role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 20, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

FERRY SERVICE FEES

SALE OF PAPER MILL

MARKETING COOPERATIVES

TOURISM ONTARIO

EDUCATION

EVENTS IN COCHRANE NORTH

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

CAROL CULLAIN

SUDBURY ROTARY CLUB

CANCER TREATMENT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CANCER TREATMENT

MENINGITIS

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

HEALTH CARE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

LIBRARY GRANTS

VIOLENCE

DAY CARE

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

STATUS OF BILL

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 40

GAMBLING

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

LANDFILL

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

OTTAWA JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGED ACT, 1993

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE PLAN D'INVESTISSEMENT

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): It appears the Minister of Transportation is afraid to meet my questions in the House, since he's absent most of the time these days, so I have to ask him through this statement.

Minister, is it fair to charge substantial new fees for ferry services in eastern Ontario without any prior study on how this measure will impact the local economy? The people of Howe Island, Wolfe Island, Simcoe Island, Amherst Island and the Glenora-Adolphustown community are still waiting for an answer.

A few days ago, I received a letter from a 15-year-old student on Wolfe Island. Here's what she says:

"We do not pay to use the 401 or Highway 2, and that is exactly what the Wolfe Island ferry is -- a highway.... Residents who work in Kingston will be forced to dig up an extra $1,500 a year just to get to and from work.... Young children will also be affected by this decision. Their parents will not want to pay the extra money to get them to sports and other activities in the city."

I call on the minister and I call on the Premier to cancel the ferry fee increase or at least to postpone the implementation of the new fee until an economic impact study has been done.

SALE OF PAPER MILL

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It is from today's editorial by Derek Walter of the Arnprior Chronicle-Guide about the damage his ministry has done to the Braeside mill:

"As the story unfolds regarding the sale of the former Gillies mill to Canadian Wood Products Inc, we never cease to be amazed by the role Ministry of Natural Resources staff are playing," while the minister remains silent.

"Some recent incidents initiated by them are inexcusable. The timing of a letter sent to every major private wood supplier in the area regarding the use of crown logs was poorly handled. It so confused the private loggers that they withheld any offer of logs to CWP because they feared repercussions from the MNR on future licensing. The MNR later claimed they had no legal right to stop private sources from selling logs to CWP. If such be true, why the threatening letter?" Why does the minister not retract that irresponsible message?

"If the MNR wanted to stop the sale in the first place, they should have made it very clear...that no support was forthcoming. The whole exercise hints of hidden agendas, particularly in the light of native claims to large tracts of land within the Algonquin Park area. Why don't politicians and the ministry bureaucrats come clean on this subject and clarify their real thoughts" on the future of Algonquin Park? Will it continue to be a public park?

MARKETING COOPERATIVES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): In recognition of Co-op Week, I'd like to highlight a new initiative recently announced by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The ministry's marketing cooperatives advisory service will help farmers and food processors who want to establish or improve marketing cooperatives. Staff at the service will provide a resource base for information on the establishment, structure, operation and development of co-ops. They will help link co-ops with other services and programs in the government and private sector, as well as offer advice on developing business plans.

Cooperatives are an excellent vehicle for pooling the resources and energy of local groups so they can help bolster both their own and their community's economic future. The cooperative model is not a new idea, but it's one whose time has come again, especially given the economic challenges brought on by the recession and intensifying global competition.

I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food is highly supportive of grass-roots-based efforts that encourage cooperatives and innovation in the agrifood industry.

The new service will provide a good opportunity for co-op members, both producers and processors, to work together to improve market access, while adding value to their products. Locally based, locally owned cooperatives will provide both jobs for the community and the kind of pride that comes from owning and operating your own business.

This initiative is a fine example of how this government is encouraging self-reliance and economic development in our rural communities.

TOURISM ONTARIO

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): It is with great regret that I convey to the members of this House today that Tourism Ontario, which is a private, non-profit federation of lodging, recreation, transportation and travel associations whose more than 7,000 businesses accounted for a sizeable portion of the estimated $16.9 billion in direct expenditures in 1991, is closing its doors at the end of this month.

The lingering recession and inequitable provincial fiscal and regulatory environment have resulted in indefinite layoffs for more than 62,000 employees in the tourism industry overall. Bankruptcies in the accommodation and food and beverage service sectors have escalated by 21% over the same time a year ago. Bankruptcies in Ontario's tourism and hospitality industry have increased by 39%. As a result, the industry has been unable to sustain itself and therefore its membership in Tourism Ontario.

We are told that the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation and the government knew of this serious development over a month ago and did nothing to reverse it. In fact we are told they never even called to offer assistance. Although you will tell us that there is a tourism sectoral strategy under way, the people involved in tourism across this province are very concerned with the lack of interest shown in their industry by your government and are very fearful that the strategy is destined for failure.

Minister, how do you explain this very unfortunate situation? What do you propose to do to fill the void left by the closure of Tourism Ontario? When will the Rae government give tourism the attention it deserves?

EDUCATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement is directed to the Minister of Education and Training. On September 7 you announced the establishment of the Ontario Parent Council. This group of 18 members is expected to represent the views of parents throughout Ontario and to advise you on upcoming policy.

We strongly agree that parents play a very important and necessary role in the education of children; however, we have a number of concerns with the announcement.

There will now be 44 councils in the Education and Training ministry alone. The Ontario Parent Council will cost the Ontario taxpayers $600,000. What role will home and school associations and parent-teacher associations play at the provincial level?

In May you appointed the Royal Commission on Learning to "reach out and listen to everyone committed to quality education," including parents. This commission, which is currently travelling the province, is costing the taxpayers $3 million.

Which of the 44 councils are you listening to? What is the relationship between the parent council and the royal commission? Aren't they both listening to parents? Is this going to be yet another level of bureaucracy?

You state that your government's goal is to have ordinary parents from all over the province participate in this parent council. Yet you will be appointing the majority of the 18 members. In other words, only a minority of the council may end up being ordinary citizens with new ideas.

As parents and taxpayers, we know that we can make a significant difference in the education of our children. We also know that we don't need more levels of costly bureaucracy to do this.

EVENTS IN COCHRANE NORTH

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): On Thursday of last week I attended the 35th anniversary of TransCanada PipeLines. The event marked the result of the final weld which took place near Kapuskasing in 1958, when gas began to flow through TransCanada's system to markets in Canada's heartland. By transporting gas from the west to meet the energy demands of millions of Canadians in the east, the pipeline has put 1,800 people to work in five provinces.

The company generates close to $55 million per year in municipal taxes and about half a billion dollars in provincial taxes. They also made a significant contribution to the Sensenbrenner Hospital in Kapuskasing to build a doctors clinic. We can see the enormous contribution this company has made to our economy at every level, and I would again like to congratulate the achievements of TransCanada PipeLines.

Another important achievement that I would like to mention today will be celebrated at the official inauguration of the thermomechanical pulp facility at Spruce Falls Inc. The event will take place this Friday at the mill in Kapuskasing.

I am extremely pleased that the Premier will be able to join me, and it seems most fitting as he worked very hard to make the employee buyout at Spruce Falls a successful reality. Eight hundred people are still employed because of this, and the company with its new TMP facility is now in a position to compete in a technologically advanced marketplace. I am proud of the progress Spruce Falls Inc has made over the past two years.

Our government's Jobs Ontario programs have also played a significant role in preserving and creating jobs. At the same time we have kept our community infrastructures upgraded to meet today's market demands. Several Jobs Ontario initiatives have already begun and more announcements for Cochrane North will be made by the end of this week.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Next Monday, October 25, is federal election day. Canadians are concerned about the future of our country. Canada is experiencing problems, including high unemployment and high debt. Canadians are deciding how to vote. They're asking the federal parties how they plan to solve the problems our federal government faces.

Voting is a personal act that requires significant thought and deliberation. I know from his past statements that Mike Harris is having a lot of trouble deciding how he will vote on October 25. Will he cast his vote in favour of Kim Campbell, his federal leader, or has he decided, like many others, that the federal Tories don't have what it takes to lead the country?

I know that he won't be voting for Lucien Bouchard. Will Mike Harris be casting his vote for the Reform Party and Preston Manning? That would not come as a surprise to me, as Mr Harris's and Mr Manning's platforms are very, very similar. They both say that we should bring in user fees for health care. Mike and Preston are singing out of the same hymn book.

Mike, I stand in my place today urging you not to vote for Preston Manning. Join me, join the Liberal caucus and thousands, millions of Ontarians and Canadians, mark your ballot for the Liberals and help make Jean Chrétien the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Reconsider, Mike; there's still time. Vote your vote with us.

CAROL CULLAIN

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The people of Sudbury recently experienced the shock and sadness of the tragic death of Constable Joseph MacDonald, killed in the line of duty two weeks ago.

Today Sudbury and Burlington share a mutual grief in the passing of a Sudbury native, Constable Carol Cullain, who made her home in Burlington as a member of the Halton Regional Police and who at the age of 31 has tragically died of cancer.

Hired just last November 12, Constable Cullain described herself as being on cloud nine after her swearing-in ceremony. She said, and I quote: "It's the proudest day of my life because I have been accepted in what I feel is one of the most important careers this country has to offer. I wouldn't dream of being anything else."

Her fiancé, Blake Freure, a Peel Regional Police officer, was present and the two were planning to marry next May. They met at an explosion site in Mississauga in 1991 when Constable Cullain was an ambulance officer.

Constable Cullain's funeral was held at Christ the King Roman Catholic Church in Sudbury yesterday together with a full police honour guard. On behalf of all members of this House and all police service personnel, I extend my sincere sympathy and condolences to the bereaved family of Constable Cullain. An achievement award has been set up at Humber College in Etobicoke in her memory.

Constable Carol Cullain of Burlington was a person who dedicated her life to the service of others and to the community she served with such high distinction, if even for so brief a time.

Today both she and Constable MacDonald are heir to the promise echoed in

chapter 15 of the gospel of St John: "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. And if you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love."

SUDBURY ROTARY CLUB

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): As everyone in the House knows, Rotary clubs around the world are dedicated to the betterment of persons, particularly through education, and the Sudbury Rotary Club in my riding is no different.

Last Saturday evening, despite a Blue Jays game that was on, we had a Trivial Pursuit tournament put on by the Sudbury Rotary Club and organized by a young woman by the name of Monique Vincent, who did a phenomenal job.

There were eight teams sponsored by different businesses and corporations and associations throughout the city. We played from about 7 o'clock till about 10 o'clock. I'm proud to say that my team did make it to the consolation round. However, we lost on a tie to the Sudbury Regional Police Association.

It was a fun evening. It was good for everyone, but it was particularly good for the cause of literacy, and the Sudbury Rotary Club is to be commended for doing this work. I want to congratulate them for continuing that practice. Last Saturday was the second annual Trivial Pursuit tournament. I'm challenging everyone in Sudbury to put out more teams for next year.

I want to thank everyone who sponsored me, and my team, and I would also just finish off with a statement that was made by another Sudburian whom we see every night on television, Alex Trebek, who came and kicked off Literacy Week in Sudbury by saying that the pursuit of literacy is not trivial.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is now time for oral questions. Is there a member of the opposition who wishes to ask a question?

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I was to direct my question to the Minister of Health, but in her absence I'll present it to the Premier.

In 1992 there were 44,800 estimated new cases of cancer in Ontario. In 1992 there were an estimated 21,600 cancer deaths. In 1985 a report commissioned by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute reported on the funding and delivery deficiencies in Ontario for cancer treatment and the dramatic incidence of cancer.

The Liberal government recognized the urgency that was pointed out in that report, both in the short term and in the long term, added $200 million for cancer treatment facility improvement, increased operating budgets for specialty care, introduced a cancer care coordinator to the MOH and, in January 1990, an additional $300 million was budgeted for facilities to provide care and treatment for cancer patients.

For the last government, Mr Premier, cancer care was a clear government-wide priority. We would like to know from you today where cancer care fits in your priorities.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): It's my understanding that the minister is literally just arriving and will be present shortly in order to answer the question.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The question is, is it a priority for your government?

Mrs Sullivan: Is this an appropriate way to conduct the question period meeting?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): You said you wanted to ask the Minister of Health.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Question period is obviously an important element of the sitting. It's important to both sides of the House. Indeed, I know the honourable member would not want the minister to be at a disadvantage and not hear the question. In fairness, what I would ask is -- it was a serious question posed by the member for Halton Centre -- that we would restart the clock and the member would pose her question over again. The minister is here to hear the question and we can begin afresh.

Mrs Sullivan: I will now, given that the Minister of Health has joined us in the assembly, repeat the question to her.

In 1992, Minister, you will know that there were an estimated 44,000 new cases of cancer in Ontario. In 1992 there were an estimated 21,600 cancer deaths. In 1985, you will recall, a report commissioned by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute reported on the funding and delivery deficiencies for cancer treatment in Ontario and also reported on the dramatic increases in the incidence of cancer.

The Liberal government recognized the urgency -- as I believe any government would have done at the time -- both in the short term and in the long term. They added $200 million for cancer treatment facility improvement, increased operating budgets for specialty care, introduced a cancer care coordinator to the MOH and, in January 1990, added an additional $300 million to provide for facilities to provide care and treatment for cancer patients.

For the last government, Madam Minister, cancer care was a clear government-wide priority. Where does cancer care fit in your priorities?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Without hesitation I can say that the same priority has been accorded to care of cancer by this government as by the previous one.

As I acknowledged in response to questions on this subject earlier this week, the report that was received by the previous government in 1985 and indicated the increasing number of cancers that were anticipated has been the basis for planning -- planning that has continued.

In addition, in our discussions and round tables with all of the stakeholders from survivors to volunteers to the treatment centres, we have been looking at how we can expand the range of services, whether it be support services in the community for cancer patients after they have received treatment, moving to what we can do to try to prevent this shocking increase in a disease that in some cases is preventable by things like an anti-tobacco strategy, for example, or dealing with toxins in the workplace or in the environment.

So there is a spectrum with respect to making cancer a priority. Treatment is very much an important part of that, and the work to expand the treatment facilities is a priority and is continuing.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister speaks of planning, which she tells us has continued in the steps of the positions that were put in place from the last government. But my concern is that the implementation plans have not been put into place and the urgency has not been recognized.

I will give you an example of that. In October 1989, the Liberal government approved $18 million for construction and radiotherapy facilities at the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre. Your government stopped that project with your halt to hospital capital construction plans. Today, those facilities are not yet built.

My colleagues in the House from the Liberal caucus have been urging on many occasions that action be taken. In the summer of 1992 there were 350 patients on the waiting list for treatment in Ottawa with an 8-to-10-week wait for that treatment. That crisis situation could, I'm sure you will recognize, easily occur again.

The Ottawa treatment centre handles more than 155,000 visits for treatment and consultation each year, and each year more than 3,000 new cancer patients require treatment at that centre.

Minister, I am asking: When will you provide the funding to the Ottawa cancer treatment centre to ensure that new facilities and new equipment are put in place so that people who've been diagnosed with cancer can be assured that they will get the treatment they need, when they need it?

Hon Mrs Grier: I've already indicated to the House, and am glad to repeat, that in fact construction of the expansions in Ottawa is under way and of course, when completed, will be funded. I should also say to the member, though, this is not a desired way of dealing with what is an acknowledged problem. Two new machines in the cancer centre in Hull are also under construction and that could in the short term, when they are effective, expand the capacity in that particular area.

I'm happy to tell her with respect to the overall expansion of the system, to which I have spoken this week, that I have been informed, and I would like to give this additional information to the House, that the construction

schedule of the Toronto-Bayview Regional Cancer Centre, which started just this summer and which was scheduled to be completed in two and a half years, has been accelerated. In fact, I'm delighted to inform the House that that centre is going to be completed in one and a half years rather than the two and a half years that was originally anticipated.

Mrs Sullivan: The government clearly does not have a plan for the short term and across Ontario we see waiting lists that are expanding with no alternative planning and implementation programs being put into place to meet that requirement for today.

The Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists had set a standard of four weeks from the time of diagnosis to the time of treatment. Many people have to travel significant distances at a very stressful time in their lives to obtain that treatment in a timely way and to be absent from their close family, their children and their friends, by whom support would be provided.

The referral centre at the Princess Margaret Hospital works with cancer patients to ensure that they will receive timely treatment in another centre if it's not available at the local regional centre, and the cancer society has been generous with its volunteer time to assist, whenever possible, to ensure that the patient receives comfort.

We hear from patients that there are other stresses, though. The cost of travel and other expenses must be borne by the patient, along with many other costs associated with receiving treatment in a community other than their own. That travel, I remind you, Minister, is medically necessary. Will you agree to cover the costs of travel and the associated costs when a patient is referred to another regional centre or where the distance and cost is such that a patient is denied access to cancer treatment on the basis of ability to pay?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the member that the stresses she identifies I think we are all aware of and are all attempting to prevent from having to occur. The expansion that has occurred in our cancer treatment centres since 1985 is really quite phenomenal when you look at other sections of treatment and other provinces and is in response to the need and following a plan.

Our attempt has been to cut down on the number of re-referrals and the amount of planning, and I'm happy to tell the member that in the first five months of this year there were in fact no re-referrals. That happens on occasion, and when it happens and when it is excessive, there have been times when the ministry has looked at it and, yes, acknowledged that there ought to be some compensation for travel time. But our ultimate objective is to make sure that people do not have to travel out of their own area and that there is not a need for re-referral, and that is the entire objective of our plan.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We were told that the Minister of Community and Social Services would be here 15 minutes ago; he is not. In his absence, I would go to the Premier of the province.

There is a report in the Vancouver Sun, also copied in the Ottawa Citizen, that has indicated that welfare fraud is widespread; in fact, a connection has been made in this story between welfare fraud in the Somali community and the funding of the activities of warlords in Somalia. There is a conviction of one Somali man last year on the basis of $6,500-per-month fraud in Ottawa. I want the Premier of this province to tell me what action his ministry and his government have taken to ensure that this type of fraud is not occurring and does not occur.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can assure the honourable member that fraud against any public body with respect to receiving of grants, whether it's the welfare system, the tax system, unemployment insurance, whatever it may be -- in the case which you've spoken of in terms of welfare fraud, any facts which are brought forward are to be thoroughly investigated by the authorities in question. They have that clear, legal responsibility.

If the honourable member is privy to any particular information as a result of the extensive research he has done in reading the Vancouver Sun or the Ottawa Citizen, then I'm glad to receive it and I'm sure it will be thoroughly investigated by the people who are responsible.

If there are any instances of people who are either individually or systematically abusing the welfare system or engaged in a fraud of the welfare system, those instances and those individuals should be investigated. If there is information which would lead to a prosecution, they should be charged. That's the law of the province. The law of the province and the law of Canada should be and must be upheld and maintained, and that's the way it should be.

Mr Elston: This story in the Ottawa Citizen indicates quite clearly that the welfare fraud is widespread across the country and isolates an incident in Ottawa where a person has been convicted of welfare fraud. My question to you was, what has your government done to prevent it?

Last week when we asked the question, the honourable member for Oriole got this answer: "If you tell us the facts, we'll pass them on and we'll take whatever action is necessary to stop it." If the Vancouver Sun and the Ottawa Citizen know about the conviction of one Somali who was convicted of defrauding the system of up to $6,500 per month -- and the suspicion is that the fraud was actually over $12,000 per month -- can you tell me what action was taken by your ministry, by your government, to stop the fraudulent applications for welfare in this province by people like this?

I want this prime minister to tell us, what are you doing to stop the flow of welfare fraud currency out of this country and into Somalia?

Hon Mr Rae: I never cease to be amazed at the waves of synthetic indignation which carry off the honourable member for Bruce. I would say to him very directly that I haven't seen the newspaper

article to which he's referring, but even in the face of the rage he was expressing he admitted that in fact there had been a prosecution and indeed, from what I can gather from his question, there had also been a conviction.

When he asks what the provincial government is doing, my response would be that the provincial government has an obligation to monitor, to investigate instances of fraud, to charge those who are responsible for fraud and to deal with it on that basis. That is the responsibility we have, that is the responsibility the federal authorities have, and that is the responsibility his government had when it was in office.

I would say one other thing: It will be a sad day when we start charging, trying and convicting people on the floor of the Legislature on the basis of newspaper articles, which seems to be the direction in which the honourable member is headed. It must be dealt with by the proper authorities.

Mr Elston: To that honourable member: I want to bring his attention to the fact that the allegation is that millions of dollars are going into the hands of people to buy arms to be used in the warfare that is going on in Somalia, which includes the use of those weapons against peacekeepers who are there on missions of mercy and peace.

There is also a project reported in this particular

article -- Also Known As is its code name -- which is supposedly being undertaken by the federal authorities.

I want to understand when the government of Ontario was made aware of these types of fraud, what it has done to cooperate with the federal authorities and what sort of steps it has taken to assure us that the fraud, which was raised a week ago, as an example, by the member for Oriole and which the Minister of Community and Social Services seemed to know nothing about -- what steps you have taken as a government to ensure that these types of fraudulent applications are not still going on, and what have you done to prevent the flow of money that is used to buy arms which are being trained on the peacekeepers in Somalia?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member, and I say to him in as calm and civil a way as I possibly can, that the way to deal with this issue is to deal with the information that's there, to deal with any information on a systematic basis and to deal with it in a way that respects the civil liberties of all Canadians, regardless of where they come from, and to respect the civil liberties of all applicants regardless of race, colour, creed or any other aspect of their lives. We have an obligation as a civilized people and as a civilized government to do that.

We also have an obligation to prosecute those people where there's found to be reasonable evidence of fraud. Where we have those instances --

Mr Elston: What about the audit? You have taken insufficient steps to do anything about the welfare fraud.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: This is an issue that's costing us, and we intend to deal with it. But I must say I've learned a great deal about the honourable member this afternoon.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I guess the OPP is too busy investigating all the leaks on the NDP scams.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, it's increasingly clear that we have a crisis in cancer treatment in Ontario. We have growing waiting lists for radiation treatment for a disease with which time is of the utmost importance. As Minister of Health, you should be doing everything possible to ensure that Ontarians are treated as soon as possible.

That is why I want to ask you if you can assure every single Ontarian, every single taxpayer of this province, every single person who is on a waiting list for radiation in Ontario, that no one from outside the country would ever receive treatment ahead of them on the waiting list before they do. Can you assure us of that?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): To give that kind of blanket assurance, much as I wish I could, without having all the information available to me -- that I suspect the member has available to him for his second question -- would not be something I would want to do. But let me say to him very sincerely that my objective and the objective of my ministry and of this government is to make sure that the people of Ontario get the treatment they need with as little waiting as possible, and that's what our plans and our efforts are directed to achieving.

Mr Harris: The information I have is available to you, because I have a copy of a letter that was sent to you by Judy Thompson of Kitchener. In February of this year, Ms Thompson was told she'd have to wait three months for radiation treatment for a recurrence of cancer. While Ms Thompson was in London for her treatment, she met an American woman who was being given the same treatment after waiting just over a week. How could this happen? How can it happen that Americans can jump the queue and get radiation treatment in Ontario while we have Ontarians sitting there waiting on the list?

Hon Ruth Grier: I don't have an answer to that question. I hope the member will share with me the specifics of the case. I can assure him it is something I will take up with the London hospital and ask for the information he is requesting.

Mr Harris: The information is available to you. The letter was sent to you and copied to me. To date, apparently only my office has had the time to call and find out what happened. We spoke as well with the American patient this morning. She confirmed the details of Judy Thompson's letter. She confirmed that she does not have an Ontario health card. She has a private plan.

That even one American -- and if there's one, we must assume there are others -- has taken the place of an Ontario cancer patient is unacceptable. Will you immediately investigate how this happened to ensure that not one single Ontario taxpayer, Ontario cancer treatment patient, is kept on waiting lists because someone outside the country is coming in paying his or her own way?

Hon Mrs Grier: Shortly after I became the minister I became aware of the fact that a number of our institutions were planning to market their services to fee-paying patients from south of the border. I made it very clear to them, and I have no hesitation in repeating today to the member and to the House, that as far as this government is concerned, Ontario's health care system is for the people of Ontario and is not for sale. I share his concern about this particular case, and as far as we are concerned, that is not what ought to happen.

Mr Harris: But it's happening and it's happening every day.

My second question is also to the Minister of Health. Can you tell me, Minister, whether you and your government think a person who is 64 years of age and is suffering from cancer is not worth treating?

Hon Mrs Grier: I know the member is raising a question with respect to a specific individual who has written to my ministry. I'm not in a position, nor ought I, to comment on that particular case, and I'm afraid I can't do it in the Legislature.

Mr Harris: Mr Donald Porter of Orangeville is in Orangeville today watching as I speak and as you speak. He believes that OHIP told him he was too old to treat. After he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, his oncologist, Dr Steven Reingold, recommended that he should get a bone marrow transplant. OHIP refused to pay even though he was given only three to nine months to live.

Mr Porter claims he was denied coverage because of his age and because there was an "element of risk." After years of working, after years of paying into our health care system, he was told that when he needed it the health care system wouldn't be there for him. Minister, Mr Porter wants to know why. Can you explain that to him?

Hon Mrs Grier: As the member well knows, it is not appropriate nor is it proper for me to comment in public on an individual case. Let me assure him and anybody who's watching that cases of this nature that come to my attention are investigated and that the questions are asked by me of OHIP. That will certainly happen in this particular case.

Mr Harris: Donald Porter couldn't wait for you and your government. Donald Porter couldn't wait for the system. Donald Porter is alive today and watching because he sold his business and he sold his home and he spent his retirement money to pay $150,000 for bone marrow surgery in New York. He is healthy today.

Minister, you and your government have mismanaged our system to the point where people are forced to give up their life savings to stay alive. This is Ontario. This isn't what universal health care was supposed to be. This isn't the OHIP system that was conceived of and dreamed of in this country and in this province and built up over all these years. In a province envied for its health care system, this shouldn't be happening. The bottom line is that if Mr Porter were poor, if he couldn't have sold his house, if he didn't have life savings, he would not be alive today.

What advice do you have for other seniors who are being told the same thing and who don't have the money to go elsewhere and get the treatment?

I want to say to the members opposite that in the face of constraints and cutbacks --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Minister, conclude your response.

Hon Mrs Grier: I want to conclude by pointing out to the leader of the third party that the medicare system of this country, which the members on this side of the House fought for, created and have protected all these years, began as a shared --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To correct the record, I'm sure the record will show that the NDP created nothing and weren't in government when this system was created.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

MENINGITIS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question also of the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, you will be aware of the continuing concern, if not panic, throughout the region of Peel over the incidence of cases of meningitis. Today more school kids and their parents are pleading for an inoculation, but the vaccine is not available.

You will remember that in the Ottawa-Carleton area, where there was a similar outbreak, massive inoculation was ordered. However, you must also be aware that for a significant period of time there wasn't sufficient serum to meet the needs. Special efforts were needed by the Ministry of Health in that case.

Keeping in mind the lesson from Ottawa-Carleton and the reality of the region of Peel, will you assure this Legislature today that efforts are being undertaken by your ministry to ensure (1) that there is sufficient serum available on an as-required basis, and (2) that there is a proper plan in order whereby that serum can be distributed?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I have certainly asked that question of the chief medical officer of health of the province, because it was one of my first concerns when I heard about these incidents of meningococcal disease: Was there sufficient serum? My information was that indeed there was and that Connaught Laboratories could provide that which was required. In the Ottawa case, I understand that serum had to be found from another country, but the serum was found. I have no information that leads me to suspect there is a shortage here. If the member has been told something different, I will certainly want to follow up on that.

Mr Offer: The parents of the children in the region of Peel would take strong issue with you with respect to that particular answer, because in fact there is not sufficient vaccine serum available for them today. The question to you again is: What efforts are you taking to make certain that serum in sufficient quantities will be available for the people, the children, in the region of Peel? We want to know what actions you are taking to make certain that is available.

Hon Mrs Grier: I can merely repeat in response what I said in my first answer. My information is that there is a certain amount of serum that the ministry keeps and that Connaught Laboratories has an additional supply, and that if serum is needed, it is available and will be found. I have not, as recently as my briefing at 1 o'clock, been made aware of a shortage or of any physician seeking serum who was unable to find it.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. The Toronto Sun reported today that an illegal ring has been caught selling Ontario birth certificates. In response, the deputy registrar of Ontario said, "There's no practical way to prevent this type of abuse." Premier, once a person illegally obtains an Ontario birth certificate, it's a licence to spend the taxpayer's money. It's an open invitation to our welfare system. It gives you gold card access to our health care. Premier, do you believe the deputy registrar is right? Do you believe there is no way to stop this?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer this to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The police haven't directly contacted the office of the registrar general to date and the ORG will be contacting the police to offer full cooperation. I can tell the leader of the third party that there are approximately 360,000 birth certificates issued each year and 90% of those are issued through the mail. The eligibility criteria are the same as, restricted, and consistent with other Canadian jurisdictions. But what I would like to say is that since the relocation of the ORG from Toronto to Thunder Bay, which everybody here is aware of, there has been extremely tight security around --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Churley: There has been extremely tight security around the birth certificates. To date, we don't know whether those birth certificates were stolen or are counterfeit and that's something the police will now start investigating.

Mr Harris: Minister, we're losing millions in fraudulent health care claims. You've heard that every day. We're losing millions in welfare fraud. You hear that every day. Now we find out anyone can pick up an Ontario birth certificate on the street for a few hundred bucks.

This is the card, this is the gold card, this is the one that accesses all the manna, all the free government money. Do you think it's acceptable that your deputy registrar says there's no way to stop it? Do you accept that as a cabinet minister? That's the question I ask you and now, by way of supplementary, I ask you this: If you believe that, if you accept that, isn't it time you moved aside and got somebody in who can manage these systems? Because it's not acceptable to me that there's no way to stop this fraud.

Hon Ms Churley: As I said, the police have not determined at this point whether these certificates are forged documents or stolen property. Of course, I don't accept the statement. Of course, it isn't acceptable. I believe what Mr Kelly is getting at is that out of the 360,000 birth certificates that are issued each year, 90% of them are through the mail.

Mr Harris: Everything you touch is falling apart, all the sacred social programs, the health care system; it's all falling apart.

The Speaker: Leader of the third party, come to order.

Has the minister concluded her response?

Hon Ms Churley: I'd be interested to see the context of the statement alleged by Mr Kelly, because I believe what he may have been getting at is that with that number of birth certificates going out every year -- and people can apply through the mail -- in certain instances, if people get the right information, even with the tight security it can happen sometimes.

But let me say again that I take it very seriously. We don't know yet whether these documents were stolen or received in that way or whether these are counterfeit. The police will be investigating and I will have more information for you when they reach conclusions at the end of their investigation.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is for the Minister of Health. The Ministry of Health has undertaken to provide quality health care to Ontario residents who have suffered brain injury. Current efforts are under way to develop a pool of expertise in several Ontario centres so that we can treat Ontario residents here instead of in the United States. This will provide us with more affordable health care that is close by.

While we develop this program, American-owned, for-profit centres are being slated for southwestern Ontario to meet the demands of Ontarians with private health insurance. Those Ontarians who have only OHIP coverage are forced to get their treatment south of the border.

What are you doing to speed up the provision of treatment for people with brain injury in the province of Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I share the member's concern about this particular issue and I'm happy to tell him that our response to the situation has been a $9.5-million allocation for a combination of institutional and community initiatives to repatriate Canadians, Ontarians, who have had to receive treatment south of the border.

Of the approximately 12,000 traumatic head injuries sustained each year in Ontario, only about 100 are treated in American facilities. The majority of the cases receive their treatment here in Ontario. Those that are typically going to the United States are people who are slow to recover from brain injury or who demonstrate particularly aggressive behaviour that we don't have the facilities here to deal with. But it is a real concern, and I hope in the very near future to be able to have some information about a further expansion of our treatment facilities here in Ontario.

Mr Hope: Especially in southwestern Ontario, there are a number of residents or family members who would like their families closer, to participate in the recovery aspect. I must ask the minister: If we're not able to provide non-profit facilities faster, will it be possible for Ontario residents with brain injury who do not have private health insurance to access the American-owned clinics in Ontario until the system is fully in effect? I guess my question would be, can they use the American system while we wait for non-profit?

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes, access to US services continues to be approved by the ministry until we have adequate facilities developed in Ontario. As I indicated, we acknowledge that there are some areas where we still do not provide the service. We understand the concern people have with the slow rate of development of our facilities here in Ontario, and it is a priority of a gap that we're attempting to close.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): My question is to the member for Dovercourt, the Minister of Community and Social Services. There has been for some months now an investigation by the federal authorities into welfare fraud surrounding the issue of Somalis who are reportedly using money from welfare claims here in Ontario and in other parts of Canada to fund the purchase of arms for Somali warlords in their home country.

Immigration department spokesman Milt Best in Toronto has indicated that there is a program called Also Known As that has been ongoing for some months in relation to this. Will the Minister of Community and Social Services tell us what cooperation he has provided that project and how long he has known about the investigation into this welfare fraud, and can he tell us, further, how this particular project dovetails into the projects that he has under way on his own in relation to welfare fraud?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I will say very straightforwardly to the member, I don't have the details of this particular investigation, but as he has raised them here with me, I will ensure that we look into those and be able to respond in more detail to the member at a later point.

Mr Elston: I am absolutely astonished by that particular response. The auditor had indicated in his report that the ministry's efforts to prevent and detect fraud were insufficient; he didn't say they were non-existent. I want the Minister of Community and Social Services to tell me today exactly what his department is doing to detect welfare fraud, the same type of fraud that is allowing certain individuals to get multiple applications approved for welfare, certain individuals, it is now alleged, who are sending that money out of the country to fund the purchase of arms to be used against our peacekeepers in other countries.

I want this minister to tell us what steps he has taken in his ministry to prevent welfare fraud and how they are going to get to the bottom of the problem that is reported today in the Ottawa Citizen, about which I spoke to the Premier earlier.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think it's important that we not make policy on the basis of news reports. I want to say to the member that we take the issue --

Mr Elston: You don't have a policy to investigate fraud?

Hon Mr Silipo: If he'll let me finish the answer, we take the issue of welfare fraud very seriously. In fact I can tell the member that in the process we're going through now we've identified and we're putting in place, together with the municipalities, a process we believe will identify a fair amount of the fraud that exists in the system. Even if we believe that it's a relatively small amount, it's important that we get to the nub of that.

On the issues that he has raised, dealing with a specific part of that, I wanted to be very direct with him in saying to him that I don't have the details at my disposal and, rather than trying to invent them on my feet, what I will do is get the information and be prepared to come back to the House and deal with that issue very directly.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training.Today is day 27 of the strike in Lambton county. The students have been out of the classroom for six weeks. If the students and the parents affected were asked whether their education is in jeopardy, Mr Minister, they would say yes.

Despite this, the Education Relations Commission will hold a public meeting on Thursday night at the Canterbury Inn to discuss the impact of the strike on the students. No other outstanding issue will be discussed. Five ERC bureaucrats will come down from Toronto and rent hotel space to discuss an issue that is blatantly obvious to everyone but the minister and maybe the ERC; we don't know that. Could you tell me the exact cost, including salary, transportation and hotel expenditures, for this grandstanding exercise?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The Education Relations Commission announced last Friday that it was going to proceed with a public meeting to deal with this issue, a process that the ERC used to use quite often in disputes like this. As the member will know, some very serious negotiations have occurred in the last 24 hours. In fact it's my understanding that all of the issues at the bargaining table with the exception of one have been dealt with.

Now, the first time that she asked the question a few weeks ago, the member advocated legislation and claimed jeopardy. That's the politically popular thing to do; that's not the responsible thing to do. When you've given people the right to strike, then government should not be moving in unilaterally just at the whims of questions from critics from the opposition parties to bring in back-to-work legislation.

We take this seriously. We understand the implication for any other further negotiations in other jurisdictions across this province, and I will not act until I've received a recommendation from the ERC and the law of this province has been followed.

Mrs Cunningham: I don't think that "political whims," as expressed today, is an appropriate term for the minister to be using. We're representing parents and students here today in asking these questions in the House, not political whims.

Minister, the ERC will not report on the result of the meeting until Friday; hence, you have condemned the students to being out of the classroom for yet another week. You've been pushing voluntary arbitration as a solution to this impasse, yet Bill 48, the Social Contract Act, does not allow arbitration.

Subsection 40(1) reads: "No increase in compensation shall be given as a result of any arbitration award or decision made on or after June 14, 1993." Interesting.

The education subsectoral framework agreement, under 7.3, states -- Mr Speaker, it's technical; you'll have to bear with me:

"The actual number of FTE, full-time equivalent, day-school teachers in place on September 30, 1993, or contractual PTR staffing provisions, whichever is greater, will be the base against which modifications will be made."

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

Mrs Cunningham: "The modification will result in a 4.75% reduction in staff or its PTR equivalent no later than September 1, 1996."

Forgive me, Mr Speaker, I will ask the question now. Since the two contentious issues of the strike, compensation and PTR, cannot be determined by arbitration under the terms of your social contract, when will you bring in legislation to get the students back into the classroom?

Hon Mr Cooke: I've indicated to the member before, and I understand the difficulty with this issue, but she has to understand, as all of us do, that when you move forward with legislation or whatever she is proposing, there are implications for negotiations in other boards across the province.

I don't want to do anything and this government doesn't want to do anything that encourages more disputes and sets up expectations that we're going to intervene when the proper place for these disputes to be settled is at the local bargaining table. What I will do is follow the same rules that all other ministers of education have followed, and that is follow Bill 100 and wait until the Education Relations Commission makes recommendations to me.

Mrs Cunningham: You don't even understand the question, David, do you?

The Speaker: Order. The member for London North, come to order.

Hon Mr Cooke: The member should understand that this is for a collective agreement that's previous to the social contract, and neither party is even stating that this is a social contract set of negotiations. They've said very clearly that it has nothing to do with the social contract.

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. I'm proud to be wearing the medallion --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): We are giving you all the answers in this House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for London North, please come to order.

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm glad the member is interested in what this medallion is. My question, again, is for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, and it involves public library operating grants. As I said, I'm proud to be wearing the INFO medallion here. INFO stands for the information network for Ontario.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): What a waste of money.

Mr Gary Wilson: Well, it's a waste for some people. Perhaps the leader of the third party would be wondering what its use is. But I invite all members to head down to the legislative library for a demonstration.

Anyway, I was pleased to be given this medallion by the chief librarian for the Frontenac county library system. She was extolling the virtues of the INFO system and was about to show it at a conference. But in conversation she mentioned that there is a concern about the public library operating grants for the forthcoming year. Of course, as you know, these grants represent 11% of the operating grants across the province on average.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Cunningham: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: You cut me off from making a legitimate statement and this is a joke.

The Speaker: Would the member for Kingston and The Islands place his question.

Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks again, Mr Speaker. I'm afraid it suggests that information is lost on some members of the House, but I will continue because it is a very important question. Information and libraries are crucial to my riding.

The Speaker: Could you place the question.

Mr Gary Wilson: Certainly. The question is this: As you know, Madam Minister, public library operating grants amount to about 11% on average, but in rural areas it's more like 24%, which is what it is in the rural areas of my riding.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Gary Wilson: I want to know what you're planning for the next operating year as far as the level of provincial library operating grants.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I think the member has actually asked an extremely important question. We're going into a time period now --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister respond to the question.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Friends of public libraries are understandably quite nervous in the fiscal time period that we're in, and I understand that as we're approaching the budget-making process everybody gets nervous about their operating dollars. I can't make any commitment, since we're just beginning that budget process, as to what the impact will be on libraries' operating funds.

I would like to say that I understand how rumours run rampant. I know last year I heard rumours we were going to close hundreds of libraries, which was of course never true.

Mr Harris: How much did the medals cost?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Last year, in spite of the fiscal pressures on this government and the realities that we faced, because the NDP government caucus is tremendously committed to the value that libraries commit to literacy in this province as well as to the universal access to education and information, we were fully able to protect operating dollars to libraries and we hope --

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- that we'll be in a position to do that this year. But at this point of course I cannot make that commitment.

Mr Gary Wilson: I had some difficulty hearing that answer. I wasn't sure whether the minister touched on the capital expenditures in the library field.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for York Mills please take his seat?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have asked for a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I cannot entertain a point of order until this House restores order to itself.

The member for York Mills has a point of order.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, Mr Speaker. In the supplementary I hope he's going to ask how much these medals are costing the taxpayers.

The Speaker: You do not have a point of order. Could the member for Kingston and The Islands place his supplementary.

Mr Gary Wilson: I am really pleased to see all the interest in public libraries here. I do want to touch on the other issue. As I say, I wasn't quite sure I could hear whether the minister touched on the issue of capital expenditures in public libraries.

INFO of course is a very important development here, and I know the members are all very interested and will want to see the display in the legislative library, but I would like to know, Minister, whether the capital costs that are associated with libraries will stay at the same or an expanded level.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Again, I think in spite of the difficult fiscal pressures that we face, because of the importance of public libraries I'm pleased to be able to answer the member's question.

We've been able to put over $3 million of Jobs Ontario Community Action money into building and improving and repairing the infrastructure system of libraries in this province. We've also recently been able to put over $1 million into developing the CD-ROM infrastructure system to help make sure that people throughout this province can go to any one of over 200 libraries and be able to access for the first time ever the information about all books that exist throughout the entire Ontario provincial library system.

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Lyn McLeod and I have repeatedly called on this minister to take action and restrict the sale of serial killer trading cards. These cards glorify violence and give our children a new set of heroes: violent criminals such as Karla Homolka and Paul Teale.

Three months ago I introduced a private member's bill to prohibit the sale of these violent crime trading cards to minors. The tools are there and yet you, Minister, have given all sorts of excuses for not taking action.

Last week you told reporters, "As Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I do not have powers over retail sales." Minister, I am astonished that you, as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, are not aware that you have power to regulate the retail sale of liquor. I'm also surprised you don't realize that you have power to regulate the retail sale of lottery tickets.

There is no earthly reason why you can't regulate the sale of violent crime cards. All you need is the political will to act. Why won't you take leadership and act to help stop the celebration of violence in our society?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, let me correct the member. I don't have jurisdiction to control the sale of lottery tickets. That's under the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

I would like to say to the member, as I said to her leader last week, that this issue is one that I take very seriously, as this government takes very seriously. I think it is irresponsible for that party to continually stand on its feet and give false information about what this government can do about an issue as serious as this. I think it gives false expectations to the public out there who are concerned about that issue.

Having said that, it looks like that party --

Interjection.

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

Hon Ms Churley: -- may have very soon a Liberal government in power. I would like to ask the member if she will work with me to get that government to take its responsibilities in this area and other areas of violence as well that they keep asking me to do, when they know very well I don't have the jurisdiction to do it. I think it's a shame to get cheap headlines about something this serious to the province of Ontario.

Ms Poole: I really resent this minister implying on an issue as serious as this that we are, first of all, providing false information, which is patently not true, and secondly, trying to get cheap headlines. This minister has missed the entire point.

Nobody has taken jurisdiction for controlling the retail sales in this province and yet this very party did not hesitate, when it had no power over controlling the collective bargaining in this province, to take steps there. You had no power to regulate casinos in this province and you, as the minister, took power there. So why cannot you bring the issue to this Legislature with a piece of legislation? I don't care if it's my bill or your bill, but deal with the problem. You have the power to enact legislation. That is what this Legislature is for. You can take jurisdiction, Minister, and you are copping out.

Why won't you take a leadership role and stop trying to put it over to other jurisdictions, other levels of government when you can act?

Hon Ms Churley: The member doesn't understand jurisdiction. She stands here and talks about powers that I have within this government and in the province.

Interjections.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You are taking the free trade agreement to court and we don't understand jurisdiction? Holy smokes.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: I would again ask the members opposite to be responsible about this issue and to join with this government in demanding that the federal government take action. Our position is that we want those cards kept not only out of Ontario, which the federal government could do and hasn't done -- we have no control of what comes over the border, as the member knows. Some of the community people who are involved directly in this issue are saying publicly that it is a federal jurisdiction. They understand that, and I suggest you talk to them.

In the meantime, I will be pleased to work with the member, because we both care very much about this, to get the federal government to stop those cards from coming into the province.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Willowdale.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When my colleague was asking the question, the minister used words like "cheap headlines," that it was incorrect information, "false" information. The minister should be required under the rules to withdraw those comments with reference to a colleague in this House.

The Speaker: First, I had recognized the member for Willowdale, so he will have his question.

To the member for Brampton North, the language, as I determine it, was not unparliamentary. However, if language used by one member of the House offends another, the practice that I have used is to allow the member who made the remarks an opportunity, if she or he wishes to, to withdraw those remarks, and I so offer that to the minister.

DAY CARE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today, North York city council will be discussing a motion that asks you to respond to the discrepancies in your funding practices for day care.

Minister, your government has refused to fund the McKee McKids day care centre in my riding, you've put the private day care centres out of business, and now you refuse to adequately fund the Little Prince day care centre.

Can you explain to the people of my riding what your government is doing to provide workplace child care services in central North York, where studies have shown that these are a priority and are totally lacking?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the member knows, because he and I have talked about this, we are still trying to see what we can do about the specific applications dealing with the centres that he's mentioned, but certainly I can tell him that overall we are continuing to do a great deal with respect to expanding child care.

I think just a couple of days ago I was able to outline, in answer to another question, that we have put into the system, in the space of four months, 4,000 additional subsidized spaces and expect another 4,000 subsidized spaces to be in the system between now and Christmas. In addition to that, we are continuing to provide capital dollars throughout the province for new child care centres to be built and existing ones to be rebuilt, so overall we're doing a fair amount, given the limited situation that we all find ourselves in.

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

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I have a very important question dealing with day care. My question did not get on in full today. I didn't have a chance to ask my supplementary because the member for Kingston and The Islands --

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: I wish to finish my point of personal privilege.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Willowdale has the right to raise a point of privilege. I need to hear him and I would ask the House to come to order. Would the member for Willowdale place his point of privilege.

Mr Harnick: I appreciate that. The reason I didn't get my supplementary question on today is because the member for Kingston and The Islands decided to use his time to make a member's statement. It was a totally improper question. It could have very easily been done in the form of a statement. In fact it was a statement, and I object to the fact that I did not get my supplementary question on and that you allowed him to continue to ask it.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale will know that he does not have a point of privilege. The time allotted for oral questions has expired. I did observe that today in fact the leadoff questions occupied considerably less time than they often do, presumably leaving an ample amount of time for a number of other members to ask questions.

However, in the ensuing 34 1/2 minutes, a considerable amount of that time was occupied by members I can best describe as exercising unruly behaviour. It's your question period, and if members choose to use that time by making noise instead of asking questions or responding to questions, that is something which the members will have to live with.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if I might ask my colleagues for their unanimous consent to ask my supplementary.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No. Another point of order?

Mr Harnick: Yes. I'd just like to thank my colleagues for their appreciation for an important day care issue in my riding. Thank you all very much.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I need you to perhaps give us some indication here. Is it reasonable for me to assume that questions by backbenchers on the government side are of equal importance as the questions from the opposition?

If it is, then why is it that when the member for Eglinton got up to make her question, she was allowed a minute 19 seconds on the first question and a minute seven seconds on the second question, and that the time allocations on this side of the House are significantly less? I would appreciate it if perhaps you could do one of those studies again to ascertain whether or not they are getting an unreasonable amount of time in their questions.

The Speaker: To the member for Durham West, I am always pleased to share the time sheets with any member who has the interest, and they're often a surprise to the member who poses the question.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As required under standing order 34(a), I give you notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to my question that was asked of the Premier of this province and would ask that we be allowed to debate the issue Tuesday next.

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

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect to the point of order that the member for Durham West raised in this ongoing discussion about question period today, I was watching the clock as the member for Kingston and The Islands was posing his statement, and it took him approximately three minutes to pose his first statement.

Interjections.

Mr Eves: Here we go again.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to inquire into the matter, as I know you keep track of these things, as to how long it ultimately took for the member for Kingston and The Islands to pose his two questions. It would appear to most objective observers that in fact he did not have a question at all but rather a member's statement. We have a period under the rules for members' statements. I can appreciate why he didn't want to make his statement during members' statements, because they're only 90 seconds and his was four and a half minutes long. That's why he couldn't do it by way of a member's statement.

The Speaker: I understand. Would the member for Parry Sound take his seat, please.

I don't believe the honourable member wants me to investigate, each time a member's been on his or her feet, to determine whether or not an interrogative was found among the statements that were made. However, the member's point, and it's been made on several occasions, is that often the question period does not unfold as smoothly as it should, and members have to be aware of the time. I try to encourage members to be brief in their questions and their responses, but ultimately it is your question period, not mine.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take the position put forward to you in the point of order by my friend from Parry Sound very seriously. If the table officers are able to assess the time it took for my friend the member for Kingston and The Islands to pose his question, I hope that in calculating that total time and comparing it to other members' question times they will take into account the amount of barracking on the other side that forced my friend to take twice as long as he should have to pose his question.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I firmly believe that the privileges of opposition members have been violated, and I want to make the point. Your job, Mr Speaker, is to uphold the traditions of this chamber. Parliament, and in particular question period, is time set aside so that all members may raise issues of public importance and public issue.

The Speaker: What is your point of privilege?

Mr Jim Wilson: In the question that was posed, or the statement that was made, by the member for Kingston and The Islands, I fail to see the public importance or the urgency of that statement. Hence, the time he took to raise and make that statement cut off the --

The Speaker: No. Would the member take his seat, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member is out of order. I will name the member. If the member refuses to take his seat, he will be named.

STATUS OF BILL

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Monday, October 18, the member for Dufferin-Peel, Mr Tilson, introduced a bill entitled

An Act to amend the Law related to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. It has been brought to my attention that this bill is contrary to subsection 3(2) of the French Language Services Act, 1986, and contravenes

section 37(

d) of our standing orders in that it is in improper form. I must therefore rule that this bill is out of order and it must be omitted from the order paper.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 40

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the order for third reading of Bill 40,

An Act to stimulate Economic Development through the Creation of Community Economic Development Corporations and through certain amendments to the Education Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act, be discharged and the bill be referred to committee of the whole House.

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

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I totally support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thousands of constituents from my riding of Oakville South have asked me to table a petition in support of private member's bill 85 which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollection of their crimes; and

"Whereas criminals can also derive profit for interviews or public appearances; and

"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and that of their families,

"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's bill 85, introduced by the member for Burlington South, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1993, be passed into law."

I would urge the government to do that.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized; and

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in Ontario to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime;

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

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into Ontario law."

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it is the right of every citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have the right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollection of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payment should be dedicated to the victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the proceeds of crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injury Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and the services for victims of crime;

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

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): A petition, Madam Speaker.

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas in 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143, which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992, with the full support and endorsement from Jim Wiseman, MPP, Durham West; Larry O'Connor, MPP, Durham-York; Gordon Mills, MPP, Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refused to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refused to consider the alternatives like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and the mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impacts on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Minister of the Environment, but at the same time the IWA was forced to adhere to Mrs Grier's ideology and her ban of waste alternatives such as rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and the NDP government refuse to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remain firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of criteria-ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive land or prime agricultural land and on sites located near urban areas;

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."

I sign this petition, knowing full well that the people of my riding and the people in York, Metro and Peel are dreadfully concerned about this petition and what the government is trying to do to bring in these landfill sites which we're expecting very shortly. The government has broken the law. They continue to break the law with this very action, and we take offence at it.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The members would like to be able to hear the member who is speaking. Please take the floor.

Mrs Marland: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized; and

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime;

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

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

I'm happy to add my support and signature to this petition.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): "To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site" -- I still don't know what they want to do with them, but anyway -- "that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal sale plan," in fact, are being confused because one wants to put an airport there and the other one's writing letters saying not to;

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

This is the headwaters of many creeks and streams and also on the Oak Ridges moraine, which is covered by our Oak Ridges moraine policy, which the federal government continues to just defy.

This petition has been signed by people all over southern Ontario from Ashburn, Uxbridge, Pefferlaw, Willowdale -- you might want to take note, Mr Harnick -- Greenwood, Guelph, Greensides in Toronto, Mississauga, Oshawa and all over southern Ontario, people who are outraged by the federal Tories' continued disrespect for the rights of the people of North Pickering, and I have signed this petition.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes;

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that moneys obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime,

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

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into Ontario law."

It's signed by a number of residents of the province of Ontario, including the riding of Don Mills, and I affix my signature to the petition.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes;

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that moneys obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime,

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

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into Ontario law."

I've included my name on this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's ninth report.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret H. Harrington): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Ms Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am very happy to submit, on behalf of the standing committee on government agencies, that report today. There are two appointments contained therein, one of Dr Murray Waldman and one of Ms Jean Pigott. Both those people are being appointed to government agencies, and through their service this province will be well served.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Akande, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr45,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Akande, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr48,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Akande, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr61,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

OTTAWA JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGED ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr56,

An Act to revive Ottawa Jewish Home for the Aged.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE PLAN D'INVESTISSEMENT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario and for certain other matters related to financial administration / Projet de loi 17, Loi prévoyant le plan d'investissement du gouvernement de l'Ontario et concernant d'autres questions relatives à l'administration financière.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I believe the member for Markham had the floor.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): It is difficult to just pick up in the middle of where one was at that time on Thursday last week.

We're dealing with Bill 17. The bill is badly named. It's called

An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario and for certain other matters related to financial administration. It's badly named in that you really don't begin to realize that this is the bill that is going to establish three new crown corporations and give power to another one. We have the Ontario Financing Authority, the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the Ontario Clean Water Agency and the Ontario Realty Corp.

What it should really say is that it's the expansion of government into other sectors. It's an example of the government creating a bill and a new administration when it doesn't need to.

I'm opposing the bill. Our caucus will do everything we can within this legislative debate to fight it. Regrettably, the Legislature can no longer do anything more than just have short little chats on bills, because the government has restricted the amount of time that we can deal with a bill.

As the first speaker for our party, the maximum I can have is an hour and a half, and then every other member can only speak for up to half an hour. There's a short time for a few questions and answers on what one has said, but the fact remains that since the New Democrats came to power, the Legislative Assembly has been very restricted in the amount of time that members have to speak on bills.

They've also restricted the ability of members to deal with what government is doing. An insidious problem exists within Bill 17 in that what we have here is the creation of a bureaucracy outside the Legislative Assembly, now reporting through to ministers, removed from direct reporting to the floor of the House. That therefore means that the ministers have a way of diverting resources through to these agencies. The ministers can then divert funds through to them.

We've already talked about the way the government is fraudulently allowing the books for the province of Ontario to say that there is going to be a debt of so many billions of dollars, when on the other hand, $800 million has been allocated for the startup of these crown corporations. I was chastised by the Speaker last week for using the word "fraud" when I said that the government, in bringing forward this legislation, was making a fraudulent act. The Speaker himself was sitting in the chair and he took strong exception to anyone calling this "fraud."

I brought along my thesaurus, because I'm trying to figure out -- I'm still dealing with the problem we have, in that on the one hand the government already could do everything it needs to do within existing legislation, within existing ministries, without any more creation of a bureaucracy, without any shoving off from the books of the province of Ontario into another series of books. It could do everything within its own fiscal realm as we have it, reporting through to here, to the Legislature, but instead the government has said, "Now what we're doing is we're taking it off the books and we're setting up these crown corporations."

When I called that fraud, the Speaker took strong exception to it. Fraud really is the act of taking information, data, or doing a deed in a tricky, underhanded way, moving it somewhere else. So I want to look at this thesaurus.

I've looked at the dictionary, but fraud is deceit, fraudulence, misrepresentation or deception, fake, bastard, sham, humbug, four-flusher, imposter, pretence, racket, swindle. There are a lot of things. I don't know which word would work best to describe what the government is doing to the people of Ontario by setting up this series of crown corporations, but it's something like all those put together.

This is just another example of the province of Ontario moving farther and farther away from the people. We're watching an election in process in Canada where the people are angry, and they're looking to their individual members to say: "What are you going to do for us? How are you going to represent us? What are you going to do to make a difference?"

When we are elected to this very high office, there isn't one of us who doesn't come into the place without the sense of wanting sincerely to improve the province of Ontario. Yet our ability to put our finger on the problems and the issues is being eroded by the efforts of the government to move things away from where we sit into the inner sanctums, the sancta sanctorum, of each of the ministries so that it's again out of reach of the public, out of reach of the public's representatives, those members of the opposition, and even the backbenchers if they ever stop to think about it. It's only the ministers themselves who are able then to deal with what's going on, truly and completely.

I'll never, ever be able to figure out what's going on, certainly as we've tried to with the Interim Waste Authority. There isn't one of us in opposition who hasn't tried to ascertain how much money they're spending, what's going on, what criteria they're using, yet we have been stonewalled consistently by the ministers of Environment, first of all Mrs Grier and more recently Mr Wildman, who consistently refused to answer questions on the Interim Waste Authority. I have to believe that the same kind of stonewalling will be just part of our general day's fare at Queen's Park when we're asking questions on any of these crown corporations. We will continue to be stonewalled.

So as we look at the different authorities, it is with no pleasure, absolutely no pleasure at all, that I have to spend time in the House fighting a battle I will not win. I cannot win. The NDP have 70 seats and the members of the government vote with the government, for the government, on a consistent basis. There are two or three independents around the House, not enough to make any difference to what we're really trying to say, and the government votes en bloc. The government's not going to fall if this doesn't go through, but it's a blind following in the footsteps of what the cabinet and the government want them to do.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member for Markham is making very important remarks during his speech in this House and I think there should be a quorum present for that.

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

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. Would the member for Markham care to resume the floor?

Mr Cousens: Thank you very much, and thank you to the member for Mississauga South. The government has a responsibility to have the number of members in the House, and they're obviously doing other things.

An example, as I'm trying to point out, in the Ontario Financing Authority is the inability of members of the Legislature to determine what is going to go on within these different agencies. I mentioned the Interim Waste Authority as an example of how the government sets up an arm's-length relationship of another crown corporation and at that point the government is able to absolve itself from responsibility for what goes on within that organization.

By so doing, it means that when members of the opposition ask questions, as we have many, many times, about the planning or lack of planning or the bad planning that's going on within the Interim Waste Authority, we have achieved zero results. We have not succeeded at all in getting through to the minister, nor are we able to get through the whole process that's now established in the Interim Waste Authority.

Another example of that kind of distancing of ministries and government from opposition and the floor of the Legislature is what the government is doing with the social contract secretariat. This, as we talk in particular about the Ontario Financing Authority, is a ministry that, though I have a very high personal regard for the Minister of Finance -- I don't think there is anyone here who on a personal basis doesn't like the Minister of Finance as a human being, an individual. But I have had great frustration in dealing with his ministry and in trying to obtain information as it pertains to the social contract.

You go back to, again, the fundamentals. When Mr Rae and his government came to power on September 6, 1990, it was an election, in fact, I wish more people in Ontario would remember. The effect the election had -- just a little, small diversion, but it's a fact. I mean, that was an election where a government was voted out --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): A small diversion? You're trying to stop a flood.

Mr Cousens: They caused more than that, Murray. We had the election that Ontario should be remembering right now, before we get to the election on the 25th. There was a government that was voted out of office, and someone else got in. They weren't voted in; it was one of those freaks where people don't vote in a government, they vote someone out. That's part of the process that's going on now.

Mr Elston: I prefer the last government to this one.

Mr Cousens: Aren't you something.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member direct his comments to the bill, please.

Mr Cousens: In fact, you're absolutely right, Madam Speaker. I apologize for going off on that little diversion.

But I was in particular trying to illustrate that the Minister of Finance has obstructed the work of the opposition by virtue of the way in which information has become unavailable on the social contract. The moment anyone tries to find information out about it, you just get no answer.

I wrote a letter. First of all, I put order paper questions in which I tried, as Finance critic for our party, to gain access to the contracts and agreements of the social contract, wanting to at least go through them on a personal basis to see what they contained, what they didn't contain, how consistent they were with one another, whether or not they really did achieve the goals the government had hoped they would, whether or not you had different standards for different groups. Having a certain belief that things wouldn't be perfect, I wanted personally to go in and have a look at it with my staff. So, having tried everything, this is the letter I wrote on August 17, in which I said:

"On July 20, in a meeting with representatives of the Minister of Finance's staff, I was assured that the contracts that had been made would be available to my office. On July 29, I filed a request via the order paper for information so that I could see the contracts. During the week of August 3, I again through my office made a request of the social contract secretariat to review the contracts the following week. Each and every attempt to review these contracts has been denied by the Ministry of Finance."

So in trying to do one's job on an issue that's current today, the social contract, which is still going on and is still not working and on which I still have many questions, I can't get any answers. It's so frustrating and infuriating --

The Acting Speaker: Excuse me. To the member, could you connect this to Bill 17, please.

Mr Cousens: I sure can, because that's exactly the fear I have when the government sets up another bureaucracy, known as the Ontario Financing Authority. That's exactly what they're going to do: They're going to prohibit opposition and other members from gaining access to that information. That is the lunacy of this Queen's Park these days. The government moves information and power and responsibility away from a minister into a secretariat, into a crown corporation, into an agency, and then it disappears. It disappears so that members of this House can't deal with it.

That is in fact a major problem, because we're elected as members to deal with the public will, the public good, what's going on. When you're stonewalled, when you can't get through -- there are so many instances that we have had where we've tried to get information.

Just think of the days when the New Democrats were in opposition and demanding a freedom of information act so that they could then say, "We could get into the ministry so that we could get to something." Now we have the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The bills I have had to pay that come out of my own funds to pay for information, and when you finally get it -- you don't know whether it's going to be any good or not until you see it, and most of what I've ever asked for hasn't been of the kind of use that I'd hoped it would be.

Therefore, you keep exploring and looking so that you can get on top of it, but because information is not readily available if you don't ask the exact right question, you get nothing.

Now what we're going to have -- and we have it in spades with the freedom of information act. It doesn't work, it's expensive to use and it's very, very cumbersome to try to get through it to get to the bottom of anything. I then say that a concern that is uppermost in my mind is the inability for members of this Legislature to interrogate and to find out what is going on within these different crown corporations.

I see it as another example of the government shoving accountability away from itself to these crown agencies to circumvent the involvement of members of the opposition. The last thing they want to do is have the member for Mississauga South, Mrs Margaret Marland, raising questions on housing matters. If they can, they'll just keep them buried for years.

The problem is that people like Mrs Marland and members of our caucus will not let up. There is a determination to stay with it, and eventually we get to the bottom of what's going on. But I'm concerned that it's not only a removal of information from the legislative process; it's a removal of accountability.

What we're also seeing are the decisions being moved to another level. I don't know who is going to make the decisions now so that when the local hospital in every community, through its agencies and the health committees that they have -- when they make a request for moneys, is it in any way going to be blocked through this financial authority?

If a school board is looking for funds, if a municipality is in need of certain financial support or assistance or grant structures or special plans and programs, if the universities are also on the search for certain moneys along the way and commitments have been made by government, is there a guarantee that the moneys they've requested are going to be forthcoming through these crown agencies?

But you see, by again moving them away from the ministry directly, which can do it right now without establishing these crown corporations -- then these municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals, known as MUSH when people talk about it in Queen's Park jargon, would be able to know they have a direct contact with the ministry officials. Now it just becomes another layer of bureaucracy, another level that they have to go through. It is an example where the government has again just bureaucratized things even further.

I also find it so ironic that the government can, in the same ministry, stand up in this House, as Mr Laughren did last week, and require businesses that are on the public stock exchange, listed in the Toronto Stock Exchange, to list the salaries, incomes, compensation packages and benefits of the top executives of those companies that are so listed. That becomes a way in which the government wants to universalize this availability of information, which is true in the States.

But the same government, under the Liberals just a few years ago, went and closed off that information as to what the salaries were of the public service in the province of Ontario. So no longer in the annual report is there a listing by name for each deputy minister and assistant deputy minister and other staff at the senior levels. No way is that public information.

The government of Ontario is going to come along and require of the private sector all kinds of information about the salaries of executives in business and industry, and yet the government doesn't do the same kind of service here in the province of Ontario.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do insist that the member for Markham is making remarks in this debate that are important to everyone in Ontario, and I think there should be a quorum in this House.

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

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. We will resume the debate on Bill 17. The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: If the government is going to require private sector companies to make public the salaries, perks and compensation packages of their executives, why then does not the government do the same with its own senior staff? I don't expect you to answer that, but I had tabled that as a question on the order paper that afternoon on October 18 when the minister made this special announcement, which has not received any support from anyone that I know.

I have also asked that the Minister of Finance release the details of salaries and any other compensation and benefits paid to all deputy ministers and each of the four highest-paid public servants in the province of Ontario in each of the ministries so we can get that from them.

You know something? Isn't it terrible that I had to come along and start asking for that this way when he's coming along and making the demands in other ways? I think we're going to extend that so that we can get the salaries of union heads and some others as well. But, you know, it's a double standard, and we've become somewhat accustomed to it from the NDP government in Ontario. They'll expect one thing from people outside of this place, but they will not reciprocate.

That is part of the frustration we have in dealing with the introduction of another authority such as the Ontario Financing Authority.

The Ontario Financing Authority will just become another one of those pocket organizations of our Treasurer and the Ministry of Finance and again ceases to really serve the needs of the people of the province of Ontario because you don't need it in the first place, because you don't need any legislation in the first place, because the ministry would be able to continue to provide these things, these services, these moneys through the existing channels that are already existing, because the government already has the staff and people who are doing it already without coming along and moving them out of that ministry into other places and saying, "Oh, look at that; we've reduced the public service and we've found a new way of funding things." What they've done is take it off the books.

I don't find it palatable at all and I will fight introduction of this part of the bill.

The second thing that I have concerns with is the Ontario Realty Corp. This is one of the other corporations that's being established by the government in order to set up a continuation of the whole land corporation that was existent before. What we're talking about there is all the lands that are owned by the province of Ontario which the government at some point decides to sell. I can understand that the government's not going to hold on to it for ever.

But now what they're doing, instead of accepting the fact that the Ontario Land Corp, which is already working and running along, we're changing the name and it's now going to become this, the Ontario Realty Corp. And what's going to go on there? Well, I can see the government wanting to get rid of certain properties, and I accept that. But I have to ask you, first of all, is it needed? The answer is no. We have a service already providing it. So why come along and change it and give them even more powers?

The problem we have is that once it's further removed from the Legislature it's going to be an awful lot like the Ataratiri project, an example of where the government, in its great wisdom when the Liberals were in power -- and it doesn't take much to go back to the days when the government decided that this was going to be a new non-profit housing project and the government had decided that that 80-acre site down on the Don River would house a community of some 12,000 people. They were going to establish a partnership with the city of Toronto. This would become the Ataratiri project. I think it's a Huron word meaning "village beside water."

The government then was going to give a guarantee of some $800 million to the city for the purchase of the land and the money was to be recovered through the sale or lease of some 7,000 housing units. It all had good mathematics and arithmetic to David Peterson and the then Liberal Party. What happened is that once they started looking at the land they realized that the site was unacceptable. They looked at it and they realized immediately, once they had the land, that they were going to have to flood-proof it, and that was going to cost another $15 million.

No one had thought of that beforehand when the Liberals were coming up with the proposals for the Ataratiri. But suddenly it became necessary that it had to be sound from any flooding of the Don River.

Approximately $3 million an acre was paid for the Ataratiri site, which had some 500,000 cubic metres of polluted soil. The cost of cleanup for this polluted soil escalated to $1 billion from the originally anticipated $32.5 million. What kind of a percentage increase is that from $32.5-million expected cleanup cost to over $1 billion for the Ataratiri project alone? A UDI study of that project showed that the cost per unit of the project, including the cost of the environmental cleanup, would average $250,000. The completion of the project, according to the same study, said that it would have risen to an over $2-billion price tag from the original estimated cost of $444 million.

What we ended up having was an example where the government started meddling in the private sector. They came along with their fancy dream -- David Peterson, Chaviva Ho_ek and the Liberals of the day -- made their magnificent announcement of this new Ataratiri project. Then what we end up having now is, the project is cancelled, it's financially unfeasible, the project is scrapped --

Mrs Marland: Chaviva Ho_ek is now advising Mr Chrétien.

Mr Cousens: That's right. As my friend Mrs Marland, who is also our Housing critic, probably one of the most influential people in our party on housing matters, and certainly the government listens to what she has to say -- in fact, I can point to one of the press releases I happen to have here from the member for Mississauga South that ties in to the whole problem of government meddling around in things it doesn't understand.

Let me just give credit to this noble lady for the way in which she called for a probe of the Ataratiri project at the time:

"PC Housing spokesperson Margaret Marland today called for a committee of the Legislature to conduct a full investigation into the Ataratiri fiasco. The aborted public housing project has already cost taxpayers more than $300 million, and some estimates suggest the final price tag may reach $1 billion.

"'Ataratiri has been an obscene waste of taxpayers' money, initiated by the Liberals and kept alive by the NDP for another 18 months after they took office,' said Marland. 'It's unacceptable that they pour hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money down the drain and then be allowed to wash their hands of the whole thing. They must be held accountable.'"

That's what Mrs Marland said back on January 14. That's what I'm saying is going to happen with the realty corporation. It's just one great opportunity for the government to shove things into other agencies and crown corporations to get rid of them, rather than deal with them here, where they should be dealt with. You have a marvellous way, when you're in opposition, of saying it has to be one way; when you're in power, it becomes very much a different story.

This is an example of how the government has gone sour, how it's gone wrong, and why we have nothing but distrust of a government that is going to try more such kinds of projects. The government comes along and says: "Aren't we full of good intent? Aren't we going to do something?"

The very opposite happened in the UK. Margaret Marland -- there's another Margaret in the world besides you; I mean Margaret Thatcher.

When Margaret Thatcher came to power in the UK, one of the major thrusts that she had in government was to divest the government of all the lands it owned. What we're into now in Ontario is the opposite. We have Mr Rae and his government with their social policy buying up land and building social housing. What we drew to the attention of the government just a few days ago in the Legislature is the cost of that.

We had one example where a shelter cost $1.3 million for four units. When you start looking at the cost of it, the cost is well over $300,000 per unit. If you start taking the interest on that alone, you have a sufficient amount that if you even just gave a subsidy of some kind to people in already existing rental accommodation that's available in Toronto, you wouldn't have to build more accommodation and then subsidize it and carry it and pay for the money on an ongoing basis.

What will probably happen is that with this government's policy of buying up land and building subsidized housing, in five or seven years one of the things it's going to have to sell off through the Ontario Realty Corp is all this land that it's building up now for affordable housing.

Government has no financial accountability, this government in particular. The Liberals were very much the same in the way they set up the Ataratiri project. This government's own housing program is one that is going to be doomed to defeat and will be on the selling block before the century is over, as the government really can't --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): They make the Liberals look good.

Mr Cousens: It's hard to say that, but it's true.

There they are, setting up another bureaucracy, and continuing to pour money into it now. People think wrongly that the government is trying to balance the books right now, with its $10-billion-plus deficit this year, and it will be over a $10-billion deficit, even though their own forecasts would make you believe it's less. The government continues to spend loads of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, on this whole affordable housing policy.

Mr Murdoch: What's the auditor saying?

Mr Cousens: My honourable friend behind me is pointing out the auditor's report on non-profit housing. He has come out and soundly criticized this government for the way in which it has no controls. In fact he says, in assessing the Ministry of Housing's controls over project selection and development and controls over completed projects, that it's just a total mess.

He says, "The controls in place to ensure projects were only built where needed and at a competitive cost were less than satisfactory."

He says, "Need and demand studies were not thorough, and so a number of projects were allocated to communities with high vacancy rates and little demand for 'market rent units.'"

He says, "Despite a significant decline in land prices and construction costs...the cost of projects approved...in 1990 and 1991 continued to increase...."

He says, "In the absence of competitive procurement practices, the allowable maximum unit price became a target price for developers rather than a ceiling...."

Despite being "satisfied that income verification procedures were properly performed," the auditor was "not sure whether the most needy were being housed in an equitable and sufficient manner." He said the potential savings to the ministry if adequate controls are implemented stand to be over $264 million.

When you start talking about this government setting up another bureaucracy known as the Ontario Realty Corp, it just becomes another way for it to sidestep accountability, responsibility, fiscal reality. Because the Speaker has not allowed me, I can't call this a fraud; I can't call the government liars, cheats. What else did the thesaurus say I couldn't call them? Deceitful, tricksters, imposters. I will not call the government that, but I can't think of a better word to use.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham, please be careful in your comments.

Mr Cousens: I understand, Madam Speaker. I'm on the edge, aren't I, where it might upset you, and that is not something I want to do.

When I start talking about the creation of the Ontario Realty Corp, it is to me an example of the government again trespassing, cutting into an area where it doesn't need to. There are already the mechanisms to deal with land and selling of land, and to come along and have this whole process established so that it's one step removed from the Legislature and reporting only through the minister is a way in which they are going to have it easier to cover up the data and the information from criticism and investigation by opposition members.

That's how our system works. Our system is effective only when the opposition is able to ask questions and is able to deal with information. Because we can't get information, because it's a massive coverup within the bureaucracy, because it's so buried within the different agencies, it then becomes all the more impossible for us to deal with what's really happening there.

The Ontario Transportation Capital Corp: Now, I have mixed feelings from people who have talked to me about how wonderful it is that your transportation corporation is going to be involved with the construction of Highway 407. I, for one, am pleased to see 407 accelerated. It is a major highway that's needed, and indeed other major highways are needed across Ontario. We can't continue to just close our eyes to the need for infrastructure. We need infrastructure.

It's the way in which people travel, it's the way commerce works, and without 407 until now it's been a loss of tremendous amounts of money for the greater Toronto area and for the province of Ontario as whole. To have 407 built will be a tremendous boost to our long-term economy, for tourism and for other reasons.

The problem we have around it is that already I have the sense that 407 is becoming another one of the examples where, because it's going to be built by outside resources -- if that's a faster way of building it, I'm willing to accept that, but are there changes being made in the overall planning process for 407? I am led to believe that 407 is being reduced in size from a 10-lane to an 8-lane highway. I have been led to believe that some major intersections are being eliminated, already be