't worked.

I think it was the member for St George-St David who made a quip in one of the comments that have been made in this place, dealing with a description of this budget, that it is simply "nothing for everyone." I know he was trying to give a smart remark, but that was a sad expression as to what was being used.

I can speak specifically for my riding of Dufferin-Peel as to what the hospitals were hoping for, what the municipalities were hoping for, what the school boards were hoping for and what the taxpayers, the business people who are providing jobs, were hoping for. They didn't get what they wanted. The best they got was that the issue of the employer health tax, simply with respect to new employees, would be delayed another year.

1600

There was another suggestion that the dirt tax was going to go. Of course, you have to read the budget very carefully. It's not the removal of the dirt tax, it's the delivery charges for dirt tax. If we remember the headlines in one of the Toronto papers at the last budget, "They've Even Taxed Dirt," and that tax still exists.

The budget states, "To ensure equitable treatment, delivery charges for sand, clay, soil, gravel and unfinished stone will be exempt of retail taxes effective midnight tonight," which of course was the date of the budget, which I believe was May 5. So there was that suggestion that the dirt tax is gone, and we should be quite aware in this province that even that tax still exists.

I saw the Minister of Health present a moment ago. One of the issues in my riding is the topic of a new hospital, the new Dufferin-Caledon hospital, which we in my riding have been promised by successive ministers. The former Liberal minister, Mrs Caplan, from Oriole, the present Minister of Economic Development and Trade when she was Minister of Health and the current minister have all promised that this hospital would be built.

The difficulty of course is the fear that slow plodding away is going on and delays are being encountered by the people who are trying to construct that hospital, and when we see cutbacks going on in this province, we worry.

I accept the undertaking by this government and the former Liberal government that a hospital will be built in our riding of Dufferin-Peel. I will only say that we didn't see much encouragement in this budget, and that fear still concerns us, notwithstanding the undertaking that we in Dufferin-Peel hold the government to.

On the whole topic of roads and transportation, you may recall that many members in this place were concerned with the cutbacks to GO Transit. The whole issue of transportation in ridings such as mine, and it applies to perhaps the majority of members in this place, is of individuals who live in the country and work in urban areas.

In my particular riding a large percentage of individuals live in places like Bolton, Orangeville, Palgrave, Mono township and other municipalities such as that and they travel to areas outside the riding for jobs in Brampton or Toronto or Mississauga. They are concerned with the cutbacks in GO, because GO did come to my riding, which I might add is within the greater Toronto area. The town of Caledon is within the greater Toronto area, yet it is not being served by GO.

The GO board was pretty well mandated by the Minister of Transportation with cutbacks and said that the ridership didn't warrant it. The fact of the matter is people need that type of transportation and it was taken away from them. So that whole issue of encouragement for people to travel on public transit from my riding to areas outside my riding for mainly business and social reasons has not improved.

There is the general feeling not only in my riding of Dufferin-Peel but in many of the other ridings throughout this province of the decline in the quality of education. The whole issue is, is there enough money? Are there enough funds? There's no question that the topic of pooling has been dealt with in the budget, and that will create much continued controversy with the separate school and public school issues.

I await comment from the public school system and the separate school system in my riding and others throughout the system to indicate what their concerns are with that. I think that doesn't even take place until 1996, that whole proposal that was put forward in the budget.

I have spoken to at least one director of education in the public school system, and of course they're simply saying that this money is being taken away from them and there's no way to reimburse them. So that's yet more money, more funding for education that's being taken away from the education system.

The whole issue of downloading continues. We spent some time yesterday on a resolution by the Premier. One of the topics that he raised in his resolution was the topic of downloading from the federal government to the provincial government. One of the concerns that exists in almost all of the school boards in my riding, whether it be the county of Dufferin or the separate school board of Dufferin-Peel, is concern with the subject of junior kindergarten and how that has literally been forced on our system.

People simply don't want it. They don't want it and they can't afford it. For some unearthly reason that example of downloading continues; the big stick of the provincial government continues. That's another topic that I think people in my riding were concerned with, that they hoped would have been dealt with in the budget.

The whole issue in the last budget, the issue of the increase in fees, whether it be for snowmobiles, or the $50 corporation fee, or the increase of fees in the land registry office and other fees, I hoped that there had been such an outcry, particularly as to the $50 fee -- and we in the opposition, whether it be the Liberals or Conservatives, opposition members have raised petitions, we have made resolutions in this place, all of which have been defeated by the government.

Questions have been asked of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations as to why she would allow the Treasurer to proceed with that type of fee, the $50 fee. Notwithstanding all that outcry against fees, and that fee in particular, I am disappointed that the Treasurer has not, even in an effort to encourage business in this province -- the whole issue of doing business is more and more expensive since 1990, since the NDP took power.

To be fair to the NDP, no question that not all of it is their fault. The topic of the recession crops up and other external economic factors surface. But the economic philosophy from day one of saying that the Treasurer is going to spend his way out of the recession, to jump from practically a nil deficit to a deficit of $9 billion, is absolutely outrageous.

The issue of fees, albeit a small issue, although it's a big issue to many businesses in my riding, I think people were hoping that the budget would get rid of that issue.

The major issue in my riding and certainly ridings throughout the greater Toronto area is the subject of dumps, the three superdumps that are being planned by a process that nobody likes, nobody wants, nobody has approved. This government is philosophically forcing a system on us. I would have hoped that the budget could have dealt with this topic in some way, perhaps acknowledging that they have gone in the wrong direction.

I would imagine that the province of Ontario has spent by now, my guess, at the last count something like $50 million over the three regions in the greater Toronto area in the expenditure for the Interim Waste Authority on the subject of dumps. My guess is that it's at least up to $60 million. Yet that topic as well was not referred to in the budget.

Those are some of the personal comments I have with respect to observations that people in my constituency of Dufferin-Peel have commented to me. They simply raise their questions as to what in the heck was it about.

Flipping through, as I sat in this House and listened to the Treasurer read his budget to us -- and I'm not trying to be smart -- I honestly wondered whether the Treasurer was in a fantasy world, talking about how we're moving out of the recession and everything's going to be okay, we're going to have all kinds of jobs in this province. They boast on the topic of Jobs Ontario, which, with due respect, I don't think is working at all.

I think it's a dream booklet, a dream package, and it's a dream we're all going to wake up from very shortly and realize that this whole dream since 1990 has just been one awful nightmare. This province was once great economically; in fact, many people in this country often despised us because we were doing so well. Now, of course, we're at the bottom of the heap in so many things, whether it's jobs, employment or the whole issue of the economy.

I fear that this may be the booklet that will just nudge us a little to wake up and realize what an awful thing, what an awful, terrible thing the New Democratic Party has done to the economy of this province.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): The Liberals didn't help much either.

Mr Tilson: Well, we could get into the history of the Liberal government. The member for Simcoe West is quite right in what he says. One needs to look at the economic policies of the Liberals, who during good times certainly had a wonderful time spending and raising taxes 33 times, 33 different taxes. I can remember the New Democrats during that election talking across this province about how terrible David Peterson and his gang were with respect to their economic policies of spending and taxing. Yet when they attained power, they were by far the worst of any group we've ever seen anywhere in this country.

1610

I could spend some time on the Progressive Conservatives' platform. Mr Harris is telling the people of this province where the Progressive Conservatives would take us as an alternative to this type of economic plan. I don't want to spend a great deal of time on that because that is being done around this province by Mr Harris even as we speak, but that's the whole issue of cutting provincial taxes by 30%. Members of the government and Liberals have had a lot of fun standing up this week and waving American flags and other strange antics. I understand that, because it's been embarrassing to them to see a good, concrete economic plan being put forward.

For people who want to invest in this province, we must have some sign that taxes are going to go down, not a sign that says, "No increase in taxes." That was the message of the Premier and the Treasurer: "No increase in taxes." The people of Ontario want more than that. They want a cut in taxes. They want a cut in waste. They want a cut in services that we simply don't need and can't afford in this province, and there has been no sign in the Ontario budget of 1994 that this government is prepared to do that.

Even today I had to rise in my place and make a comment with respect to a whole new bureaucracy that I don't think this province can afford, the commissioner for the Environmental Bill of Rights. I emphasize that I wish her well, but it seems that for every piece of legislation this government passes, whether it be the Environmental Bill of Rights or employment equity, everybody's got a commission. More and more bureaucracy is being required to operate these things, and they are services we simply can't afford. It's a Utopia, a dream that won't come true. In fact, it's a nightmare, a terrible nightmare.

There are many people worried about where this province is going to go in the next number of years. There's a remote chance that the New Democrats will get re-elected in the next election. I know they'll say that, but I don't think they will. Whoever gets elected, whether the Liberals or the Conservatives, they are going to have an unbelievable time undoing many of the bad economic policies that have been put forward in the Ontario budget for 1994 and other such budgets.

You can heckle all you want about where you stand on that, but we have to look at what others think, and that's been discussed for some time: the bond raters. I don't know what the latest story is, but the last clipping I have is one of this past weekend which talks about Ontario's bond rating issue. It's an article by Gayle MacDonald in the Saturday Star, but that's just one; it's been occurring several times throughout this week and there may be some more up-to-date topics with respect to the bond rating. I would like to make one comment with respect to the calculation of the so-called bond raters' deficit, on page 2 of the budget briefing notes, which we believe overstates the deficit for 1994-95.

The overstatement results from a retroactive attribution of a $528-million deferral and rollover on the transfer payments for the 1992-93 fiscal year. As a consequence, the bond raters' deficit for 1994-95 should be reported as about $11 billion and not the $11.4 billion in the briefing notes. That is something we should emphasize. That statement may have been made by other speakers in this place, and that is a correction we should emphasize. In other words, the real deficit in this province is, we submit, $11 billion. Can you imagine? How is this going to be paid back?

The Treasurer says there's no increase in taxes. Somewhere, some time, by some government, that $11 billion is going to have to be paid back. We are all hoping, the Treasurer and all members of this place, for an increase in the economy, with reams of revenue coming in, but anyone with common sense says it's not going to be the tremendous influx of revenue that the Minister of Finance has been predicting. In fact, he's been wrong every time yet. Every time he's made a presentation in this House about what the revenue is going to be in the forthcoming fiscal period, he's been wrong, dead wrong. He's been dead wrong in the past.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): He's more right than any other government.

Mr Tilson: The House leader is commenting. I hope the Finance minister is right, but I don't think he's going to be. I don't think he's going to get the revenue he says. I don't think we're going to have the tremendous turnaround he's expecting.

The only answer is to cut services, and there's been no plan put forward by the government. The Progressive Conservatives have put forward a plan, and yes, the NDP love to jump on that and say it's the slash-and-burn policies of Ralph Klein. Be that as it may, I think it's a good policy of cutting. I believe this budget should have dealt with that topic. You know, I know, the Liberals know and everyone out there in Television Land knows that what we should be doing is cutting the many services that we don't need and can't afford.

To get back to this article by Gayle MacDonald, I'd like to refer to it, as it talks about the next issue I would like to refer to in the brief time I have. It talks about how the province's total debt is expected to soar to $90.4 billion by March 1995 and to $98.8 billion the following year. That's absolutely astounding. When the Conservatives left power -- and it's somewhere in my notes here -- in the early 1980s, it was something like $20 billion. Am I correct?

Mr Jim Wilson: Just under that.

Mr Tilson: The member says it was under $20 billion. The Liberals increased that unbelievably in the short period of their government to, what, $40 billion? Now we're going to be up to $90.4 billion this year. By 1996, it will be $98.8 billion.

Ms MacDonald quotes an economist at Bunting Warburg Inc, whose name is George Vasic. He's the chief economist at that place and he says "Ontario's 'stand-pat' budget bothers him because of the harm it will do in the longer term." To again quote the member for St George-St David, he says this budget does nothing for everyone, and that is absolutely right. When you think of what this budget is really doing, that's exactly what it does. Mr Vasic seems to agree with that and is in fact worried about the long-term economic plan this government has.

1620

He says in this article of May 7, which was last Saturday, I admit: "'Next year is an election year and that budget will be another non-event. It will be 1996 before a new government takes over and announces a new budget.

"'Meanwhile'" -- and this is the important part -- "'the debt is growing at 12% and the economy at 4% in current dollars,' said Vasic. 'The problem is compounding without being addressed, and that's where we are really going to lose on this.'"

You have to look at that, at what the debt is growing at -- he says 12% -- and then at what the economy is growing at, 4%, he says. I think we all would agree that those are generally correct figures, give or take. In other words, the debt is so high compared to what the economy is that we're in deep trouble, unless the Treasurer is correct in this tremendous gamble he's taken that our economy is going to turn around and we're going to get vast sums of revenue. Just ask the people who are unemployed; just ask the people who are worried about whether they're going to make their next mortgage payment; just ask those who've lost any of the hundreds of jobs being lost to the United States and other provinces; just ask individuals who are concerned about the bankruptcies that have been going on.

Yes, the economy has been improving a little. I'm surprised members haven't said, "Well, the economy is improving." I can tell you, that is a tremendous difference: 12% debt growth and 4% economy growth, and that's at current dollars.

So this nightmare, I hope, will come to a close. I hope the voters of this province at election time, which I hope will be called very soon, will put them out of their misery and we can get someone in there who -- I would submit the best party for that is the Progressive Conservative Party, which has come forward with a realistic plan that needs to be seriously considered, because that's the only answer for saving this province from disaster and bankruptcy.

The budget proposes tax breaks totalling $325 million in a full year, primarily attributed to the $295-million employer health tax holiday for new hires. That is a joke. We have just finished -- have we even given third reading to the employer health tax bill? We have fought so strongly against that issue. The Minister of Health is sitting in the House and I'm sure she's wondering where the next buck's going to come from to pay for all the increasing health costs in this province.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Not from a tax such as you would impose.

Mr Tilson: You're putting the burden on the employer. That's wrong, and you know it's wrong. The employer health tax is wrong, and that's why the Treasurer is giving relief to the employers who are hiring new employees. By his own admission, he knows the philosophy of dumping that health expense is not working, and it shouldn't work. That is a joke. Someone came up to me the other day and said: "Maybe I'll fire all my employees and hire them back. Maybe that will enable me to avoid paying the health tax." Good luck to that. I have no idea whether that's legal, but it's a concern.

The so-called dirt tax was another matter the government boasted about. As I indicated in my opening comments, that's rather deceptive, because the dirt tax does exist. The only tax that's been removed is the delivery charges for dirt, and that's because the government hadn't thought that one out either. It was an administrative nightmare and they couldn't figure it out. It was costing more to administer than they got in taxes.

That's the problem with many taxes this government has put forward: They haven't thought it out, haven't thought out the economic implications on jobs. They know we've got a problem with jobs, because they keep talking about Jobs Ontario. And they know the small business person is having a great deal of difficulty in operating in this province, of staying alive till 1995. All those things keep coming out.

There are no major program spending initiatives with this budget, and clearly, 14 out of 20 ministries show year over year reductions in operating budgets. The 1994-95 deficit is projected as $8.5 billion, notwithstanding the fact that we in the Progressive Conservatives say it's actually $11 billion. And if you take all the other funny accounting practices that have gone on that have been absolutely denied and criticized and not approved by the Provincial Auditor of this province, that deficit may even be higher. But just in the simple accounting, not taking into consideration the comments of the Provincial Auditor, that deficit is in fact $11 billion.

However, the Finance minister is saying it's $8.5 billion and he says it's down from $9.4 billion, and it's as if everything's okay. It's as if: "Oh, well, we're down a billion dollars. Isn't that wonderful?" And all of this has to be paid back. Every last penny of this has got to be paid back. Where are we going to get it? Where are we going to get the money to pay this back?

I've only got about a minute left. I come from a semirural area, and one of the concerns is that rural Ontario was ignored with budget cuts. There are actual budget cuts, and there's a little aside made with the Minister of Agriculture and whatever else he's called and our critic commenting about how little the Ministry of Agriculture is given to assist the rural population of this province. It's as if this party, this New Democratic Party, is saying, "Yes, we're an urban party. We will ignore the farmers and the rural people of this province," and that has come true with respect to the budget cuts with respect to rural Ontario.

I think the other indication which I have emphasized, the other fear we have, is that the debt service costs are now the fastest-growing item on the debenture side. I have spoken on that.

Finally, the big issue that everyone's concerned about is jobs. Jobs Ontario is not working, and I don't care what the government says about how they think it's working; the fact of the matter is, businesses are closing, people are moving to the United States, people are moving out of the province. Despite the recovery that's being suggested by the Finance minister, the unemployment rate will be 10.3% this year and 9.8% next year -- completely unacceptable for this province -- and this budget indeed is a nightmare.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Questions and comments?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The comments made by the member for Dufferin-Peel appear to be very, very well thought out and something that I think, had this government adopted in the early stages before their $10-billion fiasco, could have saved a lot of grief and aggravation for this government.

He speaks of rural concerns as well as representing an urban riding and a rural riding, Orangeville and the area surrounding, and he speaks to the issues that are facing the constituents in his particular riding.

I think what he has done is researched this document the government has come forward with as a budget, and he's come to the conclusion I think many Ontarians have come to, and that's the conclusion that the stimulus they've been looking for with the jump-starting or restarting of this malaise we've been in, this economic downturn, is certainly not seen. A one-year tax holiday from employer health tax doesn't seem to me to be the kind of stimulus needed to restart the private sector and create jobs, create the kind of economic health that will springboard us into the next four or five years of hopeful growth.

It seems to me the message still hasn't been put through to the government as addressed by the member for Dufferin-Peel: Taxes are simply too high. They're unbearable. They're intolerable. Government spending is literally out of control. Deficit numbers are manufactured. They have no relationship to reality. And in all this difficulty and torment the government sees itself in, it continues to insist that somehow there's some kind of bright economic light and prosperity in the province of Ontario that no one seems to be able to put their finger on except the members of the government.

I thank the member for Dufferin-Peel. I think he's brought forward the kind of questions and concerns the people of Ontario have brought forward, and I think the members would be far better off listening to a member like the member for Dufferin-Peel and taking those concerns back to the caucus room, hopefully to the cabinet table, and dealing with them.

1630

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I can understand why my Conservative friends are upset at what's in the budget, and I'll tell you why: because there are some really good things in there. There's a program that allows people who wouldn't normally be able to buy a home to buy a home. There's a tax break for business. There are some real job numbers in terms of infrastructure. There's some real substantial money committed to building the roads, the sewers, the bridges and the subways that this province and this city need in order to be able to grow. So I can understand why they're upset.

So they go home at night and they worry about some of these things, and then they produce documents like this one here in reaction to that. It talks about some revolution that Mike Harris is going to start. He talks about how he's going to eliminate the deficit.

I remember the last Conservative who essentially won power on that kind of rhetoric. His name, if you'll recall, Madam Speaker, was Brian Mulroney. Many people have forgotten, but some people still remember 1984. Brian Mulroney was elected, and he said: "Elect me, Brian, and I will eliminate Canada's deficit. I will reduce the debt, and you know what? We're not even going to increase taxes."

What do you have after that? One of the highest tax rates ever registered in this country. One of the highest deficits ever left behind by any politician. One of the highest cumulative debts anywhere. That's the last time we heard this Conservative rhetoric. So I can understand why they're really upset.

Mr Jim Wilson: I want to compliment my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel, Mr David Tilson, for what I thought was a very commonsense approach in analysing the NDP government's budget document. Indeed, rather than just criticize the government -- which is so easy to do when you've got such people like the member for Downsview, who knows not of what he speaks whatsoever; it is very, very easy to criticize the NDP and the NDP government -- the member for Dufferin-Peel did use his time in a more constructive way to offer solutions in pointing to the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution document, which talks about lowering taxes and faces the reality in this province and in this country that there really is no other choice.

For the past 20 years, and in particular the last decade in Ontario, what we refer to as "the lost decade of Liberalism in Ontario" that was shared by the Liberal Party of Ontario and the NDP, governments have attempted to spend themselves rich. I think that there is overwhelming recognition now among the population, and certainly we found that in our task forces and town hall meetings and church basement meetings in the four years we spent putting together the Common Sense Revolution document. We found that people were acknowledging to us and begging us to change direction here in Ontario and to lower taxes, not to any longer try to spend ourselves rich. That doesn't work. It's an economic theory that has failed the people of this province and this country.

That's why we're calling for and the member for Dufferin-Peel is calling for a revolution. We need a drastic change in the direction of government in this province. We can no longer afford to tinker around the edges with economic policy. We must go full-blown ahead with lowering taxes. The Common Sense Revolution calls for a 30% reduction in the personal income tax in Ontario, which would then make us the lowest-taxed jurisdiction in North America with respect to personal income tax, and that is the way to create jobs in this province.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just wanted to comment quickly on the speech on the part of the member for Dufferin-Peel. In this House, I normally am quite happy to listen to the interjections and the comments made by the member opposite, because I really do believe that he comes to this House like every member within this assembly, in order to espouse and in order to be able to explain to people what his position is and what he sees. For that, I give him credit, because as a Conservative he does have an ideology that he's trying to convey to the people of Ontario, and that is an ideology that is markedly different, I would agree, from the ideology of this party or even of the Liberal Party. For that I give you credit and I listened quite intently to the comments that you made.

I just really want to go back, because I think what you're attempting to do within the Conservative Party of Ontario in regard to what you call your Common Sense Revolution is very revolutionary to a certain extent. I think it's quite dangerous. I think to be talking about the economy of Ontario and about changes that you're asking the people of Ontario to take vis-à-vis the economy through the budget of Ontario is very dangerous for the people of Ontario.

I watch the news, as you do, and pay attention to what's happening across Canada and to what's happening in other jurisdictions in North America and Europe.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think we need a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Are you asking if a quorum is present?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: Is a quorum present?

Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: You have 30 seconds left.

Mr Bisson: I just want to finish the comments and to say what he offers to the people of Ontario through the Conservative Party of the province is really a dangerous ideology when it comes to trying to find a balance between the needs of the people through social policy and the balancing off of economic reality.

I don't want to challenge the member, because I do know where he's coming from. But I would ask you, as I heard in question period today on the part of Minister Cooke, to be a little bit more specific with the people of Ontario when you start talking about some of the things that you do in this document. For example, the 20% reduction in expenditures that you're proposing within the budget of Ontario, matched by a 30% cut in taxes, means overall there's $6 billion to $9 billion, depending on how you look at it, that you would want to take out of the budget of Ontario right away. That would cause significant pain.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'm trying to seek your guidance on an issue. I believe in the comments to the member for Dufferin-Peel's speech, we had two Conservatives and two government members. Given that the member for Dufferin-Peel had quoted me a number of times, I wanted to have a chance to participate and thank him for quoting me and to say how this is a budget which has nothing in it for everyone. Given what my leader has said about it, it is certainly a budget that is more myth than hit. I wanted to have a chance to say those kinds of things and pay tribute to the speech from the member for Dufferin-Peel.

The Acting Speaker: The member for St George-St David does not have a point of order.

Mr Murphy: Oh, I thought I did, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The questions and comments are dealt with in rotation. At the point of the next rotation, you were not at your seat standing and the member for Cochrane South was.

The member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to respond.

Mr Tilson: I would like to thank all of the members for participating in response to my comments on this budget, specifically the member from Etobicoke, whom I love quoting. He's even quoted in the media and isn't even given recognition for it. The comment that he made with respect to this budget is that probably the best thing about this budget is it's the last socialist budget that we're going to see in a long, long time.

I appreciate even the kind comments of the New Democratic Party, as kind as they could be, in my response, but there are two issues that are before us with respect to this budget. The first one is taxes, in which they say there are no new taxes. With respect to the revolutionary document that we've put forward, that issue is something that you must deal with. I don't care whether you're around for four months or six months or another year; you must cut taxes. If you don't cut taxes, we're going to be in deep, deep trouble. I don't care if you don't like our document, if you don't like our philosophy, but take a look at that, because I can tell you that is the one issue that is being looked at by the people of this province.

The other issue is the subject of job creation. I can only quote Lorrie Goldstein from the Toronto Star, who says it much better than I ever could.

Hon Mrs Grier: Star or Sun?

Mr Tilson: Well, you can criticize Lorrie Goldstein, you can criticize the Toronto Star, but I'm going to read it to you anyway. He says that the main theme of this year's budget is job creation. He says -- this is the Sun of May 6:

"Laughren claims 350,000 new jobs will be created in Ontario over the next three years. But the reality in his own budget projections show a drop of 17,000 jobs in the employment growth rate of this year."

So again, this whole budget issue is an absolute disaster. It's a nightmare.

1640

The Acting Speaker: To continue the debate, the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: It is with great pleasure that I have an opportunity to participate in this, the debate of the fourth budget of the province of Ontario through the NDP government. It has been an interesting four years, to say the least, I would admit to members across the way. But I would like to come back to that and to try to put in context maybe a little bit later on, at the end of my speech, how this budget came about and how it fits into the context of the agenda of this government over the last three and a half to four years now.

I want to speak first of all just very clearly about what this budget contains. What this budget contains is simply this: It is a plan to get people back to work, to restore the confidence of the people of Ontario and to give people dignity in being able to find themselves within this province of Ontario so that they can go out and participate within the province, holding their heads up high and recognizing that in this province we do have a government that cares in the end.

What the budget does is simply this: It takes a look at trying to find a way to strike a balance between the economic realities of the province and the social needs and economic needs of the province at the same time. The budget, for an example, on the question of job creation, goes after principles of being able to get people back to work in very direct ways. Some of them are in keeping with some of the directions that we decided to take back in our first budget of 1991 and carried on until today.

I would say on the question of taxes, last year, if you remember, in the budget of 1993-94, we had said that we would raise taxes in that budget and we would do that in order to be able to affect the deficit of the province of Ontario as well as some expenditure control measures that included a social contract, and that in our following budget there would not be any new tax increases for the next couple of years.

If you take a look at what's in this budget, it is in keeping with the promise that was made by the Treasurer of Ontario, the Honourable Floyd Laughren -- somebody who I have a lot of pride in saying is my friend and my colleague -- keeping that promise and being in line with what he had set out to do a few years ago.

On the side of taxes it looks at, how can we start utilizing our tax system to the advantage of the people of Ontario, looking at how much revenue we have as a province in order to pay for the services the people want and at the same time keeping an eye on trying to put some tools in the hands of employers for job creation?

I think most people in this assembly, especially some of the members of the opposition, especially the Conservative opposition, would agree that you do not need to approach -- I will go back. Somebody threw a package at me and it threw my thought.

On the question of taxes what we're saying is we need to put some tools in the hands of employers to be able to help create some jobs. Some of these are directly through taxes, such as taking a look at the employer health tax and saying that we will give employers who hire employees in this fiscal year basically a credit of not having to pay the employer health tax for this year. That's a fairly significant saving in some cases, depending on how much employing they were doing.

We're looking at the innovation tax credit that basically says to the employers of Ontario, "If you invest in R and D within a company in the province of Ontario, we will give you an additional 10% credit on your taxes for the upcoming year."

I think we need to recognize that one thing we haven't done well in North America, especially here in Canada, and Ontario's not immune to that, is that we haven't invested in R and D, I think, to the level that we really need to. If you look at Japan, Germany, England, France and other places, there's been a heavy investment on the part of those countries, on the part of those governments in supporting the private sector in R and D.

I think this government recognizes that and wants to be able to move a little more aggressively in that direction to make sure that we're able to encourage employers and to be able to encourage firms in the province of Ontario to keep up some of the work that we're doing and keep our competitive edge when it comes to industry and when it comes to the technologies of industry within the province of Ontario.

We're looking at utilizing taxes and taxation in, I think, a fairly progressive way, and some of this is in keeping with the work we had started doing through the Fair Tax Commission a few years ago, announced by the Treasurer. I'll come back to that a little bit later.

On the question of trying to find a way to balance off the needs of the people of the province of Ontario with the economic reality we have, you would know that last year and the year before that the government had moved quite aggressively in trying to find a way to contain the problem we were having in the province of Ontario when it came to revenue, because primarily what we had in the province, and we still have, is a revenue problem. You have an economy that has been hurt because of this recession. Since 1989, 1990, we have seen net decreases in jobs, lots of people becoming unemployed, and not because of the policy of a Liberal or Conservative or New Democratic government but because of what happened within the economy.

I think if you're fairminded, as I'm sure, Madam Speaker, you are, we would agree that what you have is an economy that has been affected by a recession that is contained not only in the province of Ontario but worldwide. I think if you look at the economic indicators of not only Canada but the United States and throughout North America, Central America and Europe, you will see that that recession has had its toll. Ontario, like other governments, has had to try to find a way to be able to balance off the economic reality of a shrinking economy, to a certain extent, with the expenditures that we have in government and providing services to the people of this province.

We decided to do something quite different than what has been seen in other jurisdictions throughout Canada and North America. Rather than trying to approach the problem à la Mike Harris or à la Ralph Klein or à la Preston Manning, as I'd like to put it, we decided that what we needed to do is we needed to build a partnership with the people of this province.

We needed to find a way to be able to bring together to the same table those people in the public sector, those people in the private sector, people in the management classes as well as the working class, coming together and being able to find solutions that sometimes are not short term, sometimes some of those solutions are long term, and changing some of the attitudes that we have within our society, and at the same time being able to work out and effect change to be able not only to reduce our expenditures but to change the way we look at things so we can deliver services that are equal but maybe a little bit differently.

I think this government, if it has done anything, it has been able to do that. Not without controversy. I'm sure, Madam Speaker, you had people in front of your constituency office last summer when the social contract was in the midst of negotiations, during the months of June and July and August of 1993. I had them in front of my office. I can tell you, it was the largest protest I'd ever seen in my community out in front of my constituency office on Algonquin.

And why? Because we had to a certain extent challenged what people saw as the status quo when it came to bargaining. We said as a government, "We need to relook at this, because clearly an employer, public sector or private sector, needs to be able to take a look at how you pay your bills at the end of the day." Most employers, in both the public sector and private sector, try to address that by saying, "I would just do an across-the-board reduction of some percentage, 10%, 20%, whatever it might be, and I'll lay off x amount of employees to equal a certain amount of money that I'm trying to save."

I worked at the Pamour Mine, McIntyre division, in Timmins, and I remember during the recession of the 1980s, when the employer, who was going through a difficult time, approached the problem in a very traditional way, as most other governments in this country have done, and said, "What we're going to do is we're going to reduce x amount of employees to equal x amount of money so we can help our cash flow situation."

The problem with that is, it affects people in the end, and when people are unemployed, there's more than just the cost of people being unemployed in the sense of maybe their being on unemployment insurance. There are added costs to our society when it comes to the relationships within the family, which are very important to our society, and the relationship and responsibilities that individuals take within that society itself.

What we did is what we do best as social democrats. We said, "Yes, we have to be tough-minded possibly, but we have to get people to understand that in order to effect change sometimes you have to look at changing some of the structures by which we operate as a society." We put in place what I would agree was a very difficult concept for some of the people in the trade union movement to accept at the time, something called a social contract.

We said we would do that rather than just putting people out to pasture, just laying people off. What we would do is we would try to enter into a social contract where employees can participate in the process of management in being able to identify savings to offset money we would normally have to take out of people's jobs in direct employment.

1650

In some workplaces it has been a resounding success. I can tell you also, Madam Speaker, in some workplaces it has been rather difficult. I can point to employers in my own communities, where it has been rather difficult for people in the public sector to deal with their employers for a number of reasons.

But we had the courage to do it as a government. Why? Because we believe, as social democrats, that you just cannot rely on the status quo, that to move ahead as a society you have to change with the times. That sometimes means you have to challenge that status quo, no matter where that status quo may exist. And we did it; we saved the $2 billion that we were looking for.

I can tell you today, and I can say this publicly to the people who I'm sure are watching from my riding, that within the public sector of Ontario there are more people today who accept the concept of the social contract than there were when it was first introduced last year, because they've had an opportunity to look at that and to balance it off against what the alternative would have been, which is unemployment, or what has happened in other provinces, such as Prince Edward Island.

For example, I watched the news just recently where some 8,000 workers were out in front of the Legislature in Prince Edward Island, in Charlottetown, chanting and jeering at the Premier of that province and the decision to roll back wages unilaterally by 7% to 8%, without any consultation, without any discussion on the part of the people within the public sector.

I've seen the same kind of practice within Nova Scotia, where the Premier of that province, another Liberal Premier, has made some fairly similar decisions about just unilateral rollbacks. In the province of Quebec I've seen the same thing, and in Newfoundland, in Manitoba and Alberta, where all of those governments, Tories and Liberals, have approached that from a very traditional standpoint. I understand, because that's all they know: "We know how to do things in one way."

I think the strength of this government has been that we have not been afraid to take our responsibility and to make the decisions that need to be made and to try to find ways to balance off the interests of the few for the many. I think that's something, as social democrats, where we can stand proud in this House and proud in this province in saying that we've been able to achieve.

Have we been able to do it all? Of course not. There are things that I would have liked to have done in this House and this Parliament over the last three years and a half years, as I'm sure some of my colleagues have felt. I know auto insurance, for one, was mine. I was of the opinion, and I am still am of the opinion, that publicly owned auto insurance is the best way to go when it comes to providing that service for the people of the province.

But as a pragmatic government we balanced off the needs of the people of the province of Ontario against the reality and we made the tough decision. The easy political decision would have been to say, "Do it. Damn the torpedoes, just let it happen. Ideologically we're right and we're just going to do it. To heck with it if it's going to hurt people along the way," in regard to utilizing money from the public purse in order to do the auto insurance program at a time when we really didn't have the money to do it.

I can tell you I've taken criticism in my riding about it. But I say to the people of my riding, the people of Cochrane South, that as a government you sent me here, as the person that you elected, that you had confidence in making the decisions that needed to be made. I can tell you, in the last three and a half years that I've been here, I've made a number of decisions.

I'm sure not all of them have been right. I'm sure that some of my electors would probably say they disagree with some of them. But in the end I think all fairminded people would say the decisions that this government has made have been very balanced, have been very much in keeping with trying to find a way of balancing off the interests of people.

If you look at the budget of the province of Ontario today, the budget that was just tabled in this House last week, last Thursday, that's what this budget is about. It's about saying we cannot afford to move in a way that some people would suggest in the province of Ontario by unilaterally slashing expenditures, without having an eye on the social realities and the fabric of what makes Ontario, because in the end what you're doing is affecting people's lives.

I stand here proud today as a member of this the New Democratic government of Ontario, led by my Premier, Mr Bob Rae, with a lot of respect and a lot of admiration for what this caucus has been able to do, because we've been able to balance that off. Look at what we've been able to accomplish. We have managed to pass the most progressive legislative agenda that this province, and I would say almost this continent, has ever seen.

We have now an Environmental Bill of Rights in this province, something you don't see anywhere else.

We have now the most progressive labour legislation of most provinces and, I can tell you, including the United States, done by the Minister of Labour and members of this caucus in the name of Bill 40.

We have now a wage protection plan that protects the workers of this province in the event that they become unemployed and the employer lays them off and decides not to pay them the money they're owed.

We have now changed the system of training to where training is not done in a fragmented way, but workplace training and lifetime education is done through a whole different process that brings together in the decision-making process not only the employer, as has been the tradition in the past, but the workers as well: the people who need the training in terms of those who need to access the skills, and the people who need the training in terms of employers needing to run their industry. We've done that through the Ontario training and adjustment board.

I must say, I stand proud in the House to say I've been a member of a government that's not been afraid and has been quite responsible in its approach to try to balance off those interests.

I look at my colleague the Minister of Health, who sits here in the House listening to this debate today, who is dealing with expenditures within the health care sector. I'm a member from northern Ontario. If anybody in this province understands the issues of health care, it is people in northern Ontario. For many years we've had problems with health care in northern Ontario. I look at my colleague, my honourable friend Mr Pouliot, the Minister of Transportation, and Madam Martel in regard to some of the decisions we've had to make as a government.

But overall, we have managed over the past three years to keep the expenditures on health care in check, at the same time as actually increasing the services to the people of this province and the people of northern Ontario. We've had to make some decisions about how health care is structured.

For example, there is a program called the northern travel grant. It is a program, I would remind people of the province, that was introduced in an accord government of the then Liberal government and the then opposition of the New Democrats, led by Mr Rae and Mr Peterson. The accord called for the introduction of the northern travel grant, and I give full credit to the Liberal government of the day for working with us on that. At the time, we made a policy statement that the travel grant would pay you to go anywhere within the province you wanted to access health care services, because at that time there was an acute shortage of care in many communities in the north.

But over the years, through some programs that were introduced, we've managed to attract health care professionals within our communities in northern Ontario, not to the full extent we're looking for, but a lot more than we've had in the past. As a government, we've been able to make the decision, take the political courage, to say we need to restructure the northern travel grant system to pay people to travel to the closest referring specialist. To me, that makes not only good business sense but makes a lot of sense from a health care perspective, because you're encouraging people to use northern Ontario facilities, and the more people who use our facilities in the north, the better off they are in the long run when it comes to their viability as an operation.

I look at my community and the whole question of the Timmins and District Hospital. It started under the previous government, and I give it credit. This government was committed and worked at it and made sure it got built. We built a brand-new hospital in my community, the Timmins and District Hospital on Ross Avenue, an almost $90-million facility. In that $90-million facility we have a CAT scanner and modern equipment like we had never seen in my community before, to the point that Timmins is now developing as a regional centre of health care in northeastern Ontario.

We did that because we understood as a government that even in the time of a recession you have to spend on not only the physical infrastructure but the social infrastructure of the province, making sure we're able to offer the services that people need and deserve within the province of Ontario.

Was it without difficulty? Of course not. We're still dealing with controversy in my community: How much money will the Timmins and District Hospital have to operate its facility? We know now -- it's not any big secret; it's public information -- that there's roughly a $1.1-million to $1.2-million deficit at that institution, but the solution we bring as a New Democratic government is not to go to that institution and say, "You're going to slash and you're going to burn and you're going to cut," to give an edict from Queen's Park through the Ministry of Health.

We set out a process, a process that's been difficult -- I say that directly to the people of the hospital -- where we've brought together people from management and tried to bring together the people from the bargaining units who work within the hospital and people of the community to come to some decisions about how we run our institution.

I'll tell you, it has been difficult. I can tell you stories of people who work at that institution, of how frustrated they've felt. I've walked into that hospital and quite honestly felt that frustration without even having to talk to anybody. I know, as a politician and as a community leader, what the people of my community feel and what their wants are and what they're thinking.

1700

But in the end we will solve that problem as well. Why? Because in this province you have a government that says: "We need to bring people together. We cannot just dictate policy to the people of Ontario." We're working through the problem, and in the end that will be solved, just like most issues.

It is with enormous pleasure that I participate in this debate today to share with people what the vision of this government is all about. The vision of that government is very simple: It is about balancing the needs of individuals in Ontario, balancing the economic needs and the reality of the economy with the social needs themselves, and in that mix coming out with a more caring and compassionate society for the people of this province. And it is not an easy process to go through.

In this last 10 minutes, I would like to touch on a couple of things with regard to some of the fallacies I have been listening to about this government from both the opposition parties and other people in the province, namely, the deficit of the province.

I remember back in the summer of 1990 running an election, as were all people in this House, obviously; we wouldn't be here otherwise. At that time the then Liberal government, led by Mr Peterson, ran on its balanced budget, and not only a balanced budget but a surplus. If that had been true, I would say full credit goes to the party that is able to do that.

But I want people to remember what the feeling was back in that election in the summer of 1990. I remember knocking at the doors and having people say to me: "Gilles, why is the government calling an election with less than three years in their mandate? Why would a majority government, which normally has four to five years in a mandate, call an election after less than three years?" I didn't know what the answer to that question was. I suspected at the time it was because there was a recession coming and the government of the day was trying to duck under the recession, to build for the five years necessary to work our way through the recession. I think they understood -- the way I saw it back then -- that there was a recession taking hold in Ontario, and should they have to go to the people within the time they had from the 1987 election, they'd be calling an election in the middle of a recession.

People understood that. You didn't have to tell people in Ontario anything. You'd knock at the door and people said, "Why did those Liberals call an early election?" I think we all heard that. Liberals, Conservatives and New Democratic candidates across the province heard that.

Lo and behold, on September 6, 1990, the New Democratic government is formed under the leadership of Bob Rae, and he appoints a Treasurer by the name of Floyd Laughren. I remember going into our first caucus meetings, discussing some of the issues at the time and what we wanted to do as a government and what was important to us. I remember the Treasurer coming into the caucus meeting and talking about the deficit. I said: "Hold it a second." I'll say it like my friend Mr Stockwell. "Hold it a second. There isn't a deficit. There was a budget that said there was a surplus. What do you mean, Floyd, there's a deficit? I don't believe that."

As it turned out -- and this is fact, but I'm sure I'm going to get comments after my 10 minutes are up -- the fact is that if the Liberals had stayed in office in 1990 and not called an election, by the time they were into their budget year they would have had roughly about an $8.5-billion deficit. Period.

Is that because the Liberals tried to spend their way out of a recession? No, it wasn't that. It's because we were in the middle of a recession. People had lost their jobs by the hundreds of thousands. People had become unemployed, which means they don't pay any taxes.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe a quorum is present.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present, Madam Clerk?

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for Cochrane South may continue.

Mr Bisson: As I was saying, if the election hadn't been called and the province of Ontario had remained under the leadership of the then Liberal government, the deficit at the end of that budget year would have been $8.5 billion.

I want to repeat, it wasn't a question of the Liberal government under Peterson trying to spend its way through a recession. It was structurally what was happening within our economy -- hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs, good-paying jobs, jobs within the mining sector, within the auto sector, within the parts and manufacturing sector, within the plastics sector -- and not because of something the government had done at that time that was so awful.

Yes, we'll argue to a certain extent that there was some responsibility on the federal government in regard to the free trade agreement, but structurally the economy was changing, because of what's happening in regard to mechanization, because of what's happening within trading patterns, within not only North America but in what now can be considered and is a world economy.

The fundamental point is that this deficit was there. It was $8.5 billion going in.

The one mistake I think we did as a government, and this is a personal opinion, we didn't do what John Chrétien did when he was elected after the Brian Mulroney government. We didn't do what the Liberal government of Canada did, which was to say, "Let's be political about this."

The Tories had a budget that was basically way over their mark, not spot-on whatsoever. The Conservative government missed it. They were calling for a deficit of some $30 billion plus; it was somewhere in the 40s. I can understand that the Conservative government didn't want to reveal those figures, that there was over a $40-billion deficit and the Conservative government of Canada didn't want to deal with it. Why? Because they were going into an election.

The Liberal government under Chrétien did what Liberals do best; that is, be political. They made sure that they made the people of Canada understand that the deficit of Canada at this point of over $40 billion fits squarely in the laps of the Conservative Party of Canada, or what's left of it, just some two members now.

Mr Stockwell: How many have you got? Nine.

Mr Bisson: Nine is better than two.

What we did at the time is we decided to do something different when it comes to politics. What ended up happening was that we said, "What we want to do is recognize that the then Treasurer of the province of Ontario didn't do anything wrong." The Treasurer of the province of Ontario might have been a little bit more up front about what was happening within the economy and might have been able to reveal that indeed we were slipping into a recession, but he didn't maliciously go out and try to do something. What happened in the province of Ontario is what was happening everywhere else. The reason they called the election was that they wanted to make darn sure that they slipped in underneath the time and then they could deal with the problem over a five-year period.

I say to those in opposition, it's easy to sit there and to say, "Oh, yes, the NDP government stood there and tried to spend its way through the recession." If you look at the numbers and you look at the budget of the province of Ontario from 1991 until 1994, new spending in our first year was about $1.4 billion or $1.5 billion.

Yes, we invested additional money in capital with regard to infrastructure programs, the antirecession fund. We carried that through the Jobs Ontario Capital fund. Yes, we increased the wage protection fund, some $400 million, to be able to protect workers in the province of Ontario. Those were conscious decisions that we made at the time, but I think we need to be somewhat fair-minded and stop pointing fingers around this place about what really took place.

I think the one thing this government maybe should have done and this party should have done is been overtly more political about the entire situation back in 1990, through the recession. Now we find ourselves some 12 to 14 months before the next provincial election. You have the opposition parties lining up, just as we would if we were in opposition, to be fair, trying to stake out their ground within the province of Ontario.

You have Mr Harris, who has now come out with what he calls the Common Sense Revolution. I would accept that he has taken a decision and he has taken a stand. I would say from my perspective and for my liking, that stand is way out on the right. That is further right than even Ralph Klein is, but I can understand. He has to be conscious of the Reform Party of Ontario, should it ever get formed. He has to make sure that he moves himself off to the right so that he doesn't get overtaken by some of the forces of the right.

I would say to the people of Ontario and I would say to the people of Cochrane South, boy oh boy, imagine life under a Mike Harris government which would do what he's talking about doing within that document. You would have them marching not only in the streets, you'd have them marching everywhere in this province, because what you'd be talking about is a total change of what you have within the services of this province. You'd be looking at massive unemployment. You would be taking a look at massive restructuring within the economy because it would be a spin to the economy as well.

What he is doing, I understand, is being overtly political, but I would say it is a very dangerous path to try to take this province on.

Liberals do what Liberals do best. They don't know what side of the fence, sometimes, they wake up on and are trying to play both sides a little bit. I think most people recognize that.

1710

I would say in conclusion that the budget of this province as set out under Treasurer Floyd Laughren this year sets out quite clearly the direction that this government has taken, and that is that you need to balance off the interests of the people of the province with the economic reality that you find yourself in. You have to make sure that you provide the services that are necessary for the people and for the economy of this province.

I would close by saying that if you take a look at the predictions in regard to the predictors within the economy, we are positioned and it is being said that Ontario will be the economy that will outpace the G-7 countries over the next few years. If we're able to lead them in growth when it comes to the economy, it is clearly because there's something good going on in the province of Ontario, and that is that we have a very competent workforce, we have very good people within the manufacturing and industrial sector who understand what it is to do business within this province and we have a government within this province that does know how to manage its affairs and to give confidence to the people of this province in regard to being able to move forward into the future.

VISITOR

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): I know that before we move to questions and comments the members would like to welcome a former member of this House. Bob McKessock, the former member for Grey, is in the members' gallery.

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET (CONTINUED)

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Just to respond to the speaker, he must have heard this before but I want to say it to him again: The explanation of the $3-billion deficit comes from the Provincial Auditor. For everyone watching, he's the independent person who audits our books.

He explains how it got to a $3-billion deficit very, very clearly. He says: "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years." That was the year ending March 31, 1990, clearly a surplus the year ending March 31, 1990. Then he says, "The next year there was also expected to be a surplus." That's the year the election was. He then goes on to explain how it turned from an expected surplus to a $3-billion deficit. The auditor speaks here. He says, "The extent of the recession, which was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget, meant total revenues dropped by $1.1 billion." He says, "There was also the need for payments of about $1 billion, mainly from social assistance." That's the second billion dollars.

Then he says there was another billion dollars that the NDP chose to spend that wasn't due but the NDP chose to spend it. They moved $200 million of teachers' pension spending up. It wasn't due the year they spent it; it was due the next year. They moved it up. They wrote off all of SkyDome -- understandable -- in the first year they were in. They paid off a loan to UTDC at $400 million.

The explanation is extremely clear. The auditor says, "It was reasonable to expect a surplus when the budget was prepared." There is the detailed explanation of it.

The second thing I would say is that the member indicates that the Liberals couldn't see the slowdown in the economy coming. In fact, we did. What did the NDP members say at the time when we were saying, "Listen, this is going to be a year of restraint"?

Here's what the NDP said, "The Ontario government has reacted to predictions of an economic slowdown by dropping its Liberal pretence." We very much anticipated it. The NDP, then in opposition, were reluctant to do anything about it.

Mr Stockwell: There is little, if anything, that needs to be added from the opposite side with respect to the support of this budget. Their arguments are literally all the same. The briefing notes clearly got passed around in rapid fashion. There is little, if any, stimulus that I can see to support the theory that there's going to be some kind of upturn in the economy associated with this budget.

I understand the employee tax holiday. I agree with that; good idea. I understand about the second-mortgage money the member for Downsview was speaking about. I don't think that's going to turn the economy around. Individually and collectively, I think they're minor, marginal decisions. Cumulatively, the decisions in the budget that they think is going to somehow jump-start this economy, I don't see them. I've heard about those two. Beyond that there's little, if anything, that I've seen in this budget where you could say, "This is the kind of budget that's going to cause economic turnaround in the private sector."

Having said that, and I haven't heard anything else, I still would like to make another point. I think there's a bit of a conundrum they have with respect to this budget as well. It seems to me, and I put this directly to the member and I'd like him to answer this, they call for major growth in job creation due to capital spending and they point to their capital budget and claim all these growth figures in the job market because of the capital dollars they spent.

Yet where this kind of dichotomy comes in, I suppose, is that when they then turn around and suggest about the savings they've made due to cost reductions, they also claim savings in reduction in capital expenditures. It's kind of odd. On the one hand you say, "Capital spending creates huge numbers of jobs, and we're creating jobs." You take credit for it in the capital budget, and in the same budget you say, "And we're saving lots of money because we're reducing the capital budget." I'd like him to explain that.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): I want to commend the member for Cochrane South for an excellent presentation. I'm very proud to be part of this government and to be part of a very balanced approach towards the economy of this province.

To use an analogy, when you're dealing with something like the Titanic, you can't turn this around very rapidly. You've got to make very tough decisions. We inherited a health care system, as everyone in the province knows, that was going out of control. It was increasing at 11% in cost per annum; 110% in a period of 10 years. Now, as a result of strong leadership, tough decisions, we have that down to less than 1% per annum. That's the kind of fiscal policy that this government is very proud of.

During this particular time, we have made some decisions that have allowed us to invest in job creation. We've invested in infrastructure. We've invested in small business. In fact, I spent this morning with many small business people in the York region and they were commending the government basically in coming through a very tough recession, in having very credible policies in job training, and indeed creating 45,000 jobs at a saving of $190 million just in the Jobs Ontario Training alone.

We have stopped the terrible inflation that was taking place under the Liberals, the spiralling costs. In its place, we are now at a stage where we're actually giving tax reductions to industry through the employer health tax.

Mr Jim Wilson: I just want to reply very briefly to the remarks by the NDP member for Cochrane South. I would ask the member to respond to the following question: Where exactly is the stimulus in your budget plan?

As a percentage of overall budget, your capital spending is actually less than your predecessor government's, and you're not fooling people by simply packaging every program, whether it be in the Tourism or Health, Economic Development or Labour ministries, as Jobs Ontario. Your Jobs Ontario program is really just a rehash of previous programs and new letterhead that says "Jobs Ontario this" and "Jobs Ontario that."

When we look at the Training component, I come from an area like Collingwood that makes use of that program to probably a larger extent than a lot of the other parts of the province because that program was supposed to create 100,000 jobs in its first year. By the budget's own admission, it created only around 41,000. We can't actually find those jobs, and they're not long-lasting, sustainable jobs.

However, the business people in my area say: "Mr Wilson, Jim, why would we take the $10,000 grant? You're borrowing the $10,000 from Japan and Germany. Why would we take that money, as small business people, to hire and train a new employee when you're going to tax us down the road that $10,000? You're going to have to increase our taxes to pay back that money to Japan and Germany that's borrowed on an $8-billion or $10-billion" -- the actual deficit is well over $11-billion in this budget plan. That's why business has not created the 100,000 jobs but has created only a fraction of that. They know they're cutting their own throats by taking money that's borrowed offshore.

1720

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Cochrane South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Bisson: I appreciate the comments on the part of the members who took time to comment on what I had to say about this budget.

I would just say to the Liberal critic in regard to finance, yes, we did see the recession coming. I said that clearly in my speech. The reason that you called the election is because you saw the recession coming. You tried to duck underneath it in order to be able to get by. I understand what you did. Sometimes some governments make political decisions, and I think in the end that was one that hurt you. But clearly you saw the recession coming as a Liberal government and you called an election to get underneath it. I think that's right.

In regard to the comment that you make, to say it's reasonable to expect that there would be a surplus in the budget the following year, I think when you drew up your budget -- I said that clearly within my speech -- yes, it would have been reasonable to expect. But clearly what happened within the economy affected your predictions and you were off the mark substantially.

That is not the first time the government has done that. You've seen it with us and you've also seen it with the Conservative government in Ottawa. You make predictions based on the numbers you're given by the people who give you that information within government and people within the private sector. What you did is you tried to make a prediction and unfortunately, for both yourselves and for the rest of us, you were wrong.

Talk to me about the question of what jobs are being created and what's happening in regard to investment. I can tell you within the riding of Cochrane South we have over $500 million of private sector investment this year. We have Placer Dome that's doing an expansion of over $150 million. You've got Northland Power that will hopefully within the next month or so be able to announce that it's going to be constructing a cogeneration program in Iroquois Falls. You've got Potter station at over $100 million. You've got a new mine that was found in Matheson that is going to be spending over $50 million. You have Kinross Gold; you have Mallette wafer board doing an expansion of $50 million. The list goes on and on. They're doing it because they have confidence in the province of Ontario and in this government.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I know the member ran out of time and I'm certain he would have wanted to answer the question that I put. I would ask unanimous consent for just one minute so he could --

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

Mr Stockwell: Not for unanimous consent so he can have a minute more to answer the question that I put? Just a minute.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? There is not unanimous consent. Continuing the debate, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to join the debate on the 1994 budget and to comment on several areas of the budget that concern me. The first I'd like to talk about is the whole issue of jobs. I guess the most disappointing chart or number in the whole budget was the chart that outlined the government's plans on jobs. This is the government's own chart indicating what it expects in the way of jobs and job growth for the province of Ontario. I was quite shocked to see that the government is predicting that in 1994 Ontario is actually going to see fewer new jobs created in the province of Ontario than we saw in 1993.

All of the rhetoric and all of the talk about jobs -- and incidentally, I've looked back at all four Rae budgets, every single Rae budget. What is the number one objective in every budget? Jobs. In every single budget, the first objective, the first goal, is jobs. Now we have essentially the report card that will lead up to the end of the Rae era. We've now got this budget which will take us very much to the next election. What we see here is that we actually are going to see fewer jobs created in the province of Ontario in 1994 than we did in 1993. We are not even going to see enough jobs created to take into account the number of people who enter the labour force.

The Minister of Labour is smiling. I would be ashamed to call myself the Minister of Labour. You have been the Minister of Labour when there is a record number of people unemployed in this province and you sit there smiling when we talk about this issue, with a big smile on your face, instead of getting on to ensure that we get some jobs created in this province. The minister sits with a big smile on his face, while literally a record number of people are out of work.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Mention the federal policies. That's what destroying the jobs.

Mr Phillips: Here we have a member saying federal policies are destroying jobs. We're a third of the way through 1994, and what's happening on the jobs front? In Ontario, in terms of job growth in the first four months of the year, a third of the way through the year, there are about 5,000 more jobs in Ontario in the first third of 1994 compared to 1993. What's the number in the rest of Canada? It's 157,000 jobs in the rest of Canada. Something's wrong in Ontario.

It was just today that I received from the government what it calls Labour Market Statistics. This is dated May 6, but I just received it today in my office. It indicates exactly what I was talking about, that we are seeing fewer jobs being created in Ontario in 1994 than we did in 1993. To me, one of the most distressing numbers is among our construction workers. In January to April 1994, we actually saw 14,000 fewer construction workers employed than we saw in January to April 1993.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): We're doing ten times more than the Liberals were doing for the province.

Mr Phillips: There goes the Minister of Municipal Affairs yapping. I find it shameful that in your announcements on infrastructure, you would hide the fact that you are reporting all the federal government's infrastructure spending as your own. When I pointed that out yesterday, what happened? The Premier said we were incorrect. The Premier yesterday misrepresented the facts. He didn't have the courtesy, I might say, to acknowledge that publicly. What we're seeing right now is record numbers of people unemployed.

The Minister of Labour is leaving the House, but I would also say that the most shameful number in terms of employment is our youth unemployment. Youth unemployment in this province is reported at 30%.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: The members opposite, so the people at home understand what's happening, are heckling when we're talking about what I regard as the most serious issue facing the province: unemployment, particularly youth unemployment.

Hon Mr Philip: What's your solution? Your leader was asked three times on the radio yesterday what her solution was, and she didn't have one.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor.

Mr Phillips: The member across is yelling his head off, when we proposed a very detailed solution to youth unemployment a year ago. Frankly, the government has done nothing about it. It was a year ago, a very detailed proposal, and nothing has happened. You've done nothing, and what we see is youth unemployment at 30%. If I were the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I would be hiding my head in shame.

Hon Mr Philip: We have the largest youth employment in the history of this province. Why don't you look at the facts?

Mr Phillips: He once again is yelling, when we see record numbers of young people unemployed. I go back to the facts. You can yell all you want, but I am reporting on the government's own reports. What does it say here? "Weak growth in job opportunities has led to workers becoming discouraged. Ontario's labour force participation rate has declined. A comparison across age groups reveals that younger people are recording the biggest decline. Young workers in Ontario lost 25,000 full-time jobs and 32,000 part-time jobs over the 12-month period March 1993 to March 1994. Relative to the overall unemployment rates in Ontario, the incidence of unemployment among youth is substantially above average. In fact, among the 15- to 19-year-old group it's 30%."

1730

If you want to heckle and you want to yell, you can do that, but I would like the people in this Legislature to begin to realize we have a crisis here. We have a crisis in employment, particularly among our young people. The reason I raise this is because the budget essentially says everything's just fine, it's being solved. I don't believe it is being solved, and I don't believe we will solve this until we all collectively agree it is a problem that isn't being solved.

The numbers speak for themselves. When we see in Ontario the government itself predicting fewer jobs being created in 1994 than 1993, there is only one conclusion: There are going to be more people unemployed in 1994 than in any time in the history of this province. Those are your own numbers. Those aren't my numbers. You say the labour force is going to grow more than the jobs that are going to be created. Last year we had a record number of people unemployed. It is inescapable, if you use your own numbers, that we are going to see record numbers of people unemployed. And the most tragic one, I repeat, is among our young people.

Something is happening. The fact that in the rest of Canada for the first four months of 1994 we've seen job growth of 157,000 jobs, and in Ontario it's just about 5,000 jobs, has to tell all of us that something's going wrong out there. The plan isn't working. This is the fourth straight budget where jobs have been the number one priority, and yet if you look at the Economic Outlook, you will see that each year the number of unemployed people has gone up, and, if you accept the government's numbers, at the end of 1994 we're going to see again an increase in the number of people unemployed and a record number.

My first disappointment in the budget was in the numbers the government produced itself about what's going to happen to employment in the province, and it is a major problem. I personally don't think we're going to solve this until we collectively agree on the significance of it. I've said this before, but when you're in government you have a vested interest in saying things are getting better, "Don't worry, you're being an alarmist," and when you're in opposition, sometimes people simply assume you're crying wolf and they ignore what we're saying.

But it is inescapable: We have a major employment problem in this province and it is not being fixed. In fact, for the first four months of this year the numbers are extremely disappointing. I think even the government ministers would acknowledge that in a more quiet moment.

The numbers that just came out this week indicate that our construction trades are still struggling very badly. In the first four months of 1993 over 1992 we saw a job growth of 75,000 jobs, and in the first four months of 1994 over 1993 a job growth of roughly 6,000 jobs. We have a problem. The numbers speak for themselves.

The second thing I want to talk about is what can only be described as the games that are being played with the numbers. You don't have to accept what I say in opposition; the public doesn't and the government doesn't. The Provincial Auditor has already declared himself on it and said there is a major problem with the way the books are being reported. The $8.5-billion deficit is not real, and I'll go through the areas where the Provincial Auditor has indicated the concern.

The first is in something called loan-based financing. There's $1.6 billion in this budget on what's called loan-based financing. Just so everybody recognizes what this is, historically in this province, with what's called our partners -- our school boards, our hospitals, our municipalities, our colleges, our universities -- the province used to provide capital grants. They would say: "We're going to spend, in the case of school boards, $400 million. We will give you a grant for your capital of $400 million." What we've done now is change the way we're doing that, and we've said to the school boards: "You go borrow the $400 million. We won't give it to you in the form of a grant. You go borrow the money on our behalf, but whoever you borrow it from, you tell them we will commit to repay 100% of that over 20 years."

So we've done two things. You will find as you look at the numbers in the budget that we've now moved a substantial portion of the capital to loan-based financing. In fact, it was zero in 1992-93, it was $850 million in 1993-94 and this year it's $1.6 billion. That is not shown as part of our deficit. That $1.6 billion is not shown as part of our debt. But it is without question spent, and it is part of our debt, but it's hidden. It is now $1.6 billion hidden on someone else's books, not shown as provincial debt, but the province has 100% responsibility for repaying that.

I asked the ministry officials to give me a calculation of how much hidden debt we will have in five years because of this practice. There will be $8 billion of hidden debt on someone else's books but which the province has 100% responsibility for. We're talking about huge sums of hidden debt, $8 billion in five years, not shown as provincial debt, but the province has 100% responsibility for repaying that. That's the first reason why there is unease in the financial community, particularly the credit rating agencies: because they see through this. They see this as a transparent move to move debt off the government's books and report an artificially low deficit.

The second big area of playing games with the books is in the pensions. For many people in the province I think there have to be alarm bells going off on the pension side, because what the government has done is it has chosen to stop making any payments for three and a half years against the huge unfunded liabilities in the teachers' pension and in the public sector pensions. There is an unfunded liability -- in other words, the difference between what is there as an asset and what is owed -- of roughly $10 billion in these two pension funds. The unfunded liability continues to grow, I'm told, at the rate of about 8% a year. So this year the unfunded liability will grow by $800 million. But we have chosen to make no payments against that unfunded liability for three years.

The justification, I will say, is that the government says, "Well, the unfunded liability was somewhat lower than we thought it was, so we're just going to take a three-and-a-half-year holiday before we make any payments against it." The auditor says this growth in the unfunded liability is every bit as much a debt and a deficit as any other expenditures. We should be reporting that the unfunded liability is going to grow by $800 million this year. We should report we're making no payments against it.

For the viewers out there, this is the teachers' pension unfunded liability. You can see that right now it is approaching $10 billion, and it will go to between $13 billion and $14 billion by the year 2014, and then it begins to decline. There's a huge amount of growing debt which we do not report as a liability. We don't report the fact that we are letting it grow by roughly $800 million. This, I might say, is but one of the things that's happening in the pension fund. The government has also, I gather, reached some agreements where it is making decreases in its pension contribution, in addition to the unfunded liability.

I will predict, actually, this issue is going to explode in the next few months as we find out from those in the know in the pension area just what trouble we are getting into by letting the unfunded liability grow by roughly $800 million, making no payments against it and not even reporting it as a liability by the province. Again, the Provincial Auditor, as I say, has pointed that out, and I'm beginning to receive lots of letters now from people who are impacted by this. I predict in the very near future, as I say, this will become a significant issue, and I will do my best to make certain it's fully explored.

1740

The third area the Provincial Auditor says he has real concerns about is what I call phantom sales. What we are finding is, the government is selling all its office buildings. For those of you who know the area around here, things like the Macdonald Block and the Frost Building are all being sold to a government crown agency called the Ontario Realty Corp and then leased back. It's just simply a way to artificially inflate our revenue. We took last year, I think, $250 million in revenue that way. We're going to take another $250 million. The auditor says: "This isn't a sale. This is wrong. This is simply a transfer of money." But we are going to artificially inflate the revenue of this province, just with that one move alone, by $250 million, and then we take on a brand-new lease expense for ever.

I also will say in the budget we see that the government plans to what it calls refinance quite a number of assets. In last year's budget, the one that just ended a few weeks ago, Madam Speaker, you'll recall the government "sold" all the GO trains. You'll be aware of the GO train running through your riding, I would think. But the government packaged all of the $425 million worth of GO trains and then put together a neat deal where there was a Bermuda company that was able to essentially take advantage of some tax loopholes in Bermuda where that Bermuda company bought the $425 million worth of GO trains and paid the government the $425 million. The government benefited from it because of these tax loopholes where in Bermuda they got less taxes because the company used the loopholes. So $425 million worth of GO trains were sold, and then they're leased back. They weren't really sold. It's just a loan against the GO trains. But it was $425 million of phoney revenue coming into the province.

This year, what we're going to find is, all the ferries, the government planes and I dare say bulldozers and all those sorts of things, anything that can be pulled together, the same thing's going to happen. There will be an offshore company -- maybe it'll be another Bermuda company -- that will "buy" our bulldozers and "buy" our ferries, pay the government for them, and then the government will lease them back. Again the auditor is saying, "Listen, let's stop these phoney deals."

I also point out on the revenue side that we now are all buying five-year licences. I say to the government, when are you taking that in as revenue? Well, they're taking in 100% of the revenue the year it comes in. So, surprise, surprise, we're going to find on the driver's licence, 1993, 1994, 1995, all the revenue will come in, in 1996 and 1997, zero revenue, because we sold everybody a five-year licence. Again the auditor says that's wrong. Any business could never report its income that way. There's no auditor, there's no accountant, who would ever sign the books.

That's why the Provincial Auditor has said he has significant concerns about the budget. He signalled his concerns for the first time last year. For the first time in the history of the province, the auditor refused to give an unqualified opinion on the books. For those of you interested, you should read this report. The auditor also went through all the things I've talked about and said he has significant reservations about them and would urge the government to change.

Now, I applauded the government when it said that it was going to change the way it is going to keep the books. I thought, "Okay, the 1994-95 budget," the one we're dealing with, "will be presented in the way the auditor wants." Well, I found out that yes, they are going to change it, but not until September 30, 1995. I was astonished at that, because the auditor couldn't have been more clear.

In fact, the auditor, if I can find his comments here, I thought had a good comment on the way the books are reported in Ontario. He says, "Our general concern is that legislators and the public are not now being provided the financial information required to help them understand and assess the financial position and results of the operation of the government." Then he goes on to say, "Therefore, our audit and opinion in March will be based on the recommendations of the public accounts." The auditor, for the first time in history, refused to give an unqualified opinion.

We wonder why the credit rating agencies and the financial community say, "Listen, we really have stopped looking at the deficit the province reports and we've calculated our own deficit." They just simply don't trust the numbers, and I'll tell you why. One of the best things to do to get an idea of the games that are being played is to look at the difference between the reported deficit, which is the public number the government uses, and the actual amount of money that the government goes out and borrows.

What we see, because that's an indication of how much of these games are moving off the books: In 1992-93, the government reported a deficit of $12.4 billion. What they actually went out and borrowed was $15.5 billion. That is, $3.1 billion more was borrowed than the reported deficit. In the year that just ended the government reported a deficit of $9.4 billion but actually borrowed $11.6 billion; $2.2 billion more was borrowed than the reported deficit. This year we look at the books and the government says there's going to be an $8.5-billion deficit but we're going to borrow $10.2 billion.

In three years the government has gone out and borrowed $7 billion more than it reported in the deficit. So the public thinks the deficit looks like it's coming down, things look like they're moving at least in the right direction, although far too high, but the money markets, the people who really are able to spend the time to get in behind the numbers, are saying, "Whoa."

The real number, the real deficit is the amount of money this province has to borrow.

You can begin to see that. Where is it all going? You look on page 117 of the budget and you can see, for example, that just to commissions, corporations and boards, 1992-93, the government sent $400 million; 1993-94, $1.3 billion; 1994-95, $2 billion. That's just to corporations, boards and commissions, part of hiding the numbers, getting the spending off the book.

What does that mean? It means that there is growing concern about how much one can trust the books in the province. The credit rating agencies -- by the way, when we talk about credit rating agencies and the impact they can have on the province, they are simply organizations that get paid money to give lenders advice on how much interest they should charge and whether they should loan money to companies and to countries and to provinces and to states.

When the Rae government came in, Ontario had what was called an AAA credit rating. Each year we have lost one grade on that. We went to what's called AA+, AA, and we're at AA- right now. There is no question that those moves are costing the taxpayers of this province, this year, at least $150 million in just strictly higher interest costs.

We are under, as I think most people know, credit watch by a couple of credit rating agencies. I have no idea what they will do. I suspect a couple of them may downgrade the province, but all of them are watching the province's finances very carefully. I will say that if Standard and Poor's, S&P as I think most people would know them, were to downgrade the province one more step -- we are at what's called AA-. If we were to move to a single A rating, that is extremely serious in the sense that probably about two thirds of the lenders to the province would no longer be permitted by their own bylaws to lend to the province, our interest rates would go up substantially and it would be an enormously negative signal to the province of Ontario. I'm hopeful that doesn't happen because that would be extremely serious.

1750

The reason they are looking so sceptically on the Ontario numbers is they no longer feel they can trust the numbers. You truly have to get into the books in detail to find out what the real finances of the province are. It makes it difficult for the opposition because, frankly, we have limited resources.

You have to be almost a forensic accountant to work your way through the budget, but there is no doubt that the deficit this year that's reported at $8.5 billion -- if you were to take the Provincial Auditor's recommendations, it would have to be between $2 billion and $2.5 billion higher. We're looking at a deficit in the $11-billion range, and that's the number the serious people in the financial community will look at.

That's why I've talked often about these accounting tricks, because they're starting to come home to roost to us. Many of them are simply delaying payments. We're now starting to pay the price.

I'm almost out of time. The last thing I wanted to talk briefly about was health care, simply to signal my own personal concern about the area. I think we make a mistake thinking that the numbers we see in terms of growth in health spending really reflect the growth in health spending in the province. The numbers we see in the budget are the growth in provincial funding for health care.

What is happening in health care is a very substantial move away from provincially funded health care to a very heavily, privately funded health care. I see that happening in a dramatic increase in -- you go and ask the hospital associations how much of their funds now come from the province: 70%.

I asked the ministry officials what percentage of Ontario's health spending is from the province. It now is 76%; 34% comes from elsewhere and that 34% is growing. I think the government members make a mistake thinking you are controlling health spending, you're controlling the government funding on health.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to take the limited time on the budget. I look forward to having an opportunity to discuss it further at another time.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Jim Wilson: I'm pleased to just comment briefly on the remarks made concerning the budget by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He's a very decent human being and I enjoy his presence in the Legislature.

I would be critical, though, of his party more than him as a person in that I don't think the Liberal Party, while they've been quick to criticize the government -- and they've joined us on that front. Where they haven't joined us is in offering concrete solutions to our debt and deficit problems and indeed the budgetary problems of the province of Ontario.

I thought, though, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt raised a couple of very important points. One is a question frequently asked of me by my constituents: Why are these drivers' licence fees, for example, and hunting and fishing licences, now going in three- and five-year blocks? I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt answered that question, in that this government is looking everywhere for cash these days.

It's taking as much cash in now -- for instance, my father, who is 65 years of age, Jack Wilson from Alliston, really resents the fact that he may have to renew his licence for five years. He says: "You know, I may not live for five years. Does my estate get a rebate or something and, if so, would the paperwork cost government more than the actual rebate?" He really resents that. What it means is that the government is taking a five-year cash influx now from people like my father, and future governments won't have those licensing fees coming in every year to bring cash into the revenue pockets of the government.

Second, and very important, the member mentions health care. As Health critic for my party, we've consistently pointed out that the government's spending on health care is decreasing, and the reason the Ontario government only spends a fraction of what it did on health care in the past is because user fees are increasing in the system.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I want to respond to the comments by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. It was interesting that once again the member spent a lot of time talking about the accounting procedures and bringing into question this government's accounting procedures.

He started it off, as they do quite often, by saying that the only time we've had a balanced budget or a surplus was at the end of the 1990 year, and he said we would have had one going in from the 1990-91 except we included the loan to the UDTC, included writing off the SkyDome etc, and that's how it got up to $3 billion.

Of course, he never asked the second question: Why didn't their government include those things in looking at the accounts? Gee, maybe we know why: because they wanted to make sure a balanced budget was presented going into an election year to show what wonderful financial managers they claimed to be.

The third party also talks about this, and has gone on for years. As I mentioned in my comments the other day, they used to borrow from pension funds at 2% or 3% a year, borrowing their money there. Is that being true and upfront about what the real financial state of the province is, when you're taking advantage of those pension funds and borrowing at very low rates and when the unfunded liabilities were being created?

I find it very ironic and strange that somehow now the Liberals and Tories are the great converters, that everything must be included in the way they see fit, given that when they were in government they weren't practicing that. I welcome them to their great new conversion.

This is a very good budget. It does support job creation and it does maintain services, and we have the deficit going on a downward track.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I would like to commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on a speech as non-partisan as can be made under the circumstances, but also to comment on some of the other statements that were made. It seems it depends on which party a member belongs to: You place the blame at the feet of the other two parties.

This government inherited an overall deficit from the Liberal Party and an accumulated debt from the Liberal Party, which in turn inherited an accumulated debt and a deficit from the Conservative Party. I think the most important aspect is to say it is the sticking to dogma over practical applications that has contributed to the augmentation of both the deficit and the accumulated debt over the four years of this government.

I want to quote from the Treasurer's report in the 1990-91 budget: "I think it is important for people to understand that we had a choice to make this year: to fight the deficit or fight the recession. We are proud to be fighting the recession."

What method did they take? According to the 1994 budget, the NDP inherited an operating surplus of $192 million in 1990-91, and in the next year they wound up with a $7-billion deficit. So in one year they went from a surplus to a huge deficit because of their ideology, and that is why they're behind the eight ball today.

1800

Mr Turnbull: As usual, I've enjoyed the debate offered by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I think he tried to present in a fair way what the problem is.

We can all point fingers. I'm just as good as anybody else at pointing fingers at other governments and other parties, but the fact is we should all get our heads out of the sand and be concerned about the situation we're now in.

According to the latest survey of world-wide all-government debt, Ontario now has a total government debt to GDP ratio of 84.9%, and the situation is worsening. That puts Ontario, in terms of its ratio of debt to gross domestic product, ahead of the government of Canada at 84%. We are in fact just nosed out by Burundi. We are way ahead of Mexico, Argentina and Brazil. According to this latest report, we are being categorized as a Third World country in terms of our debt. This is a very serious problem, and unless we address it urgently, the IMF is going to start addressing it.

When we look at all-Canada debt, the gross debt to GDP ratio exceeded $1.75 trillion. That is $61,188 per capita or, for a family of four, almost $250,000. I don't believe the people of Canada or the people of Ontario realize the seriousness of this debt.

Mr Phillips: I'll try and respond to each of the members. The member for Oxford indicated that I'm advocating changing the books and that sort of thing. I point out that it's the Provincial Auditor who has been leading the charge to get the government to change the way it's reporting the books. It was the Provincial Auditor who made all those recommendations. It was the Provincial Auditor who said, "Our concern is that legislators and the public are not now being provided with the financial information required to help them understand and assess the financial position."

I'm the messenger, I guess, but it is the Provincial Auditor and his comments, and I would say that people listen to the Provincial Auditor. The credit rating agencies listen to the Provincial Auditor, and there is zero doubt that in the way the books are reported, you're understating the deficit by a couple of billion dollars.

I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Mississauga. He points out the challenges in the debt. We have gone in this province from a debt, when the Rae government came in, of roughly $40 billion, to $90 billion in five years. Those are such incredible numbers that I'm not sure everyone understands and appreciates them. But what it means is that every family in this province now has a debt of roughly $30,000, up from roughly $15,000 when Bob Rae became Premier, and that means that every year every family in this province has to spend about $3,000 a year just on the interest payments. We're faced with a significant problem that needs better action than this budget provides.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, May 16, we will conclude third reading consideration of Bill 120, the residents' rights bill, and third reading consideration of Bill 113, the liquor control act. Following that we will move into committee of the whole to consider amendments to Bill 138, the retail sales tax act, and Bill 110, the employer health tax act.

On Tuesday, May 17, we will consider an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mrs McLeod.

On Wednesday, May 18, we will begin second reading of Bill 91, respecting labour relations in the agricultural industry.

In the morning of Thursday, May 19, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 57, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Cousens, and ballot item 58, second reading of Bill 157, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, standing in the name of Mr Winninger.

On Thursday afternoon, we will give second and third reading to any outstanding Pr bills. Following that, we will continue with our consideration of the budget motion standing in the name of Mr Laughren.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Pursuant to standing order 34, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

JOB CREATION

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given yesterday by the Premier. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the Premier or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Just to indicate what provoked what's called the late show, yesterday in the Legislature I raised a question to the Premier about how the government was reporting the federal infrastructure money.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the federal government and the provincial government are working together on an infrastructure program. The federal government has allocated $250 million to Ontario as their infrastructure program. I asked the question regarding the way the Ontario government has reported its budget.

I said to the Premier, "You are saying that the provincial government is funding $3.8 billion of infrastructure." I asked the question: "Does that include the $250 million? Federal money, federal program. Does that include the $250 million of federal infrastructure money?"

Now, frankly, I had been briefed by ministry officials. I had asked the question in detail. I was confident that it did include it and that what the government was doing was trying to take credit for federal spending and a federal program by lumping it into its own numbers. I was certain that was the case, and I asked the Premier, "Are you doing that?"

The Premier said:

"The member is completely and totally wrong....

"I would say to the honourable member...very directly that he is flat wrong with respect to what he's saying.

"Our own infrastructure spending is up and we are of course including our own contributions....Of course we're doing that, since that's provincial dollars. But the suggestion that somehow there's something else included in the capital dollars is false, completely false, and is quite erroneous. I hope the member will withdraw it."

So the Premier was saying not only does he think I'm wrong, he knows I'm wrong: "erroneous," "false," "completely false."

For people's information, that was asked early in what's called question period here. The Premier had literally hours to get the right answer. He never had the courtesy to come back to the Legislature and say he was wrong. Rather than that, I got a letter today, just before question period, from the Premier; not a public letter, which it should have been; not a public recognition that he was wrong; not a public recognition that he shouldn't have said, "The member is completely and totally wrong," that the member is "completely false...quite erroneous. I hope the member will withdraw it."

I got the handwritten letter just before question period from the Premier, saying: "I overdid it in our exchange yesterday. I can't be in question period today. You have my permission to say that your assertion about our including federal money is correct. I was wrong in saying you were wrong."

My point is this: He knew yesterday he was wrong. He had an opportunity to get up and correct the record, because thousands of people watched this, thousands of people were left with the impression that the Premier knew what he was talking about, that the Premier wouldn't be accusing someone else of misleading if he didn't know that he was right. He had to know yesterday he was wrong, and he sat here as late as 6 o'clock, never acknowledging that he was wrong.

So the purpose of this show is to indicate my significant concerns with the Premier, that when he was wrong, he had a chance to correct the record. He could have done it in a matter of minutes, because he knew. Because the staff knows this; the staff would have told him. But rather than do what I would regard as the honourable thing and get up and acknowledge he made a mistake, he chose never to get it back in Hansard, never to acknowledge that he was incorrect and chose to leave, in my opinion, a false and misleading impression.

So I asked for this opportunity to express my real concern about the actions of the Premier yesterday. I don't mind him saying, "I think you're wrong; I will check," but to indicate that he knows that I'm wrong and that he indicates he is right when he completely was wrong on this matter I find unacceptable, and I find the way he's handled it frankly unacceptable and beneath him.

The Acting Speaker: The Premier is not present in the House. Is anyone else responding on behalf of the Premier? There is no response.

1810

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): We have a further application of standing order 34. The member for Parkdale has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given today by the Minister of Health. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): The reason why I had asked the minister to return today is because I am really very dissatisfied with the answer that she has provided me when I asked my question today. The questions that I asked were very specific and I hope now she will have the opportunity to answer them in a way that is readily understandable.

First, Madam Speaker, you will remember that I asked the question if she would be prepared to change her decision and halt the construction of this forensic unit of 20 beds which would be delivered at a cost of over $2 million. Forensic beds in this case really mean beds for the criminally insane. She had danced around that question and did not say whether she would or wouldn't be.

I would like to remind her that at the public meeting I had attended two nights ago, the question was asked, and we do have it on record, to one of her representatives, "Are you now prepared to say that this was not a good decision?" That referred of course to the construction of the $2-million unit. The answer of that Ministry of Health representative was yes.

I'm questioning the reluctance of this minister when she is not prepared to answer my question, which was, "If the regional director of mental health program services and the regional head of forensic operations will make a recommendation to the minister that this was not a good decision, will she then halt the construction and review this decision?" That was a very straightforward question.

If that recommendation is made by her own staff, meaning the representative at that meeting could recommend it to her, and if she would of course recommend that, would she stop the construction? That was the question. I would hope the minister present here today will then address that question, if she would be prepared to stop.

The supplementary, the second question, of course, and I want to make a brief point before I ask it again, was that none of the political representatives were informed about the construction of this unit for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre.

It was not only reported in the media that the member of her own party from Fort York was not informed -- he said it; he's on record; I've heard him say it three times personally -- but I certainly was not informed. Of course, Parkdale is right next door to the centre. The local councillor says -- it's also on record -- he was not informed. The residents say they were not informed. The leaders of the community say they were not informed. That's why Mr Marchese says in the newspaper that no one was informed.

The minister had said something interesting earlier in her remarks, namely, that there was some information and some people had been informed. We had checked with the residents. One resident attended a series of meetings and even at these meetings at the centre it was never discussed. She also said that at that meeting. We can arrange to have her meet with the minister as well.

But the question was, since certainly no one of any significance was informed, would the minister be prepared to come and speak with us, would she be prepared to come and speak with the residents at a public meeting, at her convenience, at any time she wishes? I would appreciate if she would certainly say yes. She would get our applause and we will be in a better position to discuss these issues.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Minister.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I want to begin by taking issue with some of the facts that the member has placed before this House. First of all, in question period today he described a community meeting at which he said there had been 400 irate citizens. My staff were there; representatives of the ministry were there. There were at maximum 100 irate citizens, but they were irate, I grant you that.

Secondly, he said ministry staff at the meeting had agreed that the facility under discussion, the 20 medium-security forensic beds, ought not to be built. The member rose and asked a representative of the ministry, did they agree that the decision to proceed was an incorrect one? The ministry official answered no. The media reported that night that the ministry official had reported no. My staff were there and heard the ministry official respond no. The member tells the House that the ministry official agreed that the facility should not go ahead.

The member says that he was not informed, that there was no consultation. I have in front of me a letter dated April 1993 to the member from one of his constituents advising him of the extensive consultations on the future of Queen Street Mental Health Centre, expressing concern that though the meeting was well attended, there were very few local community ratepayer-stakeholders, advising the member of this and attaching to the letter the Queen Street Work in Progress report. That report clearly says that one of the things in progress is a medium-secure ward for patients.

I agree entirely that there was no discussion because the issue wasn't flagged and people were not aware of it. I acknowledge that. But it was there. Nobody picked up on it. It was not explicitly pointed out. It was part of extensive discussions.

The decision to expand and to put in these 20 forensic medium-security beds was taken as a result of changes the federal government made to the Criminal Code in 1992. As a result of that, the Criminal Code Review Board is enabled to refer more people to medium-security beds throughout the province.

The unit at Queen Street is being built in response to the increasing need for medium-security beds. It was approved in 1992. These community discussions on the strategic plan, not specifically the forensic unit at Queen Street, occurred in 1993.

There are no short-term or long-term medium-secure treatment rehabilitation beds in the greater Toronto area. The fact that this unit is being built will allow the families and the patients much greater ability to support each other. It will allow patients from within the greater Toronto area no longer to have to be sent to Kingston, Brockville, St Thomas. The unit will have perimeter security, it will double-locked, it will have cameras, emergency buttons and special window glazing, in keeping with the specifications for the level of medium security.

It is not an expansion of Queen Street Mental Health Centre; it is the conversion of one floor in an existing building to medium-security. Two other floors in that building are also medium-security: One is run by the Clarke Institute and known as Metfors, that is, Metropolitan Toronto Forensic Service, where patients are referred for assessment and are held for as long as 60 days. The other is also a medium-security ward.

Until the middle 1980s there were greater security wards at Queen Street. They were then discontinued because the security was not seen to be sufficient or the treatment adequate. Now they are being replaced by this 20-bed secure unit.

The hospital's draft strategic plan, as I indicated, mentioned that it would be built. Letters about that plan were sent to municipal and provincial politicians, service providers, local ratepayers associations, consumer groups, educational institutions, families and planners, including the two local health councils. There were 13 meetings held in April 1993 to discuss the draft strategic plan. Over 500 people attended those meetings.

The Queen Street Mental Health Centre's community advisory board wholly supports the construction of the facility and OPSEU, the people who work in the facility, fully support it in order to have better security and better safety for their members.

I recognize that the community doesn't like having Queen Street Mental Centre there. The community did not have a broad discussion of this, but I submit that had there been the widest possible discussion, that community regrettably would still not accept this addition to Queen Street.

The Acting Speaker: The time has expired. There being no further matter to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 next Monday afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1822.

12 mai 1994