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

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today on the occasion of the first Take Our Kids To Work Day, an initiative created and organized by the Learning Partnership.

The Learning Partnership is a non-profit organization of business people, educators and community leaders whose goal is to create challenging learning and career opportunities for young people. The partnership works with schools and communities to create bridges between the world of work and the world of school.

Today, over 65,000 grade 9 students from 17 area school boards are making that voyage of discovery from their school to the workplace; a pathway to new learning, new challenges and better understanding of the opportunities and realities of the workplace.

At a time when concerns about education, the concerns of students, parents and educators, are too often front page news and not always good news, it is a pleasure to recognize an initiative which builds on partnerships, which celebrates our community strengths and which recognizes that our schools and our workplaces share the responsibility for ensuring that our children have a prosperous and interesting workplace to go to when they graduate from Ontario's schools.

I know that a number of members have students with them today. My colleague the member for Eglinton has Brendan Haley with her. I'm also pleased that my leader, Lyn McLeod, is participating in today's program. I would ask members to recognize all the students here with us today. Sitting behind the Speaker's chair is Reeshe Binda, who is spending his day with the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislature of the province of Ontario. I know we wish all of these students the very best today.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): It is recognized throughout the North American agricultural industry that Ontario pork producers provide consumers with the best-quality product available anywhere.

In recent times, producers and processors have come a long way towards improving the industry. However, a recent severe price slump associated with an extremely large North American supply has brought to light some very major inequities faced by the Ontario industry.

While the national tripartite stabilization program for pork has been wound up, producers in competing provinces, especially the province of Quebec, have been receiving very generous government subsidies. Quebec has ignored an agreement among provinces to limit additional subsidies for producers, with the effect that Ontario producers face severe losses while Quebec producers receive subsidies to remain in business.

We don't have a level playing field. We need one to maintain the industry. Our producers are more efficient than others, but that efficiency does not make up for the subsidies that their competitors receive. This government must eliminate the undermining of Ontario producers by other provincial treasuries. We need penalty clauses for provinces which fail to live up to agreements. Clearly, the Premier must address this issue.

This government should also work with the pork industry to ensure that Ontario pork has an effective price-protection mechanism in place similar to that for most other major commodities, such as dairy, grains, horticulture and poultry. Let's keep pork on our fork.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'm delighted that the Leader of the Opposition was in my riding recently to speak to a group of people in Tilbury.

During her visit, the honourable leader promised to lobby for a fuel tax exemption for ethanol. Very interesting. I would remind the honourable leader that this government has already removed all the fuel taxes from ethanol. This government has undertaken in writing to maintain this tax exemption for 15 years as requested by the Chatham-Kent ethanol consortium.

What we would like to see and what the folks of the Chatham-Kent ethanol consortium would like to see is for the federal government to give the same undertaking. Then the project could proceed. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to tell us whether or not she has indeed lobbied her Liberal friends to remove the tax on fuel ethanol, and if so, for how many years.

At the OFA convention last week, the leader of the Liberal Party claimed an NDP government would raise minimum wages to $10 an hour. I am told that the honourable leader received this piece of intelligence from a reporter for the Toronto Sun. Has the Toronto Sun become the principal research for the Liberal Party?

When Bill 90 was debated in the House, we heard repeatedly from the Liberal opposition that the NDP was set to unionize all the farmers. Today, none have been organized.

It is obvious that the Liberal Party has no agricultural policy. They have promised to do many of the things the NDP government has already done. Imitation, as the saying goes, is the greatest compliment.

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

Mr Hayes: Please keep up the praise.

1340

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In just a few days, Bill 173, an act dealing with long-term care in Ontario, will be forced through the Ontario Legislature by the NDP government of Premier Bob Rae. What began as a good idea, a necessary reform of an important aspect of the health care system, has headed into a direction that could be harmful to volunteerism in communities across the province.

By excluding organizations such as the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Red Cross and Meals on Wheels from all but 20% of the service, the government could see the number of volunteers in this field decrease, the degree of local control diminish, and the quality and quantity of care for seniors and others reduced.

To impose closure to end the important and necessary debate on this bill is an extremely unwise decision as the views of those who have worked in this vital field should be heeded, not only concerning the original provisions of the bill but also on the amendments submitted by the Minister of Health and by members of the opposition.

I call upon the government to withdraw the time-limiting motion and to agree to the proposal of the volunteer and private sector people who have played a major role in the delivery of long-term care in this year and in years gone by. Please leave the ideology in the cabinet room and listen to those who have been in the front line of health-care delivery in Ontario.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Non-profit housing requires competent, dedicated and accountable boards to prevent the widespread mismanagement found by the Provincial Auditor in his review of the non-profit housing program.

It is alarming, then, that the Ministry of Housing dictates that by the end of next year a third of the board members of all non-profit housing corporations shall be residents. Voluntary resident involvement is a worthy and critical part of managing any housing project. However, to mandate that residents hold a third of the board seats can cause serious problems.

Consider Peel Living, the municipal non-profit housing corporation and the founder of non-profit housing in Canada. Every board member is elected, so the board is accountable to all citizens of Peel. Why would we want to move away from elected boards towards appointed boards? For the past four years, Peel Living has promoted and supported resident involvement, but most residents don't want to get involved if their building is well-managed and well-maintained. Peel Living, in fact, is the largest non-profit housing corporation in Canada.

Interjections.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): Bravo.

Mrs Marland: And I can hear the former Minister of Housing making her usual comments.

We must also remember the troubles of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority where the board, while meaning well, did not have the necessary skills and experience to manage MTHA's complex affairs. Non-profit housing requires professional management. Resident involvement should be voluntary.

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

Mrs Marland: Finally, the province should not tell municipalities how to run municipal non-profit housing.

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I would like to mention that today is a special day for grade 9 students as well as for many working people in the greater Toronto area. Instead of heading off to school this morning, approximately 65,000 grade 9 students accompanied their parents, relatives, and other adults to their workplaces.

The organizers estimate that about 5,000 workplaces have opened their doors to students for the day. This is the first event of its kind in Canada to involve students in workplaces on such a large scale. Take Our Kids to Work Day is a unique opportunity for young people to find out what their parents and other people do for a living and the knowledge and skills they need to do their jobs.

The program is modelled on successful programs in the United States and the region of Durham. It was organized by a non-profit group of educators, business people and community leaders called the Learning Partnership and sponsored by the ministries of Economic Development and Trade, and Education and Training, with corporate sponsors Bell Canada, Northern Telecom and ScotiaMcLeod financial services. For the ministries and agencies that are participating it is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the wide range of services that they provide to the people of Ontario.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that in our changing economy career education is more important than ever. By welcoming grade 9 students into our workplaces on this special day, we are helping them gain a better understanding of the working world and the need to stay in school and get a good education.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Over the past few weeks we have heard Conservative radio ads as they desperately attempt to calm public fears over the damage their American-style revolution would inflict on our health care system and the pain their cuts would cause our seniors. Unfortunately for Conservatives, it will take more than a few weeks of commercials to end these fears.

People are scared because they remember that Mike Harris has spent his political career supporting and fighting for health care user fees. They remember that Mike Harris won the leadership of his party by arguing for a new tax on the sick. People are scared because they remember Mike Harris standing in this Legislature and voting against the Liberal ban on extra-billing in 1986. Yes, Mike Harris opposed the ban on extra-billing. He argued then that there was nothing wrong with the poor and the aged being forced to pay.

Ontario's seniors have a right to be scared. They remember how Mike Harris supported and applauded Brian Mulroney's move to claw back old age security benefits. They remember Mike Harris promising, in 1990, the same with the province's sales tax credit. When Mike Harris, a political chameleon, boasts that now is not the time to cut back on health care funding, that now is not the time to introduce user fees, that now is not the time to further punish Ontario's seniors, I say listen carefully. Mike Harris isn't saying that he opposes these moves; he is simply saying they should have happened years ago. The public will not be fooled.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): As of September 1994, all school boards must implement junior kindergarten programs as required by provincial legislation. The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the decision to provide junior kindergarten should be made by local school boards, based on the community's needs.

The Minister of Education and Training received a letter from the chairman of the Carleton Board of Education, Carol Parker, dated June 28, 1994. Ms Parker stated that the Carleton board continues to feel the pressure of the financial problems facing the province and local taxpayers. In this regard, they again respectfully request that the mandatory policy for the JK program be reconsidered in light of alternative strategies for early childhood development. They made three resolutions:

(1) That the ministry change the legislation to make it optional for boards to offer the junior kindergarten program.

(2) Subject to consultation with parents and subject to enabling legislation, that the board reconsider its delivery of the junior kindergarten program for the next budget year.

(3) That the board request that the Ministry of Education and Training and the Ministry of Community and Social Services open discussions with the public to explore alternative ways of delivering educational programs to four-year-olds.

As well, last week my colleague Mr McLean from Simcoe East made a statement on behalf of the Simcoe County Board of Education requesting that the minister review junior kindergarten programs. Trustees have suggested that nursery schools are perhaps a more efficient and more effective way of delivering education to four-year-olds.

I urge the minister to consider the recommendations of both the Carleton and Simcoe county boards of education.

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN STUDENT FEDERATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to celebrate the formation of the Portuguese Canadian Student Federation, which will have its inaugural meeting this Sunday, December 4.

The formation of the Portuguese Canadian Student Federation is an important and significant step for the community. Students such as Tony Dias, Helen Aguiar, Celia Santos, Cina Marques, Dina Isabel, Manny Bettencourt, George Silva, Katerine Ponte, Chris Ferreira, Paul Defreitas and Helen Pereira have worked tirelessly on this initiative.

The Portuguese Canadian Student Federation will encourage and promote the education and advancement of the Portuguese Canadian community. The federation will strengthen the cohesion among individual Portuguese Canadian student associations. It will promote and preserve Portuguese culture and language. In effect, the Portuguese Canadian Student Federation will combine the resources to encourage partnership and harmony among the students, members of the Canadian Portuguese community and other ethnic communities. This federation will bridge the different generations in the Canadian Portuguese community.

I actively support and endorse the work of the Portuguese Canadian Student Federation. Only through the endeavours of our youth will we be able to fully utilize the cultural and economic potential of the Portuguese Canadian community.

1350

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber and indeed to our country a very special delegation which is seated in the Speaker's gallery. It's a parliamentary delegation from the Czech Republic, headed by Dr Milan Uhde, MP, chair of the Chamber of Deputies, and accompanied by His Excellency Stanislav Chylek, the ambassador of the Czech Republic in Canada. Please join me in welcoming our special visitors.

I would also invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, also seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Elections Ontario commissioner, Mr Warren Bailie, who is accompanied by two of his grandchildren. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I have today released the 1994 Ontario Economic Outlook, which shows that Ontario is on track for solid growth this year and over the medium term.

The outlook details our latest forecast, which shows real expansion of 4.5% in Ontario in 1994. Like private sector forecasters, we see Ontario leading the G-7 economies over the next four years, and expect average growth of more than 4% a year in that period.

To me, the most vital measure of our performance is job creation. The forecast shows the Ontario economy will create 570,000 jobs over the medium term. That will drop the unemployment rate to 7.8%. The rate has already fallen in 1994 to its lowest level in three years with the creation of 137,000 new jobs, almost all of them full-time, between February and the end of October.

The basis of this growth is confidence in Ontario as a place to work, to live and to do business. We have played a role in building that confidence by forging partnerships throughout the Ontario economy that have given it a solid foundation for growth. We are making growth sustainable with sound management that balances the needs of Ontario both today and in the future.

From the start, our first priority has been creating jobs, and our track record shows we're succeeding. Ontario is creating the kind of high-skilled, high-tech jobs that the global market demands for success in the 1990s.

We have achieved this goal by thinking and acting strategically and by building partnerships. We've given Ontario one of the world's strongest incentive systems for vital spending on research and development. We cut the employer health tax on new workers for their first year on the job, permanently creating 12,000 jobs. We are building the public assets that Ontario needs to compete globally, investing more than $14 billion in capital in the past four years alone. We have created 65,000 private sector job opportunities, many for the long-term unemployed, with Jobs Ontario Training. And we have demonstrated a unique ability to bring together workers, businesses and local communities to work together for their common good.

We have also created a climate for growth by managing our own affairs wisely. We have cut program spending for two consecutive years, something that no Ontario government has achieved for more than 50 years. We have worked very hard and continue to work very hard to make sure that vital services are preserved and public sector jobs saved as we achieve these savings. With the economy expanding, now is the time to finish the job of putting our fiscal house in order. We must continue our commitments to more efficient government and to no new taxes so that today's growth helps to build tomorrow's successes.

In the next several weeks, my colleagues and I will be travelling throughout Ontario to talk to people about what they want to see in the 1995 budget. With the economy expanding, we are committed to making sure that everyone benefits from Ontario's continuing growth. We have to help young people get that vital first job, and continue to take down the barriers that keep people who are willing to work out of the labour force.

Only by ensuring that everyone shares in Ontario's growth can we achieve our vision: a revitalized Ontario economy that continues to create high-quality jobs. We know we can do it. Our investments have given Ontario the skilled workers and the infrastructure that an expanding economy needs. Most important, we see, and the figures in our Economic Outlook prove, that people and businesses across Ontario are willing to work as partners to create a better future for all of us.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will say in responding to the Finance minister's presentation of the Ontario Economic Outlook that we can indeed welcome some good news. The prediction of economic growth at 4.5% is indeed, finally, some good news. I think the people of this province need some good news after four years of the deepest recession this province has ever seen.

As much as I know that people in this province need to feel some sense of optimism about the future, I also know that this optimism has to be based on some sense of reality and some real sense of certainty about the strength of the recovery. I don't think the people of this province are feeling very much sense of security yet, because they have simply been too hard-hit by four years of complete economic mismanagement on the part of this government.

I suggest, as the Finance minister tries to present the brightest parts of his Economic Outlook, that we look at the other facts that are also realities that are facing this province today; that we look at the other facts that are contained in this Finance minister's Economic Outlook.

The first fact that the Treasurer glossed over in his statement, for some reason, is that in 1994, even with the economic growth he is predicting, we will just get back to where we were in 1989. We have had no net growth for five years, five years where the province of Ontario has been going absolutely nowhere. We have been running, for five years, just to stay in place.

I would suggest that we contrast that with the rest of the country, because the rest of the country, in the meantime, over that same period of time has had real growth, substantial growth of some 7%. Again, compare that to what's happened in Ontario: zero growth in Ontario over the past five years -- Ontario, the province that used to be the economic engine of this country.

The second fact from this document is that while the rest of Canada is running a trade surplus internationally, Ontario continues to show a trade deficit of over $11 billion. Not only is Ontario the province that runs a trade deficit while the rest of the country runs a trade surplus, but this report shows us that Ontario's trade deficit has gone from about $7.5 billion in 1992 to over $11 billion in 1993. Tell me how that reflects real economic growth.

If the economic recovery is going to be sustained, we have to be more globally competitive. We have to have a government that does what it can to make sure that our businesses can be competitive so that we can be exporting; so that we can turn a deficit into a surplus; so that we can grow and create the jobs people need.

There is a third very startling fact that comes from this Economic Outlook, and I can understand why the Treasurer did not highlight that in making his statement. It has to do with jobs. I would suggest that no economic recovery is good enough until it is felt by the people of this province and that this economic recovery that the Premier and the Finance minister like to talk about has simply left too many people out: too many young people, too many people in Metro Toronto, too many people in northern Ontario, too many laid-off workers who are not getting back into the workplace. No recovery is good enough if it doesn't reach people, and while this Treasurer's recovery is clearly a statistical recovery, and we acknowledge that, there are too many people left out.

1400

We know, and this document tells us, that while the rest of Canada has seen job growth of about 235,000 since 1989, Ontario still today has 100,000 fewer people working than in 1989. There is another shocking fact that comes out of this document, and that's the fact that in 1994 there are going to be fewer jobs created than were created in 1993. In 1993 there were 79,000 jobs created. In 1994, the Treasurer tells us, there will be 54,000 jobs created, less than was in the budget figure. We are falling behind again, and we are falling behind in the area that counts most, and that's the ability to create jobs for people and to get the people of this province working again.

For the past four years this government, this NDP government, has dug a hole so deep in this province's economy that it will take us years of sustained economic growth to get out of it; it will take us years of sustained solid economic growth to get the people of this province working again. That won't happen until we have a government really ready to focus on what we do to make this a competitive place where people will invest.

Applause.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Don Mills.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines with a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Indeed the member for St Catharines has a point of order. Is there unanimous consent for an additional five minutes for the opposition?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice. The honourable member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Mr Speaker, I didn't realize it was so easy to get a standing ovation in the Legislature. Let's all clap one another. It is nice to see the Leader of the Opposition in the House, I must say. We all share in the joy to see her here.

I think today we are witnessing Floyd's last stand. This document has all the appearance of being a budget. It even has the same trees on the cover as the 1994 budget.

I'm delighted and the Progressive Conservative Party is delighted to see growth in the economy, no question about that. The minister has indicated that job creation is one of the key points of this particular outlook, and I must say I have to agree. Isn't it some achievement of this government that there are about 100,000 fewer people working today than there were in 1990? Isn't that an achievement to be proud of? Isn't it an achievement to be proud of that there will have been more new people employed last year than this year, that the rate of growth of employment is less this year than last year?

Those are the kinds of achievements we have with this particular government. Isn't it an achievement that we have the Jobs Ontario program? Isn't that a wonderful program? Isn't that the way to create employment in the province of Ontario?

But I was delighted that the minister mentioned the cuts in the employer health tax for new positions. Now he is singing our tune. I can advise the minister that if he really wants to create jobs in the province of Ontario, we have a plan to do that: Cut taxes, cut the red tape, do away with Bill 40, do away with the labour bill. If you really want to create jobs in the province of Ontario, look at what is discouraging employment in the province of Ontario: high taxation, the high cost of doing business, the red tape, Bill 40, the employment equity bill. These are the aspects of government that you have to tackle.

Our platform is to reduce the income tax, to reduce the employer health tax to zero for small businesses, to cut the workers' compensation premiums. If you're sincerely interested in creating jobs in the province of Ontario, that's the kind of platform I can advise you to follow.

The minister talks about the climate for growth and the fact that this government has managed affairs wisely in the province of Ontario. I wonder what he's referring to. Is he referring to the fact that the debt in the province of Ontario has doubled under this government, from $45 billion to $90 billion? Is he referring to the achievement of this particular government that the total debt, including Ontario Hydro, including the unfunded liability of workers' compensation, including the unfunded liability of pension plans, is $150 billion? Is that the achievement the minister is referring to?

Is he referring to the fact that in the operating budget this year there is $8 billion for interest just to pay the debt and that four years ago the comparable figure was $4 billion? It's doubled simply to pay the interest -- not to pay down the debt of the province of Ontario but simply to pay the interest on the debt to keep the debt rolling over. Is that the kind of success this government has brought upon the people of the province of Ontario?

Employment growth this year is forecast to be higher. I believe it. The growth in the economy over the next four years is lower than the growth projected by the Ontario budget, yet the minister is forecasting that employment will grow. Even though he's not projecting that the economy will grow faster than the growth in the budget, he's projecting that the rate of employment will grow faster. Now, how can that be? We can't have it both ways.

We will not have growth in the economy sustained, we will not have employment sustained, until we cut taxes, until we cut the red tape, until we eliminate Bill 40, until we freeze Ontario hydro rates, until we eliminate all the burdens to business in the province of Ontario. That's what we need.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We understand that today around 12:30 the Premier made an announcement concerning a drug program for people across Ontario suffering from catastrophic illnesses. We had hoped there would be a government announcement in ministerial statements with respect to what was in the announcement, who benefits, what user fees are involved, what cost is involved and what impact this announcement will have on the drug benefit --

The Speaker: No. The member does have a point of order to ask for us to revert to ministerial statements if there's unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent to do so?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice. The government House leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I would rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to make some comments on the White Ribbon Campaign.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Today I rise in this house to express our support for the White Ribbon Campaign. The white ribbon symbolizes our deep concern with the violence against women that is still so prevalent in our society. Today we in this House draw special attention to this issue, but we do so in an effort to remind all men that we should be addressing this issue every day.

Some may be cynical about our statements. They say, "There go the politicians again, mouthing nice words but doing nothing." So little has been done about violence against women for so long, I think we can all understand that frustration, to some extent.

But it is also true that through the women's directorate, the Attorney General, the Ministry of Education and other ministries, considerable attention is being paid to promoting public education and providing an integrated strategy to prevent violence against women.

And we've put resources behind that commitment. We have doubled our spending on violence against women and maintained that commitment in the face of very, very tough fiscal circumstances. We've established core funding for women's centres, increased funding for women's shelters, expanded funding for rape crisis centres and created new sexual assault treatment centres. We lead the nation with a $100-million commitment to this issue, and we're very proud of that record, but we also recognize that there are always more things to be done.

The crime of violence against women is not going to disappear tomorrow, and it will not disappear because this Legislature and this government say it should. Individuals in their daily lives and their personal relationships have to take up the challenge. I take hope in the knowledge that it is not just the Legislature speaking out today. In our workplaces, business and labour are speaking out on this problem. Educators are addressing this matter in our schools, colleges and universities. People are talking about this issue because women fought a long, often unaided and always difficult battle to put this issue so clearly in the public mind.

1410

Today we call on men to do their share to solve this pressing problem. Men must play their part in addressing one of the most prevalent violent crimes occurring in our society today. As men, we must take responsibility to tell other men that violence against women is wrong. There is no excuse to use violence to vent frustration or to resolve arguments.

Men must speak out and challenge other men who use violence in their relationship with women. As men, we must also challenge sexist jokes and language that degrades women. We must identify and challenge sexual harassment in our workplaces and schools. Each of us must take on this challenge with our family, with our friends and with our co-workers.

Members wear a white ribbon today as our personal pledge never to accept, condone or remain silent about violence against women. We commit today to carry out that pledge as MPPs and in all our relationships. Justice and equality demands no less of us.

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I want to join with the government House leader in expressing our strong support for White Ribbon Week.

I think, as we rise again to recognize the sad anniversary of the slaying of the 14 women at l'École polytechnique in Montreal, as we have done now for some five years, that we recognize the tremendous loss that event caused not simply to the families of the 14 young women who were slain, but to all of us, and perhaps in particular to those of us, as we think not only about our wives and our daughters and our mothers, but to everyone who sees an act of violence that is carried out in such a random and ruthless way, it reminds us that this issue of violence against women is with us and that we as men must take a particular responsibility in ensuring that we address the causes and that we find ways to ensure it doesn't happen. I think one of the strongest elements about the White Ribbon Campaign is that it works best when men and women work together to end violence against women.

We know that as men the concerns that we have over our safety are nothing as compared to those of our wives and our daughters, our mothers, our relatives and friends, and that is a reality that we must always consider.

J'aimerais aussi lever mon chapeau aujourd'hui aux organisateurs de la Campagne des rubans blancs. Le ruban blanc est le symbole de l'appel des organisateurs à tous les hommes pour qu'ils déposent les armes de la guerre contre les femmes, nos soeurs.

Il est en effet effrayant qu'il ait fallu attendre que le massacre à l'École polytechnique se produise pour que les hommes prennent conscience d'un événement qui peut se passer à tous les jours chez les femmes. Ces événements incluent le viol au foyer ou lors d'une sortie, des coups que les femmes reçoivent sans pouvoir se défendre, du harcèlement sexuel au travail ou à la maison, des agressions sexuelles contre les enfants et des menaces qui peuvent finir par des meurtres. Il est important que les hommes sachent qu'ils sont partie intégrante du problème, de la solution.

But it is important I think also that in a very personal way we look at the kinds of things that we as men can do to work against violence in our society. For many of us, that may mean helping out in our communities with shelters that exist in so many parts of the province, and particularly at this time of year there is a need for financial support. There is a need for gifts for the Christmas season. There is a need for food. These are real and tangible ways.

It is not, as at times people seem to feel, that men are completely responsible and should feel guilty about everything that happens. That is not the point of this week, that is not why we are speaking today, but that we as men must recognize that we do have a responsibility and this will only end if we work together with women to make sure that it ends.

Another important way in which we can help in this struggle is to go back to one of the specific acts that grew out of the massacre in Montreal, and that was the creation of the Canadian Engineering Memorial Foundation. This foundation was created under the stewardship of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, and the foundation is a living memorial to the memory of the slain students through national scholarships and awards for engineering students across Canada.

The foundation provides scholarships for promising women engineering students at the undergraduate and graduate level. The selection of the scholarship recipient is based on academic achievement and community leadership.

In addition, the memorial foundation has created an award, the corporate award, to a company judged to have made significant contributions to promoting the advancement of women engineers. The scholarship awards and the corporate award are presented on an annual basis. I will be passing on to members the foundation's address so that those who would like to assist the foundation or provide information to their constituents will know where to find it.

I would also like to point out that the president of the Canadian Engineering Memorial Foundation is someone who is well known to many of us in this House. Claudette MacKay-Lassonde is a graduate of l'École polytechnique, a resident of Ontario, and she was the first woman engineer to serve as the president of the Ontario Association of Professional Engineers.

It is I think one tangible way whereby we can show our support to White Ribbon Week and to the battle against violence against women. I think if we look at that personally and act in that way, then we can make a real contribution to ending violence against women.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): White Ribbon Week represents a conscious effort by men to begin combating the violence perpetuated against women by members of their own male gender. The need for men to join with women in this battle has never been more compelling than it is today.

Today we recall the horrific anniversary of December 6, the day of the Montreal mass murder when 14 women were killed. Today we recall the tragically short life of Nina de Villiers and Leslie Mahaffy, constituents of mine from Burlington, and countless other women and children who have died at the hands of violent men.

Violence against women is unlike any other crime that exists in our society today. Unlike other forms of violence, violence against women is rooted in the values and the assumptions of a society controlled by men that has had the privilege to tip the scales of power between the genders in their favour. As I said in this House on November 2 when we were acknowledging Wife Assault Week, domestic violence and the words "wife abuse" do not exist in any of our law books; they exist in our social values. Unfortunately, our courts make the distinction.

The psychology of male domination views women as objects, as male property and therefore as extensions of men. Male socialization has traditionally reinforced this attitude, and it has even been used as reaffirming a form of male identity. That's why pornography, as well as other sanctioned forms by which women are continually denigrated, promotes this form of male socialization and superiority. It is almost deemed a legitimate enterprise when it is couched in the terms of liberal democracy or freedom from censorship.

The symbol, therefore, of the white ribbon runs the risk of being overly simplistic at best and problematic at worst. The wearing of a white ribbon does not even begin to address the problem of male-dominated values in institutions in our society if it is left at this symbolic level only.

Many women wonder how far men are actually able or willing to separate themselves from their privileged positions of dominance in our society in order to begin to address the suffering experienced by them at the hands of men, who tend to see acts of violence against the female as individual acts, as acts unconnected to wider societal values or even to their own rationalization that it was their gender role socialization.

Women themselves have a role in helping men understand how their position of power and domination over women is a source of oppression for both genders, and men must begin to see that they lose as human beings in their relationship to others and to women as a result of their possessive and abusive attitudes towards women.

Towards this end, we have had outstanding in this province one of the last known additions to the goals of education in this province, one which I was pleased to table in this House six and a half years ago, and that was to develop an awareness of those stereotypes and assumptions that contribute to the unequal position of women in contemporary society. My hope is that as this government continues to deal with the difficult issue of violence in our schools it will examine it from this perspective as well and not just upon the narrow issues around racism and discrimination.

1420

The White Ribbon Campaign is a call to men to lay down their arms, which they continue to use against women. These arms include not only the guns and other physical means of inflicting harm but also the weapons of officially sanctioned attitudes by men, attitudes that are reinforced in our legal system, which delivers uneven justice to far too many abused women simply because they are women. Included in the attitudes I'm suggesting here is any government which would be afraid of taking decisive action against hard-core pornography or to hear the cries of battered women seeking access to basic shelter and support anywhere in the province of Ontario.

The very fact that men are beginning to take a collective responsibility for their gender for violence is a positive step in the right direction, but it is now time to move from ribbons to legislation, to move from legislation to program implementation, to practically begin to address the issue of violence against women and its root causes in our society.

The fact that Ontario is the only province in Canada without a crime victims' bill of rights sends just one more message that the rights of men who are the perpetrators of violence against women enjoy greater protection under the law than those, the women, who are its victims, for the truly sobering reality of violence against women is that it's the only form of violence which has more subtle societal sanction in its favour than against it.

We, therefore, as legislators must have a greater responsibility than most to move quickly and decisively to make those changes. We need tougher laws and stiffer laws. That is what is required to change the actions of violent men in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. People in Ontario woke up this morning to discover that making decisions about specific diagnostic tests and procedures that they might need was suddenly somehow their responsibility. The assistant director of communications in the Ministry of Health is quoted in today's paper as saying that patients are getting unnecessary tests simply because they want them. He seems to be putting the responsibility for unnecessary tests squarely on the patient.

Minister, do you agree that it is up to patients to bear the brunt of the burden for scrutinizing and controlling costs in the health care system and, if so, how do you expect patients to know exactly what tests and procedures are available and appropriate for them?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say that I do not agree that the responsibility lies with patients. I think that the responsibility is one that we all share, both physicians, as the people who prescribe what is necessary to help their patients, and patients, who have a responsibility to make sure that they understand what's being prescribed, that they question advice that is being given to them, and that we all do our best to stay healthy so that we won't need the system at all.

Mrs McLeod: I agree with the minister, but I think that what is needed for patients, as for professionals, is some information about what is appropriate and what is necessary. We have all agreed that we have to get health care spending under control and we have all agreed that we have to make sure that every dollar in the system goes to what is medically necessary care, but surely that can only be done if there is a real effort made by this government to work with the medical profession to determine what is indeed necessary, what's cost-effective and what the government is prepared to fund on that basis.

Minister, I ask you, given the concern that people are going to have about the story in today's paper, that somehow they're going to have to decide whether they are asking for unnecessary tests, where are the government's guidelines? Where are the guidelines that set out what is necessary, what is effective, what you believe should be funded? When a physician recommends a test for a patient, what hint does he have as to what your ministry believes to be necessary and effective and, therefore, should be funded?

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't think that the public of Ontario, unlike perhaps the members opposite, take all of their information from the headlines in one of our notable daily journals. But I will say to the Leader of the Opposition that I'm in danger of agreeing with her again. I think we do need to know what tests are effective and we do need to know what is in fact medically necessary.

I'm tremendously proud that our government was the first government to sign an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association to create the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, to have a public process for deciding which procedures are in fact medically necessary and should be funded by OHIP, and I think we have made some very real progress over the last four years in both managing our health care costs and delivering better health care. All of us on this side are very proud of that.

Mrs McLeod: What the public is concerned about, what people are concerned about, is what assurance they have from their government that they're going to get access to the health care they need when and where they need it. The kind of stories we read in today's paper don't give them that kind of assurance, Minister. The kind of stories we read in today's paper simply suggest that what we have here is more ad hoc cuts without any real attempt to understand how our health care dollars can be used most effectively.

Minister, maybe we also misunderstood an acknowledgement that you hadn't actually read the social contract when it was originally signed, but there are enormous consequences of that social contract for health care in this province.

When you signed that copy of the social contract, did you understand, did you really understand, what the consequences of that agreement would be for health care and for the access to health care for people in this province? Have you done anything -- give people the assurance they're looking for, Minister -- to ensure that the $240 million that you're taking out of the health care system will not affect essential health care services?

Hon Mrs Grier: Absolutely, and I think the people of this province know the health care budget for this province is still $17 billion, is still a third of all public expenditures, is still the highest per capita spending of any province in this country. They also know that a cap on physicians' billings as part of the social contract was the same kind of contribution to the betterment of this province that was made by ambulance workers, by municipal workers, by school teachers, by any other person who was paid by the public purse.

If the member is suggesting that doctors should somehow have been exempt from that social contract, I have to say to her that I profoundly disagree. I also disagree with her fearmongering about the state of the province's health care system at a time when expenditures on community and public health have risen by 5.3% this year, expenditures on long-term care have risen by 5.4% this year and the Ontario drug benefit program has risen by 2%. That's good management of the health care system, and that's universal access.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: That was such a simple question: What does the Minister of Health believe is necessary, what does she believe is unnecessary, what's she going to pay for to make sure people get health care?

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Premier on another matter. Premier, proponents of the Kirkland Lake dump site have asked for an opportunity to make presentations to the hearings of the Interim Waste Authority's proposals to establish mega-dumps for Toronto's garbage. The IWA has said that it simply doesn't want to hear from this group.

Furthermore, they argue that they don't have to look at the alternatives that the Kirkland Lake people would be offering, that they have been told by the government and indeed by this government's laws that all they have to do is look at local sites for Toronto's garbage, if a region in York can be considered a local site for Toronto's garbage. But that's what the government has directed them to do.

I would remind you in asking this question that in another role with a different hat on, you were very critical of any exemption from full environmental assessments. You called for full environmental hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act to deal with this critical issue of how we manage Toronto's garbage.

Premier, I ask you today then, as the IWA says, "We don't want to hear about this other alternative," how do you believe that fits with your belief about the fundamental principle of environmental assessments, that all the alternatives must be considered?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would say to the honourable member that, first of all, as she well knows, this matter is now being heard by the chairman of the assessment panel, Mr Kingham. Mr Kingham has stated in -- I saw in the media today that --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Oh, you read the media.

Hon Mr Rae: I read with continuing great interest and occasional amazement, but always with a sense of the accuracy which pervades all the organs of the media.

The reports that I have seen are that the chairman stated clearly that he would consider the requests that have come forward with respect to intervenor status and with respect to other views being heard.

I would only say that the views of the IWA are the views of the IWA. The views of others will be considered and it's now up to the chairman of the panel to decide on what the fairest process will be. I don't intend to interfere in that process in any way, shape or form. I've made a point of not doing that and I would say to the member that my views on this are quite consistent. We want a fair process, we want a neutral process and we want a process that's going to resolve the issues in a timely fashion.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I believe the citizens of the province are entitled to such a process and I believe very much that's the process that's been created by the very able work of the Environment ministers.

1430

Mrs McLeod: I am more than amazed that the Premier should stand up this House and say that he reads in the paper that the IWA is not prepared to consider the Kirkland Lake alternative or any other alternative.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You had no process.

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham West come to order.

Mrs McLeod: What's the point in Kirkland Lake making a presentation when your government has directed the IWA from the beginning to consider no other alternatives but a search for a mega-dump for Toronto's garbage? Premier, I don't understand why your government absolutely refuses to look at any alternatives.

Mr Wiseman: You don't understand.

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham West come to order.

Mrs McLeod: I confess that we read not only newspapers but books. There's a book that I might say has been a bestseller, at least for people on this side of the House, which suggests that maybe the reason why you're not prepared to consider any alternatives is because the previous Minister of the Environment persuaded you she would be embarrassed if you opened up the process to consider any other alternatives.

The fact is, Premier, that people are raising legitimate concerns about the environmental soundness of the recommendations that are being made by the Interim Waste Authority. I ask you, if you are so sure that your approach to dealing with Toronto's garbage is going to come up with the best environmental solutions, why will you not today allow that process to be put to a full and an open test and allow all other options to be fully and openly considered?

Hon Mr Rae: I find it interesting. I happened to be in Marmora the other day, where there is a large quarry which the people of Marmora were very concerned for many, many years was going to be used as a dump site by the Liberal government of the day for Metropolitan Toronto's garbage. I've also been in Lambton county, where all of Lambton county was worried because they were concerned that their entire county was going to be turned into a dump site, that any site within Lambton county was going to be subject to the possibility of being used as a dump site by Metropolitan Toronto. If that's the policy the member wants to advocate, let her say it in Marmora, let her say it in Lambton county, let her go around the province and say, "We believe that Metropolitan Toronto's garbage should go anywhere at all around the world."

We have a neutral process, we have an objective process that I hope will produce a timely result and an effective result, and I think it's a better and fairer way to proceed than creating anxiety over the entire width and breadth of the province of Ontario about where Metropolitan Toronto's garbage is going to go or where the GTA garbage is going to go. We've created an objective process and I think we've done it in the fairest possible way for the people of the province.

Mrs McLeod: I have been across this province in community after community, region after region, where people are completely and absolutely frustrated that they can't solve their garbage problems because of the misguided ideological policies of this government. I can tell you, Premier, I have been in Durham, I have been in Peel and I have most particularly been in York region, where there are people who are saying, "We don't believe that it makes sense for us to have to take Toronto's garbage." There should be better solutions and this government should be prepared to look at them.

You have a situation where there are people from one part of the province who are arguing that they don't want their community considered for a dump site; you have people from another part of the province who say they would at least like you to consider letting them offer a solution, and you don't want to hear from either one of them. You have manipulated the environmental assessment process to shut out the views of both those groups.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham West come to order.

Mrs McLeod: We have just seen this past week a 14-year, $140-million effort by the Ontario Waste Management Corp, a process to which three governments contributed.

Hon Mr Rae: What is your point?

Mrs McLeod: The Premier is asking my point. My point is that that process, after 14 years and $140 million, was thrown out because all the alternatives were not considered. I have a very real fear that the same thing is about to happen again. This government has tried to protect itself by ramming through a law that shuts out the alternatives, and that law is being challenged in the courts.

Premier, why are you continuing with a wasteful, expensive, futile process that no one believes makes economic sense and which is likely to be ruled entirely invalid because there is no full environmental assessment? Why not scrap the IWA process right now?

Hon Mr Rae: We're seeing around the province the amount of garbage being reduced dramatically. Just earlier on, in Cornwall, we've seen the creation of a new factory, which is going to be turning cardboard into fine paper, by the Domtar corporation. We've exceeded our targets with respect to the reduction of waste. We're seeing a very substantial reduction of waste all across the province.

This is all good news, and because it's good news, we know it will never emerge from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition, who is incapable of expressing a positive thought about events that are taking place across the province of Ontario. She is incapable of expressing a positive thought.

Her federal counterpart has no such difficulty. For him everything is great in Ontario, everything is great in Canada, everything is improving, everything is wonderful. For the Leader of the Opposition, everything is terrible, everything is bad, everything is falling apart.

Mr Bradley: I have the picture, Bob.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member, it's precisely because we want to create a fair process that is going to be neutral from politics, that's not going to have interference from any political party, that's going to be allowed to come up with the answer.

I am not going to comment on the work of the environmental panel. They will decide on the basis of the evidence before them where the best place is for a dump site. That's precisely what they will decide. I am not about to decide it and I don't think the Leader of the Opposition should be the one to decide. I think we should leave it to an objective process.

1440

MINISTRY OF LABOUR SPENDING

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm glad we're on the topic of waste. My question is for the Minister of Labour. I recently received a letter from an individual in London who has approached your ministry for assistance with regard to a complaint against his previous employer. In response to his complaint, the London office of the employment standards program sent him a form letter which states in part, and I quote:

"Your file has been logged and will be dealt with in a sequential manner. We must advise you that because of the high number of claims now being investigated, it takes an average of 12 months to investigate and complete a claim."

Minister, I'm sure that you would agree with me that people who have been forced to approach your ministry for assistance not only require the money that is owed to them but also a response in a more immediate fashion than in one year's time. That's why I'm glad we're on the topic of waste. Will you explain why, when your employment standards offices are so obviously short on staff and resources that it takes an average of one year for them to process complaints, you saw fit to approve the expenditure of $10,000 on the party at the Ministry of Labour to celebrate the 75th birthday of the ministry?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): As your first question to me in the House, you don't give any details; no additional information. How do I know this is a story that is accurate? If you would provide me with --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It is a one-year delay. How much more detail do you want? One year, one day and two hours?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York Centre.

Hon Mrs Coppen: -- that information I would be very glad to deal with it. I am only taking the information that you're saying in the House that it's going to take one year to settle this claim. I don't know that for a fact. You haven't provided me with any kind of information and I think that you should. Cross it over in the House, send it with a page, and I will be very glad to get back to you on that.

You're talking about waste and you were talking about the party at the ministry to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Ministry of Labour, a ministry that has done so much for all people in this province, for working people, for employers. I think the member is being very harsh when she says that it was a total waste in the expenditure of money. If you would like --

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

Hon Mrs Coppen: -- tomorrow I would come back to the House with a list of celebrations your party had when in power and you would find that this was a minimal expense. Also, for your information, most of the money was spent on literature and a book that will be kept for reference.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, obviously you didn't hear the entire question. I stated it was a form letter. This form letter is sent to thousands of people across this province. The reality is, the average wait is 12 months. The reality is, it's totally unacceptable. You continue to waste money on parties and you've just had a fully catered employment equity party by the Ministry of Citizenship.

I want to tell you about some other area where you're wasting money. Every day I receive by Sameday courier copies of news releases from your ministry. These could just as easily be faxed to me.

When I looked into the issue, I found that you also send copies to the Premier's office; the Office of the Premier, policy and issues; Office of the Premier, communications; the Premier's press office and the Premier's special adviser -- four copies, all delivered by courier at a cost of around $3 per copy, that were sent to your Premier's office when they could have been sent by fax. That doesn't include --

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

Mrs Witmer: -- what you send to the government caucus office and the government members' lobby.

Minister, while workers wait for a year for investigations to take place regarding their claims, you squander scarce resources on couriers to deliver endless streams of inconsequential news releases. Instead of Sameday, why don't you use a fax?

Hon Mrs Coppen: I'll start saving money tomorrow and make sure that the member doesn't get any more of our clippings. We'll start off that way. We have a very good, cost-effective contract with the courier company.

I apologize. When you asked me the first question, I did not hear the beginning of it. I apologize for that, and I agree with you: A form letter that says that anyone has to wait one year to have their claim settled is unacceptable.

When we talk about waste, for the member's memory too, when you were in government there were two employment standards offices in the Niagara area, which didn't even have 300,000 population. So let's not nitpick on waste, because we can show to the public of Ontario the wanton waste that you had for 40 years.

Mrs Witmer: I've never been in government, but I would suggest to you that your government has no sense of priorities whatsoever. Important front-line services such as employment standards investigations that impact on human lives -- and yesterday we heard that shelters for women such as the Redwood Shelter in London go without funding while your government continues to waste millions of dollars.

I want to give you one more example. We recently learned that you spent $100,000 to finance four labour videotapes. One of them commemorated the 30th anniversary of the postal workers' strike. One was entitled Mapping the Workers' City: A Walker's Guide to Hamilton. I was amazed. You have no money for women's shelters, you have no money to help workers who have filed complaints, and yet you find $100,000 for videotapes.

Minister, don't you agree that the money you waste on parties, couriers and videotapes could be better spent on front-line services which are actually helping people?

Hon Mrs Coppen: With all seriousness, going back to the first question, because it does bother me that there was a form letter sent out that someone would have to wait one year to have their case investigated, on courier service expenditures we have as a government been very, very careful with our expenditures. It has been proven that we have. Over the last four years, this government has spent less than any other government that was in power. That is a true statement.

The videotapes she's talking about are videotapes, yes, that will be left for the history of young people here in this province, a history of the trade union movement. That's one part of our education that is lacking, that young people can feel proud of what working people did, what trade unions did to make this a great province. That is money well spent when we educate our youth.

The Speaker: New question. The honourable member for Oakville South.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I tell you where we waste money. I tell you we waste money when we pay that person to be the Minister of Labour in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Carr: That's where we waste the money.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Oakville South was recognized so that he would have an opportunity to place a question.

INTERNATIONAL AND INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. It's on waste as well.

Minister, a year ago your government spent $300,000 fighting the North American free trade agreement by going around with a committee to fight it. You also spent $80,000 producing this crazy video fighting the North American free trade agreement. You also lodged a court challenge to fight the NAFTA agreement. Will you now admit it was wrong to spend taxpayers' money to fight the NAFTA agreement last year?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): This one's for you, Mr Speaker. No.

Mr Carr: I'm glad we're being very brief, because your junior minister, the minister from Sarnia, is quoted in a press release: "'As one of our closest neighbours, Mexico offers a huge potential market for Ontario goods and services,' said Mr Huget."

My question to you is this: Will you send a clear message around the world that Ontario is open for business and that you are in favour of freer trade between Ontario and the rest of the world? Will you stand up today and say you support your junior minister having freer trade between Ontario and the rest of the world?

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes. I certainly support Mr Huget's comments. I've made comments similar to that myself. We are a country that depends on trade. We are a province that depends on trade. We're very trade-reliant in terms of our economy. In fact, it's our exports that are helping pull us out of the recession right now, and investments in the auto industries and others. It's incredibly important.

We believe in free trade. We happen not to like the FTA and NAFTA. The agreements that were negotiated by former federal governments were bad agreements. I have no problem saying that. There are problems with respect to the jurisdictional issues that are raised in that agreement. But none of that takes away from the commitment of the members on this side of the House to fair and free and liberalized trade.

1450

Mr Carr: I think I heard the minister say she's in favour of freer trade. Then why in the heck did you spend $300,000 going around the province fighting it if you believe in it? Speaking of trade she can do something about -- interprovincial trade barriers -- the GATT council spent two days in discussion of its report, and it said that in Canada interprovincial trade barriers are "hampering economic growth and job creation as well as reducing competitiveness in Canadian firms."

My question to you is this: Why are you spending $300,000 fighting the North American free trade agreement? Wouldn't that money be better spent trying to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers here in Canada rather than wasting money on something you can't do anything about?

Hon Ms Lankin: With respect to the money that has been spent in a public awareness and public education campaign about the significant problems in what was negotiated under the FTA and NAFTA and its impact on businesses and workers here in the province of Ontario, I'm proud of the leadership role this government played with respect to bringing those issues to the public of Ontario. I don't apologize at all.

With respect to interprovincial trade barriers, I'm really glad the member raised that, because that's where I wanted to go in my opportunity in responding to his third supplementary, because that in fact shows this government's commitment to freer, liberalized trade. This government played a leadership role in trying to push for bringing down barriers in those negotiations. I remind the member opposite of our relationship with the province of Quebec and the barriers that existed for years and years and years which prohibited contractors from being able to do work in Quebec, to bid on work, prohibited workers from crossing there.

I see members pointing fingers everywhere. Did your party do anything about it? No. Did the Liberals do anything about it? No. Did we do something about it? Yes, and the problem is resolved. We showed leadership. That's an example of real dedication to liberalized trade, not to phoney, ideological and bad trade deals like NAFTA.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, through your amendments to the long-term-care bill, Bill 173, you've guaranteed that a multiservice agency will not be able to purchase nursing and other home care services from other service agencies in the event of a strike. I remind you that people who need care in their homes are frequently alone, they're vulnerable, they're isolated, and they're very sick. Many could not cope with any kind of interruption in the nursing and social services that are so necessary for their health and their quality of life.

Your parliamentary assistant indicated in committee that it is possible that home care workers could be considered as essential workers in the event of a strike. We want you to confirm that you will designate home care workers, whether they're nursing or social workers, as essential workers if there is a strike, so we can assure our disabled, our seniors and our children who need long-term-care services that they will receive those services under any circumstances.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm quite sure the member is well aware that it is not for me to designate who are essential workers. That's something that, under the labour laws of this province, the Ontario Labour Relations Board would, I'm sure, deal with. What I said and what I still say is that of course people who need care under our long-term-care reorganization will get it when they need it, where they need it, and as close to their own home and in their own community as they can.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister well knows that included in Bill 173 she has emasculated the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the powers it has. Home care will be treated in a very different way from any other part of the government and the government's operations. Part of long-term-care reform is to ensure that people have the choice of the services they need and will participate in decisions about those services. Why would an individual opt for services in a home care situation rather than a facility if they cannot be guaranteed that those services would continue uninterrupted under any circumstances, including labour strife?

People want to know what plans you have so that people will be able to receive those nursing and other services in the event of labour strife. What discussions have you had with hospitals, with nursing homes, about admitting long-term-care patients who cannot receive those services at home; with ambulance services about transferring patients; with your own officials about the Ministry of Health directly providing those services; with physicians and other professionals --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You're going on four minutes here.

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

Mrs Sullivan: -- about what services they will provide in an emergency situation which would happen in a strike scenario?

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

Mrs Sullivan: What have you done to make certain that people will receive the care they need when they need it? What are your plans, and how will you assure people, rather than through words, that you in fact have plans in place?

Hon Mrs Grier: This member's persistent attempts to frighten the seniors of this province about the effect of the reorganization of long-term care are quite frankly disappointing; in fact, probably disgraceful, although that's a word I don't normally use.

Under her government there was a fragmentation of services. It was impossible to find out how you could find out what service was required. There was no commitment of funding to expand or to enhance long-term care so that people could stay at home.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's not true. Tell the truth, Ruth.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mrs Grier: What this government has done is invest another $600 million in long-term care. What this government has done --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister complete her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: Our reorganization of long-term care is in response to what the people who get long-term care said they needed and said they wanted across this province. The seniors and the disabled told us they didn't like the system they had and they didn't like the proposals of the Liberals when they were the government. They came to us and they said: "We don't want to be patronized. We don't want to be told what kind of care we need. We want to participate in the planning, in the delivery and in the management of the services of long-term care." That's what Bill 173 does and that's what the seniors of this province will get and deserve.

CONTAINMENT LABORATORY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Health as well. Madam Minister, on November 14 in this Legislature, with respect to the containment laboratory in the city of Etobicoke, you said, "In view of the concern of the residents of the area, it will not open until they have had an opportunity to have their fears addressed." You said you'd delay the opening until the end of this year. People are still phoning my office, and I'm sure yours, and they're asking the question about when they are going to have their chance for a public meeting. They wanted an environmental assessment and you said no. You've gone to the city of Etobicoke -- you didn't; your staff did -- and given them an undertaking that a committee would be struck, public hearings would be held --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: What? Sorry, Mr Speaker, there's a mouse in here.

Madam Minister, I just want to put it to you very directly: The constituents would like to know when these public hearings are taking place and when their concerns are going to be heard, because the elected officials in the city of Etobicoke I've spoken to have said categorically that they have not heard from your department on what's going to happen.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me first of all correct something in the preamble to the member's question. He said that I had said the laboratory would not open until the end of the year. In fact, I said the laboratory would not open until the concerns had been addressed. I agree with him: They have not yet been addressed.

The city of Etobicoke has asked us to do an environmental assessment. The government of which members of the Conservative Party were a part waived the environmental assessment, gave an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act so that there would not be an environmental assessment of the construction of this 1,200-square-foot laboratory within a laboratory that had been there since the 1960s, for which no environmental assessment was done when the building was first built, because the act didn't even exist then.

1500

Secondly, the city of Etobicoke has asked us to build a hospital next door to the laboratory, should there be a leak of viruses. I don't decide overnight whether or not to build new hospitals. In fact, I haven't had the privilege of deciding to build new hospitals since I became Minister of Health. I would have to look at that particular request very carefully.

The city of Etobicoke has asked for a quarter-of-a-million-dollar indemnity fund for the residents around the laboratory. That of course is something that would have to be considered very carefully, and the city of Etobicoke has had a public meeting where all the residents voiced their concerns and which was the origin of these kinds of requests from the city.

When we have had a time to analyse them, when we have had a time to sit down with officials from the city, then I can assure the member that all of his constituents will be advised that in fact the public health officials in the city of Etobicoke believe they have nothing to fear from this laboratory --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and were part of the implementation committee set up three years ago to in fact make sure that the laboratory was constructed safely.

Mr Stockwell: I'm very pleased with the response. As I understood it, when I asked you this question on November 14, you ruled that you wouldn't have an environmental assessment hearing. I'm pleased to hear that you're in fact considering having an environmental assessment hearing on this site. I'm sure the people in the city of Etobicoke will be real pleased to know that you've decided that you've got to review the environmental assessment hearing and whether or not you're going to have it.

The other thing I'm glad to hear about is that you're considering the request for a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar indemnification.

Interjection: Billion?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar indemnification for the area. I'm really pleased that she's considering that too.

Hon Mrs Grier: I said million.

Mr Stockwell: I'm also real pleased that you're going to strike this committee and you're going to consider hearing from these constituents full-time.

I'm also really pleased that you have agreed not to open it by the end of the year, that it's going to be some time in 1995.

I guess the question that stands is, while you're considering all this stuff, when do you think you might come to a potential date just to have a public hearing to hear from the constituents so they can express their concerns while you're contemplating environmental assessment hearings and quarter-of-a-billion-dollar indemnifications? When do you think you could just take a few minutes of your busy schedule to have a public hearing so these people may speak to you first hand and outline their real concerns about the opening of this viral containment centre?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said in response to the first question, the city of Etobicoke has had a public hearing. All of the people expressed their concerns to the city of Etobicoke and to the board of health of the city of Etobicoke. As a result of that public meeting, the city council has forwarded to us a series of recommendations based on those concerns. I said I would look at them.

I think it would be foolish for the member, and I'm quite sure, given the Common Sense Revolution, that he wouldn't want to be advocating a quarter of a billion dollars in indemnification for something that might happen should something else happen should something else happen, but maybe he does. And I certainly don't know how the Environmental Assessment Act can be applied retroactively to something to which a Conservative government gave an exemption.

But I'm pleased to know that the member is pleased, and I'm pleased to tell him that when we have come to some conclusions I will be pleased to share them with him.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's nice to stand up after the member for Etobicoke West. I hope I can keep his ratings up.

The question I have is for the Minister of Health. It has to do with Bill 119, the Tobacco Control Act. While I've heard a number of very positive comments about the Tobacco Control Act from a number of groups and people throughout my riding, there has been one concern that has been expressed to me that I think should be discussed here. That has to do with the schools and the fact that a number of young people are found loitering outside the school property and disturbing area residents.

This issue has been raised with me by a couple of people, so my question to the minister is this: What are the options for those residents who live next to the high schools in dealing with the increase in the number of students loitering outside, off school property?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The member is indeed right. Under the legislation that was proclaimed at midnight last night, schools and their properties are in fact smoke-free zones. The objective of the legislation is not only to prevent young people under the age of 19 from getting access to tobacco but also to make sure that areas that are frequented by the public and by non-smokers are smoke-free.

All I can say to schools, many of which fully support the legislation and appeared before the committee indicating their desire to have this legislation, is that, working with their public health units, they may in fact be able to deal with this problem, because we have funded public health units to provide smoking cessation and smoking education for pupils. In addition, the schools that have been having difficulty from neighbours who complain that students are perhaps smoking on adjacent properties I think will find that the problem diminishes today, when people under the age of 19 find it much more difficult to obtain cigarettes in the first place.

Mr Wiseman: Minister, my supplementary has to do with how this is going to be funded and how the public health units that are responsible for enforcement under Bill 119 are going to be funded. How will this system work? As a former educator myself, I know that all educators are anxious to make this system work. So how can they relate to the inspectors, and how will this whole system work out in terms of funding?

Hon Mrs Grier: When I referred to public health units doing smoking cessation and education programs, that has been part of ongoing funding to public health units. But I think it's very important that this legislation be enforced and not be like the federal legislation that has said, "You can't smoke under the age of 18," and for which they have 10 inspectors for the entire province of Ontario.

Those 10 inspectors, as well as existing public health inspectors, as well as enforcement officers who will be hired by public health units with the addition of an extra $2.5 million from my ministry, have all been part of education programs to inform them about the legislation and will be part of the enforcement. So the public health inspectors and the enforcement officers, who know their own communities, who know the shopkeepers in their communities, will be part of making sure that those who sell tobacco will respect the legislation, which makes it an offence to sell or give tobacco to anyone under the age of 19.

TRENTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question today is for the Minister of Health. Minister, back in June of this year, approximately 500 people travelled to Queen's Park from the Trenton area to voice their concerns about the future of the Trenton Memorial Hospital and to ask for your help. At that time we came away feeling hopeful that you would make things happen. It is now the end of November, and we still have not heard from you.

In 1989, the government gave approval for the needed changes to the area hospitals in Trenton, Belleville and Picton. Since then, it seems that your government and staff have done everything possible to delay those needed changes, which would guarantee not only the health of the patients but also the safety of those within.

Your staff promised that the second phase of the rationalization study would be completed by April, and it is now November. You, along with ministry officials, said we would have a response no later than the end of October, and in a conversation I had with you earlier this month, you told me it would likely be delayed until December.

There is absolutely no excuse for those delays, which are jeopardizing the health of our community. We have waited patiently through three functional programs, one CHO or comprehensive health organization study, two rationalization studies, and thousands of hours of discussion and debate in order to receive approval to redevelop our grossly substandard and outdated facilities.

Based on reports from the fire department, the city's building department, architects and unions, Trenton Memorial Hospital is in critical condition and the health and safety of staff and patients are at risk as a result. Minister, I ask you to address these matters immediately. What do you intend to do?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this question which, as the member has said, I've had an opportunity to discuss with him and with representatives of the community who he brought to visit me. I can assure him that the member from Prince Edward-Lennox and the member for Hastings-Peterborough are vitally interested in the results of the work that is being done by the district health council, and let me repeat that. The planning and restructuring of health care facilities within this province is the responsibility of district health councils with which we work very closely and whose advice we rely on.

I'm delighted to be able to tell the member that I have in fact received the recommendations from the district health council. They are recommendations that our ministry feels will go a long way to address long-standing problems, problems that were identified, I think, in 1986 for the first time, and we now have had a comprehensive evaluation of the needs of that district for the future.

1510

I can say to him that I hope very shortly to be able to report back to the district health council with our response which, I can assure him, will enable the institutions about which he is concerned to be put on a firm footing for the years ahead.

Mr O'Neil: Madam Minister, the problem is that you're throwing this back on the district health council, and I believe the district health council replied to you back in August of this year. They are so frustrated that they are talking about resigning en masse because you and the ministry staff have not acted upon those recommendations.

I'm going to send over both to you -- because the member for Northumberland, Mrs Fawcett, and myself met with the hospital board in Trenton on Thursday evening -- and to the Premier reports that came from the fire department and the city building department of Trenton talking about the danger of that establishment.

You've had this for too long now, you have not dealt with it and the thing is that you need to get moving and give the district health council and the people of Trenton and area an answer on what you're going to do with this. You've been delaying for months upon months. There's a real danger to the health of the people who are in that hospital if you don't give us an answer very shortly so they can go ahead with the building and the repairs that need to be done.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member began his question by saying that I was throwing it back to the district health council. Let me assure him that nothing could be further from the truth. We have had from the district health council a first-rate report that deals with a number of issues that have been of long-standing concern in that community and that make some very concrete recommendations to the ministry.

We've had that report, we have almost completed our evaluation of that report, and I can assure him he will have a very concrete response, as will the member for Prince Edward-Lennox and the member for Hastings-Peterborough, all of whom share his concern. I've seen the clippings; I know the concerns of the fire department.

There has been funding in order to make some improvements to the essential components of that hospital. It's a hospital that's very old and that needs a lot of investment, the one in Trenton, and we will be addressing that just as soon as we can get the letter drafted and out to the district health council.

RESIDENTS' SAFETY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the new Minister of Housing. Bill 120, which came into force last summer, brought care homes under the laws governing rental housing, but as I have said many times, this is like putting a square peg in a round hole.

If you apply laws designed for apartments to care homes, you endanger the health and safety of the residents who are under care. For instance, as a result of Bill 120, residents must be given 24 hours' notice before staff can enter their rooms. This means that night-time security checks are no longer possible.

One of the many letters I've received on this issue is from 36 residents in the Pinewood Retirement Residence in Pembroke. They write: "We depend on these night checks for security and our peace of mind. This is clearly not in our best interest." Minister, how would you reply to these residents' concerns about their personal safety overnight?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Housing): I think everyone is concerned about the safety and welfare of people in care homes. There's no question about that, and I think that the provisions in question grew out of studies undertaken by Dr Lightman in the Lightman report, where he made a number of recommendations that made it very appropriate for those residents to be brought under the Landlord and Tenant Act and to be provided with a whole range of protections which that piece of legislation provides for them.

I understand perfectly that managers of care homes brought under new legislation would have some concerns about how that legislation would apply to them and their performance of their proper activities with respect to their clients. It will take some time to get used to new provisions as they come under that legislation, but there are a number of provisions and understandings around that law which make it quite accessible and useful for them with respect to the needs of their clients.

If there's not a 24-hour advance notice, the staff person can always knock and get a response. That's the first provision: You can get in if you have a response. The second is, if you have a reason to believe, knowing the client in question, that there is an emergency in the room, be it by virtue of the condition of that patient, that person, then you have a right to enter, and you may enter and seek that condition. Under those circumstances, it's very unlikely that there will be an action taken against you.

Mrs Marland: Well, I can tell you that Dr Lightman never referred to these people as clients; he always said "patients."

A woman whose husband has Parkinson's disease writes that restricting access to her husband's room is "nothing short of madness. He falls continually and unexpectedly and therefore would not be able to call for the staff to help him. He could be lying on the floor for hours."

In another letter, a man whose mother-in-law is 91, senile and has several serious health problems writes, "If your mother were in this place and if she suffered a stroke in the middle of the night or a heart attack or was choking on her vomit and no one could enter her room on a regular basis every night, even several times during the night, to check on her or to give her assistance when and if needed, would you be happy because your mother died in order that the act be upheld?"

Minister, if this is what it is like and if this is what it will take, a tragedy, even a death, before you will admit that your government made a grave error when it brought care homes under laws that were designed for rental apartments -- we are talking about people who are in care homes, frankly, because they need care, and they're paid for by your government for that special care, and you're happy to leave them alone all night with --

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

Mrs Marland: I am hoping that this new Minister of Housing has concern and is willing to reverse this very wrong decision to include care homes under Bill 120.

Hon Mr Allen: Nothing that I have heard convinces me that common sense will not prevail, and that indeed the appropriate roles that people, as caregivers, are expected to give under those circumstances will in fact prevail in the exercise of their responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act, but as caregivers.

There will of course, quite inevitably, as always happens with new legislation, be the development of a whole new field of case law around this, but I would expect and I would urge that caregivers exercise common sense in the application of the law. I think with that understanding there will be no harm to either the caregiver or to the patient.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I am aware that the minister and this government continue to support the further development of an ethanol industry in Ontario. However, I have in my hand a letter from a constituent, Bruce Jewell, rural route 1, Carrying Place, who's keen to see this industry start and who also says he believes this alternative fuel is a step in the right direction.

Since 1992, Seaway Valley Farmers' Energy Co-operative has conducted numerous investigations into the feasibility of constructing and operating a 50-million-litre-per-year ethanol production facility in eastern Ontario. In the past six months I understand that Seaway Valley has carried out extensive market searches and that it has developed a comprehensive business plan. The cooperative would like to begin construction of its facility this spring.

Given the potential rural employment and economic benefits generated by this project, not to mention a market for five million bushels of Ontario corn, can the minister confirm his support for this project for eastern Ontario?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): We have responded to a number of questions in this House about the project that everyone has heard about in Chatham, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond regarding this initiative in eastern Ontario, which is badly in need of jobs.

I want the member to know that I've met with the Seaway Valley co-operative members a number of times over the last few years. In fact, I think a couple of members of the opposition have sponsored trips for the farmers from eastern Ontario to come to this place, and we've actually met in this building to talk about their ideas and their projects.

This is essentially a group of farmers coming together investing some of their own money, and hopefully they will get to the stage where they'll be able to create an ethanol plant somewhere in the Cornwall region. It's unfortunate the member from Cornwall is not here today, because he's done a lot of work on helping the farmers to initiate that project.

We are very supportive of the ethanol industry, and I look forward to a meeting probably before the new year with the group from Seaway Valley to look at their plans for the construction of a plant. We will try to assist them as much as we can, because ethanol is a very good way to create jobs in rural Ontario.

1520

Mr Paul Johnson: Mr Jewell also states in his letter that he feels the NDP government has been stalling. He feels this government has been stalling and he wants to know how it is that Jean Chrétien could approve a similar facility in China.

As the minister has noted on many occasions, the province has been supportive of the industry on many issues, and in particular in encouraging the federal government to match Ontario's commitment on long-term tax concessions on alternative fuels such as ethanol.

To date, however, there has been no federal announcement on the excise tax issue. Many people would like to hear something from the federal government. Can the minister update the House today with respect to this very important issue?

Hon Mr Buchanan: This is a very important question. Some of us have been waiting now for about a year, after the election of the new Liberal regime in Ottawa. One of the first announcements that came out for rural Ontario was that there was an expected announcement within a week or two and they were going to take a couple of weeks to review the process that had taken place under the previous administration.

We waited a couple of weeks, we waited a couple of months, and now we keep hearing that the announcement will be made soon. We hear the fact it will be made in a couple of weeks. We heard that back in September. It was going to be done in the summertime so the construction could start this fall in Chatham, and quite frankly --

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

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- now we keep hearing that the announcement of this stage will be made before Christmas. The people of rural Ontario, Seaway Valley as well as Chatham, certainly would appreciate an announcement --

The Speaker: New question.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of Labour.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The minister is not present in the chamber. Is there any other minister to whom you wish to direct your question?

Mr Mammoliti: Perhaps the Minister of Finance would answer the question, the Deputy Premier.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I'm listening.

The Speaker: Place the question.

Mr Mammoliti: Minister, today I brought down a constituent of mine by the name of Frank Casser. Frank's history of the Workers' Compensation Board goes back a long way. Frank is here in the gallery with me today. He got injured in 1986, back and neck. Four claims later and nine years later, Frank's claim has been denied. If it weren't for a subsidy, some compensation from an insurance company, Frank would have been on welfare.

My question to the minister, of course in the absence of the Minister of Labour, is, what is the government doing to help alleviate the problems within workers' compensation and what can we do to stop nine-year waiting lists from happening once again? I'll bring over to you, Minister, Frank's file that he has built up over the last nine years. Can I have a page, please?

I must mention as well, Minister, that Frank has done this all by himself. He could not hire a lawyer or a consultant to do this, and I'd like you to base your answer on what perhaps we're doing as a government to help alleviate individuals like himself.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the question from the member for Yorkview, who is carrying on a long tradition of concern on behalf of this party for injured workers in this province. There is no question that from time to time injured workers who come into contact with the Workers' Compensation Board have enormous difficulties having their claims settled.

I myself represent a constituency with many injured workers, representing an area with mining and forestry predominant, so I do appreciate the problems that injured workers have from time to time. And it doesn't have to be a very large percentage of total claims for it to be an important but small percentage, and I appreciate that fact.

As the member for Yorkview would know, I suspect, we have worked extremely hard to do two things. One is to reform the structure of the Workers' Compensation Board so that it's a bipartite structure, and work is ongoing on that. Second, and perhaps in the long run more important, although it may not satisfy the immediate problems of your constituent, and I appreciate that, is to have struck a royal commission which will look at the whole existence of the Workers' Compensation Board and the way in which services to injured workers should be delivered in the long run.

There are many models of workers' compensation and all governments in this province have struggled with the whole question of how to deliver services humanely and also at the same time affordably for the business community. We can't just ignore that.

I appreciate the question from the member for Yorkview and can assure him that we will continue to work to try and streamline and get rid of some of the problems that currently exist at the Workers' Compensation Board.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This petition 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 services in the long-term-care field; 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 the province."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further petitions? The honourable member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): The boss himself.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Conway.

I have a petition here today signed by in excess of 500 people in my riding that says:

"Petition to the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Muskoka believe that the present system of funding education in the province of Ontario by property taxes is unfair; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario established the Fair Tax Commission to review and make recommendations regarding Ontario's tax system; and

"Whereas said commission concluded that education should not be funded from local property taxes; and

"Whereas said commission proposed four potential sources -- the provincial payroll tax, the corporate income tax, the retail sales tax and the personal income tax -- of core funding for education; and

"Whereas the allocations of the general legislative grant to the Muskoka Board of Education have decreased by $7.7 million since 1991; and

"Whereas Muskoka's average family income is approximately 20% lower than the provincial average;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, do petition the Legislature of the province of Ontario as follows:

"To implement immediately the recommendations of the Fair Tax Commission regarding a new system of core funding for education; to recognize that the average family income in Muskoka is such that some residents are unable to pay increased property taxes in order to fund quality education for Muskoka students; to reassess the allocation of the general legislative grant to the Muskoka Board of Education for 1994."

I too affix my name.

VENTE DE BIÈRE ET VIN / SALE OF BEER AND WINE

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : Encore une fois aujourd'hui, j'ai 821 noms -- 829 names -- de quatre dépanneurs, du Mini-Marché Laurier à Rockland, du Marché du Coin Lefaivre, du Marché Côté à Saint-Eugène et du dépanneur Legault à Casselman, des pétitions des gens de la circonscription qui demandent humblement à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario que l'on appuie un projet de loi pour autoriser les dépanneurs à pouvoir vendre du vin et de la bière à leurs clients dans les dépanneurs.

There again:

"We, the undersigned, humbly beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support legislation authorizing convenience stores to sell beer and wine to their clients."

J'ai appuyé ces pétitions-là très fortement, j'y ai apposé ma signature et c'est avec plaisir que je vous les présente.

1530

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Stop the implementation of the mental health reform as outlined in Putting People First;

"Stop the plan to transfer hospital staff workers into the community;

"Start funding free, non-medical, non-traditional autonomous community services;

"Start serious discussions with psychiatric survivors, abuse survivors, feminist service providers, community service providers, providers of ethno-specific and multicultural services and community service clients;

"Allocate at least 50% of the multibillion-dollar mental health budget in Ontario to non-medical, non-traditional, autonomous community services which are controlled and guided by the communities which they serve; and

"Recognize and address the societal origins of people's problems. These origins include: poverty, sexism, racism, homelessness, lack of affordable and safe housing, all forms of abuse -- sexual, ritual, physical, medical and psychiatric -- and emotion abuse, violence against women and children, homophobia, ageism and ableism."

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm proud to present today probably the largest petition I've ever presented as a member in the Legislature, a petition signed by some 15,884 people in the city of Pembroke and elsewhere in the upper Ottawa Valley. It is a petition that was gathered together just in the last few days, and it concerns the very sensitive and controversial question of hospital restructuring in the city of Pembroke.

The petition reads in part:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the hospital services review committee of the Renfrew County District Health Council was established to restructure hospital services in the city of Pembroke; and

"Whereas consumer participation and input is an important component of the study;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned consumers recommend as following:

"(a) That no Pembroke hospital be closed;

"(b) That each hospital restructure to avoid duplication, that each hospital develop their programs of excellence and become as efficient as possible; and

"(c) That all hospital staff affected by the restructuring be treated in a fair and equitable manner."

I repeat, this petition has been gathered together in just a few days and it is signed by almost 16,000 of my constituents who are obviously very seriously concerned about any hospital restructuring that could injure health care and hospital services in the upper Ottawa Valley.

HIGHWAY 520

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents and cottagers of McKenzie, Hagerman and Ferrie townships in the district of Parry Sound in the province of Ontario do hereby sign this petition for the following reasons:

"(1) The highway commonly known and duly mapped as Highway 520 from the village of Dunchurch to the village of Ardbeg was, until this past summer, a paved road;

"(2) Highway 520 is now a gravel road due to resurfacing by MTO personnel and other contractor input;

"(3) The gravel road has caused windshields to be broken from passing vehicles, dust to residential adjacent properties and a rough surface.

"We, the undersigned residents, therefore request that the afore-noted highway be paved as soon as possible."

The petition is signed by many residents in the area, and I have affixed my signature thereto as an MPP.

CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition and I'd like to acknowledge the contribution of the Centennial Community and Recreation Association in my riding for doing a lot of work to pull this together.

It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Centennial waterfront of Lake Ontario between Highland Creek and the Rouge River is an important natural asset that needs to be protected and kept accessible;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to initiate discussions with other governments and agencies, including those of Canada, Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Scarborough as well as the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and local school boards regarding the acquisition of lands and appurtenant properties for the protection of the environment and enjoyment by future generations."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by numerous people from Port Hope and Cobourg district:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to help us to protect our children by changing the current maximum penalty of 10 years for sexual interference to a minimum of five years with mandatory counselling and up to and including life imprisonment as a maximum penalty."

I have signed the petition.

WATER SAFETY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have another petition that states:

"We, the undersigned, are requesting much tougher boating legislation after Cody Speaker's life being taken away in a boating accident at age 7. We want to see all boat and personal watercraft drivers having to get operators' licences, and an age limit for drivers. We want them to take courses on how to operate their watercraft and enforce these regulations.

"We are doing this in memory of Cody Speaker in hopes that we may prevent this from happening again."

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to 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 as it is 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;

I agree with this petition and therefore I affix my signature to it in agreement.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This petition is from some of the Toronto Islands residents:

"We, the undersigned, endorsed the lease developed through a democratic process by the island community. The trust's legal counsel assured us this lease conformed completely with Bill 61. We sincerely request that you not regulate additional terms and conditions, but offer the lease that was voted on and accepted by both the community and the trust board."

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a whopper of a petition here, thousands of signatures, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario has long represented a serious inequity between the two regions," and this government's done nothing about it, "and

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario is often between 10 and 20 cents a litre; and

"Whereas residents of most northern Ontario communities have no access to public transportation options and are therefore dependent on private automobiles; and

"Whereas 1990 NDP election promises to equalize the price of gas across the province have not been kept; and

"Whereas Kenora Liberal MPP Frank Miclash has called upon the NDP government to keep their 1990 election promises; and

"Whereas the elimination of motor vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario residents does not compensate for the excessively high price of gas in the north;

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

"That the NDP government of Ontario fulfil its election promises to the people of northern Ontario by equalizing the price of gas across the province."

I proudly affix my signature to this.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have another petition, which reads:

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

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

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

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

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

1540

GUN CONTROL

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): One final petition today, and this petition says:

"Instead of changing Canada's gun laws, the government should enforce existing laws and deal more severely with criminals that use illegal weapons."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr146, An Act respecting the City of York

Bill Pr148, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga

Bill Pr150, An Act to revive Mississauga Synchronized Swimming Association

Bill Pr151, An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of London

Bill Pr153, An Act respecting the Simcoe County Board of Education

Bill Pr154, An Act to revive Oshawa Deaf Centre Inc.

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr117, An Act respecting the J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc.

Bill Pr147, An Act respecting the City of York.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr117, An Act respecting the J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc.

Bill Pr154, An Act to revive Oshawa Deaf Centre Inc.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Shall the report be adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the 32nd report and moved its adoption.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member wish to briefly state what's in this report?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, Mr Speaker, thank you, I do not have any comment on the report.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Marchese from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that the following bills be not reported:

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé

Bill 151, An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition / Loi sur la réglementation des munitions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COBALLOY MINES AND REFINERS LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Murphy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr143, An Act to revive Coballoy Mines and Refiners Limited.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

COLUMBIA METALS CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Murphy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr144, An Act to revive Columbia Metals Corporation Limited.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

S.A.W. GALLERY INC. ACT, 1994

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr152, An Act to revive S.A.W. Gallery Inc.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I call the first order, which I intend to call as government notice of motion number 38, the House leaders have had a discussion about this item and I think it's been agreed, so I seek the consent of the House, to proceed in this fashion: I will move the motion and I will do the opening remarks for the government and, when I have finished, the other two parties will split the remainder of the time in the two hours that are allotted for this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do we have unanimous consent to the government House leader's suggestion? Agreed.

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING / HEURES PROLONGÉES DE SÉANCE

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 38:

That, pursuant to standing order 6(b)(i), the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on December 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1994, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I don't intend to speak at any great length this afternoon, but I thought there were a few remarks that I should make this afternoon simply because of a number of things that have been said in this House over the last couple of weeks that I think, for the public, need to be clearly set straight on the record.

There have been repeated accusations from the opposition, and most recently and most vehemently by the member for Etobicoke West over the course of the last several days, that somehow the government has taken five weeks off. The members opposite know full well that's not correct.

The standing orders of this House set out a House calendar, and it is true that between 1991 and 1994 it can be said that we didn't follow the House calendar with any precision in terms of the actual dates that are set out in the House calendar. On the other hand, it is very true that between 1991 and the end of this session next Thursday this House will have sat, almost to the day, precisely in the time set out in the calendar for this House to sit.

This government has taken no time off. We were forced to sit longer in the summer of 1992, that's true, and we were forced to sit right through July and into August in the summer of 1993, way over the sitting schedule. So yes, there has been a shorter sitting this fall, but the point that has to be made clear to the opposition, and at the end of the day to the public, is that the standing orders set out a particular legislative schedule for this House and governments design their legislative agendas based on those calendars that are set out. So we've ended up, as a government, with a legislative agenda that was designed to fit into the total amount of calendar time set out in the standing orders. That's what we've ended up with.

In that respect, it is unfair to suggest to the public that we haven't left enough time in this fall sitting to deal with the legislation that's before us. As a matter of fact, the only thing that is bringing pressure on the legislative agenda this fall is the filibustering that went on by both of the opposition parties in four committees -- not one, not two.

1550

I can recall the last session under the former government in 1989-90 when there were, of the entire government legislative agenda in two sessions, two bills that were vehemently opposed by the opposition, two bills that, in the traditional jargon of this place, the opposition parties filibustered. In this year, in the spring session and the fall session, there have been a total of 11 pieces of legislation filibustered by the opposition parties, intentionally delayed by the opposition parties.

So if we want to talk about the use of time allocation, the use of the other techniques in the rules to move legislation along, we have to measure that discussion in the context of the realities that promote the use of those techniques. In both cases in 1989-90 when the opposition filibustered two government bills, at the end of the day the government time allocated, or approved closure on, both of the bills that were filibustered.

So the kinds of things that have been said here in this House over the course of the last two weeks do not provide accurate information to the public about the real operation of this assembly, of its intent to move legislation to conclusion, of the normal processes by which we accomplish that, or the times we are intended to be here to accomplish those tasks.

Back to the remarks from the member for Etobicoke West. When he says to this House that members are not at work if they're not here in the House, I would suggest that on most occasions most members of the Conservative caucus are avoiding work, because on most legislative days here there are two or three or four members of the member for Etobicoke West's party available in the House, and the rest, I would assume from his comments, are not working, not doing their job.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would suggest that if the House Leader is going to make statements like he's just made, he would offer evidence to that fact, and if you don't have the evidence at your hand, don't make the statements.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. It's not a point of order. Really, a quorum is what matters in this place, and if there is not a quorum, there is a quorum call. Outside of that, we do not refer to --

Hon Mr Charlton: Oh, that's absolutely true, Mr Speaker. I was simply making reference to the comments that were made here by the member for Etobicoke West himself about what work was for a member and what work was not.

Mr Stockwell: You said there were members missing. Just prove it. When were they, and how many were missing? Tell us.

Hon Mr Charlton: Right now? Take a head count, my friend. This is a legislative day.

The Acting Speaker: Please address through the Chair.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, I should address you and not the member across the way, who is obviously becoming a little irritated about things he's said that are coming back now to bother him.

The last set of comments I want to make in this discussion of late-night sittings, and I started to say it earlier, is that the only severe thing at this point that is putting pressure on the time in this session to finish the legislation that's before us are three or four matters that were not on the agenda at the start of the session, three or four matters which the opposition parties have demanded that the government do something about.

It is true that some of the ministers on this side have agreed that something should be done about the matters in question. Hence we've brought forward legislation to deal with the after-hour club situation after the questions were raised a number of times here in the House. We are in the process of having discussions with the third party about a private member's bill that was introduced by the member for Mississauga South dealing with issues around drunk driving and demands from the third party that we proceed to put in place some tougher measures in that respect. We are also dealing with a matter that was not on the agenda at the beginning of this session that was proposed in a bill introduced by the member for Oriole when she was a little concerned that we hadn't moved quickly enough. We did eventually, two days later, introduce legislation.

We have a number of items that have emerged on the agenda during the course of this session that were not part of this government's agenda, or anybody's agenda, when this session started. The demands for those pieces of legislation did not come up in the first question period on October 31 or the second question period on November 1 or the third question period on November 2. The demands for those pieces of legislation have arisen here in this House during the process of this session, many of those demands coming from the opposition parties. We're going to need the time that the late-night sittings tomorrow evening and for the four evenings next week will provide us to finish the legislative agenda we had in hand when this session started and the number of pieces that have been added to that agenda in the last couple of weeks.

I can't conceive of why either of the opposition parties would want to spend a lot of time debating or even considering opposing this motion. I think we just need to get on with the business of the House, to deal with the matters that both parties have said publicly in this House they want to see dealt with quickly, these additional items that have come on to the agenda, and get on with passing those bills rather than spending a lot of time debating the motion that will enable us to get that job done.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): One of the great things about Canadian winter is that it brings with it a crispness and a cold that, in its positive effect, eradicates those horrible blackflies and mosquitoes that so irritate the Canadian skin and the Canadian hide in May, June and July of summertime. Soon, metaphorically, a Canadian winter will set upon us and, speaking for myself only, some of those truly irritating mosquitoes and blackflies that have gotten under my skin over the past number of years will be removed from the scene.

As I speak to this motion, I want to say at the outset that I think it is a fair and reasonable thing for any government House leader, at this point in the season, to ask for and to get night sittings. There is no question about that.

When I was first elected, along with the member for Ottawa Centre, there was a tradition here that, particularly in the spring sitting, the Legislature would sit not just at night but in fact around the clock. The folklore of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is rich with stories about how, under the very colourful House leadership of one Eric Winkler, a former Tory member for Grey South, not only would we sit all night but we would sometimes sit through the day, with more than one order paper for that day and not necessarily recognition by the government of the day that in fact the order paper had been changed along the way.

So it has to be said that we expect, in June and in late November and December, a request from government to sit at night. Happily, under changes of recent years, we have capped those sittings, by and large, at midnight, and I think that is the sane and sensible thing to do.

So at one level this motion is perfectly understandable and supportable, because it fits into a long tradition in this place. But this motion does, of course, provide members of the Legislature with an opportunity to assess how it is that the government has organized its affairs in this, the fifth year of its electoral mandate. That is a subject to which I want to turn my attention, and I listened with some care to the recent comments made by the government House leader. Since I want to maintain an equilibrium this afternoon, I'm not going to treat those comments at any length, because I don't know how, in all fairness and candour, I could do so and maintain any equilibrium.

I think it has to be said that we stand here on November 30, St Andrew's Day, with one of the most remarkable years of legislative sitting that I can remember. I don't think there has been a year quite like the one in which we are now finding ourselves.

If one looks at the period July 1, 1994, to April 1, 1995, it can be said that we will have sat in that nine-month period for 20 days. That, I think the record will show, is unprecedented, I suspect, in the last 35 years. One has to go back, I'm sure, into the 1950s, perhaps the early 1960s, to find a time when so little of the legislative schedule was in fact used up for purposes of government business and legislative business. I repeat to anyone watching or listening this afternoon that from July 1, 1994, to April 1, 1995, and I suspect it will even be longer than that, we will have sat for 20 days.

1600

This motion indicates, and let me read it:

"That, pursuant to standing order 6(b)(i), the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on December 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8," and on the evening of December 8, "the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day."

Just so everyone knows what that means, it means the following: When we have completed our 20th day of business next Thursday night, we will adjourn, and some time thereafter, probably within a day, a week, a month, the Lieutenant Governor will prorogue this session and we will be called back to a new session some time, I suspect, in mid-April. So we are not dealing here with a normal adjournment: Everyone knows and we all expect that we will have a prorogation. This government will not of course announce that -- it doesn't need to, but it won't -- until after adjournment next Thursday night.

I want to say to my friends opposite, it is clear what kind of game you're playing. I can understand that. You have the right. Governments win that right, when they win the right to form a government, to decide how and when Parliament's going to meet. So you'll be able to say that in this, the last year of this mandate, you will have met for 20 days in that nine-and-a-half-month period from June 1994 until March-April 1995. I just think that's the point that a number of members have highlighted.

I saw, briefly, the rather enthusiastic interventions of my friend the member for Etobicoke West on this subject, I think just yesterday. What he does not of course have the benefit of, which some of the rest of us have, is the benefit of the NDP in opposition. I fantasize about what would have happened had Bill Davis or David Peterson tried any of these stunts.

I think it is very good to say that this Liberal and Tory opposition, imperfect and histrionic as it sometimes is, has happily not engaged in some of the truly disgraceful conduct the Rae opposition engaged in in the mid- to late 1980s. Fortunately, we do not have leaders of opposition parties engaging in civil disobedience. We do not have warrants being served on leaders of opposition parties like Mr Rae invited, attracted, encouraged in the summer of 1990. I think that is a step forward.

I think it is very, very useful that Liberal and Tory members of the opposition have not paraded, on almost a daily basis, the sick and the dying, the grieving, to this chamber, like the New Democrats did during the 1980s. I think that was really unedifying and often perfectly disgraceful conduct, and I am happy that this opposition, Liberal and Tory, has chosen not to emulate that conduct.

The member for Ottawa Centre stops chewing gum long enough to frown. I know she's probably a little stung by what I've said.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): It's not accurate.

Mr Conway: It is accurate, and I ask anyone who was here, because I saw it on a daily basis. I saw Bob Rae's --

Ms Gigantes: I was here.

Mr Conway: You were not here for all of it, I dare say, Madam.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please address the Chair, and interjections are out of order.

Mr Conway: I want to say that I know what I saw and I know what I heard, and I can remember. I can remember families being paraded in here and ministers of a Tory and Liberal government being forced to encounter some conduct that I just thought was really regrettable. I know what I saw when I saw Bob Rae up at Temagami. Maybe I remember it incorrectly, but perhaps some of my colleagues will ask -- of course, you see, the new puritans of the NDP say: "Since we are the light and the truth, we have the received wisdom. It is of course only your ignorance and only your blindness that causes you not to see."

And then who can forget -- do you remember? I remember. I think I was government House leader -- the day that, spontaneously, hundreds of injured workers happened to that door, nearly barged through the chamber door. It was spontaneous. Oh, it was absolutely spontaneous. I know it to be true. I remember those days when Peter Kormos and some others did things here that really, I think, brought opposition politics to a dangerous point.

I want to be fair. I think it is true that not always, if one looked at the past, could one say it was just the New Democrats. But I think it is fair to say that over the course of the past 15 or 20 years when governments -- do you remember those New Democrats when Tories and Liberals brought time allocation motions? Wow. It's interesting to see the faded frescoes now appearing after layers of paint have been peeled away. I am surprised, quite frankly, that some of that gold leaf didn't reveal itself with the blistering assaults of New Democrats as they excoriated Liberal and Tory governments for time allocation and closure.

I ask my friends to contemplate what it is we have in this session. Let me say again, I have no difficulty with the government -- I fully expect the government -- in late November and in mid-June to bring a request for night sittings. I expect it and I intend to support it in normal circumstances. I think we have to be fair; that's what we have come to recognize as business around here. But I ask my friends to contemplate what we have this year. We, I think, adjourned on June 25 or thereabouts.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): June 23.

Mr Conway: June 23. I thank the table. We adjourned on June 23 and we came back four months and one week later, on October 31. Never in my 20 years was there such a recess period.

Ms Gigantes: That's not the case.

Mr Conway: It is the case. I certainly can tell my friend opposite that I don't ever remember that kind of recess, with the possible exception of when there was an election in the fall. There was no election this fall. In the normal course of events, we would adjourn mid- to late June, generally, in the more recent years, in early July, and we would come back around Thanksgiving.

Ms Gigantes: There wasn't a schedule.

Mr Conway: I know there wasn't a schedule, but there has been experience. I know the member for Ottawa Centre, as is her churlish wont, does not wish that we reflect on some of this past experience, but I think a fairminded person would want to agree with me that that has been, by and large, the experience.

This year we adjourn on June 23. We come back on October 31, I think it was. We sit for 20 days. We will adjourn on December 8. We will prorogue very shortly thereafter. I see the illustrious columnist for the English-language daily in the national capital region now joining us on the press bench. He opined, I think in today's column: "You read it here first. Expect a recall of the Legislature, the launch of a new session about" -- he had it even later than I would imagine it to be, some time in mid- to late April, April 25 or thereabouts, "with a call in early May for election day in early June."

1610

I think it simply has to be said that we will adjourn next week and we will prorogue very shortly thereafter. I checked, before I took my place for this debate, with our whip's office. As of 3:30 this afternoon it was still, I gather, the expectation that there would be virtually no committee work, very little or no committee work in the intersession: January, February and March. I wouldn't be altogether surprised if that happened. We will come back for a new session, probably in mid-April and an election call shortly thereafter. I make my point again: in that nine-month period, late June 1994 till mid-April 1995, we will have been summoned for 20 days' sitting. That is, I think, a record in the recent period.

I must say, to digress for a moment, that there's a wonderful story that John A. Macdonald told on himself about how in a parliamentary recess he was back in Kingston and some constituent, he is alleged to have said, upbraided him for not being up in Ottawa. When Macdonald said, "But Parliament is in recess," the constituent said: "Yes, but you're my member and I'm paying you. I'm unhappy. You should be at work up in Ottawa." "Ah," Macdonald is alleged to have said, "you should be so happy that Parliament is in recess, for it is when Parliament is in session that no person's property is secure." I think that tale, however apocryphal, is very applicable to this government.

There is certainly no doubt that many of my constituents are not unhappy to be told that the Legislature is in recess. They would only be happier if I could tell them that the executive branch was in recess and on some kind of permanent hold.

Twenty days of sitting in over nine months of calendar time: Let us ask, what have we done in these 20 days? That is a subject that requires a little bit of scrutiny. We have been summoned back by the government to do a relatively limited number of things, major bills: The long-term-care bill, the planning bill and the new crown timber bill are among the major initiatives of the government. In all cases, the government has applied, or will apply, time allocation and force those measures through this House -- in not just one of those cases, but in all of those cases. No amount of gum chewing and no amount of harrumphing and no amount of revisionism is going to change the fact that this is a change of attitude and approach by the treasury bench.

Again, I ask myself, what would have happened five or 10 or 15 years ago if a Bob Welch or a Bob Nixon, as government House leader, or a Bill Davis or a David Peterson had tried that in a 20 days' sitting with the New Democrats, ably led by people like my friend the member for Ottawa Centre or her former colleague Mr Cassidy or the now leader of the government? Apoplexy with a capital A. Words do not present themselves to properly and adequately capture the fury that would have poured forth. I just try to imagine how great the obstruction, how repeated the civil disobedience might have been. But I know this much, that in those years of the 1980s these agents of the new democracy proved that there was very little they would not do.

As I look across and I see people like the ministers of justice and agriculture, the member for Sault Ste Marie and the member for Peterborough, let me say they are saved harmless from any of this. They did not engage in this, and knowing many of these new people, I can't imagine -- I know the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs well. I can't imagine that he would ever have countenanced such conduct. I know the member for Sault Ste Marie would not have. But Bob Rae and Evelyn Gigantes and Peter Kormos and David Cooke and Brian Charlton did it joyously, did it often --

The Acting Speaker: Please refer to honourable members by their riding, please.

Mr Conway: I thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Would that everyone could say theirs was Glengarry. It would make it a much easier task.

But I say that seriously. If it is now going to be normal practice that, as we deal with these contentious issues, we are just simply going to time-allocate everything, reduce the sitting time of the Legislature to a minimal period, then I think we are going to face some very worrisome consequences. It is, I think, the case today that this Parliament, like most parliaments, is increasingly irrelevant, both to much of the citizenry and quite frankly to many in the apparatus of government.

I know well -- I can appreciate the frustrations of honourable members on the treasury bench -- about the irritation of having to deal with the Legislature in session. I don't think anyone who's ever served as a minister was happy about the fact that they had to go on a regular basis to give an accounting of their stewardship to Parliament, from which they derived their authority. But I must say that this motion, speaking as it does to this remarkable season of 20 days' sitting over a nine-month period, is a marked turn in, I think, a bad direction.

I want to say as well that I've seen in the last few years an attitude around public consultation that is also worrisome. There are people here -- and I guess not just in this majority government; other governments had them. Every so often you get into one of these debates and people from the government side will say: "But you know, we won the election. We have 74 and you clowns have 57, so, like, we won. We have a mandate to run this railroad for five years as we see fit."

To a certain extent that is true. But of course it is not an unfettered right, it is not an unbridled opportunity. There are some constraints on this government, just as there are and were on previous governments and will be of course on succeeding governments. But it is interesting to meet people who are duly elected who say: "Well now, our side won. We're a majority government. This now is really the politics of the foregone conclusion. Once it gets decided in the government caucus, you people are here just to rubber-stamp what it is we propose, and we'll meet again in four or four and a half years' time."

It doesn't quite work that way, as I indicated, but you can understand how people might come to conclude that when you see the way in which this place is organized.

I think it was the member for Etobicoke West who the other night observed that at 4:15, for a vote, we had something like 65 members of the government, but an hour and a half earlier during question period, I think, as they say in the Ottawa Valley, cabinet ministers were about as scarce as hens' teeth. I know that cabinet ministers are busy. There are onerous responsibilities from signing Christmas cards to meeting delegations to arbitrating very tough internal government battles.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): They probably thought it was time to vote.

Mr Conway: Well, I just simply say that the government has some responsibilities and that's what I'm here to debate today. That the opposition has theirs is absolutely the case as well.

But I say again that we are back here for 20 days, and what's the government done? It's said, "Here's the menu" --

Interjection: And the cook is out.

Mr Conway: Yes, if you were raised Catholic you'd certainly appreciate -- I see the member for Sault Ste Marie perking up. It reminds you of one of those rigorous Catholic diets. You've been invited to school, folks. Here it is: Breakfast is Bill 163, lunch is Bill 171 and dinner is 173. I think I've got the numbers right: the planning bill, the crown timber bill and the long-term care bill.

1620

Here it is: "Breakfast is going to be between quarter to 7 and 7:30, and at the end of that, we're pulling anything off the table. Lunch is between quarter to 12 and quarter to 1, and then to chapel, and not a moment late for lunch or a moment late for chapel. Dinner is at 6, and the scraps are all taken away at 7, and that's it. This is a papal dictate, and it is non-debatable. This is good for you, and that's that."

I just want to say to my friends opposite that this business of coming back and ordering up time allocation for all of the major items on this legislative menu and then locking that into a very, very rigorous and highly restricted debating period is, I think, a bit dangerous. I say again that all of us, I think, over the last few years realized that there have to be some reasonable constraints. This place can't run the way it did 30 or 40 or even 20 years ago.

But I say to my friends opposite, I presume you're doing all of this with the understanding that some day some of you might be in the opposition. There will be a great temptation for a new government -- and we may have a new government as early as the summer of 1995 -- and I can just imagine the temptation in a new cabinet of saying, "Well, the NDP, Bob Rae rewrote the rule book, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and now let us see how loudly the gander can be made sing."

Of course, I, should I be favoured to be in a new government, would resist any kind of Carthaginian response to this sort of NDP policy, but I might lose to some of my colleagues. If the member for Cochrane South should be here, and he were to be on the receiving end of this kind of motion --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You'll be in like a dirty shirt, Sean.

Mr Conway: Who knows? Listen, I've been around long enough to know that one never predicts an election result.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Conway: I said we're going to have an election in the summer. I fully expect the government to be turned out. I have some views on the subject. But I simply want to make the point that in fact you have, over the course of the last few years, gone farther and faster than any government in the past 25 years on this kind of House scheduling.

Mr Bisson: Sean, given the opportunity, you'd do the same.

Mr Conway: My friend opposite says that given the opportunity, I would do the same. The fact of the matter is, I say to my friend the member for Cochrane South, we didn't.

Mr Bisson: You will.

Mr Conway: He says we will. Well, if a new government did, I guess we could say that a precedent has been set, and it has been set by the most aggressive of the old-school parliamentary purists, who used to argue that this was beyond the pale.

I want to say, as a final observation, that something else has happened here in the last while that I think is really an affront to those people out there who want to participate in public hearings and express their views on legislation, large and small, contentious and non-contentious alike. I think it's of a piece with this move to time allocation for more and more of what we do here. That's this business of organizing hearings. My friend the Minister of Agriculture has left. I don't know whether other members of the opposition and the House have noticed, but have you paid any attention to the way in which the NDP organizes public hearings around particularly contentious issues?

I remember the business about the stable funding in agriculture. I think we had those public hearings in July and early August or certainly in peak farm activity season.

Mr Stockwell: And holiday time.

Mr Conway: And holiday time. This NDP government has been ruthless in scheduling time to make it as inconvenient for many of those people who we all know might want to come and complain about government initiatives. I just think, again, that is of a piece with what we face here today.

So I say to my friends of the government opposite, 20 days of sitting in over nine months of calendar time is remarkable. I think you would have a much stronger -- well, the minister of justice winces, but I want to say to her that it is. It will be 20 days max that we will have sat from about June 25 till probably mid-April.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): You're making assumptions.

Mr Conway: Well, I will put some money on the Clerk's table, the proceeds of which bet will go to a charity of her calling in London, and the bet is this: that we will, later in the month of December, prorogue and we will not be back here until probably early to mid-April at the earliest.

Mr Stockwell: I'll hold the money.

Mr Conway: No, I think we should have a more neutral agent for that purpose. So 20 days of sitting in a nine-month period: That tells you that we will have had a fair bit of time. And what do we get in that 20 days? We get nothing but time allocation motions.

Mr Stockwell: Four of them.

Mr Conway: Four time allocation motions, which would suggest that we were squeezed for time. Well, of course we're not squeezed for time, as my little recitation of this calendar makes plain.

The government is clearly squeezed. Oh, the government does not want to be here. They do not want to be here giving an account of themselves. They want to do what quite frankly governments like to do under usually bad circumstances, but sometimes good circumstances: They want to be able to run this from the executive branch with nobody else around.

They want to be here when no one else is here so that they can dole out on a daily or on a semi-weekly basis the news that will make them look good. They don't want committees around here, particularly in January, February and March of 1995, because they are getting ready -- not to offend you, Mr Speaker -- just as Bill Davis got ready in the winter of 1981 to launch BILD in the campaign spring of that season.

I have to be ecumenical and I have to be relatively frank about admitting that, but let's not kid ourselves what it is that certainly the Premier and his coterie of close advisers wants to do, and that's, I suppose, their prerogative. But you might understand, I say to the good doctor from Scarborough East, how members of the Legislature might complain about needing a time allocation every place they look in this remarkably short fall sitting when we will have done so little, in terms of that nine-month period, so little in terms of being here.

I want to leave time for my friend the House leader, the member for St Catharines, but I want to say again that we are setting some precedents here that I don't think are healthy. I don't have any problem with night sittings in December and June, but I have a very real problem with time allocation motions flying on a daily basis in so short a period of time, which clearly have as their intention the restriction of debate and public hearings on issues that are enormously contentious.

I guess that's the other point that has to be made: that the government has embarked upon changes to the Planning Act and changes to long-term care that are enormously controversial, that I have said before and I will repeat now a new Liberal government will have to move very quickly to substantially amend or repeal in some very substantial fashion.

But to shut out the public from a greater say on issues like this long-term care and the Planning Act will I think not serve this government well, and that's the kind of protest I wanted to raise here today as we face government notice of motion number 38, standing in the name of the government House leader, who seems to be happiest when he can conduct this iron heel railroad of Bob Rae's.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think if we're going to debate this motion to sit till midnight, there are probably some members who would be interested, so a quorum should be had.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if indeed a quorum is present.

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

The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1630

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

The Acting Speaker: Further debate. The honourable member for Don Mills.

Applause.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member for Etobicoke West, my cheerleader.

I'm a little sorry that the Chair of the Management Board is so sensitive about this issue and has raised deep concerns about dealing with this issue. He's indicated and, I think, defended the government's number of days in the Legislature and has indicated that 20 days, plus what was served in the spring, plus what was served last year would be a normal course of action.

I haven't been here in this House for a long period of time -- only in the last year and a half -- but I can tell you that this past summer when I was out and about in July and out and about in August, September and October, and the House wasn't sitting, people were asking me what was going on; what were members of the House doing? I was very embarrassed, I must say. I had to admit that I was very embarrassed, as a member of this Legislature --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Not me; I was working.

Mr David Johnson: Well, the member for Durham West was working; I guess working on his landfill sites perhaps out there in Durham. He hasn't been too successful so far but --

Mr Stockwell: He was digging.

Mr David Johnson: He's digging. If he keeps working at it, I'm sure he'll succeed at some point.

But I was very embarrassed to indicate -- I, as their elected member, could not speak for them in the House through that whole period of time, the latter part of June all the way through until October 31. There was nothing going on and people would ask me, "Why is that so?"

I suppose we have no problems in the province of Ontario to deal with. I suppose we don't have an unemployment problem. We don't have a problem with regard to deficits. We don't have a problem with regard to the debt.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): According to your leader's questions, there's not much happening.

Mr David Johnson: Where's he from?

Mr Stockwell: Chatham.

Mr David Johnson: Chatham-Kent.

Mr Hope: According to your leader's questions, there's not much happening.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr David Johnson: I thank the member for Chatham-Kent --

Mr Conway: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know a lot has changed, but has the member for Chatham-Kent been promoted to the front bench?

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order, particularly when members are not in their assigned seats. I want the member to know that. The member for Don Mills has the floor.

Mr David Johnson: But nevertheless, I certainly appreciate the wisdom of his thoughts, Mr Speaker.

The reality is that this House sat April, May and a part of June and served November and will likely serve one week in December. That is the amount of time we have put in in legislative time in the province of Ontario for the people of Ontario. I'm not so sure why the Chair of Management Board should be so thin-skinned about this and so concerned about it. Naturally, people would wonder about a situation like that.

The Chair of Management Board is worried about the number of opposition members who were present during various debates. I would remind the Chair of Management Board that it is the government's duty and responsibility, as we all know in this Legislature, to maintain a quorum. If there are not members who are present to maintain a quorum -- I think it was quite telling that just at the end of debate from the Liberal member and at the start of my debate there wasn't a quorum. Indeed, there wasn't a quorum through the whole period of time when the member for Renfrew North spoke. There was barely half a quorum in this House through the whole period of time that he spoke. I think maybe the Chair of Management Board should be a little cautious in terms of his comments.

We have served less than five months in the Legislature out of the whole year, and that gives unfortunately the impression to the people of Ontario that time is being put in before the election, that there really is no agenda, that we are simply waiting for an election in the province of Ontario; that there is a slide that's going on, time has to be put in until the polls show that the government support will come up -- if indeed it ever will come up -- and that's simply what we're waiting for; we're waiting for that kind of situation.

In the meantime, it's not very wise to talk about contentious issues, it's not very wise to put through a number of pieces of legislation, it's not very wise to enter into tough debates, because history has shown that this will not serve the government well. History has shown to pass the time, keep everything quiet, hope for the best, and that seems to be the opinion of the people of the province of Ontario of the situation that we face right now.

I don't object to night sittings, and that's what we're talking about at the present time.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): And what, pray tell, are you doing standing on your feet chatting?

Mr David Johnson: The member for Durham Centre is supporting me in that. We both are content to be here and serve the people of the province of Ontario in the evening. Indeed, when I served on a municipal council, evening meetings were common fare; routine. As the member for St Catharines will recollect from his old days, meetings went not only to midnight but the meetings went to 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock. I remember one meeting that I attended that started at 9:30 one morning and went through all the way to 7:30 the next morning: a 22-hour meeting. I don't remember too many meetings like that, I must say, thank heavens, but you were there and you served and you did the job that had to be done for the people.

The people don't get that sense about this Legislature. They see problems out there in the province of Ontario, they're obvious to see, and we are not coming to grips with them. Indeed, on some of the "problems" that are being addressed, there's a concern that the legislation that's being brought forward will actually worsen the situation, and long-term care is certainly one of those and I'd like to just mention that in a minute.

I do not object to late-night sittings. If there's a job to do, let's get about doing it. The point that we have made, that Mike Harris has made, that this Progressive Conservative caucus has made, is that we should have been back on the job back in September.

Although I do not have a long history in this House, I understand that it is common for the Legislature to come back into session in September and we didn't, and this session is very short as a result. And as a result that this session is very short, only 20 days, the government feels it has had to resort to bringing closure on each and every bill: to bring closure on the planning changes in the province of Ontario; to bring closure on the forestry and timber bill affecting the province of Ontario; to bring closure on the bill to deal with the workers' compensation system; and to bring closure on the bill that will affect long-term care in the province of Ontario.

Closure means that we do not have the same ability, as members of this Legislature, to represent the views of the people who are counting on us to bring their views forward. I have been getting numerous communications, particularly with regard to the long-term-care bill, but because closure has been invoked, because the period of time to debate the issue has been severely restricted, I have not had that opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents and to bring forward their concerns. Because this government has only allocated 20 days in this sitting, I have not had the opportunity to speak with their concerns.

That's why I don't object to the night sittings. At least with the extra time perhaps there will be some opportunity to bring to the attention, for example, of this Legislature the type of letter that I received just a week ago from an organization that serves the south part of my riding but also serves the riding of Beaches-Woodbine and is actually located in the riding of Beaches-Woodbine.

1640

This organization is called Senior Link. It's a well-established, highly reputable, highly-thought-of organization that provides services to senior citizens. In their letter, and it's addressed to myself, they say, "Your colleague Frances Lankin will tell you that when she helped develop the government's concept of long-term care, she used Senior Link and other community groups like it as the model of what the NDP wanted in services to seniors." That's likely true, because I know from my long experience in that particular community that Senior Link is an excellent example of an organization that has provided services to senior citizens.

But they go on to say, "Now you are debating Bill 173" -- that's the long-term-care bill -- "and somewhere in the process things went wrong, badly wrong. So wrong in fact that the process the government has set up to implement this bill is trying to close down agencies like Senior Link." And they ask, "Why?

"Not because the intentions were wrong, but because some advisers and vested medical interests have imposed a rigid structure on the process" of a one-size-fits-all type of solution to long-term care across the province of Ontario.

"Here's what it means for Senior Link and other grass-roots community organizations.

"Senior Link has spent many years pulling together services, special programming and housing for seniors and other vulnerable groups. Now it is being torn asunder. Twenty years of integrating services will be lost. Now in the catchment area served there will be two agencies. One will be Senior Link; the other will be the multiservice agency," the MSA that the government is attempting to set up in various communities across Ontario, the bureaucratic agency. "This multiservice agency will not be able to provide the same scope of services as Senior Link....

"Many government officials say that all seniors in Ontario want reform. Consultations say that seniors want these multiservice agencies. Reports state how much money will be saved by this legislation."

But they go on to say: "Let us be honest here. Consultations say whatever you want them to. Reports have been withdrawn," and I think they're referring to the Price Waterhouse report that has been withdrawn, "because they have been proven wrong. Government officials will do what they please in the end." They go on to ask me to vote against Bill 173.

That's the kind of letter from an organization with decades of experience in serving the senior population. We should not reject those kinds of letters out of hand. They have a great deal of knowledge to impart.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Have you read your letters from the seniors' alliance?

Mr David Johnson: The member for London South asks if I have read the letters from various organizations. The member for London South is asking me about an organization that claims to represent -- how many millions? I'm sure it's an excellent organization, so don't get me wrong. I'm sure the seniors' alliance is an excellent organization, but in my more than 20 years in political life, on a regular basis I come across groups that claim to represent a vast constituency when indeed it's impossible. I won't say they don't try, but you just can't on every issue be in contact with every one of those one million seniors who it is claimed are represented. It's just impossible to do that.

I have letters from seniors. I trust the letters that come in. I can tell you that if I put on one side the letters in support of the government's bill for long-term care and on the other side those opposed, from seniors, from groups, from you name it, from anywhere in the province of Ontario, there is virtually no support for this long-term-care bill, virtually no support through my office.

I'm trying to recall a single letter in support. I can recall a letter that indicated that if there were a certain amendment made, they might support it. I'm trying to recall one single letter in support, and I have stacks of letters in opposition to it from people, seniors who would be in the seniors' alliance organization.

I have a letter from the Catholic Women's League of Canada. There's a reputable organization. I'm sure each and every member of this House would say that the Catholic Women's League of Canada should be listened to. They're a good organization and they have experience, and this is a very thoughtful letter. The writer indicates:

"I am concerned regarding Bill 173, the Long-Term Care Reform Act. I understand the government is trying to do what they think is best for the people. But it is going to be detrimental to the private sector, charitable and non-profit agencies."

Here's a letter from the Catholic Women's League that gives the government credit for trying, but unfortunately not succeeding.

"At this time when the government is trying to save money, isn't it going to be very expensive for them to implement one-stop shopping under multiservice agencies? Are they going to pay the present volunteers who donate hours of their time on a voluntary basis?"

That's one of the key questions in the long-term-care issues. That's one of the issues that I think should have been explored much further, and had closure not been invoked, had we come back to this House in September, as would normally be the case, and had we had more time to debate this issue, that is one of the issues we could have explored in greater detail.

I know there are many volunteers who identify with their community and their organization -- they do not identify with government -- and they serve their community. I think the best example of that close to my home is a Meals on Wheels program just around the corner from where I live, called the True Davidson Acres Meals on Wheels program. But there are a number of Meals on Wheels programs across the province of Ontario, and I'm sure each and every one of us could say the same thing about the Meals on Wheels programs within our own community. Volunteers make that program.

Will volunteers such as they, who identify with their community, who identify with the people they're serving, who identify with their local organization, will that volunteer spirit be shifted to a multiservice agency? There are many, many people who think it won't be. There are many, many people who think this feeling, this volunteer spirit, will be lost and that the MSAs will be viewed as a bureaucratic organization run by government officials and they won't feel that the volunteer spirit is appropriate, that they will perhaps redirect their energies somewhere else.

If that's so, then there will be many organizations, as is pointed out in this letter from the Catholic Women's League of Canada, that will lose volunteers. How will that service then be delivered, if volunteers are lost? One option of course is that the government tries to buy the support services, pays people to do what volunteers did previously, and that's the very concern that's being registered in this letter from the Catholic Women's League of Canada. But we didn't have time to explore that thoroughly because closure was brought and because we didn't come back to this House until October 31.

The Price Waterhouse report, which I believe was referred to in the first letter I read, indicated that some $100 million would be saved by the implementation of the MSAs through administrative costs, that if all these organizations were somehow brought together under one bureaucratic wing, we could save on administrative costs.

From the moment I saw that report I could not believe it, and I'm so delighted that Price Waterhouse has withdrawn that report. I hope they have second thoughts and investigate more thoroughly. Certainly the fact that the study has been withdrawn indicates that the company is having second thoughts.

1650

Sure, the Meals on Wheels program may have what you might deem to be a high percentage of administrative cost, but the reason is because the total cost of the program is so small, because they have so many volunteers to do the work. The administration cost is very, very small, but because the whole budget is very small, because volunteers do most of the work, naturally the administration cost is a fairly hefty percentage of that very small budget. But you're not going to save by jamming all the Meals on Wheels programs together and all the other volunteer organizations together, because the volunteers will drop away, and then all these services will have to be purchased.

I have other letters from seniors. I guess the members opposite think all seniors are in support of long-term care. I have two letters here, and I won't read all of both of them, but this is from a lady who lives in the south part of my riding:

"I'm writing to request, to beg, to plead that you oppose the passage of the so-called reform act, Bill 173. My husband, who's 84 years of age, suffers from angina, kidney failure, loss of memory, he is hard-of-hearing and has bad eyesight. Following his discharge from the East General hospital recently, we were fortunate to have a VON representative to call and check on him twice weekly, a service which is invaluable, especially because I am handicapped by a fractured hip which has not healed, as well as I suffer from arthritis and osteoporosis. I am strongly opposed to the government, especially this government, interfering with a perfectly good service," which in this case is the Victorian Order of Nurses.

I don't know how many letters I have received on behalf of the VON, an organization that provides such excellent service to the seniors across the province of Ontario.

Here is an unsolicited letter. You know, the opposition may say that they're form letters coming in, or whatever. This is a letter handwritten by this person, who felt so strongly about the good service that the VON is delivering in Ontario, the good service she's received and that her husband has received, that she took the time to write this letter, and she is so concerned that with the institution of a multiservice agency in Ontario, the VON will be submerged within that structure and that kind of good personal service will be lost, and I share her concern.

I have another letter from a gentleman who is 83 years old. He lives just around the corner from me -- I could pick any number of letters -- an unsolicited letter, not a form letter, right from the heart. He says:

"I had a problem for three and one half years that required the service of a nurse for half an hour each day until my cardiologist felt that my heart condition was stable enough for the surgery I needed. Imagine the cost of keeping me in hospital if the VON service had not been available. The VON have 5,000 unpaid assistant volunteers and 5,000 staff nurses. Just think of the payroll when the government hires 10,000 staff because of Bill 173, also the pensions and other benefits of this staff on the government payroll for the whole of Ontario."

That is what we are not having the opportunity to talk about because our time has been so limited.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: A quorum call, please.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is now present.

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: We will resume the debate. The member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now that we have everybody's attention, I have other letters. I'm going to run out of time if I read all these letters, I can see that, but I'd like to mention a letter from the Canadian Red Cross Society.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): There's a surprise.

Mr David Johnson: Who said that? The member for Perth. I guess the member for Perth is surprised that the Canadian Red Cross would write a letter in opposition to Bill 173. I have a great deal of regard for the Canadian Red Cross Society. At this time of year -- I know there have been concerns with regard to the blood supply in the province of Ontario, but this problem is being addressed -- as we come up to Christmas and the new year, it is essential that we cooperate with the Red Cross and give blood, give the gift of life.

The Red Cross is a good organization. The Red Cross has said that workers are betrayed by Bill 173. "Amendments that will go to third reading now require MSAs to offer positions transferred from a previous employer to bargaining unit employees first before making offers to persons not represented by the bargaining unit."

So the Red Cross has another angle, that the workers are not being treated fairly under Bill 173. There's a completely different angle in terms of Bill 173 that should be explored, from the Canadian Red Cross Society, a well-respected organization regardless of what the member for Perth feels about it.

The final letter, and this is a letter I wish I had time to read, but I don't, is from an organization called Woodgreen, south of my riding in the city of Toronto. It has "coordinated services in a multiservice neighbourhood, a wide range of services to seniors, immigrants and families."

One thought I just pick from the second page is where they say, "It is irresponsible for the government to use cost savings to sell the reform to the public" of Bill 173, irresponsible to use cost savings as a point of selling Bill 173 "when no cost analysis has ever been done."

The Acting Speaker: To the members, there are a number of private conversations going on that make it difficult to hear the member who has the floor. I would ask members to please be a little more quiet.

Mr David Johnson: I thank you, Madam Speaker. It's difficult to hear myself speak, I must say, but I guess it's painful for the members to hear that with the so little amount of House time that's been allocated, we're not going to have the opportunity to talk to these kinds of issues.

We give the impression that there is really no problem here in the province of Ontario, that we haven't got the time to debate issues, issues such as the report the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto put out just last month, called Killing the Golden Goose, which indicates that in Metropolitan Toronto there are 200,000 fewer jobs now than there were five years ago. Is it any wonder that the unemployment rate is high in Metropolitan Toronto? Is it any wonder that business is having a difficult time in Metropolitan Toronto?

This report puts forward some of the problems, if I can speak over the din opposite. This report puts forward the problems (1) that the assessment in Metropolitan Toronto is antiquated, about 40 to 50 years out of date, (2) that education costs are totally on the backs of the Metropolitan Toronto taxpayer, and (3) that welfare costs in Metropolitan Toronto have gone through the roof while this government has been in operation, and to some degree when the Liberal government was in operation.

1700

These three problems need to be addressed, but we only have 20 days, so there's no problem here, I guess, from the government's point of view, no problems to address. December 8, we bring down the curtain and the House is finished. We don't talk about the problems of Metropolitan Toronto. Yes, there's a bill that comes forward with regard to the assessment of shopping malls, and that's certainly a problem that has to be identified, but that's a very small component and fault in the assessment problem here in Metropolitan Toronto.

The Workers' Compensation Board: We have closure brought on the legislation concerning the Workers' Compensation Board. Has the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board been addressed? No, absolutely not. What is it now? About $11.5 billion dollars at least. So there's another problem that hasn't been addressed.

I found it interesting that the member for Renfrew North was talking about some of the sitting times that we've had in committee public hearings. I thought back to when I was in Ottawa sitting on Bill 143 and the fact that we had one and a half days of sitting time to deal with the people in Ottawa-Carleton. There were hundreds of people who wanted to speak to that issue, and we couldn't accommodate half of them. We had the time. We could have taken the time. Why couldn't we have taken the time to hear all those extra people who wanted to speak? But no. In some cases they tried to double up, but in many cases people didn't get heard who wanted to speak to the issues, and unfortunately that's been the hallmark.

The thing is, what about photo-radar? Did we allow any deputations at all on photo-radar? Not one single deputation on photo-radar. Now there is a wonderful institution in the province of Ontario, raking in the money, I guess. It's a money grab, certainly. I'm not aware that safety has been improved in the province of Ontario, as was claimed.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Not in Georgian Bay.

Mr David Johnson: Not in Georgian Bay. No deputations whatsoever. We're not listening to the people. The people are saying: "Get to work. Solve the problems. Solve the job problems. Solve the unemployment problems. Solve the deficit, the debt."

Mr Stockwell: Call an election.

Mr David Johnson: Call an election. That's right. Wouldn't that be more fitting, to be talking about the election here and a new program for the province of Ontario, a new direction for the province of Ontario, than it would be to talk about sitting a few more hours?

But at any rate, that concludes my time, and I know the member for Etobicoke West will be speaking in a few minutes.

Mr Bradley: I will be speaking in favour of this motion even though I believe that it is unnecessary. The government does want to proceed with certain business. I think that we should be sitting a week further into December. This House, as has been mentioned many times, is sitting only 20 days this session. I am quite prepared to come back to sit the week after and even some of the week after that if that's what the government sees fit to get through some of the legislation it desires.

I would be delighted to come back in January. That's what people think they elected me for, to represent them in the Legislative Assembly and in the committees of the Legislative Assembly, and yet this government never wants the House in session. They want to run the government from the Premier's office and give precious little power even for the government members themselves, let alone the members of the opposition.

But if we're going to be sitting, there are some issues that I think we should be talking about in these night sessions, and I'm going to share them with you at this point. First of all, I noticed something this afternoon. I don't usually talk about these things, but some people get pretty precious about issues.

I was astounded, because I well recall when the opposition was directing questions to certain female cabinet ministers in the House that Marion Boyd, who is now the Attorney General, and I think Frances Lankin, who is now the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, expressed the view that they thought members of the opposition asked questions in a different way to the female cabinet ministers in those days. I was quite surprised by this.

The Acting Speaker: I hope the member is directing his remarks to the motion.

Mr Bradley: Oh, yes, absolutely. So I was watching this afternoon as the Leader of the Opposition was asking questions. The Premier was making noise like a chicken or like a hen. If I were sitting on that side, I would be rising to complain about this, because many people have fought against this kind of stereotyping over the years.

As I say, I don't usually raise this and I normally wouldn't raise it except that members on that side get pretty precious about issues of this kind, and I was surprised to see that happening this afternoon. I'd wondered if it would happen in the night sessions. That's why I raised it under this particular debate.

I also want to touch on some other issues that I think we could deal with in the night sessions. We have done, as three political parties in this House, a lot for tenants over the years. Premier Davis introduced rent controls back in 1975 when in Metropolitan Toronto rents were beginning to skyrocket. The Liberal government which succeeded it was involved in some rent control legislation, and the NDP as well. We have done, in other words, a lot to protect tenants over the years.

One thing I think we have been negligent in, as a Legislature, is dealing with the problems of landlords. I'm not talking specifically here about rent controls or how much money is charged, but the great difficulty that landlords, particularly smaller landlords, have in getting rid of bad tenants; not good tenants, because the good tenants themselves don't want bad tenants in the building.

Many of us have been contacted by people who, ordinarily, own a fourplex or perhaps six apartments, that's been their investment and they have people in those apartments who won't pay their rent and who know they can get away without paying their rent. They have people in that rental accommodation who will destroy the accommodation, who do tremendous damage to it. These people come to our constituency offices in anger and in tears at the fact that they do not have the power to remove bad tenants, they do not have the power to get damages from these tenants and do not have the power to evict them and get their money back.

This is an important issue I think we have to address, because we have to protect tenants and we've done so. We now have to protect as well the good landlords out there who are having a very difficult time having others meet their obligations in terms of those who are renting their accommodation. I hope that's something the government will take into consideration and address in a session ahead.

Another item that has come forward that many members are getting calls on these days is the item of automobile insurance. I'm not here to point fingers at any government, but I am here to raise the issue, because many people out there are complaining about tremendous increases in automobile insurance, particularly last summer, as the rates were being renewed, and we're still seeing it.

There are people who've actually given up driving vehicles. This may seem strange to some, but when they get hit with premiums of $2,500, $3,500 and $4,500, it makes it impractical for many to continue to drive their vehicles.

I would like to see the government look into this. I would like to see the government investigate. So far we have been able to channel the inquiries to the Ontario Insurance Commission which can intervene, but there seems to be a genuine problem out there with the premiums that are being charged at this time for many people in the province, and I would like the government to address that issue in the extra hours that we have.

The other item I wish to raise only briefly is the support and custody office: good concept. I think everybody agreed with it. The operations of that office leave something to be desired because they don't have the resources to do the job. I'm sure the people who work in there are at their wits' end trying to deal with these problems.

Certainly some of the spouses who are trying to receive appropriate payment for their children are concerned and some of the people who have to pay are concerned because they can't get as fast a response as they would like. I would hope again the government would review the operation of those offices to ensure that they are helping everybody who wishes to access them.

I have raised in the Legislative Assembly a couple of times the issue of compensation for those who are families of the victims of crime. We have a regime at the present time which allows for people, through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, to get certain assistance, but that does not cover assistance or compensation to those who have to travel elsewhere to attend a trial.

I think of the family of Kristen French and the family of Leslie Mahaffy, who will have to travel to another place in the province, another venue, not St Catharines, because the trial is going to be moved. These people will be charged accommodation, transportation, food costs over and above what would normally be the case at home. In addition to this, they will lose pay because they will want to attend these trials, obviously, because of their direct interest in their outcome.

1710

I have asked both the Attorney General and the Treasurer to look into this. I have been optimistic from the responses I have received that some way will be found to compensate these individuals. I think it has to go beyond that to others who are in similar circumstances, and governments must, I think, review this, because the victims of crime out there are finding it very difficult.

Yet I notice that both the crown, which is the prosecutor, and the defence were making a case for Paul Bernardo, for instance, to get the funds that would be coming to him for his defence from the legal aid plan. It seems to me that the victims and their families are the ones who should be appropriately compensated.

I want to also say -- and you may be interested in this, Madam Speaker, because you're from Niagara Falls and I'm from St Catharines -- that the bill that is coming before the House, and why we perhaps need more time, is a bill dealing with the assessment in malls. My colleague the member for Oriole, Elinor Caplan, had a great interest in this. The Treasurer brought forward a bill but it deals, I understand, only with Metropolitan Toronto. It seems to me there are other problems out there, and I would like to see the government continue to sit well up towards Christmas and then in the new year to deal with that problem, and of course at night, because this motion deals with night sittings.

I also want to deal with some of the issues of fed-bashing, for instance. I think that can be dealt with at night, when some of the people are at home and can watch what's going on in the Legislature. I noticed a photograph here with the Premier of the province -- I think, Madam Speaker, you know the Premier well -- with the Prime Minister of Canada. If he were any closer to the Prime Minister, he would be in his pocket. He would be like a kangaroo; he would be in the pouch. That's how close he is in this photograph.

Now, that is what happens when the Premier wishes to bask in the glory of something good happening. In other words, he can be part of Team Canada when it suits his political purposes to be part of Team Canada, when he's part of a trade mission. But I'll tell you, when it comes to making the tough decisions --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): How about transfer payments?

Mr Bradley: -- such as transfer payments, you won't find this photograph. He'll be missing from this photograph --

Ms Murdock: You are damn right. They are cutting us off.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I ask members to come to order.

Mr Bradley: -- because he is prepared only to be there in the good times and to bash the feds in the bad times. I hope he comes into the House at night so we can talk about this.

We also have other problems that are arising. The former Minister of Labour is here. The member for St Catharines-Brock and I would both be concerned with this, and the member for Lincoln, and that is the lockout that is on at Port Weller Dry Docks at this time.

Efforts have been made through the Ministry of Labour. They have some excellent mediators there. As Mr Mackenzie would tell you, we have some of the best people in Canada, I think, in our Ministry of Labour at mediating. I notice there's another meeting set up on December 13, I believe, where the two sides will be brought together, and I hope that we can resolve this strike because I know that the workers who are locked out would rather be on the job working and I'm sure that the company would like to be operating at this time, and our community would like to see it in full operation. I certainly encourage the government to continue its efforts at mediation in this dispute so that we can resolve it.

I also want to comment on the need for respite care for people. I was very concerned when I saw that there may be some cutbacks in the Niagara region, and if we get into a night debate on this, we can talk about it. That is the cutbacks for people, for instance, suffering from Alzheimer's and other situations that have them in nursing homes and in homes for seniors.

I noticed in the St Catharines Standard that there was an article that suggested there may be cuts of a tremendous magnitude, and we've already had a reduction in service because of lack of funding. I hope the government will reconsider, will allow that funding to continue, because more and more we're seeing people with Alzheimer's and Alzheimer's-related diseases who are facing great difficulty, and the caregivers and their families of course are facing a good deal of concern, of anguish, as well.

I notice as well -- and I had to say this because I read somewhere that the Premier was going out west to pay tribute to Tommy Douglas. They're having a special 50-year, was it, celebration or something for Tommy Douglas. I thought if Tommy were looking down, he would wonder whether this Premier should be out there, because I well recall Tommy Douglas was opposed to nuclear power, and I notice that Audrey McLaughlin was prepared to raise this at the NDP convention. She was opposed to nuclear energy being used for various purposes. The member for Peterborough has been eloquent in her criticism of this, and yet when Team Canada came back, one of the greatest cheerleaders for selling Candu reactors to China was none other than my good friend the member for York South, the Premier of the province of Ontario, Robert K. Rae. Now, this may have surprised a lot of people. I think Tommy might be surprised.

Tommy would be surprised that there's Sunday shopping in Ontario at this time, because I remember that the NDP was always against Sunday shopping.

Tommy would be surprised that we have casino gambling in the province of Ontario and that the government is looking at other venues to extend its casino gambling, that they're running all kinds of gambling enterprises. Tommy would surely be shocked at this.

And of course Tommy would be hoping there would be, in his view, government automobile insurance, because that's what he always stood for as well.

So I'll be interested -- I watch these on television and read about them in the paper -- just what's going to happen when the Premier gets out west to talk to his friends in the New Democratic Party as they pay tribute to a great Canadian, Tommy Douglas.

I promised that I would save some time for one of my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly, the member for Prescott-Russell, who would like to comment on the procedures in this House, the lack of the government sitting time and things of that nature. I know that all of Ontario will be on the edge of their seats to be able to hear the member for Prescott-Russell on this important matter, as they will the member for Etobicoke West, who is about to rise in the Legislature to inform us of his views on matters of great importance.

Mr Stockwell: I was enjoying the comments made by the member for St Catharines and I was exchanging views with my friend from the other side here a minute ago, and there were some interesting points that were made, I think, earlier on in this debate by the member for Don Mills and of course the member from Renfrew.

It is kind of interesting to note, if you work out the dates in the calendar, exactly how much time we will be sitting in this place for the past nine and a half months. It is rather alarming when you calculate exactly the length of time that this government will be in session, being answerable to the people of the province of Ontario. Make no mistake about it. When this place is in session and there is a question period daily and there are debates during the day, there is an emphasis and a belief by the general public that the government is answering for the decisions they're making on a daily basis. When this House is adjourned and we are not in our places here, there is a belief out there in the broader public that the government isn't in fact answering or doing the things it should be doing or answering the concerns of the private sector or us or the people themselves.

1720

Assuming that and factoring in the amount of time, the nine and a half months we'll be sitting, it's rather alarming, distressing and I think very concerning, and I think the people should be concerned, because this House will be in session for 20 days in the past nine and a half months.

I don't know where these members come from, and I'm not really certain what the House leader was speaking about earlier when he was condemning us on this side of the House, specifically me, for suggesting that this is not a good record, that this is not something to be proud of, this is not having a government answer to the issues and concerns of the day brought forward by an opposition that was duly elected.

In my opinion, 20 days in a nine-and-a-half-month session leaves the electorate out there cold in wonderment, because I was also out there during those months of July, August, September and October, when we were not sitting, and quite often they'd ask me: "Why are you not back in the House? Why are you not in question period? Why can't you ask a question about some of the issues and concerns that we are wanting you to deal with?"

Mr Bob Mackenzie (Hamilton East): Ever had a better stage, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: No, I say to the member from Hamilton, never.

They say that to check a government, they believe that a government needs to be accountable, and they believe that this place is where a government is accountable. This is the place where they must answer for their decision-making and come clean on issues and the latest issue that hits the newspapers and television stations.

I don't know why the member from Hamilton, who is the House leader, would be so upset with opposition members for outlining their serious concern with the amount of downtime this place had in the last nine and a half months. I don't know how he can stand in his place and somehow explain away to the electorate, to us, to his own caucus, that really, by only sitting for 20 days in nine and a half months, we're doing our jobs, that we're in fact honouring our commitments.

I don't believe that to be the case, and the constituents I speak to around this province, I don't think they believe that to be the case. They're saying to me: "Why is it you don't sit? Why are you not meeting? Why are you not dealing with the government?" I have no really good answer other than to say, "These people don't want to be here."

I understand why they don't want to be here, because in question period, the daily give and take of the political forum that we are in, sometimes a government doesn't come out as well as it would like to, and this government particularly has had some very difficult periods of time during question period dealing with crises that it has brought upon itself.

The question that then stands is: If you're not going to be sitting for the next few months -- at least until the middle of April, I would think -- what committees are going to go out on the road and hear from constituents about pieces of legislation that are being brought forward by the government? Do you know what the answer to that is? The answer is: I don't think there are any committees scheduled to sit. Not a committee is scheduled to sit during the intersession. Not a piece of legislation is considered important enough to go and canvass the electorate, to hear concerns and issues from around this province, to have input from the people who duly elect us.

So not only will we have sat for 20 days in nine and a half months, but between December 8 and April 15 there won't be a committee sitting to hear from constituents about issues and legislation and concerns that are being brought forward.

If you think, as the House leader does, that this is some kind of acceptable and reasonable record, an acceptable and reasonable approach to governing this province, I think you're in the small minority, because I don't think the people, when they elected us, figured we'd physically be working on committee or debating legislation for 20 days in nine and a half months.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): How many days did we sit last year, extra days?

Mr Stockwell: How many extra days did we sit last year? They ran the clock last year because they wanted to get some legislation through. That's the way this place works. They extended the sitting time.

Mr Sutherland: How many days did we sit last year? That's the fair thing.

Mr Stockwell: When we go back to the people, the people don't say to me -- my friend from Oxford shouts out -- "How many days did you sit last year?" like you worked a full year last year. They expect you to work a full year every year you're elected. They don't say, "Work this year and take next year off." I don't know a job out there where you can say, "Well, I'll come to work this year, but if I work this year, you can't expect me to work next year too." If that's what you're suggesting on that side of the House, I think you're sadly mistaken. I don't have constituents coming to me saying, "Oh, yes, you worked last year so take next year off."

In nine and a half months, we'll have sat for 20 --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I'm listening to the member for Huron.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order.

Mr Stockwell: For 20 days in nine and a half months we'll be sitting in our place, and during the intersession, not one single day by not one single member of this House will be spent doing committee work.

Mr Sutherland: We will be meeting with our constituents.

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

Mr Stockwell: That is the game plan. I understand what the government is suggesting. They're saying: "Because we're not in the Legislature passing legislation, debating and in question period; because we're not in committee, hearing from constituents and understanding their concerns about a piece of legislation; because we're not in committee doing clause-by-clause, working in a detailed format to vet legislation, amend legislation and bring good legislation forward; just because we're not doing any of that doesn't mean we're not working. We could be meeting with our constituents."

I don't think there are many people out there who will believe that argument, who will believe for one moment that five days a week, 10 hours a day, they're sitting down with constituents, working out problems that they have. I think people out there are too smart for that shallow argument. I think people out there believe governments are elected to govern, governments are elected to introduce legislation, governments are elected to sit at committee and hear from constituents and governments are elected to carry forward on agenda items that they think are important and significant and deal with the issues at hand during the day.

If you're only going to sit for 20 days in nine and a half months and you're not going to have a committee hearing between now and April 15, I don't think they're going to buy the fact that these people are on the phone to their constituents, solving issues like WCB problems and UI problems and welfare complaints.

We then have to ask ourselves on this side of the House, what is left for us to argue with respect to a government that's really bankrupt with respect to ideas? Really, it comes down to that. The reason we're not sitting is because we don't have any reasonable or tangible legislation before us. We haven't got any legislation because this government is bankrupt. They don't have any new ideas. They don't have any new plans. They don't have any more thoughts about putting forward legislation that would benefit the people of the province. Fundamentally, this government is absolutely bereft of ideas and programs and thoughts about changing what this Ontario looks like, because it is literally gun-shy from the ideas it brought forward and the number of people in this province it's absolutely alienated.

They're absolutely low-scoring in the point totals with respect to the polling in this province. You can understand to some degree why they don't want to be in this place, because every day they're in this place they just make matters worse. That's why we don't come back to this House and that's why they're not prepared to bring forward any legislation.

Ms Gigantes: You don't believe in government anyhow.

Mr Stockwell: The ex-minister from Ottawa Centre said I don't believe in government anyhow. That's not true. I do believe in government. The difference is I believe in good government. That's what separates us.

You know what, Madam Speaker? I think for 42 years this province had some pretty darn good government. I don't think it would take too long to round up a whole whack of people who would really like the old Bill Davis years, who would really like the old Leslie Frost and John Robarts and George Drew years.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Is that why you call it the Mike Harris reform party? You don't mention the Progressive Conservative Party any more.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Huron is out of order.

Mr Stockwell: I see the member cackling but I don't know who it is.

Mr Klopp: The member for Huron.

Mr Stockwell: Huron. Sorry.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: So that's the difference. I believe in good government.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: That's what I hear. People talk of the good old days, of the 42 years the Conservatives ran the province.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I don't know why the catcalls come across the floor. I don't understand you people. Do you honestly believe that you are roundly endorsed by the vast majority of constituents in the province of Ontario? Do you honestly believe that the constituents in this province come up to me and others and say what a bang-up job you people are doing, and if you only could last another five years? Do you think this is what the people are saying out there? Do you think what they're saying is, "Oh, my gosh, it's too bad we only elected them for five; we should have done it for 10"? Is that what you think the people are saying? You can't be that removed from reality. Do you really believe the hierarchy in your party that says, "Let's only sit for 20 days out of a nine-month period"? You've got to ask yourself --

The Acting Speaker: Through the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: Why do you think the group up there, the big four who sit in the front -- why do you think they're saying we should only be in this place for 20 days? Because every time you come in here you go down in the polls. Every time you come in here you pass legislation the majority of Ontarians don't like. Every time you come in this place you stand before us and deal with scandal and bad management and seriously eroded beliefs by your party and the people of Ontario.

I don't think you have to be a genius to figure out that right now, as a government, you're not really popular. Right now, as a government, people probably won't re-elect you. Maybe right now, as a government, it's pretty clear that if you only want to be here for 20 days of a nine-and-a-half-month period maybe your front-benchers have figured it out and they just forgot to tell you guys.

The Acting Speaker: To the Chair, please.

Mr Stockwell: Through the Chair, maybe they forgot to tell you guys.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to respect the decorum of the House.

Mr Stockwell: The what?

The Acting Speaker: Please respect the decorum of this Legislature.

Mr Stockwell: Sure. Sorry. It is a rather interesting dilemma they're faced with, but you know what I find most curious about this -- most, most curious? When they were on this side of the House they had some very strongly held positions on some issues.

The one thing I did the first year I was here was I went back through Hansard and I read volumes of Hansards on a daily basis and tried to get a feel of what it was like in this place when the government was on this side of the place. It's curious exactly how dramatic the change has happened. It's truly a metamorphosis that is difficult to comprehend because, when they talk like they do today -- they talk about this kind of opposition and integrity about our Common Sense Revolution. The Premier the other day suggested that what we offer up as a Common Sense Revolution is just -- it has no integrity because he doesn't believe we can do these things.

I do. But I guess the difficulty I have is hearing from a Premier who talks about campaign promises that we have put out a year and a half, potentially longer, before the coming election, giving us a speech, a dressing-down on integrity and campaign promises, which I said I think we can do in our Common Sense Revolution.

He's the same guy, the very same Robert K. Rae QC who had the nerve in the middle of the campaign in 1990 to release an Agenda for Suckers, which is in fact his game plan on what his government would do if elected -- the same, same Mr Robert K. Rae QC.

This has been gone through many times. It's just hilarious what's in here now and it's hilarious that this crowd over here actually wrote this and believed in it. I'd like to see us at night sittings actually debate this thing again.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm game.

Mr Stockwell: Well, maybe Mr Kormos is game, maybe one of the only guys opposite who'd be prepared to debate this. Maybe Mr Morrow is game, but let me just say --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: And the member for Oxford, he's game to debate anything, I know that, including black is white and the grass is blue and the sky is green. I know he'll debate this. He's probably going to try and go around the province saying, "We've in fact carried these things out," and probably he's going to convince people that, yes, they did in fact believe in a common pause day and there is one in this province. He'll debate that; I'm sure he will. And he'll probably believe in a lot of these things he'll go around debating about -- "We don't believe in gambling." He'll probably continue to debate the fact that they don't believe in gambling. Of course, they opened a casino in Windsor -- really flies in the face of "I don't believe in gambling."

I know my good friend from Oxford, he'll debate black is white, grass is blue and the sky is green.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): He was on the university debating club.

Mr Stockwell: He was on the university debating club and he was the guy who believed in this forum that there shouldn't be any tuition at all to go to university. I'm sure he'll still debate that, even though it has gone through the roof.

This party also said that it believes in 60% funding to education in Metropolitan Toronto. Of course the funding in Metropolitan Toronto, I say to my good friend from York Mills -- what is it again?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Zero, I think.

Mr Stockwell: Right, zero. But I'm sure he'll debate it, because he'll debate anything, no matter how wrong he is. So this is what we're faced with.

You know the other thing that really gripes me when we hear about integrity and the attack on our leader about the Common Sense Revolution? It's when we talk about integrity, we still --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I think these should be debated in night sittings, I say to the near Minister of Labour. I say to her that I think we should debate these things in night sittings. I think these are healthy things to debate.

Interjection: You should talk about it.

Mr Stockwell: And I'm talking about it. I think we should talk about both of these, as a matter of fact: the Agenda for People and the Common Sense Revolution.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: Why is it good to debate these things? Because this is the same party that said we are measured on our integrity and our truthfulness, the same group that ran a campaign last time and suggested that then-Premier Peterson was a liar because he didn't carry through -- Mr Kormos, you've got to get a kick out of this -- on his commitment to auto insurance.

No, don't shake your head. I've got the transcripts, I say to the member for Ottawa Centre. Any day you want the transcripts, you can have them. He's a liar because he didn't carry through on his promises for auto insurance.

Now, as I remember, your position on auto insurance in the Agenda for People -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink -- was that you believed in -- here it is -- government-owned auto insurance, with the right to sue. Now, I'm not sure, but -- work with me on this one, Madam Speaker. I'll walk it through on this one.

Let me see if I can work this through -- if David Peterson was a liar for not carrying forward on his auto insurance plan and Bob Rae believed in government-owned auto insurance, would that make Bob Rae a -- gee, I don't know if I can say that word in here. But according to the criteria set up by our Premier, it would make him something really bad by his own definition. So that's where we're at.

Mr Turnbull: How many times did he call Peterson a liar?

Mr Stockwell: Five times he called Peterson a liar, five times in that thing. Jeez, it's a strange world we live in, isn't it? It's a strange world when you can take a Premier's words and cut them up and put a little milk on them and ram them down his own throat, isn't it? Strange, strange little world.

That's not it; I also remember this integrity-filled, honest, decent group of socialists. They ran a campaign last time that had commercials. You were a member of that party, Madam Speaker. You were a member of those commercials, those fair and honest and open-minded and straightforward commercials that said the government was going to sell Ontario Place. You remember that?

Now, this decent lot here whom we want to sit at nights with for the next four days, who didn't carry forward on their common pause day, Sunday shopping or auto insurance or any of a whole host of issues, including the garbage issue -- remember the garbage issue? "No garbage without a full environmental assessment hearing in Durham." "No garbage without a full environmental assessment hearing in York." "No garbage without a full environmental assessment hearing in Peel." Remember those?

1740

Son of a gun, none of that came true either, because you know what their policy was at the end of the day? They just never told anybody. It was, "If we're not going to put garbage in any of these spots, we're going to eat it." That was their policy. That's what they lived with. And now what do we have? We had an expansion of Keele Valley with not so much as a second of public hearing. We had an expansion to Britannia with not so much as a second of public hearing. We've got garbage going on the best agricultural farm land in this province.

In fact, they couldn't possibly break their promise --

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I know the member wouldn't want to make a mistake in what he's saying in this House, but all that land that has been designated for landfill sites --

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Wiseman: -- is going to be residential-industrial-commercial properties --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wiseman: -- not agricultural land.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Interjection: Are they growing crops on them?

Mr Stockwell: This is another interesting fact brought forward by the good member from Durham, who I know is an environmentalist and only believes in one dump site in Durham. He only believes in that one. But gee, I don't know. When I went out there to look at these sites, they were growing crops on them. I didn't see any industrial buildings; I didn't see any residential units. I saw crops. Now, here's a quantum leap. Again, you've got to work with me on this one, Madam Speaker. I go to a piece of property and they're growing crops on it. I think it's a farm; he thinks it's an industrial park. That's the difference.

So what did we have? We had campaign commercials extolling the virtues of this government and the integrity saying, "Did you know the government's going to sell Ontario Place?" Well, the only group that ever sold anything out of this province was this crowd of socialists.

Mr Turnbull: They sold the GO trains.

Mr Stockwell: They sold the rolling stock GO trains --

Mr Turnbull: And bought them back.

Mr Stockwell: -- and bought them back from the people they just sold them to and avoided taxes by doing the deal in the Caribbean. Now, are those socialists, Madam Speaker? Is that the crowd that put forward the Agenda for People? Are these the ones who believe in all those socialist ideas, the integrity they brought to this place, who thought nothing should ever move closure on? In a government of 42 years, we moved closure three times. They did it more last week than we did it in 42 years. Those are the socialists I know and have come to love.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: We do want to hear the member's comments. I would ask the member not to be so provocative. We would like to be able to hear your comments.

Mr Stockwell: I can't help it. Honest, I can't help it.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: Tell us about the Candu reactors in China.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, the Candu reactors, Madam Speaker. The only difference is, the Candu reactors, they thought the Premier sold a whale. They didn't realize it was the actual Candu reactor.

Madam Speaker, I am enjoying and will support night sittings, because if there's any opportunity for us on this side of the House or the great unwashed out there to have more time to view the spectacle of socialism gone mad, it is here, and I will be here and if they would like to continue sitting, maybe, say, 21 days in the next nine and a half months, I'll support that as well.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to next week. You're a wonderful lot.

Mr Kormos: On a point of privilege, Speaker: How dare that member call this government socialist? There's hardly a single policy, look as hard as you want, that one could identify as a socialist policy.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I was sorry to offend the member for Welland-Thorold and I will withdraw that remark because I know truly the only socialist left over there -- well, there are a couple, but him and probably Mark Morrow.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? I will recognize the member for Prescott-Russell.

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell): Nous voilà qu'on fait face à l'avis de motion 38 émanant du gouvernement qui respecte le Règlement 6(b)(i) que l'Assemblée va continuer de siéger entre 6 h et minuit les 1^er, 5, 6, 7, et 8 décembre 1994, à quel moment le Président va ajourner les travaux de la Chambre. Voilà, à un moment où l'Ontario a besoin de prendre le temps, du moins ses parlementaires doivent prendre le temps, pour débattre des sujets des plus importants pour le mieux-être de l'Ontario, que nous sommes en train de débattre un avis de motion qui se veut prêt à nous permettre de débattre jusqu'à minuit la semaine prochaine et demain.

Vous savez, le 13 décembre, ça fait déjà 10 ans que j'aurai été élu à l'Assemblée. Il y a plusieurs années, mes collègues et moi-même des trois partis, nous avons travaillé très fort afin d'établir un calendrier parlementaire fixe, 26 semaines sur 52 semaines, afin que tous les parlementaires, tous les Ontariens, toutes les Ontariennes, les familles des parlementaires puissent déterminer, puissent savoir à l'avance quand et à quel moment nous siégerions à travers l'année. Je pense que c'était une grande amélioration à toute l'incertitude qui régnait avant l'arrivée du calendrier parlementaire fixe, mais je dois vous dire que depuis quatre ans, il n'y a pas grand-chose de fixe au calendrier parlementaire fixe. Depuis le 23 juin jusqu'aux mois d'avril, mai ou juin prochains, au lieu de siéger 26 semaines, nous serons chanceux de siéger six semaines.

Je ne suis pas certain que l'Assemblée va être rappelée. Je doute que le jeudi 8 décembre puisse être la dernière journée où l'Assemblée siégerait avant la prochaine élection provinciale. Je ne serais pas surpris. Ce n'est sûrement pas moi qui vais décider de cette date, mais je crois que c'est une thèse qui n'est pas farfelue quand même. Peut-être que nous siégerons cinq ou six semaines le printemps prochain avant l'appel de l'élection, mais si tel est le cas, au maximum, ça ferait 10 à 12 semaines au lieu de 26 semaines entre juin 1994 et juin 1995.

Je sais que certains journalistes se sont amusés à dire que le travail de parlementaire est un travail à temps partiel. Je trouve ça quasiment bête et méchant, qu'un journaliste qui est attitré à Queen's Park puisse dire que nous faisons notre travail à temps partiel. Encore moins, ça devient difficile de justifier auprès de la population pourquoi l'Assemblée ne siégerait que six à 10 semaines au lieu de 26 dans une année de 52 semaines. Les gens qui connaissent bien le travail de parlementaire savent très bien que le temps que nous passons à l'Assemblée législative à siéger, c'est loin d'être le total complet du mandat d'un parlementaire. Là, les gens bien renseignés le savent.

Par contre, quand on regarde les besoins à combler en Ontario, je comprends très mal que l'on n'ait siégé depuis juin dernier que pendant six semaines. Je comprends très mal que nous arrêtions au 8 décembre. Je comprends très mal qu'à chaque fois, les gouvernements exigent que nous siégions jusqu'à minuit la dernière ou les deux dernières semaines afin de pouvoir rattraper le temps perdu plutôt que de commencer et de respecter les dates du calendrier parlementaire fixe que beaucoup de parlementaires des trois partis se sont donné il y a nombre d'années afin de mieux connaître l'agenda de l'Assemblée.

Donc, avec toutes ces résolutions en plus qui veulent limiter le temps de débat de projets de loi très importants, moi-même je ne comprends pas de telles fréquences, de telles résolutions pour limiter le débat, de tels agendas pour limiter le temps que la Chambre siège, de telles bifurcations en nous éloignant du calendrier parlementaire fixe. Après dix ans en Chambre, je ne peux que regretter que ce gouvernement-ci ait tellement bafoué le calendrier parlementaire fixe que nous tous ensemble nous étions donné avec grande fierté, après grande consultation des trois partis. Ça, je le regrette, comme parlementaire, je peux vous le dire.

Chez nous, dans la communauté francophone, on appelle ça du tataouinage. J'ai l'impression que mes amis interprètes, qui devront trouver la version anglaise du mot «tataouinage», je leur souhaite bonne chance, mais ça explique pas mal bien jusqu'à quel point on ne prend pas au sérieux les besoins de la communauté de l'Ontario. Qu'on ne puisse pas siéger au moins les 26 semaines tel que prévu dans le calendrier parlementaire, ça, je le trouve épouvantablement regrettable.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Prescott-Russell for his contribution. I believe now the time has expired for debate on this motion.

Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 38. Is it the pleasure of the House that 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.

1750

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for concurrence in supply for the following ministries and offices:

Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Transportation

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines

Management Board Secretariat

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Ministry of Housing

Ministry of Environment and Energy

Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation

Ministry of Economic Development and Trade

Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will resume debate. I believe at the last debate the member for York Mills had the floor and I will allow him to continue.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): When I last had the floor, I was speaking about the absolutely scandalous conditions of the awarding of the Highway 407 contract and the fact that the public has absolutely no access to the information surrounding this awarding of a contract.

We have very clearly stated that the government has subverted the open, clear, understandable process that was put in place in 1952 by a Conservative government to ensure that the taxpayer and the public at large understood and could see that they were getting the lowest bid. This government has managed to put in place a process which totally subverts that process.

Since the awarding of that contract to a group that signed an agreement with a union that is a favourite of the Premier of this province, the Labourers' International Union, that union has managed to get very cosy with the contractor who received the contract and indeed there have been other awards. One of the main members of the consortium that received the award has gone on to get some $60 million worth of business on the QEW and a significant amount of business around the Ottawa area.

There is a rating which is used by the Ministry of Transportation called the PQA rating which assesses the ability of companies to be able to handle the amount of work that they've got. There has been no adjustment to the PQA rating of that company since it received the 407 contract, a contract of $1 billion, the largest contract that any government in Ontario has ever given, yet there has been no adjustment to those ratings.

But I'm not berating the company that got the contract. What I am doing is berating the government for the secretive way in which it awarded that contract: the contract which had built within it an agreement that the union would receive 4% wage increases in year one, 4% wage increases in year two, 5% in year three, 5% in year four and 5% in year five, for a total of 23%, this at a time that we have had arguably, in the greater Toronto area, negative inflation. Yet these inflationary trends that the government is fuelling by allowing these sorts of contracts to be signed is unconscionable.

What do we have? We have no word from the government. The government hides behind such euphemisms as value-for-money contracting. They've never, ever to this day responded that it was the lowest bid. And that's what the taxpayers want to know.

We have a government which during the last election made a commitment in this absolutely laughable document that it called Agenda for People, and as my good friend the member for Etobicoke West has rechristened it, Agenda for Suckers. They made a commitment in here. I'm sure you're interested to know that New Democrats would make $100 million a year available --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think it is somewhat out of order for the member to be calling voters of Ontario by very unparliamentary names through this debate and I would ask that he would withdraw that.

The Acting Speaker: I'm asking if the member would care to reconsider his word that he used.

Mr Turnbull: I am so curious as to what I am alleged to have called the voters of Ontario that I would encourage the member to get up and tell me so that I might know and appropriately respond.

Mr Bisson: Madam Speaker, I would never want to use such words with the voters of Ontario and I think that the member really does disservice to this assembly to speak in that kind of language when it comes to voters.

The Acting Speaker: There is not a point of order here. It is up to the member to decide what words he does want to use.

Mr Turnbull: Do you know, it's so veiled, I suspect that what the member is alluding to is what we called Agenda for Suckers. If that's what he's alluding to, we're talking about the poor people who were sucked in by this government in the last election under false pretences, given this trash that they worked out on the back of an envelope with no thought to it, in full knowledge that we were on our way into a recession. Admittedly, they didn't know it was as serious a recession as it turned out to be.

I'm not referring to anything derogatory about the voters. I think what I am referring to are the morals of a party that puts out a document like this and then has the audacity to suggest that the document that we have put out some one year before the probable election date is wrong and misleading. We have costed our program out exactly.

Very interestingly, I was having a conversation today with the president of Dominion Bond Rating Service, and his comment about The Common Sense Revolution, the document that my leader, Mike Harris, put out early this year so that the voters will have a year to digest it -- the president of Dominion Bond Rating Service said of that document, "David, it's almost perfect."

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): You're going to slash and burn. You will close schools, close hospitals.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: Instead I direct your attention to this ridiculous document. The government has been in power for four and a half years and has broken virtually every promise that it made in there. I remember that the day the cabinet was sworn in, Bob Rae, Premier of this province, said: "We are committed to integrity. Yes, we may make mistakes, but when we make mistakes we will admit it." We haven't heard him admitting anything so far.

I can tell you, the electorate think that this government made a lot of mistakes and they are itching for an election. They're saying, "Please give me a shot."

I'm really pleased to see the Minister of Finance coming in. I seem to remember about two years ago around this time, it was just as we went into the midnight sessions, that he came in. He slunk in and I said: "Here he comes. He should have a black cap over his head like the executioner." But he doesn't have that on, and I see his smiling face, which I always enjoy, but indeed I still have to say, how can you live with yourself, putting out a document like this and not living up to what you said you were going to do? How can you possibly live with yourself? I don't know. I ask myself.

There's a commitment on the front page, it's dated August 18, about "Succession Duties on Estates of the Rich and Super-Rich." Well, we haven't seen any of that.

"Tax Fairness for the Working Poor." This is a government that has actually increased taxes on the working poor. That's what they call tax fairness. Absolutely incredible.

Let's go on. We've got "Speculation Tax." That's always a good socialist wheeze; you know, talking about speculation tax. This is the government that has ensured that everybody who owned anything -- that it's worth less than it was. I wonder if they're talking about giving something back to the people whom they've just destroyed.

"Interest Rate Relief." To the best of my knowledge, we never saw any interest rate relief from this government.

We talked about "Driver-owned Insurance." It seems to me that the government forgot about that. Driver-owned insurance? Well, there we go.

"Job protection." Well, I'll tell you how much they've protected jobs. At this moment in Ontario we have half a million people unemployed. We've never known that since the Dirty Thirties, half a million people unemployed. In the greater Metro area, we haven't improved at all. We're at about 91% of the employment level we enjoyed before this government came to power.

I do believe, it being 6 of the clock, that we should adjourn this debate, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member. We will resume this debate and he will have the floor at a further date. At this time the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 am.

The House adjourned at 1801.

30 novembre 1994