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

December 19, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Morin: I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Carleton East to express my views and their concerns about the proposal for a one-tier government for Ottawa-Carleton. My honourable colleague the member for Ottawa Centre has expressed her support for the proposal. While I respect her view in the matter, I feel that it is appropriate that her government should consult with those parties directly affected by such a change.

The city of Gloucester, the largest municipality in my riding, is in the process of establishing a system of pay-as-you-go for the services that it provides. Gloucester's priority is to be fiscally responsible and develop a sound economic base to provide a high standard of living for its residents. Gloucester has no desire to take on the debt load of larger neighbouring municipalities. The elected representatives of Gloucester have developed a close relationship with their constituents, their community and business leaders. They are in a position to speak to the challenges and the opportunities unique to their city.

When the Premier took office he promised that he would have an open government and one that would engage in consultation. I know the Premier was serious when he made that promise. I would therefore encourage the Premier that any future discussions pertaining to important regional and municipal matters be held in consultation with area MPPs, local politicians and residents of the municipalities in question.

LICENSING OF MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS

Mr McLean: Later today I will be introducing a bill that would regulate the operation of motor boats on Ontario's waterways. This bill is aimed at licensing all motor boat operators whose vessels are propelled by motors of 25 horsepower or more. This bill creates the offences of careless and impaired operation of a motor boat, and those found to be contravening the act would be subject to a maximum fine of $1,000. In some cases the operator could have a licence suspended or revoked.

Mr Speaker, you are no doubt aware that I first introduced this bill in the spring of 1989, but it died in the Orders and Notices with the call of the recent provincial election. I am reintroducing this bill and I urge my colleagues here in the House to give it speedy passage, because I want to see a drastic reduction in the number of tragic accidents and deaths that occur on our waterways each year. There are more than one million boats in Ontario and this province has more boats per capita than anywhere else in North America. Today's boats are bigger and faster than ever before, yet we do not require operators to undergo training, testing or licensing.

I urge all members to join with me in giving the police the authority to act to enforce the safe operation of motor boats on our waterways inasmuch as the Highway Traffic Act regulates the safe operation of motor vehicles on our roads.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone here a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Haslam: At this festive time of year, when many large business chains are requesting their employees to work on Sundays, I rise to commend Don Thompson of the Canadian Tire store in Stratford, who does not open his store on Sundays and does not intend to.

Let me quote a recent advertisement from the Stratford Beacon-Herald:

"Having agonized over Sunday opening for years, we are keeping with our original decision at Stratford Canadian Tire. We have not opened on Sundays and do not intend to. Our employees deserve a common pause day with their families. Presently our work week is 72 1/2 hours. We are open Monday to Friday 9 am to 9 pm and Saturdays 8 am to 9 pm. Let us continue to provide you with the excellent service you are now receiving six days a week.

"Thank you for supporting us on this stance. Many of you have written letters or given us verbal encouragement. Our sales have been very strong this Christmas season. Thank you again...for your support."

I hope more consumers, not only in Stratford but everywhere, continue to voice their support for those stores which have taken a stand and remain closed to allow their employees a common pause day with their families.

VARITY CORP

Mr Offer: Last October, the Premier announced that an agreement had been reached with the federal government and the Canadian Auto Workers that resolved all outstanding claims against Varity Corp arising from the 1988 closure of Massey Combines Corp and, accordingly, allowed Varity to leave the province.

Part of the agreement provided for the payment of $12 million in termination pay to approximately 1,400 workers affected by the 4 March 1988 receivership of Massey Combines Corp. In the gallery today we have members of the Coalition for Laid-Off Workers who have been affected by this decision who are asking pertinent questions as to whether this matter has in fact been fully settled and, if so, what are the terms?

I have an

article from the Windsor Star of 22 November which states:

"Described a month ago as the best severance package ever bargained by the Canadian Auto Workers, the Kelsey-Hayes deal has turned out to contain some nasty surprises.

"Workers who showed up at the Local 195 office this week discovered that instead of two years of full health coverage, including dental, their dental coverage would expire at the end of December."

It goes on to say: "In addition, workers who were on compensation were also surprised to find that in order to receive the severance payment of one and one half week's wages for each year of service, they had to sign a waiver saying they wouldn't collect compensation for workplace injuries."

I am asking the Minister of Labour to provide detailed information as to the terms of settlement of the termination pay available to those workers of Varity and to those members of the Coalition of Laid-Off Workers.

HOMELESS YOUTH

Mr Turnbull: Police and social workers estimate there are 10,000 homeless kids living on the streets in Metropolitan Toronto. Eva's Place is a needed new shelter for homeless youth in the planning stages in my riding of York Mills. The city of North York has agreed to give the land for the home.

There is unfortunately one big hitch. The land was originally owned by the Ministry of Transportation and granted to North York in 1975 but with a covenant restricting its use to park or highway purposes. Ministry staff have offered to remove the covenant, but for the price of one half of the current market value, which is approximately $800,000. We seem to have a rather bizarre situation here. One government ministry, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is supporting a project and offering capital expenditure funding while another, the Ministry of Transportation, is demanding so much money the whole project may be doomed.

I ask the Premier, who is the boss here? Could we ask him to mediate between his two ministers? I urge him to support the vulnerable, homeless youth of Metropolitan Toronto. Let him stop the money grab by the Ministry of Transportation. Let him join Metro council in providing a reasonable funding level for Eva's Place and finally, let him make a commitment to adequate and equitable funding for all our youth shelters. Our youth need our help. Would he please respond.

I would like to wish all members a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

HIGHWAY 69

Ms S. Murdock: I rise today to draw the House's attention to what is to me a very important link in this province's transportation network. It affects all the people of Sudbury as well as all of northern Ontario. Highway 69 north, between Sudbury and Waubaushene, is one of the two major gateways to the north. However, this glorified cow path is not just a central part of northern Ontario's economic infrastructure, it is also one of the most treacherous sections of the Trans-Canada Highway.

Between 1 January 1984 and 30 June 1989, 111 people have lost their lives on this highway in good weather. A further 134 sustained injuries. Two thirds of these fatalities took place on clear, dry roads.

In an effort to stop this carnage on the highway, citizens from Parry Sound to Manitoulin Island have banded together to push for four-laning. Already, Express-it, the joint committee of the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce and the Sudbury Regional Development Corp, has expressly set up a group to achieve the four-laning of Highway 69. Express-it, right now, has received 5,000 cards and signatures from the city of Sudbury alone.

Just to see how important it is to the north and how badly we need four-laning of Highway 69 north, I will be pushing to have at least one cabinet meeting in the north on the condition that they drive.

At this time I want to wish everyone a happy Hanukkah and a safe and merry Christmas.

MPP FOR A DAY CONTEST

Ms Poole: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce the winner of the MPP For a Day contest which I sponsored for students in my riding. This year's winner was chosen at the North Toronto Fall Fair on 22 September. The purpose of the contest is to provide an opportunity for a student to see what an MPP does at Queen's Park. The 1990 winner is Alison Minard, a grade 4 student at John Ross Robertson public school.

[Applause]

When asked as part of the contest what she would like to do as MPP to help change the world, Alison said she would like to help solve the pollution problem. I know that will endear her to many members.

On behalf of all members, I would like to congratulate Alison and say we hope to see her back in this House, maybe some 20 years from now, as the new member for Eglinton.

BOARD OF EDUCATION AUDIT

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is to the Minister of Education. I would like the minister to authorize the Provincial Auditor to carry out a value-for-money comprehensive audit of the Simcoe County Board of Education. In Simcoe county, 29 of 36 municipalities have passed resolutions demanding an audit of this type for the public school board. These municipalities are not political agitators; they are simply echoing the public groundswell for relief from escalating taxes. Who could blame them? Education property taxes have increased by some 28% over the last two years in Simcoe county.

Taxpayers in the county have no quarrel with paying for education, but they disagree strenuously with subsidizing administrative excesses such as the $13 million spent for the Simcoe County Board of Education's new office building in Midhurst.

I do not have to tell the minister that we are in a deepening recession, and the message of fiscal restraint must come from the top. I want the minister to send the message to all beleaguered taxpayers in Simcoe county that there is light at the end of the tunnel by authorizing a comprehensive audit of the public school board. This audit would be an effective first step towards showing that this government means to be prudent with taxpayers money and wage a war against wasteful spending.

I too would like to wish all honourable members a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

KAPUSKASING FESTIVAL

Mr Wood: As many members know, I represent a part of Ontario hit harder than most others by this recession. Plant closures and layoffs are felt by every community and the families who live in them even more sharply now that Christmas draws near. But northerners are a tough breed of people. I would like to tell the House today about how one northern community has rallied massive local spirit and co-operation in a holiday celebration that has lit up the hearts for miles around.

You can see the Christmas lights of Kapuskasing long before you get to town, thousands of them reflecting off the water along the whole length of the riverside park which hosts the town's third annual and biggest ever Festival of Lights.

Starting out as a modest event sponsored by the chamber of commerce, the two-month festival now includes over 110 separate displays contributed by churches, schools, homes, businesses, many other local groups and individuals. Hundreds of volunteers are involved and over 4,000 people turned out for this year's opening night of Christmas carols and celebration.

The continued support and co-operation of the dedicated volunteers from the chamber of commerce, the town of Kapuskasing planning and engineering departments and citizens of Kapuskasing have assured the festival an important role and a new focus for community pride. Now six neighbouring communities are bringing home the same idea. Christmas cheer goes a long way in Ontario's north.

I would like to wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

The Speaker: I trust with all the good wishes that have been coming forth during members' statements that the goodwill will carry through for the rest of question period.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Mr Rae: The government in its throne speech said that Canada requires our best efforts. Long-standing grievances from across the spectrum of our society and nation -- in Quebec certainly but also in all provinces, our territories, among aboriginal people, linguistic minorities, new Canadians, women -- remain unsettled. The failure of the Meech Lake accord has not simply spawned the Belanger-Campeau commission in Quebec. It has created momentum towards significant constitutional change that cannot be ignored by this province or by anyone living in it.

Let me be as clear as I can about the challenges we face. Any government in Quebec will approach constitutional negotiations seeking more powers for that province. That has been true since 1960 and the failure of the Meech Lake process has made that even truer.

The official opposition in Quebec is committed to independence for Quebec but it has also said that it still wants some kind of association with the rest of Canada.

Le démantèlement de la fédération que constitue le Canada n'a aucun sens pour le gouvernement de l'Ontario et nous nous y opposons carrément. Si le processus se met en branle, personne ne peut entretenir l'illusion qu'il va être bénin ou sans douleur. Ce ne sera pas le cas. Les résidents de toutes les parties du pays vont être plus pauvres dans tous les sens du terme, si on devait envisager sérieusement un tel trauma.

Le Canada n'est pas un État unitaire ou centralisé. Les provinces disposent de pouvoirs considérables que nous exerçons indépendamment d'autres gouvernements. En ce sens, toutes les provinces du Canada possèdent la souveraineté dans certains domaines et le gouvernement fédéral dans d'autres domaines. Le fait que nous soyons membre des Nations unies,

partie à des traités internationaux, de même que les dures réalités de la vie économique, tout cela signifie que la propre souveraineté du Canada n'est pas absolue non plus.

On peut toujours discuter et faire la réforme du fédéralisme canadien actuel -- je dis franchement que nous devons le faire -- de sa structure financière, de ses institutions culturelles, sociales, économiques et politiques. Mais le Canada lui-même n'est pas négociable. Nous avons fait trop de chemin pour cela.

Canada's aboriginal people have historic claims as well, and they must be heard. The territories have a grievance that cannot be ignored. Too many Canadians look to the Constitution and simply do not see themselves in that mirror. That is what must, and can, change.

It is also clear that the next round of constitutional discussions cannot be endless. It cannot just be a Quebec round, though it must be a Quebec round. But above all, it must be a Canadian round, which will include everyone. And I say to everyone in this House that we cannot afford to fail.

My government is committed to moving forward only in consultation with the people of this province to truly reflect their views in the work we do. We want the people of Ontario to answer for us a basic yet also hugely complicated question: How can Canada work better to meet the needs of its people? And in that is a tremendous opportunity for all of us in Ontario and, indeed, all of us in Canada. We have the chance to help define not simply words in a legal document called the Constitution, but to shape together a better future.

We do the people of Ontario a disservice by simply defining this as a technical matter and handing it over to constitutional experts to solve behind closed doors. Leaving it to the experts alone, as has been done too often in the past, has hardly avoided the problems that we now face. That approach flies in the face of what people now deserve from their governments: a chance to have their voices heard and to have their views count.

Federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, exclusive jurisdictions, constitutional rights, these may be the dry words that establish our system of government, but they also affect all of us, the people, in our daily lives, in our pocketbooks, in our workplaces, in our homes and in our communities.

We believe it is time that Ontarians not only were asked how they want their country to work but also were given the opportunity to put forward their interests, speak about their expectations and share their dreams about the future shape of Canada.

This is far from an arcane constitutional question. It strikes to the heart of the way our society works, the way our economy works, the way it functions, the relationships we have with each other and the way we organize our institutions. That, we believe, is our central challenge as a province, to help define our future and Canada's future together.

I have always believed and I have said I do not think this is a partisan issue, but I am compelled to say that the vacuum of leadership at the federal level in this country is hurting our people. The destruction of national institutions, whether economic or cultural, has left the realm of partisanship or ideology and, I believe, now threatens the fabric of this nation.

It used to be that when you asked, "Is our current system of federalism working?" you would hear a cry of no from a single province or a few groups in society.

But if you ask the question another way, if you ask the unemployed forestry worker about our high-value-dollar policy, ask the out-of-work plant worker in Woodstock about free trade, ask the single mother in Peterborough about federal cuts to the Canada assistance plan, or ask Windsor about the denial of local public broadcast as a result of CBC cuts, ask the small business owner in Picton about interest rates, ask Ontarians if their interests are being well served, too often the answer is no. That is a form of failed federalism as well.

None of this should be terribly surprising. What was good for the country in 1867 or even in 1982 will not withstand the pressures of the 1990s and beyond. These are dynamic times with deep and fundamental changes happening around the world. They are happening around the world in politics, in the economy and in society. Canada itself is going through tremendous, and sometimes painful, change.

No province can insulate itself from these forces. But we have an obligation to ask if our current structures work for the people of Ontario, and make the case for a different approach when we find them lacking.

As this debate develops, I will be putting forward the case that we need substantial change in the way in which we in Canada share power, in the way in which we plan for the future and make economic and social decisions as governments and people.

I will argue that while there are people and regions of this country that are distinct and whose interests deserve recognition in the laws that govern our country, the Canadian people will not easily limit the debate to any one set of concerns when it comes to the realm of the Constitution. This next round of constitutional debate, however it is eventually done, must be an open and wide-ranging debate where all Canadians have their say. That is the only way we will succeed.

The flaws of the Meech Lake process -- and, of course, the ultimate failure -- have left deep wounds in Canada, but I think we can learn from that experience. Indeed, I would say we must learn from that experience. The people of Ontario must be involved. The people of Ontario will be involved.

Today I am announcing a two-step process to help us prepare for the future. Before the end of January, my government will formally release a discussion paper to the people of Ontario that challenges us to answer together that basic question: How do we want Canada to work better to respond to the needs of the people?

In that paper we will outline a number of challenges to Ontario in Confederation and ask questions seeking to better define our role. We will distribute this paper as widely as we can, seeking to involve all the people of Ontario. We will seek out the voices of Ontario and encourage as much response as possible. We want the people of Ontario to reflect on the challenges facing our economy and our society, and discuss what those mean for the structure of governments and our nation.

Are they satisfied with the current roles of their federal, provincial and municipal governments? How should fundamental decisions about our economy be made? What process of constitutional reform will allow people to participate? How can minorities participate fully in Ontario's future? How can we further the objective of aboriginal self-government in Ontario?

These are the kind of questions that must be answered as we prepare for the future.

I have spoken to the leaders of the opposition parties. We have agreed to establish a select committee on Ontario in Confederation that will hold hearings across the province in February. I encourage that committee to look at innovative ways to establish a true dialogue with as many people as possible. We will not serve the public interest if this process is reserved simply for the experts. We must hear from the widest possible range of people in our province.

Through our efforts to communicate our paper and through the committee's work, we hope to encourage a province-wide process of discussion that will inform the Legislature and the government as we prepare for the nationwide debate.

We have asked that the select committee report back to the House when it resumes in March so this Legislature can debate this issue further to assist this government's representation of Ontario's and Canada's interests in whatever process of constitutional change emerges.

This is an ambitious schedule, but as we have looked around the country and seen other parliaments planning consultative processes that do not end until either late next year or even 1992, we have concluded that we do not have that much time.

Alors, nous avons beaucoup de travail à faire ; c'est une réalité. J'ai hâte de travailler avec tous les députés de la Législature pour réaliser un objectif que nous partageons. C'est un objectif que j'espère que nous partageons aussi avec toute la population du Canada, un Canada renouvelé et plus fort.

We have much work to do. I look forward to working with all the members of the Legislature, and indeed the people of the province, towards a goal I know we all share: a renewed Canada and a stronger Canada.

POLICE LEGISLATION

Hon Mr Farnan: On behalf of the government, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to announce today that the Police Services Act will be proclaimed into law on 31 December 1990.

All members will be aware of the continuing need to rethink the manner in which policing services are delivered in this province. Exactly one year ago tomorrow, the previous government tabled a bill which later met with the support of all parties in this House.

Today, I want to indicate the government's support for the provisions of the new Police Services Act. Ontario's new Police Services Act represents the first comprehensive review of policing legislation since the Police Act was drafted some 44 years ago.

Public demands and expectations have changed dramatically over the past four decades; so too have the needs and obligations of policing. All institutions of policing are facing the pressures of dramatic and fundamental shifts in public expectations. Increasingly, the men and women of our police forces are actively engaged in crime prevention, education and community relations.

These activities have given shape and meaning to the contemporary concept of community policing and to the extensive legislative framework of the new Police Services Act. This framework supports a wide variety of new instruments and procedures, including a formal declaration of policing principles. The framework comprises:

1. an open and accountable procedure for public complaints;

2. a mandatory program of employment equity;

3. new initiatives in training;

4. procedures for the disposal of firearms;

5. an easing of trade union membership restrictions on police officers;

6. the historic creation of the position of first nations constable;

7. the establishment of municipal police services boards, and

8. the creation of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

In addition, a civilian-led special investigations unit has already received proclamation.

The development of regulations which implement many of these initiatives is well under way and will continue in the weeks ahead.

Proclamation of the Police Services Act represents an important accomplishment for many members of this House. In particular, I want to acknowledge the contribution made in this regard by former solicitors general, the member for Mississauga North in particular.

As that member and all members will know, this legislation must serve many and, at times, competing interests. It must aim to meet the objectives of both the public and the police, and it must encourage and promote their mutual respect, support and partnership.

The government believes that this act represents a fundamentally solid foundation for the advancement of policing and police-community relations in Ontario.

RESPONSES

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Nixon: In responding to the Premier's important announcement, may I begin on a somewhat negative note by saying I object to the fact that the staff had a briefing for the press and many others before the statement was made in the House. He might compare that to some other official pronouncements here, but my own view is that when ministerial statements are made, that should be when the public announcement is made, and any further information should be made afterwards.

I think I can say, having consulted with my colleagues, that when the motion to establish the committee is put forward, we will second it. We believe that the approach to the people of the province should be non-partisan in that it is gathering their views and information.

I have already expressed my concern with the timing of this. Granted the government has been in office just a few days over two months, but still we have missed some valuable time in co-ordinating an approach to selecting the views and hearing the views of the people of the province.

The Premier referred in his statement to the fact that we have an ambitious program, and we understand that in fact the committee, when reporting to the House, will be essentially giving a report of the views that its members discern as they go about the province listening to the citizens, but I regret that we could not have got this under way sooner. We are very much in support of the Premier's initiative in getting into all parts of the community in the most effective way possible, with as much innovation as possible, soliciting the views of people in all parts.

He has referred to the native community, the aboriginals, the Indians as they are called on the reserve of the Six Nations, the largest in Canada, which I have the honour to represent. I would suggest. for example, that in cases like that the committee go right to the Indian community on its invitation, sit down in the council house and not call them into the august splendour of the Amethyst Room. I believe that an approach in this regard can be a useful one.

The second thing I want to say in this connection, and I want to leave time for my colleague, is that it is essential that this not be some sort of a lightning rod or some sort of a sounding board for those people in the community who in the past have embarrassed the people of this province, who carry a fleur-de-lis in their hip pockets so they can walk on it.

There has to be some way where we do not restrict freedom of speech but we see that there is a balanced approach so that the members from all parties are going to have access to the sensible citizens of this province, which is essential if we are going to assist the government of the day and the other provincial governments in achieving our common goal, and that is not only the preservation but the strengthening of our Confederation

POLICE LEGISLATION

Mr Curling: I must say it is a pleasure today to stand in the House and see the proclamation of the Police Services Act by the NDP government. We have requested this for some time and it is the result, as members know and as he has indicated, of the hard work by the public service and also the previous Liberal cabinet minister.

But I must say that I was extremely disappointed that the Solicitor General did not fulfil his major promise made in the Legislature earlier this year: that he would proclaim the Police Services Act and also bring in the necessary regulations to the act. The Solicitor General promised to fulfil this by the end of the year and he has not done so.

He announced earlier on that new regulations would have been done today. This means that the people will not receive the new regulations on issues such as the use of police provisions for force, racially discriminatory behaviour, a province-wide public complaints system, police pursuit guidelines and employment equity. Furthermore, the Solicitor General has not fulfilled the commitment to undertake broad consultation by the end of the year.

What he has done, basically, by not even bringing in new regulations is that we have the Liberal government that brought about a new model of the Police Services Act and he then put in place an old engine.

I want to ask the Solicitor General, when will he bring new regulations into this House?

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Harris: I want to respond to the statement by the Premier and the announcement of the legislative committee to deal with the Constitution.

First of all, I want to congratulate the Premier on the initiative, particularly from the viewpoint of the consultation that he undertook with the leaders of the other two parties, the Liberal Party and my own.

I want to congratulate him on seeking that input and on listening to that input and on reflecting that input in the terms of reference in the motion he has drafted for us to debate before we leave this Legislature for Christmas.

I want to share with him my view, and I believe a sharing of his view, that indeed Ontario has a very strong role to play, that all parties in this Legislature seek not only what is in the best interest of Ontario, but I believe are unanimous in their conviction that a strong country from sea to sea is in the interest of this province, ahead of everything else.

The Premier disappoints me, quite frankly, in a couple of areas. The desire to move forward here in Ontario in a spirit of co-operation and non-partisanship, I have applauded. The silly partisanship in the statement today I believe takes away substantially from the tone, from the attitude of the Premier, from the perspective that Ontario should be starting forward with in this debate. I do not want to dwell on that save to say I thought it was very silly.

I also want to say that in the consultation we discussed the secretariat, the support for the committee being made available through the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, and that this support, those resources, would be made available to the committee. That was my understanding and I think the Premier will recall I was very supportive of that and thought that made a great deal of sense.

I was disappointed in the process that the leader of the Liberal Party referred to today. The deputy minister, in response to a question about the paper that would be delivered to the committee at the end of January -- would that be developed in consultation with the other two parties and in consultation with the other members of the committee? -- said, "No, that will be a government paper." I would like to suggest to the Premier that there is still plenty of time to change that.

It would be my view that the committee, in a non-partisan way, ought to direct and have considerable input into what will go into that paper, that it not be a government paper, not be an NDP paper, that it be a truly non-partisan committee paper that undoubtedly will be the working document.

I applaud the two-step process. We discussed this in our consultations and I believe there is a considerable amount of education necessary. I believe that we as legislators and the public of this province have to hear more than just, "We want a strong Canada." I think they have to understand what the west wants, what Quebec wants, what the maritime provinces want, as well as come to grips with what it is Ontarians believe is important in how our country operates.

In the discussions we had we did not talk about the nature of the committee. We talked about a select committee.

Just as there is still time to have the committee direct the resources of a secretariat within the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, before we debate this motion tomorrow I make this offer to the Premier, in a spirit of true non-partisanship, in a spirit of offering to this Legislature, to this province and to this country: my party's willingness to step with the Premier in this and suggest that perhaps the format of the committee, instead of the traditional committee structure, might be four, four and four, with four members of each party, with a Chairman and two co-chairmen, one from each party, so that we would indeed be viewing this work in a non-partisan fashion and could go forward together.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

The Speaker: Before beginning oral questions, members may recall that there were a couple of points of order and a point of privilege arising out of yesterday's question period. I undertook to review Hansard on these matters and I would like to report to the House.

The answers provided by the Honourable Jenny Carter, the Minister of Energy, to a question and a supplementary asked by the honourable member for York East, Gary Malkowski, were well within the average for time and the subject matter did not constitute the announcement of new government policy.

I have also reviewed Hansard in relation to the matter raised by the honourable member for York Centre, Gregory Sorbara. I find that this does not constitute a matter relating to privilege. There certainly was a point of disagreement, which disagreement appears to be quite clearly on the record.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Premier. It is our understanding from comments made by the Minister of Transportation that cabinet made a decision not to fund the construction, that is, the provincial share of the construction of the Red Hill Creek Expressway a week ago on 12 December. The regional council was informed of this decision Monday 17 December of this week. Hamilton city council has unanimously approved a resolution condemning the provincial government for its breach of trust in this regard, and it was unanimous in that the NDP members of the regional council withdrew from the vote.

Today a prominent city councillor in Hamilton, Brian Hinkley, revealed that he was informed of the cabinet decision Friday night 14 December after a meeting with area NDP members of the Legislature in the office of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. This was three days before the announcement was made public. Will the Premier comment on what I would consider a rather serious leak of cabinet information and a breach of trust?

Hon Mr Rae: I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition if that is indeed what took place. All I can say is that I have not talked directly to Alderman Hinkley, so I do not know whether that is what he said or indeed whether that is anywhere near what happened. What I do know, from my discussions with the Minister of Transportation, my understanding from the Minister of Labour and from the Minister of Colleges and Universities, is that that is not in fact the case, that there was no leak by any of them of cabinet information.

Obviously, I will continue to inquire to see if that is true. I would share the member's view entirely if it turned out that a leak of a cabinet decision had been made. It is true to say that the cabinet decision was made last Wednesday. If it was communicated prior to the announcement to the regional council in the way the Leader of the Opposition has ascribed to in the media, it would be a cause of concern for me because obviously the announcement was intended to be made in the way in which it was made, that is to say, by the minister on Monday.

An hon member: Insider information.

Mr Nixon: My colleague behind me has interjected the phrase, "insider information." In this instance, the decision not to proceed with the expressway has ramifications of financial proportions that are enormous, since there were very large industrial complexes planned to be serviced by this particular installation. Now of course this land has lost value tremendously in the eyes of those who might be interested in development nearby, beyond the area that would otherwise not be in the control of the escarpment.

Since there are tremendous fiscal and financial involvements and since the cabinet decision was made public in an inappropriate way -- what is somewhat galling, I suppose, to some of us, only to NDP and professed NDP local politicians -- surely the Premier is going to have to take some substantial and serious action in this regard. I wonder if he would indicate what his process of investigation will be beyond simply discussing it with his colleagues, with whom surely he has discussed it before now.

Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition has in the course of his question made two allegations. The first allegation is to repeat the assertion that some people knew or heard definitively from ministers before anybody else. I have no reason to believe that is true. The second allegation, which is implicit in his question, is that somebody benefited from the decision.

The Leader of the Opposition made these two allegations, and with respect to the second I can only say to the leader that if he has any information which would suggest that anyone, anywhere either did or was able to take unfair advantage of this, I would ask him to bring it forward. Obviously, I will make inquiries as to whether this is true at all. But I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that allegations made in this House are fine, but I think it is important for us to assess whether or not they are true.

Mr Nixon: The tenor of the Premier's defence indicates clearly that he too considers this a very serious matter, so at least we are in agreement on all sides. It is clear that a cabinet decision was communicated prematurely to a super-select group of people, perhaps even an individual in Hamilton before it was communicated to the local government, which has since entered into a breach of trust resolution.

The Premier probably should wait to read it in the local press, but I am informed by the Hamilton Spectator that Mr Hinkley has said that the Minister of Colleges and Universities told him about this information in a meeting in his office on Friday, before the Monday on which it was communicated publicly.

I have no personal knowledge of this, but surely it is my duty and the duty of others to bring this to the attention of the head of the government. He is not the first head of the government who has expressed sincere and very strong views about these important matters. It now remains on him to communicate to us and the public at large what his judgement is.

I am prepared to accept from him his comment that he will investigate it personally. But I would ask him this: If there was any indication that the cabinet information was released prematurely -- I am not saying anybody made gain; I am saying that the possibility was clearly there and the honourable member must surely accept that is a fact -- that if the information is as I have described, will he tell me what his action will be?

Hon Mr Rae: All I can say is that the leader has made particular allegations, as he is entitled to do in this House. He has repeated information that was provided to him by a particular source. All I can tell him is that I will obviously investigate as to the truth of those allegations and report back to him as soon as possible.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Kwinter: My question is to the Premier. The Premier will be aware of an editorial that appeared in the 17 December issue of Barron's, a highly respected US weekly financial publication of Dow Jones and Co. It has a circulation of about one million investment-minded readers internationally. The editorial, which was titled "Ontario Hydra: in Canada, a New Socialist Threat Raises Its Ugly Head," paints a very unflattering description of the prospects for Ontario under the New Democratic Party.

This is not a partisan issue. I am sure the Premier knows that I raise this issue because of a genuine concern that I have for the economic wellbeing of Ontario. In a week where events in the Middle East, in the Soviet Union, at GATT and many others are having far-reaching and massive effects on the global economy, the one issue that Barron's decided to feature in its editorial was the negative impact of the NDP on Ontario as a place to invest.

Could the Premier tell us what he and his government plan to do to bolster Ontario's international image as a good place to invest, and what he plans to do to counteract this negative perception that will be transmitted directly to at least one million current and potential investors?

Hon Mr Rae: We are going to continue to do what we are doing.

Mr Sorbara: And we are in serious trouble.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for York Centre does not agree with that approach, but I appreciate the question from the member for Wilson Heights.

I have met with a lot more business people in the last two months than I have over the last several years, I can tell him. I have met with literally hundreds of people from within the country and from outside the country. I have met with investors from Japan, with investors from Europe, with investors in this country. I have attempted my level best to explain to them that this government was democratically elected to fulfil an agenda with respect to protecting the environment and to advancing the interests of the people of the province, but that we continue to want to do business with the rest of the world.

I think our decision, which was criticized by that party's leader, for example, with respect to the British Gas purchase of Consumers' Gas, which was a controversial decision, was a decision that signalled, I think, very clearly to the business community that provided there was a benefit for the province, a benefit for the workers and the working people and the people of this province, we are prepared to do business and we are prepared to bargain hard, well and effectively. That was certainly the message the Treasurer and I took on our trip to New York, and that is the message I am going to be taking to business people wherever I meet them, and saying as clearly as I can.

I want to say to the honourable member for Wilson Heights that I appreciate his concern. I think one has to take with a grain of salt some of the things that are said in some of these publications. We are going to do the very best we can to talk seriously to business people about the kinds of alternatives and benefits there are to doing business with the province, which is a good place to invest, which has a good skilled workforce, which has a strong commitment to education and a strong commitment to good social programs. That is the commitment we make to the people of the province and to the business community around the world.

Mr Kwinter: The agent general in New York stated on 27 October that the financial community is understandably nervous about our government. She went on to say, "There is a socialist government in Ontario and that's completely foreign to the people here." The Premier knows that he must attract new investment in Ontario because investment creates jobs, something that this province desperately needs. In a Statistics Canada report today, economist Phillip Cross stated that what is worrisome about the current recession is that the decline in business investment is happening in new plant and equipment.

It is strange that given these acknowledged fears illustrated by this Barron's editorial and in other articles such as the one by David Frum that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has frozen advertising in the European, Pacific Rim and US markets to promote Ontario as a good place to invest.

Normally the ministry places strategic ads in business and investment publications in these markets to help develop a positive investment image for Ontario's business abroad. According to ministry officials, however, the government decided to freeze strategic ad campaigns in these publications at least until the spring of 1991. As Ontario is facing its hardest winter since the depression, the government has decided that it does not need to attract new investment and new jobs to Ontario. Could the Premier tell us why.

Hon Mr Rae: The last statement that the member made in his question is simply untrue. I do not how I can say it more clearly than that. I mean, people can say these things but it does not make them true. He can say it over and over again and it still will not make it true. The fact of the matter, as we have conveyed as clearly as we can to the business community around the world, is that we are open for business.

I would remind the member for Wilson Heights to put this in some perspective. There is a serious recession going on in the United States. There is a serious recession going on in many parts of the world. There is a dropoff in investment that has been going on for some time, under his government as well as now, with respect to the recession that is ongoing.

We have indicated the confidence we have in our economy by being committed to a $700-million program. We are asking others to come on board so that we can make it over $1 billion. We have had several meetings with respect to new investments that are ongoing, but the member's statement, when he says, for example, that we are not interested in any investment in the province is patently untrue.

Any decision with respect to advertising in other jurisdictions, I can only assume because I hear the assertion made by the member, was based on a need for us to review the strategic position because some of that was not working before and we want to make sure that it works better. But that is the principle under which we are working and that is the principle under which we will continue to work.

Mr Kwinter: The Premier should be aware that half of the international promotions budget in the ministry has not been spent because of this imposed freeze. In fact, the money was not reallocated. I can understand if he felt that because of budgetary constraints he would take that money and put it somewhere else. The money has not been reallocated. It is just sitting there in the bank.

The Premier knows of the importance of Ontario's image in international investment markets and of the fears the election of a socialist government in Ontario has raised. This is why one of the first things he did after becoming Premier was to travel to New York to soothe the fears of investors. He also knows that investment creates jobs.

What is not clear is why another one of the first things that the Premier's government did was to freeze the major vehicle for our investment image abroad, and he has frozen it until the spring of 1991. The government has withdrawn from the field. It has created a vacuum and this vacuum is being filled by fears and editorials like the one I cited that appeared in the 17 December issue of Barron's. They have put a freeze on international advertising this winter, when our image and our economy need it the most. Ontario is frozen enough. Ontario needs new investment, new jobs, now.

Does the Premier have any specific plans to address how he is going to encourage investors in the United States and other parts of the world to put their money into Ontario, given these negative signals that are being sent out by the international financial media?

Hon Mr Rae: I hope the underlying assumption behind the member's question is not that when his leader or indeed he went travelling somehow that was not to assuage any fears, that was to drum up business, but when I go travelling down to New York with the Treasurer somehow that is to assuage fears. That is a very unfair way of describing the world and it is based on an assumption that when Liberals do things, they are the only ones who are entitled to govern, but when New Democrats do their job and do the job that we have to do, somehow it is based on a policy that is not there.

Surely we are entitled to review the advertising efforts that they made to see how successful they were and to see whether they can be improved. Surely we as a government are entitled to review that. I know it is very hard for Liberals to understand that sometimes we do not have to spend money on public relations and do not want to necessarily just sort of let her rip and let that spending go, but I can tell the former minister that there is no divine right to govern on that side. There was an election on 6 September.

I would suggest that on the odd day the Liberal government got some negative editorials in various publications from time to time, we never raised it and said, "This means that the entire business community around the world is afraid to do business." I think the member has to be very careful of the way in which he is seen to portray what is taking place. We are a democratically elected government. We are going to govern on behalf of the people of this province in a way that is fair to all the people of the province.

[Applause]

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

Mr Harris: I want to agree with the member for Wilson Heights. It was a non-partisan question. Nothing has changed since 6 September. We are into our sixth year of non-investment, non-business, non-attractive governments in this province.

TAXATION

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. The Treasurer, when he announced the Fair Tax Commission, indicated it would take some 12 to 18 months after it was set up -- that is what he anticipated the time would be before he would receive input from that commission. Yesterday, on my question the Premier confirmed that the Fair Tax Commission will not be ready in time to provide any meaningful input into this budget and in fact on the 18-month time line it will report some time after the Treasurer's second budget, or at about that time.

Given that obviously it will not be in a position to have any meaningful input for this budget and that the Premier and his Treasurer have consistently referred, when we have asked about taxes and new taxes and school taxes, to waiting for the report of the Fair Tax Commission, is it safe to assume there will be no new taxes in the spring budget?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I will let Floyd do it.

Hon Mr Laughren: He said "Floyd" without an adjective -- what is the word? -- anything in front of it.

An hon member: Qualifier.

Hon Mr Laughren: Qualifying adjective: that is right.

The leader of the third party is not being quite fair. When the leader of the third party was in opposition with us he was always fairminded then and I am surprised that he has changed now. Anyway, the leader of the third party should understand -- I have tried to say this before -- that when the Fair Tax Commission is being set up in January that will not allow very much time to provide us with information and advice for the 1991 -92 budget.

However, between the time it is established and the ensuing budgets leading up to the end of 1993, we are confident that there will be interim reports coming to us with advice on various tax measures. It is our determination not to wait until the three years is up, or whatever length of time it takes the commission to report, to act on various tax measures. We will be taking their advice during that period as their interim reports come through to us.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer has indicated and his Premier has indicated that there is a need for an overhaul of the tax system. I believe he said that in the campaign and his Fair Tax Commission alludes to that: one tax, several that he suggested -- I guess it was the property tax for education -- should be eliminated completely. In his past he has said sales taxes are regressive and they should be eliminated. We know he does not like the employer payroll tax and that that one should be eliminated, and others that are there.

But when we have asked those questions, he has said: "You will have to wait for the Fair Tax Commission to assess it all, and we want to come up with a fair way of collecting taxes."

What I am asking the Treasurer now, since it has been referred to him by the Premier, is that given nobody, including his Premier yesterday, expects that there will be time for any meaningful input into taxes, certainly not in a comprehensive way, is, should we not expect any new taxes by way of succession duties or minimum corporation taxes or other tax revenues until we have had a chance to assess the overall picture?

Hon Mr Laughren: In response to the leader of the third party, I think it is fair to say that for the 1991-92 budget we are not going to see an entirely revamped tax system in the province of Ontario. I think that would be presumptuous on our part and it would quite frankly be foolhardy to proceed at that kind of pace.

We want to take a very serious look at the tax system, at what the alternatives are and the various kinds of tax measures. I do not think it is fair for the leader of the third party to imply that there will not be any changes in the tax system for the 1991-92 budget. I hope there will be some, but at the same time we are cognizant of the fact that we are in a recession. We are cognizant of the fact as well that as expenditures climb, we are going to need new revenues.

I am sure the leader of the third party will appreciate that we are engaged in some kind of balancing act, which is always the case, particularly when we are in a recession. I can assure him that when those tax measures are introduced and brought in in the new budget, they will be designed to make the tax system even fairer than it is now.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer said that his expenditures have climbed. Could he tell us why we should automatically assume, when everybody else's expenditures are declining, his should climb?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I was not aware that everybody else's expenditures were declining. I have not seen any evidence of that. But also, I think that to be fair the leader of the third party would understand that there are some programs that were introduced, such as the Homes Now program introduced by the former government, whose costs are growing in the next couple of years. They become very substantial growth factors on the expenditure side. So I do not think it is fair to imply that everybody else's expenditures are declining. That is simply not the case.

We saw this year, for example, that welfare case loads went up very, very dramatically. That is an open-ended program. In a sense it is a kind of anti-recession package as well, as people get laid off and unemployment insurance benefits run out and so forth. Those are in themselves a kind of buffer against the recession. I do not think it is appropriate to say that it is expected of us that our expenditures should be declining in a time of recession.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Harris: To the Attorney General: I am sure others were as disgusted as I was to read in the papers this morning that Ontario judges have thrown out over 2,400 cases against drunk drivers in this province because of the failure of the Attorney General to deal with the problem of court backlogs. My question to the Attorney General is, since he has not been able to effectively deal with it at this point, can he tell us two things: First, does the Attorney General plan to appeal all 2,400 cases that have been thrown out, and second, what plans does he have in place now to make sure this does not happen again?

Hon Mr Hampton: I share the concern that has been expressed by the leader of the third party with this problem. I want to point out to him very directly that this problem has been growing for a number of years. In fact, the exact decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada on 18 October setting time limits during which cases may remain in the court system was a case that arose in 1984 when there was a Conservative government in this province.

I want the leader of the third party to understand that we are trying now to deal with a problem that has been in the court system for, in some cases, four and five years. It is true that government should have done something about it two years ago, three years ago, even four years ago, so we have to now make up for lost time. We have appointed 27 new provincial division judges. We have appointed over 50 new crown attorneys. We are in the process of appointing over 200 court staff to handle the problem. We have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to consider another case that will give us more complete guidelines.

I say to the leader of the third party that we are now in the process of having to try to make up for mistakes that governments have made in the past, but I think we are doing a very good job under the circumstances.

Mr Harris: Does the Attorney General plan to appeal the 2,400 cases thrown out?

Hon Mr Hampton: I have said on previous occasions and I will say again that cases that are judicially stayed or dismissed and cases that involve serious criminal charges are reviewed by the crown law office to see if there are grounds for appeal. That is what we are doing whenever we face serious charges that have been dismissed as a result of the Askov decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr Harris: I assume from the response that drunk driving charges are not serious. If they are serious the Attorney General is going to appeal them. That is what he said. I do not know why it is so difficult for him to say, yes or no, "I am going to appeal them" or "I am not." The minister has said he is not going to appeal them, that he is only going to appeal serious charges.

Can the minister tell me why the Solicitor General is spending the amount of money he is spending and why police forces across this province are spending the money they are spending on the RIDE program, on trying to reduce impaired driving, particularly in this holiday season.

Does the minister not realize how demoralized police officers are, knowing that potentially half the charges they are going to lay will be thrown out? Does he not realize how demoralizing it is for people, and the negative impact this has on people, drinking and driving, with all the money being spent? There are the gains we have made over the period of the last years, since 1984 if you want to back that far, and now people can say it is a 50-50 chance they are going to get off anyway.

Since the minister has said to me he plans to appeal all the charges that are serious, does he consider the 2,400 impaired charges that were thrown out serious? If so, is he going to appeal each and every one of them so that there will be integrity in the program and a little morale back in the police force in this holiday season?

Hon Mr Hampton: I want to acknowledge again that we certainly appreciate the seriousness of the problem. However, I want to point out to the leader of the third party that if we were to try to appeal every charge that has been thrown out, we would merely be congesting the courts even more than they already are and leading to a more serious problem further down the road. The standards are good standards. We will look at every charge that is dismissed or stayed to see if there are good grounds for appeal. If there are grounds for appeal and we think we can win on appeal, we will appeal the charge.

However, we are not going to go through a public relations exercise and try to appeal charges that are obviously out of date by Supreme Court of Canada standards. That may look good in terms of being a public relations exercise, but it will do nothing to alleviate the problem and it will lead to more court congestion further down the road.

I want to say further that while we have great difficulty in making up for problems which occurred in the criminal justice system three years ago, two years ago, a year ago, we make the guarantee both to people out there in the law enforcement sector and the public that as we go forward from here, charges that are laid now will not be stayed due to delays in the court system. We will have the resources there to do the job and we will do a better job of managing the system so it does not happen in the future.

Mr Sorbara: I for one am glad to hear about the Attorney General's guarantee and his commitment to completely clear up the court backlog by next fall. I look forward to his resignation if he does not make that target.

LAYOFFS

Mr Sorbara: My question is to the Premier. The question concerns a commitment that the Premier made, not before the election when by his own admission he was not looking forward to forming a government, but a commitment that he made after forming his first cabinet.

On a daily basis in this province we are confronted with an ongoing litany of business failures and job losses. Most of these, as we all agree, arise from the deteriorating economic conditions that we are experiencing in this province. But in the case I am concerned about some 323 full-time employees and some 120 part-time employees were dismissed as a result of the purchase of the food chain Miracle Food Mart by the A&P food conglomerate.

Those employees were so concerned and aggrieved by their treatment in conjunction with this merger and this purchase that they demonstrated here in front of this Legislature. The Premier in confronting the workers of Miracle Food Mart gave his personal undertaking to "look into the matter." My question for the Premier is simple. Has he looked into the matter, what has he done in respect of that matter and when is he going to report to the workers and to this Legislature on that matter?

Hon Mr Rae: Following that impromptu session on the steps of the Legislature, I will say honestly to the member that I did start some inquiries. I will have to get back to the member with respect to precisely what the answers are.

Mr Sorbara: It is simply not satisfactory that when a Premier of this province gives an undertaking, even if it is impromptu, he will maybe fulfil that undertaking. He, as a lawyer, knows that when a lawyer gives an undertaking the Law Society of Upper Canada requires the lawyer to fulfil the undertaking. Now he undertook with those workers to look into the matter.

I want to tell him that the workers are looking into the matter and there has been no resolution of issues relating to notice and severance. There has been no employment adjustment committee set up, generally a matter that the Ministry of Labour does as a matter of course, to assist those workers with re-employment. There has been no response from the office of the Premier to a request for funds for their own future fund that they themselves have organized to assist those workers.

Those workers will be out of work this winter. The government has done virtually nothing to help them find new employment in the greater Toronto area. Why is the Premier willing to simply give an undertaking when there is a demonstration in front of the Legislature and then let it go by as soon as he gets back to his office?

Hon Mr Rae: There may have been a failure on my part, and if there has been I apologize to the member and I apologize to the workers involved. I will look into the matter as quickly as I can. As I say, I asked that certain inquiries be made. I did make that undertaking. I have a very vivid recollection of that exchange. As far as I know, I have not heard back from the workers themselves with respect to a request for a further meeting. If there has been a further request, obviously the Minister of Labour and I will respond to that. But let me make it very clear to the member that if he feels that I have let him down or anybody else down, he has my full apology.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Premier. I would like to ask the Premier, is the government of Ontario prepared to announce today that he will meet directly with the Ontario Nurses' Association and the Ontario Hospital Association and that he is prepared to play a role in seeing that enough money is provided for nurses that they will stay on staff at our hospitals, they will be paid, they will be treated and they will be seen as the critical foundation of our health care system when it comes to our institutions? Is the Premier prepared to do that today -- yes or no?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question from the honourable member for Parry Sound who has had a long-standing interest in this, as I have. I believe that I am the first Premier of the province to have ever spoken to a convention of the Ontario Nurses' Association, which I did a few short weeks ago. It was a good meeting and I was very pleased to have been invited and I think it was a good invitation.

In answer to the question from the member, I think the process is very clear. It is certainly understood by the ONA and by the OHA. First of all, there has been absolutely no request from either group for me to play such a role. The bargaining that is taking place is the professional bargaining that takes place. The fact that the government of Ontario obviously has an ongoing interest. that we represent the taxpayer and that we also have very clear policies with respect to equity is well known by both parties. They have met with the Treasurer.

The Minister of Health is obviously taking a keen interest and we are obviously looking at these negotiations with considerable and great interest, but at this stage no one has asked me to intervene and therefore it is not my intention to do so at this stage.

Mr Eves: That is an interesting response indeed, because the question I just asked the Premier is word for word the very question that he asked the Premier on 11 January 1989, standing in this Legislature, almost two years ago today. At that time he was asking the Premier of the day the very same question, to become involved one year ahead of the time the nurses' contract ran out, some 14 months before it ran out. Is he going to do what he asked the previous Premier to do -- yes or no? Put up or shut up today, please.

The Speaker: I think that the experienced and well-respected member for Parry Sound does not normally use that type of vocabulary and may wish to rephrase.

Mr Eves: If the comment, "Put up or shut up," disturbs the Premier I would gladly retract that, withdraw that from the record. The question I have is still the same: Is he going to do today what he asked the Premier to do on 11 January 1989?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker --

Mr Eves: Now put up or shut up.

Hon Mr Rae: And a very merry Christmas to the member for Parry Sound too.

I appreciate the question and I want to say to the honourable member that I do not take particular exception to the language. He is entitled to be as blunt, as far as I am concerned, as he wants to be.

Let me say directly to the member that the circumstance -- if I recall, and I hope I am being fair in my recollection -- in January 1989 had to do with a specific request that came from the Ontario Nurses' Association itself in response to problems that were being experienced in critical care with respect to nurses who were not there because they had left the profession. He is quite right that at that point both he and I, as I recall, were very blunt about what we saw as the necessary response from the Minister of Health and the Premier. What we are looking at now is, if I may say so, a slightly different situation. I think it is a fair description to say that.

Mr Scott: Ah, it sure is. You're the Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: No. I say to the member for Parry Sound that the contract is now reaching its termination point. There is going to be a serious renegotiation of the contract, which process must be allowed to continue.

Mr Eves: You were asking the Premier of the day to interrupt it 14 months before it expired.

Hon Mr Rae: At this point I will say to the member for Parry Sound as clearly as I can, if I may respond to the question, that I have not received any request from the parties to intervene. Neither has the Minister of Health, to my knowledge; neither has the Treasurer. Obviously, if and when these requests are made, they will be dealt with. That is the spirit in which I am responding to the member's question.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr Sutherland: Today the Minister of the Environment released the discussion paper on environmental assessment process entitled, Toward Improving the Environmental Assessment Program in Ontario. I know there are many people in Ontario, and more particularly in my riding of Oxford, who have participated in the environmental assessment process who would like to have input on the development of a new process. My question to the minister is, what opportunities will the public and the people of Oxford have to provide input on the environmental assessment process?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am pleased to be able to tell the member and the House that the environmental assessment improvement program discussion paper, which I released today and which I may say was prepared by a task force established by my predecessor -- I want to acknowledge the work done by them and by the member for St Catharines in preparing this discussion paper. I recognize the need to move very quickly to make improvements to the Environmental Assessment Act, but I have referred the discussion paper to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee and asked it to undertake a consultation process and to make recommendations to me as quickly as possible.

Mr Sutherland: My supplementary, as the minister knows, deals with the issue of solid waste management. The number of areas in the province where that is becoming of concern is growing at a fast rate. While municipalities are responding positively to the initiatives of the Ministry of the Environment to reduce waste, requests for new landfill sites will be coming forward. Many of them will be going before the environmental assessment process.

What I would like to know from the minister, and what I think the people of Oxford, particularly the people of southwest Oxford who went through this process and probably the people of Woodstock and Orangeville who will go through a similar process, will want to know is, what assurance can the minister give the public that a new environmental assessment process will be fairer and faster for all the parties involved?

Hon Mrs Grier: The recommendations contained in the discussion paper are designed to do just that. They look at shortening the time frames, at reducing the number of steps involved in the environmental assessment process, at putting the planning and consultation part of the process up front before the actual formal environmental assessment is completed. I know that the environmental assessment advisory committee has already scheduled three public meetings, one in Ottawa, one in Toronto and one in Thunder Bay, and is prepared to hold further public consultation.

Certainly it is my hope that every community facing an environmental assessment, for whatever reason, will be able to take advantage of the new and improved Environmental Assessment Act before the end of next year.

LAYOFFS

Mrs Fawcett: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I would like to draw the minister's attention to the inadequacies of the agreement between Ontario Hydro and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Electrical Power Systems Construction Association of Ontario.

Is the minister aware that 65 Ontario resident journeymen were laid off from the Darlington site on 28 November and another 20 were laid off just this past week? These taxpaying residents of Ontario were laid off before those tradesmen on the job from out of province. My question is, does the minister feel that Ontario Hydro and Ontario's Minister of Energy have a moral obligation to the taxpayers and workers of this province first, especially in view of the downturn in Ontario's economy?

Hon Mrs Carter: I was unaware of the situation the member opposite is describing. If what she is saying is the case, then I would deplore it as much as she would, and I will certainly see what else I can find out about this matter.

Mrs Fawcett: I am interested that the minister is in agreement that this is a deplorable situation, but I am wondering also, is the minister aware that these many out-of-province travellers are entitled to, and in fact receive, a tax-free allowance of $31 a day for each and every day that they work? Can the minister explain why in these economically depressed times we are giving away tax-free dollars to out-of-province workers while our own workers are being laid off? This is clearly irresponsible.

Once again, does the minister, indeed this government, not have a moral and economic obligation to the taxpaying workers of this province? When will the minister intercede and put our journeymen back to work?

Hon Mrs Carter: This is another matter I shall have to look into.

DEPUTY MINISTER OF CULTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I am sure the minister heard the horror story this morning of the carryings-on of his deputy minister. He will be aware that his recently appointed deputy minister, David Silcox, has set an all-time expense account record for a public official since coming to the ministry in 1987. We all heard about it, of course, on the news this morning and the response to the press this morning. It was unbelievably vague and naïve.

Among other things revealed by CBC Radio, the deputy minister, Mr Silcox, ran up $45,000 in travel and entertainment expenses in 1989. He spent $5,000 for theatre tickets over 18 months. His entertaining at home was staggering, with taxpayers picking up the tab for groceries, liquor and cut flowers. The total of this public official's expenses over a 19-month period was $75,000. Mr Speaker, that is probably more than what you make.

Now Mr Silcox has apparently destroyed these expense-account records regarding much of his spending. The records have been shredded. They are gone. These expenditures are the dawning of a new Watergate for this government. Does the minister condone the spending habits of his deputy, Diamond Dave Silcox, and his deep-sixing of receipts? What specifically has he done to control this man? He is out of control.

Hon Mr Marchese: Three things: One, as I understand it, there have been expenses which have been audited and the auditor has cleared those expenses. Once that is done, those receipts are no longer kept, and that is according to the rules as I understand them. That has been done. In my opinion they are excessive, but it has been done in accordance with the rules as we all understand them.

Since I have come into this ministry, I want to tell the member across from me that I have said to my staff that I expect the staff to do things as judiciously as possible, and when we travel we are frugal. When I travel, I am. My expenses are limited to the basic needs and I expect the same of all the members. I expect and I anticipate that this is what has happened since I have been in my ministry and it will continue in that way. I do not believe that this response is either vague or naïve.

Mr Tilson: I cannot believe this minister is condoning these expenses. This deputy minister should be fired.

Given the clear void in overall government policy that permitted Diamond David Silcox to cut such a wide swath through some of the finest local restaurants, theatres and hotels, not to mention his foreign travels, is he, as minister, who must be clearly embarrassed -- he has got to be embarrassed by this -- prepared to strongly recommend to his colleagues, in particular to the Chairman of Management Board, that tough new rules on expense accounts must be brought in for the entire public service, and will you endeavour to find out from your deputy the exact date that he destroyed these particular records?

Hon Mr Marchese: I do not believe that in my comments I have condoned those expenses incurred by the deputy. Much of this happened in a time prior to my time, under a previous government. What I have said in terms of what I have done is to say that once I came into this ministry, what I have said was that I expected the deputy and all the others to watch their expenses, to be frugal in their expenses and to do everything judiciously. This is what I have done.

As to the rules, I said that I would look into the guidelines and make sure that people are adhering to those guidelines, and if they need to be clarified, I will do so, and if they need to be toughened up, we will look at that. I have said that to the press and I say this to the member.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Silipo: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister, I know, is aware of the many concerns that injured workers have with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board and I could ask a number of questions around that, but today I want to just focus in on two aspects.

One of those is

section 45(

a) of the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act that was passed by the previous government, the infamous deeming provisions. That

section allows the WCB to reduce the benefits of seriously injured workers by pretending that these injured workers have earnings which they do not in fact have. This policy of deeming threatens to condemn injured workers to a lifetime of poverty in order to keep the WCB's costs down and also reduces the incentive to make workplaces safer.

I would like the minister to reassure workers that the hated deeming provisions of Bill 162 will be removed from the act.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I thank the member for his question. This is indeed a difficult question for our government as we were saddled with a piece of legislation, Bill 162, which we fought in opposition. Let me say without hesitation that our government feels exactly the same way about deeming now as we did while in opposition in this House. We do not like it. It is wrong. It punishes those who need help the most. We must find an alternative way to fairly compensate injured workers and get them back to productive employment.

We do not believe, however, that hasty changes to the Workers' Compensation Act are advisable. There are many things about the act that need to be changed, changes that will benefit both injured workers and employers. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past and do half a job of reform.

But I am pleased to report that the corporate board of the Workers' Compensation Board has recently adopted a policy on

interpretation of

section 45(

a) that effectively eliminates deeming when an injury prevents a worker from returning to his or her pre-injury job. This policy will be reviewed no later than a year from now and we hope at that time to have a much better alternative to deeming and the development of future legislative action.

Mr Silipo: The minister, I am sure, also knows that it is not just fair compensation for injured workers that is important, but also rehabilitation that returns them to meaningful jobs. The minister has also heard, I know, the many complaints about the Workers' Compensation Board's poor rehabilitation efforts. Does the minister plan to push the Workers' Compensation Board into improving its rehabilitation efforts?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Both workers and employers are generally dissatisfied with the board's rehabilitation efforts, even though many of the board's rehabilitation staff are very skilled and dedicated people. I believe there are simply not enough personnel to do an effective job in this area and I hope that in the new year the new members of the board, whom we are appointing now, along with the existing board members, will come to grips with this problem.

I want to say as well that we will be closely monitoring and watching the reinstatement and re-employment provisions of the act and how they are enforced. We believe that most employers will honour their obligation to take back workers who are injured in their employment, but we will be looking for quick enforcement if an injured worker is denied these rights to re-employment. The best rehabilitation is getting a worker back to his or her job, or if that is not possible because of the injury, a comparable job with no loss of earnings.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take exception to that type of question where the minister has responded with a clear change in policy. He has not allowed us, as the opposition or members of the third party, to respond to what is clearly a ministerial statement that is clearly a change in the existing legislation under the Workers' Compensation Act.

I believe my rights as a member have been prejudiced by this type of question and answer, where the minister is being given the opportunity through the back door of indicating what might be new government policy on a very crucial matter under the Workers' Compensation Act. I do not believe that is a proper exercise of the minister's right to make a statement, nor of the member who has probably been asked to make that statement so that the minister can get that particular issue in at this time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would be pleased to review the matter. I listened quite intently above the noise, and while I do not believe it is a point of order, I will be more than pleased to take a look at Hansard and report back to you later.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr Sola: My question is directed to the Chairman of Management Board. I bring to the attention of the House the words of Frank Rooney, the managing editor of the magazine of Ontario public sector workers. In the November edition, I quote, "OPSEU's successful ads and forums contributed to the election of the NDP government." He goes on to quote OPSEU board member Ron Martin, "Now our union enters the halls of Parliament and is treated with respect."

The kind of respect accorded OPSEU thus far is quite different from the respect this government has shown the laid-off workers of this province, the taxpayers and indeed the majority of people in this province. OPSEU gets action, where the laid-off workers get platitudes. As we have seen, OPSEU was able to meet with the Minister of Community and Social Services to demand a hold on the deinstitutionalization program, which was granted before the minister consulted with affected groups or individuals.

Does the minister feel that her position as a former negotiator for OPSEU has contributed to the disproportionate attention that group is getting from cabinet, or is it because of all of OPSEU's help in electing her party?

Hon Ms Lankin: Quite frankly, my ex-colleagues from OPSEU tell me they are not getting enough attention by this new government. The assertion the member makes, I think, is invalid. I think I bring to my role in this job an understanding of a number of issues that I think is of help to the government with respect to understanding issues in the public service. I believe that I am not a unilateral person, that I have more to me than my past work experience and that I am making a valuable contribution. I believe the member's assertion is incorrect.

Mr Sola: As the person charged with representing the province's interests and protecting the public purse in negotiating with OPSEU, does the minister feel that her position poses a conflict of interest in bargaining with that group on behalf of the government and as Chairman of Management Board, and if not, why not?

Hon Ms Lankin: In fact, I do not see it as a conflict. I think I bring to this job skills in negotiations, a background and an expertise that few chairs of Management Board have had before me. I think that those skills and understanding the economic conditions, what has to go on at a bargaining table, how to arrive at a negotiated settlement, how to read the world of arbitration, in this case how to take very seriously the responsibility of taking care of the public purse, is the responsibility that has been charged to me. I ask the member to judge by my actions. I ask him to look as things unfold and we will talk about it at that point in time.

LAYOFFS

Hon Mr Rae: I have an answer that I would like to give to the member for York Centre. It turns out, as luck would have it, that my staff have been far more diligent and aware of what has been going on than I have. I would like to respond directly to his question as it has been referred to me.

Several hundred employees at the Miracle Food Mart warehouse were laid off, members of the Teamsters union. We have had correspondence from some lawyers as well as contact between my office staff and many of the individuals facing layoff, in particular Mr Payne who was in repeated contact with our office. Once it became clear that issues were related to rights enforceable under the Labour Relations Act, we referred correspondence to the Minister of Labour.

The propriety of layoffs and the question of who is going to be protected and how they are going to be protected has in fact been taken to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and is now scheduled for hearing in January. As the former minister would understand, given that it is now at hearing, it is not possible for me to interfere.

From the company's point of view, there is no issue simply because it is its argument that A&P did not buy the warehouse part of the Miracle Food Mart operation. The Teamsters union, which is the union in question -- I think some of the people who have been in touch with the member are what might be described as members of the union who have a different point of view perhaps, or are at least putting forward an independent perspective. But the Teamsters union is claiming successor rights under its collective agreement, and the question of successor rights is going to be determined at a hearing in January under the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Mr Sorbara: As it turns out, the Premier is now reporting what the situation is from the perspective of the information that the Ministry of Labour has and information given to me by some of these workers. I simply want to tell the Premier that it seems rather odd in the circumstances that notwithstanding the fact that some matters are before the Labour Relations Board under

section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, the government has not taken the opportunity to do two things that it can and should be doing.

The first thing that it can and should be doing is to set up urgently the standard kind of employment adjustment committee, which the Ministry of Labour has great expertise in setting up, to assist workers who are not going back to work. The second thing that the government could be doing and probably should be doing in this case is responding positively to the workers' demands for some financial assistance to their future fund.

I am simply asking the Premier at this point to give the same sort of undertaking that he gave to those workers, and that is, would he urgently respond to the question of the workers with respect to an employment adjustment committee and some funding for their future fund that will help them in this time of very severe crisis?

Mr Curling: That's reasonable.

Hon Mr Rae: What the member is saying is not unreasonable. I will certainly discuss it with the Minister of Labour because it is clearly an area that falls under his responsibility. I certainly take his suggestions very seriously this time, as I always do.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Harris: On a point of order. Mr Speaker: I believe that the member for Hamilton East, the Minister of Labour, inadvertently misled the House when he referred to the Workers' Compensation Board, that there would be new appointments made early in the new year and that they would be carrying out the new policy. It sounded to me a lot like there would be some partisan New Democratic Party appointments to the WCB. I know the Premier has said there will be a new consultative process both pre and post. I have not heard of any consultation from the Premier about these new appointments.

All I have heard is that the process will not be ready till next spring, and I wonder if the Minister of Labour might want to correct the record on that.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order, but certainly is a point of interest which I gather has been heard by the Minister of Labour.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order is this: We have just extended question period by three or four minutes and I feel that my privileges have been violated. I am wondering if in the interest of the season and the fact that I have a question I know the Premier would have wanted the opportunity to answer, you would extend the same privilege to the third party that you just extended to the government and the official opposition.

The Speaker: It is really quite fascinating. The opposition enjoys a bonus in that there is a reply and a chance for a supplementary outside of the 60 minutes allotted for questions and answers and then complains. I am sure that the member's intense interest in question period will he reflected in her attendance tomorrow.

Mr Eves: On a different point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 31(

a) there is a period of the day set aside for ministerial statements. Earlier this afternoon during question period, I believe the Minister of the Environment really issued a ministerial statement about the release of her discussion paper on environmental assessment review in response to a question from the member for Oxford. I would ask you to look into this matter, Mr Speaker, and see that the rules are adhered to in this place hereafter about that standing order.

Mr Elston: On the same point, Mr Speaker, I think that probably we would not be as aggressively pursuing this line of points of order if it were not that this has happened on more than one occasion and seems to be part of the strategic use of the rules of the House, or in fact misuse of the rules of the House by the governing party. They have an opportunity so that we as critics, or the critics among our party members, can have a chance to reply to these new statements, these new policy decisions made by the minister in his or her capacity as leader of a department.

The standing orders are quite clearly designed to allow the opposition parties to provide the public with a more balanced view of the announcement. They choose to use their printed and pre-set and then pre-established answers to deliver statements of policy that we as an opposition have no opportunity to critically analyse, or on occasion, as we have done in this sitting, agree with. I think it really does not sit very well with us as opposition members when we find that sort of misuse of our standing orders and the time of the House going on on a regular and now very frequent basis.

The Speaker: First of all, I am always pleased to consider every point of order raised. I will again today, as I have in the past, review the matter raised and will be more than pleased to report back to you at my earliest convenience. I think the members know full well, and it is probably of benefit to all the members of the House, that there is no rule to prevent a person from reading a question and reading a supplementary or reading an answer, reading from material for a response. There is no rule against that.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I would like to respond to the point raised by the member for Parry Sound as a point of order. I would like to set the record straight. On 22 November, I informed the House that I would be releasing the environmental assessment --

Mr Eves: This is the Speaker's job, Ruth. You're not the Speaker. You're the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Scott: Not permissible under the rules.

Mr Sorbara: The government House leader speaks on these matters.

Mr Stockwell: You can't debate a point of order.

The Speaker: One moment; I am sorry. I realize that the tiredness is helping to create frayed nerves. I understand that. At the same time, I intend to maintain order in this chamber. I will entertain points of order and privilege to hear whether in fact they are points of order and privilege.

Hon Mrs Grier: In the ministerial statement in this House in November I indicated that I would be releasing a discussion paper on the Environmental Assessment Board.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is not a point of order.

The Speaker: Will the member for Etobicoke West take his seat, please. Our procedure in this House is to entertain one point of order at a time. I will know whether it is a point of order or not after I have heard it.

Hon Mrs Grier: I made a ministerial statement with respect to the release of the discussion paper on the environmental assessment process. The member for Oxford in his question today acknowledged the release of the paper and asked me a question concerning its contents.

The Speaker: To the Minister of the Environment, the member earlier raised the point. I said that I undertook to review it and I will report back to the House as soon as possible.

Do we have any other further points of order or can we conduct our normal business?

Mr Offer: I think we should start all over with members' statements.

The Speaker: Shall we turn the clock back and start at 1:30?

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On the point of order that is on the floor, I think --

Mr Sorbara: The Speaker is going to rule on it.

Hon Miss Martel: But I also have a right to make a comment before he makes a ruling, and I intend to do that because we went through this yesterday.

The Speaker: The experienced members --

Mrs Sullivan: Petitions.

The Speaker: I may start my own petition.

The experienced members may recall that the Speaker has a duty to hear from any member of the House on the same point of order before being able to ascertain whether it is a point of order and should be considered. What I would appreciate is additional information and not a repetition of anything said to this point, and that it be kept brief so that we can get on with our work.

Hon Miss Martel: The point that I wish to raise on this point of order is the following: I have noted very carefully that every time the House leader for the official opposition raises this, it happens to be in conjunction with a question on this side that appears to have gone fairly long. I think the real problem is that they are unhappy that the question has gone long and raise it through that matter.

I carefully looked at the question and answer that went on yesterday between my colleague the Minister of Energy and the person who raised the question and could not find anywhere in there any matter that related to government policy. I suggest the same is here today and that we should just get on with the business and quit whining about long questions.

The Speaker: I made the observation earlier and I also made an invitation that if the three House leaders have a concern about how question period is progressing, I would be most delighted to meet with the three House leaders in my office at their earliest convenience to discuss the length of time of questions and answers and how question period generally is developing. I am most pleased to do that today if they wish. That is an invitation open to the three House leaders.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, I would like to be heard on this point of order as well. I would not ordinarily do it, but the government obviously regards it as appropriate to have more than the House leaders speak to the point of order, and if this is a new regime that is satisfactory to the government and the Speaker, I think we should all be careful to take advantage of it in the appropriate place. So I am the second speaker, after the House leader --

Mr Sorbara: Third

Mr Scott: -- third, on the point of order and I intend to exercise, subject to your views, Mr Speaker, my right.

I think the point of order that was raised had nothing to do with the time expended in asking the questions or the time expended in giving the answers, though that might provide a second point of issue.

Mr Fletcher: I'm next.

Mr Scott: Yes, the member is next. That seems to be the way the new government wants to do it, except they are next, actually.

The real thrust of this point of order is that whether the question raised is in written form or not, its objectionable nature is that it is a statement of government policy presented in question period by a supporter of the government precisely to ensure that no opposition member will be in a position to comment on it. That is the danger in this process and I ask you to bear that in mind when you consider the point of order that was raised by the House leader. I want you to know, Mr Speaker, that I want to associate myself with my House leader in advancing this point and I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House in this debate.

The Speaker: To the member for St George-St David, we are not conducting a debate, but the point the member raises is central and it is something I have already given an undertaking on. I will be reporting back to the House tomorrow. I understand the seriousness of the point which is raised. I am quite prepared to --

Mr Scott: Can I respond?

Interjections.

The Speaker: No. What I stated very clearly before, which I guess bears repeating, is that a point of order was raised. If other members have new information to contribute, without repetition, to assist the Chair in reaching a deliberation on this, I am pleased to entertain it. On the other hand, all of us should be mindful of the clock. We have other business to conduct. Now, if members have anything additional that I have not heard about that is germane to this and can be succinct, I would be delighted to hear it.

Mr Harris: In the spirit of Christmas and having two-two-two comment on this, I will be very brief.

Mr Speaker, I thought, and perhaps I am wrong, that you were going to take under advisement whether or not the matter raised was a point of order. I would respect that. I thought the arguments that were put forward by the member for St George-St David were very cogent, if in fact it was a point of order. I would suggest that any debate now should be on whether it is a point or order or not. Once you have ruled that it is a point of order, then we can all have our cracks at whether it is a valid point. I would suggest we reserve that debate for tomorrow.

The Speaker: Stay tuned for tomorrow.

PETITION

WETLANDS

Mr Mahoney: I wish to table these petitions that are signed by 625 constituents of Mississauga West requesting financial assistance to preserve Mississauga's Creditview wetlands in their natural state.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates presented a report and moved its adoption.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 59(c), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the supplementary estimates therein are deemed to be concurred In.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT / COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES SOCIALES

Mrs Caplan from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

M me Caplan du comité permanent des affaires sociales présente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption :

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act, 1988;

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill 12 and Bill 13 ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi 13 devra passer à l'étape de troisième lecture.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1990

Mr Owens moved first reading of Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT, 1990

Mr Henderson moved first reading of Bill Pr15,

An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke.

Motion agreed to.

ASSESSMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Kormos, on behalf of Ms Wark-Martyn, moved first reading of Bill 36,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Assessment.

Hon Mr Kormos: I am sending the bill down to you with page Ryan Fortner from Welland, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Kormos: By way of explanation, this bill would allow the Ministry of Revenue to prepare the equalized assessments and equalization factors of municipalities and localities on a quadrennial basis. The first one would take place in 1993. However, if a municipality or locality experiences a major change in its tax base or merged area calculations are required to support county restructuring, the Ministry of Revenue shall then determine the relevant equalized assessment and equalization factor.

The Ministry of Revenue would no longer be required to carry out annual mini enumerations. Complementary amendments, of course, are going to be made to the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act and the provisions dealing with apportionment have been transferred once again, of course, from the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act to the Municipal Act.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT, 1990

Mr Harnick moved first reading of Bill Pr16,

An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK ACT, 1990

Ms S. Ward moved first reading of Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the Borough of East York.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1990

Mr Rizzo moved first reading of Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of York.

Motion agreed to.

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS' LICENSING ACT, 1990

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 37,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

Motion agreed to.

Mr McLean: The bill applies only with respect to motor boats propelled by engines of at least 25 horsepower. It prohibits the operation of such a motor boat by any person who does not have a motor boat operator's licence or by any person who has not completed a motor boat operation course. The bill requires every person to carry a licence while operating a motor boat to which the bill applies and to produce it when required to do so by a police officer. If unable or unwilling to produce the licence, the motor boat operator is required to give the police officer his or her correct name and address.

The bill creates the offences of careless operation of a motor boat and impaired operation of a motor boat. A person who contravenes any of the provisions of the bill or certain regulations made under the bill is liable to a fine not to exceed $1,000, and in some cases to have his or her motor boat operator's licence suspended or revoked.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Callahan moved first reading of Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Callahan: The purpose of this bill is to give a discretion to municipal councils when a rezoning has been granted in the event that development does not proceed within a specified period of time, and if good reason is not given for that, they may consider revoking the rezoning.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 15,

An Act respecting Land on Manitoulin Island, Barrie Island and Cockburn Island;

Bill 16,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and certain other Acts related to Municipal Elections.

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Laughren moved resolution 8:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing 1 January 1991 and ending 30 April 1991, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon Mr Laughren: The amount that is dealt with here is approximately $14 billion.

Mr Conway: I would like to take a few moments this afternoon to participate in the interim supply motion. I will not be long; I hope to be no more than 20 or 30 minutes. I know that my friend opposite has memories of interim supply debates that took infinitely longer than I expect this one will take this afternoon.

As the old and returning members certainly will want to share with new members, this supply motion is always a very appropriate time for individual members to raise matters, as I said the other day, in the tradition of the old maxim of British parliamentary government: no supply without redress of grievances.

I might just start by observing something in connection with what the Treasurer indicated. I did not hear him, but was it $14 billion? Was that the amount? The motion reads in part, to authorize "the Treasurer to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments."

It reminded me of a discussion earlier this afternoon about the expenditures, particularly on the expense side, of certain individuals within the public service. I noticed that the leader of the government was anxious, and I thought quite rightly so, to perhaps point a finger elsewhere.

I would just begin my remarks today by encouraging the member for Nickel Belt to do as good a job as he can and better than perhaps some of his predecessors did in constraining the enthusiasm of some people within the public service, both the elected and the professional public service, when it comes to the expenditure of public dollars.

I think back to some efforts I undertook around the cabinet table in five years. I think of a couple of spectacular failures that blot my copybook in a way that will embarrass me all the days of my life, and I would encourage the Treasurer to succeed where I failed. If he wants a few specifics, I will be happy to share those with him in the privacy of another place.

I would not want to prejudice any particular individual but, listening to some of the discussions around this place over 15 years, I am always struck by how elected officials are at least held to account for what they do and do not do; some of what we have done is not always easy to explain and some of it is downright stupid, and I have done some stupid things on occasion.

By and large, our public service in this province is an extremely good and professional one, and I would not want to be misunderstood in this respect, but I can think of cases where the spending is so spectacular and so persistent, some of it in the name of -- I will not say what, because I will give away my case, but I think my friend the member for Nickel Belt knows whereof I speak. As I will vote to give him the authority to pay these accounts in the amount of $14 billion, I encourage him to do the very best job he can do in that connection.

I have just a few things to mention, some of which are old saws. Gasoline prices, I want to say again, and home heating prices are a matter of growing concern to the residents of Renfrew county, whose honour it is -- whom I represent --

An hon member: Whose honour is it?

Interjections.

Mr Conway: No. I am afraid that is not what I wanted to say.

An hon member: Whom we are honoured to serve.

Mr Conway: I want to say to my friend the Treasurer that people in my part of Ontario, and I suspect people in his part of Ontario, are mad about gasoline prices and about home heating prices. At home this weekend I was hearing from more than a few people who had a visit from the oil truck, which outside of wood is really the only alternative they have. They are upset about the year-over-year inflation they are experiencing; it is double-digit. It is outrageous, in some cases, what they are paying.

I happen to live in the city of Pembroke where we have the natural gas option, and that for purposes of space heating is a very attractive one, but in rural eastern Ontario and throughout much of northern Ontario people are upset about what they believe to be unacceptably high levels of gasoline and home heating costs. Statistics Canada, I think, reported the other day that the year-over-year -- November 1990 over November 1989 -- increased costs on that account are running at 25%.

The Treasurer need not be told about the inflationary push of that. I know he would have read in the December edition of Sudbury Business an

article in which the editor makes very clear what the expectations are in the editorial rooms of that august northern journal and what the views of the constituents of the Sudbury basin are reported to be. I know we can expect that the Treasurer and his friend the Minister of Mines are going to do what they said they would do about moderating the prices of gasoline and home heating fuels, the costs of which are skyrocketing and the result of which is an intolerable inflation to people in eastern, northern and rural Ontario everywhere this winter when, God knows, there are a whole host of other pressures that make life difficult enough.

Enough said on that. I know I for one will be watching this account over the coming weeks and months, and I will say again that on this lifetime commitment of the northern New Democratic Party, I will expect some action beyond what the very nice member for Peterborough has had to say, which I am sure they will not want anyone repeating north of Barrie and which I promise not to repeat north of Barrie for at least the next two weeks.

In a related area, in my part of Ontario, Highway 17 has been slated for a substantial upgrade. The predecessor government indicated that while it would not be able to accede to the request of many in the community for four-laning between Ottawa and Pembroke, it was committed by the previous government that there would be four-laning of that major highway through eastern Ontario, running westward out of the national capital, to Arnprior by 1996-97.

There has been a concern in the community -- one that was expressed to me at a meeting of municipal leaders in Arnprior just a few weeks ago -- as to whether or not that commitment of the previous government would be kept. I simply wanted to convey to the Treasurer the hope and the expectation that his government will move forward with expedition and with effect over the coming weeks and months to begin to fulfil the minimum commitment of the predecessor government. There is some expectation that in fact it might even be enriched by the New Democratic Party in government.

In my part of the province, we have very limited public transit, I believe we do not have any passenger rail to speak of, there are not things like OC Transpo and there is no publicly subsidized Gray Coach. We have very few options. Our highway system is absolutely critical, both for commerce and for individual transport. The people of Renfrew county are very much hoping and expecting that the commitment to four-lane Highway 17 at least to Arnprior will be kept. I simply convey that request to my friend the Treasurer.

In talking to farmers in eastern Ontario recently, what happened in Brussels a very few days ago is very much on the minds of farmers in Renfrew county. I know the very esteemed member for Hastings-Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, is very aware of this. But I cannot do justice to the concern of people in the dairy industry, for example, where they see and feel the results of the uncertainty and the instability in these matters of international trade where in recent times we have seen the industrial milk quota halved in its value.

The Treasurer will know only too well that there are great issues and grave concerns which attach to the failure of the talks at Brussels. I see that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has indicated he is going to be trying to arrange a meeting of ministers at the provincial and federal levels early in the new year. I would certainly encourage the government to proceed with that.

It is strange to me that so many people in the Legislature and outside do not seem to understand the gravity of the issues at risk in the Uruguay round of talks. The impacts are potentially devastating and rather immediate. We do not have a great deal of time. Certainly on behalf of the farm community in Renfrew county, I implore the Treasurer, together with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food and others in the executive council to take every step necessary to protect the interests of the province of Ontario in these matters, which I suspect are going to be well advanced by the time we reconvene here around Easter.

In another area of local and regional interest, I simply want to draw the Treasurer's attention to the growing concern in municipalities in eastern Ontario about social assistance costs.

I do not intend to take a great deal of time on that this afternoon, but I do want to reiterate a point I made earlier, and that is that in my discussions with mayors and reeves and clerk-treasurers and welfare administrators across the county of Renfrew and throughout much of eastern Ontario, there is alarm, increased alarm, about the dramatic, almost exponential growth in the case load of their municipalities in social assistance and of course the consequent cost to the municipalities -- that is, their 20% share in most cases, I believe, and perhaps all cases in my part of the province -- of the total social assistance cost at the local level.

I was looking at an

article in the Renfrew Mercury of late October and saw, for example, that in the town of Renfrew, a community which has been hard hit in recent months by layoffs and shutdowns, that the local share in 1987 was $240,000. In 1990 that local share is expected to rise to $330,000. That is an increase of $90,000 in just three years. I do not know what the percentage works out to be, but it is very, very substantial.

In another community in the county, I know that in Bromley township, which is almost entirely rural, that township spent $9,800 in 1980 in support of its share of social assistance. According to these data, the local share in 1990 is not going to be $9,800 but possibly around $32,000. That is roughly a three-and-a-half-times increase. What that does to the local tax burden in a rural township, I do not need to tell honourable members, but it produces a whopping increase in terms of the local share, as my honourable friend from Moose Creek would know better than certainly most of us and probably better than myself.

A three-and-a-half-times increase in the local share of the social assistance account in a rural municipality in a decade is a trend that I think we have to be concerned about. I do not suggest we roll back the reforms, far from it, but I think we have to understand what the provincially initiated reforms actually involve.

For example, in talking to Les Parker, who is the welfare administrator for this municipality, he told me while I was in government that he felt that many in Toronto, and certainly in the senior bureaucracy of the Legislative Assembly, simply did not understand what the implications over time of the SARC implementation were going to be. We all as one voice sang Te Deums of praise to SARC, and I certainly do not intend to retreat from that now.

As I said to my friend the Treasurer the other day in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, I would be interested to know, not now but at an appropriate time, what the best estimate of the Ontario Ministry of Treasury and Economics is of the full annualized cost of phase 1 implementation of the SARC reform. I know it is being prepared. My guess is that it will be substantially higher than a certain department suggested to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics a few years ago. There is nothing new in that.

But I think we are going to have to be honest with ourselves, and more especially we are going to have to be honest with municipalities, in talking about the real cost of reforms such as this, which are universally applauded.

When the tax bills are sent out in the next little while and people start to see what the costs are going to be, I know that while everyone will expect that all politicians, local, provincial and national, are going to be animated by the higher instincts of social justice, there is going to be a real expectation that the kind of local impact that I can report from rural municipalities in Renfrew will be ameliorated to a very substantial extent by senior government because if it is not done, there is going to be a reaction at the local level that is perhaps going to set back many of the reforms in the name of social justice that I think we all want to see accomplished.

Again on a matter of health policy, I just want to make a couple of observations. On Friday, when I was driving through Pembroke to Eganville, I heard the Treasurer commenting on his meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association. I would want him to know that in the quiet of my car as the sun washed across the windshield, I smiled benignly at what the radio was purporting my friend the member for Nickel Belt as saying to the press upon the completion of his meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association.

I do not want to make too much of this except to say we have all said, and my friends on the Treasury bench perhaps more eloquently and more passionately than anyone else, that the way in which we treat nurses professionally and the way in which we pay nurses must change in this province. I agree. I will accept some criticism that perhaps we did not do as much in our