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

November 4, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): One of the duties of an MPP is to remind the government of the genuine needs that exist in his or her constituency and the region in which the member resides. That is why, for several months, I made statements, asked questions and delivered speeches in this House to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health and her cabinet colleagues the need for at least one additional CAT scanner in the Niagara Peninsula.

Persistence paid off, I am pleased to report, and on Friday, November 13, I will be attending the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the CAT scanner at the Welland County General Hospital. Mission accomplished.

On numerous occasions I have risen in the Legislature to reveal the plight of kidney dialysis patients who use the renal dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. I have described the conditions for patients and staff alike as appalling, and have provided a detailed description of the critical situation and the solution to this acute problem.

Once again I ask, on behalf of over 100 patients and a dedicated but overburdened staff, that the Ministry of Health provide the necessary funding immediately to renovate or replace the kidney dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. Your government has a fund established for such projects. The need is urgent and unquestioned, and only the announcement of the Minister of Health is required to meet this immediate and genuine need.

GRAND RIVER

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): For almost half a year now, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Culture and Communications have been approached by the Grand River Conservation Authority and by many other members in this House to provide much-needed funding to the GRCA for the completion of its management plan, which is required in order that the Grand River might be designated as a Canadian heritage river.

One of the NDP's own members, the member for Cambridge, has risen in this House on two occasions now to impress upon the Minister of Natural Resources the importance of this project. Unfortunately, he has been rebuffed in both instances with encouraging talk from the minister, but no commitment.

In my own letters to the minister, I have been assured that the minister views the Grand River's heritage designation as an important goal, but he stops short of committing the funding. Words are cheap and actions speak volumes. If the minister is really serious about the management plan, he should stop talking and start acting, as time is running out.

It would be very sad to see an opportunity like this slip away. The Grand River valley has a rich diversity of outstanding heritage resources of national stature. Already, there has been a great deal of effort and expense to achieve the nomination of the Grand River and its major tributaries into the system.

I urge the Minister of Natural Resources to pay attention to his own colleague the member for Cambridge and the many members in this House who support the completion of the management plan. I urge the minister to stop the sweet talk and deliver the goods.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to reflect in human terms on the vital importance of a job. I will focus on the adult education training information service being established in London, where my home riding of London South is located.

A job is a source of income, but it is much more. Personal pride and the social contacts that often lead to other opportunities are other aspects of having a job. Job loss often means that an individual is exiled from the world of job contacts.

This government is taking action to stop job losses. New skills are needed in our changing global economy and access to skills training information is essential. This is why the adult education training information service is so vital. A $200,000 Ministry of Labour grant will establish this service and fund the first year of operation. By next month, a computerized database of information on training, retraining and adult education will be available to 34,000 men and women in London looking for work.

On-line computer access will be available at the London Unemployment Help Centre, city library branches and Information London, which is also coordinating this project. Printed information will be available to individuals, counselling agencies, educational institutions and government offices. The adult education training information service is an important milestone in our journey towards jobs and economic recovery.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): In the interests of fairness, I want to give the Premier some credit today for trying to do better. Many people, I think, have been critical of the Premier for running a kind of one-person band and controlling everything from his office. In fact, some of his own caucus, I think, have been critical. But I think we're seeing the Premier trying to do better and to change. Let me tell you how.

I think we all know that the financial results will be out tomorrow for the first six months. Normally, of course, we would get them a lot earlier -- last year we had them two weeks earlier -- but for some reason they're delayed this year until 1:30 tomorrow.

Normally, the Premier would want to be here to kind of bask in the glory of two years of the economic policies of his government, but now he's generously going to let the Treasurer take all the credit. Tomorrow morning at 10 am, the Premier's plane lifts off the tarmac, heads out west, and tomorrow at 1:30 he's going to give Floyd Laughren the chance to take all the glory for the first six months' results. So now I think we see some change in the Premier's office, allowing others to bask in the glory, finally. What a guy. Let's hear it for the Premier.

ORANGEVILLE SANTA CLAUS PARADE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to bring to the attention of this House a very special event taking place in my riding of Dufferin-Peel on Saturday, November 14: Santa Claus is coming to town.

As part of the celebration surrounding the Orangeville Santa Claus Parade, the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, N.R. Jackman, has agreed to attend the Orangeville Santa Claus Parade as the parade marshal. It will be my pleasure to welcome the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario to beautiful Dufferin-Peel, and I look forward to introducing him to some of the people who have made Dufferin-Peel unique.

The Orangeville Santa Claus Parade committee, organized by the local business improvement area, has been working diligently over the past year to ensure that this year's parade goes down in history as the best one yet. The theme for this year's parade is Christmas in Toyland, and floats will include a giant 55-foot helium balloon in the shape of a toy soldier from the Nutcracker Suite. Kids of all ages who attend the parade will be treated to many floats, including the Canada 125 float in celebration of Canada's 125th birthday. There are seven first-class bands participating in this year's parade, coming from as far away as Ohio.

The Orangeville Santa Claus Parade will be a real treat for anyone who attends. I would like to officially invite all members of the House to come to the Orangeville Santa Claus Parade to meet our Lieutenant Governor and rekindle your childhood memories with an old acquaintance, Santa Claus.

DOUGALL AVENUE PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm pleased to report to the Legislature today the official opening of Dougall Avenue Public School in Windsor-Sandwich. The ceremony was held on Tuesday, October 27, 1992, and in attendance were about 500 people. I'm sorry that I was unable to be there.

This new $5-million, state-of-the-art school will contain several firsts for the school board in the city of Windsor. Each classroom will have a telephone so the teacher can call an absent child and find out his or her whereabouts by speed dialling. Dougall Avenue school also contains an elevator for use by staff and by pupils with disabilities.

This is another first in Windsor and also for the school system: It is also the first school to meet the Ministry of the Environment requirements for fresh air. The air in the entire building is exchanged for fresh air every hour.

Dougall Avenue school even caught the eye of 75-year-old Robert Puida of Windsor, whose daughter attended the school back in 1964. The gym is bigger; the library now has 65 computers.

The school colours are blue and red, and the enthusiasm in the neighbourhood is very high and proud.

I'd like to congratulate staff, students and parents on the opening of Dougall Avenue Public School in Windsor-Sandwich, and I'd like to congratulate the Dougall Dragons.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's fair to say that we've been aware for some time of the Premier's tactic of avoiding tough questions by his growing record of absence from this House, but now he also appears to be trying to escape his responsibilities even on those few occasions when the questions of the day are actually placed before him.

In a discussion about politicians in the referendum last week, Bob Rae called the criticisms "unfair." When asked about the job crisis in the province, Bob Rae said it was "unfair" to blame his government and himself. When asked in the House about his abdication of responsibility for the policing crisis in the province, Bob Rae said this was "unfair." When asked about his office's letter to the Ontario Municipal Board on a development project in his riding, Rae repeatedly said the allegation was "unfair."

At the press conference on the new chair of Ontario Hydro, Bob Rae said it was "unfair" for the opposition to blame hydro rate hikes on his government. When the question about taking time away from the House for his Asia trip was posed, Rae said this was likewise "unfair." Yesterday, when asked by the media whether he found it appropriate that Ontario Hydro had spent money to find a chair by employing an American headhunting firm when Maurice Strong was obviously already chosen for the position, Rae responded by saying he felt it was "unfair" to question in that fashion.

Does the Premier now want the public to believe that anyone who asks him a question is just being "unfair"? Does he feel it's appropriate to hide from every issue with this response? We hope that this is not the case, because when the Premier returns from the Asia trip, the questions will not have disappeared.

RHÉAL BÉLISLE

M. Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & Grenville-Est) : I wish to recognize the passing of a former member of this chamber and a highly respected politician by all parties, which is never an easy feat: the late Senator Rhéal Bélisle.

L'honorable sénateur Rhéal Bélisle est décédé hier à l'âge de 73 ans, et au nom du Parti progressiste-conservateur ontarien, nous désirons offrir nos sincères condoléances à la famille Bélisle.

Rhéal Bélisle a dédié 48 ans de sa vie à la politique municipale, provinciale et fédérale. Il a toujours été un grand fervent de sa religion, la religion catholique.

Rhéal Bélisle a été élu à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario comme député progressiste-conservateur pour le comté de Nickel Belt lors des élections de 1955 et encore en 1959. Il a démissionné en tant que député provincial le 3 février 1963, lorsqu'il a été nommé sénateur par le premier ministre John Diefenbaker.

À l'Assembée législative ontarienne, Rhéal Bélisle a siégé sur les comités spéciaux d'assurance-récolte et des lois municipales. Les gens pourront se rappeler M. Bélisle lorsque le Sénat a défait le projet de

loi sur l'avortement le 1 er février 1991. Le sénateur Rhéal Bélisle était à ce moment-là le vice-président du Sénat lors du vote du projet de loi en question, et que le résultat fut égal. L'honorable M. Bélisle a déclaré cette loi défaite.

Le 16 mai 1982, le pape lui décerne l'honneur de chevalier de l'ordre de Saint-Grégoire-le-Grand, le plus grand honneur de l'Église catholique.

Lorsqu'on regarde sa référence dans le Guide parlementaire canadien, Rhéal Bélisle était un homme dédié à son travail. Il a représenté de nombreuses fois le Canada et le Sénat à travers le monde.

Encore une fois, nos sincères condoléances à la famille Bélisle.

NATIVE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to take this opportunity to inform the House of some projects presently under way in Cochrane North.

Recently the Minister of Northern Development and Mines granted sums of money to several first nations in Cochrane North. The funds from Minister Shelley Martel are part of the first nations communities infrastructure projects program.

In Moose Factory, 10 houses are undergoing renovations to improve living standards. On the Constance Lake reserve, $180,000 has been granted to assist the first nations to renovate houses and the Mammamattawa camps to renovate and extend the community hall and to construct a band office complex, including a detoxification centre. As well, the present band office is being renovated into a child care centre to encourage the children to remain in a familiar environment rather than going into the nearest town for child care facilities.

Other first nations child care facilities are being constructed in Attawapiskat near the shore of James Bay. At the New Post first nations reserve near Cochrane $180,000 has been granted to assist in the construction of a new community hall, to renovate homes and to landscape the grounds.

Through a joint federal-provincial housing program, two non-profit housing groups in Moosonee are planning to develop 75 rental homes. These will help ease the housing shortage in the far north.

Payukotayno: James and Hudson Bay Family Services in Fort Albany will see its centre receive electricity in the coming months. This project is also providing employment for 20 people for four months. The successful Jobs Ontario Capital program is providing the funding for this project.

I'm very pleased with the commitment my government has demonstrated time and time again to the aboriginal peoples of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BALLET OPERA FACILITIES

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Today I am making a statement concerning the ballet and opera and disposition of the East of Bay land. In making this statement I am pleased to report that we have been successful in achieving both the economic and cultural objectives of this government.

Two years ago this government announced that it would not proceed with the funding for a ballet opera house on the East of Bay land. At the same time the government reaffirmed its commitment to the ballet and opera companies to work towards finding them permanent facilities by reserving the Bay-Wellesley site for them. It was a tough decision but the right one for a province experiencing the worst recession in decades. Ontario simply could not afford the ballet opera house proposal.

During these two years the need for housing has continued, as have the needs of the ballet and opera companies. Over the past few weeks, provincial facilitator Dale Martin, together with the Ministry of Culture and Communications and the Ministry of Government Services, has worked closely with Metro Toronto, the Ballet Opera House Corp, the Canadian Opera Company and the National Ballet of Canada to find a solution that ensures a home for the ballet and opera companies and allows much-needed housing to proceed on the Bay-Wellesley site. These discussions have led to a fresh approach in facing the dual challenges of housing and facilities for the two companies.

Representatives from the Ballet Opera House Corp and the ballet and opera companies are in the House today. We have arrived at an understanding that recognizes, first, that the use of the Bay-Wellesley site for a ballet opera house is not feasible and, second, the land involved will be developed with housing as a priority.

Further, the province, consistent with its support for the two performing arts organizations, is announcing that it is contributing $30 million towards permanent performing facilities for the ballet and opera. This commitment will be realized from the development or sale of the East of Bay land, thus maintaining our commitment without any new demand on the provincial budget.

We estimate that our contribution of $30 million will create at least $100 million in economic activity. In addition, this will generate about 1,900 direct, indirect and induced person-years of work. This calculation does not even begin to address the multiplier effects of culture on the economy or the jobs that will be created through the development of the East of Bay land.

As a first step in looking for a solution, Metropolitan Toronto will investigate if a renovated O'Keefe Centre can be part of this solution. It would have to pass the tests of financial viability and meet the performing, administrative and rehearsal needs of the two companies. In addition, we would have to ensure that both companies have suitable performing venues during the time the O'Keefe is under reconstruction.

If the O'Keefe Centre becomes part of the solution, it gets a much-needed renovation, the ballet and opera companies will have a performing home, and importantly, no new cultural dollars will be spent on this project.

In developing the East of Bay land we are contributing to economic renewal through construction jobs. This land is a valuable resource. Since a ballet opera house on the site is not possible, the land should be and will be used productively. A mix of residential, commercial and community space development will contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. In short, it's a solution for the 1990s.

As a government, we are committed to our agenda of creating jobs and focusing on economic renewal. We are also committed to supporting and nurturing our cultural industries and the arts sector, recognizing their important role in shaping our society and our economy.

The approach we are presenting today recognizes the economic realities and challenges of our time. It also reflects how individuals, groups, institutions and government can work together positively to achieve a creative outcome.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond to the comments of the minister and to say two things. One is that we believe both the opera and the ballet are essential organizations for the province of Ontario and we will be watching carefully the plans you've unfolded today here for an alternative site for them. On this side of the House at least, we'll be working closely to help them find the appropriate long-term home.

The second thing we'll be doing is watching the development in the East of Bay project. Frankly, if I sound overly partisan here, I apologize, but virtually everything the NDP government touches turns to dust, and we'll be watching the development of this.

I say that because you talk about job creation here. The unemployment rate now among young people in the province of Ontario -- and it's a tragedy -- is 20% higher than in the rest of Canada, and it used to be dramatically lower in Ontario than the rest of Canada. In September, the unemployment rate in every other province in this country dropped; in Ontario it didn't. The unemployment rate in Metropolitan Toronto now, unbelievably, is substantially higher than the national average. So in terms of having confidence in the Rae government's ability to tackle the economic problems and to use projects like this to do it, the credibility is dramatically lacking.

Virtually every one of the major economic renewal plans Bob Rae announced when he became the government and reannounced in a speech from the throne is on the rocks. Building a partnership in the workplace -- we've never seen it so divided and tomorrow we'll vote on a bill that will crystallize that.

We have been waiting for the training project. Training is the thing that Premier Rae said he is most proud of. We have not even seen a draft of the legislation. The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is getting so complicated, so bureaucratic, that our fear is that the fundamental issue of dealing with training in the workplace is going to go on the rocks because this government has complicated it.

Regarding the Ontario investment fund, an opportunity to find capital to use to build our businesses, that idea has been polluted. We hear now that the teachers are saying they won't participate in it; OMERS is saying it won't participate in it. So the third plank of the economic renewal plan is on the rocks.

You talked about worker ownership; I'm just telling you that your plans aren't working. We have every right on this side of the House to be indignant and to say we have no confidence in this government's ability and no confidence in the Premier's ability to get the economy going. We see this project today that calls for job creation -- again, I might say -- and today we see the help wanted ads across this country. In every province in this country the index of help wanted went up. In other words, there's more demand for jobs everywhere in the country except in one province. Where is it? It's Ontario.

The Premier will say: "It's not my fault. I'm going to blame Brian Mulroney because that's good politics. I'm going to blame the GST. I'm going to blame everything else." But why is it that unemployment rates in other provinces are dropping? I tell you as strongly as I can: If we let this problem of youth unemployment continue, we, every single one of us, are sowing the seeds of a major problem. Youth unemployment in this province now is 20% higher than it is in the rest of the country. I tell you, all of us have got to tackle this issue quickly.

Seldom do we have ministerial statements to comment on; when we have them they are not tackling the fundamental issues in this province. That's why I've responded to it in the fashion in which I have today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was waiting to see in the announcement by the minister the announcement that there would be money for the kidney dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): This is related to the announcement?

Mr Bradley: Yes, it is. This minister is purportedly saving some money for the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, and the money she saves could go to the kidney dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In responding to this statement by the Minister of Culture and Communications, I think one of the interesting parts of the statement is actually on the first page, where she says: "Two years ago, this government announced that it would not proceed with the funding for a ballet opera house on the East of Bay land. At the same time, the government reaffirmed its commitment to the ballet and opera companies to work towards finding them permanent facilities by reserving the Bay-Wellesley site for them."

I don't think it takes very much intelligence to understand that in this statement itself there is a tremendous contradiction. On the one hand this government says: "We are committed to our agenda of creating jobs and focusing on economic renewal. We are also committed to supporting and nurturing our cultural industries and the arts sector, recognizing their important role in shaping our society and our economy." Unfortunately, we have neither a government nor a Minister of Cultural and Communications that recognizes that the cultural industries and the arts sector themselves create jobs and help drive our economy. That's unfortunately the limitation this government is under.

Also, this government does not seem to recognize that when there is a commitment in writing between one government and the people of this province, that commitment is made. They seem to feel that at their own whim, depending on what their particular ideology is, they can change commitments that previous governments made.

I simply say to them that the announcement to sell this property in itself, at this time, is a breach of faith to the people of this province. If they are going to let this valuable land go in a fire sale, at this time, then what we say to them is that not only have they reneged on a prior commitment for another use, in conjunction with housing and other commercial uses of that property; they are giving away the most valuable piece of land that's left in the city core.

Frankly, we don't think that the city core is the place to put affordable housing and residential development. There are no schools in this area. We feel that any kind of residential development should be where it is the most comfortable environment for the people who are going to live in those homes.

It's time we realized that the value of this land, if this government is bent on selling it, should be realized at a time when the market is more realistic to the real value. Therefore, this is not the time to sell it, and if it is sold, it should be sold for its highest and best use and the money taken and used by this government in direct shelter subsidy programs, not putting people down here in the city core to live in what they call affordable housing or non-profit housing.

We're simply saying that the government should get out of the housing business and look after thousands upon thousands more people by a direct shelter subsidy program from the income of any revenue it has from the sale of any land, especially land in the city core.

The other thing they have to give some answer to is the private sector, which has pledged millions of dollars, in excess of $25 million for this project which they're now abandoning. The question of the future of the O'Keefe Centre and whether that's practical or not, I will leave to the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): With respect to the O'Keefe Centre and the feasibility of this particular project, I note that some two years ago this concept was outlined by Metropolitan Toronto council. At that time, the Ballet Opera House wanted nothing to do with it; it wasn't what it wanted. It wanted its own operation at Bay and Wellesley, and it was very clear that it wasn't an acceptable alternative. I'm frankly surprised today it finds it to be that acceptable.

I will also say that the $30 million has to come from somewhere, and you're going to have to generate revenue to pay for a $100-million expansion of facility that will downsize the O'Keefe Centre. It's a profitable operation that puts taxpayers' dollars back into the community at a profit. My thinking is that if the feds go along with it, and I'm not sure they will, you will turn a profitable operation, by downsizing it, into a money loser that will cost the taxpayers money.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Stockwell: My point is that I don't think the feds --

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Premier. Premier, the police crisis, which your government has created, has now spread to every corner of the province. About 90% of Ontario's 21,000 officers are expected to be involved in some form of job action in the next few days.

We understand the Solicitor General is meeting right now with police representatives, and frankly we all hope that this meeting will turn out well and that there can be a resolution to what is becoming a near-crisis situation. But given the Solicitor General's track record on this issue, resolution seems doubtful, given the fact that the Solicitor General himself has indicated that he does not have the green light from you to be able to take the steps necessary to resolve the issue. We are doubtful about a successful resolution through this meeting.

Premier, it seems quite evident that the police have little faith in the Solicitor General's ability to resolve the issue. They've asked to meet with you. Given the fact that you are here today and that your Solicitor General is meeting, why did you not join that meeting and help to ensure that a resolution could be found?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say directly to the honourable member that the Police Association of Ontario, in its meeting with the Solicitor General on Friday, made it very clear that they were happy to deal with the Solicitor General. They realize the confidence that I have in him and the confidence that they have in him. They've been part of an ongoing relationship and dialogue with the Solicitor General over several months.

I want to say that the Solicitor General has the full authority to deal with this question. He has a clear responsibility to deal with this issue. The police association and the Solicitor General are, I am told -- I was advised as I was coming in here -- currently now engaged in what I hope will prove to be very constructive dialogue. In my view, that's the way it should be handled.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I understand you've expressed the hope that the outcome of this meeting between the Solicitor General and the police will be as successful as the outcome of the last meeting between the Solicitor General and the police. As we observe it from a somewhat more distant view, the result of the last meeting was that this escalation of the conflict has now reached the entire province, and 90% of the province's police forces are now supportive of the Metro police job action.

Premier, we found it unbelievable that the Solicitor General would not consult directly with the single largest police force in the province before changing rules that affect the way they do their job. I find it utterly incomprehensible that you would leave the province before ensuring that a resolution to this situation has been found.

Premier, I ask you, in case things do remain unresolved after this meeting today, what provisions have you left in place to ensure that this serious crisis will be resolved? What flexibility have you given to the Solicitor General to address the concerns which have been raised by police officers in Metro Toronto and indeed in every community across this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm satisfied that the Solicitor General and indeed the government, together with the police services boards and others, have the ability and the means to deal with this issue and to create a climate in which we can have a constructive dialogue with the police forces of this province and individual police officers, in whom we have complete confidence.

I would say to the honourable member that I think this is the way the issue should be handled, in a way that people are talking around a table, talking in a constructive way. The Solicitor General is leading this on behalf of the government and I think he's leading it very effectively. It's a tough set of issues and he's handling it with great ability and with a great deal of personal commitment. I have complete confidence in the Solicitor General.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, it is a tough issue, and we are all tremendously concerned about it. We are concerned, Premier, that on this very tough issue, an issue which in fact is reaching near-crisis proportions across the province, you are not prepared to deal with a question that asks, "How can you leave this province without being absolutely assured that the crisis has been resolved?" Premier, your comfort, your degree of confidence, your ability to just say, "It will be fine and I can leave the province," simply fails to understand the degree of concern that exists across the province.

Premier, I want to take you back to some words that you used when you were in opposition, dealing with the government's response to a wildcat strike and illegal job action on the part of corrections officers in 1989. I raise these words with you because I want you to think about their application to the situation you face today:

"We have been critical of this minister for failing to meet. I continue to believe that if the minister had shown a personal willingness to meet with representatives of the union several days ago this matter could have been resolved, that the issues that led to this confrontation were not a secret to this government -- they are well known and well documented -- and that to this time, the minister himself has not even personally met with representatives of the union with regard to these issues."

Premier, I say to you, do you not understand that the way in which the refusal to deal with these issues, to meet with the Metro police, has led to an escalation of this conflict right across the province. In seeking a resolution to this issue today, can you assure us that you do understand why this conflict has occurred? Can you understand why it is an issue that police in every community across the province, from Thunder Bay to Trenton, feel very strongly about? Do you understand the kind of alienation that police officers are feeling? What will you do to ensure that these tensions can be alleviated, and that relations between your government and the police can be improved?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the efforts that have been made by the Solicitor General -- you mentioned my willingness. I spoke to the members of the Ontario Provincial Police Association. I think I'm probably the first Premier in several years to speak directly to such a meeting. I spoke at some length with people. I've met with people on many different occasions and I will continue to do so.

However, with respect to the issues that are now before us, I think it's also important that members of cabinet take responsibility, and carry out those responsibilities, for their portfolios. I have confidence in the ability of the Solicitor General to deal with what is a tough issue, one that must be resolved successfully and resolved in a way that shows a sense of mutual respect and a sense of mutual understanding.

That's exactly what we are trying to do and what we very much want to build on and work towards in the future. That's precisely the position we're taking. In a difficult circumstance, I think it's constructive and I think it's going to prove to be ultimately a very effective approach.

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIR

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask my second question of the Premier and return to an issue he did not respond to yesterday. Premier, yesterday we asked some, what we believe to be, important questions, clearly rather embarrassing questions for you, about Ontario Hydro. You did not deny yesterday that Al Holt, the former president of Hydro, who was forcibly deposed by your government, was given a $1.2-million severance package.

Your handpicked chair of Ontario Hydro has confirmed that his salary at the United Nations before accepting this new position was around $140,000. In his new position, he will make $425,000, an increase of 203%. Your Minister of Energy has now confirmed that an American executive search firm was hired at a cost of $100,000 to find a new chairman of Hydro and he also confirmed that the contract was untendered.

Mr Premier, yesterday you refused to answer this question. Your minister has now confirmed the facts of the case, and before you refer this question to the minister, Premier, I ask you very directly, how do you defend this action by your Minister of Energy?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll let the Minister of Energy answer that question.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The Leader of the Opposition included a number of things in her

preamble, but I would assume the question she was wanting an answer to was the question about the search firm and the letting of the contract.

As we've said a number of times in this House -- and I think as has become very apparent because of the discussions we've had in this House around Ontario Hydro, around the capital debt of Ontario Hydro, around cost overruns and around the rate increases that have occurred over the course of the last couple of years -- as a result of significant lack of political leadership by two previous administrations, we've got a huge and important job to do in turning Hydro around.

The chair announced in July that he was leaving at the end of October. We had a fairly short period of time in which to turn around and fill a very important position. The contract for the search firm was let on August 28. The work by that firm all happens to have been done by Canadians out of the Toronto office of the firm. It's our view that the problem that had to be resolved here --

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

Hon Mr Charlton: -- and the position that had to be filled in a very short period of time were important enough to proceed quickly.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you presumed wrong. The question that I asked the Premier was how he could even begin to defend your completely indefensible actions.

The Premier keeps refusing to answer any questions about Ontario Hydro. In fact, the Premier just keeps saying that our questions are unfair. I would say to the Premier, as he refuses to answer the questions again today, that people across this province do not think these questions are unfair. The Minister of Energy has said that he's not even particularly interested in these matters. Minister, I can tell you that the people whom I talk to across the province are very interested in these matters.

Minister, today we learned that the Premier's handpicked chair of Hydro, in spite of a $100,000 untendered contract to a consulting firm, is only to serve for two years. Will you confirm that the length of Maurice Strong's contract is indeed for two years?

Hon Mr Charlton: I can't confirm that it's for only two years because my understanding is that in fact it's for five years.

In relation to the Leader of the Opposition's comment about the unfairness of their questions, I wouldn't characterize the questions that have come from the Leader of the Opposition, a former Minister of Energy in this House, as unfair; I would characterize them as rather naïve.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: I hope the Minister of Energy is not suggesting that it's naïve to be concerned about the way in which salary dollars, severance settlements, are going to affect Hydro rates and about the way that increased Hydro rates are affecting every individual in this province, from mothers on welfare to our biggest companies.

Minister, today we've learned that Mr Strong will receive a pension of two thirds of his $425,000 salary for what you now tell us is five years' work. This works out to $280,000 per year in pension. Will you confirm that this information is correct?

Hon Mr Charlton: As the Premier very openly announced on Thursday of last week, when he and Mr Strong sat in the press room downstairs and announced the appointment, Mr Strong's pension would be the pension that's available to all of the executives at Hydro, and nothing more and nothing less.

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier, and it's related to the situation of the policing of the province as well. I must say that I find it rather ironic that the leader of the Liberal Party is talking about a crisis. This is a crisis, if indeed it is a crisis, that has developed over years. It was the Liberal Party that appointed Susan Eng, the Liberal Party that created the SIU, the special investigations unit. It was a Liberal task force that brought in most of these regulatory proposals, so it's passing strange to hear the concern today.

I want to ask the Premier about the regulatory changes, specifically the one that has generated the most discussion: the requirement to file a report when a revolver is drawn in public.

I want to remind the Premier of some of the problems faced, which are unique to the province, especially in some of the neighbourhoods of Metro Toronto. I've talked to police officers who have to draw their weapons on numerous occasions during a shift, who just a couple of weeks ago, when they were confronting a Vietnamese gang, had to use people they were arresting as body shields, as human shields, to get out of a building because of concern for their lives; the kinds of hazards that these individuals face on an almost daily basis.

When you look at that and you look at the unique concerns of Metro police especially in this province, I don't believe we've had a full explanation as to why this particular regulation was developed and what you hope to achieve by it.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will try to answer the questions. The Solicitor General obviously has been very much involved in the discussions with a variety of people, including the Police Association of Ontario and other groups, with respect to this issue, but let me just put it to the member this way.

The purpose of the regulation is really twofold. First of all, it's to provide a degree of protection for the police officers themselves with respect to the filing of information. If there's an objective source of information with respect to an occurrence, it's the view of the Solicitor General and the view that I think emerged from a long process that this is going to be a source of important protection for officers themselves, in terms of recognizing that the pulling of a gun is an occurrence, an event, it's an event of some significance in the daily work of an officer, and therefore it's important to have that source of protection.

The second is to ensure, in terms of training and in terms of the ability of police chiefs and of those who are responsible for the management of police forces, that training is done on an ongoing basis and that the chiefs of police themselves are able to see that the use of force, generally speaking, is appropriate to the circumstances.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I want to stress to the honourable member that those are the two basic reasons. There's certainly no presumption on the part of the regulation that it's either proper or improper for an officer to draw a gun. That's a decision that's made by an officer, it's a decision made by an officer according to the training he receives, and it's made according to the officer's obligation to protect his or her own life and to protect the lives and safety of other citizens. That's precisely the grounds, so there's no question of anybody second-guessing or doublechecking or asking people to think twice. It's simply a matter --

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- there for records with respect to training and with respect to protecting officers themselves.

Mr Runciman: Clearly, the police officers across the province don't share the Premier's view, especially in terms of protecting police officers. If you read the Globe and Mail story today about a four-tiered system for reporting this -- talk about complex -- some sort of report for a variety of efforts in terms of drawing a revolver. A letter I have here from the Metro police force indicates that indeed these are going to be used for disciplinary purposes.

I want to talk about another element in respect to these regulations. I want to try to determine what the thinking was of yourself and other members of the government in respect to these changes: That's the one where the external consultative committee, which you paid little or no heed to, recommended that police officers in this province be allowed to use semiautomatic weapons.

Premier, just in Metro Toronto last year close to 1,200 offensive weapons were seized by police; that's just in Metro Toronto. We know there's extensive weaponry on the streets, modern, sophisticated. Our police officers are outgunned. The irony of this, as I pointed out to you some time ago, Premier, is that your own security officers can carry semiautomatic weapons and do, but the man and woman out there --

The Speaker: Could the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Runciman: -- on the beat is required by you to carry a .38 revolver. Will you again, Premier, explain the rationale, explain to the public, explain to the police officers out there why your security officers can carry semiautomatics but the average police officer in this province does not have the approval from your government?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me speak very directly to the point. I can tell the honourable member that any decisions with respect to my own security are not made by me. I'm never consulted --

Mr Runciman: That's not the point.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, it is the point. I think I have to say this clearly and categorically so there's no misunderstanding. Any decisions that are made with respect to my own security arrangements are made by the Ontario Provincial Police and are made by the commissioner, I suppose, ultimately, with respect to the authorization of any particular issues.

Let me say with respect to the issue of semiautomatic guns --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): They don't trust you. They don't believe you. You may as well sit down.

Hon Mr Rae: I say directly to the honourable member -- if I can speak through the heckling from the member from Etobicoke -- that this is something which is still being reviewed within the ministry and by the committees which the ministry is consulting with, and it's something which is still under discussion. Again, that's something the Solicitor General has made very clear with respect to those questions. The questions of what the appropriate use of force is, what the appropriate weapons are, are issues that need to be discussed thoroughly, they need to be consulted thoroughly, there needs to be advice from experts.

As I say, in terms of the security arrangements which are made with respect to me, I'm simply not at liberty to discuss those.

Mr Runciman: This continues the double standard in respect to the Premier and this government. He can meet with certain groups in society -- pressure groups, vocal pressure groups -- but he can't meet with police officers. He can have his security force carry semiautomatic weapons, but the public or police officers on the beat cannot have the same protection. He says he doesn't have anything to do with that, but he has the final voice in respect to the police officer on the beat. It doesn't make any sense to us in here and it certainly doesn't make any sense to police officers.

I want to say to the Premier that he can do something positive here. We've got this stalemate, and I'm going to propose something: If he does not want to meet with the Metro force, would he at least consider coming forward with an initiative that will delay implementation of the regulations for another six months, until the middle of 1993, so that a broad-based committee, including front-line cops, can tour this province, get input from forces and public right across this province, before you proceed any further? Will you make that commitment today?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say first of all that there's one other thing the member said in his comments; I think he said it's the view of the Metro force, or he's been told by the Metro force, that it's the intention of the government to use any information with respect to the regulations for disciplinary purposes. That's quite wrong. I want the member to know there is absolutely no such intention, and that's been made clear by the Solicitor General from day one.

The Solicitor General has made it clear that he very much wants to carry on a constructive dialogue with the police forces of the province on all the issues that have been raised by the honourable member. It is not the government's intention to delay or rescind the regulation. It is our intention to carry on a constructive and positive dialogue. It is our determination to do that, and if I may say so, it's also our determination not to exacerbate things, in particular, if I may say so, not to try to personalize things too much at a time when these issues are really quite difficult to resolve.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier, regarding the mess at WCB. Let me quote, Premier, from former NDP member and now chairman of the WCB, Odoardo Di Santo. He says, "Surely it must be clear that the foundation on which workers' compensation was built cannot much longer support the needs, let alone the demands, of those for whom it was designed."

In other words, Mr Premier, your chair is clearly on record as stating that the WCB is broken and that it cannot, in his opinion, be fixed. I think this is quite an admission from the chief executive officer, the person responsible for overseeing the WCB. I would ask you if you agree with your chair that this is an accurate reflection of the state of the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I haven't seen the context of the comments made by the honourable member. I will only say in response to the honourable member's question that we all know -- I think everyone is aware -- that particularly in a time of serious recession, the pressures on the WCB grow. This was true in the early 1980s and it's certainly true right now in the 1990s.

The board is wrestling with some very tough issues. In particular, the board is having to contend with the fact that the business community, as the member knows, and certainly he's expressed this thought on occasion, is very concerned about the WCB rates. The board has just made an announcement indicating that it's going to be doing everything it can to hold the line on the rates. At the same time, we have to recognize that particularly at a time of recession, the social pressures on the board grow and the demands on the board for its services, the need for more activity on rehabilitation, all those things grow.

Of course this government -- I've already had some meetings with leaders of labour and management with respect to the issues around the WCB, and we're going to be continuing to do this as we look at attempting to deal with what is a tough situation. But the board is certainly taking steps to deal with it.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, it was in a speech that Mr Di Santo made on June 11, 1992, to the annual conference of the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada. It's very clear that things have run amok at the WCB. There's an $11-billion unfunded liability. That debt is increasing by $100 million each and every month. Now the WCB is spending $200 million to build new office space at a time when our commercial vacancy rate is 23% and leases are available, by some estimates, for half the cost of this new building, and your chair is running around throwing his hands up in the air.

Would you not agree with me, Premier, that it's becoming increasingly obvious that the big problem at WCB is management, that it's time for a new chair and a new management team at the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: The management team at the Workers' Compensation Board, the two senior appointments, consist of Mr Brian King, who is himself a disabled person, an injured worker who has worked his way to very effective management positions in the workers' compensation boards of both Manitoba and of Saskatchewan.

We find now, for example, that the costs of Bill 162 are 20% higher than the previous government said they would be. The WCB inherited a $9-billion unfunded liability.

The chairman of the board is Mr Di Santo. Mr Di Santo has been involved --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: Yes, he was a member of this Legislature and, yes, a member of the New Democratic Party. So was Robert Elgie. Lincoln Alexander was a politician. Mike Starr was a member of the Diefenbaker cabinet.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You appointed your hack.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't remember the member objecting to those appointments. I would say to the honourable member, Mr Di Santo --

Mr Harris: Answer the question.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm going to answer the question. I'm answering it as directly as I can.

Interjections.

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

Mr Harris: You sound like George Bush with his misinformation campaign.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party please take his seat.

The leader of the third party with his final supplementary.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary, let me say this to the Premier. The issue is not whether Mr Di Santo is a New Democrat or a Liberal or a Progressive Conservative. The issue is, he's chairman and he says, "It's out of control, falling apart and I can't do anything about it." That's the issue. That's his own admission.

We've pointed out to you -- and I've pointed out in this Legislature time after time after time -- things that are going wrong at WCB. Yes, you inherited a mess from the Liberals; we understand that. Yes, the deficit was $9 billion. Now it's $11 billion and it's still growing, and the situation is getting worse under your tenure and under your management.

Several times I stood in the House and raised the issue of fraud at the WCB. Today's Globe and Mail reports the problem is far worse than your government has admitted when I raised these issues. There is something wrong when an agency of the government has to investigate nearly 500 cases of potential fraud.

Premier, I ask you, as I have asked you and your government and your Minister of Labour many times before, will you today agree to call in the Provincial Auditor to get to the bottom of the problem at WCB, before any money is wasted -- money, I might add, that should be going now and in the future to injured workers?

Hon Mr Rae: The auditor has constant access to the WCB. It's precisely the determination of the management of the board to deal with the problem as soon as it heard of it, as soon as it realized that things are now emerging. I say to the honourable member, the issues have to be dealt with and will be dealt with, and this is something which all the citizens of this province have an interest in because we all have a very strong public interest in ensuring that we have an effective, efficient Workers' Compensation Board and one that operates effectively.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Premier, last August in promising special assistance to peach farmers who had been hit by a recent hailstorm, you said: "We are going to have to respond quickly to this current hail situation. We've got to make sure that help goes to those who need it."

As we raised earlier in the House in your absence, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has now told Niagara farmers that no new financial assistance will be made available to peach farmers devastated by the hailstorm. Premier, the peach farmers of Niagara region have asked us to ask you personally how you can justify this broken promise.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): What I told the farmers when I met with them in August, two days after the hailstorm -- the minister was there the day before me -- and what we've said to people, has been constant through the piece; that is, first, the essential line has to be the crop insurance funds which are in place. What the minister said, and what I said to confirm it, was that if the government could respond in terms of a financial package, it would have to be done on a basis that recognized the fact that the integrity of the crop insurance fund had to be respected.

As I say, there are other steps that need to be taken, but the difficulty we have, obviously, in a time of great economic difficulty and great fiscal restraint, is how to respond, particularly at a time when the essential line of defence that's there and the one that was established and supported by previous governments is the crop insurance fund.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, you told the farmers in Niagara region that help would reach those who need it. The Minister of Agriculture and Food, in this House, described to us the kind of help you were prepared to offer to the Niagara peach farmers. It was counselling assistance. The farmers will tell you, Premier, that counselling assistance is not going to help when the bank calls the loan.

Premier, your government has a very long record now of broken promises to farmers across the province. There was last year's decision to delay participation in the NISA program for income stabilization; there was $5 million in unspent funds from last fall's special assistance package; there was a promise last spring in the budget of $20 million in credit assistance under the agriculture investment strategy, a program which is not yet up and running and which will not help Niagara farmers or any other farmers in the current year.

Premier, given what is clearly your retreat from a promise that you made, how do you now expect farmers to believe anything you tell them?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm sure the member knows and I'm sure she also realizes that today is the day when my colleagues and I will be meeting with members of the executive of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and we'll be having a very thorough discussion of a number of issues.

I want to say to the honourable member, we have had to face the fact right across the board that we are in a difficult financial situation -- we all recognize that -- and that there are limits to what we can do. I think farmers understand that. I think farmers also understand that the purpose of having something like the crop insurance fund is precisely to protect people against disasters of this kind.

If there are improvements to be made to the crop insurance fund, the minister has already indicated he's prepared to look at that, but crop insurance has to be able to be seen as the basic line of defence against the kind of situations which are being described.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Also to the Premier, I'm sure the Premier's aware of the grave concerns that the rural community and farming community have about the two recent cuts in the budget, plus the cutback in the financial aid program that was promised last year. The Premier knows the concern farmers have over the Ministry of the Environment transferring decision-making on the authority of farm pesticides from a group that had some farmers involved to a downtown NDP group of bureaucrats who now control this.

The Premier also knows that the Minister of Natural Resources is attempting and demanding the right to control what is a domestic farm animal. Mr Premier, can you explain to us this continued attack on agriculture by your cabinet and your government?

Hon Mr Rae: Quite the opposite. The minister has really done a superb job as the Minister of Agriculture and Food at a time of enormous difficulty. He has tried to respond effectively, given the restraints that we're working under.

We have developed new programs. We have tried to respond to crises as they've emerged. We have tried to make it more economic for people to farm and to deal with the overall financial and economic situation which we're facing, not only internally but also on world markets. I can say to the honourable member, our intention is to keep on encouraging that and to move in that direction in a positive and constructive way.

Mr Villeneuve: If a 10% cut to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is an encouragement, I would hate to see the reverse of that.

You told farmers, Mr Premier, that the emergency assistance provided last year was cut because of higher than anticipated corn prices. Where in the world are you getting your advice, sir? There is something desperately wrong with that. The facts are that corn averaged $101 a metric tonne last year, $98 in September 1991, and it's been tragedy after tragedy.

Anywhere but in this chamber we could call the Premier something else but honest, but I will not use unparliamentary language, although it would be very easy at this particular point.

The Premier writes that Ontario has joined the national support program for agriculture, yet the per acre and the per bushel value is less than in any other province. The budget's been cut by 10%.

Mr Premier, please reverse the situation. Come across with the goods. Agriculture's in trouble. What do you anticipate to do in a positive nature next time?

Hon Mr Rae: I'll tell you what we're going to do. We're going to continue to work with other governments and we're going to continue to work with the farm community in the face of what is a very tough economic circumstance.

The member talks about cuts. I want to say to the honourable member that the Health budget has been restricted to the lowest rate of increase at any time since the introduction of medicare. This government has had to take some of the toughest decisions with respect to the operations of government.

If the honourable member looks around and listens to the language of his colleagues, what do they want? They want lower deficits, which we'd all love to have; they want fewer taxes, which would simply be superb. The Tory party can't have it all ways. You can try to have it all ways if you're in opposition. When you're in government, you have to take those tough decisions. You know it perfectly well. We all know it perfectly well. There are tough decisions that have to be made as we face what is, without question, the most difficult economic and financial circumstance this province has faced for many years.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Look who's talking.

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

Interjections.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question today --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Just a minute. Would the member take her seat.

I realize the members would like to get on with question period, and that would move a little more smoothly if the member for Etobicoke West would exercise some restraint. It would be very helpful.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question today is to the honourable Minister of Health. Madam Minister, it has been brought to my attention that a constituent in my riding of Lambton county was denied coverage of two drugs prescribed by her doctor. This was denied by the Ontario drug benefit plan, drugs which my constituent has been taking since 1984.

This situation is one where it took from last February until last week to even get a ruling by the drug plan branch. To make matters worse, my constituent is over 87 years of age and does not want to be a burden to her family for the cost of these drugs. No longer does she wish to take these drugs, and if she doesn't, she will simply die.

I find this unacceptable. I know the reputation and credibility of the doctor prescribing the drug, and I must say there's no doubt that these drugs are needed by my constituent. I also find it unacceptable that a resident of 87 years of age should have to be subject to such unnecessary trauma. What can be done to expedite a solution to this deplorable abuse of an 87-year-old Ontario resident who wishes to live her remaining years with dignity and who has never abused the system in any way?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I appreciate the opportunity to address the answer to the member. I've had certain conversations with the member where she has raised this case and have attempted to explain that there is information available which will help her assist her constituent.

Let me indicate that the drugs that are involved here are Trental and Persantine. Over a year ago, tighter regulations were put on the use of those two drugs under the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. Trental is a drug that's used for circulation purposes. The Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee has made a finding that there are alternatives that are much more cost-effective that are on the formulary, and they can work with her physician to try to get substitute medication for her.

With respect to Persantine, under a special authorization, if the physician can provide legitimate reasons why the patient would require the drug, there is a process that could grant approval for use of that. But in many cases the drug is prescribed for general use, and in fact the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee will not qualify it for general use.

What I can say to the member is that we can try to work with her again. If she would like to have her constituent's physician call the DQTC, a member of the DQTC will work with the physician to help him determine what information needs to be provided to assist the case.

Mrs MacKinnon: Thank you, Madam Minister, for that. I will follow up on your suggestions.

Madam Minister, do you feel your ministry should be taking steps to eliminate the situation completely by having a procedure in place where a constituent such as I am speaking of would be exempt from having to go through this procedure every year?

Hon Ms Lankin: I'm not sure that I understand the member's question with respect to this being on an annual basis. If the information provided would warrant a decision from the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee to grant authorization, that authorization would stand for that prescription, then, for that particular patient.

One of the problems we have in the very particular case here is that the DQTC has not been able to obtain sufficient information from the physician involved to warrant a decision granting authorization for the coverage of these drugs. So again, we can try to work with the member's constituent's physician to indicate what kind of information is required. That may or may not allow the DQTC to arrive at a different determination.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): This is for the Premier. Premier, you'll recall that yesterday I asked you a question about the Sport Select Pro-Line gambling game and referred to the concern that I expressed about kids having access -- you've got some briefing notes today, I see -- to buy this in their corner stores. I appreciated your response. Not to quote you exactly, but I believe what you said is you would be concerned, as the father of three kids, if they were to have access to that.

Premier, in the Toronto Star it states that, "Tourism minister Peter North said there is a government policy -- but no law -- banning store owners from selling tickets to minors." It goes on to say, "Store owners could lose their lottery franchise for selling tickets to a child but that has never actually happened, lottery officials confirmed." Then Mr North said, "'I don't know how much more strict you can be.'" When I went on to say, "'If it's illegal to sell cigarettes to kids and illegal to sell booze to kids, why isn't it illegal to sell gambling tickets to kids?'" The

article continues, "North dismissed that option, saying laws against selling cigarettes to children aren't very effective."

Premier, do you agree with your minister that because, in his opinion, laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to kids are not effective, we should do nothing about this issue?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I indicated my answer yesterday. I say to the honourable member that it's my understanding that while there is no law, it is the policy of the lottery commission to restrict the sale of lottery tickets to minors, and this policy, I'm told and I'm advised -- and I have a briefing note here which I will share with the member -- is communicated to retailers in a number of ways: through regular newsletters to retailers, through retailer training and through regular reminders on retailer lottery terminals. Whenever there's a complaint, there's an effort to contact the retailer and ensure that the policy is adhered to.

The member has now raised an issue with respect to what other action could be taken, and I can only say to the member that obviously we will consider the member's point of view and other issues with respect to this issue. I can say to the honourable member that it's an issue to which I had not turned my mind until the member raised it yesterday. When he raised it, it occurred to me that there's an issue that needs to be looked at. I told the member yesterday that it was something that we would be looking at, and I'm sure we'll be trying to make an assessment as to what the most effective regulatory mechanism might be.

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate that, because I hadn't turned my mind to it until I actually saw kids buying these lottery tickets in the corner store and until some of the parents in my community contacted me. As a result of the activity yesterday, I've received a letter in my office, addressed to my executive assistant, from Brady Irwin, coordinator of government liaison.

Mr Irwin goes on in this letter to say: "Fortunately, most young people are not attracted to lotteries. On-line games such as Lotto 649 and Pro-Line are particularly unattractive to young people because the games do not offer immediate results." I'd like one of the pages to come and take this over to the Premier so he could turn his mind to this rather serious issue.

This is the literature that is put out on the game. You can see that it's 8.5 inches by 11 inches and has eight folds, several colours and several pictures of a celebrity who's very famous to young people, Mr Cherry -- this is very critical, Mr Speaker -- where he's quoted in here as saying: "Play to win. To help you rookies get going, I'm going to give you this game plan."

I wonder, are the rookies he's referring to maybe the senior citizens in the province? I'm curious as to whom he could be referring to. To quote Mr Irwin, who says "the games do not offer immediate results": You bet on three hockey games on Saturday night and on Sunday you pick up the winnings at the corner store. That's pretty darn immediate to me.

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

Mr Mahoney: You bet on Monday night football and you get your dough on Tuesday morning.

Premier, I have drafted here a private member's bill which I will be introducing today, to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act by prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets to minors. A contravention of this bill would result in the --

The Speaker: Would the member please place his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: -- revocation of the authorization to sell lottery tickets. Mr Premier, will you support my private member's bill, which I'll be putting on the floor for first reading today, to ban the sale of these tickets to minors?

Hon Mr Rae: I recognize that while the member may not have turned his mind to the issue prior to the weekend, I think we all, any one of us who's been involved in politics, recognize that he is responding, as one would expect him to respond, in an effective and direct way.

I want to say to him that I don't tend to indicate my approval or disapproval of legislation before I've had a chance to see it or read it, despite some of the things you might see. I would only say to the honourable member that anything he suggests is, of course, worthy of consideration.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Premier. Premier, very deep in the labour law, Bill 40, is an insidious clause which will lead to duplication.

Section 23 deals with the role of labour arbitrators. The arbitrator will have the ultimate power to rule on employment relations legislation such as human rights. Bill 40 says an arbitrator or arbitration board shall make a final and conclusive settlement and has the power to interpret and apply the requirements of human rights.

In effect, this will make available to individuals two tribunals in which to file grievances, one under the Human Rights Commission and another under an arbitrator of the Ministry of Labour. How can you justify creating more duplication and confusion with the Ontario Human Rights Commission when there are already so many problems?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The intention is not to produce any duplication.

Mr Cousens: If that is the case, then you would have, in opportunity, accepted an amendment from our caucus that would have removed that possibility of duplication because, as it stands now, the labour arbitrator will be able to look at human rights issues and so will the Human Rights Commission. You could have duplication going on. In the one case you'll have maybe a different decision being made under Human Rights, and in the case under a labour arbitrator quite a different decision.

But the question which now comes under your Bill 40 law is, who pays for it? If a ruling is made by the Human Rights Commission, the taxpayers pay. If a ruling is made by an arbitrator, business pays. Are you not passing along another cost of doing business in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: The member is wrong when he refers to arbitration as simply business paying. The parties pay. The parties to an arbitration on both sides, both parties, both labour and management, are responsible for the funding of arbitrations.

This is actually something I know a little bit about, so perhaps I can just say to the honourable member that the purpose of granting the jurisdiction to the arbitrator is quite the opposite of what he's suggesting and indeed this, we believe, will be the effect of the legislation. It's to make clear the authority of the arbitrator to deal with human rights issues which are frequently raised and frequently have an impact on labour arbitrations. It's precisely intended to simplify the issue rather than otherwise.

It is not possible for us to limit the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission, but on a practical basis we do believe it is going to be possible for arbitrators to clearly be able to take into account a number of other factors. So rather than having two proceedings going at once or two proceedings going off in different directions, there will be one proceeding under the arbitrator, if that's what the parties choose to do and that's how they choose to do it.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I know that the member for St Catharines will be very interested in this because my question is to the Minister of Health.

Mr Speaker, I did want to make a small comment here. Frequently this House is presumed to be very adversarial, and in fact it is. But the member for St Catharines has been working very assiduously on this particular issue and working together with my colleagues from Niagara to try to get an upgrading of the kidney dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu.

I know the minister is fully apprised of the situation. I am not going to go through my entire question but I'm going to ask the minister to update us all on what the situation is at the Hotel Dieu.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): An aggressive group of members from that part of the province.

To the member for St Catharines-Brock and her fellow MPPs in that area who have been constantly reminding me of the need for the ministry to move more quickly on this issue, I'm pleased to give you a very brief update. We have had ongoing discussions with the hospital. The hospital has been made very well aware that it is responsible for the cost of replacing existing equipment, and the ministry does acknowledge that there is a need to move on some of the most pressing issues while the redevelopment study is going on in order to get this kidney dialysis unit up and running.

The ministry and the hospital are this week finalizing the scope of the project and the estimated costs. There will be an announcement, I hope, within a few days.

Ms Haeck: I would like to not only thank, as I already have, the member for St Catharines, but there are a number of other people. One is Jack Leake, who has been a patient spokesperson and very much an advocate on this, besides being a patient.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Don't mention my name or you won't get in the Standard.

Ms Haeck: I'm sorry, Jim, you got in today, so what more did you want?

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): In the Standard?

Ms Haeck: Yes, he actually did get in the Standard; for all of the press gallery, he actually did get in the Standard this week.

Madam Minister, the solution for all of this is $1.2 million and that's what the hospital is really looking for. Are we in any way in the ballpark to actually see this as a solution?

Hon Ms Lankin: I'm going to resist, I think, the request to get into negotiations here on the floor of the Legislature around the actual amount. What we are doing today and in the next couple of days is actually finalizing agreement between the ministry and the hospital about the scope of the project, and what we will do is notify the hospital in writing within the next few days of the final decision with respect to what capital allowance the ministry will put into the project.

I will guarantee you at that point in time I'll make sure that copies of that letter are available to you and to the other MPPs in that area whose constituents rely on the services of this kidney dialysis unit at this hospital.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It's to do with your standards and your standards of conduct, referring to the letter that you had sent to the Ontario Municipal Board chairman on September 16.

I always believed and I actually thought that you always believed that it was totally inappropriate for the Premier or any cabinet minister to write to the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board in support of a project, in support of an expedited hearing. I always thought that. Yet on September 16 your executive assistant, acting on your behalf, sent a letter to the chairman of the OMB. This letter spoke both in support of the project and in support of an expedited hearing.

My question is very simple, Premier: Is it now your position that it is acceptable for the Premier's Office to write to the chairman of the OMB indicating your support for a project that is before the OMB and requesting an expedited hearing?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I've answered this question on several occasions, when it's been posed to me, as clearly as I possibly can.

Mr Romano wrote the letter. I say to the honourable member that, first of all, the government is directly involved as a partner in the project. It is a project which has the full support of the ministries of the government. In terms of proceeding, it involves an extension of the infrastructure in Metropolitan Toronto which this government has been very supportive of. I might add that previous governments were supportive of the project as well in terms of encouraging it to go ahead with the city of York.

The OMB has a number of issues to deal with with respect to zoning and other questions. It's up to the OMB to determine those, but as I say, with respect to the hearing itself, Mr Kruger, I think, has made it extremely clear that he has full authority to determine when the hearings will take place and on what dates. He certainly understands that the government's position is very clear, as we are, in effect --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please?

Hon Mr Rae: Together with the city of York and the developers, a number of ministries are parties to the process. The OMB has full carriage of the decision as to when and whether the hearings will be held, and certainly has full carriage with respect to whatever outcome emerges from its decision.

Mr Phillips: Premier, you were wrong to do it. You should simply have said you were wrong. You didn't know it happened; it was wrong. You are defending the indefensible. Every single person in your cabinet knows it's wrong. Every single person in the House knows it's wrong. When you were in opposition, you would have been all over this. You can't write to a quasi-judicial body supporting a project. It has nothing to do with whether the government supports it. You can't write the letter.

I'll just ask the question clearly and simply again: Is it now your standard that it is acceptable for the Premier's office to write to the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board in support of a project that is before that board for a quasi-judicial decision?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Romano, who is in my constituency office, wrote a letter with respect to the scheduling of dates for a hearing. Those are the facts.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Burlington South.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): That's wrong. That's a lie.

Interjections.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Premier. Premier, in your throne speech --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jackson: -- you made the unusual statement that your government intended to listen to the concerns --

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South will get his question, because I did recognize him before the disorder. I would ask the member for York Centre if he would withdraw the unparliamentary word which was heard in the chamber, inappropriate language, as he knows.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, the Premier said, "My constituency assistant wrote on a matter of scheduling."

The Speaker: No. Would the member for York Centre take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member to please take his seat. It's a very straightforward matter. I simply asked the member to withdraw the unparliamentary word which was used, that's all, and I ask the member to do so now.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw that and say that the Premier misrepresented himself in this --

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South with his question. To whom is it directed?

Mr Jackson: To the Premier, again. Premier, in your throne speech you indicated that you were going to be listening to those voices --

Mr Sorbara: -- any court if this is all right.

The Speaker : I ask the member for York Centre to please come to order

Mr Sorbara: Nothing left. Don't do it.

The Speaker: If the member is a cause of disorder, he will have to be named.

Interjections.

The Speaker : I caution the member for York Centre. He is about to be named.

Mr Sorbara: You are counselling interference with a quasi-judicial body.

The Speaker: The member is leaving the Speaker with no recourse but to name him if he refuses to come to order.

The member for Burlington South with his question.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I only get three shots at this, right, Mr Speaker?

Premier, my question has to do with children's aid society funding. I've been asking you about the issue of your throne speech, where you said you were going to listen to those voices which traditionally haven't been heard by governments and say no to groups that have been speaking too loudly.

Earlier in question period, you questioned why the Conservatives are taking up causes such as children's aid societies, where their deficits this year are in the multimillions of dollars and your government is cutting funding to them. Yet you can find money in the millions and millions of dollars, $97 million to be exact, to build redundant and surplus non-profit day care centres to pursue your ideological program, or $14-some million dollars for the largely symbolic gesture of bilingual road signs.

Why is it then, not as you said in your throne speech, that you're saying no to the vulnerable children who need help and protection under the law and yet you can say yes to these other ideological programs of your government? Where is your sense of priority for the children in this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer that to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): This government has a very strong commitment to the children of this province.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Run away.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Bye, Bob.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Bye, Bobby. Little Bobby's going out.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): If everyone's said their goodbyes, perhaps the minister could have the floor to respond.

Hon Mrs Boyd: This government has a very strong commitment to children. It interests me that every time the member talks about children's aid societies, he brings in his own ideology around child care. We believe that child care is an important front-line prevention in terms of children, one that supports the work of children's aid societies because of early identification of problems for children.

The member is well aware of the financial difficulties we face in terms of the constraint measures and how we are working with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and all of our children's aid societies to try to deal with the very real constraints they are facing, for the first time in many years. It is very difficult for those communities, very difficult for the volunteer boards of directors, for the staff and for all the children and parents who are served.

It is something we are trying to deal with from a community base and within the means the government has, particularly given the cap on the Canada assistance plan, which is creating a lot of our difficulty in providing services for children.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Last week when you made your ruling in writing, I had requested that you put it in writing because you offer us precedents with respect to going from committee of the whole to the House. There were no precedents outlined in your ruling, and --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member for Etobicoke West please take his seat. This matter has been dealt with. It is not a matter for debate. If the member is looking for some explanations with respect to the rules, I would invite him to either visit the table, the Clerk's office or indeed my own office. I'd be very pleased to discuss the rules with him.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: A new point of order?

Mr Stockwell: You never even heard my last one, so I don't know how you'd know if it was new or not.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is being directed to take his seat. There is nothing out of order.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a very important petition here, addressed to the Premier of the province that reads as follows:

"Dear Premier:

"As my elected leader I want you to immediately:

"(1) freeze Ontario Hydro rates;

"(2) stop costly Ontario Hydro megaprojects, massive dams, transformer and generating stations and lengthy transmission lines and promote the implementation of cogeneration, NUGs, energy conservation etc;

"(3) cancel all current Ontario Hydro environmental assessment hearings; and,

"(4) promote economic and social accountability by permitting competition to offer an alternative to the monopoly now held by Ontario Hydro."

This has been signed by 10,000 persons.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I have here a petition to the members of provincial Parliament.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship to many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

This petition is signed by members from the Cambridge area and I have attached my name to the petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario to "reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It's signed by 66 residents of Middlesex county and I've affixed my signature.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The point of order I'm making to you -- before you rule me out of order, I would just like to make it. The point of order is: When I ask you to provide in writing some precedents for the decision of moving from committee of the whole to the House and then back to committee of the whole, you undertook that and you said you'd get back to this House in writing.

Upon reading your ruling, you provided no precedent as to history about going from the House, after 6 pm, back into the committee of the whole. I ask you, Mr Speaker, was that simply because -- and you can respond now or in writing or choose not to; it's your decision as the Speaker -- there isn't any precedent or is it simply because you didn't have time to review it through the books?

I'm asking very specifically, is there any precedent which provided the decision that you made that moved this House back to the committee of the whole after 6 o'clock?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Etobicoke West, the member tries the patience of the Speaker greatly, but I will --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member to take his seat. A point of order was raised. A ruling on the point of order was provided. If the member wishes information with respect to procedure, precedents or anything else related to a ruling, he is more than welcome to visit my office or the office of the Clerk or to indeed visit the table officers.

I cannot nor should I do more than that because what the member is really doing, indirectly, which he knows he cannot do directly, is to challenge a ruling that was made.

GAMBLING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula.

"We believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular.

"We believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activities.

"By our signatures here attached, we ask you to not license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have one from Carleton United Church in St Catharines, Ontario, regarding an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, promised wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

It reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I agree with the petition of the parishioners of Carleton United Church and affix my signature to it indicating that agreement.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by some 50 people from Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I agree with this petition, and I have signed it.

ABORTION

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I have a petition sent to me by Florence Vanden-Ende, the president of Cambridge Right to Life. The petition is as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas children are our most valuable resource and our only link with the future; and

"Whereas the destruction of pre-born babies is against natural and divine law;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop funding abortions, to give expectant mothers pertinent information, to assist women with problem pregnancies through their pregnancy to the birth of their baby, and to promote chastity among young people."

I have attached my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 60 residents of my community. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Lieutenant Governor:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have signed my name to this.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here signed by 33 residents of the county of Middlesex who respectfully ask the members of the Legislative Assembly "to set aside the report by arbitrator John Brant in connection with the greater London area arbitration because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority. It awards too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London. It will jeopardize agricultural land, the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life."

I have signed my name to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

This is a petition that's been signed by thousands of workers in this province, and I affix my signature to it.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): This petition comes from the Catholic Women's League of St Ambrose parish in Cambridge and has been forwarded by the convener, Annalee Steden.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Commission, in its September 1 ruling, extended full family and bereavement benefits to same-sex arrangements; and

"Whereas this is believed by Catholic women as detrimental to family and society;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of the province of Ontario, to appeal this ruling of the Human Rights Commission."

It is signed by several hundred members and constituents, and I've attached my name to this petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a new petition on market value which I think very clearly states the position of the city of Toronto:

"To the Legislative of Ontario:

"Whereas Metro Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived plan to bring in market value assessment, in spite of the solid opposition of the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas we believe market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto is the wrong tax, at the wrong time, in the wrong place; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas if the province changes legislation to deny the city of Toronto the right to determine our own method of property tax reform, Toronto home owners, tenants and businesses will in future be left to the mercy of regional government; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and our small businesses will be devastated by further increases; and

"Whereas city of Toronto residents account for 29% of Metro's population, but Toronto taxpayers foot 40% of Metro's bills;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto, and to allow each local municipality in Metro Toronto the autonomy to determine our own method of property tax reform in our own municipality."

I will be signing this because I totally agree with these sentiments.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by several Ontario residents. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the general level of unemployment in Ontario is extremely high and has caused severe hardship for individuals and their families; and

"Whereas hundreds of firms in Ontario have filed for bankruptcy and have had their employees join the ranks of those on the unemployment rolls; and

"Whereas youth unemployment is higher in Ontario than in all other provinces; and

"Whereas General Motors may announce several plant closings, with resulting job losses, this month, and the presence of the Premier in the province is necessary to persuade General Motors to keep all of its Ontario operations open;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to cancel his impending trip to Asia and to remain in North America to present Ontario GM workers' case to General Motors officials and to respond to important and urgent questions about the Ontario economy in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."

I happen to agree with this petition. I affix my signature to it, showing my agreement.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metro Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived plan to bring in market value assessment, in spite of the solid opposition of the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas we believe market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto is the wrong tax, at the wrong time, in the wrong place; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas if the province changes legislation to deny the city of Toronto the right to determine their own method of property tax reform, Toronto home owners, tenants and businesses will in future be left to the mercy of regional governments; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and our small businesses will be devastated by further increases; and

"Whereas city of Toronto residents account for 29% of Metro's population, but Toronto taxpayers foot 40% of Metro's bills;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto, and to allow each local municipality in Metro Toronto the autonomy to determine our own method of property tax reform in our own municipality."

I will sign this because I fully agree with its sentiments.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr49,

An Act to revive Eilpro Holdings Inc

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting the City of Burlington

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 17th report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT,1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES LOTERIES DE L'ONTARIO

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

Bill 92,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société des loteries de l'Ontario

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

Does the honourable member wish to make a few comments?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd just like to point out to members of the House that this bill amends the Ontario Lottery Corp Act by prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets to minors. A contravention of the bill would result in the revocation of the authorization to sell lottery tickets. It arises out of concern in the community about the new Pro-Line lottery from Sport Select, where children, young people, have the opportunity and have full access in their retailers and their corner stores to actually bet on sporting events, usually played on the weekend and including Monday night football.

It's my hope that if the House were to proceed with this act, it would put in place a law that would prohibit the sale of all lottery tickets, not just this one, to anyone under the age of 18 and would result in the offending party, if they were to sell lottery tickets to young people, losing their licence.

I would hope that this House would support speedy approval of second and third reading on that particular piece of legislation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Mr Mackenzie has moved third reading of Bill 40,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment. Does the honourable minister have a few remarks? Oh, the parliamentary assistant --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister may have some remarks, but the parliamentary assistant may not have some remarks. I ask that the member for Mississauga North now be heard.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Sudbury on a point of order.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to say that I believe we have unanimous consent to divide the time up evenly. Is that not correct?

Mr Elston: We do.

Ms Murdock: Okay. Well, that has to be cleared, Mr Elston.

The Acting Speaker: Let me just clarify the situation, because there is some confusion in the House. The minister actually moving the motion counts as a presentation from that side of the House and therefore, according to the standing orders, we have to move in rotation to the honourable member for the opposition. So I recognize the honourable member for Mississauga North.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: First, I understand there has been unanimous agreement to equalize the time. That's the only point I wanted to make.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed among the three parties that the time is split? I believe that agreement was reached. For just today, or for both days?

Ms Murdock: For both days.

Mr Elston: For today.

The Acting Speaker: Okay, I hear there's unanimous agreement for one day. If that is so, then there is unanimous agreement for today, and I'd ask the honourable member for Mississauga North to begin.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): The third reading of this particular bill has gotten off to a rocky start, but that's quite typical of this bill, which is about how this bill particularly started. I know the time allocation motion by the government is, without question, drawing this bill to an end, and it's drawing this bill to an end notwithstanding some very serious and deep concerns by a variety of individuals throughout this province.

I believe the process the government has used in bringing this bill forward is one which is, in a word, reprehensible. It is reprehensible because of the fact that they sought, after the introduction of this bill on June 4 of this year, 90 minutes later, to introduce new rules of procedure.

Those rules of procedure did nothing less than grease the procedure in which this bill will become law. It shut down debate; it curtailed public hearings in a committee; it shut the door on hundreds and hundreds of groups and associations that wished to be heard on this bill, representing hundreds of thousands of Ontario citizens.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: The legacy of this bill will be one of shutting the door on people with concerns about how their province is to grow, how their province is to respect the rights of individuals throughout this province. For that, it is one which I believe the government will have to defend, and I believe it is indefensible.

I will address my comments today to some of the substantive concerns which I and my party have with respect to this bill and which we have brought forward on a number of occasions. It is unfortunate that, notwithstanding the concerns brought forward not only by our party but by many other people in this province, the government has continually refused to listen. They have continually refused to listen to people who are concerned about the actions of a government which has repealed the

preamble of the Labour Relations Act of Ontario. I think, for those watching, they should be well aware as to what the

preamble of the current Ontario Labour Relations Act states:

"Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees."

That is the

preamble to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. It is a

preamble that speaks about cooperation; it is a

preamble that speaks about a public interest to further harmonious relations between employers and employees, and it is a

preamble that the NDP government has repealed.

No longer in the province of Ontario will this

preamble, which set the stage for a balance of interests, which set the stage for a framework and a principle for employers and employees to discuss their issues of mutual concern, be the guiding principle in labour relations in Ontario.

What has the government sought to put in its stead? Nothing. There is no a longer a

preamble to this bill. There is no longer a series of principles which will go through the bill. There is no longer that stream of understanding, cooperation and harmony which has always been the hallmark of the Labour Relations Act of Ontario, and for that this government is once more in an indefensible position.

I move to the area where the government has again turned its back on so many individuals, and that is the need for an economic impact analysis. That's not a business argument. The government would want to have you believe that that is somehow an argument that only business puts forward. As the Labour critic for our party, I have received concerns not just from the business community -- though without question I have received concerns from business groups and associations -- but from employees, workers in this province who are very concerned that the job they have today will be there tomorrow.

They wanted the government to conduct an economic impact statement. They wanted the government to take a look at these changes with a view to seeing what impact it will have on our agricultural sector.

I've spoken earlier on about the changes that are being made to the agricultural sector. They want to know what the changes will be to the manufacturing sector, what the impact of these changes will be on the retail sector, on the service sector, on the small, medium and large business sectors of this province. It isn't just the so-called business community that wants that; it's the workers within those groups who want that. They want to know. They want to be aware. They want to be confident that this bill and these changes will not have an effect on investment, job creation and job security.

From day one, the government has failed to deal with what I believe is a paramount responsibility. In this era of competition, not to go through an economic statement, an impact analysis as to what this bill will mean in the area of jobs and investment is irresponsible. It is irresponsible to the many hundreds of thousands of people who find themselves without a job. It is irresponsible to the many workers in this province who are afraid of whether their job today will be there tomorrow.

It is an issue which has been brought forward time and time again by people across this province saying that it is the responsibility of governments to know what the impact of legislation is going to be, not only before they introduce it into the legislation but before they pass it into law. It is irresponsible to the 500,000-odd workers who are out of work, many for the very first time in their lives.

They were asking, pleading with the government, "Before you move forward on a bill of this kind, know what its impact is; know what it means when you speak about these different provisions." To this date, and as we move to the last hours of this bill, the government has continually turned its back on that.

Again, it is indefensible of this government not to have conducted an economic impact statement. It is indefensible for this government to have repealed a

preamble which spoke about harmony, consultation and consensus in labour-management relations. It is indefensible that the government seeks to introduce and pass into law a bill which takes away the rights of workers in this province.

I have said this on earlier occasions. I, as the Labour critic for our party, brought forward this matter in the committee stage. This is a bill in a variety of areas which, far from protecting and enhancing the rights of workers in this province, takes away from the rights of workers in this province.

I've spoken about what it means that in an organizing drive a worker be informed as to what his or her rights are under the Labour Relations Act. This bill does not do that. This bill is silent on informing the worker as to what his or her rights will be. When we brought forward amendments which would make it mandatory, which would make it compulsory for workers to be apprised of what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act, the government voted down that provision.

When we brought forward amendments which would make it mandatory, which would make it compulsory for workers to be apprised of what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act, the government voted down that provision.

When we brought forward amendments with respect to communication between workers in an organizing drive, that no communication should be made unless it is, firstly, with the approval of the Labour Relations Board and, secondly, in the presence of a member of the Labour Relations Board so that a worker would not have to feel any intimidation or coercion, the government again voted that down.

When we sought to reduce the threshold needed for a secret ballot vote, when we sought to reduce the threshold from 40% to 30% as the trigger point in order to have a secret ballot vote, the government voted it down.

They voted down giving to the workers of this province the right to decide, democratically, free from intimidation and coercion, the way in which they want their workplace governed.

This is not a bill, as I've said many times, whether one is in favour of or opposed to unionization. This is a bill which I believe must give to workers the democratic right to choose how their workplace is to be governed, and this bill does not.

We sought to introduce amendments that would bring that forward in this bill and in the Labour Relations Act. When those amendments were brought forward, when we brought forward amendments that dealt with giving the right to workers to decide democratically whether they do or do not wish to be unionized, and to do so by a majority, and to do so free of intimidation and coercion, and to do so with full knowledge as to what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act of the province of Ontario, the government voted it down.

This is a bill which does not protect the rights of workers. It is a bill which takes away the rights of workers. It's a bill which I believe attacks the rights of individuals and workers on another front, because I do not want to leave this bill without discussing my concerns with the replacement worker prohibition. The Ministry of Labour's own statistics say that the replacement incidence in strikes is very low, but yet they have brought forward a prohibition for replacement workers. In other words, if there is a strike, replacement workers cannot be brought in.

There are those on the government side who will want, I'm sure, to vote in favour of that, but we have to ask ourselves this question: I do not, and my party does not, deny the right of workers to associate to join a union of their choice and, yes, within the bounds of law to strike, but if we can agree and accept those rights and principles, then why can we not also accept the right of employers to attempt as best they can to keep their business operating? Why does one right necessarily have to exclude another right?

I do not believe it does. I believe that both rights can be embraced under the law, but the government has sought to cut out the rights of one over the rights of another. It is in this area which I would hope the government members would recognize the concerns were not just heard from the business community. Yes, concerns were heard by a variety of individuals representing business interests. They did come before the committee and expressed to the members what they felt the impact of that would be.

It wasn't just the business community that brought forward those concerns. Representatives from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies brought their concerns forward on what this prohibition will mean to them in carrying out their responsibilities, which are to act in the best interests of children. They said that this prohibition will affect them. It will affect them and their ability to intake children, to assess children, to supervise visitations of children.

For that reason, this government should have said, "The impact of the bill is one which is a far-reaching effect which we cannot support," but they turned their back on the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

School boards came before the committee and said, "Look at what the impact will be on school bus operators and children in the event that there is a strike of school bus operators." There are many communities in which the only way children get to school is through the school bus. The parents can't take their children; they can't pick them up; they can't provide the safety and security that is necessary. What did the government do when that matter was brought forward? They turned their backs on that issue, and I believe it is one which again strikes against the prohibition of replacement workers.

When municipalities came forward and expressed concerns about the prohibition of replacement workers; when gas companies came forward; when professional engineers came forward; when Hydro came forward; when a variety of individuals, who I would expect are not categorized by the government in the so-called business community, came forward with serious and severe concerns about what the impact of replacement worker prohibition would mean to them, the government turned its back.

The government steadfastly moved to make this bill law without any appreciation as to what the impact is going to be on our children, on the users of hydro services in this province, on the users of gas utilities in this province, on any resident who resides in a municipality in this province. For some ideological reason, they steadfastly move forward when all evidence shows that the impact is going to be something for which you are going to rue the day.

You are going to look back at this day and tomorrow and say, "Why didn't we know?" The fact of the matter is, you did know. These people did come before the committee. They knew that the process was shortened by your dictatorial rules of procedure, that all those who wished to have been heard could not be heard. They knew we were operating under what is called a time allocation motion, whereby each member in this Legislature would not be given the right to fully debate this issue, but they did come forward and, in the shortened time that was allotted to them, did bring forward these concerns.

It will not be an answer by the government to say, "We didn't realize what the impact of this matter would be." The business community, the social agencies of this province, have said, "Do not move forward with this bill until you know the impact of the bill," but the government, for some reason, some ideological purpose, blind to the fact of the competitive demands of the day, continued to move forward. I believe that's not in the best interests of