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

April 29, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): As you know, Mr Speaker, and as members will be aware, this week is National Consumers Week. Two years ago my colleague Gregory Sorbara released a draft bill creating a new consumer and business practices code. This bill was designed to protect vulnerable consumers in all transactions. This government, for all its talk, has allowed this bill to gather dust for the last two years.

If the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and now of casino gambling, believes this task is too overwhelming for her to tackle all at once, perhaps she will be able to begin by looking into an apparent discrepancy in the way credit charges are calculated in Ontario as compared to other provinces. A number of my constituents have brought this matter to my attention.

In Ontario, unless the entire amount of the credit is paid, interest is calculated on the full amount owed. It appears that in at least one other province the consumer is only charged interest on the remaining balance. For the average working person in this province in these tough economic times, the difference could be quite significant. Will the minister responsible undertake to look into this and will she then take some action to help the consumer for a change?

RESONANCE LTD

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today on a positive note to inform my colleagues and citizens across Ontario of a great business success story in my riding of Simcoe West. Like most success stories, Resonance Ltd has made its mark in the space industry with a tremendous amount of struggle and through the uncommon dedication of its eight employees. Owned and operated by Bill and Molly Morrow, Resonance Ltd has become recognized around the world for its innovative contributions to the space industry.

In the past five years, Resonance Ltd has played a key role in assisting almost every major US space project. Its technological instruments have contributed to the Star Wars strategic defence initiative, to the multibillion-dollar space station which is slated to be launched later this decade and to the Hubble telescope recovery plan.

Resonance Ltd has received high praise for the lamps it sold to US jet propulsion laboratories. These light sources will assist the Hubble telescope to snap pictures and to take a breathtaking look back at the beginning of our universe. Resonance Ltd is also aiding Japan's efforts to enter the space race by providing high-tech equipment for three recent Japanese rocket launches.

I know that all members share my enthusiasm and pride for the extraordinary work being done by Resonance Ltd in Alliston. Through hard work and commitment, Bill and Molly Morrow have put Alliston on the space technology map and have provided this country with a blueprint for high-tech research and development success.

CONTROL OF COSTS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise with a statement in regard to some of the things that have been happening within the riding of Cochrane South in regard to the building of partnerships. As you know, one of the main thrusts of this government is to bring partners together from various issues in regard to dealing with the hard times that we face today. It's been a long trudge, I would say. We have had to bring together workers within various institutions across the riding as well as people within management who quite frankly up until now have not had to sit down together to really try to work at some of the problems and try to find some practical solutions.

I am pleased to say that within the hospital sector, Bingham Memorial started the year with a fairly significant deficit for that size of hospital. But through the partnerships that were created by the leadership of both the union in that particular institution and the hospital itself, and the care and compassion, I think, of the people within those institutions to make the system work, they managed to bring down the deficit considerably and actually to bring in a balanced budget for next year. I should say that was all done without any job loss.

I can also report to the House that one of the school boards in my riding as well has gone through the same process, and through the building of partnerships and of cost-control committees was able to find $660,000 worth of savings within its budget, which meant they didn't have to go and hack and slash within the system the people who are necessary for delivering the education necessary to the students inside the system.

I think that partnerships are important. They are often difficult to foster because the big problem is often that people are always resistant to change. But when they see that the system does work, that change is possible, they do respond.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : The French Language Services Act was unanimously passed by this House in 1986. The act guarantees francophones the right to receive provincial government services in French in designated areas of this province. Recently, as a result of the act, French-language highway signs have begun to appear in sections of provincial highways within designated areas. The signs have not been well received. This saddens me.

Je voudrais mettre cette situation en perspective. Aujourd'hui, notre pays fait face à une énorme crise constitutionnelle. L'avenir du pays est en question. Ne vaudrait-il pas mieux concentrer tous nos efforts et toutes nos énergies à renouveler le fédéralisme au lieu de critiquer l'apparition des panneaux de circulation ? Ces critiques n'ajoutent absolument rien aux discussions sur l'avenir du Canada. Plutôt, ils détruisent le sentiment de coopération qui est essentiel en ce moment.

Après tout, qu'est-ce qu'un panneau de circulation lorsque la désintégration de ce pays est en jeu ?

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES CENTRE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the closing of the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital Community Health Services Centre at Mohawk Gardens Public School in my riding.

The Mohawk centre has been considered a pioneer in community-based health care. The 10-year-old outpatient clinic provides occupational therapy and physiotherapy in a program for hundreds of patients. Except for this program, most of the people would otherwise be in a hospital.

At a time when we are moving to a more community-based health care system, this government is closing community-based rehabilitation centres like Mohawk. Cuts are being made on an ad hoc basis out of fiscal necessity. Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital was forced to make this decision to discontinue the program because of provincial funding cutbacks.

What is desperately needed is a long-term plan to ensure universal access for all of the people of Burlington and Ontario. I call on the Minister of Health to initiate such a plan, and I further call on the minister to meet with the Committee to Save Mohawk Rehabilitation Centre and to find a solution that will provide for the needs of people who depend so much on the programs available at Mohawk Gardens rehabilitation centre.

VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): For the past six years, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, with the assistance of Volunteer Ontario, has been honouring volunteers, part of the backbone of the social services agencies right across this province, with the Community Service Awards.

I am pleased to announce on behalf of the minister, the Honourable Marion Boyd, that beginning this year the minister will also recognize young people, 21 years of age and under, who have been nominated by their peers for their outstanding community services. This is a new award for youth community service.

Traditionally, each year one person is selected from the community service recipients to receive the minister's Volunteer of the Year award. This year that list has been extended to include the recipients of the Youth Community Service Award.

I am delighted to be able to introduce the Volunteer of the Year for 1991, Toula Kourgiantakis. Toula represents all those selfless volunteers, young and old, who work tirelessly and are committed to improving the quality of life for themselves and for others in the community, regardless of the time commitment for themselves.

Toula is truly an amazing young person. She's just completed her honours bachelor's degree at York University and is currently working on her master's in child psychology. She's paying her own way by having two part-time jobs. The amazing part of this is that she performs no fewer than six volunteer roles with child and family services in York region.

For the past two years, Toula has been a leader of two evening children's activity groups. She's a special friend and role model to a little 12-year-old girl who has suffered abuse. As a volunteer escort, Toula has in her spare time driven children to appointments whenever needed.

ÉCOLE SECONDAIRE PUBLIQUE CHARLEBOIS

M. Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa-Sud) : J'ai rencontré des représentants de l'Union des parents de l'école secondaire publique Charlebois, soit le groupe de parents représentant l'école secondaire Charlebois qui est située dans ma circonscription d'Ottawa-Sud.

Charlebois est considérée par plusieurs comme le joyau des écoles secondaires francophones en Ontario. Les programmes et l'équipement spécialisé qu'elle met à la disposition de ses élèves sont des modèles du genre. Un grand nombre de ses programmes et une grande

partie de son équipement ont été obtenus grâce aux efforts assidus des parents.

Mes commettants étaient naturellement fort déçus d'apprendre la disparition de leur école secondaire et ils veulent à tout prix que le ministre de l'Éducation leur fournisse l'assurance qu'eux-mêmes et leurs enfants ne seront en aucune façon désavantagés suite au déménagement de leur école.

L'Union des parents de l'école secondaire publique Charlebois est, on le comprend très bien, très préoccupée à propos de l'avenir de l'école Charlebois. Je tiens à ce que cette transition d'un édifice à un autre, transition qui a été imposée aux étudiants, aux parents et au personnel de l'école Charlebois, se fasse de manière adéquate.

J'accorde mon appui entier à l'Union des parents de l'école secondaire Charlebois et je demande au ministre de l'Éducation de faire de même.

TAXATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Many of my constituents in York Mills, like so many communities, are hurting with the effects of this recession. They are suffering from job loss or reduced income, and they do not have extra money to pay higher taxes.

Ontario is already the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America, and the latest budgets, with the accompanying tax increases from the three levels of local government, only compound the problem.

The whole government bureaucracy is continuing to grow, health and welfare costs are spiralling, and the debt charges on last year's record deficit continue to cost valuable tax dollars. Unfortunately there's only one source of money: the pockets of the taxpayer. Many of my constituents are frightened; they have no more capacity to absorb tax increases and are near the breaking point. New taxes will mean real hardship for many families in York Mills. That's not fair or right. Taxpayers cannot continue to fund the orgy of spending that governments are in.

All governments must have the courage to control their spending and cut back. Tax cuts, not tax increases, are the only way to stimulate the economy and assist those hurt by the recession. Treasurer, stop squeezing my constituents, resist the easy way of increasing taxes and instead control your runaway spending habits.

MASTICO INDUSTRIES LTD

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It is with pleasure today that I rise to inform the House that last Friday, with my colleague the member for Norfolk, I was able to make a presentation to a local industry on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment. A local company, an auto parts supplier, Mastico Industries Ltd, was awarded a grant of approximately $370,000 under the waste diversion program. Up until this point Mastico has been the number one producer of garbage in the riding of Oxford. Through this grant they will be developing technology so that they can continue to recycle the products they use.

Currently they already use excess fibres from the textile industry in the production of their sound-deadening parts to go in automobile mini-vans.

Mastico has been a very successful company. It has contracts with all the major North American auto industries and Japanese companies. Through this grant and the development of this technology they will be supporting government initiatives in terms of green industries. This will help make the company more competitive. There may even be some technology that will be developed that the company will be able to export. I know my colleague the member for Norfolk and myself see this as another prime example as to how the government is working with industry to make it more competitive and building new industries, greener industries.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might have unanimous consent to make a statement about Holocaust Memorial Day.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Tonight at sundown, Jews around the world will be lighting memorial candles to observe Holocaust Memorial Day. I might tell you that I stand often in this Legislature, generally without being nervous, without being concerned. But this is a statement that I find very difficult to make. I tell you that because I and my family were not Holocaust survivors: I wasn't born during the period of the Holocaust; my ancestors, my family, were in Canada and safe. It's almost impossible for me to adequately express the fact that six million Jews were annihilated from virtually every town, village and city in eastern Europe.

The reason that I feel compelled to stand here today is because I'm among friends. In spite of our political differences I'm among what I consider to be the community leaders in Ontario. It's because of this that I want to convey the message that we must never forget. I want to convey to all of my friends the significance of tonight and tomorrow. I want you, as friends, to go back and convey some of my thoughts to the people in your communities.

The themes of this day are considerable. One of them is the importance of having the memory of the Holocaust written and recorded and to remember we're coming to the end of a generation, a very small number of people, who are true survivors, who were there and who survived. It's going to be very difficult to convey to future generations what happened in eastern Europe during the Second World War.

The other theme I wish to touch on is the idea of forgiving. It's a terrible dilemma when you feel you can't forgive, because if we forgive what happened, in all likelihood we're going to forget. If we forgive, we'll start to overlook things in our own country we recognize we must stop: the spread of hate literature, defaming remarks written on the side of a synagogue, or even the fact that we might have teachers who spread that kind of gospel and are teaching our children. So as much as I'd like to forgive, I don't believe I can.

The other and final comment I wish to make is that out of the ashes of eastern Europe the State of Israel was born. The State of Israel really in many respects represents the conclusion and maybe the rebirth of the Jewish people. I think we all recognize the importance of the State of Israel. We all recognize what that state stands for, and sometimes we're apt to be critical of the policies of that country that we may not like when we read them because they're in the Toronto Star or in the Globe and Mail or because there's a bad editorial, an editorial that is critical of that state.

But I think when we read and hear those kinds of things we have to remember why the State of Israel exists and what that state stands for and that out of the ashes of eastern Europe there is something positive for the Jewish people.

That is why I rise today, and I tell all members that I will be at the Holocaust memorial, which incidentally is located in my riding, tomorrow for a memorial service at 10:30. I invite any members who are interested to join me there.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I stand on behalf of the government of Ontario and share with my colleagues across the floor the fact that we are among friends and among people who want to share in this particular day. This evening is a very significant day: Yom Hashoah. Just for some of the members in this House, because we often do not recall the history of why these days are so significant and important, I would just like to make a few comments about this particular day.

It was on April 30 in 1943 that the Jewish citizens in the Warsaw ghetto, although they were sick and they were starving and they were certainly beleaguered and had very little hope, stood up against their Nazi oppressors, and for 42 days they stood their place. They fought and they tried: They tried to protect themselves and to not face what was going to eventually happen. Unfortunately history reminds us that they did not win their day and they were gathered up and most of them were sent to Treblinka.

But they showed us a strength, a heroism, a sort of bravery many of us probably will never understand because, as my honourable colleague said, we did not face that type of oppression here in Canada. We can only try to feel and think how they must have felt and the experience they were going through.

There was a little girl who wrote a poem, a young Jewish girl, when she was imprisoned in the ghetto, and I'd just like to read this poem to you because when I read it I really felt, and I think all of us will here as well. Her name was Franta Bass, and she wrote:

"A little garden,

Fragrant and full of roses.

The path is narrow

And a little boy walks along it.

A little boy, a sweet boy,

Like that growing blossom.

When the blossom comes to bloom,

The little boy will be no more."

It's hard to imagine how that little girl must have felt, and if we can put ourselves in that place it must have been very difficult for all of the people there.

We must learn by our history. We must learn by what has happened and the events. Today we often see hate literature; we see people espousing words and phrases that have no place in this Ontario. In our Ontario we want to have a place where we live harmoniously and we are all treated equally and fairly. I think all of us in this House must share that responsibility, and I know, in speaking to my colleagues, we do. We do share that responsibility, but we must make sure we end all forms of racism and all forms of discrimination so that events like this never recur, that they never, ever happen again to any peoples.

We must not let people who do have hatred and forms of hatred keep on expressing that hatred. I know you all share with me, and we all share together, that responsibility, and as leaders in our community we must go out, as my colleague said, and make sure we end any form of racism or discrimination.

There's always a phrase that is used at this point in time when we talk about these situations, and it's a very simple phrase: Never again. I hope we will all take that message: that never again will we see this form of holocaust or see this ever, ever again happen anywhere in the world.

Tomorrow I will be travelling to Ottawa to open up the Anne Frank exhibit that is being hosted in the Canadian War Museum, and I hope that in this space of time all my colleagues will get an opportunity to visit that exhibit. I know it will be a very emotional evening, and I know we will all feel very sad. However, we must keep remembering; we must not let these memories pass so that again this will happen. I know we all will go forth into our ridings and share these sentiments with all of our friends and all of our colleagues and all of our constituents. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share the remarks of our government.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): As I did last year, I rise today to add my comments to a memorial that has a worldwide interest and concern. Last year, you'll remember, I talked about Babi Yar, a small park outside of Kiev where hundreds of thousands of Jews and non-Jews were herded and told they were going to be moved to safe quarters and instead were slaughtered and buried on that spot. This year we are commemorating the 50th anniversary of Babi Yar. As has already been mentioned, this is the 49th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, where thousands of Jews lasted for 42 days before they were annihilated.

We have a situation where, unfortunately, people are questioning the Holocaust. People are saying: "Why pursue these people who are responsible? That is ancient history. It's no longer of any concern to us."

I just returned yesterday from the Soviet Union, and it was quite interesting because there's a case there where the newspapers were talking about someone who was responsible for the most atrocious actions, and there were comments in the paper: "Why are we tormenting these old people? Why are we pursuing these people? That's gone, it's forgotten. Forget about it. Let's have a new slate. Let us be concerned about what is happening, not what has been."

There have been people through this terrible period in our history, people like Raoul Wallenberg, a non-Jew who went out of his way to try and save as many of the Jewish people as he could. He has been honoured by Canada. He is the only honorary citizen Canada has ever made. All of us have heard the story of Anne Frank and the family that kept her and her family safe until unfortunately she too was discovered and executed. These are stories of a total culture, a total people. It wasn't just Jews. There were six million Jews, but there were millions of other people annihilated in the same way.

So the message will come every year. It is known as Yom Hashoah. It is the message the Jews will always remember so that the world will never forget.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION REFORM

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): It's quite humbling to stand and make a statement after the comments made by my colleagues on the occasion of this day.

I would like to inform members today of steps I am taking to direct the reform and restructuring of education in Ontario. Our government's speech from the throne pointed to education reform as an important part of the government's plans to invest in our province's greatest strength, our people.

Education reform means significant improvements in what we teach and how we teach. It means reshaping our education system so we can meet the needs of all our young people and prepare them to meet the challenges of a diverse society, a changing economy and an interdependent world. It means moving towards more cooperative and cost-effective approaches to the delivery of education programs and services.

Education reform proceeds from this government's commitment to excellence, equity, accountability and partnership. The issue now is how to channel all of the initiatives under discussion into a concrete and coherent plan of action that will include reform to school funding, programs and governance.

I wish to inform members that I'm establishing a minister's advisory group on education finance reform. This group will be made up of representatives from each of the four school board trustee organizations in Ontario, along with representation from the teachers' federations and support staff unions. I'm pleased that Tony Martin, the member for Sault Ste Marie and my parliamentary assistant, will also serve on this group.

As chair of this advisory group I will be directly involved in its work. I will ask its members to work with me to establish, by September 1993, a new system of funding education in Ontario. Education finance reform will proceed in step with the work of the Fair Tax Commission and the review of municipal and provincial responsibilities.

A new approach to school funding is a critical component of change in the education sector. The current system, designed in the late 1960s, is losing its ability to meet the education needs of learners and to support the kinds of education programs and services we need in the fast-changing world of the 1990s. We need a new system that is fair to local taxpayers and to students.

As well, the school funding system must encourage more cooperative and cost-effective approaches to delivering education programs and services, an objective we are already promoting through the $50.2 million in transition assistance funding I announced last week.

The reform of school funding will be coordinated with the ongoing reform of education programs, so I am setting in place a process to accelerate and focus program reform in Ontario. Within the next four months we will bring our current program initiatives together in a comprehensive package of reforms.

Over the last five years there has been extensive and productive discussion of changes to the program in Ontario schools. It is now time for the ministry to focus on action, to take the directions and expectations we have developed and translate these into realities throughout our school system according to reasonable timetables for implementation.

We will build on the foundation of four principles: excellence, equity, accountability and partnership. Excellence means a new commitment to the highest possible achievement in literacy and numeracy for all of our students. It means a commitment to helping students develop analytical and critical skills that prepare them for a life of learning, genuine and responsible citizenship and full participation in our society and economy.

Equity means a commitment to social justice. It means we must build a system that is sensitive to and better reflects the ethnocultural and multiracial diversity of our society. It will also be a system free of barriers raised on the basis of gender or socioeconomic level. The destreaming of grade 9 in 1993 and the mandating of junior kindergarten programs in 1994 are policies that reflect this commitment to equity for every student. We are also committed to integrating more students with special needs into local community classrooms and schools in 1993.

Accountability means that we can show how effectively our school system is meeting these goals of excellence and equity. We need to describe clearly the appropriate levels of achievement for students throughout our school system and to demonstrate publicly how well our students are doing. To do this, we are already developing provincial benchmarks for implementation this year to provide province-wide standards in critical areas of learning.

Partnership means recognizing the shared responsibility for education in Ontario. This government fully realizes the importance of the role local school boards and schools play in realizing our common commitment to excellence and equity. However, it is only when parents and students, teachers, other school board staff, trustees and administrators can work together with a common understanding and purpose that genuine change can come about.

Throughout this process we will continue to seek advice from the wider Ontario education community. Consultation and discussion with educators have led to a commitment by the ministry to provide resources for training teachers who are involved in the restructuring of grades 7, 8 and 9, the transition years. These professional development programs will be determined in consultation with the federations and school boards.

In another important area, I have indicated that the ministry will work with boards that put forward serious alternative proposals on junior kindergarten that meet community needs, as we are currently doing with the Grey County Board of Education.

As we look at education finance reform and program reform, questions will arise about the way in which our school systems are governed and administered. The government is committed to the autonomy and rights of Roman Catholic separate school boards and to the initiatives under way for the first nations communities and French-language education governance in Ontario.

At the same time the financial pressures on school boards clearly show that it is time to begin discussion about what school boards must do on their own and what activities school boards can share in order to reduce duplication of overhead and other costs.

It is important that issues of governance be addressed. I am particularly concerned that we take steps to enhance the role of parents and students in making decisions about education.

I want to inform members that the Ministry of Education will be conducting an internal review regarding its relationship with school boards. We will examine whether the present levels of shared responsibility will continue to serve the needs of an education system that is being reshaped and revitalized, both in its program and its finances. For example, we will examine the ministry's role in the development of curriculum and how we share our responsibility for providing professional development for teachers.

How the ministry works with school boards in different parts of the province through its regional offices is also important. We have made already significant strides with the northern education project. This project has involved in-depth discussions with every school board in northern Ontario. It is giving us an overview of education programs and services in the north such as we've never had before.

Education finance reform, program reform and the review of the ministry's relationship to school boards will be linked and coordinated through a common focus on excellence, equity and the needs of each student. Over the next several months we will be occupying ourselves with these three main areas of work, which go to the heart of preparing our young people for the world of tomorrow.

RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I certainly find the statement of the minister very interesting, if somewhat confusing. But I would like to say that there are things in it that I hope he will keep as his ideals. I'm very happy that he's going to chair the committee himself. The ideals I refer to are the multiracial sensitivity that he's talking about, a system that's free of barriers, that he is going to integrate more students and that he will continue to seek advice from the wider Ontario educational community.

I'm particularly happy that the government is committed to the autonomy and rights of Roman Catholic separate schools and is reiterating that today, and to the initiatives it has undertaken for the first nations and French-language education governance in this province. All of those things I think are very important, and I hope the commitment that is stated today will follow. It is important that issues of governance be addressed, and parents and students be involved in the decisions of education, and the minister has made a commitment to that.

I want to bring to the attention of the House an open letter the minister received on March 24, 1992, from Paula Dunning, the president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. She says school boards are receiving little assistance from the Ministry of Education and see a deterioration in provincial-local relations. Hopefully today there is some small move. I'd like to quote from that letter:

"We begin by noting that in the past, boards of education and the provincial trustee associations have been provided with an overview of the grant program, funding allocations, provincial policy decisions and change, and background material on the GLG program. Because this was not provided at this year's briefing, the full implications of your announcements are only now becoming obvious as boards apply the formula to their budget processes.

"School boards are now living with the realities of restraint (1% transfer payments). Perhaps it is time the minister woke up to the realities as well," Ms Dunning states. Perhaps, I add, it's time the minister began to cooperate and live by his own principles.

The minister is quoted in the Toronto Star of March 13, 1992, as saying, "Details of an advisory committee to recommend these changes" -- the changes he was talking about that morning -- "will be announced in a few weeks." So I ask, have the changes already been determined? Have all the decisions been made? Are we going to go from a tax-supported system that depends on property tax to an income tax? Are we moving to 60% support for education as the NDP always promised, or is it 60% of what? Are we going to have a change to further assessment equalization factors? This time I hope there'll be some consultation.

A focus on action must ensure that all players have input. Let's not forget the parents and students in the process.

I want to bring to the attention of the House that the reason I'm so confused is that we have a tax commission which has a property tax working group. It's report is due in the fall of 1992. The previous Minister of Education said she would be looking forward to those recommendations as her basis for education funding reform. In that working group we have 40 people in this province who have hundreds of years of cumulative experience in this area, and now we have another advisory group being placed.

We also have this wonderful document, an all-party report, which has hardly been touched by this government. The property tax commission is examining tax bases, equalization property, assessment, and its report is due in June, but two months from now. They are going to circulate that through the summer, a difficult time for educational groups it's sure, and now we have a complementary, or should I say conflicting, advisory process.

I'm hopeful the minister will abide by his commitment today that all members of the education community will be involved and that all 170 school boards and their ratepayers will be given sufficient and significant time to express their views.

In the end, will we have a better education system? Will it be more accountable? Will the financing be simplified? Will property tax still have to bear the burden?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I think the minister should know there are members of our caucus who think his tie is much more interesting than his statement today. Most of this is not news.

I should say we do agree, Minister, that this province does need a new education funding formula. We'll hold you to your promise of introducing one by 1993, as you've stated in the statement today.

The general legislative grant formula is the most complicated and archaic grant mechanism in the province. All you have to do is talk to Metro, which does not understand. The taxpayers in Metropolitan Toronto have no idea why they don't get a penny of provincial funding to educate students in their school system.

Every year the school boards receive a 100-page document, the general legislative grant document, and every year the local property taxpayer ends up paying more of the total cost of education. In this province this year, Mr Minister, I know you're very much aware that it will be almost $8 billion local tax dollars out of the $14-billion budget expenditure.

You know as well as I do that we're not sure this is the best way to go. We now have a minister's advisory committee, we have the Fair Tax Commission, we have the disentanglement project, but if you can coordinate all these people I'll congratulate you in advance, Mr Minister.

We should remember that in 1985 we had the Macdonald commission, in 1987 we had the third report of the select committee on education, and still the former government did not introduce tax reform. They simply tinkered with the existing formula.

I suppose the big question from the school boards today would be, why will you not place a moratorium on all the new programs until the new funding formula is in place? How can you ask school boards to introduce new programs when you're looking at a funding formula?

You should also know, Mr Minister, that your bottom line, and I'm wondering if it will be the direction to the committee -- I don't really want to read your statement in the Agenda for People, the 60% solution, because I don't want to raise expectations, but it was a promise. Perhaps that could be part of the mandate if you can do it without raising taxes, because you also said you weren't going to do that.

Mr Minister, I think you should notice the headline in today's final edition of the Toronto Star: "Illiterate Kids Pouring Out of Schools -- Study." We don't need another study; what we need is some action, and you've got a lot of good information.

With regard to the program aspect of this announcement today, in bold type we see "Equity," "Accountability" and "Partnership," and at the same time you're saying you want more input from parents. I might advise you, Mr Minister, that at this time you need someone outside the education community on your advisory committee. How about people from the business community? How about parents? Maybe someone from labour, but certainly the educators themselves are not the only people with the expertise to solve the problem, so take a look at broadening that committee and still getting your work done at the same time.

In the area of program, if you really care about listening to parents, don't legislate junior kindergarten; they don't want it. School boards have told you, and they represent the public.

I should say while the Minister of Community and Social Services is here that we're still looking for a solution to early childhood education. Whether that be one of child care or of education, it's never been discussed. We do not have public consultation, but if the public consultation process were on that issue right now, we could support it.

Is the government saying, by the initiatives under way for the first nations, that we will now go from four school boards to six school boards, Mr Minister? I surely hope not. We're definitely overregulated -- too much bureaucracy in education. I'd like to know what the role of the regional office is as well. I hope you're going to cut down all the levels of bureaucracy. When the first persons in the classroom are the child and the teacher, where are we talking about kids? Let's get it done. We look forward to it.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Today's announcement simply raises the question, who pays for what programs? And tomorrow we're going to get the answers. The fact is, Minister, that you're throwing around words like "equity" and "consultation." Let me put it to you in perspective. If you want to talk equity, half the children in this province don't have access to junior kindergarten.

In Halton region, if you have the good fortune to be raised in a Catholic home, you have access to that program, but you don't if you're not. If you're going to talk consultation, ask the Minister of Community and Social Services why she hasn't had any discussions with you about day care interfacing with the programs in your junior kindergarten schools. Where's the consultation within your own government?

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before recognizing the member for Simcoe West, I would invite all members of the assembly to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a former member, a long-standing member of the House, seated in the west gallery of the members' section, Mr Jack Johnson, former member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, of which I have given you notice: I wish to deal with a matter that constitutes not only a breach of privilege, but a contempt of Parliament and a disrespect for this Legislature.

I refer to privilege as defined in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms as follows: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals."

I feel that my job and responsibility as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is to represent and serve the best interests of the people of Ontario, yet circumstances have arisen that make it difficult for me to discharge my function as a member of this House. I should like to refer you to paragraph 2 of subsection 45(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, which I paraphrase as follows: "The assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court of record for the purposes of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as contempts, the acts, matters and things following: obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate a member of the assembly."

Mr Speaker, allow me to briefly outline the details of what I consider to be a breach of my privilege as a member of this assembly. On April 21 I asked the Minister of Health a question concerning the pharmaceutical company Deprenyl Research Ltd and its co-chairman, Dr Morton Shulman. Subsequently, Dr Shulman has attempted to intimidate me into keeping silent on the important issue I raised in the Legislature.

Yesterday Dr Shulman faxed the media in my riding a letter referring to the question I had asked on April 21. Today Dr Shulman circulated to the Queen's Park press gallery that letter along with a second letter in which he attempts to explain what he has done with the profits he has made from the sale of the Parkinson's disease-fighting drug distributed in Canada by his company. Dr Shulman also sent the press gallery an altered copy of my original press release of April 21.

While at first glance it might appear that something done outside of the House is not subject to privilege, I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider the full implications of the owner of a company attempting to defame a member's character through the distribution of an altered press release and misinformation. Dr Shulman's actions are nothing more than bold-faced attempts to muzzle me simply because I asked a question in this Legislature concerning his business practices.

Intimidation is intimidation, and while we all react differently to intimidation, I suggest to you, and through you to all members, that the actions taken by Dr Shulman weigh heavily on us and truly affect our discharge of public duties.

As well, I suggest to you that this intimidation cannot go ignored, for to let it pass would only serve to inhibit members from ever asking a question concerning the business practices of a company operating in Ontario. When you silence a member, you censor the will of the people and you destroy democracy.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to consider whether I have a prima facie case of privilege in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Simcoe West, may I say first that I appreciate that the member followed the appropriate procedure in notifying the Speaker in writing in advance. He has indeed presented his situation to the Speaker quite properly. I will be most pleased to take a look at the details he's brought to my attention. I reserve judgement on it, and I will attempt to report back to the member and the House at my earliest convenience.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Treasurer. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that, in spite of all the Treasurer's concerns for the security of his budget and the $200,000 spent on Ontario Provincial Police guards to assure that the budget would remain confidential, it appears the budget details have been leaked.

But the leak is not our concern today. There were no surprises in the information. The story in the Toronto Star actually just confirmed most of Ontarians' worst fears. Our concern today is with the impact of the Treasurer's budget on the people of this province. Quite simply, the Treasurer's budget is going to mean that the people of Ontario will be paying higher taxes.

The Treasurer's budget is going to be formally presented to the House at a very inopportune time, as people are sitting down tonight filling out these forms, trying to beat their filing deadline on this year's personal income tax; and next year, with this Treasurer's budget, people filling out these forms will be paying considerably more money. Some people in fact will be paying as much as $1,100 more. That's real.

What's also real is that these higher taxes are going to kill jobs. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association estimates that for every $40,000 in increased tax revenue, one job is killed in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader place her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: I would like to ask the Treasurer if he can tell our House how many jobs his higher-tax budget will cost this province.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the question, because it allows me to put in perspective the stories that were reported in the popular press this morning in Toronto.

I think the member opposite should understand that every year at budget time there is speculation around tax moves and other actions that might be taken by the government, but I think the member opposite would appreciate as well that we have very aggressive investigative journalists in this province, and they have a job to do, but I would say to you as clearly as I can that the tabloids in this city require tough investigative journalism that I think always involves a certain element of speculation, and that's exactly what this is.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not surprised that the Treasurer felt some need to defend himself in response to the question he thought he was going to get, but that was not the question I asked the Treasurer and in fact that is not the primary concern of those of us in our caucus today. Our primary concern is with the effect this budget is going to have on people: on people who are worried about having jobs and about the economy of this province. I want to help the Treasurer focus on the questions we're asking, because a lot of people out there in this province are going to be very worried about what he brings down in that budget tomorrow.

The Treasurer used to teach economics, and surely he understands that the economy is like a big circle: If you create business and consumer confidence, you create jobs; if you create jobs, you improve incomes and profits, and then you generate more tax money and you lower the deficit.

The Treasurer, with his own knowledge of economics, is drawing his own circle, but it's going in the wrong direction and quite simply it's going to cost this province more jobs. I would ask the Treasurer to explain to this House how taking more money out of the pockets of consumers and businesses is supposed to get the Ontario economy moving again.

Hon Mr Laughren: Whenever the opposition asks me a question or demands something, I keep a little note of what it is. Over the last month or so, they've asked for no tax increases, no non-tax revenue increases, a lower budget deficit, reduced spending, more services, a smaller public service, lower taxes, more consultation and less consultation. So all I can say to the member opposite is that we --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do appreciate the fact that the leader of the official opposition has made a commitment to be in opposition not just for the sake of opposition and that she will bring forth some positive suggestions as to what should be in the budget tomorrow. We always did that when we were in opposition. I wish the leader of the official opposition would live up to her word and tell us what it is she thinks we should do vis-à-vis all those options that are in front of us.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not sure if the Treasurer just asked us to trade places or not. We're ready any time the Premier wants to give notice.

I do not come with any sense, which the Treasurer clearly has, to have to be quite so on the defensive. I'm more than prepared to defend the kinds of questions that our members have asked to hold this government accountable. I'm more than prepared to put forward our alternatives. In fact, I'm prepared to do that in my question to the Treasurer, but I want to keep focusing this question on the issue of concern we are trying to get him to address.

I'm going to bring the Treasurer back to something he might not have been aware of, and that was a message the leader of the federal NDP put out in March. The federal NDP leader suggested that any budget that accepts almost 1.5 million unemployed has to be considered a failure. The reality is that in Ontario right now there are 609,000 people who are unemployed and that higher taxes are going to mean pink slips for more Ontarians. Tens of thousands more are going to be in job lineups because of this Treasurer's budget. I would just ask the Treasurer whether he agrees with the federal NDP leader that a budget that gives us both higher taxes and higher unemployment is indeed a failure.

Hon Mr Laughren: I would say to the leader of the official opposition that a budget that doesn't make a serious attempt to address the problems of unemployment at this time would indeed be a failure. I want to assure the member opposite that the budget to be brought down tomorrow will make a serious attempt to deal with unemployment, will make a serious attempt to continue to provide the services that we think people in this province are determined to have, namely, in education, health care and other public services.

At the same time the leader of the official opposition would want us to make sure we keep the deficit in check as well. There's no question that it is a certain kind of balancing act and that we'll be judged by how fairly we accomplish that.

TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Treasurer. He will understand if we fail to be convinced. It was a year ago that the Treasurer brought out his first budget, and in that first budget he announced quite proudly that he was going to fight the recession and not the deficit, that he would try and spend his way out of recession, and it's quite clear now that this has failed. We have more people unemployed and we have, as he has just suggested, an unacceptably high deficit of some $11 billion.

We understand the kind of predicament the Treasurer is in in having to deal with the disaster of his first budget, so this year he's trying to fight his deficit by raising taxes. We believe this year's budget is also going to fall short of the mark. It's going to leave thousands and thousands of people out of work, and at the end of the day his deficit is likely to be only higher.

We don't believe it has to be that way. Most provinces have already released their budgets, most of them in the Legislature as opposed to the media, but many of those jurisdictions have already recognized that there are alternatives to the tax approach to budget-making. I would ask the Treasurer, if he's looking for alternatives, why he is insisting on taxing his way out of this recession when other jurisdictions have set a model for going in a quite different direction.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): If the leader of the official opposition would look at the budgets and what's happened to virtually all of the other jurisdictions in this country, she would see that perhaps Newfoundland was the only province that managed to achieve the deficit level it set out a year ago. It has been a recession that has hit all the country, but it has certainly hit Ontario a lot harder than any other jurisdiction.

If we had not brought forth a budget last year that maintained services, that had a substantial deficit but helped maintain essential services and jobs because of that deficit, we'd have a lot higher unemployment in the province than we do now.

I don't agree for one minute with the leader of official opposition. I know she feels she has to take the very traditional role of an opposition leader and criticize whatever it is we do on this side, but I would say to the leader of the official opposition that the budget that was brought down last year went some way to maintaining essential services that we think people want in this province.

Mrs McLeod: On this side of the House we have called for no new taxes in this budget and we have called on the government to reduce its spending, because we believe those are steps in the direction of getting the economy going again.

The Treasurer is saying, "What are the alternatives?" We're suggesting that he at least look at jurisdictions that have been looking at the alternatives, at other jurisdictions that are lowering and eliminating taxes for businesses to encourage investment and jobs, at other jurisdictions that are providing incentives for research and development and spending on new equipment, and at other jurisdictions that are lowering their gas and diesel taxes to combat cross-border shopping.

We ask the Treasurer whether he has looked at any of these alternatives, not with a view to increasing his spending and increasing his deficit, but with a view to channelling his spending to get the economy going again, to get job creation and at the end of the day to lower his deficit.

Hon Mr Laughren: I have always thought there was more of a difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives when it comes to tax measures, but I am starting to get a little worried here because the leader of the official opposition is talking about lowering taxes and cutting expenditures. She hasn't said anything yet about the deficit. I don't know whether she's saying the deficit should be higher, but if she's saying lower taxes and lower expenditures, and doesn't want any new taxes, never mind wanting them lowered, then I'm a little concerned about where's she's coming from.

Finally, I'm not sure but I think I heard the leader of the official opposition suggest we should lower cigarette taxes and gasoline taxes. I don't know what her position is in terms of the health care system and the effect of smoking on our health care costs or on the burning of gasoline vis-à-vis the environment. I'd be interested in hearing her position on those matters as well.

Mrs McLeod: I can't help but agree with the Treasurer that his government has created such a financial crisis in this province that it's very difficult to know what kind of response to make with this budget. I agree that Ontario right now is unlike any other jurisdiction in the country because of the results of the budget he brought in a year ago. That is the sad reality of today that any responsible government and any responsible politician has to be prepared to respond to.

If the Treasurer is not prepared to look at the kinds of alternatives other jurisdictions will look at, maybe I can bring him back to the kinds of things people in Ontario are saying. Maybe I can suggest he might have listened to the basic wisdom of people in the province: farmers, small business people or plant workers; the taxpayers of this province who are saying that new taxes or increased taxes are just not the way to go.

What information does this Treasurer possess that has convinced him to raise taxes when all of our farmers, manufacturers, small business people, virtually every taxpayer in this province, are saying this is not the way to go?

Hon Mr Laughren: This year through my office, my parliamentary assistant and other caucus members' assistants, we held the broadest kind of consultation leading up to this budget that's ever been held in the province of Ontario.

We really have opened up the budget process. We listened very carefully to what people had to say. What people said to us, to me, in the last two months was: "Look, we know that it's a very severe recession. We don't want you to start slashing essential services like health care, education and other public services we fought so long to get in the first place. Second, we want you to keep the deficit under control." That's what they've been telling us and finally they said: "We understand that you're going to have to raise some taxes. We understand that. Just make sure you do it as fairly as possible."

We are going to deal with the issues facing this province, not run away from them and call an election the way the party opposite did.

BUDGET SECURITY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is very direct concerning the news that has been in the newspapers very recently. My question is to the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer tell this House if there's been any breaches of confidence or secrecy surrounding this budget?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): That's a serious question and I treat it seriously. To my knowledge, no, there have been no breaches of secrecy or confidentiality surrounding the budget. As far as I know, that's not the case, because I read the press this morning and the stories seemed particularly speculative, if I could put it that way.

Mr Stockwell: It's come to my attention that some two weeks ago Mr John Piper held a conference call with the trade offices around the world. That conference call was surrounding the labour legislation. There was some question about whether or not this government was intent on helping to attract business to this province.

I understand that during that discussion Mr John Piper gave out information about the upcoming budget that was not considered acceptable. There were dozens of government officials involved in this conference call. Further to that, the Treasury officials went back to their office and told the deputy minister that this took place. The deputy minister then acted very quickly, within hours, to contact all those people who were part of that meeting and asked them to either destroy the notes they took or give back any information they received during that telephone conversation.

Mr Treasurer, I assume you've spoken to Mr Piper in the last couple of weeks. I can only assume that if this took place it must have come up in conversation. I ask the Treasurer very pointedly: Considering this would be considered a major breach if in fact it took place, do you know about this, and if so, what action have you taken?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is some truth to the story the member tells us. There was a conference call to agents general across the pond and the discussion was, in very general terms, about the upcoming budget, and that we intended to proceed with labour reform legislation, which is not something new; that was in the throne speech. There was no breach of any kind of security.

There were some people who drew some conclusions from that conference call, but to my knowledge there was no breach of confidentiality in that conference call. It was simply a case of making sure that our agents general around the world have a sense of what's coming so that when the budget comes down, they'll have a sense of what it is we're trying to accomplish. It was nothing more and nothing less than that.

Mr Stockwell: I think the question was very clear when I asked you the first time. The deputy minister recalled that information. As I understand it, she directed that it be destroyed. The deputy minister found out about this meeting some two hours later when her officials who attended this conference call reported back to her. She considered this to be serious enough to contact all parties who were part of this conference call and ask them to either destroy the information or notes they had or simply send them back.

If it was such a run of the mill meeting, such a run of the mill conference call, why did the deputy minister some two hours later seek out all individuals who were part of this meeting and ask that the information be destroyed or sent back? If it wasn't sensitive, why was this very serious action taken by the deputy minister?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think what the member is referring to is simply a precautionary step taken by the acting Deputy Treasurer to make sure that the information conveyed was dealt with in the proper way. I don't think there's anything at all unusual about that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: New question to the Treasurer: Mr Treasurer, I want to be very clear about this. Your deputy minister was very clear in her actions. If it was a run of the mill meeting, I don't know why you would expect her to send out her staff to contact all people involved to tell them to, as I understand her words, "Destroy any notes you took." It seems reasonably clear to me that Mr Piper went just a little bit too far.

You have this information, and as I understand it, the call included dozens of government officials, those within Treasury and those outside of Treasury.

The question I ask, Mr Treasurer, is that if this information was not sensitive, if this was only precautionary, why would the deputy minister act so quickly to ensure that none of this information was passed on any further and in fact brief those people who were at the meeting not to pass on any of this information to anybody else?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not sure what the member for Etobicoke West is looking for, but this was a government official phoning government officials who are agents general in other parts of the world. It was government to government -- same government. I do not know why that would pose a problem. If we took precautions to make sure that people didn't put the wrong spin on notes they might have taken, then I don't see anything wrong with that. I would rather err on the side of caution, as a matter of fact.

Mr Stockwell: As I understand the conversation taking place, this was never supposed to be surrounding the budget. This conference call was surrounding your labour legislation. There was some flak from those areas outside of Canada, obviously, about the concern that your government was not friendly to business. I had the understanding that Mr Piper got somewhat hot under the collar and somewhat frustrated about the way the debate was going. He suggested to these people that this government is in fact fair and reasonable to business and to prove it he outlined some specifics about your upcoming budget -- very clearly some specifics that should not have been outlined.

I ask you, Mr Treasurer, have you spoken to Mr Piper about this? If it's not so secret, can you tell me exactly what he outlined to these government officials?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member for Etobicoke West has just outlined himself what was conveyed, so I don't think there is anything more than that. If the member for Etobicoke West has a sense that there was very specific, sensitive and confidential information conveyed in that conference call, I'd be interested in knowing that, because my understanding is that it was in very general terms that we were proceeding with the Ontario Labour Relations Act; yes, that there were going to be tax increases in the budget, but that it was not going to be an anti-business budget any more than anything we've ever done has been anti-business.

Mr Stockwell: Let's be very clear on this, Mr Treasurer. You have now had a conference call with a number of government officials --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry. That's right. John Piper has had a conference call with a number of government officials around the world. He has outlined some labour legislation and in fact got involved in a debate about the upcoming budget. The Treasury officials took this information back to your deputy minister. Your deputy minister was so concerned about the information John Piper gave that she immediately requested that all people involved be spoken to, all notes taken be destroyed and all information brought back to her.

It would seem to me that if John Piper were not giving out information that was at least sensitive, your deputy minister would hardly act in this fashion. Mr Treasurer, I ask you point-blank, when did you get advice that this took place? Have you spoken to John Piper about this? Why did your deputy minister act so quickly and so thoroughly to disguise or do away with all the information that was disseminated by Mr Piper at this meeting?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I will try to answer the three aspects to the member's questions. One was, when did I hear about it? I heard about it the morning that the conference call was made. Second, did I speak to Mr Piper subsequently? Yes, I spoke to Mr Piper subsequently. Third, to my knowledge, there was absolutely no information, no specifics whatsoever, that could be considered as being a breach of secrecy around the budget.

It was simply a case of saying, "This is what we're trying to accomplish." If people at the other end of the conference call were making their own notes and coming to their conclusions, then that's a different matter. All I would say is that we were taking precautions, which I think the member would want us to.

BUDGET

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The question is to the Treasurer. Parenthetically, I think the last comment indicates growing concern by people about the government.

We continue to see reference by the Premier to what I call a phantom deficit number. He wants to talk about an operating deficit. He wants to show that when you fix a roof or pave a road, that's not really an expenditure; he'll take out a 20-year bank loan for that.

My question to you, Treasurer, is this: I don't think you agree with that approach, and when you came to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs you said that approach the Premier is articulating was nonsense. You said: "I think it would be counterproductive to pretend that the capital part of your budget was not just as big a part of the deficit as the operating. I think it would be seen to be so transparent to try and do that."

Can you assure the House today that the Premier has not forced you to try what you would call this counterproductive and transparent attempt to report an artificially low deficit tomorrow?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I can assure the member that the Premier has not had his way with me.

Mr Phillips: That's comforting. I take from that, then, that the Premier will not attempt to talk about the deficit being just the operating deficit. On June 20, again, Treasurer, you said: "We will not disguise the consolidated deficit by any stretch of the imagination. People are not stupid. They would see through that." I clearly agree with that, that the people would see through the Premier's attempt to report what I call a phantom deficit.

Can you assure the House that your budget tomorrow will clearly outline the real deficit, as you call it, the real deficit being the operating and the capital deficit on a consolidated basis, as you promised the finance and economic affairs committee?

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps I could give a more fulsome response. First of all, the Premier has never pretended that having a separate capital budget from an operating budget was designed to do anything other than to report matters the way other jurisdictions do all across this country. There's never been any attempt to do other than that.

What I said when I appeared before the standing committee, as I recall, was that if we tried to suddenly have the capital aspect of the budget disappear, it would be seen to be so transparent that we were thinking that people are so stupid that we had suddenly been able to erase a part of the deficit. That is total nonsense and that is not the case.

All the Premier was saying -- and all I've been saying as well, not just the Premier -- is that virtually all other jurisdictions report their capital differently than Ontario does. That's all we've been saying.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I'm not saying that's counterproductive. I am saying it's counterproductive if you pretend that capital spending is not part of the borrowing requirements of the province. It certainly is.

BUDGET SECURITY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'd like to go back to the Treasurer again. Mr Treasurer, I have some serious concerns about this conference call that took place with Mr Piper. First off, on a conference call I don't think you can guarantee security about information, because you don't know who's at the other end of these calls.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Another Tory.

Mr Stockwell: Another bright light chirping.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Will the member place his question, please.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Treasurer, first of all, you cannot be secure in the knowledge of who was at the other end of those telephone calls. Second, the information I have is that it was very sensitive material that was given by Mr Piper. Third, if the information is not sensitive, the question still stands: Why was such a reaction taken by your deputy minister to collect and destroy it all? Fourth, you met with Mr Piper before the conference call; you met with Mr Piper after the conference call. Tell us what he said.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The member for Etobicoke West is quite right that you don't know who's at the other end of a conference call; I think that's clear. I met with Mr Piper after the conference call, not before or during. But to my knowledge, there was no particular information that could be deemed to be sensitive in the call, as far as I know. My understanding is that the deputy was simply taking precautions to make sure that people didn't come to conclusions that were inappropriate.

Mr Stockwell: I would like to ask the Treasurer this question: Did the deputy minister assure you that the information that was in fact given by Mr Piper was not sensitive? My information is that the deputy minister considered it to be sensitive information, she acted on this sensitive information by contacting people who were at this meeting, or supposedly at this meeting, and she asked them to destroy any notes they made and not talk about the meeting -- case closed, period.

If it was not sensitive information, why did your deputy minister take such steps as to ask for the information to be destroyed and ask all the relevant parties not to speak about it; and did the deputy minister give you her assurance that any of the information that was given by Mr Piper was not sensitive?

Hon Mr Laughren: The deputy minister was not part of the conference call, as I understand. The deputy minister was indeed concerned that people at the other end of the phone -- and you're quite right; you don't know who's at the other end -- might draw conclusions that were inaccurate and might put a spin on it that was inappropriate. It was simply a precautionary act; it was not something that was designed to destroy information that was specific. I know, or at least I think I know, that if the member for Etobicoke West had more specific information that indicated there was truly sensitive information, he'd let us know.

JOB CREATION

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Energy. The throne speech states that a number of jobs will be created from Hydro's demand management programs. Could the minister give us some idea of how many jobs will be created in this way and in what sectors?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): Ontario Hydro's demand management programs will create about 10,000 jobs across the economy this year in 1992. As the programs adjust and expand over the next several years, it's estimated they will on average create about 19,000 jobs a year between now and the year 2000.

These will happen in the industrial sector around the replacement with energy-efficient motors, in the commercial sector around Hydro's efficient-lighting programs and in the residential sector around the Energy Savers audit program. There will be about 120 permanent jobs created and about 300 existing jobs will be saved at the General Electric plant in Oakville because of GE's decision to move production of energy-efficient lighting to that plant.

There are hundreds of other opportunities like that across the province that we intend to pursue in partnership with industry. The Ministry of Energy is also working in consultation with a number of other ministries that'll be announcing a number of other programs over the days and weeks and months ahead.

Ms Carter: If Hydro relied solely on nuclear power construction and did not aggressively pursue conservation efforts, how many jobs, Mr Minister, would be created then?

Hon Mr Charlton: Very briefly, energy-efficiency programs, especially when they become retrofit programs to existing institutions or buildings or whatever out there in the province, are very labour-intensive. As compared to nuclear, for example, energy efficiency will create about an additional 4,000 jobs per year over what an ongoing or expanded nuclear program would be capable of.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is also to the Treasurer. Treasurer, with the apparent information and the concern about a potential leak that's being asked about today, there might be some calls for you to resign. I personally would like you not to do that. I'm afraid of whom they might replace you with.

Treasurer, I have in my possession a copy of your budget released by the Woodward and Bernstein of the press gallery, Ferguson and Maychak. I have examined the document to find out what you might be planning and if there's anything in there for small business. As you know, small business makes up about 95% of our economy, and in fact companies with fewer than 100 employees make up the largest employee group in all of Ontario.

In fiscal year 1989-90 provincial revenue from this source was $4.7 billion. In 1991-92 that has shrunk to $3.1 billion. Your response, Treasurer, according to the budget document that I have at least, to this shrinking revenue base is to tax your way to prosperity. You're taking money out of the hands of consumers and subsequently, by doing that, you're taking money out of the hands of the small business community.

Can the Treasurer explain to this House why he thinks he can tax his way to prosperity on the backs of the small business community?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): First, perhaps I should disabuse the member of the sense that there has been a leak of the budget. It's simply not the case.

Second, having said that, I'm sure the member wouldn't want me to create another furore in this House by leaking something more than what he thinks has already been leaked, but I can assure the member opposite that this government understands the value of the small business community in this province. I don't know of any other government ever in my 20 years here that's spent as much time listening to and consulting with the small business community as this government has.

Mr Mahoney: You'll pardon us if we gag a little on that, but I took you to say that you would not want to release something more. I don't know if that means you've actually released something already, according to this document. Yes, I think you should shake the old noggin there. I'm not sure what you were saying.

Aside from the other areas of revenue, personal income tax under this government has shrunk from $15.2 billion, fiscal year 1990-91, down to $13 billion, 1991-92. The business tax revenue is down, as I pointed out before. Your answer to that is simply to tax people more. Do you not understand, Treasurer, that if you give small business a tax break instead of a tax hike, it will create jobs, wealth and prosperity? While you try to tax your way to prosperity on your own, the small business community could simply invest its way, our way and even possibly your way to that prosperity if you would give it a break.

Treasurer, would you do the one thing that will help get our economy moving again: give small business a break and simply lower taxes?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't normally engage in provocative language, but the member opposite made a reference to gagging on my response. I want to tell you that I almost gag when I hear a Liberal talk about lowering taxes in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think this is as good as it's going to get, Mr Speaker, and I'll stop now.

BUDGET SECURITY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Treasurer once more. I have a very straightforward question: Did your deputy minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat.

Mr Stockwell: I have a very direct question to the Treasurer: Did your deputy minister assure you categorically that there was no breach with respect to the John Piper conference call?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I don't know how much more clearly I can put it. There has been no leak, and there's been no release of confidential information.

Mr Stockwell: This minister is not answering the question. The question is very clear: Did your deputy minister assure you that with respect to the John Piper conference call around the world there was no breach of secrecy regarding the upcoming budget?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm somewhat puzzled by the member's -- I'll try once again because I have tried to be as categorical as possible. The conference call was made to government officials, government to government; that's how the call occurred. There was no breach of confidential information. There was no sensitive information, as far as I know, released in that conference call. To my knowledge, no, there was no leak, and there was no release of confidential information.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): On a social note, I'd love to be able to ask the third party this question -- I know the rules of the House and I can't do that -- because I know the federal government certainly hasn't reacted to this problem and never will, for crying out loud.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member for Yorkview have a question?

Interjections.

Mr Mammoliti: They've taken their thumbs out of their mouths.

The Speaker: If the member has a question, would he direct it.

Mr Mammoliti: I will direct my question to the Solicitor General. In my riding of Yorkview, illegal drugs is certainly an issue. I find this is a problem in my community, and certainly drug trafficking has been a concern to my constituents. More specifically, what are we doing as a government when drug dealers are caught? When money is seized and directed by the federal government, does the Solicitor General not believe the money should be redirected into the communities? I certainly feel it's unfair for the federal government to take it, and I'd like to know his opinion.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The member asks a question with respect to the proceeds of crime, and he's quite right, there is an unfairness, an inequity with respect to the sharing of those revenues between the federal and provincial governments. It goes to the point where it's so unfair that even if we have local police jurisdictions putting up money, if I might fabricate a situation, where they are attempting to involve themselves in a drug deal, the money those local jurisdictions put up in fact has to be forwarded to the federal government as proceeds of crime.

We're discussing these matters with the federal government. I think it would be much more equitable and fair if those proceeds are shared with local and provincial governments. We're going to try to find an equitable way to do just that.

Mr Mammoliti: In the discussions with the federal government I'm hoping that on the agenda, when we get this funding, the money that is going to be redirected into our communities -- rehabilitation, education and awareness are certainly key issues and areas that this money should be redirected in. I would ask, in supplementary of course, whether the minister would agree with this and whether it will be on the agenda.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member's question is indeed a very insightful one because, simply, law enforcement alone will not solve the drug problem in this province. As he mentioned, there are a variety of other ways and circumstances required to aid in this particular problem. I can assure the member that we will incorporate his ideas in any discussions we have with the federal government in order that those proceeds of crime can be redirected to the meaningful kinds of situations that will help ameliorate the cause of the problem in the first place.

The Speaker: New question, the member for St George-St David. No, the member for St Catharines.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I'm here.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very kind of you to indicate the member for St George-St David is here as well today.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Treasurer. The Treasurer will be aware that approximately one job in four in Ontario is dependent either directly or indirectly on the automotive industry. He'll be aware that in my own city of St Catharines some 3,000 people may lose their jobs as the result of an announcement made on February 24 by General Motors. The automotive industry is under siege, I would say, and under very great competition throughout North America from offshore products and even within North America.

In light of this, would the Treasurer indicate what measures he is contemplating announcing this week which would be of benefit to the automotive industry? Specifically, is he prepared to implement the following recommendation: that Ontario should establish an auto department to assess on an ongoing basis the industry's weaknesses and strengths, to keep up with international developments and to monitor and initiate policy? In other words, is the Treasurer prepared to establish such a department within the Treasury and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology on a formal basis to deal with the very serious problems being confronted by the automotive industry?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Could I refer that very serious question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I appreciate the question. The honourable member will know that I met with him and both the regional mayor and the mayor of St Catharines this week to discuss progress we are making as a team, and with the other MPPs from the area in looking at the structure of the St Catharines area and developing some alternatives. I have also met with members of the union and the auto parts industry, their association and members of the major automobile companies. We are developing the appropriate structures.

Mr Bradley: Supplementary to the Treasurer as well: I don't think he will pass this one to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology because it's more within his purview. To the Treasurer, on the issue of taxes on the automotive industry, specifically the tax on auto workers: May I ask --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The original question was redirected to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; hence the supplementary must be directed to him. He in turn may wish to pass it on to someone else.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate that. Whoever decides to answer this over there, that's fine with me.

Would the Treasurer or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology undertake to tell the House today that this government is going to withdraw Bill 130, abandon the tax on auto workers, the so-called gas guzzler tax, and that you are prepared to remove the 8% provincial sales tax on automobiles for at least a period of time to spur sales of those vehicles and thereby achieve two main things: first of all, an economic boost to the automotive industry by creating new jobs and maintaining those jobs which exist and, second, by improving fuel economy and emissions as people replace their old vehicles with new vehicles which have better fuel economy and better pollution control equipment?

Hon Mr Philip: The member knows I cannot disclose nor do I know the specifics of the budget, but I can tell you one thing I do know: This government has invested more in the restructuring of industry, five, six, seven times more, in one year than they've ever done in a similar year in their regime. I'd be happy to outline all the programs we've done. That's what we've done.

BUDGET SECURITY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question to the Treasurer on the leaks by Mr Piper to a variety of people around the world about his upcoming budget. I want to direct a question with respect to the interaction between himself and his deputy minister. Officials of his ministry were present during these conversations and obviously were quite concerned about some of the details revealed by Mr Piper. They returned and reported to the deputy, who was also extremely concerned, so much so that she undertook an effort to recover the information and have it destroyed or returned to her.

The Treasurer has been avoiding a very specific question. He grimaces, talks around it, dances around it, while all we're looking for is a specific yes or no, Mr Treasurer. When you were conveyed this information by your deputy, did she or did she not indicate that this was confidential and secret information which should not have been revealed to the public through these conversations? Yes or no?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): First of all, these yes or no demands don't make any sense for the complex question that has just been put by the member.

It is my understanding there were no budget details revealed in that conference call.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: Anything the member for Burlington South says doesn't bother me because it's totally valueless.

The people on the other end of the conference call were, as I understand it, senior people in government. There are senior people in this government, in this building, in these environs, who have access to budget information because they help us write the budget. The various deputies at the ministerial level have information which, if revealed, would be determined to be a budget leak. As a matter of fact, this is their job, to be part of helping us prepare the budget and talk about the budget. I don't think there's anything here that's untoward.

The Speaker: Supplementary? No supplementary? New question, the member for Huron.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm prepared to ask the supplementary question.

The Speaker: I did call twice. If the member for Willowdale is prepared, go ahead.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The standing orders are quite specific with respect to the rotation both of questions and the opportunities for supplementaries. In that context, although the member was slow to get to his feet, he indeed has the opportunity, as the standing orders prescribe, to ask his supplementary.

Mr Harnick: Treasurer, you have just told us that no budget leaks were revealed in the conference call, yet we know your deputy minister retrieved all contents of those conversations if they were committed to paper. If nothing sensitive was revealed and if there were no leaks, will you please provide us now, all the members of this Legislature, with what the specific contents of that conference call entailed? What was discussed? Tell us what information the deputy had to retrieve if it wasn't sensitive.

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps we could put this in a bit of perspective. We had one person sworn to secrecy, in the normal course of events around this place, talking to other people who are also sworn to secrecy. So it's not --

Interjection: No, no.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, it's true. It's not as though someone was talking on an open-line radio show, and even, if I could go so far as to say --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'd let me finish making my point, even if there was something sensitive said in that conference call, it was said to people who are also sworn to secrecy, so it's not as though this was something said to the public at large.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As you may recall, Mr Minister, last December I asked questions --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Will the member take his seat.

Interjections.

Mr Klopp: In December, Mr Minister --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for York Centre, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would you stop the clock, please. I will inform the House, and indeed especially the member for York Centre, that the member for Huron will be given an opportunity to place his question. With your cooperation, he will be able to do so and we can continue with the routine proceedings of this chamber.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I ask the member to come to order. Start the clock, please. Member for Huron.

Mr Klopp: As I was saying before I was interrupted, in December I asked a question about the rail lines in my riding, especially the CP lines between Guelph and Goderich. Over the years there was an interministerial committee set up, I think by the Tories or maybe by the Liberals. It must have been one of the longest committees ever running, but no decisions were ever made.

In December I asked you if this committee has ever decided to make decisions and have you given direction on that, and you assured me that decisions would probably be made this year.

Over the last number of months, the farmers in my constituency who are concerned about that land, plus people who would like to see if they could make trails of it to help promote rural Ontario, people who would also like the idea of using that property to put in pipelines or stuff like that which would save this province a lot of money -- my question is, Mr Minister, although it's been four months and only four months -- but I know how fast and how well you work -- could you please give me an update so I could tell my constituents where this process is at?

The previous government sat and sat on it, so I'm going to bug you every chance I get so we get a decision made on this.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation: The question is very valid indeed. So many -- in fact 3,000 -- kilometres of abandoned railway over the province by virtue possibly -- I don't wish to be judgemental or harsh -- of a systematic and deliberate system by which Ontarians would not benefit from that service that has been in place since Confederation. Consequently the province finds itself with 3,000 kilometres of abandoned rails and yet so little time to explain to the member aside from the one question on which he focused, the 77 miles of track that will serve the specific purpose.

We formed interministerial committees. We've been meeting since 1988 by virtue of the setup that was put forward by the previous administration. In fact, our officials met with Canadian Pacific last week. It's ironic that you should ask the question today.

We're hopeful, with all the sincerity this grave issue demands, that a positive conclusion to address the very alternatives you so eloquently put forward will be -- we're talking about a matter of weeks, not a matter of months on this issue. Thank you so very much for the question; very valid indeed.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF FIRST DEPUTY CHAIR

Mr Cooke moved that Mr Drainville, member for the electoral district of Victoria-Haliburton, be appointed First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House.

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

Interjection: No.

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;

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

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation, the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

I also affix my own signature to this petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual highway signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the direct discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

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

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual highway signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

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

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $15 million over a three-year period represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under that act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost of more than $15 million over a period of three years must be revoked immediately."

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

I too have affixed my name to this petition.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have another petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition today with 387 names on it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are submitting this petition to protest the certificate of approval granted by the Ministry of the Environment to Bluewater Sanitation for the storage and spreading of municipal and sceptic sludge on lots 10 and 11, Concession 11, County Road 4 in Moore township, Bluewater Sanitation has not operated this site in accordance with ministry guidelines, nor has the Ministry of the Environment enforced these guidelines at this site. The certificate of approval, as amended, still lacks consistency. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to close this site."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have part of 100,000 petitions. These are just 2,000 I received in yesterday's mail from the riding of Port Arthur. These are just from the riding of Port Arthur, the riding of the Minister of Revenue for the government. This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, of course.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving its

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under this act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

That is signed by over 2,000 residents in the riding of Port Arthur alone, and is

part 100,000 petitions I've received to date.

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

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's second report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES RECOURS COLLECTIFS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 28,

An Act respecting Class Proceedings / Loi concernant les recours collectifs.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for London South had the floor. He is not present. By rotation, it's the member for Brampton South.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House and speak on a bill that deals with justice. Justice is not given enough priority or importance in this province. It's a matter that most people view as something they don't necessarily or will never come in contact with. For that reason it doesn't achieve the high degree of sexy political hype that many other issues do.

Yet I think more and more, as this province moves into the future and as our population increases and as our society becomes much more complex, we're going to discover, and I think governments in the future are going to discover, that the question of justice is something that because it was disregarded and because it was not given a high priority, is going to result in a great deal of unrest in our society.

Bills 28 and 29 were originally initiatives of the former Liberal government, introduced by the former Attorney General, Ian Scott, the member for St George-St David, and I give credit to the present Attorney General for acknowledging the fact that this was originally introduced by him. I have not had an opportunity to really do it line by line to find out whether the present government has made any significant changes to the bill, but I suspect not.

For the benefit of the public generally, the bill would allow an action to be brought by people with a common beef or a common complaint. I suppose the most significant one that comes to mind would be the Ford lemon case where people had purchased Fords and felt the product they had purchased was not one that lived up to the standards that had been advertised, and they wanted to bring an action. They were not able to do that.

There would have to be individual actions brought, and of course that means significant expense to the litigant and significant expense in court time being used to hear each case individually. In some cases it may result in total injustice because people are not able to either get their cases on or they're not able to personally and individually retain counsel and go through the sometimes costly procedures of a lengthy trial.

It also presents somewhat of a David and Goliath situation because when you're taking on a major industry, one person certainly is less able to do it than perhaps a group of people who have a representative approach to it and perhaps can fund it and also can perhaps give greater impact to it in terms of its notoriety.

One of the items in the bill that I don't agree with and that gives me some concern, and I guess it's been a question of discussion since time immemorial in the legal profession, is the question of contingent fees. I recognize that it's only being introduced into this act in terms of class actions, but I suspect it's on the horizon for actions of another type.

That being the case, the argument against what is known as champerty was the fact that in this country and this province a lawyer's first duty is to the court. You're an officer of the court. Your duty to your client is equally as onerous and high, but you're not to do anything before the court that would in any way mislead the court in order to win the day for your client. It has always been argued, and I think with good common sense, that when you bring in a contingency fee arrangement, or champerty, you may be doing two things.

First of all, you may be encouraging an action by someone where he might not bring that action and may have absolutely tenuous grounds for being able to successfully litigate it. If that is the case, then what's happening is we are encouraging lawyers perhaps to take an opportunity to get into court and take on a brief where the chances of success may be minimal.

We see in the United States -- and I suppose this was at the very root cause in some respects of the concerns about the insurance settlements in this country -- that the settlements there are significantly higher than they are anyplace else. The reason for it is contingency fees. Lawyers are able to take, I think, a third of the settlement, and of course that induces lawyers to do a number of things: to start out with a $3 million lawsuit, where maybe $100,000 or $200,000 might apply, because a third of it is going to go to them.

That was

an act which said you don't want to needlessly stir up litigants; you want to make certain the cases that get to the court are legitimate, are serious and are going to determine an issue either between two individuals or between an individual and society that is of significant importance to deserve the attention of a court, the resources of a court and the trauma both parties to the litigation go through. Of course by eliminating this, I recognize it is only being done in Bill 28 by reason of class actions, but I suspect it will become the order of the day for other litigious events.

Having said that, I also recognize that on the other side of the coin, by not allowing contingency fees or not allowing actions to be instituted or spurred on by a lawyer suggesting that a test case should be taken, there may be, first of all, very many ills in our society that require some form of redress that will never be addressed. There may be some forms of injustice in our society that perhaps are not covered by the law and require some action on the part of us as legislators. By eliminating the rules against champerty and the question of contingency fees, you will have allowed those matters to go forward, I think for the betterment of society.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Come on, Bob.

Mr Callahan: The Attorney General says to hurry up. I would think, Mr Attorney General, you would want this debated fully. It's an important issue and it's something we're going to have with us for a significant period of time. I would think you would be very attentive and not tell me to rush and get on with it. That's certainly not the appropriate way for an Attorney General to deal with a member of the Legislature who is discussing one of his bills that he borrowed from the Attorney General of the Liberal government.

I'm going to get on with my comments with reference to the good side of contingency fees and the good side of the abolition of champerty laws, which is for people who up to this point may very well have had a very significant and just cause but have not been able to pursue it because of lack of funds or perhaps because they didn't have anyone who was prepared to come out and directly encourage them to do it and their claims were never litigated.

What happens is the bad guy gets off and the good guy gets nothing. Perhaps in some circumstances, if it's a very significant injury or it's a very significant business loss, that person may very well be required to fall back on the ever-increasingly dwindling resources since September 1990 in terms of being able to support themselves.

I suggest there are two sides of the coin. They each give me some concern, and I've attempted to express why. On the one side, I believe it's perhaps dangerous in opening up the floodgates totally; on the other side of the coin, I think there are people in Ontario and Canada who have suffered as a result of not being able to bring the appropriate litigation.

You can think of cases where people have bought a car from a major car manufacturer and an accident has occurred because of the faulty construction of that vehicle. This may affect tens of thousands of people. We're all familiar with where the major car manufacturers might do a recall on a particular part of a car. One that jumps to mind is, I think, the Firebird, where if you ran into the back of it it would explode. If that's not right, I apologize to Firebird owners, but it was something like that.

I compliment and I have the highest regard for the car manufacturers who do that. But let's say a defect is in the item and it's not discovered and endless numbers of people suffer injury as a result of it. To require those people to bring individual actions in the courts would tie up our our court system unbelievably. It's already tied up beyond belief.

For the benefit of the Attorney General, I would tell him that in the city of Toronto, to get a civil action on, you have to be of good health, you have to have had parents who lived to be 90 and you have to have a long genealogy, because if you don't, you're not going to make it. In fact, as I understand it from speaking to some of the court authorities there, the court system at 361 University Avenue, which is where the major number of trials goes on, is totally gridlocked because the Attorney General -- and this is not saying anything against him or his ministry -- is trying to get the criminal cases on in order to avoid another Askov.

In the meantime, people's civil cases are not being heard, and civil cases include matrimonial claims. Matrimonial claims can be very acrimonious. They can be the source of serious injury, death and so on, so they should be dealt with in a very prompt fashion. As well, in a matrimonial claim there are often young children involved; it's a matter that should be cleared up for them in the promptest fashion. It's very important that legislation that's brought in addresses somewhat the question of how we would use our courtrooms to the utmost. In that respect, Bill 28 is applauded as an innovative measure for dealing with this.

I have to go back and say that the concern I have is that it's a bill that was brought forward by the Attorney General in the Liberal government. It's only now getting before this Legislature for second reading. It will go to committee obviously. It will then get third reading, and we could be looking at the implementation of this bill, if we are lucky, perhaps by the fall of 1992 or perhaps by the fall of 1993.

In the meantime, what's happening is that people are resorting to their own methods of resolving civil claims, and that may be not a bad idea either. We are seeing more and more people resorting to mediation and arbitration, which are lumped under the general heading of alternative dispute mechanism. Maybe that's the plan. Maybe it's not a bad idea, Attorney General. If you allow the courts to continue to be backlogged, that may be a way of forcing people into resorting to these alternative measures. In fact, it fits in well.

I see the Minister of Labour sitting next to you, and that fits in well with the way labour relations are carried on. Maybe that's the agenda of the day; we are going to eliminate courts and we'll go to the way unions negotiate collective agreements with business. Who knows? Maybe that's the wave of the future.

I want to say, Attorney General, that this bill does go a long way towards advancing the cause of justice, but not far enough. You and your government have to be prepared to recognize the importance of justice on a civil plane, on a criminal plane, in its totality: the appointment of judges, the creation of courthouses, the creation of backup facilities for those courthouses.

If we continue to view justice, be it civil or criminal, and if the Attorney General's budget is about 2% of the overall budget of the province -- I believe it was 1% during the days of the Conservative reign; they gave even less consideration of the question of justice. To the credit of the Liberal government and to the credit of the former Attorney General, he managed to get it to 2%. Howie, I'm expecting big things from you.

I would hope the Treasurer would take a look down the long pipe of the future and say to himself -- and after reading a copy of Bonfire of the Vanities, which I keep trying to get everybody in this House to read and see what happened in the south Bronx in the United States. Their justice system didn't disappear simply because of their being in the south Bronx or in the United States. Their justice system went downhill because they did exactly what we're doing now; they gave very little attention to the question of justice. They gave a little bit of a pat on the back to the judges.

Every now and then they'd throw them a few morsels. They appointed a few more judges to take the stress off the judges who were hearing all the cases.

They erected courthouses fit for human habitation instead of the one I've got in my riding at 141 Clarence Street where there was in fact a battle between the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Environment over whether it was fit to even be in there. People were occupying that building such as the guards in the cells, judges and staff, who were in fact choking on the quality of air in that building. Talk about safety in the workplace; there was no safety in the workplace. Despite promises, it took a while for that to be rectified. I understand it's now better. I'm not sure it's 100%.

How can we expect people first of all to have respect for justice if the people working in the system are so overburdened, stressed out or burned out that they have difficulty because they've got to hear 10, 12 and 15 cases a day? That's an impossibility. Human beings are not able to do that. You hear the public out there complaining that judges only work from, say, 10 to 4.

I suggest, with all due respect, that any human being sitting in a courtroom from 10 till 4 making decisions that may very well have an impact on the settlement someone's going to get for a very serious injury, or their freedom, is a very trying event. It's not like going out to the office and putting in a 9 to 5 and maybe taking a coffee break. The stress level is much higher.

I suggest that justice has got to be given a very much higher priority by every government, not just the present government but future governments and the federal justice system. The other thing is that if the people in the system are overloaded, overworked, or given poor working conditions, they do the human thing and perhaps bark a little at a litigant. What type of respect does that create for the overall view of justice?

We all sit here thinking about budgets, and tomorrow of course will be a very significant day in the province of Ontario with budget day coming down; Mr Laughren coming in here to roll the dice and perhaps award the whip trip of the month. But it's not as important as justice.

Attorney General, I applaud this act. I applaud Bill 29 which is also going to give people access to the courts. I applaud that, but it's only a baby step. You've only started to walk. You've got to do more. You've got to claim more money from Mr Laughren. Mr Laughren has to understand, as does every member of this Legislature -- all you have to do is look back five or 10 years to Toronto the Good. There were no murders, or maybe one or two. Right now, what was it, 68 murders to this point in the year in Toronto? What has happened? Clearly that's a signal that we are not giving significant importance to the administration of justice and we are not providing adequate funding.

I know people in this place tend to plan for the mandate. The mandate can be four years; it could even be five years. I'm sure in the case of the present government they'll go right down to the minute. In fact, they'll lose their slipper as they're running out of here before they call an election. In any event, they tend to look at things in terms of mandates. The problem is that we can't afford to look in terms of mandates, not in consideration of justice.

We had a resolution debated in this House -- I can't remember whose it was; I think it was the third party's -- about the question of crime on our streets and the fac