Journal des débats 1994-nov-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, since it is desirable that the province reduce the immense costs -- perhaps $500,000 or $1 million per addict -- of the crime committed by people who steal and commit mayhem in order to support their drug habits; and

Since intervention is needed to recover the wasted human potential and productivity associated with such addiction; and

Since most American states have legislated driver's licence suspensions for persons convicted of drug offences; and

Since the legal framework is already in place for medical treatment of addicts with methadone;

Therefore, this House urges the government of Ontario to amend the Highway Traffic Act and Courts of Justice Act to provide that the Ministry of Transportation receive notification of all convictions for drug trafficking offences and that it impose an administrative one-year suspension of (or postponed eligibility for, or postponed restoration of) the driver's licence of anyone convicted under any statute of a trafficking offence; and

To dedicate funds for methadone treatment; designate hospitals or other existing medical service providers which must make the treatment available and be responsible for the monitoring involved; and cooperate with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario quickly to develop guidelines to govern adequate and controlled approval of physicians for Bureau of Dangerous Drugs treatment licences, in such numbers and locations as will facilitate the orderly expansion of methadone treatment in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Ruprecht moves private member's notice of motion number 50. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm delighted to introduce this resolution this morning. The intention of this resolution is to make it easy for people who are drug-dependent to get off drugs and to make it hard for those drug dealers. The question we must ask ourselves this morning is this: How do we reduce the human misery and suffering and pain by those experiencing drug dependency? A second question: How do we reduce the social cost of drug abuse in Ontario, estimated to be $9.1 billion annually? That's the estimate by the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario, and it's a 1989 figure. This $9.1 billion, a five-year-old figure, would be enough to wipe out this year's debt in Ontario.

How do we attempt to come to grips with this kind of question and the issue of drug dependency? Let's quickly pursue the history of this. There have been, of course, in Ontario a number of attempts made to answer this drug dependency question. The first major report, as all of us in this Legislature know, was the Ken Black report of 1988. Essentially, the recommendation was to establish a provincial coordinating body, and that that be clearly defined and identified to provide the coordination and focus and leadership to ensure that drug dependency would be reduced.

The follow-up report of the Ken Black report was the second major item. It was a 1989-90 report chaired by Garth Martin and called Vision for the 90's. The recommendation of that report was to establish special emphasis on early intervention. The recommendation that came from that report included the stopping or the termination of the US treatment. We had sent a lot of Ontarians down to the United States because they had better treatment, but of course it was a lot costlier. In fact, the estimated cost for Ontarians in one year was between $50 and $80 million spent in US treatment centres. It's a tremendous amount of money. The recommendation ensured that came to an end.

The third report was a follow-up to the Vision for the 90's report. It was a parliamentary committee chaired by George Mammoliti, which was nothing more than a PR exercise since the Vision recommendations of two years prior to this report were simply republished. The report, of which I have a copy, is called Caring For Each Other: The People of Ontario Respond to Alcohol and Drug Treatment Problems. Again, since the recommendations in this report were the same as the report of Vision for the 90's, nothing much has changed except that they say we have to care for each other.

The response would be: How can we care for each other if we have no drug treatment facilities or if they are reduced? What are the facts today? The facts are that the response to this report, which was the third report dealing with drugs in Ontario, was the destruction, the elimination of the Provincial Anti-Drug Secretariat. In fact, the very recommendation that was made in all these reports was eliminated. What was the recommendation? To establish focus and leadership to ensure that every Ontarian should have access to drug treatment.

We know the misery. We know what's happening out there in the real world. Why does the Addiction Research Foundation say the social cost is $9.1 billion? That is a staggering figure. Why is the conclusion made in this report? It's simple: Every drug addict has one thing in mind, and that is to maintain the habit. So all day long, what do the drug addicts do in Ontario? They try to maintain the habit, meaning they've got to steal. There will certainly be costs in our court system. The police have to come in and be effective, and finally, it costs all of us in terms of police reports, break and enter, violent crimes and so on. In fact, the mayor of Toronto, just a year ago, said, "Metro's flourishing drug trade is largely to blame for a 9.3% increase in violent crimes." In short, how can we come to a conclusion on this issue? If we think about how to reduce crime in Ontario, obviously the mayor is correct: Crime is fuelled by drug activity.

1010

So it is quite easy to see that we need to act and we need to act quickly. If we want to eliminate crime even one or two degrees, if we want to eliminate it or reduce it one or two percentage points, we've got to consider the idea that there's a relationship between drugs and crime. The response of this government has not been sufficient. That is, we have to re-establish a focus and leadership to eliminate the kind of mayhem that's being caused in our streets and to eliminate the human suffering and the human problems associated with drug addiction.

I apply my recommendation to the government leaders who are right now sitting there looking at me. You've got to do one thing: re-establish the anti-drug secretariat to produce the focus and leadership that's necessary; and second, and it is part of my resolution, of course, dedicate the necessary funds for an expansion of methadone treatment. That does not necessarily mean you put all the methadone treatment centres in one area, and Parkdale comes to mind here. That means the whole focus, the catchment area, beyond the boundaries of Metro Toronto. Where do people go if they want to get off drugs?

Every one of us probably has received phone calls from some concerned parent saying, "Please, MPP, find a space for my son" or "my daughter, because they want to get off drugs." What is our response? If you call any drug treatment centre in Ontario, and I dare you to do this, you will find that the waiting period for a person who wants to get into one of these centres to get off drugs is now between -- can you imagine this? -- six months and one year. If you want to get into a drug treatment program, it takes you six months to one year. That's unheard of, not only in terms of the continuation of human suffering and problems associated with it, but the very cost to our social fabric and to our social life in Ontario.

We've got to address it quickly because there are out there between 15,000 and 25,000 heroin addicts alone who are looking to us for some leadership, and some of them obviously try to get into a drug rehabilitation program, and we say no. We slam the doors. We wash our hands and we say, like Pontius Pilate, "It's not our problem." If it isn't a problem of Ontario, then whose problem is it? And then, of course, how are we going to deal with this issue?

There are three things that have to be done.

First, this government has to produce some leadership, and the one way to do it is to re-establish the anti-drug secretariat.

Second is that we designate health care providers, and I would think specifically hospitals, because hospitals would be most effective in terms of drug treatment. I know there are very few physicians who want to get into the program of drug treatment because of the associated and affiliated problems, so consequently the recommendation would be to designate hospitals that wish to get into the program, all over Ontario, not just in the one area of Toronto.

Third, and just as important, is the issue of cooperation between the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to develop some guidelines between them and the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs treatment licence programs in Ottawa. There has to be coordination.

Those are the three recommendations in this part of my resolution.

The second part of my resolution is obvious. That deals with automatic driver's licence suspensions for drug dealers. I'll address that issue in the next few minutes. At this stage of the game, I'd like to ask all members here to look at those three recommendations and to support them.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment on the resolution brought to the attention of this House by the member for Parkdale. In the briefest of terms, the member for Parkdale, recognizing the immense cost of crime committed by people who steal and commit mayhem in order to support drug addiction, wants the provincial government to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Courts of Justice Act to impose an administrative one-year suspension of or to postpone eligibility for, or postpone restoration of, the driver's licence of anyone convicted under any statute of a trafficking offence.

As well, the member for Parkdale wants the province to dedicate funds for methadone treatment and expand methadone treatment programs and facilities in Ontario for addicts.

I support the resolution in principle, but perhaps it could be amended to recognize that Ontarians have been horrified by the recent number of alcohol-related accidents which have maimed or killed innocent people on this province's roads. To that end, my PC caucus colleague the member for Mississauga South has been working on legislation which would revoke a repeat drunk driver's licence for life.

As well as revoking driving privileges for repeat offenders, the member for Mississauga South wants an automatic suspension of a person's licence while awaiting trial on an impaired driving charge or confiscation of a person's automobile if that person drives while his or her licence is suspended.

My colleague noted that 59% of convictions for drunk driving in 1992 involved repeat offenders and that drunk driving is the number one killer of young people. Perhaps the member for Parkdale might consider amending his resolution to cover anyone addicted to behaviour-altering substances, including alcohol.

It was interesting to note recent comments made by the Attorney General, who said our prisons are too costly and too crowded and that alternatives to imprisonment must be found for non-violent offenders.

The Attorney General suggested that despite a 30% expansion since the 1980s, Ontario's prison system remains overcrowded because more than 75,000 people were sent to prison last year. More than 87% of them were jailed for municipal and provincial offences like parking, speeding, liquor offences. The Attorney General said more creative ways must be sought to combine preventive measures and to find more effective rehabilitative solutions to minor crime.

I would suggest that one of those creative ways of combining preventive measures with more effective rehabilitative solutions would involve keeping a high-calibre and a low-cost facility like Camp Hillsdale open.

The Correctional Services minister claims that closure of the minimum security Camp Hillsdale is expected to save the province approximately $1.1 million next year. I would suggest this cost saving is a myth, because in this resolution the member is saying that from $500,000 to $1 million is what it costs to rehabilitate an addict. So when we're looking at closing a camp in the country, with 72 beds, which provides food, wouldn't it make an ideal setting for a rehabilitation facility for drug addicts at a minimal cost? In this case, they have relocated the staff. Salaries are approximately $800,000.

This facility would be excellent for addicts. It was a farm: They raised pigs, they had roasting chickens, they had turkeys, they had eggs, maple syrup, potatoes, onions and cabbage that were produced at this camp and consumed in other facilities such as the Barrie Jail; they supplied food for the Barrie Jail. So with regard to this resolution, I think the ideal spot for a new rehabilitation centre is at this very facility that was closed.

We now have to transport inmates from the Barrie facility to the Monteith Correctional Centre or the Burtch Correctional Centre, and the average cost per diem of housing, feeding and administrating an inmate will be considerably higher. In this case, the average cost at Ontario facilities is $128, while at Camp Hillsdale it was $80.

As well, it is extremely difficult at this time to provide an accurate balance sheet for the operations of that camp because the revenue generated by the production of the meat and vegetables is transferred directly to the government's general revenue fund and not credited to the minimum security correctional facility.

1020

We look at all this going on within the Ministry of Correctional Services. Just this week the Attorney General said it costs more than $800 a week to jail an adult and more than $1,900 a week, which is nearly $100,000 a year, to keep a young offender in custody. She said that of the charges Ontario's justice system handles, 10.6% are Criminal Code and drug offences and 2.2% are young offender charges.

A report from the public institutions inspections panel of the county of Simcoe said it "was extremely pleased with (Camp Hillsdale) in general and pleasantly surprised that the provincial government has a productive, self-sufficient institution, incorporating the inmates as a workforce. We strongly feel that this facility be a model for other minimum security institutions due to its cost-effectiveness, self-sufficiency, assistance to outside charitable organizations, the community at large...."

Surely the Attorney General must agree that this camp should be reopened. When we're looking at this piece of legislation and looking for a place for drug addicts to be rehabilitated, this is an ideal setting.

Having said this, you really have to wonder if this government is ever going to get its priorities in order. I doubt it, because time is running out very quickly for this government.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): This is a motion which raises a lot of questions that people have been reflecting on for some time in our society, and I would like to make just a few comments.

I haven't yet determined how I feel about the notion of associating a drug conviction with the removal of a licence. I think that in many instances we can use the privilege of having a driver's licence to make sure that people follow rules in our society that we think are important.

But what lies behind my concern about using it in this case is our overall approach to dealing with the abuse of drugs in our society, and if I could just reflect on some of the comments that were made by the sponsor of this motion, I'll tell you why I'm concerned about the approach that we take.

For many years now, the use and abuse of drugs has been associated with youth in our society, which I think is mistaken. All of us who are adults know that there are severe problems with the use of drugs, the abuse of drugs, not only by youth but by adults in our society, and in fact we know -- we know here in Ontario by research work that has been done here in Ontario -- that the major problem is the use and abuse of alcohol.

We also know, and we all know from our youth, that that has been a problem which has affected youth in our society for decades. If we all think back to our high school days, we recollect that alcohol was a major problem among youth that we knew in our high schools. That continues, and it continues to be identified by the people who know what's happening with the use and abuse of substances, illegal substances and legal substances, in our society. It continues to be identified as the major problem of youth and adults in Ontario, and Ontario's not different from the rest of North America.

But we have to at this stage in time start thinking about our ineffectivity, the fact that we have not come to grips with the use and abuse of illegal and legal substances in our society over decades of criminalizing, of providing people with criminal records. All kinds of programs -- Nancy Reagan's Just Say No -- the whole package of programs that we've used has not been satisfactory. In many instances I think we can point to sturdy research that indicates that the medical model of treatment suggested by the sponsor of this motion is not the best kind of approach.

The sponsor refers to the need for having the involvement of doctors and the medical profession and hospitals in treatment programs. I think what we know from the experience that we've had with programs which have been successful is that they're not primarily delivered through the medical model or by physicians. They're effective when they are primarily delivered in community-based settings, sometimes on an outpatient basis, sometimes in a residential setting for at least a time by people who may not be medical practitioners at all but who have a very strong sense of what drives people to use illegal and legal drugs and substances to the point where they're harming their own lives and the lives of other people.

I want to say another word about the criminalization of our problems with the use of legal and illegal substances. I was very struck a couple of years ago by a report done under the auspices of the Ottawa-Carleton district health council. It was a survey of both the problems and the programs associated with youth substance abuse in Ottawa-Carleton.

If you put together the information in that report, Mr Speaker, which I know would have been of particular interest to you, what you discover is that in the average year in Ottawa-Carleton these days we charge about 4,000 young people with the use of drugs. They go through the justice system and we deal with them as a social problem and so on, and we don't deal very effectively with them, I think.

In the same average year about 2,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton, most of them adult males, are charged with alcohol offences. If we're honest, we've got to say to ourselves there is something wrong in this situation, because we know there is a huge problem with alcohol in Ottawa-Carleton, as there is in every community in this province and in every community in North America, and that alcohol is easily identified as a much more significant problem than heroin use, which is the focus, of course, of the sponsor of this resolution. Yet we are charging twice as many young people with drug offences in the civilized community of Ottawa-Carleton as we are charging mainly adult males with alcohol offences.

We've got this wrong. We've got things upside down. We have criminalized where we should not criminalize. We are not providing the non-medical models of assistance and support that young people need and that older substance abusers need. With that part of the motion I agree, but I don't agree with the direction of the motion, because I think it is a repetition of prescriptions which haven't worked in the past.

I would draw to the attention of members of the Legislature that even a person who works in the field of justice, such as the chief of police for the city of Ottawa, Chief Brian Ford, has suggested very strongly and very thoughtfully, in my view, that where it comes to drug offences that young people are now being charged with for the use of so-called soft drugs, we're really creating more of a problem than we're solving.

I think we need to look at the way we've dealt with the whole problem of the use and abuse of legal and illegal substances in our society. I appreciate the fact that the member has brought this motion forward, because it gives us some time to think about what we've learned over the last few decades about what works and what doesn't work, but I'd like to see more indication from him that in fact he's willing to take a fresh look at it.

On the question of removal of licences, I still have not made up my mind.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

1030

Mr Ruprecht: First, let me thank the member for Simcoe East for his remarks. His request, of course, is essentially that we would include the drunk driving amendment in this resolution. Personally, I would have little problem to do that, except of course in this instance it has to do with the treatment of methadone; it has to do with helping people immediately. I know what's going to happen here if we start to make these changes to be encompassing and to expand the inclusion of other items: This bill would never see the light of day.

Anyone who is familiar with the process in this Legislature will know that minute tinkering with any of the bills would have great repercussions in terms of coming to an agreement here. So personally, I would say to the member for Simcoe East, I have no problems. The only problem I would have in this is, how do we come to an agreement? Of course, that would be one of the major problems here.

His second point was, and I quote him, our prisons are full. Our prisons are full of people. Of course they're full, because what we've done in the past and what we've locked ourselves into is a situation where we are punishing anyone who, in some minute detail even, comes in contact with drugs: a carrier, a person who has some substance on him or anything that has to do with even a minor infraction of the law. So the whole enforcement mechanism comes into play and we say to people, "Okay, we're going to punish you totally," and there are very few ways out.

I'm not surprised that our prisons are full because of this very fact of how we treat persons who are found to come in contact with drugs. The emphasis of course should be shifted. The emphasis should be on how we help people and one that's specifically designed to come to grips with the treatment programs. The answer, of course, has to be that we have no time left to fiddle with minor details of various resolutions, simply because of the human suffering and pain that's out there right now.

I've said this earlier in my remarks. If you have a person who is trying to get off drugs, even if he's in prison, federal or provincial, he has a tough time getting the treatment. If we want to move away from punishment, to help, especially those of our citizens who have indicated that they want to get off drugs, they wish to get off this dependency, this necessary, from their perspective, evil, we don't have the institutions nor the necessary will to do this.

That leads me to the remarks from the member for Ottawa Centre. I appreciate what the member is saying and I appreciate her sensitivity to the problem. I want to thank her that she has at least some understanding and obviously some agreement with this particular resolution.

When she says alcohol is a major problem, she will not find any disagreement with me or with any member on this side of the House. We can identify people who have alcohol problems, and there are thousands in the province as well. But what we're asking for specifically is not to befuddle the issue. We have to come to grips now with treatment. So the cry has to be: "Treatment now for drug addicts who want to get off drugs." If you want to include anyone who's got an alcohol problem, of course, you have to expand the treatment centres. There is a need out there as well. But my question is, where is the leadership of this government in the way?

When Ken Black wrote the first report -- and I do not wish to be partisan here; it doesn't make any sense. You would certainly agree with me that Ken Black's report was a good first step in coming to grips with the issue, to identify the issue and make the recommendations. There's no doubt about that.

Putting partisan ideas aside, the point is that the recommendation of the Black report was a good one, and what was it? It was to establish a centre of focus, a coordinating committee of all ministries to provide some leadership, and I think that you would have no problem with that. In fact I think you agreed with it. You left it alone for two years when you took over the government.

But what I cannot understand is you're saying here, "Look, we're doing something wrong." Of course we've done something wrong in the past. "We've got this wrong," you say, another quote, and you say the medical model may not be the best, which may also not be a bad idea. But the major question here is, if we've got this wrong, if there is something wrong and if you don't agree with the direction of this motion -- and I know you're somewhat sensitive to this item -- then what's the answer to this question? The answer obviously has to be to provide some leadership.

How are we going to supply some leadership? We've tried. We didn't come to grips with it in 1990; we took the first baby steps. Then when you came into office in 1990, you would think that the recommendations of the Black report, which had been repeated by the Vision for the 90's report -- some of the same recommendations from the Black report are found there and then repeated in a report called Caring For Each Other. Then to dismantle the anti-drug secretariat, which was the recommendation of all three reports, I don't understand this.

Perhaps if you have another chance to speak today you could tell me how this could possibly take this turn, that all reports point to one item as the beginning of a baby step, and that item was to establish the anti-drug secretariat. We did, you left it alone, and after you came out with the same recommendations in 1991 in the report Caring For Each Other, you then set about to destroy the anti-drug secretariat. Mr Speaker, do you understand this? Do any of you understand this? I don't.

Now I don't want to blame any of you, because probably there are few of you who had a direct finger in this decision-making process. I know there have been, and there are right now, a number of cabinet ministers here. I would like to know from any of you: If this decision was made in cabinet, why did you possibly agree with it, especially when you've come up with the same conclusions we've come to?

The conclusion is, how do we help people with a drug dependency? We're not going to help them by destroying the anti-drug secretariat. So I don't get it. If you get it, please tell me how you're going to do this.

You're saying to me, especially the member for Ottawa Centre -- and again, she agrees with some of the recommendations here. But if it is not the direction of this motion she agrees with and if this government says at the same time, since she's been a minister in different portfolios, that we haven't come to grips with this item and we've done something wrong, then obviously if it isn't the establishment of the secretariat, what have you done? Where is your leadership? You've agreed with the recommendations. What have you done? What steps have you taken to help the people out there? All of us who've got families know that many of us are affected by this. People are crying out to us and saying: "Let us open the doors. Get me some treatment."

If you would examine the prison system, looking at both federal and provincial jails, and ask specific questions in terms of what treatment is available even in the prison system, you come up again with the same conclusion.

Interjection: There are lots of drugs in the prison system.

Mr Ruprecht: There may be lots of drugs in the prison system, as you say, but the member would know that there are very few treatment programs even in the prison system. So it seems if we do not wish to lose a whole generation of people -- you think, Mr Speaker, I'm really expanding it now to include a whole generation, but if you would receive phone calls as I have of fathers and mothers saying, "Please help my son; please help my daughter; please do something in terms of treatment," and I have to say to them, "Let me make a phone call." I'll phone five centres and each centre says to me, "I'm sorry, Mr Ruprecht, but our places are full."

1040

What models do you have now that would help us in terms of getting people off drugs? What do you do next? What is your next step? That is precisely the question we have to ask this government. If you agree with us in terms of losing people on the street, if you agree that our police are inundated with calls, if you agree with the mayor of Toronto that crime is directly connected with drug abuse, if you agree with that, and I think most of you don't disagree with it, then the next question has to be, what steps are you going to take?

You still have a mandate. In case you forgot, you are still the government. So when you get the phone calls, what is your answer to those people who are in direct misery? I almost beg you to look at this question and ask you, how are you able to help? Tell me this: Would this government be opposed to asking the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to streamline and produce some guidelines that would connect Toronto or this government with Ottawa so that the licences that are being given to doctors can be done quicker? Are you unwilling to look at those guidelines? Are you unwilling to call the college, which is just across the street, and say, "Can you produce these guidelines so that methadone treatment can be readily available to physicians in Ontario who want it?" I personally know there are a number of physicians who would like to get a methadone treatment licence.

We also know that we cannot suck in all the people of Metro Toronto in one small area of Toronto and say, "There will be treatment available there." Then of course it isn't available. Not only that, but secondly, we cannot centre all the treatment in a community centre in one area of town. When we have 15,000 to 25,000 persons alone on heroin and some of them of course would like to get off heroin, then it would make sense to establish methadone treatment centres, which have been proven to be effective, in other parts of Toronto, in fact in other parts of Ontario.

Look at your cities where you come from. Do you have treatment available? No. If you don't have treatment available in other cities than Toronto, what do you think people do there to maintain their drug habits? And those who want to get off drugs, where do they go? If you do not have centres of treatment available in other centres of Ontario, you are condemning those people to move to Toronto to look for treatment. Of course, since there is no treatment here, we will end up with even more problems, with people on the street, with people in psychiatric institutions, the whole revolving-door policy will come into play and nothing much will get accomplished.

I want to briefly touch on another aspect and that is Mr George Chuvalo, who is now interested to start the George Chuvalo Hope Foundation. He writes a letter to me and he says to me, as mentioned, the foundation which he tries to establish "will initially build a drug rehabilitation centre in Metropolitan Toronto to help our youth." This is a private person trying to raise funds because he sees the great need that's out there for our youth and those who are drug-dependent. He says he wants to create a foundation with private money because of the need. He says:

There are many of our youth who "increasingly, because of lack of work, despair and poverty, are turning more and more to drugs and, resultingly, crime. Our ultimate aim is to build these centres across Ontario, and then Canada, in an effort," George says, "not only to help those in need of rehabilitation, but to educate, lecture and raise awareness of the consequences of the use of illicit drugs."

It's not George Chuvalo who is responsible to come up with a treatment program; it is this government that's responsible to come up with a treatment program. The thousands upon thousands of residents of Ontario, citizens of this country, who are unable to get treatment deserve better from our government.

On this part, in conclusion, I'd like to say and put it at the feet of those who can do something about it, and that is this NDP government: If you agree with this resolution, I salute you, but if you don't agree for some minor variance, then it is incumbent upon you to come forward and develop policy so that many thousands of residents have the treatment centres that are necessary in Ontario.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): The private member's resolution before us this morning I think has some positive aspects and has perhaps some things that were overlooked by the member for Parkdale. But I want to say from the beginning that I will be recommending to my colleagues in the PC caucus that we support this resolution on the whole.

There are two aspects to the resolution. One is suspending the driver's licence of anyone convicted of drug trafficking. I think that's good, but I want to make sure that something hasn't changed in this province, and that is, I think drug traffickers should be put in jail and I hope to goodness that prisoners these days aren't driving. Therefore, it may be a little redundant to suspend their driver's licences, because they should be in jail.

But I will note that the member for Parkdale has balanced this resolution by talking about methadone treatment, and I think as Health critic for my party that's something I want to concentrate on.

Also, in speaking about prisoners, I'm not sure today in this province that prisoners and heroin addicts who go to jail are receiving treatment. I think the availability of treatment in our prison system is far below what is clearly needed, both in methadone treatment and indeed in mental health treatment. About 20% of our prisoners, it is estimated, across Canada have severe mental health problems, and they're not receiving the levels of treatment and the frequency of treatment that's required so that when they are finally released they will be able to integrate as productive members of our society.

The second aspect of the resolution deals with methadone treatment. Just so everyone knows exactly what methadone is, it is a narcotic that reduces or eliminates the craving for heroin by minimizing withdrawal symptoms without making patients high. The rationale for its use is to stabilize the addict while lifestyle changes are gradually made. In some cases, there is gradual weaning from methadone use, but for some addicts they may indeed end up on methadone for an indefinite period of time.

I want to give credit to our legislative intern, Mr Greg Moore, who contacted the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Addiction Research Foundation on my behalf. Some of the pros and cons that came from those organizations and other research are that we have to keep in mind that methadone, while it is an effective treatment and currently the only treatment available in Ontario for heroin addicts, really is a swap of one drug for another, and we should keep in mind that it does not cure the heroin addiction. Buprenorphine and clonidine are two drugs that, while they're not approved in Canada, have been found by American researchers to be better than methadone. Both of these drugs give patients a high, but it's not as much of a high as that with methadone.

The cost of providing methadone to the estimated 13,000 heroin addicts in Ontario is $7.15 million per year, or $5,500 per patient per year. That's the estimated cost that this resolution would require the government to put forward in dollars if we truly had a comprehensive methadone treatment program across the province.

I commend the member for Parkdale for a particular aspect of the resolution, because I know a methadone treatment clinic was opened in his riding in 1992 or 1993 -- and the problem with only having a few treatment centres in the province, one in Parkdale, which is a community that I think at the best of times experiences a bit more difficulty than some of our other communities in the province-and the Addiction Research Foundation I think has space for about 100 addicts. There's a private practice by Dr Shapiro in Metropolitan Toronto, but essentially there are very few places across Metropolitan Toronto, and indeed in the province, where heroin addicts can go for methadone treatment.

1050

I absolutely sympathize and understand when the member for Parkdale talks about those phone calls and conversations he's had with the parents and loved ones of heroin addicts who are extremely frustrated with the six to eight months to one year that they must wait to get into treatment in this province. That's unacceptable.

Indeed, with only having a few treatment centres in Metro, the danger is that you will be concentrating the heroin addiction and those who are addicted to heroin into a few communities only. That could create other problems, particularly when the waiting lists are long. We know that heroin addicts tend to continue to use heroin until they get into the methadone treatment centre, because it is an addiction.

Therefore, while they're on waiting lists they may be tempted to move to Parkdale; they may be tempted to move to those areas where the treatment centres are located, and common sense would dictate that it is not necessarily all that fair for a few communities to be, I would say, burdened with this aspect of our society. It would be fairer, and I think the resolution sets to challenge the government, to open up more centres spread evenly and accessibly across the province for the people of Ontario.

I think one of the pros of this call for a greater expansion of methadone treatment centres is that we keep in mind that to heroin addicts that habit is a $400- to $600-a-day habit, and to finance their drug use some addicts have been known to steal up to $30,000 a week, which is absolutely horrendous.

If we look at the cost of expanding methadone treatment across the province, $7.2 million, we should compare that with the cost of imprisonment. Imprisonment works out to about $50,000 a year for one heroin addict, and if we transpose that against the cost of methadone at $5,500 for that treatment over a one-year period, surely the cost-effectiveness argument alone would persuade the government to move on the expansion of methadone treatment centres.

I do want to talk about the anti-drug secretariat that the member for Parkdale has concentrated on. I and my colleagues in my party are really not all that interested in the bureaucratic side of all this. I think we've spent a lot of time talking about secretariats and setting them up. What we're interested in, in health care services, is front-line services, so perhaps for the rest of this debate we can back off the administrative side and continue to talk about what's important, and that's putting scarce health care dollars into front-line services.

I have some other comments with respect to what the College of Physicians and Surgeons had to say about this. I think they're generally supportive. They outlined for us what the criteria and guidelines are for granting licences now. Rather than fixing on treatment licences, though, they did recommend that the resolution concentrate on what they call maintenance licences and that the resolution continue to concentrate on the network of services which restore addicts' sense of self-worth rather than merely satisfying their heroin addiction with methadone treatment, which is a less potent drug.

I commend the member for Parkdale and will be urging my members to support the resolution.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It is indeed a privilege to get up and speak in the House this morning on this particular issue. It certainly is something that I have had some personal knowledge of in that some of the work I did before I arrived here was in the area of working with troubled youth and developing community approaches to the resolution of such issues as the overconsumption of alcohol and the abuse and use of drugs, both legal and illegal.

I want to commend the member across the way for bringing the subject to the House, to the chamber. It certainly is one that needs to be focused on and addressed in an all-encompassing, significant way. It's good that we focus on that today and get a chance to put some thoughts on the record so that those who are involved in decision-making around this issue will have the benefit of just such thoughts and such notions.

I'm certainly in harmony with the comments and approach of my colleague from Ottawa who spoke earlier and believe that it is a bigger issue than simply a correctional issue or one that belongs in the area of justice or the criminal system. It's a community issue that needs to be addressed in a more holistic, composite way. Certainly as a government we've done some things. However, in a non-partisan way I say we still haven't done enough. There's a lot more to be done. There are programs out there existing today that are very effective, one of them in my own community, that are doing good things for people, a partnership of community groups responding to a community challenge in a way that is creative and exciting but is not funded to the degree that it should be so that it can actually maximize the potential that it has to really make a difference.

As a government, we have moved, I think, significantly in very fundamental ways to a more comprehensive, holistic approach. We did in fact, as the member across who has brought this issue to the table today said, disband the secretariat, but for reasons that I think are certainly bigger and more important than what he has laid on the table so far. Our feeling is that this is a human services challenge that we face, one of how we use the resources that we have in a human service approach to this in a more comprehensive, holistic way.

When we got here, this secretariat was under the umbrella of the Solicitor General, which very clearly placed it in the area of corrections. We see it as a Health issue, certainly, although we don't agree with the model that the member who has brought this to the table this morning has presented. We see it as a Community and Social Services issue, and we see it as an issue that needs to be grappled with by the community itself, that's above and beyond what we can offer as a provincial government. We have, through leadership particularly by the Ministry of Health with support from Comsoc, brought in all of the major players and made this a core part of what those ministries do, as opposed to a secretariat out there that is given responsibility but oftentimes no authority or resources or even direction to get the job done.

I wanted to focus for a few minutes this morning on what we in Sault Ste Marie and Algoma are doing at the moment. Certainly the Ministry of Health, through the district health council, announced that there was some money available that became available through the repatriation of OHIP funding. The previous government was spending I believe in the area of $90 million a year to ship our problems to the States, get them fixed and then bring those folks back. That worked in some instances, but in many, many instances it didn't. We are taking that money now and giving it back to communities.

There's been a process ongoing for the last year or so in Algoma and the Sault that saw people from every small community in Algoma, from all the agencies and organizations that have an interest and a concern in this, come together to decide how to spend the money that has been allocated for our area. Indeed, there is now a plan in place. There is an organization identified as the lead agency which will take this forward and make some good things happen for us and for the people of the Sault.

I want to, though, just for a couple of minutes talk a bit about the approach that the Addiction Research Foundation and a group in our community called Breakaway have taken to the resolution of this problem. It certainly isn't one of kicking people in the pants or beating them up or making them feel any worse about themselves than they do in getting into this problem in the first place.

Both Breakaway and the Addiction Research Foundation in our community have very much used a community development approach, have brought all the players together in very creative and exciting ways to respond in, I think, effective ways to the challenge of drug abuse and addiction in our community. Certainly Breakaway, a group of parents and kids themselves who banded together, has provided over the last 10 years for people in Sault Ste Marie and area relief, support and help, basically on the proceeds of car washes and bake sales. This is an organization that, in my mind, deserves to be supported more directly by our government, and if there is criticism to be made, it's that we haven't been able to get to that to this point.

1100

My hope is that, through this discussion perhaps, instead of the approach the member is suggesting, we might put some resources into supporting groups like the Addiction Research Foundation and Breakaway, in my community particularly.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. The member for Parkdale, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Ruprecht: First let me thank the member for Simcoe West for essentially supporting this resolution. Just in passing, I thought he might want to know that while the methadone treatment would cost in the neighbourhood of $7,500 per person per year -- if we would agree on that figure -- the saving would be very, very great because the saving would reach into billions of dollars, and I've given those figures before.

I want to thank the member from the Sault for being essentially in agreement with this resolution, although he would like to see some changes take place, which can always be worked out. I have no major problem. Essentially, I thought he said he was in agreement with at least some of the direction of this resolution. He says that we need to address this issue in a holistic way. We don't have any disagreement with that. He says the NDP government sees this from a community and social services perspective. Again he wouldn't find too much disagreement there.

But the issue still remains that there are many people out there who are unable to get treatment, and we've got to do something. The issue of course is, what do we do? That's where we have to have the leadership of the government. We can present resolutions and private members' bills. Anyone who has a smattering of knowledge in terms of the process of this House would know that resolutions and private members' bills do not necessarily get passed although it's a great idea, even with minor amendments or major amendments. It all gets stuck in the House; it all gets stuck in palaver, palaver, palaver. We talk too much about it and we act very little.

The question today is, what shall the actions be of this government? I lay it upon you to come up with some ideas and some resolution so that residents out there in Canada and especially in Toronto and Ontario will get some treatment of methadone.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT

Ms Harrington moved private member's notice of motion number 48:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the employment of children under the age of 18 as exotic dancers and strippers is abhorrent to our society; and

Since children abused in this manner may suffer long-term physical and emotional damage; and

Since this practice is widespread across Ontario and Canada; and

Since 1994 is the International Year of the Family and Canada has ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of the child which ensures the rights of children to survival, development and protection; and

Since it is illegal for anyone under 18 to purchase liquor, cigarettes or rent adult videos; and

Since the government of Ontario is doing all that it can to resolve this matter; and

Since there is a need for a unified approach to dealing with this serious issue to protect communities across Ontario as well as Canada; and

Since section 5 of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct,

Therefore, this House calls upon the government of Canada and the Minister of Justice to amend section 5 of the Criminal Code to make it an offence to employ children under the age of 18 as exotic dancers or strippers, or to employ minors to work in establishments which provide sexual services.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mrs Harrington has moved private member's notice of motion number 48. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): We have certainly all heard the horror stories of teenagers lured from stripping to drugs, prostitution and a life without self-worth and without the ability to makes choices. We can all identify with the Niagara Falls Review as it aptly put the irony: "Fifteen-Year-Olds Strip in Places Where They Can't Be Served Alcohol."

I want to set this issue in the context of our society. In a healthy society, individuals must have rights, freedoms and responsibilities to others. The ability to make choices in our own lives without coercion is key to a healthy democratic society. In order to do this, one must have a sense of identity, self-worth or self-esteem. So often through our history and even today, young women do not develop this sense of worth and identity and the ability to be independent.

There are still many forces working against women in our society. To underline this need for identity, I quote Elizabeth Wolgast, who is quoted in this book, Canadian Feminism and the Law. She says, "Rights work where people are in a position to press for them; for others [rights] give only the caricature of justice."

The years from 14 to 18 are formative years for young women. We must recognize that there are factors in our society besides under-age stripping which subtly or blatantly objectify women and thus hinder their ability to take control of their lives and use their talents and capabilities to the fullest. Under-age stripping may be only one symptom of the deeper problem.

I ask members in this House to look for these forces all around us and think about their effects, not just the obvious, like physical or sexual abuse, but more subtle forces, such as the use of non-gender-neutral language -- even today, women in Niagara Falls are running to be aldermen; forces such as pornography, beauty pageants and even advertising, which pressure young women to conform to unrealistic and limiting stereotypes. We must first be aware of this patriarchy before we can attempt to change it.

So I see this particular action to stop stripping by under-age persons as one way, and only one way, of respecting the rights of young women and men to develop from children to whole and healthy persons capable of fully and equally participating in our democratic society.

Why have I brought this resolution forward today? Last summer, Mr Eric Wood came to my office in Niagara Falls to tell me about his 14-year-old daughter, who was working in one of our local bars, and Mr Wood is here today. Thank you very much for coming.

I also credit the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters for raising the issue again, and persistently. I believe Ms Valerie Smith is here today, and I thank her for coming.

I thank Elizabeth Witmer, MPP for London North, for raising the issue and drafting her private member's bill, and Dianne Poole, MPP for Eglinton, for her sustained work over the years on behalf of young women and the protection of children.

I thank member of council Kim Craitor for his work with Niagara Falls city council to produce a bylaw to license strippers, and also Tony Ricciuto, from the Niagara Falls Review, for his award-winning six-part article on the issue, and in fact his own personal concern.

In August, I approached the Attorney General's office for what I hoped would be quick action to deal with the situation in Niagara Falls. As it turned out, it was more complex. Officials from five ministries -- the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- all looked at this issue together. They reviewed many pieces of legislation in order to find the most workable solution at the provincial level.

We were determined to do something. We needed something that would really work, work legally, not have loopholes, not something just for show or a Band-Aid solution.

Yesterday, in fact, we moved to change the regulations under the Liquor Licence Act to prohibit strippers under the age of 18. But this applies only in licensed establishments, not private parties or other venues. So provincial changes are only part of this solution, and that is why we're here today.

1110

There must be a three-level approach: municipal, provincial and federal. Municipal bylaws are part of the solution. Ed Philip, our Minister of Municipal Affairs, will circulate next week a model bylaw to help municipalities get involved. Now we must turn to the federal level and together, today, demand that federal Justice Minister Allan Rock amend section 5 of the Criminal Code. That is why I am asking everyone here today to vote to support this resolution directed to the federal level.

Justice Minister Rock, in his letter of September 22, 1994, to Valerie Smith cites two sections of the Criminal Code, section 167 and section 173, and he says the following:

"It may be possible, depending on the circumstances of each case, that these sections of the code can be used to address strip dancing by juveniles.

"Furthermore, children who are excluded from the reaches of the criminal law due to their age could certainly be subject to child welfare and mental health legislation in order to appropriately address their needs and those of the community.

"Provincial laws concerning child labour and liquor licensing might also be resorted to in order to deal with the presence of juveniles in strip bars."

That's his approach, as recently as about a month ago.

Mr Rock, this response is not adequate. We have looked into all of these avenues that you suggest. The labour laws cannot be used. Now we have an imperfect solution with the Liquor Licence Act. We have done all we can at the provincial level. We, as a Legislature representing the electorate of this province and each of our communities, here today call upon the Liberal government of Canada to now do your part and act to change the Criminal Code.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm delighted to stand in my place today in support of Ms Harrington's resolution concerning under-age strippers. This is an issue that crosses party boundaries. It's an issue, I think, which should be of interest to every member of this House.

Some people might say: "What's the big deal? It's only a few girls who are working in a strip joint who may not be of legal age, the age of majority, so what's the big deal?" I think any time we have an issue in this Legislature of exploitation of children -- and that's what we're talking about here. We're talking 14- and 15-year-old girls, even 16-year-old girls, and while in some ways they may be approaching adulthood, in many other ways they are still children.

So we're talking about the exploitation of children, and I think that is why there was such a keen interest on the part of all three caucuses to try to do something about this issue.

But I can tell you that I don't think it ever would have received the attention it did or the seriousness of the issue would have been explored as much as it has been if it weren't for the work of two women, Valerie Smith and Pat Herdman, who isn't here today, who belong to the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters.

Members may have heard this group mentioned before. It's a group that was founded a couple of years ago by Valerie and Pat. They receive no government funding and they basically have now devoted a significant portion of their lives to trying to protect our daughters. Although the coalition is called the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters, I think we're also talking about something that will be very positive for our sons. For all our children, we should say thank you to them for their work.

This issue first came to my attention in August and it was brought to me by my faithful friends in the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters. We have daily correspondence. In fact, sometimes I think Valerie's fax machine must overheat and explode from all the work it does. But when she faxed me the information about the under-age strippers, I was absolutely appalled. I could not believe that in the province of Ontario, where we've always prided ourselves on protecting our children, we didn't have a mechanism in place that would protect them. This was in I think early August when I first got the information, the end of the first week in August.

We contacted the Attorney General's office and were told that in fact there was not anything in place to offer special protection and that the best vehicle to really address this would be the Criminal Code. So on August 18 I wrote to Justice Minister Allan Rock to ask him to explore legislative changes in order to protect these young girls, and the obvious solution would be through the Criminal Code.

In fact, there are a number of amendments we've been pressing for to amend the Criminal Code, one of them being the obscenity provision in the Criminal Code which says that if the violence isn't linked with sex, then it isn't considered obscene. Well, to me, extreme brutal violence is obscene and should not have to be linked with graphic sex in order for it to be declared obscene. I'm sorry, that was a little bit of a tangent, something I personally feel strongly about. But the fact is that the Criminal Code will be opened up to address a number of things over time, so it seemed logical that this would be a good mechanism to open it up.

We did have a response from Allan Rock on this in September, which I would mention and I know my colleague from St George-St David is going to discuss as well.

At the same time as I wrote to the federal minister, I also was concerned to see if there was something we could do in a very immediate sense because, as you know, legislation takes a long time to go through, particularly if they were going to open up the Criminal Code for other matters. Then we would be looking at extensive, lengthy, prolonged hearings, and there should be something immediate that could be done. So I contacted our excellent legislative research facilities here in the Legislative Assembly, and one of the lawyers who works with legislative research was extremely helpful to me, Mr Avrum Fenson. He did a research paper on the background and what possible vehicles there could be.

We discussed the fact that it appeared that a simple regulatory change to the Liquor Licence Act would in fact solve a major part of the problem. We discussed whether we had to go that extra step and get a legislative amendment, but we felt the simplest, quickest way to try to protect the girls would be through regulatory change through amending the Liquor Licence Act.

In October I had discussed this with Liberal leader Lyn McLeod. As the mother of four daughters, she is particularly concerned with many of these issues of violence and of exploitation of children. She asked me to help develop the regulation, which again legislative research was very helpful with. We passed it through legislative counsel.

Three weeks ago Lyn McLeod wrote a letter to Marilyn Churley and to the Attorney General, Marion Boyd, and asked them, called on them, challenged them, pleaded with them to act in three different areas. One was in the area of under-age strippers. We provided the government with a copy of a regulation which we thought would do the trick, but we also said very clearly in the letter, "This or any similar one." Quite frankly, I didn't care how we solved the problem as long as we solved the problem, so if the government decided another ministry could do it in a better way, that was fine with me. The two things we asked for were the regulatory change and also very stringent enforcement procedures so that in fact had teeth.

1120

I'm really quite delighted that yesterday the government did take the initiative and that they announced a three-part program to try to solve this problem. The long-term one is to amend the Criminal Code. I do agree with the government on that and I will certainly be pursuing that and adding my voice to theirs.

The second of course is the regulatory change. I haven't seen the exact wording of it so I don't know if it is similar to what we suggested and, quite frankly, I don't care. If the government lawyers are saying that this will solve the problem, that's the important thing.

The third is to work with the municipalities to correct the bylaws.

I am really very pleased to see the government taking this action, and I will give a lot of the credit for that to Mrs Harrington. She's the member for Niagara Falls -- is that right?

Interjection.

Ms Poole: Good. I'll call you your correct title instead of Mrs Harrington. At the same time as I was working on this, at the same time as Ms Witmer was working on this for the Conservative Party, Mrs Harrington, the member for Niagara Falls -- I should learn to use the correct titles -- was working within her caucus to promote change. I think that's a very important message for us: that it is a non-partisan effort. We all had different ideas of how to resolve it, but the important thing was, as individual members, we were doing our best to try to correct a problem.

Mrs Witmer asked a question yesterday in the House about the under-age strippers, and I think she was quite offended that the government had not consulted members of the opposition who had been working on this. Perhaps it would have been better on all sides if we had a more cooperative arrangement.

I just want to say that there was one thing I took exception to and that was that she quoted from a section that said she had raised it in the media and everybody else got on the bandwagon. Well, I have a copy of my letter of August 18, which I believe was three days before any publicity on the part of the member for Waterloo North. I say this not to take credit, because I know Mrs Harrington was working at the same time, but just to say we don't need to try to all take credit -- well, we can all take credit because everybody had a part in it, but let's not try to make it partisan, because these issues are too important for us to do that.

I commend the actions of the government and I know there are certain people in this Legislature in the opposition who would probably string me up by my toenails for saying that, but every once in a while we have to give you credit: not too often, but every once in a while.

I'd also like to call on the government members to act with your ministers to ensure that the two other areas that Lyn McLeod has challenged action on, that of dealing with the slasher films and amendments to the Ontario Film Review Board guidelines and also amendments to the Theatres Act, that those come in to try to solve the problem of gratuitous violence in our films and in the material that's reaching our young children and, second, on the serial killer trading cards, which to me are extremely symbolic of the type of violence we're finding -- I challenge the government again today to act on those issues.

I would ask the member for Niagara Falls, now that you have had such a success in this area, to take up those two causes and add your voice to trying to get those solved.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to support the motion that's been put forward by the member for Niagara Falls. I'd like to congratulate her on making sure that this issue is debated the very first week of our return to Parliament. I know that for her, as for Mrs Poole and myself, this has been an issue of utmost concern and certainly I know we're all committed to working on this issue.

I first became aware of the issue of under-age stripping when I read an article in my own local newspaper, and that was on February 17, 1993. A headline read, "Teen Stripper's Mom Warns Parents." It was a lady in New Hamburg who indicated that she was frustrated by laws that give kids too much freedom and put them in situations where they can be exploited. The article says:

"The Child and Family Services Act allows a child to decide at age 12 where he or she wants to live, and a 16-year-old who doesn't want to live at home is eligible for student welfare.

"'They (laws) seem to have gone from giving parents full control over their children to giving them none.'"

In the same article there is a quote by Sergeant Dan Colquhoun of the Waterloo regional police, who says:

"'Strip clubs employing 16- and 17-year-olds as dancers pose serious problems, but it isn't illegal.

"'You can't blame everything that's wrong with kids today on them. It's as much the fault of the system.'"

Then we hear from the London police, detective Lory Moro, because the mother of this 17-year-old girl who had turned to stripping consulted with him and he says:

"'There's nothing in law to stop a father from taking his 12-year-old son into a strip club to watch his 16-year-old daughter strip.

"'Stripping, prostitution, drugs and pornography are all interconnected and controlled by organized crime.'"

We go back to the mother, and she keeps asking the question why nothing can be done. That's the issue that is of so much concern, because I think what was discovered when the issue surfaced on February 17, 1993, when the issue was brought to our attention again by Tony Ricciuto of the Niagara Falls Review, was that indeed in this province girls as young as 14 and 15 were being hired to act as strippers and there was absolutely no provincial or federal legislation that would prohibit that from happening.

I guess because of my own concern for young people -- I've seen what's happened to young people, I was a secondary school teacher, I was a trustee on a school board and of course I am a mother -- this is an issue that concerns me greatly. I decided on August 23, since it didn't appear that the government was taking any action, that obviously in my role as an opposition member I needed to make sure that the public was aware of the issue. I could assist the government in this way by bringing it to the public's attention and hopefully, as a result of the interest and concern of the public, the government would be placed in a position where it could assist Ms Harrington in putting forward some legislation to deal with the issue.

I wrote to Marion Boyd on August 23 and I asked her to introduce legislation immediately to prohibit young girls from working as strippers. I told her I was concerned that there was no legislation in place, and I think I need to mention that at one time the Juvenile Delinquents Act did have a section making it an offence to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. However, of course, that was revamped into the Young Offenders Act in 1984 and that section was removed and nothing adequate replaced it.

Also, at the provincial level at one time, children under the legal drinking age could not work in a licensed establishment. Again, that provision was removed and nothing else put in its place. Unfortunately, legislators at all levels have been negligent in addressing the issues that we have brought before them.

I said in my letter to the Attorney General that I felt the situation had become even more serious in recent years and recent months because there had been the court decision which ruled that strippers could now engage in lap dancing and other specific sexual acts with their customers.

I think, if you listen to people who have at first hand experienced what does go on regarding lap dancing, it's the next thing to prostitution. It's simply not done in that context, and personally I am appalled that 14- and 15-year-old girls would be so vulnerable and would be exploited in this way.

I indicated to Mrs Boyd that I wished her to take action because I did not wish for our young children to continue to be exploited in this manner. I think we recognize the vulnerability of children, particularly of girls at that age. Oftentimes their self-esteem is not what it should be, so they're also making decisions where they really don't have knowledge of all that can be involved. They're not giving informed consent, and what happens is that they are young girls who are often lured by the promise of easy money -- $1,500 a week. It seem like a glamorous life.

1130

I told her that this exploitation must stop and that I believe that a provincial law could effectively deal with the situation, recognizing of course that action needed to be taken as well by the federal government. However, we can't force the federal government to take action. We can only do what needs to be done within this House.

The interesting phenomenon that I discovered as well is that we didn't seem to be so concerned about under-age stripping but at the same time we have legislation in this province that prohibits people from smoking under the age of 19; they can't buy lottery tickets under the age of 18; they can't perform in pornographic movies under the age of 18. Somehow we have been very negligent because we have allowed girls to be engaged in that particular occupation.

The government did bring in some legislation yesterday.

I just want to briefly say that stripping is demoralizing, and it has been pointed out again in this recent article that, as the member for Eglinton has indicated, the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters, Pat Herdman and Valerie Smith, I think, have been keeping all of us well informed on the issue.

This was an article I just received from the Barrie Advance, indicating that there is a former stripper there who earned her living for 18 months, but after being sexually assaulted twice, feeling degraded and getting a sense of alienation by society, she has now quit. She says, "Stripping is very damaging to girls," and goes on to say, "Pornography contributes to sex crimes," and of course she says, "Strip bars are very much a part of it."

I guess that's something that I need to point out. When this was raised to the level of public attention after my open letter to Marion Boyd on August 23, I was amazed at the response I received. I heard not only from mothers and fathers whose children, girls, had left home and become involved in stripping. They realized that their hands were tied and that the hands of the police were tied. There was no way they could prohibit this from happening. They were very concerned about the safety of their daughters.

I also heard from people who actually own these establishments, who again were asking for legislation to prevent people from stripping if they were under age. I heard from booking agents who were looking for some sort of a licensing system. I heard from police officers. I heard from under-age strippers and I heard from strippers who were just a little bit older.

It appeared that everybody across this province was aware that there was a problem -- no part is exempt -- and people were looking for very decisive action from this government. Yesterday the government did bring in some legislation dealing with this issue, and I guess I see the effort yesterday as the first part of what needs to be done. Unfortunately, as the member for Niagara Falls has pointed out, this covers only licensed establishments. It doesn't cover the private parties, the stag parties etc, and so girls will still be able to be employed in that particular area.

The other concern I raised yesterday is with the enforcement. I was very disappointed to learn yesterday that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations had no answer as to how this new regulation would be enforced. Are we going to hire new liquor licence inspectors to make sure the liquor licence regulations are not being breached, and what type of new power are we going to give these individuals to do the job effectively?

The minister actually indicated, on October 19 in the Toronto Star: "'The Liquor Licence Act generally does not deal with entertainment standards and it would be opening a door to that,' she said. 'Generally it regulates the sale of alcohol.'"

So I guess we have a regulation, it looks good on paper, it indicates the concern of the government, but I'm very concerned that it could be no more than window dressing if there are not some very effective enforcement measures put in place. I would encourage the government to go ahead and demonstrate to us how serious they are and indeed put in place for us an enforcement mechanism that does work.

I'm also very concerned because, as the member for Niagara Falls has indicated, Mr Rock, in his response to the letter from Valerie Smith, indicated that there were possibilities of action, but he certainly didn't indicate that he was going to take any action. I think it's incumbent upon all of us in this House to make sure that we do encourage the federal government to take some action, because the provincial government cannot do it alone. That's my only concern about the resolution. We're calling upon them to give us help. We can't force them to become involved in the issue, but I'll tell you, we need to put pressure on them, because children under the age of 18, particularly girls, are being exploited in this province at the present time.

However, during the entire time period that all this activity has been taking place -- the media coverage, the work by members in all parties -- I had taken a look at how we could introduce legislation and we'd taken a look at the regulation, similar to what was introduced, but we recognized that perhaps it could not be enforced by the liquor licence inspectors and we were also concerned that that type of regulation did not cover private parties.

So yesterday I introduced a private member's bill entitled the Adult Entertainment Licensing Act, 1994, and what this legislation in essence does is that it will require those individuals who perform as strippers, or anyone who employs strippers, or anyone who arranges for strippers to be employed at private parties, to obtain a licence. This licence could not be obtained unless you were able to provide the appropriate pieces of identification and photo ID, and it would not be available to anyone under the age of 18.

Moreover, I'm concerned about enforcement. It's fine to have rules and regulations, and we find out now that these after-hours clubs are illegal to begin with. We have a law; they shouldn't be there, but nobody's enforcing the law. In my private member's bill, we do confer powers of search without warrant on police officers who believe on reasonable grounds that a person does not hold the required licence.

I believe that is important, because obviously action needs to happen immediately, and that's why I'm concerned about the liquor licence inspector doing the work of enforcement. Let's face it, these girls do move around, and if you suspect one day that something's happening that shouldn't, by the time the inspector arrives the next day obviously the individual has long disappeared.

We believe that this piece of legislation would supplement and enhance what is being suggested by the government. Certainly it would support what is being done here today by the member for Niagara Falls, because, I'll tell you, if we don't all band together, this type of behaviour will continue, these females will continue to be degraded, and certainly many of them end up with emotional problems and physical problems as well. But we will support the bill before us today.

1140

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I would like to thank the member for Halton North for the opportunity to speak. I do want to speak in favour of the resolution and to note the degree of solidarity among all parties on this issue. I think it's a sign of what can happen positively when we work together in this House. The member for Eglinton, the member for Niagara Falls, who has introduced the resolution today, the member for Waterloo North and my leader, Lyn McLeod, have all called for efforts in this regard as a result of this coming to public light in recent times, and we now have some action from the government on this issue.

I did want to talk a bit about a couple of concerns I have. I represent a downtown Toronto riding and I see some of the people who end up working, unfortunately, in the stripping clubs, who are also out on the streets, who can often be addicted to drugs, who often can be involved in some of the unfortunate activities that are involved in living on the street. I think anything we can do in addition to a penal sanction that gets them out of these kinds of institutions but that can also help them get off the streets, get off drugs, get into a productive life, would be a helpful thing.

There are other things we can do in addition in the province. I know there has been a move in the last few days by the government to deal with this under the Liquor Licence Act, but I think there may be a possibility as well to look at child labour legislation and whether there may be a possibility of enforcement in that regard.

My concern, related to a Criminal Code route as what we rely on solely, comes in two perspectives. That's not to say it's inappropriate to pursue it, but I don't think we can rely on it.

I was listening to the member for Waterloo North in recommending her approach for a power for search without warrant. My problem with that is simply resources. Police, for example, in my community no longer even respond to theft calls. There needs to be violence associated with a theft, therefore a robbery, before they're called. They're 795 officers short. I just don't think we'll get an enforcement. They have too many things to do to be actively involved in policing that kind of activity. So it may end up that we have the law on the books without enforcement.

In addition, my concern relates to the standard we might set in a Criminal Code context, because then it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect any federal law would require the owner of the premises to knowingly hire someone under 18. So someone coming with a false ID would result in the owner of the premises being acquitted, whereas if we went through a liquor licence, which the government is doing, or a child labour process, we can do it on what's called a balance of probabilities. The mere fact of employment could be sufficient to put the licence in trouble or to get them in trouble with an employment standards officer. So there are I think other things we can do provincially.

Finally, in the last few seconds I have left, I know there are provisions in the Criminal Code already that we could look at. Maybe the Attorney General could do that. Section 167 of the code might provide an opportunity for prosecution. I think we could argue that it would be more obscene for a young person to be a stripper than an older person.

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Thank you.

Mr Murphy: I thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to supporting the resolution.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm very pleased to rise in support of my colleague from Niagara South's resolution this morning dealing with the issue of under-age strippers in some of the strip bars, and indeed very pleased to see it has developed into a non-partisan issue among all parties. I'm also very pleased to say that our government has responded to some of the concerns raised by some of the members opposite, indeed to the concerns raised by the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters. I know Valerie Smith is here in the gallery today. I'm very pleased she is here. I'm very pleased about the kind words she wrote in a letter to the minister dated yesterday as well.

As you know, our minister announced what we believe is a comprehensive approach to begin to deal with this problem of under-age strippers in licensed establishments. There are three approaches we are taking on this particular issue. For example, the first issue is that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has developed a regulation under the Liquor Licence Act that will basically prohibit strippers under the age of 18 from performing in licensed establishments. That's done under paragraph 62(1)4 of the particular act. It will be a condition of the licence of that establishment which sells liquor and serves liquor that it will not include exotic dancing by persons under the age of 18.

Also, the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be working with the municipalities to encourage them to respond to local issues by using their bylaw authority. I believe and our ministry believes it's one of the most effective ways of doing it. Basically, under the Municipal Act, for example, section 225 of the Municipal Act does give municipalities permission to regulate adult entertainment parlours, including the power to prohibit entry by a person under 18 in these premises.

Several municipalities have a bylaw like that right now, I believe some five municipalities, including the city of Toronto, the city of St Catharines, the city of Hamilton, the city of Windsor, and the city of Oshawa. But more or less they just regulate where these premises should be, except for the city of Windsor, which actually says that persons under 18 can't perform in entertainment parlours. The city of Windsor actually is the only municipality in the province that does that.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be working with the municipalities to develop, and we will be developing, a model bylaw to help the municipalities to deal with that issue.

The other approach that we're taking as well is encouraging the federal government to amend its Criminal Code to prohibit under-age strippers operating as well. We believe this is another effective way, and also maybe while they're at it they can deal with the whole question of sexual violence and looking at amending the Criminal Code to deal with the whole question of slasher films and those violent cards as well. We believe that's the correct approach to take.

I'm very encouraged, again, to recognize that in fact this is basically a non-partisan issue and all parties have got together to try and solve this problem. I'm encouraged by that. I believe the route that we've chosen as a government demonstrates this government's commitment to act swiftly to protect young women from sexual exploitation. We're also going to attempt to institute broad standards across this province and hopefully we will encourage the federal government to do the same, not only in this province, to adopt a broad standard across Canada.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): It was very interesting to hear the member for Eglinton and the member for Waterloo North and the member for Niagara Falls talk about their involvement in this issue from August and how involved they had been over this issue.

I must tell you that when Mrs Harrington's legislative assistant came to me and said, "We'd like you to consider debating this issue," I said to her: "Well, you know, I really haven't looked into it in great detail. I've been doing other things in my riding. I'm on committees for long-term care. I'm looking at other things and I'm not sure I could talk for a great deal of time or have the research behind me." Then I spent 20 minutes in the hall talking to her about how I felt about this issue. She looked at me with a smile and said, "It seems to me, Karen, you do have a lot to say about this issue," and so I kind of smiled and said, "You know, you're right."

So I'd like to look at it from a different way. Similar to other people in the Legislature, I come from a teaching profession. I served as a trustee on the board of education. I came from the guiding and scouting movement, dealing with young people, PTA, and helping in the schools. But I think the one thing that gives me the most angst over this type of situation, as a mother of a young woman now, and my daughter's now 21, but as a mother of a teenage girl and raising her, is to know how difficult that is for parents.

It's not easy as a parent to raise a teenager. It's very difficult. No matter what kind of a background we come from, no matter how our family is organized, no matter whether it's a professional or a working background, no matter whether it's a single- or a two-parent home, it doesn't matter whether you make $100,000 or you make $20,000, it doesn't matter because it's still a difficult job, and there are problems in all families in raising teenagers. That's because they are going through a very difficult time at 14 and 15 and 16 and, yes, 17. It's a time when they want to have a sense of worth, when they're building their own self-identity, when they are trying to say, "Don't help me any more, I want to do this on my own," and yet they still look over their shoulder to be sure you're there to help them through some of those difficult times.

1150

There's peer pressures, there's changes in their body, there's changes in their emotions, and they do need guidance. I firmly believe my 21-year-old needs guidance. I still call my mom, who still tells me what to do sometimes and gives me the benefit of her experience, and I think that's important.

These people are dealing with so many pressures out there and there are people ready to prey on them in our world today. That money looks really good. If there are problems at home and they decide they want to leave the family home for whatever reason and they go out into the street, they find it's not easy out there, and that money being offered to them to do that stripping looks very good to them. It's something that they have in their pocket and they can live on their own and do their own thing and there are enough people telling them: "This isn't really bad. It's no big deal."

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Those people are vultures.

Mrs Haslam: That's right. There are people out there who will prey on these young people, who will exploit these young people, who will abuse that relationship with these young people.

So I really want to commend all of the members who spoke today, and in particular the member for Niagara Falls, Mrs Harrington, for taking this issue forward, for being diligent in what she has been trying to do, for visiting and working with members of the opposition party, for banging on the doors of our own ministries and saying, "What can we do together to try to solve this situation?"

I agree with her. I looked at some of the constitutional law issues around it, and if you take a look at the Criminal Code -- awfully dry reading -- in all of that you'd think there would be something we could do for these young people, and there isn't. The best we can do is say it's a complex issue, we're going to do our best to try to solve it at a provincial level, but at least we're looking at working together with other levels of government.

So I commend Mrs Harrington for bringing forward this resolution. This isn't an act. This isn't a bill. It's merely her way of saying to us and to other levels of government -- it's a resolution. We're asking the federal government to get involved.

We have opposition members involved, we have government members involved, both sexes, both sides of the House. We have the minister who has come forward with the best she can do at this time looking at liquor licences. We have another private member's bill trying that avenue to look at this issue. It's only through that type of cooperation that we're going to be able to help these young women, because they really need somebody out there to protect them. Sometimes we need to remember that government has to get involved to help these vulnerable people, to help these young people.

So I of course will be supporting this resolution, and I am so pleased to see so many other people are going to support it also.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm pleased to join in the debate this morning and I commend and support the member for Niagara Falls for bringing this issue forward.

I first became involved back in 1993. The member for Waterloo North spoke about the newspaper article that was published in February. It was from my riding. A constituent phoned me and was really distraught about her daughter who had gone to London and had started performing in one of the bars there. It seems like there was a bit of a hassle there, so she had moved out and gone down to the Niagara Peninsula and started performing.

I did contact this woman and I contacted the minister, and at that time we got a fairly simplistic answer, which was, "Let the municipalities deal with it because they're the ones who license the establishments."

In contacting the police officer who was involved in the whole situation, I found out that there was basically no law to cover these young children. So I started working with the minister and I started working with the member for Waterloo North and we kept each other informed of what we were doing, and I commend her for bringing forward a bill which will try to address this problem in a different way. Right now it seems like we've got everybody working together because we realize there is a major problem out there.

I know now that I'm with the Ministry of Labour I've been getting some letters from some of the exotic dancers who have been complaining about the conditions that they have to work under, especially with the advent of lap dancing now. I know a lot of people that run the establishments are credible businessmen, and I've met a few of them who came to the Ontario Restaurant Association when it was lobbying the provincial government on video lottery terminals, and they talked about how they protected their dancers. Basically, there's no touching.

What some of the dancers told me in their letters and in contact with them is that while there is no touching involved in these establishments, a lot of times they're in the position where a client, because of alcohol consumption, will start touching them. There's a great fear among them that they could catch a disease or they could actually get molested. So while they're saying no and the establishment is saying no, there are a lot of customers that are taking advantage of these dancers because of the situation they're in.

While you can understand that certain adults make the decision that they want to become an exotic dancer -- and some of them are quite legitimate; they say they can make $500 a day. If they're looking at tuition fees and they're trying to find a way of getting themselves through college or university, they say, "Well, this is something I could do for two or three years and get myself through college." So quite legitimately they're in the business. But the point is, should our children, anybody under 18, be exposed to this? We're all saying no. I think we've got all-party agreement here that we're saying, "No, this isn't really the way to go."

I was really getting frustrated after a year and a half when I didn't see anything happening, so I'm glad to see that something is happening right now. I understand, with the notes, we've got the Attorney General involved, we've got the Ministry of Municipal Affairs involved, the Ministry of Labour is involved and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and now we're going and trying to approach the federal government to get it involved too so we can actually get something done.

I know some people have said to the Ministry of Labour that it could find a rule. Well, this comes under the regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which provides that a minimum age of a worker in a workplace other than a factory is 14 years. A person who is working as a stripper in a bar would only be in violation of this provision if he or she was under the age of 14. I know they've talked about making regulation changes under the act, but then you would question whether it would be legally valid under the act. So there's a problem we've had to deal with, and that's something we've all had to wrestle with.

I know myself I've got a 13-year-old daughter, and I wouldn't want her to end up in this. We know the financial constraints that the children's aid societies are under right now, and with their limits they're actually having trouble taking people out of really dangerous situations. So to take somebody out of a situation where they're out dancing on their own, unless they're saying there's a major problem, we can't do it through the children's aid society. So it's great that we're getting a three-pronged approach through the ministry and we have all parties here working. Finally we'll get some results, I believe.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms Harrington: I have to once again thank Ms Poole and Ms Witmer for their involvement in this issue, because very often, even on the government side, things seem to be very slow and frustrating and we have to have that kind of pressure, and sometimes the opposition can help us with that pressure to make things happen. I usually think things are very straightforward and I want an immediate solution -- I know my staff know about this -- and I'd like things to be done quickly. But in some cases one has to go through the various channels and make sure it is done right. This is what we have done in this case. Now we have to carry it forward.

I want to mention Tony Ricciuto from the Niagara Falls Review because he had asked me publicly last September if I would go to a strip club with him to see if I believed that this was actually happening. I said I would, but that's cheap publicity. I know I could make good press that way, but I am determined not to go until something has happened here within this government.

To the points that were raised by the opposition: first of all, that this must be enforced by our liquor licence inspectors --

Interjection.

Ms Harrington: -- yes, obviously that is the case. We are putting another burden on them, and we must ensure that yes, that job is in fact done. I would ask our ministries to look at the suggestions that have been brought forward by the member for Waterloo North, and from the member for St George-St David, who indicated different suggestions as well.

The city of Niagara Falls has been struggling with this issue. First of all, last week, it says here, "Teen worked as stripper, police find." They had to investigate to see whether it was the case that this young woman was under age, and the police have said, "Yes, this is true." Now that we have established that fact, city council, as this headline indicates, is now trying to pull the licence of that particular bar. So things are moving.

I want to just conclude by saying, under-age stripping is, I believe, only one symptom of an underlying problem and that is that we do in many cases limit and stereotype our young women, and I ask members to look at that issue also.

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

DRUG DEPENDENCY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 67, standing in the name of Mr Ruprecht. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Ruprecht has moved private member's notice of motion number 50. 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. I declare the motion carried.

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 68, standing in the name of Ms Harrington. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Harrington has moved private member's notice of motion number 48. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE CHIEF

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise today to extend the congratulations of my leader, Lyn McLeod, the Liberal Party and myself, the Solicitor General critic, to the chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, David Boothby.

I've had a chance to meet with the chief designate, Deputy Chief Boothby, and to work with him, and I know he will be a great addition as chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. He is a strong believer in community policing and he is a great leader, well respected as the head of detective command currently.

I've had an opportunity to overlap with him to a certain degree in things I've done with the police in my riding, the community witness program and the active foot patrol, which has been very effective and very well liked in the community, and I know that chief-designate Boothby is a strong supporter of this.

He is, of course, a 27-year veteran of the force, lives in Metropolitan Toronto, is married and in fact has two children who are also active in the police force. So he has a personal history of dedication to quality policing in this city, which I think is much to be credited.

He obviously becomes chief in a difficult environment, but I think it bodes very well for his term as chief that he managed to be the consensus choice of a group as diverse as the current police services board. So our congratulations to him.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have supported the wider use of domestic production of fuel ethanol for some 10 years. I view the recent flip-flop of the Liberal Party with some amusement and a bit of suspicion.

I can remember when, in early 1989, the Peterson cabinet, without announcements, enacted regulations to the Gasoline Handling Act to effectively prevent the use of fuel ethanol in this province. It was only after our party and our Environment critic at the time, the member for Mississauga South, raised the issue in the Legislature that the Liberals were forced to retreat on the issue.

I remember pointing out in 1989 to the Minister of the Environment at that time that the use of oxygenated fuels such as ethanol would improve air quality in large urban areas. The response by the minister at the time, the member for St Catharines, made it clear that the Liberals had no intention of acting seriously.

I can remember that in the spring of 1990, when I wrote to the Minister of Energy to argue that fuel ethanol could provide environmental benefits compatible with the Liberal government's global warming position, Lyn McLeod then wrote back to me, stating that neither she nor the Liberal government considered ethanol to be viable as an important component of Ontario gasoline.

I can remember that in 1989 the member for Algoma, in his critic's role, asked the current leader of the Liberal Party when she would begin supporting an ethanol initiative. There was no commitment then and, in spite of the flip-flop, I believe there is no commitment now.

MARDI COLLINS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to a woman who has devoted the last 22 years of her life to serving the people of Pelham. Mayor Mardi Collins is retiring from politics after six years as mayor and 16 as public school board trustee, and she will be missed.

I'll always remember Mardi for her straight-shooting, folksy style of politics. I certainly know her well; I'm one of her constituents. If I ever wanted an answer from Mardi on any question or concern, she'd give it to me right away, even if it wasn't what I was hoping for.

Mardi had no qualms about telling people to start taking some responsibility for their lives, and she didn't mince her words getting the message across. Just last month she told a particularly troublesome constituent to "go get a life." This person had been bothering the mayor for years about the same issue.

Most of all, the people of Pelham will remember Mardi as a mayor who got things done. Since taking the helm after a landslide victory in 1988, Mardi Collins has updated the town's archaic procedural bylaw, restructured council's committee system, streamlined municipal operations, developed personal policy manuals for all staff, launched the first employee performance evaluations and put to rest the costly idea of building a new town hall by launching a three-year project to renovate the existing building. She also deserves praise for balancing the town's budget for three years running, all without raising taxes.

I personally admire Mardi's ability to run the town like a business, one that offers excellent, efficient service at a fair and reasonable price. I would like to congratulate Mardi Collins on a job well done and wish her the best of luck in her future endeavours.

COURT RULING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On October 1, a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada sent shock waves across the country. For the first time, extreme drunkenness could be used as a defence against rape. I think Liberal leader Lyn McLeod best expressed the outrage we all felt when she said, "There is no defence for rape, and there's no defence for this decision."

The tragic implications of this ruling are already being felt. Only one month after the Supreme Court landmark decision, it has already been used as a precedent in another case. A judge in Alberta has cited the Supreme Court judgement as the basis for his ruling on a wife assault charge. He ruled that because the accused had been extremely drunk he was not responsible for the attack, and a very serious charge was thrown out.

Lyn McLeod has written to federal Justice minister Allan Rock to voice the need for urgent and strong action. We have offered Mr Rock our complete support for his decision to launch an immediate review of the Supreme Court's disturbing ruling. We have urged the minister to move forward as quickly as possible to complete it and to take any actions necessary.

There aren't many issues in this House that transcend partisan politics, but this is one of them. We must all raise our voices to ensure that women in this country are not subjected to the final travesty: to see their accused get off scot-free because drunkenness became more acceptable than responsibility.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Premier and his Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Premier, the conflicting signals you and your ministers are sending to the people of Ontario reinforce the perception that the lights are on in your government offices but nobody's home.

When asked if potential purchasers of rail lines Canadian National wants to abandon could get exemptions from part of your draconian labour laws, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade told a meeting of the Simcoe County Rail Retention Committee that her government had no intention of giving any legislative relief because she doesn't believe it's necessary. The minister's statement was confirmed by Simcoe county warden Bob Drury and the Simcoe North MP, who attended that meeting.

At about the same time the minister was telling the committee that her government is not going to change the legislation which would require the transfer of all collective agreements if CN were to sell its rolling stock and rail lines, the Premier was telling an Orillia daily newspaper something completely different.

Premier, you said nothing had been ruled out. You said you are determined to find a solution and that you will find a solution.

You said, "I've asked the minister to talk to people and make sure that whatever we do is practical, to make sure we're protecting jobs and providing the flexibility we need in the face of these federal cutbacks."

Premier, judging by your minister's response, I expect you have not bothered to talk to her about this extremely important issue, or perhaps she's just not listening to you.

TRIBUTES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Two weeks ago tonight, just before 7:30 pm, two men wearing balaclavas burst into the Bank of Montreal in the Port Perry Plaza in my riding, armed with a handgun and a high-powered automatic rifle. The bank manager, Mr Alan Knight, was shot in the leg and the robbers left the bank with a sack of money.

Outside the bank, Durham Regional Police constables Warren Ellis and Mark McConkey and detective Paul Mooy were all shot in a burst of gunfire that also went through a window across the street, injuring realtor Debra-Ann Taylor.

The robbers escaped, holding 74-year-old Marjorie Pearce hostage for a short time before forcing her husband, Harry, to drive them to the Memorial Hospital, where they took another car to escape. By the middle of the next morning, Friday, two suspects had been arrested in Kingston.

1340

This brutal armed robbery has boldly highlighted the outstandingly good qualities of many of the people who live and serve in the community of Port Perry.

Today I want to ask this House and those listening to recognize and to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Durham regional police; the professionalism of the ambulance and hospital staff in Port Perry; the assistance of the taxi driver, Archie Ewing Jr, who drove injured Constable McConkey to the hospital; the concern and cooperation of witnesses such as Fred Canning and Gail and Hank Verwoerd.

Finally, I want to commend the willingness of hundreds of local residents who provided information to the investigators that led to the prompt arrest of the suspects.

RAE DAYS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): As Environment critic for the Liberal Party, I was intrigued by the story Thomas Walkom tells in his new book about the NDP government's abysmal failure to deal with the garbage crisis in the greater Toronto area.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that the Interim Waste Authority is the brainchild of the former Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier, and, as the book describes, is a major reason Ruth is no longer Minister of the Environment.

It seems that Bob Rae knew the political and environmental ramifications of Grier's actions, and a cabinet shuffle would provide the perfect opportunity to reverse her foolhardy decisions. All Rae had to do was get Grier out of the way.

Apparently, when Ruth Grier was informed that the Premier was deposing her as Minister of the Environment, she burst into tears and made the Premier promise not to ship Toronto's garbage to Kirkland Lake and not to dismantle the IWA.

What's a Premier to do? The only reason for the move in the first place was to reverse Grier's politically unsaleable policy. On the other hand, Ruth Grier, who has supported him through thick and thin, was in tears.

Later the same day, Bud Wildman, the new Minister of Environment and Energy, popped in on the Premier at his house to discuss the best way to undo Grier's damage.

Wildman started by telling the Premier how happy he was that the government would now be able to send Toronto's garbage to Kirkland Lake and dismantle that money pit, the Interim Waste Authority. The Premier looked embarrassed and informed Wildman that the plan had changed. The albatross was now around Wildman's neck. Ontarians were stuck with Grier's idiotic plan. Taxpayers, farmers and land owners across the greater Toronto area are now the ones left crying.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Restart the clock, please.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to update the Minister of Environment and Energy and members of this House about how his Environmental Commissioner has assisted myself and my colleague the member for Mississauga South with our request to review the proposed development on the Toronto Islands by the Flying Toad co-op. As you will remember, these 100 units would involve destroying significant wet meadows, dunes and an 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 these lands as an environmentally significant area. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has identified these same lands as regionally significant areas of natural and scientific interest. The Crombie commission has recommended their full protection.

We have written the recently appointed Environmental Commissioner to formally ask that she look into the Flying Toad co-op proposal and do everything in her power to stop any development on these lands. The Environmental Commissioner wrote us back this past August, saying that she would be unable to look at our request until 1998.

Tell me: What use is that when the building will be up, the people moved in and the wetlands destroyed? Your Environmental Commissioner's office is a sham, and your promise to protect the environment a fraud.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to comment on the positive feedback I've received from my constituents on the accomplishments of this government. I'd like to speak briefly about some great things that are happening in the borough of East York.

Perhaps one of the projects I am most proud of is the preservation and protection of the site of the Don Valley brickworks, a part of East York's historical, ecological and geological heritage that will make the Todmorden Mills area an attractive tourist destination. Money for this project has been allocated through the Jobs Ontario Capital program. Jobs Ontario Community Action has provided funding for the renovating of the East York Community Theatre, the first fully accessible, multi-use community theatre and auditorium in my riding.

A new non-profit child care centre will be on the grounds of the East York Civic Centre. The cost for the construction of this centre will be provided by the NDP government. Winpak Technologies has benefited from a $1.7-million loan from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. A partnership with the government and business has been created, resulting in the saving of 245 jobs in my riding.

The various components of Jobs Ontario created more than 145,000 jobs last year. This year, these initiatives will create more than 166,000 jobs. Jobs Ontario Training is the most successful job creation and training program in Canada, and East York has benefited from this initiative by being one of the homes of a Metro Jobs Ontario sub-broker, Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office. As well, local companies such as Allweather Canvas Products, Robetech Institute and Acrontech have utilized --

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

Mr Malkowski: Mr Speaker, I would just like to say that my constituents have told me that the plan in fact is working.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber, and indeed to our country, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Manoranjan Bhakta, member of the lower House of Parliament, the Lok Sabha, in India. He's accompanied by Mr Sharma, the consul of India to Toronto. Welcome.

Also seated in the Speaker's gallery, I would like you to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, and to our country, Dame Peggy Fenner, member of Parliament, and Mr Colin Pickthall, member of Parliament, the House of Commons, United Kingdom. They're accompanied by Mr William Petten, the Senate of Canada, and staff of the British consulate. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BUSINESS REGISTRATION

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Later today, I will be introducing for first reading the Business Regulation Reform Act. This new bill reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape for business. Entrepreneurs' concerns about the time and the expense required to launch a business in Ontario have been listened to by this government.

The small business community identified red tape as one of the major barriers to the establishment of new enterprises. We responded by launching a government-wide initiative called Clearing the Path for Business Success. Simply put, Clearing the Path is dedicated to simplifying and streamlining the existing registration and reporting processes for businesses in Ontario.

As many of you already know, the government improved registration processes in September with Ontario business registration access, part of the Clearing the Path initiative.

Starting this September, self-help computer workstations are being introduced in 15 business self-help and land registry offices throughout Ontario. Entrepreneurs can electronically complete up to four of the most commonly required registration forms for an unincorporated business startup.

1350

Entrepreneurs unable to visit a workstation can still save time by calling the special toll-free business registration access help line to order a free business registration kit. The kit contains up to four of the same application forms supported at the workstation. The help line also provides general information about business startup registration and the status of any registration application submitted at a computer workstation or mailed to Ontario business registration access.

To date, response from small business owners has been very positive. Business people now have to spend less time and effort registering their enterprise in Ontario. That means they can get down to the important task of running their businesses.

Improvements to the business registration access program are planned as soon as next spring. An additional 35 workstations will be introduced to Ontario communities. All workstations will accept credit cards, and business people will be able to conduct their own business name searches. And rest assured that although exact locations have not been determined at this point, we are very conscious of the need to service the north.

However, to provide optimum service to the business community, we need new legislation in place to achieve future Clearing the Path services.

For example, unified reporting will make it possible for businesses to receive consolidated monthly account statements and remit taxes in a single payment. This service will be introduced in September 1995 for retail sales tax and employer health tax payments. Ground-breaking improvements will also include electronic business registration and the use of a combined registration form to replace four individual applications.

New business registrants will also be given the federal single business number. This will help them deal more efficiently with both the provincial and federal governments.

The Business Regulation Reform Act will overcome hurdles in specific program legislation. It will allow the government to change the old requirement for paper forms and signatures, thus paving the way for electronic registration. It will also provide the authority for registration and reporting service expansion. The Clearing the Path initiative will grow and support additional business licences. These could include other provincial, federal and ultimately municipal registrations.

The adoption of this bill will significantly help government clear its own path. It will avoid the time-consuming need to amend numerous acts as new programs are added to the Clearing the Path initiative. It is an important step towards re-engineering the business registration and reporting processes in Ontario. It's also an example of the government's commitment to streamline all of its operations and procedures.

I believe it is imperative that we continue to improve the overall business-government relationship. We can't stop now or slow down our momentum. The Business Regulation Reform Act will allow continuous registration and reporting improvements and ensure more efficient government service to businesses in Ontario. I urge all members to support the bill when I introduce it later today for first reading.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, we've had some special guests arrive, and I'd like to seek the consent of the House to stand down the rest of ministers' statements while we move to what I think was an agreed set of events.

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

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Mr Speaker, I believe you will be doing the appropriate introductions shortly, but I believe we have unanimous consent to welcome the Nobel laureates who are present here today in the gallery.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

NOBEL LAUREATES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before members have an opportunity to say a few words I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a very special and distinguished international group of Nobel laureates to the assembly and welcome them to both the assembly and, in many cases, to our country. Seated in the Speaker's gallery, they are:

Dr Bertram Brockhouse, Nobel Prize winner in physics, 1994, Canada. Dr Brockhouse will be awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in December of this year. He's presently professor emeritus at McMaster University.

Viscount Christian de Duve, medicine, 1974, Belgium. Presently professor emeritus at Rockefeller University in New York and president of the International Institute of Cellular and Molecular Pathology in Brussels.

Professor Dudley Herschbach, chemistry, 1986, United States of America. Presently the professor of science, department of chemistry, Harvard.

Dr Gerhard Herzberg, chemistry, 1971, Canada. Presently distinguished research scientist at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada in Ottawa.

Professor Henry Kendall, physics, 1990, United States of America. Presently professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr Max Perutz, chemistry, 1962, United Kingdom. Presently at the Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England.

Lord George Porter, chemistry, 1967, United Kingdom. Lord Porter of Luddenham. Presently the chair of the Centre for Photomolecular Science at Imperial College, London.

Viscount Ilya Prigogine, chemistry, 1977, Belgium. Presently director of the Ilya Prigogine Center for Studies in Statistical Mechanics, Thermodynamics and Complex Systems in Austin, Texas.

Dr Michael Smith, chemistry, 1993, Canada. Presently director of the biotechnology laboratory and professor in the department of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of British Columbia.

Dr Charles Townes, physics, 1964, United States of America. Presently professor emeritus at the University of California.

Dr James Watson, medicine, 1962, United States of America. Presently the director of the National Center for Genome Research in New York.

There is one more, but prior to that I would like to introduce the chancellor of the University of Toronto, Rose Wolfe, and the chair of the department of chemistry at the University of Toronto, Martin Moskovits.

Finally, the person after whom this afternoon a chair will be dedicated, from the University of Toronto, Professor John Polanyi, chemistry, 1986, Canada.

1400

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm sure that all the Nobel laureates who are here this afternoon can understand how thrilled we are in the Legislature to have you in our Legislature but also to have you in our province and in Toronto. You will also understand that we are particularly proud of Professor Polanyi and the accomplishments he has brought to all of us, but also the recognition he has brought to our province and to the University of Toronto. So our enthusiasm is tremendous for all of you; our heart and our appreciation to Dr Polanyi I hope is quite obvious.

I think the fact that a chair in chemistry is being inaugurated tonight at the University of Toronto in Dr Polanyi's name is very much a tribute to the University of Toronto and a tribute to Dr Polanyi and the work he has done, but the fact that all the Nobel laureates have come to be a part of this ceremony is also very much a sign of a great recognition to tonight and to Professor Polanyi from people all across the world.

The accomplishments of the people who are here with us today are truly amazing. I must confess that in reading the notes for today and knowing I was going to be one of the speakers in the Legislature, I felt incredibly intimidated, because the amount of knowledge and the accomplishment of the people who are here today is just truly amazing.

I'll finish by saying that I feel that what is happening today is also a sign of the strength of Canada's and Ontario's university system, and we are very, very proud of the Canadian winners, we're very proud of what's happening tonight and the fact that you took time to be with us this afternoon. Thank you very much.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It's a great pleasure for me to rise on behalf of my caucus to congratulate Professor Polanyi, who will be so deservedly honoured tonight at the inauguration of the University of Toronto's John C. Polanyi chair in chemistry. And I most certainly want to welcome the 11 other Nobel laureates from around the world who have come to pay tribute to Professor Polanyi for a lifetime of achievement in science and, as well, to share their knowledge and expertise in a variety of scientific disciplines.

This is indeed a proud day for Professor Polanyi, for the University of Toronto, for the Jackman Foundation, which contributed $1 million to the chair, and for our entire scientific community. This is an event in which all Ontarians can take pride. When the world's leading researchers come to honour one of ours, we know we must be doing something right.

In fact, this fall has been a good one for science and for scientists in this province. Only a few weeks ago, we were thrilled to learn that McMaster University professor Bertram Brockhouse had been awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in physics, and our congratulations to you, Professor Brockhouse.

These achievements are part of a proud tradition of scientific excellence in this country and in this province. As a former Minister of Colleges and Universities and as leader of my party, I've had the opportunity to visit many laboratories and research centres to see the work that's being done, and it is always overwhelming to observe the leading-edge research being conducted by dedicated men and women who are unlocking mysteries and breaking new ground. I can't help but feel that there are future Nobel Prize winners working in Ontario research centres today, and I know that the creation of science chairs like the one being inaugurated today will further the cause of scientific research, the benefits of which are often not seen for years or even decades.

Let me offer my sincere best wishes to Professor Polanyi. I know that his success over a long and distinguished career in science will serve as an inspiration to other scientists and to those who are considering entering the field. It is an honour for us to share in the pride felt in your achievements.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It gives me great pleasure on behalf of the Progressive Conservative members of this Legislature to greet our illustrious visitors from the scientific community. Ontario is extremely fortunate to host 11 Nobel Prize laureates, one of the largest gatherings of Nobel Prize winners ever to occur outside of Stockholm.

I know my colleagues in all political parties share my awe at the collective brain power in the galleries above us. If even a smidgen of your intelligence, ingenuity and wisdom rubs off on us, this House will be a much better place for it.

Seriously, though, we are delighted that you would visit our city to honour the work of Professor John Polanyi, one of Canada's scientific heros. Professor Polanyi of course shared the 1986 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work leading to the creation of the chemical laser. How wonderful that we can celebrate his achievement with the creation of the John C. Polanyi chair of chemistry at the University of Toronto. Our sincere congratulations to Professor Polanyi.

I must also mention today the gratitude of all Ontarians for the generosity of philanthropist Mary Jackman, the mother of Henry Jackman, the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario. Mrs Jackman's endowment made possible the creation of the Polanyi chair. We know that the chair will attract to the University of Toronto some of the world's finest chemists. Such an endowment will go a long way towards making the University of Toronto one of the world's centres of excellence in chemistry and related disciplines.

One of the most exciting parts of this week's festivities is the lecture series that several of the Nobel laureates are offering to the general public at Convocation Hall today and tomorrow. Thanks to Professor Polanyi's fund-raising efforts, these lectures are free of charge. This is a superb way for people who are not in the academic community to understand and share the excitement of great discoveries in science.

In conclusion, I extend our warm welcome and appreciation to our learned guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We now resume statements by ministers. I recognize the Honourable Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

CASINOS LE CASINO

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I rise today to provide members of the Legislature an update on Casino Windsor and to outline the future direction that we as a government plan to take on casino development.

I received this week from the consulting firm of Ernst and Young a report with respect to the Windsor casino. The report was commissioned by the Ontario Casino Corp, which asked Ernst and Young to look at how the casino initiative was implemented in Windsor and to assess the first three months of operation.

As you know, this is the temporary and interim casino and it was opened in May. It represents the first step in fulfilling the government's commitment to carefully evaluate Casino Windsor before considering any expansion of casinos in Ontario.

Cette démarche représente la première étape de l'engagement du gouvernement à procéder à une évaluation sérieuse du casino de Windsor avant d'envisager l'ouverture d'autres casinos en Ontario.

The report found that the casino has been an economic catalyst for the Windsor area and has not detracted from Windsor's quality of life. The casino in Windsor is its number one tourist attraction and has proved a significant force in downtown revitalization.

In fact, the casino is Windsor's largest downtown employer. More than 2,000 people are employed by Casino Windsor. The study estimates that another 3,800 people work in casino-related jobs in Windsor, for a total of 5,800 jobs in the area. In addition, it estimates that 4,900 spinoff jobs were created in the rest of Ontario. You add that up and that's a total of 10,700 new jobs, jobs that otherwise would not have existed; 10,700 new jobs, a number I am sure causes all members of this House great satisfaction.

1410

The study also reports that 18,000 or so visitors each day attend that casino: 14,000 were new visitors who would not otherwise have come to Windsor, and nearly 80% of these tourists come from the United States. Hotels are nearing capacity and hundreds of bus tours are arriving in Windsor each week. Ernst and Young estimates that the new tourists will pump a minimum of $153 million into Windsor's tourism and hospitality industry during the casino's first year of operation.

Prior to the casino's arrival, a number of concerns were expressed about issues such as increased crime, traffic congestion and noise. The study I'm releasing today finds that these problems have not materialized. The report credits the tremendous planning and effort that went into ensuring that the casino did not detract from Windsor's quality of life.

Given the results that I have outlined today, it is understandable that a number of communities in Ontario have expressed an interest in hosting a casino in their community. I would like to point out to these communities that Ernst and Young's study suggests very clearly that the casino has not been in operation long enough for us to evaluate its full impact.

I share this view and I wish to reaffirm our government's intention not to consider the issue of casino expansion until we have had at least a year of operation of the Windsor pilot project. Accordingly, I have asked the Ontario Casino Corp to continue assessing the facility and to report to me after complete evaluation of a full year's operation.

In addition to the Windsor casino, there is a process currently under way to select a location for a first nations casino. This decision is expected to be announced in early December. The first nations process reflects our government's commitment to a meaningful role for first nations as a casino gaming marketplace in Ontario is developed. Once the site is selected, we will immediately begin to work with the successful first nation to develop a casino. In addition, we will undertake an evaluation of the current process with the first nation leadership.

During this coming period I would encourage every community that believes it wants a casino to read this report. They will see that the success of Casino Windsor was no accident. It did not just happen overnight. An enormous amount of preparation and consultation was done before and during implementation of the Windsor project.

All levels of government were involved and virtually every community organization provided input. In particular, I want to express my appreciation for the tremendous energy and commitment shown on this project by the officials of Windsor, both elected and appointed. A prodigious amount of work went into this project and the citizens of Windsor have every right to be proud.

The Windsor pilot project should be a learning experience for all of the province. Therefore, I have asked the Ontario Casino Corp to make available to interested communities the experience the corporation acquired during this process in Windsor.

These communities should reflect on whether they want to embark upon a project of this scope and, if they decide to proceed, they should work with the Ontario Casino Corp to assess their existing infrastructure, their geographic location, their market opportunities and other factors which would determine whether or not a casino would be appropriate for them. Such work would be a prerequisite should the government look to expanding casinos.

The casino corporation will be willing to share its expertise on these issues and to work with interested communities. Let me clearly outline the principles that will guide the province during any such discussions.

The objectives of job creation, tourism, economic development and optimizing revenues are pre-eminent in all discussions pertaining to casino development. The benefits of a casino must outweigh any identified adverse impact on the community. The casino market is limited, and any additional casinos, if approved, would be located strategically in areas of the province that best fulfil the objectives.

Detailed study is required in municipalities and first nations which may wish to express an interest in being considered for a casino to ensure informed decisions. The studies must address as a minimum the social, economic and law enforcement implications for the community. Because the Ontario Casino Corp is responsible for the operation of casinos in the province, all decisions will be made with the advice of the OCC and, where applicable, the first nations leadership.

If a municipality or first nation wishes to work with the Ontario Casino Corp on the issues I've outlined, it should express its interest in writing to the OCC and myself. We have no interest in examining specific casino proposals at this point in time. We are prepared to work with communities that wish to explore the option.

If the community is still interested in pursuing a casino after the necessary preparation is done, it would have to pass a resolution as set out in the Ontario Casino Corporation Act. In the case of first nations, indication of band council support would be required.

Let me conclude by reminding the House that when the decision to proceed with the Windsor casino was made, it was done so with caution and prudence. Our approach has not changed. While the report is very positive, it must be recognized that it only covers a very short period of time and that further study and evaluation are necessary. We will proceed with further evaluation and then we will take stock. This is a careful and cautious approach and all of the evidence thus far points to how this approach has worked.

BUSINESS REGISTRATION

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): In the first instance, allow me to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, her announcement of the Clearing the Path project.

At the outset, I want to congratulate particularly the project team who worked with the minister and the staff. They did an outstanding job.

I want to draw to the attention of the members of this House and other interested parties that this initiative is not a new initiative. In point of fact, it has been undertaken with two previous governments and was given quite considerable impetus in the latter days of the former government. I think that the fact that it's been brought to fruition some four years into this government's mandate is something to be thankful for, and we're pleased that they're moving in that direction.

I think that the minister would want to consider the fact that if she really wants to clear the path for business in this jurisdiction, call an election. After four years of considerable anti-government rhetoric and the problems that you've caused for business, that would indeed clear the path in a much more significant way.

The hope of the opposition is that the implementation of this Clearing the Path project will be considerably cleaner and more efficient than other initiatives, by way of example the Ontario Investment Service which, as you know, some three years into its mandate puts seats on the market at $250,000 and has four takers. We hope that would not be --

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

Mr McClelland: Well, six now after three years. I stand corrected, with apologies. We hope that this project will receive considerably more success in the time period of three years.

After four years of anti-government rhetoric, this minister is now saying that she wants to do something for small business. It's about time and we're proud that the staff at the ministry have been given the option and the opportunity to move ahead. I want to congratulate Mr Daniels, the assistant deputy minister, Mr Blomsma, senior legal counsel, and Mr Jim Evans, who headed the project team and did an outstanding job from a staffing point of view in getting this going.

I want to point out as well, very briefly, that what's happening in terms of the legislation today is not really required or necessary for the immediate changes. Those changes can take place and can continue to take place without the legislation, and we would hope we'd get on with some meaningful legislation as well that needs to be taken care of.

Madam Minister, if you really want to help -- I say through you, Mr Speaker -- businesses as well, today I'll be introducing An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act, which will remove the $50 filing fee. That will help businesses in a meaningful way as well, and I trust you'll clear the path and give them support. I look forward to that.

Again, congratulations to the project team. Minister, thank you for, after four years, moving on something. We're grateful for that.

1420

CASINOS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mr Speaker, for a few moments one of my colleagues would like to comment on the announcement made with respect to casinos by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I want to point out a couple of quick things and then one of my colleagues will speak as well.

We're hopeful that meaningful consultation in fact will be the order of the day. As the minister mentions, on one hand, that we're into a decision in the next number of weeks by an independent committee to make a selection for first nations, we would hope that the neighbouring communities and interest groups, some of whom have said they have had no meaningful consultation, will in point of fact be consulted and given the opportunity to participate in that discussion.

I would also hope, as I look at the third party and their plans with respect to this issue, that we would understand that what they would like to do is have a local referendum after a province-wide referendum. In point of fact, if it were defeated at province, I think our friends in the third party would be in the unfortunate situation of having to close down the Windsor project and then not even have the opportunity to go to a local referendum. We would want to have a local referendum and move ahead community by community, and I want to draw that to your attention as well, Mr Speaker. We trust that the meaningful consultation will in point of fact take place, and I know the member for Wilson Heights has a comment to make as well.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I listened with interest to the minister and her report on the Windsor casino. What was more interesting is what she didn't say. It'll be interesting to see how this government grapples with the rationale of moving a successful operation into a very expensive operation with very little incremental results in the return, and also with the problem, what do you do with this successful operation, do you have two casinos in Windsor, which goes totally contrary to what the government has been stating? I'd be very curious to hear what you have to say about those particular issues in the future. I'll be watching it with interest.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses. The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I don't want to congratulate the government for anything today.

The Speaker: Response, third party. The honourable member for Parry Sound.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I share the sentiments of the member for St Catharines.

With respect to the Ontario Casino Corp report that is out today, I would like to first of all correct the record, as I'm sure the member for Brampton North would like me to do, and that is that during the Bill 8 casino hearings, in clause-by-clause deliberation on the bill, it was our party that moved the idea of a referendum in the first place.

The first amendment we moved to the legislation was in fact to have a province-wide referendum, which both the government and the Liberal Party voted against. The second amendment we had was then to have a local or municipal referendum and our good friends in the Liberal Party decided to support us on that one and the government was still against a referendum of any kind.

This is a problem I have with the government's approach to casinos. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations made a statement on June 25, 1993, that it would be years before the province decided whether it would allow a second casino in Ontario. "We are not going to allow any casinos in any community where there is any indication that the community doesn't want it" was another statement the minister made on that day.

I might point out that, first of all, we were talking about a permanent casino. There isn't even a permanent casino built in the city of Windsor yet. Yet the minister today in making her statement says that within a year the government may decide to open or not open additional casinos. There won't even be a permanent casino up and operating in the city of Windsor within a year, let alone having time to review it.

Interjection.

Mr Eves: Speaking of Detroit, as the member for St Catharines points out, on August 2 of this year, I'm sure the government is aware, the city of Detroit residents voted for the first time in favour of allowing casino gambling into their city. The government may be well advised to wait and see what sort of impact that will have, if any, on the permanent casino, if and when it's built in the city of Windsor.

I would also like to talk a little bit about the permanent casino site in the city of Windsor. As I understand it, not all land acquisition problems have been resolved in the city of Windsor yet. I also might point out that, as a result of Bill 8, the government now has given the municipality the power really to expropriate without compensation certain lands and to retroactively fit the date of compensation, which was a big problem that everybody on this side of the House had with Bill 8 in the first place.

I might also just point out in passing, the Minister of Environment and Energy sitting to your right has waived an environmental assessment for the construction of the casino in the city of Windsor. Of course he doesn't do that very often and he doesn't take that very lightly, but for a huge project like this it's simply waived.

I would like to point out also, the Ontario Restaurant Association, as I'm sure the government is aware, did its own report and study called Initial Impact of the Interim Casino: A Survey of Restaurateurs and Retailers, which Dr Morgan from the University of Windsor prepared.

I'm sure the minister and the government are aware that 58.8% of the restaurants in the city of Windsor have experienced a decrease in sales since the opening of the casino; 66.9% of businesses in downtown Windsor have not realized any increase in sales. When is the government going to acquiesce to the city of Windsor's request to share the casino revenue with the municipality? When are they going to do that?

There are also some very serious concerns about charitable gaming in the province of Ontario. I'm sure the government is aware that last year charitable gaming for charities in this province raised over $300 million. The CNIB reports in the city of Windsor that before the casino was operational they averaged a profit of $6,000 a month, and since it's gone into operation they account for a $400 loss to a $500 profit per month now. That's the impact you're having on charitable gaming in the city of Windsor.

BUSINESS REGISTRATION

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): With respect to the Clearing the Path announcement made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations today, I would say this is one very small step. I would have expected more after your very own ministry, your government, did an interministerial forum in 1992. They pointed out to the government that there are 43,164 forms that the Ontario government requires filed every year, and you're going to deal with four out of 43,164. Congratulations.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. The honourable member for Durham East.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to speak to Remembrance Day.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

REMEMBRANCE DAY / JOURNÉE DU SOUVENIR

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This year is perhaps the most significant Remembrance Day in the lives of most veterans. It marks the 50th anniversary of D-Day, with all those memories. We are marking the 50th anniversary soon of the liberation of Holland, and we're looking quite soon, early next year, to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

In a few short years' time, most if not all of the veterans that served this country so well in the last war will have passed on. So that makes it a special time this year, at the 50th anniversary of so many important milestones, to pause and to reflect on all that it meant, the real price of our freedom as we know it today.

So my short speech today will focus on the price of freedom as we stand and honour all of those who gave their all in the Great War, in the Second World War, in the Korean War and in the numerous peacekeeping actions all around the world since the end of the war to end all wars.

Every year at this time I hear, we hear, people asking the question: "Why do you service people bring back the war, with all the atrocities and horrible memories? Why don't you just go and forget the past? The war is over. Go away and forget it."

Unfortunately, the war is not over, nor can we forget it. The war will never be over, for there are those who will try to exercise their power over others, who will try to take away the freedom so gallantly won for us at such tremendous cost. The point is that we do not bring back the war, nor do we glorify it with all its encompassing terrors and sins.

As we sit in this Legislature today, we recall the struggle that existed in order that we may live in peace and freedom, and we all give thanks to those who gave their youth, their vitality and their very lives that we may look forward to the future with hope.

Let us look at all the things in the world as it was and see the grasping, the holding, the greedy and the power-hungry persons who were fighting anyone who got in their way, and let us look at the things in the world today and still see the grasping, the holding, the greedy and the power-hungry persons who are fighting anyone who stands in their way.

1430

Now tell me the war is over and there is no more need to worry about our peace and our freedom and our right to pursue our own way of life. If we don't stand up for what our comrades laid down their lives for, then we are selling out our birthright, our freedom, our heritage for less than 30 pieces of silver and we are forfeiting to live in a free society.

Those who gave their lives accepted the responsibility that was laid upon their shoulders. They did not conceal the truth, but rather they exercised a self-pride, a desire to make this a land in which we could live in peace and raise our families in the manner of our own choosing, free to speak out on vital issues, free to work, free to prosper according to the amount of effort we have to offer, free to worship in accordance with our own custom and our own desire, and free to act within the limitations of a just and social society which holds honour and virtue above the external advantages of rank and fortune.

All of this requires a personal discipline and responsibility and an integrity to uphold the principles and standards that made Canada a nation of which we can be justly proud. Those whom we honour today and remember gave all they had that we may enjoy all that we have. May each of us proudly and courageously carry the torch of responsibility that will prove to our fallen comrades that they have not died in vain. We can build a nation in which every man, every woman and every child has the freedom to prosper and progress.

Only people can make a country great. We have been given an example of greatness by those we honour today. Let us continue to set the example of greatness.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): It is always with some emotion that I rise in recognition of Remembrance Day. This is the one time during the year when we stop and remember the horrors of war, when we are struck by the fragility of peace.

This fact is brought home more closely by Canada's continuing participation in the United Nations peacekeeping operations. The members of the Canadian armed forces who wear the blue beret are a tremendous source of pride for us all, and today we wish them well and offer our support, wherever they may be.

J'en profite pour souligner la contribution particulière de mon propre régiment, le Royal 22^e Régiment, qui a participé à plusieurs missions à l'étranger. Ce régiment ainsi que tous les autres régiments canadiens se distinguent continuellement par leur engagement et par l'excellence dans laquelle ils accomplissent leurs tâches.

Remembrance Day ceremonies often turn to the memory of those who were lost in war, and rightly so, in order that we may remember their sacrifice and better appreciate the freedom we enjoy today. Yet so many participants in war did return home, often wounded both in body and spirit. They told stories of hardship, of pain, of loneliness, of courage and heroism. Some remained silent.

I would like to recount the story of one Canadian veteran, 22-year-old Normand Jones, who was shot down over Germany and taken prisoner in 1941. Mr Jones served as a wireless airgunner. There was a regulation that disqualified men over five feet 11 inches and men over 180 pounds from serving as wireless airgunners, and with reason. The turret inside the plane in which the airgunner sat for five or six hours offered very tight quarters and left very little room for comfort.

Mr Jones measured six feet, four inches, and weighed 196 pounds. Two ammunition cans compressed his knees and he couldn't sit properly because the top of the turret prevented him from straightening up. To say the least, Mr Jones was most uncomfortable. I believe he regretted having managed to obtain that post. He has said that he might as well have been in a sarcophagus.

Nevertheless, there he was in the Leeming Bar air force station in England, 10th squadron, awaiting his first mission. A raid on Berlin was planned for Tuesday, September 3, 1941. It was cancelled after the enemy learned of the plan and prepared its response. A second raid across the Dutch coast and into German territory was not carried out quite as planned. The third raid would prove unlucky as Mr Jones's plane was hit by enemy fire forcing him to evacuate by parachute into German territory. He was lifted out of the plane so quickly by the force of the wind that his boots, attached loosely, remained on board.

Captured, Mr Jones spent the remainder of the war as a prisoner. He was held in six different camps, some more comfortable than others. In general, these camps were terribly cold. There was little or no heating during the winter and just one blanket per person. Ice formed on the inside wall of the barracks and provided some insulation against the cold. Prisoners slept on wooden beds with a mattress consisting of woven twisted paper filled with wood shavings.

Food rations were insufficient. A short piece of German sausage, some sugar, tea, fish soup -- including a fish head at times -- a strong cheese of varying texture, and, when available, Red Cross parcels. This did not prevent health problems, nor the appearance of signs of dietary deficiency.

Prisoners were kept aware of developments outside the camp thanks to a radio set up by an inmate which broadcast BBC reports. Try as hard as they might, camp authorities were never able to locate this radio. On one particular occasion, prisoners working on the radio did not have time to hide it. They left it in plain view on a tabletop. The radio was still there when they returned to the barracks. It wasn't noticed by the prison guards because they expected it to be hidden.

Near the end of the war, German authorities vacated the camp in which Mr Jones was held, forcing prisoners to march in groups of 500. First, they marched away from the Americans, then from the Russians. They were perhaps to be used as hostages. These groups criss-crossed the Elbe River four times and were some times shot at by Allied forces who may have mistaken them for a kind of people's army, before finally being freed by British troops.

Freedom came on May 2, 1945. On May 10, Mr Jones returned to England where he would remain till July. He could not return sooner to Canada for the following reason: As a state of near famine existed in Holland, all aircraft were being diverted to take food into that country.

In paying tribute to Normand Jones, I also wish to honour the many veterans who are still among us. They are, in essence, a living testament to those dark days. They remind us all of the folly of humanity and of the heavy price that is paid when reason gives way to prejudice, when respect for human life and dignity is replaced with ambition and contempt.

It is my honour to present to the House the gentleman whose story was told today. There was so much more to say. Please welcome Dr Normand Jones from Scarborough.

1440

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Next Friday, on November 11, Canadians will march in parades, gather at cenotaphs and attend services to honour the men and women who served in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean conflict. We will remember the 110,000 Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice -- their lives -- so that our great country could live in peace and freedom.

We will also express our gratitude to the surviving war veterans, who share their experiences and their wisdom with us. Our veterans ensure that we do not forget the lessons of war. They also remind us of Canada's heritage of personal sacrifice for the greater good of our nation.

Earlier this year, we paid tribute to the Allied servicemen who on June 6, 1944, began the assault on the beaches of Normandy that would liberate France from the Nazi oppression. Across Canada, communities held special services and ceremonies to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-Day. Recently, in front of our Legislature, veterans planted tulips in memory of their dear friends who lost their lives in the D-Day battles.

While we all recognize the important Canadian role in the invasion of Normandy, many of us are not as familiar with another critical campaign: the opening of the River Scheldt. The Battle of the Scheldt also took place 50 years ago, from September to November 1944. The Scheldt campaign cleared the supply route from the North Sea into Belgium and the Netherlands. On November 28, 1944, an historic convoy, led by the Canadian ship Fort Cataraqui, went up the River Scheldt into Antwerp. On December 1, 10,000 tons of supplies passed through the port of Antwerp, which became an advance base for the Allied forces' campaign to liberate northwestern Europe.

In the view of the Supreme Commander, this was the climax of the operation of the First Canadian Army. However, as in Normandy, the cost for Canadians in lives and suffering was high. More than 6,000 Canadians were killed, wounded or missing in the Scheldt campaign.

I would like to read to this House an excerpt from Field Marshal Montgomery's letter to General Simonds about the Canadian role in the Battle of the Scheldt. It speaks volumes about the bravery, skill and sacrifice of our Canadian forces, not just in this one campaign but in all the wars that we remember today. I quote from Field Marshal Montgomery:

"I want to express to you personally and to all commanders and troops in the Canadian army, my admiration for the way in which you have all carried out the very difficult task given to you.

"The operations were conducted under the most appalling conditions of ground -- and water -- and the advantages in these respects favoured the enemy. But in spite of great difficulties you slowly and relentlessly wore down the enemy resistance, drove him back, and captured great numbers of prisoners. It has been a fine performance, and one that could have been carried out only by first-class troops.

"The Canadian army is composed of troops from many different nations and countries. But the way in which you have all pulled together, and operated as one fighting machine, has been an inspiration to us all."

That is the end of Field Marshal Montgomery's quote.

Today, as we remember those who gave their lives for us, let us also remember that they made their enormous sacrifice so that Canada could continue to exist as a great nation, undivided from sea to sea. Just as Montgomery observed about our army, we are a diverse society with origins in many other countries. But we do pull together in times of crisis as one inspiring people and one inspiring nation.

We are so very fortunate in Canada. Even our children, who have never experienced war, know through the media the horror that grips war-torn nations still today. They know how lucky we are that our day-to-day existence does not mean coping with massive starvation, sickness and death, or with bombing raids, mortar fire and the wholesale destruction of communities.

The suffering and sacrifice of our defenders must not be for nothing. My prayer today is for the future of Canada, the great country that they fought for. May we continue to live together in peace, harmony and freedom as one country, undivided from sea to sea.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members and our visitors in the galleries to rise for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Yesterday, the minister announced government action on the matter of teenagers being employed as strippers in bars. I want to take a moment to congratulate my colleague the member for Eglinton on the efforts that she made in determining that a regulation could indeed address this problem. I believe that it was in large part thanks to her efforts that this particular issue was able to be dealt with as quickly as possible.

But we have also been waiting 18 months for the minister to act on a sticker program that is aimed at stopping the proliferation of slasher films and violent pornographic videos. On numerous occasions the minister has said that she was going to act, but there has never been any action taken. Minister, I begin by asking you, do you really support this program, and if you do, after 18 months of promises, why have you done nothing about it?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, since the Leader of the Opposition made reference to yesterday's announcement on banning under-age strippers in licensed establishments, since both parties across the floor have decided to turn this into a partisan issue, I would like to thank both the Tories and the Liberals for their contribution, but say that Margaret Harrington, from our party, first brought this issue to my attention before anybody from either party. Having said that, I appreciate all the efforts made in this House on the ability to work together to try to find a solution to that problem.

1450

In terms of the issue around video stickering, my ministry officials are working with the industry to come up with a program that is both cost-efficient and effective. It has taken longer than we had hoped because there are some complexities in dealing with this kind of stickering, given the fact that there's a whole array of film and video already in the stores that have been there for a long time and are unstickered. So we're trying to work with the industry to work out the best solution and the best stickering program that will be cost-effective for the government.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: I find it difficult to believe that this is such a complicated matter that it has taken 18 months to get anything at all from this minister, and we still have nothing. What we're saying is that the videos that are sold or rented in video stores should be required to have a film review board sticker. It's as simple as that. It's as simple as taking a video and putting a sticker on it. It doesn't seem to be terribly complicated.

The sticker would indicate that the video has been inspected and approved, classified by the OFRB. Clearly, slasher films would not get through that classification process. If there's no sticker, the material would be shown to be illegal. It would have bypassed the classification process. Merchants would know that this material should not be on the shelves and inspectors would be able to identify any material that gets past the classification process much more easily.

It isn't that difficult, Minister, and I really don't think we can allow for any more excuses for absolute inaction. Will you tell us what, if any, specific steps you have taken to actually get this program up and running?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, in reference to slasher films, because that's an issue that's been raised many times in the House, I've said many times that in fact is part of the problem. The kinds of slasher films that have been identified in this House as being a problem predate the film review board. They're already on the shelves and didn't get classified.

Your government was in power during the time when some of these films were released, and the Tory government for a long time. What did you do about a stickering program and an identification program? You talk to me and say it's taking 18 months to get a sticker system together. You had four years. The Tories had 42 years. What did you do? Absolutely nothing. And you sit there and accuse me of doing nothing in 18 months.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, it is not as simple as just getting a sticker and slapping it on a video. I can assure you it is much more complex than that. I can also assure the leader of the official opposition that we are working on this. We are working with the industry and we will have a stickering program in place.

Mrs McLeod: Is this minister saying that because something hasn't been done in the past it should never be done in the future, that we shouldn't take any action to deal with a problem that we all agree has to be dealt with? Do you believe that because slasher films weren't classified in the past, slasher films should not be classified now, that it's all right to have them bypass the system and be on the shelves and be available to people when there is a simple action that can be taken?

Minister, I truly believe that your continued inaction on this matter is a betrayal of your own commitment. You said, when you became Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, that you wanted to tackle violent pornography. You wanted that to be a priority. The member for Eglinton's resolution against slasher films, calling for a sticker program, was unanimously passed by this Legislature 18 months ago and you said you would act at that time. I asked you where the program was six months ago. You said you'd be making an announcement in a few weeks, and yet we have seen nothing. Today, you say there is no action plan.

Minister, will you not tell us, with a specific date, when we can expect to see some action on this issue instead of more empty excuses?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, there is an action plan and I've already stated that today. I believe the Leader of the Opposition is not listening, for political reasons, and I cannot believe that the leader of a party who wants to be the Premier of the province can be so naïve as to stand in this House and say it's that simple.

She knows how the film review board works. She knows the kind of system it is. She knows that it's not that easy to just slap on a sticker. But let me say to her, and let me be very clear, that the film review board does not pass violent pornography. It contravenes the Theatres Act and they do not pass any film that has sex coupled with violence. I think she knows that as well. To pin that on the present film review board -- they used to do it in the past; they do not do it today under my leadership.

I can assure her once again that there will be, in working with the industry, a video sticker in place for the first time, under this government, under the Rae government, in the history of Ontario.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Solicitor General concerning a serious and perhaps criminal abuse of power by a member of his political staff, one Ari Rozin, who is a special adviser to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services.

This abuse of power involves threats allegedly made by Mr Rozin to use confidential information to imprison a resident of my riding, one Daniel Theodorou, a neighbour of Mr Rozin's. I have passed a letter to the Solicitor General which was sent to him, a copy of a letter to the Premier which went to the Premier from my constituent yesterday.

By way of background, I should tell you that on October 17 Mr Rozin became upset with the way in which Mr Theodorou's son was driving the family car around the corner in the neighbourhood that they share. On that day, Mr Rozin registered a complaint with the York region police, which he is within his rights to do. I must now quote, if I might, from Mr Theodorou's letter.

Two days later, "Mr Rozin...appeared on my doorstep at 10 pm...to inform me of where he works and to give me his business card.... Mr Rozin then advised me that in his position as a special adviser to the Solicitor General of Ontario, he" -- and I'm quoting -- "'supervises the police' and that if I cannot control my son, he will. Astonished, I replied, 'How are you going to do that?' He said, 'I know your son claimed a paint job and two tires on your automobile insurance policy' -- which he claimed is insurance fraud and is punishable by two years imprisonment. I asked him what he was talking about, to which he responded that I was 'not to fool around' with him as he 'can put me away for two years for insurance fraud' and so on. When leaving, Mr Rozin continued" --

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

Mr Sorbara: -- "pointing fingers at me in the presence of my daughter, in a manner clearly intended to intimidate, saying, 'I have warned you, so don't fool around with me.'"

My question is the question that Mr Theodorou raises in his letter: Will the minister convene "an investigation on how Mr Rozin obtained this confidential and private insurance information he claims to have or know about which related to my son?" While he's doing that, if these allegations are true, will he immediately --

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

Mr Sorbara: -- demand the resignation of Mr Rozin and convene a public inquiry as to how confidential information keeps getting into the hands of ministers and ministers' political staff and is used illegally to threaten and intimidate private citizens in this province?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): The honourable member indeed sent me over a copy of the letter he raises; my office did receive a faxed copy a few hours ago. It was brought to my attention and I have reviewed initially what is here. What I need now is an opportunity to review all of the facts. I will advise the writer of the letter as to the response to his requests, because he makes a number of requests in the letter, within 24 hours, as to how indeed I will respond to the concerns and requests that he has made.

1500

Mr Sorbara: These are serious allegations, and if they are true --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): They certainly are allegations, not facts. Let's not get carried away.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Sorbara: The Minister of Education says, "Let's not get carried away."

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): Have you ever heard of due process?

Mr Sorbara: The former Attorney General says, "Have you ever heard of due process?" This is abuse of process of the worst kind, and I say to the Solicitor General that abuse of process is the hallmark of every single totalitarian government in the history of mankind. But with this government it is a course of conduct. It is Shelley Martel, the member for Sudbury East, threatening doctors. It is Evelyn Gigantes. It is John Piper. It is Will Ferguson.

I ask the minister, will he immediately convene a public inquiry to determine how it is that confidential information protected by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act continues to leak out of his government, get in the hands of ministers --

The Speaker: Would the member please complete his question.

Mr Sorbara: -- and is used to threaten and intimidate citizens of this province?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I certainly have not in any way suggested that the concerns being raised are not serious. What I have said to the honourable member is that I will of course be held accountable for the decisions that I make with regard to how I respond to the concerns raised by this citizen.

I don't believe it is unreasonable to spend at least 24 hours reviewing the facts before making a decision on that course of action to which, I again say, I expect and readily accept I will be held accountable.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I heard heckling about "due process," and in fact this is clearly about due process. My concern is that this allegation raises serious concerns about public confidence in the administration of justice. There's a clear implication in the letter, in the allegation, that the police and the courts are the lackeys of this official's whim and whimsy. That is a serious concern, and the only way we can clear up public confidence in the administration of justice is to have an open, public inquiry. I appreciate the Solicitor General's concern to get back to the House, but a backdoor, backroom investigation will not be sufficient.

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

Mr Murphy: We need to know that it will be a public inquiry to restore public confidence in the administration of justice. I want that commitment today and I want to know if he's yet spoken to his assistant and what he has been advised to date.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I again reiterate that I do take these matters seriously. I have had a very brief initial discussion with the member of my staff in question. From that moment on, he has not been a part of any other discussions with members of my staff as to courses of action that are available.

But I again say that all of the concerns raised in terms of how I will respond to these allegations and these concerns I think are properly placed. In respect of that, I again state that I don't think it's unreasonable to at least take 24 hours to determine what appropriate course of action I should take in responding to this citizen's serious concerns, and at that point I will of course, as I said earlier, be held accountable for those decisions.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

The Ontario Taxpayers Federation has brought to our attention that this morning at 9:45, the debt of the province of Ontario hit $150 billion: $150 billion. Madam Minister, that's about $55,000 for every family in Ontario, and that doesn't count the federal debt. Every dollar that goes to pay the interest on the debt -- in this year we will be talking about $8 billion to pay the interest on the debt -- is a dollar that can't go into the classroom to teach our children; it's a dollar that can't go to a hospital; it's a dollar that can't go to ensure safety in our streets.

Minister, my question to you is simply a question that the people of the province of Ontario are asking: What is the plan of this government to tackle that debt and stop the debt clock from ticking?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I want to first of all address the number that the member opposite is using, and I am assuming that he is referring to the same Toronto Sun article that I have in front of me.

In this article, it indicates how the Ontario Taxpayers Federation calculated Ontario's total debt: $76 billion for provincial debt already issued, which is the number you normally see associated with any statements the Treasurer makes, and it goes on to add to that $16.9 billion for other liabilities, $4.5 billion for Ontario Hydro, $34 billion for contingent liabilities guaranteed by the province, $11.8 billion in accumulated unfunded liabilities of the Workers' Compensation Board, totals that up and then prorates.

I want to say, first of all, just so viewers don't get an incorrect perception, that the $150 billion referred to is the actual debt related to the province's operating deficit.

Secondly, may I say very clearly that we have set out a plan with respect to controlling the deficit and living within our means. We believe it is very important for us to bring our operating deficit down and to --

Interjection.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- establish a balanced budget on the operating side and to begin to pay off the debt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Hon Ms Lankin: We don't see that there is anything progressive about continuing to pay debt servicing costs to bond holders and to bankers when that money could be going to provide the essential services in this province that we want to preserve. We approach that with a balance, and while we're trying to create jobs, to stimulate the economy, we want to preserve essential services and we want to live within our means. There are three parts to the approach, it is an effective plan, and it is a plan that we continue on and that we believe is working.

Mr David Johnson: Well, Minister, your response consumed 183 seconds, which is admirable: 183 seconds --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr David Johnson: Madam Minister, 183 seconds is $59,000, almost $60,000 additional debt in the province of Ontario. In that short period of time during your response, $60,000 has been added to the debt of the province of Ontario. That's how serious the situation is, Minister, and I'm surprised that you would downplay the importance of that amount of debt. The people of Ontario are on the hook for the debt. Whether it's incurred by the province of Ontario, whether it's incurred by Ontario Hydro, whether it's incurred as an unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board, the people of Ontario are on the hook for a $150-billion debt as of this moment today, and Minister, the taxpayers are asking you --

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

Mr David Johnson: -- and your government, what are you doing about addressing the debt? What specific guidelines are you giving to Ontario Hydro, what specific guidelines are you giving to the Workers' Compensation Board to reduce that debt that the people of Ontario owe?

Hon Ms Lankin: You know, it's interesting. Let's just take the examples I went through in this article in terms of what the taxpayers federation used to total up to this $150-billion number, and let's examine them one by one.

Let's talk first of all about Ontario Hydro. The member opposite just mentioned that. I think he should be standing here paying tribute to the workers and the management of Ontario Hydro for the restructuring they have undertaken, for the way in which they have brought under control the increase in rates -- in fact, this year they've lowered rates -- in spite of the fact that we have a tremendous debt load from the building of nuclear plants, legacies of mismanagement of former governments.

1510

Let's talk about the WCB. Let's talk about the unfunded liability, which you have added in here somehow as a government debt. Irrespective, let's talk about it. It is important that that is addressed. We are the first government that has brought in legislation that is going to change parts of the Workers' Compensation Act which will in fact reduce the unfunded liability out into the future.

When you take a look at that, and other actions that have been taken --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): That is bunk.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- over the past two years, we have brought down the provincial deficit by 30%. I have not in any way downplayed the importance of dealing with the debt. What I've said is that it needs to be done in a balanced way. We need to create jobs, we need to preserve services and live within our means, and that's what we are doing.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Stockwell: How do you get away with saying that? You just made it up.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Etobicoke West please come to order and allow his own colleague to pose a question.

Mr David Johnson: Any way you slice it, this is a debt on the people of the province of Ontario. I'm simply asking, on behalf of the people of Ontario, in regard to this horrendous situation, what is the plan of this government to deal with the debt? It's a simple question.

Today the taxpayers pay over two times as much to service the debt in the province of Ontario as we do towards a number of services. Let me tell you what those services are: agriculture, tourism, recreation, natural resources, mines, native and francophone affairs, prisons, courts, policing, economic development and trade, and the environment. Combine all of those together and the interest on the debt is twice as much as all of those together. That is the impact the interest on the debt is having in the province of Ontario. It's squeezing out services that are required by the people of Ontario.

My question is simply, when will you recognize that tinkering with the financial situation of the province of Ontario is no longer acceptable?

We have a plan. The Progressive Conservative Party has a plan.

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

Mr David Johnson: The plan of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario will eliminate the deficit in four years, and then after that period of time, the plan will pay down the debt of the province of Ontario. Minister, what is your plan?

The Speaker: The question's been posed.

Hon Ms Lankin: If you take a look at the Treasurer's last budget, it is clearly set out where we project the operating deficit will go. In fact, just recently in his economic statement, he gave the province good news that there are unanticipated additional revenues which will be put towards the deficit to bring the deficit down quicker, not put towards additional spending. He's been very clear on that.

We have agreed that there is a need for governments at all levels to be very careful with their spending, to look at bringing down deficits, to try to rid us of this debt load. We agree with that. What we've put forward is a balanced approach to trying to do it, not some kind of Ralph Klein-Mike Harris approach that isn't common sense.

It makes no math sense. You tell me how you're going to cut spending by 20% but not touch health care, over a third of the provincial budget; not touch law enforcement; not touch education. You're going to cut 20% out and at the same time you're going to cut taxes by 30%, and you're not going to increase the deficit, you're going to get rid of the deficit in three years. Give me a break. There is no sense to the Common Sense Revolution.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I would like to congratulate my colleague across the floor, the member for Cambridge, on his appointment to this portfolio. It's probably the last nice thing I'll say to you, Minister.

We have two examples, Highway 407 and now QEW, in which contracts have been awarded in a closed and secretive way. In the case of the QEW contract, we don't know the conditions of the award or even the amount of the contract. The government has taken a process that was clean, transparent and accountable and made it closed, subjective and questionable.

My question to you is, will you table in this House all the bids submitted for widening the QEW and the total cost of the project to the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): I just want to say to the member, clearly and unequivocally, that there has been no conflict. We have reputable companies bidding on a project. There is a very clearly defined process that has been adhered to. The process has been overseen by Coopers and Lybrand, the best proposal was selected, and we've had both internal and external legal opinion that indeed the process was aboveboard, clean, objective and fair.

Are you accusing these companies of breaking the law? If you are, if you are accusing these companies, I ask you to lay some objection there. But I want to say this to you: There is absolutely no conflict of interest.

Mr Turnbull: All I asked for was for them to table the documentation. I'm interested about why you're getting so upset. The one thing, Minister, these contracts have in common, the 407 and the QEW contracts, is that they were both closed bids and both benefited the Labourers union. The Labourers union Local 183 held a fund-raising dinner for the Premier in January this year. This was the most successful provincial NDP fund-raiser ever. The memorandum to the ticket sellers states: "The prestige and the name of 183 must be maintained for all future lobby efforts that benefits."

Boy, did they benefit, first with the 407 and now with the QEW. These are the first times that major government contracts have been awarded without an open tendering process being used. Minister, can you assure the taxpayers 100% that the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have to say I detect a great degree of jealousy from this member towards a government that is showing an extraordinary initiative of working with free enterprise and working with entrepreneurs and building projects, huge projects, in an innovative partnership with the private sector. We have indeed put on track, on a fast track, huge projects that bring jobs, thousands and thousands of jobs. We are building these roads in four years as opposed to 20 years. Unfortunately, in the old days, in the old way in which you did business, it would have taken 20 years to build these major projects --

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

Hon Mr Farnan: -- but this government, with its partnership with free enterprise, is building these projects not in 20 years but in four years.

I can assure the member there was a due process; there was a maximum price the projects had to come in under. The best bidder was selected in due and fair process, the process is clean and there is no conflict.

1520

Mr Turnbull: All I asked you was, did the lowest bidder get the job?

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: Just a moment, just simmer down there. You know we've raised questions to your predecessor about the awarding of the contract on 407, and there have also been questions about Local 183 connections with your government raised in the press. To restore a sense of integrity and openness in contracts in this province, will you table both the QEW and the 407 project data immediately?

Hon Mr Farnan: The member knows it is not the government that tables this information. These are bids about which the member can go to those companies and request the information.

Mr Turnbull: That's not true.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Farnan: If the company wishes to give that information, it will do so, but indeed these are projects in which confidentiality is important. I also want to say to the member --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister please take his seat.

Mr Turnbull: You made them sign gag orders, and now you say to go to the companies and ask. What rubbish. What a stupid answer.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, please come to order. New question.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I want to go back to the Solicitor General on the Ari Rozin matter. In my first question, the Solicitor General acknowledged that he was aware of the allegations I brought to his attention and indeed that he had spoken with his special assistant, Mr Rozin, about the allegations made by my constituent.

I want to ask the Solicitor General very specifically, because these are very serious, perhaps criminal, allegations, whether or not the Solicitor General received an acknowledgement from Mr Rozin that these events actually took place. Secondly, what steps specifically has the Solicitor General taken to conduct an investigation? Thirdly, given the potential for criminal activity here, has the Solicitor General advised the OPP to conduct an investigation for the possibility of criminal activity, have they sealed Mr Rozin's office, and what other steps have been taken to ensure that no evidence is destroyed while this investigation is going on?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I indeed did acknowledge the fact that there are serious issues being raised in the correspondence. I've also taken into consideration the requests that the author of the letter himself makes.

Your question around what steps have been taken specifically I think speaks very directly to the answer I gave previously. I expect to be held accountable in this issue for the decisions I make around how this is responded to. The letter came to my office barely a few hours ago, was brought to my attention. I have not had sufficient time to look at this and make a decision that I think is very important to all concerned, not just the member here; the citizen and certainly the individual involved.

Again, I say I do not believe it is unreasonable to take at least a minimal amount of time to look at all the facts and make a decision on what steps need to be taken and then be held accountable for those steps that I take as the minister responsible.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Solicitor General, what we are asking for is what you can tell us now. We want to know, for example, whether you have asked for the OPP to be involved or whether any police force has been called in. Did your assistant, when you talked to him, which you admit you have done, confirm or deny the substance of the allegations? You have said you are going to make a decision later, which I can understand.

We want to know now whether he confirmed or denied the substance of the allegations. Did he confirm or deny that he had access to confidential information? How did he get that confidential information? Do other people in your office have that confidential information? Have you issued directives to your staff to ensure that this kind of abuse of confidential information cannot occur again? You can answer those questions now. I and the House would like to hear the answer.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I sincerely do not believe I can answer those specific questions without the serious potential for perhaps prejudicing whatever decisions and whatever courses of action may have to be taken. I have not even had time, given the lateness this came into my office before I came here to the House, to consult legal advice, or any other kind of advice, for that matter.

I have looked at the letter. I have had an initial meeting with my staff person, a very brief meeting, and, following that, made sure he was no longer and will not be a part of any other deliberations in my office with regard to steps I've taken. I honestly believe, given your acknowledgement that it will take a little time to determine what steps are appropriate and that this is fair in this case, that it is equally reasonable that I not comment in any way now where it may indeed prejudice whatever type of course of action may be appropriate in this case.

ONTARIO BUS INDUSTRIES INC

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, yesterday you told this House that Ontario Bus Industries is "an important file." Minister, Arnold Recht is a Toronto lawyer who contacted Ontario Bus on Tuesday of this week on behalf of clients asking about some of the investment on behalf of his clients. No one at Ontario Bus called him back. No one bothered to call Mr Recht back when he contacted Ontario Bus to ask about investment on behalf of his clients from around the world.

My question to you is this, Minister: Can you explain why, given the millions of tax dollars we have now spent on this particular company, a potential investor is ignored?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I can't explain the actions of an individual who answered the phone or took a message at Ontario Bus Industries. I'm not involved in the day-to-day running of Ontario Bus Industries. What I would suggest to you is that if you pass me the individual's name, I will pass it on to the strategic investments department within the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Mr Peter Tanaka, who I think is a person respected by all members of this House, and we will follow up on it. We'd be very interested to speak to the individual.

Mr Carr: Minister, in just a few months the liability on behalf of the Ontario taxpayers has gone from zero to $100 million on this particular company alone. We don't know what the amount will be, but there have been estimates of up to as much as $100 million or maybe more. Given that the taxpayers of this province are personally on the hook for this amount, why is it that somebody would not call back an individual who called?

I will explain a little further to the minister. What happened is that when he explained to the person who answered the phone, that person didn't even realize there was a problem with the company and said, "I will have the president of the company or another individual call you back." We wonder why there are problems with this company when you can't even get a message to the president about a potential investor to call back.

In light of the problems, in light of what should have been a simple solution in terms of how to handle this, I will send over Mr Recht's phone number for the minister to personally get involved in this particular issue and to call this lawyer, who has investors from around the world interested in putting investment into this company, so she can personally supervise it. We've obviously got a problem with this company, and I hope the minister will call this particular individual and report back what type of action we can expect.

Hon Ms Lankin: I didn't hear a question, but let me take this opportunity to say that I think it is kind of silly of the member opposite to be asking me why the receptionist or the secretary or whoever the individual was who took the phone message at OBI hasn't yet got the president of OBI to call back this individual on this piece of paper, a torn message. I don't know; that's a pretty silly question. You've given me a name. I've said I would have Mr Tanaka of the strategic investments department of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade call the individual. That's the appropriate way. That's what will happen.

1530

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I see the questions today are around economic development and I have a question on economic development, but I'm going to direct it to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which I believe is very important.

Before I begin my question, it was also nice to hear the member for S-D-G & East Grenville's comments about the Liberal stance on ethanol, because as you well know, Mr Speaker, this government fully supports ethanol and the development of the ethanol industry in the province of Ontario.

Ontario corn producers and rural communities in southwestern Ontario now await the matching federal request for potential investment in a $160-million ethanol facility in the city of Chatham, which is clearly indicated here in the Chatham-Kent gazette. Time is running out for the project to become a reality.

Given the potential of rural employment and economic benefits generated by ethanol, can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs please update this House on our actions to make investment in the Chatham ethanol project a reality?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'm pleased to answer this question for the member, who has been an advocate of his area, particularly economic development of the Chatham area, through the ethanol industry.

A few things that we've done:

Over a year ago we announced a procurement policy for government vehicles, where, when available, they will purchase an ethanol-blended fuel for government cars. That's a demonstrated action, not just talk about what we support; we actually do it.

The second thing is that my honourable colleague the Honourable Frances Lankin, Minister of Economic Development and Trade, reached an agreement with Commercial Alcohols to provide $5 million towards the infrastructure part of an ethanol plant in Chatham.

So we don't just talk about rural development in ethanol, we in fact have been very active. We signed an agreement with Commercial Alcohols to extend the tax exemptions to make this plant viable and create jobs in rural Ontario.

Mr Hope: I'm just trying to find my red book, which turned a little blue while the federal Liberals were in Ottawa. I see it's gone a little blue, but I know it's red inside; it says "Red" on the paper.

Can the minister tell us when the federal government is going to live up to its promise, whether Sheila Copps or whoever the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is, or even who the Prime Minister of Canada is going to be, to support the ethanol industry in this province and throughout this country dealing with emissions from cars.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The people of Ontario sent 97 Liberals to Ottawa a little over a year ago, and in that little red book there was a promise to promote the ethanol industry. If that government in Ottawa and those Liberals were representing Ontario, they'd get on with signing an arrangement with the ethanol industry and create some jobs in Chatham.

This government is not about talk; we're about action. We believe in doing things; we believe in creating jobs. It's easy to say, "We'll promise an ethanol industry," or, "We'll protect this," or, "We'll do that." We're doing it. We want to create the jobs. We want to see rural economic development in this province.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister will know that last March her predecessor appointed Dr Carolyn Tuohy to conduct a review of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. The review of this agency is in fact a requirement of the legislation that set up the agency in the first place.

In the media release announcing Dr Tuohy's appointment, the minister promised a broad consultation with the many stakeholders in the health and safety community in Ontario. The release also says that Dr Tuohy would be submitting her report to the minister in September 1994.

I understand that all of the consultation was completed in the summer. The minister will know that given the problems the agency has encountered as a result of its aggressive and confrontational style, a style, I might add, that has resulted in court action against the agency, the people who participated in Dr Tuohy's consultation are most anxious to see her report. It's now November. Will the minister tell this House when she is prepared to release Dr Tuohy's report?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): I thank the member very much for his question. We all are interested about the Workplace Health and Safety Agency because it has done so much good for the province of Ontario's working people. There have been over 14,000 people who have taken the certificate program, with a success rate over 8,000. That shows how people are interested in health and safety.

When we talk about the review, the document was supposed to be brought to me at the end of October. My understanding from staff at the ministry is there has been some little delay in it and I'd be --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Can't they find you?

Hon Mrs Coppen: Just a couple of days, sir. It's only November 3. When the report is brought to me, I'd be very happy to share it with the member and all of its reports from the consultations. I understand there were about 50 groups in the province that took the time and brought their concerns forward, and I would be happy to share it with the member.

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate that and I take it as a commitment. You've said "when the report is brought to you." I assume that you will immediately then release it to the people who were involved in the consultation.

I might point out to you that the two co-chairs of the agency were so perplexed by some of the comments made by various people who came before Dr Tuohy that they saw fit, Minister, to write a 12-page critique of their comments. They're indeed trying to influence Dr Tuohy in the results that she puts out in the report. Most inappropriate. I would suggest, Minister, that you talk to the two co-chairs to tell them that their position should be to wait for that report to be released and not to try to influence it by writing a 12-page letter.

Will the minister give an unequivocal commitment today that she will contact Dr Tuohy and ask her to release that report forthwith and that she will then release that report to the members of this Legislature and the people of this province so that we can indeed review her comments on the Workplace Health and Safety Agency? We want to see that report now because we think it's ready. Will the minister commit to that?

Hon Mrs Coppen: Again, to the member for Mississauga West, I think it's very sad that he uses this House to publicly denounce the two co-chairs of such an important agency, an agency that is helping working people throughout this province.

I will be having discussions with Dr Tuohy. I will be seeing the report as soon as possible. I will be glad to share it with the member for Mississauga West. But as I said, I have not received it yet. I would really, if I was the member, reconsider my comments about the two co-chairs, because they have proven to be such an asset, a help to working people in this province.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Mr Minister, yesterday you clearly indicated to this House that your government would be willing to put forward two thirds of the funding for finishing Highway 416, going down to the 401 from Ottawa.

You may be interested to know, Mr Minister, that in October I had a meeting arranged with Mr Runciman, Mr Villeneuve and myself with the Honourable Art Eggleton in order to discuss this issue and so that we could get the funding going. At the very last moment Mr Eggleton cancelled that meeting and could not find any time on his calendar to meet with us with regard to this issue.

I now believe there's a deliberate attempt by the federal Liberals to mislead the people of eastern Ontario as to who is reneging on the promise to build Highway 416. In a May letter, Minister Eggleton ties the funding, the one-third funding or the approximately $60 million worth of funding, to the infrastructure program. Mr Minister, is there money left in the federal-provincial infrastructure program which could be put forward to Highway 416?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): I welcome the question. Like you, I believe there is a paper trail that clearly establishes a commitment on the part of the federal Liberals. I have a letter from Mr Eggleton which reads, "When I made my statement concerning Highway 416, I was not aware of Prime Minister Chrétien's commitment," so not only has the minister but the Prime Minister of Canada.

You're quite correct: Those 99 Liberal federal members are sitting in Ottawa, and it appears they have no power to speak for the people of Ontario. Certainly the people of eastern Ontario have to be very disillusioned with the Liberal presence in Ottawa and their reneging on this very important commitment.

1540

I said yesterday also that my government is absolutely clearly committed to providing two thirds of the funding. The funds that you refer to, the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works and the STIP program, are funds that have already been allocated. There are no moneys available unless the federal government wants us to go back to the municipalities and ask the municipalities and say, "No, you can't have those programs which are allocated."

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

Hon Mr Farnan: Remember, the purpose of those programs initially was that we could have grass-roots decision-making, that municipalities could determine what the projects would be. It would appear that the federal government is not only reneging --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Farnan: -- on its commitment to the province but is reneging on its commitment to the municipalities across the province.

Mr Sterling: I am informed that of the $720 million which was allocated to the province of Ontario, and particularly of the portion that was allocated to eastern Ontario, only $5 million was not used under the first draft of the Canadian infrastructure program. That leaves a shortfall of some $55 million which we would need in order to fulfil the third part of the cost of completing 416.

In a letter to my colleague Mr Villeneuve there is mention also of another program under which the federal Liberals, I believe, are trying to hide or renege under the guise that there is a program there. That is the program called the Canada-Ontario strategic transportation improvement program. Minister, can you tell me if there are sufficient funds under that program to either pay the full $60 million or pay the balance of the $55 million, which appears to be one third?

If there is not money within that amount to pay for that third commitment, which was made clearly by one of the federal candidates during the last federal election, I would say that the people of eastern Ontario would have to come to the conclusion that the federal Liberals --

The Speaker: Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Sterling: -- are reneging on their promise to pay one third of the cost of completing Highway 416.

Hon Mr Farnan: There are times when issues arise in the House where we do find agreement, where we look at the facts and we recognize the facts and we interpret those facts and we come to the obvious conclusion, and this is a case in point.

I think it doesn't matter where you sit in this House, whether you're a Conservative or a New Democrat, you can see it speaks for itself. The federal government, the federal Liberals have reneged. Of course, it must be a huge embarrassment to Lyn McLeod and the Liberal caucus here to see the Prime Minister's commitment reneged upon, to see the minister responsible playing shell games --

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

Hon Mr Farnan: -- and the 99 Liberals members in Ottawa failing to represent the people of Ontario. This is an important road. It's important to the people of eastern Ontario. It's a significant link --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Farnan: -- and clearly the Liberal Party has let down the people of eastern Ontario.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please. New question.

ALCOHOL SMUGGLING

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I'm very pleased to say, just following up on the Minister of Transportation's statement, that the Liberals will have many opportunities to help the people of eastern Ontario, and I look forward to their cooperation.

But my question involves, in part, the recent announcement by the Treasurer --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Take your seat, please.

Interjections.

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

Mr Gary Wilson: Again, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Minister, as you know, the Treasurer announced in the House earlier this week that the deficit will be dropping by $206 million because of the very strong performance in the second quarter of our economy. I think it's 8.4%, a record for the province, or at least since 1989.

I think this is a real indication that our plan is working, that we are creating jobs and protecting services and living within our means. But my concern is that we might become complacent. You can tell by the opposition that already they've sort of withdrawn; they are impressed by this kind of performance.

My question pertains specifically to alcohol smuggling, because that's something I think all members of this House are very concerned about because of its cost in both social and economic terms. Minister, quite directly, what is the ministry doing about alcohol smuggling in the province?

Interjection: Nothing.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The Liberals think they have the answer to this one in one word, but they're wrong. A while ago, a new piece of legislation, or amendments to the Liquor Licence Act, was made in this House. I believe the opposition -- correct me if I'm wrong -- opposed that bill, but it increased fines for smuggling by individuals and corporations and it allows special search and seizure measures. We believe that's already having an effect in this effort.

Also, even in this climate of restraint that we've been in, we've added new resources to the investigation and enforcement related to smuggling, and I'm happy to say that we do feel we're seeing results from this.

Mr Gary Wilson: Minister, as you know, this issue affects more than just the province, but certainly the federal government is involved, as well as, I expect, police forces. I was just wondering what kind of coordination is taking place with the other jurisdictions that are involved with this issue.

Hon Ms Churley: Ontario has been working with other jurisdictions. We're coordinating our law enforcement efforts with the LCBO, the OPP, municipal police forces, the RCMP, Revenue Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Finance. Everybody has been working together on this. I'm not going to stand up and slam the federal government on this one. I believe everybody recognizes that we all have to work together on this problem. I'm pleased to say that there's a very fine cooperative effort among all the parties involved in this effort, and I must say at this point I appreciate the efforts that everybody has put into this effort.

FINANCIAL PROCEDURES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question I guess is to the Minister of Transportation, in the absence of the Minister of Finance. I was looking at the quarterly report, the second-quarter report. I see the provincial government has taken all of the federal spending on infrastructure, $253 million of federal spending on infrastructure --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): A quarter of a billion dollars.

Mr Phillips: A quarter of a billion dollars, as my colleague said -- taken the federal money and shown it as revenue, and then over on the capital side they've reported all of the federal spending, the $253 million, as provincial spending. So they've taken the $253 million that the federal government is spending on infrastructure, put it in as revenue, and then you're reporting all of that money -- all of it; $253 million -- as your own capital spending.

I just have to have a clear answer from the minister: Is that true? Have you taken the $253 million of federal infrastructure money, shown it as revenue and then had the nerve to actually report it as your own capital spending? Could that be true?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): I would have to say that the manner in which the bookkeeping on these matters is reported is something that would fall outside of my jurisdiction.

But I do want to say to the member, and it's very interesting, I have heard federal members stand up in the federal House and clearly state that projects that were being worked with provincial dollars were indeed their projects. That of course is absolutely untrue. We have always said that the COIW projects are of course multilevel projects, with one third from the province, one third from the feds and one third from the municipalities.

I've always said "congratulations" to the federal government for putting forward some dollars in terms of infrastructure. But I want you to understand, and the people of Ontario clearly understand, that what you do with your federal dollars is peanuts compared to the dollars that we put in in terms of infrastructure and capital within the province of Ontario.

1550

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Simcoe West has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning Bill 40 and its impact on rail line acquisition. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

MOTIONS

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 92

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the order for committee of the whole House on Bill 92, An Act respecting Land Conservancy Corporations, be discharged and the bill be withdrawn.

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or previous order of the House, Mr Owens be deleted from the order of precedence for private members' public business and that all members of the New Democratic Party caucus listed thereafter be advanced by one place in their turn.

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

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or previous order of the House, the following changes be made to the order of precedence for private members' public business:

Ballot item 71, Mrs Caplan; ballot item 73, Mr Henderson; ballot item 75, Mr Bradley; ballot item 77, Mr Curling; ballot item 79, Mrs O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau); ballot item 82, Mrs Fawcett; ballot item 83, Mr Poirier; ballot item 85, Mr Conway; ballot item 87, Mr Cordiano; ballot item 89, Mr Crozier; ballot item 91, Mr O'Neil (Quinte); and ballot item 99, Mrs McLeod.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition that I have received from a number of residents in the Parkdale riding and also in the riding of Fort York, and it reads:

"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, not the 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 therefore, as 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 agree with this petition and affix my signature to the bottom of this.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition, signed by hundreds of constituents, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the provincial government has slashed health care coverage by 75% for Ontario citizens who are hospitalized out of the country; and

"Whereas this will mainly affect seniors who travel south in the winter for health reasons; and

"Whereas this is an indisputable violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act; and

"Whereas Mike Harris of the Progressive Conservative Party makes the preservation of medicare a priority in his Common Sense Revolution policy document;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to act in a fair manner by preserving the sacred principles of medicare and restore the out-of-country hospitalization coverage to the rates charged by hospitals in Ontario."

I've signed that as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's signed by a number of members of Local 677, United Rubber Workers from Kitchener.

"Whereas the right for workers to refuse to do unsafe work is an essential component of health and safety legislation in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the threat of sending co-workers home without pay during a work refusal constitutes significant peer pressure to continue to work in unsafe conditions;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario to bring private member's Bill 157, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, before the Legislature for third reading."

LIQUOR LICENSING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a petition signed by some 200 of my constituents who attended a public meeting last night.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the after-hours club Tae's International, located at 2915A Dufferin Street, has been the site of over 20 reported offences including alcohol, weapons, drugs and homicide in the last four years; and

"Whereas municipalities, police departments and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario are currently not equipped to deal with the problems associated with after-hours clubs; and

"Whereas the leader of the official opposition, Lyn McLeod, has called upon Premier Rae and all members of the Legislature to ensure speedy passage of legislation providing the necessary laws to close down after-hours clubs that threaten the safety of residents;

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

"(1) That the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario revoke the liquor licence granted to Tae's International Restaurant and Nite Club located at 2915A Dufferin Street; and

"(2) That Premier Bob Rae and all members of the Legislature move to pass legislation which would provide municipalities, police and the LLBO with the necessary authority to ensure that after-hours clubs are not a threat to the safety of residents."

TENANTS ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

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

"Whereas under the Family Benefits Act there is no authority to redirect funds from an allowance for failure to pay rent to a private landlord, it is possible for a recipient of benefits to refuse to pay rent, indeed to move to another location in the province and receive benefits as if nothing untoward had happened,

"I, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to revise the Family Benefits Act to permit the garnishee of benefits of a recipient where the private landlord has been granted a Small Claims Court judgement against the recipient of benefits."

That is submitted to this assembly through me by Mr Alan Truscott of Collingwood, and I have signed that petition.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's part of the 23,000 names that have been signed on petitions throughout the riding of Chatham-Kent.

"We, the undersigned, are petitioning the provincial government for a haemodialysis unit to be placed in one of Chatham's hospitals for the use of Chatham-Kent kidney patients. This will enable these patients to have their treatment in Chatham instead of travelling to London three times a week."

1600

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

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

"Whereas Bill 173, the long-term care reform bill, if allowed to pass without necessary and appropriate amendments, will result in a lower level of service to consumers in the province; and

"Whereas the enactment of this legislation in its present form will increase the cost of the provision of care to the elderly and those in medical need; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 173 will bring about a decrease in the number of volunteers available to organizations now directly involved in providing service in the field of long-term care; and

"Whereas local communities will lose control and influence over the delivery of long-term care services even though they are best able to determine local needs;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario be requested to amend Bill 173 to comply with the recommendations of service organizations who at present deliver home care to people in communities across Ontario."

I will affix my signature to this, as I agree with it.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize and value the work of volunteers in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that amendments are made to Bill 173 to allow for provision of community care based on the needs of the local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of care."

That's signed from a number of people from Barrie and CFB Borden and people in the riding of Simcoe West, and I've also signed this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The preamble has been read many times in this assembly, so I will go to the conclusion:

"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."

This is signed by about 150 residents of my riding, Hastings-Peterborough, and a few other residents of Ontario.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario and to the Minister of Education, and it is from concerned residents of Blessed Edith Stein Roman Catholic elementary school within the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board. It reads:

"Our school is located in a community which is undergoing rapid development. In three years we have grown from 550 students to 900, with 14 portables. Although funding for a new school has been approved, we understand the projected completion date is not for another three to four years. By then we will be in a crisis situation, with a conservative estimate of enrolment at 1,400 and 37 portables.

"This is unacceptable for an elementary school. Already problems caused by the congestion of 900 students, seven buses, five vans and two taxis are immense. In addition, we have 265 kindergarten students who for the most part are accompanied by approximately 200 parents every day with strollers. All are converging on the school within a 15-minute period.

"It is therefore that we, the undersigned, respectfully request that the construction of the new school, Lisgar 3-1, be expedited to alleviate the overcrowding at Blessed Edith Stein."

I wholeheartedly agree and affix my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

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

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize and value the work of volunteers in this province;

That's sent to this assembly by residents of Clearview, Stayner, Collingwood, Washago, Clarksburg, Wasaga Beach, Coldwater and Elmvale, and I've signed this petition.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas every year in North America animals are used in cruel, outdated tests for cosmetics and household products;

"Whereas these tests are not required by provincial or federal law;

"Whereas many non-animal alternative tests are available and are already in use by many companies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass into law a bill which prohibits the use of animals in cosmetic and household product testing."

I have affixed my signature as well to this petition in support of it.

HAILEYBURY JAIL

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): My petition reads:

"Public safety should not be compromised.

"We, the undersigned, want to keep the Haileybury Jail operating at full capacity."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have several petitions representing probably close to 1,000 people.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs 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:

"Change 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."

I have affixed my signature, and would note that Quebec and Manitoba have done this.

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

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

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

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs 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:

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

That's signed by people from Coldwater, Waubaushene, Moonstone, Brechin and Orillia, and I've also signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 185, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act / Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de l'électricité.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The bill provides a framework for municipal electrical power commissions to add to the areas that they service and to accept transfer of facilities and staff from Ontario Hydro with respect to the added areas. This will permit a municipality to move towards one electricity supplier for the whole municipality. The process is triggered by a municipality passing a bylaw setting out new areas within its municipal boundaries to be serviced that are contiguous to an existing area supplied with power by the municipality's commission.

Generally, such a bylaw may be passed only once in a five-year period. Alternatively, if such a bylaw is not passed, the request may be made after six years. There are provisions dealing with the coming into force of these bylaws, appeals notices and hearings.

The act also changes the current provision that the chair of the corporation shall be the chief executive officer. Section 1 of the bill makes this change. Section 24 of the bill deals with the contributions to the pension and insurance fund. Section 2 of the bill provides for change in the contributions for 1994-95.

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS EXIGÉS DES PERSONNES MORALES

Mr McClelland moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 186, An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act / Projet de loi 186, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les renseignements exigés des personnes morales.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Very briefly, the bill provides that corporations currently required to make annual returns under section 3.1 or special filings under section 6 of the current Corporations Information Act cannot be charged fees with respect to those filings, most notably the somewhat notorious $50 annual filing fee. That is the intent of the bill.

1610

BUSINESS REGULATION REFORM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ENTREPRISES

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 187, An Act to reform the Law regulating Businesses / Projet de loi 187, Loi portant réforme du droit réglementant les entreprises.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I made a statement in the House earlier today on the intent of this bill, so I'll simply say that this bill will facilitate, simplify and streamline the existing registration and reporting processes for businesses in Ontario, and I certainly urge all members in the House to support this very important bill.

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).

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe the last spokesperson was Mr Norm Jamison.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr Speaker, I understand he'll be here momentarily. He was called out. If you want to change the rotation, he can speak after --

The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, Mr Jamison had already started. If the House agrees, we will wait for a few minutes. Is it agreed that we wait for a few minutes?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can you just explain what is going on? Had Mr Jamison started his debate?

The Deputy Speaker: That is exactly what I just said, that Mr Jamison had already started the debate. I asked if there was unanimous consent to wait for Mr Jamison for a few minutes and it was agreed upon. If Mr Jamison doesn't show up, we'll just continue the rotation. So just bear for a few minutes and we'll see what happens.

Hon Mr Philip: Stand it down for five minutes?

The Deputy Speaker: Would you agree to recess for five minutes?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we'll come back to Mr Jamison, if the House agrees with that. Is there unanimous consent for that? So we'll proceed with Mr Callahan and then back to Mr Jamison after that. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to rise and participate in this debate. I had leaned over to my colleague and asked, "Are we debating the budget for 1994 or 1993?" It's been so long since we've been doing this that it's hard to recall. I try not to be partisan in these debates, but you often wonder if we're going to get another budget before the NDP is required to call the election. Perhaps that's the reason we're debating the budget of last April now, because it was a yawn budget and didn't --

Interjection: You've spoken before.

Mr Callahan: On this? I didn't. Well, it's been so long.

The Deputy Speaker: The table has just reported to me that you had already spoken, Mr Callahan. I was not aware of that. We apologize if we interrupted you, but I know you will understand. We'll come back to where we were at the beginning, and I would ask the member for Norfolk, Mr Jamison, to continue the debate.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My apologies to you for being out of place at the time I was supposed to rise, as I had a number of constituents here and was talking to them about certain issues.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to reflect back and continue the debate on our budget of last year. It's important, I think, to have had the opportunity to be given some breathing room since the introduction of the budget to really get a sense of how that budget actually is affecting our great province today.

In that budget presentation, the Treasurer made it clear that we have a plan. The plan is working and we are going to stick to that plan. As we approach the end of this term, many people would think we may alter or change that plan. That's not the case. We're going to stick to the plan simply because it's working.

Before I go on further about the direct issues contained in the budget, I would like to take a few moments to reflect about the last four years, pertaining to the development of a budget year over year.

I can tell you that a strange thing occurred about four and a half years ago. That strange event happened one day when a government of this province, with 95 seats in the Legislature, with a clear mandate for five years of service to the people of Ontario, decided, seemingly on the spur of the moment, to call an election.

One thing that has been evident from that event, that particular point in time on through to today, is that that government knew something was coming. The question was out during that particular campaign simply about why an election would be called. Well, it would be called because that particular government knew that future budgets were not going to be an easy walk in the park. They knew that the budget of this province and the budgetary system of this province and the economy of this province were entering a time of great, great peril.

We've experienced now four years of what we call a recession, and if it weren't for our social programs and safety nets for people, I wouldn't hesitate to guess it might have been what I would say would have been a depression.

Budget after budget, governments are responsible to create an atmosphere where step-by-step measures are taken to ensure the future of the people of this province, to ensure that the standard of living and the services that most people want are kept.

1620

Jobs are being created, and they're being created today at a rate we haven't seen since 1988. The deficit is coming down. The Treasurer last week made it clear that we're going to be able to improve on our forecasts because the economy has picked up pace. It's really an improving scene out there.

As we sometimes do in this House, the rhetoric will fly from one side of the House to the other, and sometimes the facts are eluded because of that. It is a fact that of all the jobs now being created in Canada, 50% of those jobs are being created here in Ontario.

I would say that the headline we should be reading every day in this province at this point should read, "Ontario Is Leading the Way to Economic Recovery." It's not something that in a partisan way I would like to see, although I've been known to be partisan at times, but because it's simple, straightforward fact. Despite what some may want us to believe, that is what the news story of this year should be. All the statistics strongly support that statement. I find it surprising that we don't read that more often these days: success stories, increases in the number of new jobs, over a thousand jobs being created every day in this province, numbers that are higher here in Ontario than in any other jurisdiction in Canada -- not a little bit higher, tremendously higher. I believe it's time that this story be told, numbers pointing to the fact that we're leading the way -- not following, but leading the way -- numbers pointing to the fact that all of the indicators used by economists are pointing in the right direction.

Over the last eight months there have been 157,000 jobs created here in this province.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): How many?

Mr Jamison: One hundred and fifty-seven thousand.

Mr O'Connor: Incredible.

Mr Jamison: I believe that is a tremendous record, and what do we hear from the opposition? We hear them trying to get rid of the programs we have created to provide partnership in this province, to drive job creation in this province and --

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If this debate has any value to the people of Ontario, I think we might do them the honour of having a quorum present in the House, and I don't believe that is the case.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a quorum? Would you please verify if there is a quorum?

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Norfolk.

Mr Jamison: I was just indicating, and I want to stress again, 157,000 jobs over the last eight months. That's a really good job creation effort. But as I say, there are those in this House that would like to see the partnerships that we have formed as government between business, between labour, between the unemployed and employers simply go down the drain. I can tell you that's something I would think would have dire consequences in this province if that were to happen.

National employment was up 66,000 jobs; that's 66,000 more people working in September alone, following a gain of 22,000 in August. The Canadian unemployment rate declined to 10.1% in September, and Ontario's unemployment rate is 9.2%. Do you know what Quebec's unemployment rate is? It's 12.2%, and I believe a Liberal government just left office there, so I say again, rhetoric really runs well ahead of reality in this House.

Ontario's gross domestic product grew by 8.4% in the second quarter of this year. That's a tremendous effort. Auto sales and housing starts climbed in September. I believe that these are eye-opening facts. Quite clearly the Ontario government has taken on a proactive role in the economy with programs like Jobs Ontario. Small businesses have benefited.

Let me just look at small business for a second here. I believe that the real story needs to be told. The story on small business is that we have just today introduced Clearing the Path, making business people able to do business with government in a much simpler manner than ever before. And we have done it; no one else had taken the steps to do that.

Eliminating the employer health tax for new hires for the first full year of hiring: We're the government that eliminated the employer health tax for the first year of hiring. Over across the floor we have the government that introduced the employer health tax. That's the fact.

We've reduced the taxes on small business to 9.5% from 10%. I believe other governments raised it. We've introduced real tangible tax credits for training; nothing that's flim-flam, but something that's there. You can see it the minute that you walk into the Jobs Ontario office, connecting employers with people who are unemployed. Yet we have seen in this House, we have experienced the anxiety of both opposition parties over the Jobs Ontario program because it's working.

With initiatives like these, we can say that's the reason why Ontario is leading this country out of recession -- leading.

In my community alone there have been well in excess of 400 jobs created through Jobs Ontario. In my community, which happens to be a rural community, that means opening probably two small plants in my area. But it's the small business community that's driving, in the driver's seat, and working with us to create those jobs.

1630

Our government has developed a simple plan to create jobs, preserve services and live within our means in very tough times; no quick fixes, just substance. Many are not paying attention, and I can say it's obvious here today, when there is no one in the opposition benches. They just see tough decisions. Tough decisions are what this government has made day after day in tough times. Being a good, responsible government means making tough decisions, and I can tell you, we've made our fair share.

As I say, things are improving across the province. Just the other day I was talking to the economic development officer of the town of Tillsonburg, a wonderful, beautiful town in Norfolk. Its manufacturing is based on auto parts, and of course the tobacco issue is always alive and well there. I can tell you that the unemployment rate in Tillsonburg and area is 6%, and that's attributable by many measures to tough decisions, good decisions made by my government. If no one else will say it, I will say it.

I can tell you that there are 264 companies involved in Jobs Ontario Training in my area, and I can tell you that in the area of agriculture, this government has not taken a back seat to anyone or any government. Just today we talked about the establishment of the ethanol industry in Ontario. We have made commitments that talk about the future economic growth, not just in urban Ontario but in rural Ontario.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've observed and listened carefully to the member making some comment and criticism of his budget, but there are not sufficient people in here. There's no quorum in the House. I'm appalled to know that.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Norfolk.

Mr Jamison: The fact is, because our plan is working, because it's working and clearly creating more than 50% of all the new jobs in Canada today here in Ontario, it's driving the opposition up the wall. They are quick with their hollow criticisms, but when you go out and you talk to business people and they tell you Jobs Ontario Training is the most user-friendly and successful jobs program in this province and, for that matter, that this province has ever had, that's the proof.

I was talking about ethanol. Ethanol is a win for corn farmers.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Do the federal Liberals support that?

Mr Jamison: The federal Liberals supported that in their so-called red book that's turned blue, but I can tell you that we've supported that initiative. We have given the tax exemptions, we have contributed moneys towards that, and I can tell you we're still waiting for the Liberals to get on board, although it was an election promise of theirs.

That means jobs for rural Ontario. I can tell you that when we look at the record and when we're looking at what's happening out there today, the confidence is alive and well in Ontario. How many years have I had to sit in this seat and listen to people talk about how confidence was being destroyed? Well, the figures don't say that, my friends; they don't.

I can tell you that housing starts are up in September. Consumer confidence is at its highest level in over five years. The number of people on social assistance has fallen now for the sixth straight month. Is that not a story worth telling? Is the economic story, the real economic story that's happening out there in this province today, not worth telling, or should we allow those people, those doom-and-gloomers over there, to win the day?

I don't know about you, but I'm here to try and build this province. I'm not here for my own particular purposes at election and re-election. I'm here to represent my constituents, whom I talk to almost every day. More and more of my constituents are saying: "Things are getting better. You've got the plan. Yes, I believe your plan is working, and I'm glad you have it." Other economic signs are out there. As I say, layoffs are down 19% so far in 1994. Unemployment insurance claims are down by a full 20%.

When we look at the so-called Common Sense Revolution, the Harris plan is something that most of us, the vast majority of us in this House, can't make head or tail of when it comes down to the bottom line. The bottom line is, how can you make those kinds of cuts and leave services in place? We are redesigning the system and making those particular ministries and those particular services work better than ever before. Others are talking about simply getting rid of them. I can't agree with that, nor will I.

When we look at the so-called revolution or the Harris plan or the -- I'd like to call it the governor's plan because it sounds like the governors of some of the states in the United States. Some of the Republican governors are almost echoed directly in that paper. In that statement he talks about balancing the operating budget within four years, cutting payroll taxes, reforming Ontario Hydro and eliminating red tape. Is that not what we're doing here?

It shows how well some of the opposition parties listen. They're very protective of their time to speak in this House. I wish they were as protective of their time to listen.

The Ontario government has also taken action over the last year to address welfare fraud. We're spending smarter. As I said, we are in the process of streamlining most of our government services.

1640

One thing I'll say about the revolution, whatever revolution he might be talking about, and that is that his plan is pretty vague and not specific; and depending on what group he might talk to, that group is given promises one way or another that it's not included. I believe that's significant in anyone's book.

But on our budget, because of the time that's elapsed since I last stood in this House and reserved time to speak on the budget, I believe there's no one who can justifiably argue that the budget isn't working. The budget is clearly working. It's creating jobs. We have also preserved services at the same time and we have brought the deficit figures down and continue to do so.

This is a budget that we can afford. This is a budget for people. It encourages investment and that, in turn, will encourage new jobs.

Mr O'Connor: No tax increases.

Mr Jamison: No tax increases. As a matter of fact, since that time, in my own particular riding we've reduced the taxes on tobacco.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I think there should be a quorum to hear these flights of fantasy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is the honourable member asking for a quorum?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: Could you check to see if there is a quorum, please, clerk.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: 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 honourable member may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Jamison: No one can say that the recovery isn't under way and no one can say that we're not leading that recovery -- no one. That recovery is taking place here. The facts are that 50% of all the jobs created in Canada are being created here in Ontario. That's a fact.

I can tell you that when the Treasurer spoke about his budget he said, "The time to hire is now." Why? No employee health tax. That's a tax cut.

Mr Stockwell: No what?

Mr Jamison: No employer health tax, excuse me. That's a cut. I can tell you that no new taxes, reducing the taxes on small business to 9.5% and providing incentives to small business in the form of training dollars -- up to $10,000 in tax credits. If you take someone in, hire them and train them, we'll help you train them, and employers are ecstatic about that. They believe that's a terrific program and it's touted as being the best in Canada.

Operating expenditures, what government expends ministry to ministry to ministry: This is the first time in 50 years that a government has reduced its operating expenditures two years in a row, and we continue to reduce those expenditures. None of the other two parties can ever claim that -- none.

This budget is about jobs. This budget is about this province taking a leadership role when we've been left alone by the federal government for years and we've been told, "You'll have to take less and less, but you're going to have to do more and more." We've taken them up on that and we are doing more and more.

Initially the Leader of the Opposition said, her own quote, "This budget is about results." Well, we're showing some results. We're showing some great results, as a matter of fact, and those results are making the opposition squirm because the people of Ontario are turning around and saying: "We are leading the way. We're coming out of this recession; Ontario is leading the way."

There have been calls for an election now, and those calls are sincere enough, I believe. They want an election now, the opposition parties, because they feel their chances are fading as time goes on because our plan is working. Jobs are being created and all of the things that I've said are fact.

The other opinion over there is that they're ready to devour us. They're ready to take us on in the next election. They're ready to swallow us whole. They're ready to eat us alive. If that would happen, and I don't think it will, those people would be the strangest people I've ever met.

Mr Stockwell: Why would they be strange?

Mr Jamison: You might say, "Why would they be strange?" Because they would have more brains in their belly than they have in their head, that's why.

I can tell you that this plan is working. The budget has worked for Ontario and there is no other story to be told.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Questions or comments?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to respond a little bit to my friend the member for Norfolk. I spent some time down in his riding not too long ago, out at the fair down there, and I want to tell you, as I went out to people, they aren't thinking that things are going well. In the province of Ontario, what we've been doing over the last little while under the NDP is, anything that moved, we taxed it; if it still moved, we regulated it, and then ultimately, when it goes out of business, we turn around and subsidize it and take credit for helping.

This government has done more to destroy jobs than any other government across Canada. The job creation in Alberta is better. The job creation in Manitoba is better. The job creation in New Brunswick is better. This Premier has done more to kill jobs than any other Premier in the history of this province. We used to have 50% of the manufacturing capacity in the province of Ontario. That's slipping. Over the last little while, they have increased the debt now to $9,000 for every man, woman and child, and this member stands up and says they're doing a good job. No thanks. If that's a good job, stop doing it.

I want to tell you that the great socialist experiment in the province of Ontario is drawing to a close. I don't think anybody realizes how badly this government is going to be beaten.

What we're doing with our program, the Common Sense Revolution, is saying: "Don't believe us. Don't believe the opposition. Don't believe the special-interest groups." What we're saying to the people of this province, very clearly, is: "Call 1-800-903-MIKE. Read the plan. Do the math yourself. Don't believe the special-interest groups. Read the plan, do the math and decide for yourself, because at the end of the day, there's only one plan that is going to restore hope, opportunity and prosperity and it's a plan by Mike Harris of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives."

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I am not at all surprised that if a New Democratic government didn't raise taxes, the opposition would be upset by that. I am not surprised by that. I am not surprised that if an NDP government rolled back taxes and gave people a tax break, as we did in the last budget, the opposition is upset by that. I am not surprised that the Liberals are upset by that; I am not surprised by the fact that the Conservatives are upset by that, because we have their experiences before us.

The Liberals before us raised the sales tax. The Conservatives -- they haven't been in power for a while, but we all know the Mulroney experience. We remember the Mulroney experience only too vividly. We have the GST. We pay it every day. Every day that we do something, we pay for that. We know that experience. We know the rhetoric of this booklet, the Mike phone number that you want everybody to call, because Mulroney did essentially the same thing.

I can tell you what our last budget is doing in my own riding. It's building the subway; it's extending the subway to Downsview station. It's building two new Seneca College campuses.

1650

It helped and it saved de Havilland. When the Liberals were ready to dismantle de Havilland, unemploy 3,000 people, get de Havilland out of the airline business, get it out of the way of Alenia and Aérospatiale as competition, this government came along and helped that and kept de Havilland alive. That's what this budget is doing in my riding.

Mr Callahan: I rose a little earlier to speak on this budget debate and the thing has been delayed so long with the long delay that the NDP had in coming back to the Legislature that the table officer had to tell me I had already spoken on it.

In any event, I want to tell you that it's interesting listening to the member for Oakville, because he talks about the Common Sense Revolution.

The Acting Speaker: We are commenting on the member for Norfolk.

Mr Callahan: Oh, I see. All right. I didn't want to speak on his comments except to say that Mr Harris wants to balance the budget, and yet he's not going to touch 55% of existing spending. I don't know how he'll do it.

I was speaking to my insurance agent the other day and I understand that my good friend Floyd Laughren, the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, just prior to his budget being released, which was days before, discovered that he was not going to be able to stay under that magic number of $10 billion so the revenue authorities, sanctioned by the minister, came up with a marvellous scheme to put PST on our insurance premiums.

So all of you people who are watching, when you got your insurance bill, you can thank the last-minute attempt to try to keep the deficit below $10 billion. PST was put on every insurance policy you've got. So every time you get your premium, remember that. That's compliments of Floyd Laughren and the NDP government.

Finally, I would say there's a lot said about Jobs Ontario and I want to relate to you something that was told to me by a constituent. This constituent had worked hard -- he was an immigrant to Canada -- to learn to be a welder. He got an opportunity to get a position out of Jobs Ontario and when he got down to the facility, they put him on a broom. He never got to weld the entire time he was there. He came to me and complained about it. He said, "The concern I had was I was going to lose the benefit of my experience." I said, "What did this company sell?" He said there was nothing on the shelves, so the only thing I conclude was that they were actually trafficking in Jobs Ontario $10,000 grants by this government.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Stockwell: I enjoyed the comments made by the member for Norfolk. I think it's curious and certainly enlightening to see how the government will strategize and defend itself in the upcoming election. Clearly, this is an idea they're formulating, percolating within the caucus, with the deep thinkers in the Premier's office and in cabinet.

I understand it is difficult. They've had a difficult tenure as a government and the economic conditions have not been favourable, I will admit. The trouble that they're going to have with the people is I'm not very certain you're going to find a considerable majority of Ontarians standing before you and saying: "Yes, Mr Norfolk, you're right, it's turning around. Things are getting better. The prosperity is moving along." They do have six more months, and in those six months, surely, anything could happen. Yes, we could have hundreds of thousands of people employed in the next six months and in fact everyone in Ontario could suffer from amnesia, but the likelihood, I think, is probably less than likely.

I would suggest to the member from Norfolk and the members opposite that maybe it would be better if they tried not to run on their record for the past four years because I think most Ontarians don't consider it to be one of perfect and exemplary fashion. I would offer my advice to the government on how I would campaign.

I would probably campaign by staying home as often as I could; when the election is called, heading off to Florida; asking the Premier not to attend the leaders' debates; if possible, even not putting out a brochure or handing out any literature or putting up a sign. I think the best thing you can hope for is that everyone forgets everything about you, everything about your government for four years, and walks into the polling booth.

You talk about Brian Mulroney's unpopularity. Do you realize that in the last federal election the federal Tories got 20% of the vote? You couldn't even beat the federal Tories if there were an election today. That's how unpopular you are.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. The honourable member for Norfolk has two minutes in response.

Mr Jamison: I'd like to thank the members for Oakville South, Brampton South and Etobicoke West for their not so candid opinion.

To address the member for Oakville South first, he discounts many of the economic factors we had to deal with. One of the things we had to deal with directly was the impact of free trade and the branch plants in this province disappearing. That was caused by a federal Conservative government.

I can tell the member for Brampton South, when he talks about taxes, that we eliminated the tire tax, we have eliminated the employer health tax for new hires for the first year, we have reduced the tobacco tax, which is very important to my riding. Those are tax reductions, and I can tell you those are real facts, those aren't fictional stories that are told.

The member for Etobicoke West has to understand that regardless of what he says, Ontario is leading in job creation in this country today, and that is fact. His remarks about campaigning will only make the victory more sweet. It will only make the victory more sweet to return to this House and look across the floor and wonder where that member went.

I appreciate the time I've had today. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Norfolk. Further debate on the budget.

Mr Curling: I just want to make sure I'm speaking on the right budget. This is supposed to be the 1994 budget, but this government has delayed the process of conducting business here so long that here we are, about three months away from a new budget, and we are just getting an opportunity to comment on a budget that was presented almost nine months ago. It tells you somehow the way they're managing business.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): You can't count.

Mr Curling: The former Minister of Housing said I can't count. I presume she feels it is adequate time now to debate a budget they're supposed to have already spent, and here we are getting this opportunity.

I just want to put it in perspective. They had hoped this budget they're putting was a pre-election budget, and it hasn't really worked. They felt that here is a budget that's going to really put Ontario back into the stream of recovery, and it hasn't been so.

But I am still thankful for the fact that I get the opportunity to speak on this budget, regardless of how late the time it took for me to be here.

1700

One of the things we have to do with anyone who presents any kind of budget or any policy is to look at their credibility, whether they are someone you can really believe is putting out something you can believe in and that they're capable of carrying out the work they intend to do, that it's a plan. The credibility of this government has eroded so badly that it is very questionable. The people are asking right now, "When are we going to have an election?" They can't believe the stumbling of this government, the ineptitude of this government and its ministers, which have created some of the greatest chaos we have had in management in this province.

The principles this New Democratic Party said it held in the past have been changed. When they came in in 1990, or before they arrived as a government, they spoke about Sunday shopping and said they would never ever institute Sunday shopping because it's a family day and they would never have Sunday shopping in this province. Although most of the studies have shown that Ontario was receptive to the fact of shopping on Sundays, they said no way. But I don't have to tell you that history has shown they have changed their minds -- their principles, not only their minds -- and today this government has put in Sunday shopping as a part of its platform and agenda and part of its budget today.

Gambling: I don't know if you recall the days, Mr Speaker -- you were here in the House -- that many of them were in the House, the former Minister of Housing too, defending the fact that if gambling ever comes to this province, it will be on the backs of the poor if we have something like gambling in this province. What is it? This NDP government has introduced and today is applauding the fact of how much money they are making now on gambling to help pay the deficit.

Someone said earlier on today in the House: "I presume it's not on the backs of poor Canadians. It may be on the backs of poor Americans who come across the border to do the gambling." But sooner or later, of course, those who are looking at some way, some other avenue of acquiring income or opportunity of fortune, hoping they can do winning through gambling, will be going that way.

The point I'm making is that this NDP, which was so much against gambling, has today institutionalized gambling in the province of Ontario. Therefore, presenting a budget -- for one to believe what they say they're going to do is quite questionable.

Cabinet ministers: Daily we could find cabinet ministers abusing their powers in here. Many of them have been kicked out of cabinet. Many of them have been chased out and had to leave cabinet because of the kinds of things they were doing, questionable behaviour by cabinet ministers, revealing --

Interjections.

Mr Curling: The former Minister of Labour feels I am sick to mention this. Fact: These cabinet ministers were abusing their powers regularly, and the pressure came to bear that they had to leave cabinet, even as recently as a couple of months ago.

A member of the Premier's office abusing the power had to be kicked out of his job too because of how he abused the power given to him. Ministers' staff: As recently as today there are questions about the conduct of ministers' staff.

So the credibility of this government has come to the point where, how can we ever look at a budget presented by these people and believe it's going to be a budget of recovery and bringing the economy back to where it was?

Let me just deal with where you speak about the former government, the Liberal government which I was a part of. We balanced the budget, the first time in 40 years a budget has ever been balanced and presented in this House. This government even tried to jimmy the books in a way to show us that the deficit is not as it will be. The auditors had to point out to them that that's not the way you do the books. We saw you doing little things here that did not give a proper account of how money is spent.

The fact is that when you're trying to criticize the previous government, just look at yourself. Don't even look too far. In the four years you have conducted this province, you have run this province down to the ground. They came in in 1990 and they thought they were going to spend their way out of this recession. We all agree that it was a time of recession hitting almost the entire world, especially North America and all across. That recession was here and we have to look very carefully at how we spend our money, but this government came in and said, "The only way that I can recover from a recession is to spend my way out of the recession."

You know, Mr Speaker, at home, the small pay or the amount of salary that you get, when you go home, you only can spend what you get. If things are going bad and the wife or the kids come in and say there are expenses that are climbing and there are greater needs, you will say to them: "This is what we have. We can only spend what we receive."

This government came into power and decided that the only way we could get out of that situation -- the analogy that I draw to you, Mr Speaker, is to say you would have said to your family, "Let's spend some more, because if we spend more, we'll be out of this tight financial situation that we are in." How can you, in common sense, say to yourself, "I'm going to spend my way out of this recession"?

That is why we're in the worse situation that we are today. I give many of them over on that side credit to realize that after a year and a half, they said to themselves, "I think it's the wrong way we're going. We really can't spend more money than we have, because if we do that, we have to tax the people," which they have done. They have put more tax into this system in four years than any other government in this province, more taxes than we have ever seen. Because why? The wanton and careless way of spending the money in the first year has now created for them a situation where they have to come back to the people to ask them for more money.

I want to touch on a couple of issues here, and since the former Minister of Housing, the member for Ottawa Centre, is in the House, when she was the minister, let me just touch on housing a bit. Do you know that the government of Ontario is the second-largest landlord in North America? I would even go as far as to say I think they are the largest slum landlord in North America. The way these buildings are being kept, the manner in which they are being maintained and managed, is atrocious, and I encourage many of you here to go and visit some of those Ontario Housing places to see how terribly they have been maintained.

Interjections.

Mr Curling: I know I've touched a corn over there, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Members will have an opportunity for questions later.

Mr Curling: These buildings, where the tenants are saying, "Please fix the elevators," there is over $200 million of work to be done. Then this new minister who has taken on this Housing came out with this wonderful report and said: "Guess what? We really recognize it's been bad and we're going to do something." They poured $5 million into a $200-million-odd cost that's supposed to have rectified some of the terrible conditions of this housing, $5 million to fix the elevators.

They are telling you there are cockroach-infested buildings there. They are telling you the garages down there are not working. They're telling you the paint on the place and the landscaping is awful. They're telling you that you are a slum landlord: Fix it.

1710

I'm telling you that the fact is that many of them would look and say, "I will not fix it. Do you know why? Because when you were in power, you didn't fix it." So the tenant sits there and says: "You mean it won't be fixed? Why are you not fixing the housing?" "Well, the previous government did not fix it so we're not fixing it." That's the kind of argument they are giving there.

The people, the tenants under this government --

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): What did you do when you were Minister of Housing?

Mr Curling: It looks like I have touched a nerve here, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Order. This is not the time for questions. Questions will come later.

Mr Curling: The tenants that you have are complaining. They're saying that the place is not fit for them to live in and you must fix it. If these were in the private sector, you would have come down so heavy on the landlord to have it done. Your buildings are worse off than the private sector's. You should be ashamed of yourselves that you conduct yourselves as landlords in this province. Clean up your act first before you start dumping on the private sector.

I'm appalled to know that some of my constituents and many of the constituents south of me in many of the Scarborough ridings -- I see the members here -- are complaining terribly. The other day, Mr Speaker -- I wish I had an opportunity to invite you, but they did not invite me -- do you know that the members of Scarborough NDP called a meeting at the Scarborough Town Centre to talk to the tenants? The next Friday people were coming to me at my constituency office and saying they wouldn't answer their questions. They were shouted at by the minister; they were insulted by the minister. Here are people calling -- they know it's election time -- the people together to ask about their concerns, and when they asked their concerns and they could not address them, they were insulted and sent away. Shame on you.

Hon Bob Huget (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): Were you there?

Mr Curling: I was not there at that meeting and neither was I invited. When this government came into power, they did call a meeting together, and when I went to the meeting, these same government members here turned me away and my colleague the member for Oriole also was turned away from a meeting.

Your government, your NDP members there, when they call those meetings, we would not be allowed to come. Members of Parliament, myself and my colleague from Oriole, were not allowed in the meeting. Don't ask me why I didn't come to your meeting. The fact is, even when I come I'm turned away, and when tenants come they're shouted at and pushed away. Again, you should be ashamed of yourselves and the things you're doing.

Let me just address another aspect of this budget, the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Let me talk about that. Let me go personally to the minister. I'm so disillusioned by what this minister is doing. The backlog, the waiting for people's cases to be heard is just awful, and I've checked it out. It's not because of the bureaucrats or the civil servants or the officers there not working diligently. They're working very hard.

What has happened is that sufficient funding is not given to these members in order to carry out their work. But what this government does is that it likes to get legislation without even the democratic process. They like to have legislation and they build big bureaucracies. Basically, do you know what we want in this province regardless? I speak to all members here and all parties. We don't need new legislation; we need enforcement. We don't need to start again and say, "Let's have a new commission here, another commission there," because what it does is create large bureaucracies. What we need is enforcement of the legislation that we have in place, not having new legislation.

The Human Rights Commission has a minister who I feel lacks the kind of commitment and the understanding of the issues that are before many of the officers there. The resources they have are so lacking that many of them are just flooded. People are waiting two, three, four, five years to have their concern heard or so that justice could be administered properly. You know the old saying, "Justice delayed is justice denied." It's pathetic, because most of the people who go before the Human Rights Commission are those who have been taken advantage of.

The fact is, they come before a commission hoping that their case could be heard readily so justice could be done. To wait five years? It's atrocious.

The commitment by this minister is one that I question very much. Lots of money in the last couple of years has been given out to many groups in order for them to of course say they want to address some of the issues there. The minister herself criticized some of those groups recently, that she can't understand that these moneys are being given out to groups to fight racism. I would say to the minister --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could we get a quorum, please?

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if a quorum is present?

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

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 Scarborough North may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Curling: You know, I'm a very understanding man. I know why the members of the government are not here and there is not a quorum: They can't take the truth. The fact is that I want you to be here to listen to this, because whether you like it or not, you will hear it, because I'm telling you what the constituents out there are saying. I'm telling you that they're saying that their issues for human rights are not being addressed because your government, your colleagues, have not funded those officers and the commission properly, not at all.

Interjections.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): You've touched a nerve, Alvin. You've touched a nerve here.

Mr Curling: The fact is, as my colleague said, that they don't want to hear it. I've touched this nerve, and let me just address that since the member raised the fact.

I voted against a bill, what they call employment equity, that cannot achieve the equity that we're talking about, and that's why I voted against that bill. I am strongly supportive of employment equity, but the fact is that --

Interjections.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): This is garbage.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. This is not the time for questions or comments. The time to have that is after the member's participation. The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: It's a time for learning. Listen. It's a time for learning.

When we speak about equity, we're talking about our employment equity, we're talking about identifying systemic barriers and removing those barriers. We talk about not using seniority as one of those barriers that is so sacred that you have negotiated that seniority will be a part of equity. It cannot be. Those are the inequities and systemic barriers that our employment equity can't move away.

But the fact is that what you all have done is not brought about an equitable system of employment. Equity is not about banning people by putting advertisements in the paper that say white males may not apply. Equity is about moving barriers and asking everyone, systemic barriers. Now, remove those barriers, all may participate and apply for the job -- not saying that white males may not apply because we want to have a level playing field.

The fact is that we know employment equity is not about retribution. It's not about retribution at all. It's about getting fairness into a system, but you don't know how to go about this. You have bogged up the system so badly that you're making a very adversarial situation and people are fighting like hell to even get their cases heard -- not putting one person against the other.

1720

Let me talk about the young people, the youth, who have been neglected so badly by this government; this government which has completely wiped out OSAP loans, which has raised tuition fees for these people who want an education. This government in its budget has not made any provision for the young people. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Give hope to the young people.

Do you know what it costs? I said earlier on that a 23-year-old leaving university will have a debt of $20,000 to start life with. This government, which had promised to wipe out tuition fees, what has it done? They've wiped out the loan aspect of OSAP and increased tuition fees, and completely shattered the hopes of the young people by putting a big tag on them.

Interjections.

Mr Curling: So I've rattled the cages.

They go around with little stickers called Jobs Ontario. If Bob Rae takes a taxi and gives a $2 tip to the taxi driver, he says "That's Jobs Ontario." He walks around on Sunday to all these places at different times with cheques in his pocket and then says to them, "Here is so and so; Jobs Ontario." The taxpayers' money. I think it is so vulgar to do that. The fact is that you collect people's taxes, you put programs in place and you then send the money out. Stop walking around with cheques in your pockets and say, "Jobs Ontario." Stop going around and tipping people and saying, "I just gave $5 here; Jobs Ontario." We want real jobs.

As a matter of fact, the government goes about like it is going to create jobs. It's businesses that create jobs. Government must put the environment -- get laws and policies to encourage businesses to create jobs. Don't go around dropping cheques and saying, "I just created some jobs." It is businesses that create jobs, not government.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I would ask members to take their opportunity to comment at the end of the member's speech.

Mr Curling: Madam Speaker, the honourable members across the floor find my debate so interesting, they can't wait to participate.

I'm saying to you, stop doing that. Jobs Ontario, as my colleague states, is not to give somebody a job by giving them a broom and paying them and saying, "I have just created a job." Stop giving out money to businesses. Stop it.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): You did it all the time. We had an $8-billion deficit because of it.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for St Catharines-Brock come to order.

Mr Curling: What we should do is to find policies with which to stimulate the economy to give jobs, not this puff-pocket aspect of going around with all these little cheques in their pockets, passing out cheques and then saying to people, "I've created jobs."

Let me go back to the young people, because these are the ones who are going to suffer more than anyone else. It's not only that they're going to be in debt. Our young pages here, I don't want to really let them feel so depressed, but the fact is, can you imagine at that age that a couple of years later they're going to be in so much debt, and they sat here while we did all of that, making legislation to create debts upon them.

One of the greatest investments we have is our young people, and the greatest way to invest in our young people is through education. What has this government done? They have put a big pricetag on the young people for education, a big tag. Most of the young people who are in community colleges today have gone through university with a $20,000 debt and go on to find something to do, and you brag about doing something for our young people. You have done such a disservice to our young people.

I say to the young people out there, the nine-year-olds and the 10-year-olds and the 12-year-olds who are watching now, tell your mom and dad that the cause of the problem today is this government, this New Democratic Party government that has no direction, is spinning its wheels in all kinds of ways, spending money in many fashions they don't even understand, shocked to know they are in government.

And who pays the cost? The young people of today, our old people of tomorrow, will be paying for those debts. This government has been in shock that it is ruling and has been governing -- complete incompetence.

They shuffled their cabinet hoping they could find some sort of talent. I don't want to make comment about the talent within their caucus, but the fact is that even although they shuffled around they still didn't come up with anything at all that would give us hope. What they have done is a political game, just a political game, I presume giving a little payday to some other people, or a political game that it's election time and the constituency will be fooled by the fact that they're going to call this one "honourable" now for four months. But they will see through all of that. They will realize that though you're a minister --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Where is Patti Starr today? Where did Patti Starr go?

Mr Curling: That's not your style. What they will do --

Ms Haeck: But he's got a very good memory. He's got to go back and correct your statement.

Mr Curling: I've really rattled the cages over there.

This budget brings no hope for the people of Ontario. The only hope we have, as I said, is that there are only a couple more months left. The beautiful thing of democracy is that what they will do is assess the record of what this government has done, and it won't be difficult, it will not be difficult at all. They will know that this government has put this province in such a bad state, worse off, although accepting the fact that it was a recessionary time. Any government would have had a difficult time, but they have made it worse.

The next government that comes into power here, which we know will not be the New Democratic Party -- and let me say this too: This commonsense Mike we're talking about, the 1-800 number, will not do anything to improve that.

I see the province not looking to their government to insult native people. The Liberal Party says all people in this province play an important role, not that some are lazy and some can work. It would be people using their common sense, knowing they could never have the old Mike who's shouting around that the native people are lazy so therefore they're not able to work. Is that the kind of Premier we want? No.

I know that Lyn McLeod, coming into the next election, running this province will have credibility, integrity, a sense of direction. The colleagues in our caucus are people who are quite capable. I'm sure the people of the province of Ontario will see through all that and will elect a government that can manage this province, badly mismanaged as it was at this time. I have hope and I want to say to the young people that there is hope, because there will be a new government by next May, if he calls it, that will govern this province properly.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions or comments by the members.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to take an opportunity to comment on the Liberal record. Mr Curling, the member from Scarborough, seems to have forgotten to remind the voters of the Liberal record of 1985 to 1990.

There was an election in 1990 and there was much comment made on the Liberal record, and that comment revolved around taxes and tax hikes. It revolved around the fact that you applied billions of dollars of debt to our provincial treasury when the economy was running at high speed.

There's much talk about the fact that you concocted this balanced budget plan that in fact wasn't balanced, and that when the NDP came to power you were calling for a surplus of $23 million, was it, and in the end there was billions of dollars in shortfall.

It really isn't surprising. Of course, it's tough to be a Liberal. It is tough. It's tough to straddle the fence and keep both ears to the ground, I know, but that's what it means to be a Liberal. They refuse to take a position on anything. Suddenly we now have the fiscal management, financial Liberals in front of us, the same ones who frittered away billions of dollars, billions of dollars in potential and in growth.

Mr Curling stands here and starts extolling the virtues of the same old gang. I looked at their nominated candidates the other day. They're back, they're all back. The message never got through in 1990. Rather than rejuvenating the party and renewing policy, they're nominating the same tired crowd and they bring forward the same tired policy. No direction, no thoughtful process.

When you talk about education, what does Lyn McLeod say? "I believe in good public education." Well, Lyn, who doesn't believe in good public education? What do you believe in besides that?

Mr Curling, I think you should give your head a shake. I'd like to hear a few more policies other than just that you're a wonderful guy.

Hon Mr Laughren: I find the atmosphere irresistible and I cannot resist the temptation to get into the debate, because the member for Scarborough North went on at great length about how wonderful their government was and how bad ours was. I hope that when the member for Scarborough North winds up, he'll just answer a very simple question: Why did you lose?

I've been searching my mind as you launch attacks against the government -- which is your job; I appreciate that, I've got no problem with that. But what's always missing in the analysis from the official opposition is why they themselves lost. Could it possibly have been just a tinge of arrogance in the administration, the arrogance of calling an election because they were ahead in the polls? With not even three years in their mandate they called an election.

Could it be possible that today, when the leader of the official opposition sports a button that says "Premier Lyn," that could be just a tinge of arrogance as well, that before the people of this province have spoken, she's decided she's Premier Lyn? I really wonder if the official opposition has thought the whole thing through.

Let's be fair about the fiscal side. For two years in a row, the Liberals said there was in one case a surplus and in the other case a very small deficit. In both cases you were dead wrong. When I hear the official opposition commenting on our sets of books, I went back and checked their sets of books, and their deficit would have been $1 billion higher one year and $5 billion higher the next year. That's surely not integrity in government.

Mr Ruprecht: I want to thank the member for Scarborough North for his comments, but I find it irresistible to also comment about the comments that were made --

The Acting Speaker: The member is out of order. You must be in your seat to speak in this House. I will allow you the courtesy --

Mr Ruprecht: Sorry. It was quite interesting what the member for Etobicoke West said. Look at him over there right now. Look at him just having a great time. But the point surely is this: It makes no sense to finger-point about who is at fault, saying the NDP is at fault with this policy and the Conservatives are at fault with this policy. The public is sick and tired of finger-pointing because finger-pointing does not solve any problems.

Sitting here listening to the member for Scarborough North, I'm sitting here listening very carefully, and I'm simply ashamed about what takes place in this Legislature. You people in the NDP are shouting. We've got the member for Etobicoke West; he can't be constrained at all. I'm just utterly amazed at what's taking place here. Everybody's pointing fingers.

What should be the matter of discussion is very simple, and that is, where are the real jobs? That's what we want to know. What about the debt and what about the shell-shocked system that you suddenly found yourself to be in government?

The major point is simply this: Is it not true that our young people, as the member for Scarborough North indicated, are going to have to pay the debt that you are putting on their backs? That is really regrettable.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): In listening to the Liberal's comment, the member for Scarborough North, as to what an excellent government they were and how wretched the current government is, he seems to be suffering from amnesia, as has been pointed out by more than one member.

The Treasurer has just pointed out the fact that had the restated government accounts been in place, they would have not had a so-called surplus of $90 million; they would have had a $1-billion deficit. But even within those numbers, the interesting thing was that the year in which they supposedly showed a surplus, they had budgeted a deficit of $550 million.

They got an unusual transfer from the federal government of $880 million. Simple math would suggest that they should have had $330 million surplus on that basis, but they didn't. In fact they claimed they had a surplus of $90 million. So even using their own accounting methods, they did a lousy job because they spent more than they budgeted, and it was just a fluke that that money came from the federal government. But now we hear, with the restated government accounts, that they were $1 billion in the hole.

So let's not forget, folks, every government in this province for the last 20 years has done a lousy job. They have spent more money than they've taken in and it's time for us all to give ourselves a little bit of a shake and say, "Let's get down to some common sense and let's introduce methods in this government that will allow us to have balanced budgets so we don't burden our children."

The Liberals did a lousy job in this province. They left a mess and the NDP came in during the worst possible times. They've done everything wrong but you can't blame them for everything. There was a worldwide recession and the Liberals left a mess.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for York Mills for his comments. Now we have two minutes for the member for Scarborough North to respond.

Mr Curling: Let me just comment quickly on the Tories. The Tories don't even know who they are. At one time they looked like Mulroney over there; now they want to be a Preston Manning. They don't know what they are. No matter what they are, people will see who they are. That's Preston Manning in disguise. If they take off whatever mask they've got on, that's the Preston Manning, kind of right-wing, who insults most of the disadvantaged people in our province, and the people will vote accordingly. So don't lecture me about Liberals in that sense.

Let me just address the Treasurer. It was very nice of him to have come in and then talk about our credibility about reporting. Let me read to you, Madam Speaker, because I know he's going to read my Hansard when it's true. I didn't say this. This is the very high road, high as I can go.

The Provincial Auditor gave a qualified opinion on the province's books for the year ending March 31, 1993, and the auditor said, "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 operations of the government."

He expressed serious concern that they were hiding some of the deficit under some kind of creative accounting. This is what the government of the day was doing: hiding the deficit under some creative accounting. So don't lecture me about that. That's the Treasurer who should have been here. The auditors told him, "You better start coming clean and showing where the deficit is." So let us make sure, we don't need a lecture from them, because the auditors would never write a report like that about us.

1740

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate? The member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I'll be fairly brief, but I do want to get on the record on a couple of things on the 1994 budget. If you were to sum up what we're talking about doing, we're going to cut spending, we're going to cut taxes and we're going to create jobs. We're going to look at a five-point plan to cut spending, we're going to cut taxes, we're going to cut the barriers to job creation, investment and growth, we're going to cut the size of government and we're going to balance the Ontario budget in four years.

Quite frankly, if you look at the situation right now, the reason we need to cut taxes is because in 1985 we had a 10% tax advantage over Quebec. We were rated very competitive versus West Germany and Japan and the surrounding United States. Today, as we sit here, we are the highest-taxed province in Canada, the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America.

I say to the members on the other side what that means: Higher taxes mean fewer jobs; lower taxes will mean more jobs. That's why we're going to reduce the provincial income tax rate by 30%. For the average household making $50,000, that will be a saving of $4,000. The tax cuts are $4 billion.

The spending cuts are $6 billion, and I'd like to go through them. We're going to reduce the MPPs: $1.1 million. We're going to eliminate the MPPs' pension plan: $10 million. We're going to reduce welfare: $750 million. All told, it's $6 billion that we're going to cut. We're going to cut the barriers to job creation. We're going to eliminate the employer health payroll tax. We're going to eliminate the WCB premiums by 5%, and yes, we're going to kill Bill 40, the job-killing labour legislation.

We're going to allow the private sector back into day care, because the private sector that does the job faster, better, cheaper and at no expense to the taxpayer has been thwarted, penalized and shut out under this government, and we wonder why the jobs are leaving. We have outlined clearly $6 billion in cuts that can and must be made to put us back on the road to prosperity.

The deficit now is $90 billion. That doesn't include the $12-billion unfunded liability at WCB; that doesn't include the $35 billion. If you look at it, the $90 billion works out to $9,000 for every man, woman and child, and that doesn't include the federal deficit, which is about $15,000 for every man, woman and child. If you combine the federal and provincial deficits, each of us owes over $25,000, every man, woman and child. As somebody who's married with three kids, what we owe to the provincial and the federal government as a family is more than we have as a mortgage.

We have said for years that you can't continue to tax, spend and borrow like there's no tomorrow. We could have played the games. There was a very real possibility Mike Harris would have become Premier of this province by being the lesser of three evils. We all know Bob Rae is not going to be elected. We all know the Liberals don't stand for anything and don't have any policy. The reason we came out very clearly with a policy is because not only do we want to win the next election, and we do, but we also want a mandate for change. That's why we've outlined what we've outlined very clearly.

We're saying to people: "Don't listen to us. Don't listen to the special-interest groups. Read the plan yourself." Do the math, add up the figures like I've done. You go through cutting the Jobs Ontario program, $340 million; cutting the grants and subsidies to businesses will be about $200 million; eliminating non-profit housing, $250 million; reforming legal aid, $130 million; dealing with the welfare fraud, $500 million; cutting the welfare, which right now is 30% higher than anywhere else in any other jurisdiction. We take the seniors and disabled out of the welfare system. We reduce the benefits for everybody else by approximately 20%. That will save us $1 billion with a "b."

What we have done is outline very clearly what we would do as we form the government. It's going to cut spending, cut taxes and create jobs. When you look at it and you look at my riding, the people are saying, "We are overtaxed." Quite frankly, we've been overtaxing, we've been overspending, we've been overgoverning, we've been overregulating, we've been overlegislating and we've been oversimplistic in our whole approach to public policy for far too long. Our long-term economic, social and fiscal planning has been sacrificed for political expediency.

So that's why we've outlined it: $6 billion in cuts to spending, $4 billion -- I want to be very clear, because people get a little confused with the 30% personal income tax rate cut and the 20% non-priority spending. We've outlined them on pages 8 to 14, what the spending cuts will be. The spending cuts are $6 billion, and we're going to take that $6 billion and refund $4 billion of it back to the taxpayers of the province. The tax rate will make us the lowest income tax rate in Canada, marginally better than Alberta, and it will take us back to tax levels not seen since 1976.

If we were spending at 1985 levels, adjusted for inflation, we should be spending about $25 billion in 1985. Right now we're at $55 billion. What we've done is, it's almost like spending $55 billion each and every year when you're only bringing in $45 billion, or it's equal to somebody who's making $45,000 a year spending $55,000 a year: $10 billion, and that deficit keeps going up each day.

Very clearly, what we need to do is cut spending, cut taxes and create jobs. And we're outlining our plan a year before the election, which no other government has done -- no other political party has done that -- because we want the people to know where we stand.

We've done it on education, our New Directions on education. We've done it with our Blueprint for Learning and our crime, justice and community safety. All told, if you narrow it down, what we are proposing to do is, we're going to cut spending, cut taxes and create jobs.

I want to tell you what the chief economist at Midland Walwyn says:

"This plan will work. The Mike Harris plan to cut personal income tax rates by 30% and non-priority services spending by 20% will give Ontario a balanced budget within four years, and create more than 725,000 new jobs."

As I go around this province as a critic for Economic Development and Trade, I want to tell you, people are upset, they are concerned, they are frustrated and they are angry. They are mad at politicians who don't stand up and tell it like it is. They're mad because the average person who goes out and does their job and works hard falls farther and farther behind.

When I look at what's happened over the last little while, the special-interest groups are the ones that are carrying the agenda. They're the ones that are calling the shots, and I say we need to cut spending, cut taxes and create jobs.

All of the things we are talking about aren't a wish list or a collection of empty political promises. They're a concrete plan based on four years of study, analysis and consultation. We have listened, we understand, and now we're prepared to act. And we've laid that program out: $6 billion that we hope the government will look to in terms of reducing spending, because this government believes that we have a revenue problem.

We do not have a revenue problem in the province of Ontario; we have a spending problem, and we have a problem because we don't have a government that has the political courage to stand up and tell it like it is, to make the hard choices and to tell the people of this province exactly what they're going to do. Our plan does that. We lay it out very clearly. We're going to cut spending, cut taxes and create jobs.

I know the member for Etobicoke West wants to get up and speak as well so I'll conclude. But I want to be very clear: What we are proposing is a five-point plan that is going to restore hope, opportunity and prosperity to a hurting generation of Canadians and of people in Ontario by getting them out of food banks and back on the job. If you look at the programs that we're initiating here, we hope the government will take some of the programs that we're announcing and announced a year ago and implement them. We know they won't.

As the great socialist experiment in the province of Ontario comes to a close, we're saying to the people, "Take a look at our plan, weigh the alternatives, look at what this Premier has done to the province and make the decision for yourself," because the next vote is going to be very critical. If we're going to return prosperity and hope and opportunity, we must act now.

This is going to be the final chance to do that, and we're hoping that the people will, as the new minister says, take a look at the plan. People are doing that and reading it. The comments are very good. Even the cabinet ministers are reading it. I saw the Minister of Agriculture reading it. We kiddingly say that he doesn't even read the cabinet documents, but he's still reading our book, and that's a good thing.

We're going to be out there selling our program day in, day out. We're going to take on the special-interest groups, we're going to take on all the vested interests and we're going to take it directly to the people, because we believe at the end of the day the hope, the opportunity and the prosperity are going to be returned by one plan, by one party. That's Mike Harris and the Ontario Conservative Party. At the end of the day, I honestly, truly believe we are going to be able to restore the hope and opportunity that I had the pleasure of growing up in.

It is the plan of our party that will do that. We're asking the public to listen to us and to vote for us in the next election.

1750

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions or comments. I recognize the member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: Very briefly, in responding to some of the comments, the fact is -- and the honourable member would recognize this when he looks at the budget. I know he'd recognize it because I heard the speech, the script, so many times before and that's the script out there for the public.

But he knows that in our budget health care costs are increasing for the first time since the inception of the program at less than the rate of inflation. That's a fact. When you look at this budget, there are no new tax increases. There are no tax increases there; in fact, there are tax breaks. When you look at this budget, what you see as a cornerstone of the budget are jobs.

They'll come along and say, "Well, government doesn't create jobs." The reality is that government sustains very directly, in a very direct way in the province of Ontario, just the provincial government, about 950,000 jobs. That's about 20% of the entire Ontario workforce. That's how many people in this province work for the government.

If they think, Madam Speaker, for one minute that if this government hadn't taken some of the tough decisions it's taken that roughly the same number of people would be working to provide all of the services that are provided across the province of Ontario, they're sadly mistaken. Maybe there are some things we can do. Maybe we need to streamline government more, and we have been doing that in a systematic and a very consistent way. But to listen to that over and over again really does them an injustice.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments?

Mr Callahan: I should be standing up and blasting the New Democratic Party government, but they're toast, so I won't bother. But I do find it interesting that the Conservative -- what is it? Common Sense? Is that what it's called?

You know, the things they're saying are admirable. They say they're going to balance the budget within four years, and yet Mike Harris says he's not going to touch 55% of existing spending. I'm not a math wizard, but I don't know how you can do that without cutting spending.

Mr Carr: Read the book.

Mr Callahan: "Read the book," he says. The book is something that I think says nice things, but unless it's got magic in the back cover, I don't know how they're going to accomplish it.

He promises to cut personal income tax -- that's admirable as well; I would endorse that -- and yet he says he'd get rid of the health care tax. You can't cut one thing and expect to have revenues cut and not get it someplace else.

He's cutting personal taxes by $4 billion. That's beautiful. I would endorse that; any reasonable person would. However, he's getting rid of the LCBO, which they did in Alberta and which was a disaster. Another $600 million in government revenues will be lost as a result of that. He's promising to pay the WCB about $100 million a year, which is great too because it's an unfunded liability.

But I just have to say to the commonsense party that all the things you promise are marvellous, but they don't add up. I think the people of this province are smart enough to know that you make these promises and you can't keep them.

Maybe it's just going to be one shot at this, but I think the time has come when old-world politics are gone, you sit down and realistically speak of things, and I think that's exactly what my leader is doing. She's talking about things that make sense and can be done. A 5% cut over five years: that's realistic.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments?

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to compliment the member for Oakville South. I think the member has clearly outlined, in the few brief moments he had to speak to the budget, the policies and the directions that this party that we both belong to is prepared to take. I'm not going to suggest that these are popular in all corners of the province, in all segments. There are special-interest groups and specially aligned sorts who will oppose some of the recommendations that we bring forward.

The member from Brampton, I'm not really certain what he was driving at with respect to the magicness of it all. I mean, the numbers are there; they're clear. It says we are going to reduce welfare payments by 30%. That's very clear, and that's a huge cut. We have outlined $6 billion in reductions. I understand some people are not going to like that. We've talked about thousands and thousands of public service layoffs. Those are important policy initiatives we have taken that we think are necessary. We're waiting for yours, and when we see them, if we do, we'll be able to comment on them at the time. I'm very interested to hear them.

The member for Downsview attacks the member for Oakville South -- and you see, this is the problem. The member for Downsview seems to take great pride in the 950,000 people who are employed in the broader public sector in the province, saying 20% of the workforce.

When you add in the federal workforce in the province and the municipal workforce in the province, what you find is there are more people working for the government than there are working in the private sector. You have to have people in the private sector who pay taxes, create wealth, to pay those people in the public sector. There are too many people working for government, and to this day, my friend from Downsview, who hasn't learned yet but will, the people think you have too many public service employees.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments?

Mr Sutherland: I'm pleased to participate in this. Let me just say that the member for Oakville in his speech is clearly demonstrating how out of touch he is. He's saying it's all doom and gloom, that no jobs are being created. Ontario is leading the country in job creation. We're leading the country in economic growth. We're leading the country in job training. We have the best, the most cost-effective job training program.

They talk about, "We want training programs," in the Common Sense Revolution. The Liberals talk about it. What are their programs? We've got one that's working very effectively, Jobs Ontario Training, giving people real jobs, average wage $21,000, giving them paycheques. What do the Tories suggest? Twenty years ago, workfare. You see, because the Tories believe everyone who's on social assistance is either a cheat or a lazy bum. They make that assumption.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, on point of order: I would ask that the member --

The Acting Speaker: Just a moment. A point of order.

Mr Stockwell: I would ask the member to withdraw the comment, the suggestion, that what the Tories believe is that anyone who is on welfare is a lazy bum or a cheat. Never has that been suggested by this party, and any inference --

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: That is a point of order. That's an aspersion cast on myself and the other members in this caucus. It cannot be attributed and --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would like to have the member for Oxford continue briefly.

Mr Sutherland: The reason I raised that, of course, is because of the comments made by the leader of the third party that he wants to fingerprint everyone on welfare. If that isn't an assumption that somehow they think these people are all trying to cheat the system and we have to fingerprint them, I don't know what is.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order.

Mr Sutherland: Jobs are being created. People are getting back to work. We're maintaining the services. The plan is working.

Mr Stockwell: You're allowing that comment to stand?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Bob Mackenzie (Hamilton East): Are you the new Speaker of the House?

Mr Stockwell: I am asking the Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I have just ruled.

Mr Stockwell: "Cheats and lazy bums." You're allowing that to stand?

Mr Turnbull: That's disgraceful.

Mr Stockwell: Bloody right it's disgraceful.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: That's exactly what he said.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: That is disgraceful. You are not doing your job unless you ask him to withdraw.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Give her some respect.

Mr Stockwell: Come on, when did we say cheats and lazy bums meant everybody on welfare? That's bloody absurd.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: You have a responsibility.

Mr Sutherland: Why do they need to be fingerprinted?

Mr Stockwell: It's your government that said they should be fingerprinted. It's your minister who brought it up.

1800

The Acting Speaker: Order. I will allow Mr Carr to proceed with his two-minute conclusion.

Mr Turnbull: That is ridiculous. That is outrageous.

Mr Carr: You know, this government is trying to --

Mr Turnbull: You are not doing your job. That is absolutely outrageous.

Mr Carr: -- talk about what's going on.

Interjection.

Mr Carr: What we said about the welfare system in the province --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: To the member for York Mills, I have clearly stated my position.

Mr Turnbull: Your position is --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order. If the member will not come to order, I have warned him and I will have to name the member. I have asked that the member from Oakville --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have asked that we have order so the member from Oakville may make his reply.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The new member of the cabinet, I might add, who is also from Sarnia, has just suggested that the point the member for Oxford said about all people on welfare and has attributed to us as being cheats or lazy bums has just said that he forgot to say he meant David, being the member for York Mills. He attributed the same comments to the member for York Mills. That is imputing motive and that should be withdrawn.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Turnbull: It is a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: He can say anything.

Mr Turnbull: When you're in the chair you allow anything from these people. This is disgraceful.

The Acting Speaker: Mr David Turnbull, the member for York Mills, I name the member and I ask the member to leave.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull left the chamber.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Carr, would you continue.

Mr Carr: What we have said about the welfare system is unlike the other side, who cut the welfare rates and sat over there with all their self-styled, self-serving sensitivity, assigning the blame. You were the people who cut the rates to the most vulnerable, the disabled, when you were in power.

What we're doing is saying we're going to take them off the welfare system, protect the rates. What we're saying about the welfare system is that the system is bad, it's wrong and we're going to change it. You people got in there and said, "We care more," and what you judged everything on was the number of people on welfare. We're going to judge people on the number of people we get off welfare, out of the food banks and back on the job. That's the difference between us.

You people trying to take credit for the economy getting better is like the rooster trying to take credit for the dawn coming up in the morning. You people have done more to destroy this province economically, politically and socially than any other government in the history of this province.

As the member for Downsview says, and I think he hit the nail on the head talking about the number of employees here, the problem in the province of Ontario is that government is too big, too expensive and too intrusive in our lives. It spends too much, it taxes too much and it regulates too much. What our program is going to do, for the people who are in elementary math, we're going to cut the taxes by $4 billion, we're going to cut spending by $6 billion --

Mr Perruzza: Name them. Come on. Who are you going to cut?

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, come to order.

Mr Carr: -- and we're going to create more than 725,000 private sector jobs.

As socialism in the province of Ontario comes to its close and as Bob Rae heads off into the sunset -- Chairman Rae, as we call him -- the people of this province are going to reward you for what you have done over the last four years: the kids of the province running up the deficit. You know, they say that Christmas is a time when parents give something to their children and children get something for nothing. Deficits are when the children of this province end up paying for what our parents are doing, and you people have destroyed the children of this province.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Carr: We're not going to let you forget it and we're going to turn this province around when you have the guts to call the next election.

Mr Sutherland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I did not mean to say that the third party had used those exact words. If I implied that they had actually stated those words, I withdraw my comments.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Now we have the Minister of Transportation with the business for next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the week of November 14.

I will also take this opportunity to remind the House that, pursuant to standing order 6(a), the House will not meet next week in order that members may return to their ridings to attend to constituency concerns.

The House business for Monday, November 14, is still under discussion between the three House leaders and will be announced at a later date.

On Tuesday, November 15, we will commence with second reading consideration of Bill 187, the Business Regulation Reform Act.

On Wednesday, November 16, we will consider an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mr Harris.

In the morning of Thursday, November 17, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 69, standing in the name of Mr Brown, and ballot item number 70, standing in the name of Mr Waters. On Thursday afternoon, we will continue our second reading consideration of Bill 187, the Business Regulation Reform Act.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 34, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

JOB SECURITY

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member for Simcoe West has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given November 1 by the Minister of Labour. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Indeed I did ask a question of the Minister of Labour on November 1, two days ago, and indicated to the minister that I wanted to know what the NDP government's plan was to save the rail lines in Simcoe county. At that time, I had mentioned that the Midland to Orillia, Bradford to Washago and Collingwood to Barrie rail lines are featured prominently on CN Rail's list of abandonments.

In addition to the first part of the question I asked, my colleague the member for Wellington, Ted Arnott, pointed out that also the rail line from Stratford to Harriston and from Harriston north to the Bruce Energy Centre in Tiverton is slated to be abandoned, or at least there will be an application put before the National Transportation Agency in Ottawa for abandonment of that rail line.

This issue goes back to a little over a year ago. On October 15, 1993, I wrote to the Honourable Frances Lankin, Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of the province, and I asked them to take an active role in finding a solution so that private investors would be able to easily come in and to take over these rail lines that CN had applied to abandon.

It has been a very long and frustrating fight with this government. The problem has been very clearly -- and it's not just my party saying this, or other parties; it's the private entrepreneurs who at one time had an interest in taking over these rail lines, in acquiring these rail lines that are to be abandoned by our national railway system -- Bill 40 and the successor provisions of that bill.

I think the NDP thought they were doing the workers of this province a favour when they "plugged a hole" in our previous Labour Relations Act. Bill 40 not only reinstated the successor provisions between Ontario companies upon the sale and transfer of Ontario companies but also "plugged a hole," at least in the NDP's mind, about the transfer of those companies held under federal statute, such as CN Rail. Therefore, as a result of Bill 40, any private entrepreneur in Ontario who wants to buy a rail line and to run a successful rail operation under the successor rights of Bill 40 is required to take on the employees, and their collective agreements, who worked for CN.

Now, the problem is that at the time we started into this issue, CN had 17 collective agreements for about eight employees on the Collingwood to Barrie line. Any entrepreneur wanting to come along and run that small line as a private business and run it as a feeder line into the main north-south lines in that part of the province, in my part of the province, was impeded from doing so and from projecting any idea of profitability at all because of these very expensive collective agreements for essentially a very small number of employees.

1810

I introduced a private member's bill in this Legislature which would not gut Bill 40 but simply ask that that provision of Bill 40 which was different from the previous Labour Relations Act prior to the Bill 40 amendments -- would bring us back to that section of the act that existed prior to Bill 40. I very clearly and politely asked this Legislature to admit that a mistake had been made. I don't even care, for political reasons, whether they admit a mistake was made, but in honesty they should admit the mistake had been made and amend their own legislation to allow private entrepreneurs to come in and to take over those lines.

That's in the best interests of the people. At the end of the day, what's happening now is that those lines are being abandoned, nobody's working on them, and in Collingwood alone 2,000 jobs are at stake. I have two major companies, Canadian Mist and NACAN, who have said they will have to very much question their investment in our province if they no longer have access to rail transportation which is currently giving them a competitive edge in North America. At Canadian Mist, over 80% of the whisky produced there is shipped to the United States. It's a success under free trade. It must be done by rail to be economically feasible.

To have not taken any action during the last year other than a whole series of meetings, that we hear about from time to time, is a mark of shame on this government. It's a serious issue, and I would like to hear, as I said in my original question, what the government's immediate response is to this serious issue.

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Labour now has up to five minutes to respond.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): I am pleased to take this opportunity to put on record the steps this government has taken to preserve rail service in this province. I must say right off the top that I find the rhetoric from both the opposition parties on this issue a little hard to take. They express great concern about rail service, yet when they have controlled the crown corporation in Ottawa responsible for half the railway service in this country, the shallowness of their concern is evident.

Let's get some facts right here on the table. This government is not abandoning rail service to communities. CN is. This government is not threatening northern communities with complete isolation with the threatened closing of the northern lines. CN is doing this. This government is not trying to rip up the transportation infrastructure in this province. CN is.

CN has one shareholder, and that shareholder is the federal government, and it is the federal government, be it Tory or Liberal, that is coming in and ripping up parts of this country's and this province's infrastructure. It is very convenient for CN and for its political masters to try to pass the blame on to this province, to try to say that because of successor rights rail service is being threatened. Rail service is threatened because there is not now, nor was there when the Tories were in power, the political will to ensure continued rail service anywhere in this country east of Manitoba.

That said, I would like to point out what my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and the caring member for Simcoe Centre have taken on this issue.

There are three areas to the strategy my colleague has embarked upon. First, in consultation with other ministries, we have canvassed the affected shippers as well as the communities to determine the impact of abandoned rail service. This is a considerable exercise, given that CN and CP are planning to eliminate major amounts of tracks here in Ontario. We have assessed what alternatives to rail exist and what the current shipping needs of businesses are.

Second, we have found potential investors for these lines. Ontario has taken that leadership in the absence of federal leadership. Investors have made onsite inspections, analysed the present and potential traffic, and have expressed interest to CN about buying a few of these lines. It should be pointed out that CN, as the seller of the asset, will make the final determination as to who will acquire the asset. Third, we spoke to the unions. I know the Tories in particular have a hard time with that one, but we feel any responsible government would want to talk to all the parties involved. We found that the unions are willing to work for a solution. If the Tories were in charge, there would be no need to talk to the workers: They would simply wipe out all their rights. They would call that their commonsense approach. We would call it irresponsible.

On September 8, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade met with three of the major national rail unions. All of them are willing to negotiate a new, single collective agreement with a short-line operator. That story isn't being told by the opposition. This position was confirmed both in writing and by sitting down together to negotiate with an investor interested in purchasing a southwestern line here in Ontario. In fact, just one week ago, one of the unions indicated agreement in principle to a draft collective agreement on this line.

In northern Ontario, the Graham subdivision between Thunder Bay and Sioux Lookout has at least one interested investor, which also has been told by the unions that they are ready to sit down and discuss the terms of a new single agreement. Most of the lines that CN and CP are considering abandoning are in fact not economically viable.

But I think the most important thing is that we as a government are working with the investors. We're working with the unions. The unions are prepared, whether it be Bill 40 in this country or not -- it's the best thing that ever happened and they want to work with business.

The Acting Speaker: There being no further business to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 on Monday afternoon, November 14.

The House adjourned at 1817.

3 novembre 1994