Ontario Hansard — 27 July 1993 (35th Parliament, 3rd Session)

1993-07-27

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

July 27, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

GOVERNMENT POLICY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

KELSEY-HAYES CANADA

CLOSURE OF FISHERIES RESEARCH UNIT

INSURANCE TAX

MOUSELAND

SOCIAL CONTRACT

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

SPEAKER'S RULING

ONTARIO HYDRO

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENTS

JOBS ONTARIO

FUNDING APPLICATION FORM

RACCOON RABIES

PROVINCIAL PARKS

FEES FOR USE OF CROWN LAND

PICKERING AIRPORT LANDS

DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HEALTH CARE

PUBLIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

GO TRANSIT

PUBLIC SERVICES

CASINO GAMBLING

PENSION FUNDS

TECHNICAL FEES

HEALTH CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CASINO GAMBLING

EXPENDITURE REDUCTION AND NON-TAX REVENUES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RÉDUCTIONS DES DÉPENSES ET LES RECETTES NON FISCALES

OWEN SOUND LITTLE THEATRE ACT, 1993

BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Ontario had a slogan that asked, "Is there any place you'd rather be?" Well, according to an Environics poll commissioned by Ontarians for Responsible Government, 49% of Ontarians say they would seriously consider being anywhere but Ontario if they could afford it.

Even more troublesome is that 61% of Ontarians aged 18 to 24 indicated they would leave the province. This is a disturbing figure when you consider that the future strength of any economy is largely dependent on its young people and their ability to bring new ideas and new energy so that the province continues to develop and prosper. Young people also have the flexibility and drive to take their enthusiasm and ability and move to another region of the country or to another region of the world.

These numbers do not bode well for the future of this province and for our future as a growing and competitive economy. These numbers are a direct reflection on the record and policies of the NDP government and are an indication of the low esteem in which this government is held.

Another recent poll shows that the NDP government currently has the support of just 13% of the decided voters in Ontario. This figure is even more startling when one considers that it is even lower than the 15% of respondents who in another poll believe that Elvis Presley is still alive.

These numbers can only mean one thing: The people of Ontario are overwhelmingly rejecting the policies and performance of the NDP government, and it is time the government recognizes that it has lost the confidence of the electorate and changes its policies accordingly.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): People in Ontario are very unhappy with the administration of justice in Ontario. Recently there have been court backlogs and thousands of cases were dismissed before going to trial. There have been increased tensions between the police and the Ontario government. Police have been forced to become political, so that they now have to be concerned with far more than their normal policing duties in their communities. The public is questioning the administration of justice that gives very lenient sentences and allows convicted criminals out on the street.

So many people have voiced their displeasure and frustration that we in the Progressive Conservative Party have decided to take a positive, constructive consultation with the public and various organizations involved with the justice system. That is why we formed the Mike Harris task force on crime, justice and community safety.

We have had thousands of definite concerns raised by Ontarians about specific aspects of crime, justice and community safety, and we continue to welcome opinions. People are joining with us in examining the problems facing the system and proposing changes. If we hope to prevent crime and deal with its consequences, the public, police, social agencies and governments must work together to find and implement practical solutions.

KELSEY-HAYES CANADA

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Despite all the doom and gloom we're hearing from the opposition, I'm very pleased today to report some good economic news that occurred in my riding recently. That is the announcement by Kelsey-Hayes Canada of a $6.5-million expansion of its assembly plant in my riding.

One of the reasons Kelsey-Hayes is expanding its plant is the top-quality work that is produced as a result of good cooperation between management and labour, the members of Local 636 of the Canadian Auto Workers. In fact the quality is so good that Kelsey-Hayes has won the Chrysler Quality Award eight years in a row, and last year they were one of only 14 plants in the entire world to win the Chrysler Quality Award seven years in a row.

I want to compliment some of the union leadership there: Ross Gerrie, president of Local 636, and also, at the Beard's Lane plant, Broderick Carey, president of the Oxford Regional Labour Council and plant chair at the foundry of this Kelsey-Hayes plant.

There is good economic news occurring in my riding. Ontario does remain a good place to invest and we have a top-quality workforce, as demonstrated by these wonderful union members who produce world-quality work that has been recognized by Chrysler eight years in a row.

I just want to congratulate all the fine workers at the Kelsey-Hayes plant in my riding and hope that we'll see more good economic news like this occurring not only in Oxford but also in Ontario, as it remains a good place to invest, with top-quality workers who produce world-quality products.

CLOSURE OF FISHERIES RESEARCH UNIT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise once again to bring to the attention of members of this Legislature and to the people of Ontario the impending closure of the South Baymouth fisheries research unit.

On September 30, northern jobs are being transferred to southern Ontario with no discernible savings to the taxpayers of this province. Commercial fishermen, anglers, the community of South Baymouth and the local economic development group have all been vocal in asking the minister to reconsider this move. Yet without ever acknowledging either the petitioners' request or announcing the transfer of northern jobs in this House, ministry personnel arrived last week to discuss the relocation to the south with employees. The minister has not even had the courtesy to reply to the reeve's letters.

This government has removed one ferry from South Baymouth terminal, through an announcement issued under the cover of Christmas carols, and now has, without even acknowledging the community's concerns, pulled away these important jobs in the community.

The people of Manitoulin, the people of South Baymouth, the people of northern Ontario deserve better. Mr Hampton should come to South Baymouth. Mr Hampton should talk directly to the people affected. This is just unacceptable.

INSURANCE TAX

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Once again this government has shown that it does not understand or does not care about small businesses in this province and the needed jobs that they create. I am referring to one of the latest tax grabs announced in the May budget: the introduction of the 8% retail sales tax on the insurance premiums for worker benefit programs.

This illogical move will serve only to force employers who are presently sponsoring group life, medical, dental and disability programs to rethink their policy and possibly to reduce the protection they provide. They may also pass the increased costs on to their employees, who are already suffering financially because this government has no idea how to manage our money.

As well, employers who provide no fringe benefits will not be affected. Does the Treasurer not understand that he has taken away any incentive for them to adopt these programs in the future?

One example of a business wrestling with decisions because of this increased levy is Edwards in Owen Sound. It is a major company in my area which employs around 630 people. As of July 1, it began paying almost $80,000 in extra taxes to the Treasurer. Edwards officials say that this cost will have to be offset with reductions elsewhere and that jobs will invariably be affected in some manner.

The Treasurer must realize that he cannot keep businesses here or attract any new ones if he keeps raising the cost of labour. If companies are to be taxed, surely the proper approach is to tax profits, not expenses.

This illogical, ill-conceived tax will hurt far more than it will help. I would ask the Treasurer to scrap it and come up with a solution which makes more sense for employers and employees alike.

MOUSELAND

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I would like to share with you a modern-day version of Tommy Douglas's famous story Mouseland.

It is called Mice in the House and coauthored by District 6 of the United Steelworkers of America. This story, like the original, takes place in Mouseland, a nice place to work and play except for one thing: The cats who govern Mouseland took the lion's share of everything. Things went on this way for a long time.

Of course, the fat cats thought this was a fine way to run things, but for the mice it was another story. The cats jacked up rents. They polluted the cities and countryside. They grabbed all the money and left the mice begging. Finally, enough was enough and the mice were elected to the House of Mouseland.

Mouseland rejoiced. Mice expected great things, but running Mouseland was no picnic. The cats retaliated. They did everything they could to make life tough for the mice. They shut down factories and threw mice out of work. They used the press to try to turn mice against one another. But worst of all, the cats left the cupboard completely bare.

But the mice kept working. They built lots of good warm mouse holes and kept rents low. They trained thousands of mice and put them back to work. They worked together to make Mouseland a better place to work and play. There wasn't a lot of cheese, but they made sure that both mice and cats received and contributed their fair share.

But the tough times took their toll. Some of the mice started squabbling. Some said that the head mice weren't brave enough confronting cats. The cats thought this was great stuff and did all they could to fuel the fire. Times were not easy, but the mice knew they were better off than if the fat cats were running the show. The mice refused to give up. They knew they had achieved many good things and to this very day continue to work to build a better and more fair Mouseland.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Charles Beer (York North): As the Minister of Education and Training knows, the Ottawa Board of Education and the Metro Toronto boards have been told to pay the provincial government collectively over $100 million under the social contract, this despite the fact that neither of these boards receives grants from the province.

In their attempt to understand the implications of what the province has proposed, boards are finding that once again there are more questions than answers. The boards would like answers to the following questions:

(1) How is the money to be paid to the province and for how long?

(2) What will happen if the Metro and Ottawa boards take the province to court and win? How will this impact on the government's target under the social contract?

(3) What guarantee do Ottawa and Metro residents have that the government will use the money to pay down the deficit as initially promised?

Yesterday, the public school boards in Metro Toronto launched a radio campaign. They will be asking ratepayers for their views on the social contract before deciding how to respond to the province's demand.

The reality is that should they decide to take legal action against the government, they may win. One can't help but wonder what impact this will have on the government's target, or will the government decide at the last minute to reduce the total amount, as it did with Hydro?

The real question has to do with our children and the impact the government's so-called social contract will have on them. Not once during social contract talks did the government talk about measures to preserve and improve the quality of education for our children. Spending $3 million on a royal commission doesn't help deal with the impact of the social contract on our kids.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Press reports today indicate that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board has had to resort to placing radio advertisements in an attempt to consult with the public over its required $93-million social contract contribution to the province.

The Metropolitan Toronto School Board receives no transfer payments from the province, and it has been put in the awkward position by this government, through the social contract process, of raising money from the property taxpayer for education purposes and then turning this money over to the province for completely different purposes.

The school board is also concerned about how dangerous a precedent this could be, as there is no guarantee that this type of funding demand is only for the length of the social contract.

I quote from the August 31, 1990, press conference from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board when the board asked all parties about their position on financing public education in Metro. Mr Rae promised "to restore Metro's funding to at least the 1981 level of 21%."

I also quote from the Metro chair, Mae Waese, who said: "All three leaders have assured us that they would oppose taking education dollars raised from the Metro taxpayers to fund education in other parts of the province. Such a situation would be a major threat to our tax base, and it is a great relief to know that this is not something that we have to fear in the coming months."

A far cry from the reality of today's social contract in Bob Rae's Ontario.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I want to take this opportunity to put on the record for the benefit of all, and especially for the leader of the third party, that I have been unjustifiably attacked without provocation by the member when introducing Bill 103 for the committee of the whole.

The leader of the third party -- and I have it right in Hansard here -- said that I was displaying a "partisan, cheap-shot attitude" in dealing with Bill 103.

I defy anyone in this House to show any justification for that scurrilous attack.

Let me quote from Hansard my exact words on concluding my brief opening remarks. I said, "I'm sure my colleagues on all sides of the House will want speedy passage of this very worthwhile legislation." Then I added, "Basically, every member in this House is behind this and wants to see this get third reading."

Later, one of the members opposite, the member for Leeds-Grenville, complained that I hadn't mentioned their

part in this debate. I acted immediately on it, rose to my feet and said I wished to "recognize the contribution of both the third party and the official opposition in making this bill a success and being able to proceed with it today."

I want to challenge the leader of the third party to tell the truth, admit his mistake and apologize for the spurious, vicious and unjustified accusations he chose to insult me with last week. I have it all in Hansard, and I ask everyone to examine it and come up and make --

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

Mr Mills: This is awful. It is absolutely disgraceful.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Mills: I don't care.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mills: It's a lie. It's a lie.

The Speaker: The member for Durham East, just relax.

Interjections.

Mr Mills: Have the guts to stand up and say it.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the member for Durham East is upset, but he did say: "It's a lie. It's a lie. It's a lie."

The Speaker: The member for Carleton has a point of order. Indeed, I would ask the member for Durham East to please withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mr Mills: This is the evidence. How can you say it's a lie?

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Durham East please take his seat.

Mr Mills: I'll withdraw it because I want to be here today, but it's the truth.

The Speaker: Well, you said the two magic words.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): People giving people a hand up instead of a handout: that's what happened in my home town last week. The former Governor General of Canada, Ed Schreyer, and his wife, Lily; the former President of the US, Jimmy Carter, and his wife, Rosalynn; in fact, even the Premier was there working side by side with over 600 other volunteers who decided to build 13 homes under the auspices of Habitat for Humanity.

On Monday, the foundations were poured. By Saturday, people moved into their new homes. Habitat for Humanity, as most know, is a non-profit organization that secures time, money, materials and volunteer labour to ensure that individuals can have a home, individuals who perhaps otherwise may not be able to afford a home.

It truly was an amazing community event. When they needed to put up the drywall, the media stated that drywallers were needed and, miraculously, drywallers showed up. The same happened when it came to plumbing or the electrical work. All the skilled trades joined in to give a helping hand.

While most of the media attention focused on the Premier, former President Carter and the former Governor General, the individual who really is the unsung hero of Habitat for Humanity in Canada is Reverend Wilmur Martin, who decided to take a leave of absence from the pulpit approximately two years ago and really put Habitat for Humanity Canada on the map.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I have carefully reviewed the report presented on July 22 with respect to an appeal from the ruling of the Chair of the standing committee on estimates.

As I understand it, the member for Durham West sought to raise a point of order at the committee meeting on July 21 relating to an occurrence in that committee on July 20. The Chair of the committee declined to allow the point of order on the ground that it related to activities of the committee on the previous day. The ruling was made on the issue of timeliness.

At page 396 of the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice it states, "Speakers have exercised discretion over the taking of points of order and have indicated at what point in the proceedings they are prepared to hear them."

The Chair of the standing committee on estimates in this situation was technically correct in his decision that a point of order by convention should be timely, and under normal circumstances would not be allowed on an occurrence of a previous day. However, in reviewing the details of the report and the committee Hansard of both meeting days, I find that the member for Durham West did in fact attempt to bring the matter to the attention of the Chair on July 20 and was prevented from doing so. Thus, the first available opportunity for the member to raise his point of order was at the commencement of the committee proceedings on July 21. This the member for Durham West sought to do.

It is my decision, then, that the member for Durham West should have been allowed to raise his point of order at the time that he did for the consideration of the Chair. I trust that the committee, which perhaps is meeting today, may have an opportunity unanimously to solve the difficulty which the committee was presented with.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a question for the Minister of Health, who I believe is about the precinct. I'll stand the first question down to the Minister of Health and take a second question to the leader of the government.

There has been much discussion inside and outside Ontario Hydro about privatization. It is no secret to anyone who knows anything about what's occurring in Hydro affairs that the new management particularly is looking very seriously at privatization as an option to assist with the rehabilitation of the debt-ridden utility.

My question to the leader of the government is simply this: Since this decision will be made at the very least with the involvement of his government, can the Premier indicate what the policy framework will be from his point of view with respect to changing any aspect of Ontario Hydro's heretofore monopoly in matters of electrical generation, distribution and transmission in the province of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I am delighted with a question of substance from the member opposite. He describes the utility as debt-ridden. Without for a moment wanting to engage in any excessive partisan discussion, I would say to him that I think that is a fact with respect to the history of Ontario Hydro, previous governments having taken decisions which have left Hydro with an enormous financial burden and which we now find and have found over the last several years since forming the government have placed Hydro in a very, very tough predicament with respect to its affordability, the rate structure which it charges to consumers and the general level of efficiency with which it is able to run.

Mr Strong, as chairman of Ontario Hydro, has carried out some very difficult decisions which have come from within the organization. They've come from within the Hydro board and from within the senior levels of management at Hydro after a long period of discussion with its employees.

I can say to the honourable member that any decision with respect to a major reorganization of Ontario Hydro would obviously require legislation, as we understand it, and would obviously not be something in which the government would simply be involved. It would obviously be a decision of the government, not simply a decision of the Hydro board or of anyone else.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I can say to the honourable member that there have been no cabinet discussions with respect to the issue of privatization, whatever that means exactly, because it's a word that has many different meanings and many different possibilities. There have been no cabinet discussions either at the committee stage, at the policy and priorities stage or at full cabinet.

What we do know and what is under way within Hydro and within the government is a serious assessment of how we can provide the citizens of the province with the most efficient and affordable power, which we see as being in the historic mandate of Ontario Hydro going back to Sir Adam Beck.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I know the honourable member, as a historian of the province, and there really is no one in the House with equal knowledge of the history of the province, with perhaps one or two exceptions --

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

Mr Conway: Hydro has some very considerable assets. According to its latest report, it has assets in the range of $45 billion to $46 billion. Many of those assets are of very real interest, I suspect, to the private sector in this country and elsewhere. It's also well known that under Mr Strong's leadership, there is well advanced now at Hydro a plan to privatize certain parts of the Hydro monopoly.

My question to the leader of the government is simply this: Can he indicate, as the leader of the government, what his views are or might be with respect to breaking up this public sector monopoly, which he rightly observes is rigorously reinforced by the Power Corporation Act among other statutes of this Legislature? What does he, as the leader of the government of Ontario, see as the policy framework in which privatization of some parts of generation, of some parts of transmission, of some other parts of the Hydro monopoly might occur?

Hon Mr Rae: I must contest the fundamental assumption behind the member's question, and that is to say that the assertion he's made, as he frequently does in the House, where he confuses a point of his own opinion or conjecture and then asserts it as a matter of fact, is an interesting form of argument.

But I would say to the honourable member that it sometimes leads to very false conclusions. It's one thing to build, on a daily basis, a mountain out of a molehill, but it's important to have one's foundations secure when seeking to build the Matterhorn, which the honourable member attempts to construct every day.

I would say to the honourable member that I have no reason to believe, in particular, his assertion that there is a plan, a well-developed plan within Ontario Hydro for the privatization of certain parts of Ontario Hydro. There have been no discussions within the government of any such proposal or any such plan.

Rather, the chairman and I have discussed the fact that Hydro has a significant debt problem and debt challenge, that there already is under way a process of reorganization with respect to Ontario Hydro and its management and that we obviously want to consider all of the ways and all of the possibilities as to how Hydro can best serve the public.

But I would say to the member that one of the criteria I'd apply is that first of all the monopoly is not now absolute, as he well knows. We have private power supplying parts of the system, as he well knows.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: We also have the municipal electrical associations, which have a sense of ownership of the system that they have asserted from time to time.

But I would say directly to the honourable member that my concern overall is with the integrity of Ontario Hydro, is with respect to its mandate to serve the public, which I think is primary, and with respect to the need for us to continue to provide public power at cost to the public in a way that is the most efficient and the most reasonable. That's the direction the government is taking.

The assertion he's making, that there is some plan to break up Hydro or that there is some well-developed plan to sell off part of its assets, I would say is quite untrue.

Mr Conway: Final supplementary to this question to the Premier: As a social democrat and as leader of the government of Ontario, what parts of Ontario Hydro are you prepared to see privatized, beyond that which has already occurred?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that he is attempting to construct a question and scenario which is, I would say to the honourable member, not a path which the government or this particular Premier is prone to or a path which I have any intention of following.

I would say directly to the honourable member that I think he's barking up the wrong tree, and I say that to him as kindly as I can. I think that the issue he should be addressing and which I would be interested in hearing is what are the positive policy alternatives presented by the honourable member.

He has been such a singular advocate of nuclear power, which we now know is the most inefficient part of the entire system. He was one of the most singular defenders of the nuclear system when he was in government. I can remember when, in opposition, he was as singular, saying: "Build Darlington. Build more Darlingtons. Build bigger nuclear stations. Build more reactors."

I would say to the honourable member that he and his government, of which he was a member for five years, bear a very heavy responsibility for the very difficult decisions any government would have to take in terms of restoring the financial integrity of Ontario Hydro.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My second question is to the Minister of Health. Is the Minister of Health aware that under her government's social contract charitable organizations like the Red Cross, the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Alzheimer Association of Ontario, to name but three, will be compelled to pay over to the government of Ontario 5% of their annual charitable donations?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Questions with respect to the social contract are within the purview of the Minister of Finance, and I will refer the question to him.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The social contract talks are going on as we speak, and negotiations on this and many other matters are quite active. The point that has been raised by the member is correct. That is one of the items under discussion and under negotiation at the social contract table.

Mr Conway: The Ontario division of Red Cross has told the Ontario Liberal caucus today that they have been told to prepare a cheque in the amount of $1.7 million this year and to make that cheque payable to the government of Ontario.

Those discussions are ongoing, it is true, but all of the charitable organizations operating in the health care field, like the Red Cross and the Alzheimer Association and the Victorian Order of Nurses and the Arthritis Society, have been told as recently as today that they must be willing and they will be compelled to offer up 5% of all charitable donations in the next few years as their share of the social contract.

The minister is aware of this because I gather two weeks ago Red Cross and others put this concern to him. Is he prepared today to relieve these charitable organizations of this unconscionable and unfair burden which has been imposed on them but which was not imposed on similar organizations in the community services sector?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would remind the member for Renfrew North that these organizations do receive money from the taxpayers of this province, and it is not totally charitable contributions that fund these organizations. I would just put a word of caution to the member not to categorize all of their funds as having come from charitable contributions, because they do receive money from the Ontario government. I don't think the member would suggest that they be exempt totally from the social contract exercise, even though his caucus did vote against us trying to achieve compensation savings in the public sector.

Mr Conway: I say to the Minister of Finance that we in the Liberal Party have today spoken to people at organizations like the Ontario division of Red Cross, the Arthritis Society, the Alzheimer Association, the Victorian Order of Nurses, and these people are making it very clear that what they want is an exemption that you've already provided in the community services sector. They rightly resent your tax on their charitable donations.

Let there be no confusion. The Ontario division of the Red Cross has said today that it has been told by Mr Laughren's negotiators at the table repeatedly over the last number of days and weeks that it will be expected to offer up 5% of its charitable donations. Surely the Treasurer agrees with me that the social contract must not mean a tax on charitable organizations. It must not mean a tax on charitable donations.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It's not on the donations. Don't be so silly.

Mr Conway: It is on the donations, and if you don't believe me, talk to the Red Cross, talk to the Victorian Order of Nurses.

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

Mr Conway: They have been told specifically by your negotiators that they must offer up 5% of their charitable donations over the next few years. Will you, Mr Minister of Finance, give these charitable organizations, doing wonderfully good works, like Meals-on-Wheels, running blood donor clinics, offering a range of seniors' services --

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question.

Mr Conway: Will you give these charitable organizations in the health care field the same exemption that you have already provided to the community services sector?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be unkind but, once again, the rhetoric of the member for Renfrew North exceeds his grasp of the facts. We are not imposing a tax on charitable contributions but rather on compensation. It's not a tax; it's a contribution under the Social Contract Act.

No one on this side questions the value of work and service provided by the organizations delineated by the member. We all understand the good work they do.

In conclusion, while negotiations are going on with those very organizations in the health care sector, we're certainly not going to engage in negotiations here on the floor of the Legislature.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Ombudsman tabled a report on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. She found, and I quote, "delay in commencing, conducting and completing investigations."

Every time this issue is raised, the government responds by throwing money at the problem. In fact, you and the Liberals threw so much money at the commission, its budget increased by almost 100% between 1989 and 1992. But money is not the solution if cases continue to take for ever to complete.

Premier, what do you intend to do to ensure that human rights in this province are upheld?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that to the Minister of Citizenship.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I welcome the opportunity to talk about making sure that human rights issues are addressed in Ontario. I know that we share, on both sides of the House, the concerns that we do make sure that human rights issues are addressed promptly and expediently.

I also take note that you have said the Ombudsman has reported that she has concerns about the delays in the procedures. We have taken all the steps we can in making sure that the process under the existing code is applied so early settlement initiatives have been addressed, and we've been trying to get that procedure under way.

However, there are some concerns that still have to be addressed. We understand that and we do take great concern about that. We are now looking at various reports that have been done over the previous years to see if there are areas that we can address by taking some other measures, non-legislatively, so they can be done expediently, and as well if we can address some other issues through looking at amending the code.

Mr Harnick: It's interesting that the only time the Human Rights Commission ever improves is when the Ombudsman is looking over the shoulder of the commission.

There have been three procedural reviews, including the coroner's report. The commission is still plagued by ineffectiveness. A member of our caucus staff recently testified at a case that's seven years old, and it's going to resume again in February 1994.

The Ombudsman, in one case, made some conclusions. She said, "The actions of commission staff in at times subjecting Ms R to less than professional and courteous conduct were oppressive." She went on to say that the commission's actions in pressuring Ms R to accept a settlement she considered inappropriate were coercive and, as such, oppressive.

Clearly, these examples confirm the Ombudsman's findings. How much more evidence do you need and how much more time and money do you intend to spend on reviews before you take action?

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to address a specific case that is before a board of inquiry. I would hope that no member in this House would do so, so that we don't prejudice a case that is before a quasi-judicial body.

But having said that, I would like to say very clearly that we have looked at the studies, the reports, and I promise you, Mr Speaker, and I promise the member opposite that there will be no more reports done to see about the procedures.

I might add that there have been reviews taken of the Ontario Human Rights Commission that go back many years that were not addressed by previous governments as well. The Coopers and Lybrand reports that were done in 1985 and 1987 were not addressed. Not until we came into government did we start to look at these reports and start to implement the non-legislative procedures that were initiated and were brought about by this government. We do share your concerns and we continue to do so.

If we want to make sure that the Human Rights Commission works properly, this is not a political issue; it's an issue that all of us should share, that all of us should be working together to make sure that we do so. I take your comments very seriously. I take my other critic's comments very seriously. I've met, of course, with the critic from the Conservative Party. We have worked very hard together to make sure that we can look at all the issues.

Mr Harnick: All of these nice words don't amount to a hill of beans. The Ombudsman looked at 38 cases, starting in 1989. Thirty-one of those cases are still around. Cases are not getting dealt with. The most disturbing conclusion in the Ombudsman's report is that "it may be that the present system for enforcing human rights in the province cannot be brought to a truly acceptable state as long as the system remains within the confines of the existing legislation and organizational framework."

It's time to quit hiding behind the tired excuse that the commission operates at arm's length from the government. If the body charged with the responsibility of upholding our human rights in this province is not working and may never work, what do you intend to do?

Hon Ms Ziemba: As I said earlier, we're taking a review and making sure that the non-legislative measures that make this process work properly are being looked into, and we're implementing those as quickly and as speedily as we can. The legislative areas of amendments that we must concern ourselves about are now under review and we will be coming back to the House and coming back to our cabinet colleagues to see if there's an opportunity for us to address those amendments reviews and amendments to the code in our legislative time that we have available to us.

But again, I must say to all of you that human rights issues are extremely important in this province. We want to make sure that we carry out those cases in a very effective way, that people have their day in court and that their rights --

Mr Harnick: You're not. You're doing it in a discourteous, coercive way.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- made sure that they are treated fairly and equitably. I'm very pleased that some of the areas have been addressed in a non-legislative manner and that we have taken those steps, even though Coopers and Lybrand did suggest and make clear these recommendations in 1985.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is to the Premier. In February of this year, you decided to get rid of several dedicated and capable deputy ministers. Why? For no other apparent reason than to impose your political partisan stripe on a neutral civil service.

I understand that one of those deputy ministers, Mr David Hobbs, has continued to collect his full deputy minister's salary of approximately $140,000 a year, despite the fact that you decided his dedication and experience were no longer necessary. Can you confirm that in fact Mr Hobbs continues to collect his full deputy minister's salary?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can't and there's a simple reason for it, and that is that the settlements involved in deputies leaving the employ of the government are arrived at individually with people. They are negotiated. Let me say this directly to the honourable member. So with respect to the point about the settlement arrangements, in any individual case it would be improper of me and in fact contrary to the freedom of information act, and with respect to the privacy of individuals, which is very real. I'm surprised the honourable member wouldn't understand that. I'm sure he is aware of it.

I would say to him that I reject categorically his description of what has taken place since we formed the government, and I must say, for a member of the Big Blue Machine of such honoured stripe as the member for Parry Sound to talk about the politicization of the public service of this province, I'm surprised that his tongue didn't cleave to the roof of his mouth when he spoke those words, because he would surely know how bizarre that is coming from the 42-year-old regime of the Progressive Conservative Party.

We have appointed people on merit. There are some people who have left, people of great ability --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- and of great talent, who will continue to serve the public of the province in a variety of ways. I would say to the honourable member that I reject categorically and completely the assertion that he's made.

Mr Eves: For the Premier to stand in this House and talk about other parties being partisan in political appointments, I can tell you categorically that before you and your government came on the scene, the civil service in this province was indeed independent, dedicated people, and even my good friends to the right of me recognize that fact. I also understand, Mr Premier, that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, through you to the Premier: I understand that Gary Posen, former Deputy Minister of Transportation, is also collecting his salary, and they are but two.

This policy of yours to replace upper-echelon civil servants is costing the taxpayers of the province a bundle. How many deputy ministers and how many assistant deputy ministers have continued to be paid by the taxpayers of this province after you've decided to fire them, for no other apparent reason but their political stripe didn't necessarily match yours?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that his description of what has taken place -- first of all, any large organization such as ours which is going to reduce the size of its upper management -- at one time, under the leadership of that government, there were 44 deputy ministers. There are now 30. We have downsized. Like every other major organization in the western world, we have taken a decision to downsize, starting at the top in terms of reducing the size of cabinet, reducing the number of deputy ministers.

When people leave, they leave under terms of settlement and under terms of severance, as they did under your administration, as they did under that administration, and to turn this into some sort of a partisan exercise is beneath the member for Parry Sound, a member of whom I spoke warmly and fondly when I visited his constituency a short two weeks ago. If I'd known how the worm would turn, I must say I might have treated that visit in a slightly different way than I did when I was so happy to be in the member's constituency just a short two weeks ago.

Mr Eves: I am sorry that the Premier finds it difficult that he has 30 deputy ministers but he's paying 60 to do the job of 30. If that's the problem, if that's downsizing -- somewhat like his cabinet downsizing. He started with 25, got rid of five and hired seven and ended up with 27. That's called downsizing the NDP way.

It was bad enough when you appointed your former campaign manager and principal secretary as commander-in-chief of what should be a neutral and professional and independent civil service. But now you're asking every single public sector servant in the province of Ontario to cut back, you are wasting at least hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly millions of dollars, to get rid of civil servants you don't like. Can you tell us what the total cost is to dismiss these upper-echelon civil servants?

Hon Mr Rae: I would be glad to provide the member with a comprehensive approach, not only to the question of deputy ministers leaving the system but also with respect to other voluntary exits. I would say to the honourable member that in order to achieve a significant downsizing, it is necessary, as he will know, when you're dealing with people who have contracts of employment and order-in-council appointments, to reach reasonable settlements that involve severance. You did it. They did it. Anybody would do it. And it's a cost which is borne by a corporation. Northern Telecom is having to do it.

IBM is having to do it. Every major organization is having to do it. There is absolutely no difference between our determination to deal with this issue and to deal with it fairly --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): They're not replacing those people, Bob. Get a grip.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and any other government dealing with it in a fair and upfront way. Short of behaving like an administration with no respect for people's rights in law, it is simply not possible to sever people without offering them some compensation in exchange for that severance. That's the fact.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, please come to order.

JOBS ONTARIO

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Will the minister tell the members of this House exactly how many Jobs Ontario brokers, sub-brokers and employers have been or are currently under investigation by Jobs Ontario Training for fraud or misappropriation or mismanagement of funds?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I believe that there are a couple who have had some difficulties. I believe the number is two or three in the province. I don't have the exact number.

There are well over 100 brokers and sub-brokers in the province and they are dealing, obviously, with millions of dollars. We have regular auditing of the brokers across this province. If there are any financial difficulties that are discovered, as you would expect when there are many people involved, many agencies involved and millions and millions of dollars, they are discovered immediately and the ministry moves in in order to take remedial action. That's what's happened. That's what will continue to happen.

Ms Poole: Mr Minister, you might be aware of two or three cases, but the official opposition is aware of at least four investigations going on. In addition, we know that contracts with several brokers and sub-brokers have been cancelled due to allegations of financial mismanagement.

The minister might refer to "some difficulties," but we wouldn't call the $640,000 that's been lost from Jobs Ontario in Brantford a small difficulty. There are also allegations that hundreds of thousands of more dollars have been given to the employment and immigrant training organization in Scarborough and that they've been misspent.

Jobs Ontario is a $1.1-billion failure and a fraud. In light of the problems with the lack of financial controls by Jobs Ontario, on July 8, Lyn McLeod and I asked you to call in the Provincial Auditor. As each day passes and more cases come to light, it becomes more and more urgent. The taxpayers of this province must be assured that their hard-earned dollars are not being wasted or misspent. Will you call in the Provincial Auditor without delay?

Hon Mr Cooke: That is one in a series of ridiculous questions about the Jobs Ontario Training program. As I said, there are well over 100 brokers and sub-brokers in this province. Of course there are going to be a couple of areas where you're going to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: All of the difficulties have been discovered by this ministry when we have been doing our regular financial accountability. We've involved the community, and this program --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Eglinton.

Hon Mr Cooke: She's talking about four brokers. She's making an accusation about the one in Brantford, which she knows is currently under investigation by the police and shouldn't even be raised in this House because the matter was turned over to the police. She should respect the process in this place.

In the meantime, we have created under this program nearly 30,000 jobs, many of which are going to people on social assistance and have saved the taxpayers of this province millions of dollars by getting people back to work. She can describe this program as a failure, but the fact of the matter is that for the 28,000 jobs that have been created for the thousands of people on welfare who are now in the workforce, this is a successful program.

I could go through the two pages of questions that have been raised by that member, where she's been consistently and totally wrong. Whether it's the buttons that she said were made in Taiwan or whether it's the individual cases, she doesn't understand the program. She never will.

FUNDING APPLICATION FORM

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. I have in my hand a copy of a form 1 from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It's the 1993-94 Funding Request Service Provider Profile. This form is a standard form that's been used for the last number of years; a couple of decades, in fact.

This standard form is filled out by service providers who are looking for funding from your government to provide such things as home care, but there's a very new wrinkle this year and a very new question. On this year's form it asks the service provider to include the name of his or her provincial riding. Premier, what on earth does the service provider's provincial political riding have to do with providing health and social service care?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd have to see the form before I could comment on it. If he wants to quote from a form, perhaps he could do us the honour of passing over a copy.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to let him see the form before I get my supplementary in.

Hon Mr Rae: The member refers to the political partisanship issue when all that's being asked is the provincial riding of head office, the provincial riding of program delivery. I think you're reading far more into this than would be required. I would have thought that as a member you'd want to know about applications that are coming in from your constituency. Perhaps the explanation would be -- I would think it would be -- that it's simply an effort to provide information not only to the ministry but also to members of the Legislature with respect to where funding applications are coming from.

Mr Stockwell: I didn't say anything about political partisanship; I just asked why it was on the form. You yourself came up with the answer that I was asking about political partisanship. Naturally, that leads into the supplementary question.

Considering that you have such a guilty conscience with respect to the question of political partisanship in terms of the form, we phoned the ministry offices to ask those people in the front line why this new question was on these forms this year. They said: "We have no idea. We have no idea why this question was put in, we have no idea who wanted this question put in, and we have no idea why this question is on the form this year."

Therefore, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the government would like to know exactly what political ridings are receiving funding through your particular ministries and what political stripe happens to represent that riding.

Considering that the ministry staff has no idea why this question is on there, considering that this question has never been on the form in past history and considering that it's your government that has instituted this new question, would you not think it's reasonable to conclude that the reason this question is there is based on political preference, and the funding will go to government-held ridings and not opposition-held ridings?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say that judging from the --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Don't look to the press gallery for help.

Hon Mr Rae: Have I ever asked you for help? Have I ever received help from up there? Give me a break.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Yes, that explains why we're at 13%.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You did that all by yourself.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: This form the member has referred to: First of all, it's precisely because I've got to know the honourable member over the last two and a half years that when he referred to the political partisanship issue, he then goes -- it's like listening to the member for Renfrew North. They turn it from a molehill to a Matterhorn in 22 picoseconds. It's unbelievable to watch this construction.

What does the form say? "Provincial riding of head office. Provincial riding of program delivery. Date of incorporation. Languages of service. Date of last general meeting. Contact person for funding request. Chief, mayor, reeve or chairperson." Why would we want to know the mayor or reeve or chairperson? "Geographical boundary in which service is provided. Executive director," and all the rest of it.

I say to the honourable member that there must be room in his heart, and if not in his heart in his mind -- I can hear him shaking his head, so I know there's room in his mind; I can hear him from over here.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: There's lots of room in there. There must be room for a nonpartisan breath, thought, a little twinge, a slight tinge of conscience, that would allow him to come up with an explanation which is entirely in keeping with the public interest and with public policy and has nothing to do with the kind of cheap partisanship to which he so narrowly refers.

RACCOON RABIES

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Raccoon rabies has become a major public health concern in many parts of the United States. As you know, unlike foxes, cats or dogs, there's no vaccine against raccoon rabies.

This virus has been moving farther north every year. My riding of Kingston and The Islands borders New York state, where last year the state confirmed 1,761 rabid animals, most of them raccoons. Raccoon rabies could become a serious problem in Ontario as early as next year. What is your ministry doing to protect the province against the spread of this deadly disease?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): As the member alleges, raccoon rabies is quite a serious problem in New York state. It is not yet a problem in Ontario. We have at this point in time met with Agriculture Canada, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Health to look at a funding program which would be available should raccoon rabies become a problem in Ontario.

We recognize that the first line of defence in these issues is always public education and prevention. We want to advise all pet owners that it would be a good idea to have their pets vaccinated. We do know that the current pet vaccination efforts are effective against this strain of raccoon rabies. We'd also advise people not to pick up and transport wild animals such as raccoons or foxes or other wild animals of that variety.

Mr Gary Wilson: The provincial costs of treating an infestation are significantly higher than the costs of preventing the spread of rabies. Why has our government reduced funding for rabies programs when this is clearly the most cost-effective solution?

Hon Mr Hampton: In fact, the Ministry of Natural Resources, over the past few years, has initiated a number of research programs for dealing with fox rabies and other strains of rabies. Many of these research programs have been quite successful. In fact, Ontario is the first jurisdiction to develop a fox vaccination bait to counteract rabies. As some of these research projects have wound down or have been concluded --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): When are you going to start using that?

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

Hon Mr Hampton: -- funding for them has been withdrawn. So I want to point out to the member that in fact we are still very active on the rabies front and in dealing with raccoon rabies --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Grey please come to order.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- but we have withdrawn funding on some of the research projects that have been brought to a conclusion.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a question about tourism. In the absence of the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, I was going to go to the Premier. Now I guess I'll have to go to the Deputy Premier.

Members of the Legislature, especially the member for Quinte, along with every resident in eastern Ontario, are aware that the Tourism ministry has forced closure of seven eastern Ontario parks since 1990. Also aware of these closures are potential tourists who have been turned away simply because the remaining area parks are not sufficient to accommodate them at certain times.

I have pleaded with every successive Tourism minister that private investors be allowed to reopen the parks. I even have with me today a tender notice that states that the St Lawrence Parks Commission, which is an agency of the Tourism ministry, invites innovative business proposals from both the public sector and private sector for tourism-related operations on six waterfront properties along the St Lawrence River. This notice went out almost three years ago, yet interested private investors tell me they are being shunned by this government.

In the absence of the minister and the Premier, Mr Deputy Premier: Is the government truly interested in tourism for eastern Ontario? What concrete steps are you taking to ensure that these parks reopen under a partnership, as this government always preaches?

Hon Mr Laughren (Deputy Premier): I appreciate the fact that the member for Cornwall was able to get the question to me in the absence of others here today. I wanted to assure the member -- because I know he does have an ongoing and abiding interest in tourism, particularly as it affects eastern Ontario, and tourism is a very important sector in this province; we all understand that -- that this government is interested not only in tourism but in promoting tourism and in doing so in partnership with the private sector.

I would simply ask the member to send over to me what information he has, so that I can then share it with the Minister of Tourism and we can have a meaningful and fruitful discussion on the issue which the member has so appropriately raised.

Mr Cleary: I will be delighted to do that, Mr Deputy Premier, because I've been shooting it over to that side of the House for a considerable time now.

Earlier this month, on July 18, I personally witnessed potential visitors being turned away because there was no room at the parks that remained open. Media reports say that as many as 1,500 people were turned away.

Does this government not understand the implications of how this affects our local economy? This coming weekend is another holiday weekend, yet we are no closer to having the parks reopened. As a result, I fear that more visitors will be turned away. It is obvious that everyone would gain if the parks were open, including regional investment, job creation in park maintenance and administration, local economy spinoff and of course our tourists, who we'd like to accommodate.

It is well known that this government is dragging its feet or perhaps outright opposing the eastern Ontario tourism base by refusing to take an active role in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question?

Mr Cleary: What will you personally do to ensure negotiations are complete by the end of this summer and that we will all benefit from the parks being reopened?

Hon Mr Laughren: I reject the rather unusually partisan nature of the member's question. I just spent this past weekend in a wonderful, wonderful provincial park in my own constituency called Wakami park, and I invite all members to visit Wakami at some point, because the provincial park system in this province is second to none anywhere in North America. We really do have a wonderful provincial park system.

I do take seriously the question from the member for Cornwall and I will have a discussion with the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

FEES FOR USE OF CROWN LAND

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has discovered that you will be charging new fees for public services which have always been available free of charge in this province. You're planning, I understand, to charge new fees for caching boats on crown land, for mandatory cottage and home inspection, for camping on crown land, and get this, Mr Speaker, he's also going to have a licence fee for ice huts for the fishermen. Now, that should turn the angler cold if nothing else does. How do you justify these user fees on crown land?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The member should not believe everything he reads or everything he hears at third hand. In fact much of what the member relates is simply not accurate, and I want to tell him that here now.

The Ministry of Natural Resources was asked by the Ministry of Finance in the budget to look at possible non-tax revenue sources. We have looked at some areas of crown land where crown land is currently being used and is of some value and yet is not being paid for. We have also looked at inequitable situations where some users of crown land are in fact paying a fee but other users who are identically situated or similarly situated are paying no fee whatsoever. But I want to tell the member opposite that no decisions have been reached on these issues, and certainly some of the details which he has related today are quite inaccurate.

Mr Jordan: I quote from the news release of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

"The fees will slap a tax on ice fishermen for using a hut. The fees will charge for caching boats on crown land -- another blow to anglers and tourism -- effectively charge people for protecting the environment by hitting cottagers and home owners with a charge for getting MNR site inspections done."

Taking that, as you stated, you're going to have selective choices from this list, I ask you, how much revenue will be raised from these taxes and where will the money go? Will it go to conservation or towards the government's deficit?

Hon Mr Hampton: Let me say again to the member that his list is quite inaccurate. But let me also point out something else to the member. In fact, in many areas of northern Ontario, controlling the number of boats that are cached on a lake is the way in which we try to lower the pressure on the fishery. To allow an unregulated number of boats to be cached on a lake is simply to invite overfishing. So I would ask the member to be mindful of that.

Similarly, on many lakes in northwestern and northeastern Ontario, we do have problems with people who put ice-fishing huts, or in some cases ice-fishing cabins, on lakes and do not remove them in time. We have had some problems with that on some lakes. We have problems with garbage disposal. So some of the issues the member raises are bona fide conservation issues or environmental issues.

I just want to say to the member that even though we charge fishing licence fees and other resource user fees, what we in fact charge in this province comes nowhere close to matching the amount of money we put into fish and wildlife management, fish and wildlife conservation, fish and wildlife protection in this province every year.

PICKERING AIRPORT LANDS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Yesterday I rose in this House to indicate that the residents in the North Pickering lands, the lands that were expropriated over 21 years ago by the federal government, are again in a case of uncertainty. Their lives are in turmoil because they do not know what is going to happen to them. They have been put on 30-day leases by the federal government. It has also come to my attention that the federal government has an independence in the lands that they own and that they can do what they wish with them.

Given that these lands are 80% class 1 agricultural lands and given that we have on repeated occasions indicated the need to preserve agricultural lands, could the minister tell us today, tell me, tell my residents, what can be done to help preserve this agricultural land for future generations?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I think probably the best answer to the member's question comes from what the provincial government did with the south Pickering lands that are owned by the provincial government, where we made a decision to protect about 6,000 acres of those lands for agriculture. We've been meeting with the community groups in the Rouge area, working with them to see what we can do to preserve that land for agriculture.

I think the federal government would be well advised to follow a similar pattern rather than what is being suggested by the member, that they're simply going to sell off the North Pickering lands and not be concerned about agriculture, not be concerned about their future. So I think my advice that we would give the federal government is it should follow our example and preserve those lands for agriculture.

Mr Wiseman: Under the worst-case scenario it is possible for the federal government to subdivide all of these lands into quarter-acre estate lots, creating a huge influx into the market, put them on the market, and the people who have bought them would then find that perhaps they are both under the regulations of the Planning Act and under the official plan.

My question to the minister is this: In the element of fairness and the element of clarifying what would happen to those lands, perhaps the minister could explain exactly what jurisdictional processes they would be covered under should those lands be sold back to people, back to the private sector in Ontario.

Hon Mr Buchanan: They would have to come under official plans, the same as any other development. I think the question the member raises, though, is around the fear and the concerns of people who live there, who I understand are on 30-day cancellation leases. If you're involved in agriculture, 30 days' cancellation is not a very long time.

I think we need to urge the federal government to clarify what its intent is on that land right away and get on with planning in the Pickering north and south areas so that we can preserve agricultural land. This is good agricultural land and we would like the federal government to be committed as much as we are in terms of preserving the good agricultural land for the future of Ontario.

DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Your ministry is saving about $60 million a year, having cut off Ontario residents from going to the United States for drug rehabilitation programs, as you know.

Your predecessor has made us a promise about what to do with the savings. This money, she said, would be used to create better drug rehabilitation services in Ontario. Instead, you have made cuts across all programs and, to use a specific example, reduced the number of beds at the Addiction Research Foundation, a methadone clinic, from 60 beds to 20 beds. What is a person going to do once he or she gets off drugs and is being told: "Come back in one year. We might be able to help you then"?

When will you keep the promise made to us and to thousands of addicts who are looking to you to help them get off drugs? When will you keep that promise?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member that in fact there has been a considerable reinvestment in health care, and in fact in reduction in drug addiction, as a result of the savings that were achieved by reducing out-of-country health care.

In the member's own community, a methadone clinic is I hope going to be opening in the very near future, where a number of people who are suffering from an addiction can be treated. So I reject his charge that there has not been a provision of extra services.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

It is signed by 233 constituents. I affix my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Again, I add to the thousands of signatures which are against casino gambling in the province of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm very glad to affix my signature to this very fine petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have two petitions which are identical in nature signed by 297 constituents of Sarnia and the surrounding area. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

I present this petition.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have petitions here signed by over 4,000 residents of St George-St David, and Mr Murphy asked me to read them on his behalf.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Free and open collective bargaining for teachers has had a long and honourable history in Ontario. In order for change to occur, all parties must work cooperatively, not independently, where one party would be seen as working unilaterally in its own interest. The current economic situation requires both the government and teachers to work together to find an equitable solution.

"The social contract will deny teachers their rightful salaries/jobs and eliminate valuable programs and services for students.

"We ask that the government restore immediately the principles of free and open collective bargaining for teachers. The government must also maintain its share of the funding for public education as defined prior to the June 9, 1993, announcement of reduction in payments to school boards."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with 431 signatures to add to the many thousands that have already been read here on this solution:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to the rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from some 47 members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 55. It's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"The social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"The government withdraw Bill 48, and in place of this bill the government work cooperatively with the public sector unions to find equitable solutions rather than eliminating valuable public sector services."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

That petition is signed by a number of constituents in my riding.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition from the people throughout Etobicoke: Etobicoke-Humber, Etobicoke West, Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Etobicoke-Rexdale, and I will read it:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in severe reductions in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to a rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

I myself have signed this and wish to turn it in.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition that was presented to me last Thursday at the Stouffville Legion from GO bus drivers. A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers and will substantially increase the travelling time for all users; and

"Whereas the lack of transit service will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and to encourage public transportation systems; and

"Whereas the cuts will leave no alternative means commuting of in or out of Toronto for individuals with flexible working arrangements and child care commitments (the earliest train departs from downtown Toronto at 5:20); and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers to incur extra expenses, finding and using alternative forms of transportation;

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

"To object to the proposed cuts of GO bus services to Stouffville and Uxbridge, and we demand that the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision, to continue the GO bus service to Stouffville and Uxbridge."

They have offered a lot of alternatives, including a survey, and I hope they will present that. I have signed my name to it.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"The social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"The government withdraw Bill 48, and in place of this bill that the government work cooperatively with the public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

I have also signed that petition.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I affix my signature.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition signed by 26 members of Local 1802 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers employed by Sarnia Hydro. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, strenuously object to the use of our pension fund for the purpose of contributing to the proposed Ontario investment fund. The OIF, if established, would invest pension funds in venture capital high-risk types of investments. Pension moneys should not be used in such a manner and to date the OMERS board has made sound investments which ensure our retirement income and protect our future. That is what a properly run, soundly administered pension fund should do."

I present the petition.

TECHNICAL FEES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have another petition presented by a number of residents in the riding of Kenora. It reads:

"As patients and taxpayers requiring radiology, ultrasound and nuclear radiation services, we support radiologists' efforts to provide high-quality care for their patients. Cutbacks in fees will affect the quality of health care we receive, impact the accuracy of diagnosis due to limitations on modern equipment, increase waiting lists and prevent the radiologists and their staffs from providing the services they are trained to do. Reducing technical fees will have a grave impact on the delivery of high-quality medical imaging.

We are deeply concerned that the government is proposing to unilaterally decrease technical fees, which will adversely impact diagnostic imaging, lower the level of health care and impact the quality of diagnosis."

I have attached my name to that as well.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents from my riding of Oakville South have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here addressed to the members of the provincial Parliament. The petition reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"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 the retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holiday Act of 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 present the petition on behalf of some 200 signatures.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas the large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I affix my signature to this very fine petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EXPENDITURE REDUCTION AND NON-TAX REVENUES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RÉDUCTIONS DES DÉPENSES ET LES RECETTES NON FISCALES

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

Bill 81,

An Act to amend certain Acts to reduce certain Expenditures and to provide for the increase of certain Revenues as referred to in the 1993 Budget / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin de réduire certaines dépenses et de prévoir l'augmentation de certaines recettes comme le prévoit le budget de 1993.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This bill amends seven statutes in order to implement revenue-raising and expenditure-reducing measures referred to in this year's budget. The acts being amended are: the Corporations Information Act, the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act, the Small Business Development Corporations Act, the Health Insurance Act, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, the Game and Fish Act and the Public Lands Act.

The requirement for corporations operating in Ontario to file an annual return is being reinstated. The fee payable with the annual return will provide added revenue to the province, and the information from the annual return will provide far more current and up-to-date information on corporations to the public and the government than is now the case.

The program for grants under the Small Business Development Corporations Act will be phased out this year. This measure will save both program and administration costs.

In addition to providing for some administrative matters under the Health Insurance Act, amendments will provide that entitlement to health insurance coverage is based on residence in Ontario rather than on being the dependent of an insured person. Provision is also made for payment towards the cost of accommodation for treatment for mental disorders in certain hospitals and facilities.

The amendments to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act authorize different dispensing fees for different circumstances. For example, lower fees can be paid to reflect the greater efficiency and economy to an operator of a high volume of prescriptions. Dispensing fees paid by the government will be better able to take account of economies of scale, location and method of operation, and thus reduce cost to government where that is appropriate.

Amendments to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act also permit establishing conditions when a product will be a listed product whose cost will be reimbursed. This provision could reduce costs by requiring, for example, that the price of certain costly products will be reimbursed only if less expensive options had failed or are shown to be likely to fail.

Beginning in 1994 provision is made for a royalty to be paid to the province from commercial fishing.

Finally, the province will raise additional revenues through the amendments to the Public Lands Act authorizing additional charges for the use of our water resources to generate hydro-electric power.

The amendments in this bill play an important

part in promoting administrative efficiencies, raising additional revenue and reducing expenditures. They are small but important steps in the government's deficit reduction program, and I believe they merit the support of all members of this House.

OWEN SOUND LITTLE THEATRE ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr35,

An Act to revive Owen Sound Little Theatre.

BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET

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

Bill 84,

An Act to amend certain Acts to eliminate the Commercial Concentration Tax and reduce certain expenditures as referred to in the 1993 Budget / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin d'éliminer l'impôt sur les concentrations commerciales et de réduire certaines dépenses comme le prévoit le budget de 1993.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This bill amends several statutes in order to eliminate the commercial concentration tax and implement revenueraising and expenditure-reducing measures referred to in the budget. The acts being amended are the Legal Aid Act, the Business Corporations Act, the Corporations Act, the Centennial Centre of Science and Technology Act, the St Lawrence Parks Commission Act, the Commercial Concentration Tax Act and the Employee Share Ownership Plan Act.

Assessment officers under the Legal Aid Act will now be provided by the Ontario legal aid plan. Expenditures of the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be reduced as the cost of assessments for legal aid is assumed by the plan.

The program for grants under the Employee Share Ownership Plan Act will be phased out this year. These measures will save both program and administrative costs.

Changes to the act governing the Ontario Science Centre and the St Lawrence Parks Commission will allow these agencies to set their fees for admission to, and use of, their facilities. The fees will be retained and applied to further the objectives of the agencies and will no longer be required to be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. As a result, the expenditures voted for these agencies will no longer include amounts to replace the fees they collect. Provisions are included in the amendments that require the agencies to provide to treasury board an annual expenditure plan that will be implemented as approved by treasury board.

Finally, the commercial concentration tax on parking lots is eliminated on July 1. The commercial concentration tax on all other property is eliminated at the end of this calendar year.

The several amendments in this bill eliminate the commercial concentration tax and play an important

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

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

Bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime / Loi visant à empêcher les personnes de s'enrichir injustement des gains réalisés à la suite d'un acte criminel.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the honourable member have some brief remarks?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Yes, I would, Mr Speaker. The House would be familiar with the fact that on two occasions I've introduced a victims' bill of rights, and one of the sections within there talks about criminals profiting from their recollections, for selling their stories to newspapers, to television media, to book publishers, and profiting.

This bill requires that moneys that would be payable to an accused, a convicted or admitted criminal or a member or former member of that person's family for the sale of his or her recollections or for interviews or public appearances instead be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and that the board is required to use these funds received to satisfy any judgements obtained by victims of crime in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Orders of the day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before we move to the orders of the day, I believe we, first of all, have agreement to sit till 8:30 this evening.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement to sit till 8:30 this evening? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly, I'll be calling the first bill, Bill 8, the casinos act, and then later in the day Bill 50, which is the health expenditure control plan. I believe we have agreement that at 6:15 this evening we will adjourn the casinos act debate and move then to Bill 50.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement to discontinue debate on Bill 8 at 6:15? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 8,

An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Parry Sound had the floor when last we debated this, and he may resume his participation.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): It is my pleasure to continue on in this debate. We really just started to touch on the subject of referendums and why or why not the government seemed to have a problem with a referendum on the question of casino gambling in the province of Ontario.

I believe I left off last evening by indicating that the minister's response seems to be predicated on the fact that she regards the referendum process as an American process and not applicable in Canada. I reminded her at the very end of the debate last evening, at about 8:30, that indeed her Premier, and I think rightly so, and her government spent a great deal of time and money last year, many months, with respect to the referendum on the Constitution, which was Canada-wide.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): That was Brian's idea.

Mr Eves: The Minister of Natural Resources says, "That was Brian's idea." I happen to have been at those meetings, and it was an idea agreed to by all first ministers in this country, including the Premier of this province, and as I said, I think rightly so.

I don't think the fact that in the past American jurisdictions have had referendums more frequently than Canadian jurisdictions precludes any of us in Canadian jurisdictions. In fact, if you listen to what the public is saying and the support that different parties across the country have in different regions of the country, I think the people actually want a change in our political style here in the province of Ontario and indeed in Canada. The public wants to have more direct input into what's going on in society, especially, I think, moral issues that affect them directly, such as this issue of casino gambling.

I indicated in a question to the minister yesterday that in numerous American jurisdictions, including Michigan, Mississippi, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio and South Dakota, referendums have been held on this very issue of casino gambling. Some jurisdictions have accepted the idea of casino gambling and some have not, but the important fact is that the people in those jurisdictions have decided, not particular governments, not state governments, not city government. The people have decided.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): What would happen to stable funding?

Mr Eves: The member opposite talks about stable funding. I didn't know that stable funding was a moral issue. If he's listening to what I said, I said on moral issues, which should be non-partisan and non-political, such as, for example, abortion, capital punishment, casino gambling. Those are moral issues on which I think the people have a right to have some input to decide in this country and, in this case, in this province.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Parry Sound has the floor. Please allow him to continue. If other honourable members want to participate, they will have the opportunity.

Mr Eves: I didn't think I was being very provocative at all, but it's hot and it's late in July and maybe these members have to have something to talk about, so they're getting a little concerned.

The minister also mentioned yesterday that I didn't say anything about casino gambling in Manitoba, I didn't say anything about casino gambling in British Columbia, I didn't say anything about casino gambling in Quebec. Well, that's true. There are, however, some differences in some of those jurisdictions, perhaps not the province of Quebec: They're not up and running yet; I understand they're going to be operational later this year.

But let's take Manitoba for an example, one of the ones the minister wanted me to look at. The minister will know that the casino in the Hotel Fort Garry in Winnipeg is owned and operated by the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation, not by some private enterprise. All moneys are directed to the health care system and very specifically directed to the health services development fund. The minister will also know that two years of research was done by the Manitoba government before it even thought about introducing a casino into the Hotel Fort Garry that is owned and operated and run by the province.

The province of Ontario is not going to own and operate its casino; it's not going to be owned by the province of Ontario. They're seeking proposals from numerous large corporate entities that are, in a very big way and a very real way, involved in casinos in other places in the world. She will also know that the Ontario casino is not going to specifically earmark its funds for a charitable purpose for the health care system, as is done in the province of Manitoba.

Also look at the attendance, if you want to compare the size of those two entities. The casino in Manitoba has about 400,000 visitors a year. It is anticipated by the ministry's own documentation and by the city of Windsor that the Windsor casino will handle anywhere from 12,000 to 20,000 patrons a day, which even at the bottom figure is 4,380,000 a year; a little bit different operation, I would suggest to you, from what is being proposed here, different from the one that is operational in the province of Manitoba.

British Columbia was another jurisdiction the minister indicated some interest in. British Columbia has established a system of charitably run casinos. This was the result of a 1987 task force which reorganized the regulation of gambling in the province, giving the province greater control and ensuring that casinos may only be operated for the benefit of recognized charities.

There again, that is totally different from what is being proposed for this jurisdiction here in the province of Ontario. It's like, as I think the member for Brampton North said yesterday, comparing apples to oranges. They are totally different entities.

I'm not saying I'm against them. All I am suggesting to the minister is to let the people decide. That is the only point I'm making in this entire discussion about referendums and whether or not we should have casino gambling in the province of Ontario.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A quorum call, please.

The Acting Speaker: Would the Clerk check to see if we have a quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Parry Sound may resume his participation in the debate.

Interjection.

Mr Eves: It wasn't my fault.

The last issue I want to touch on in this portion of my discussion is Bill 8 itself. I don't think that we've spent very much time -- and I'm sure in committee we will be debating the particulars of Bill 8.

There is one aspect of Bill 8 that is kind of troubling, however, and that is that there will be a Gaming Control Hearings Panel established under the bill. This panel will be a panel under the auspices of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, and I understand the need for such a panel, I'm not debating nor disputing that fact.

The interesting thing I do find about this particular panel, though, is that there will be no appeal from a decision of this panel, unlike other panels of the same tribunal. I don't know exactly all the panels, but I'm assuming there's one in the trucking industry, for example. Every other panel in this commission has the ability to appeal a decision that it doesn't like to Divisional Court, if I'm not mistaken, but this panel will not be appealable from. That is my understanding of the legislation. If that indeed is the case, I think it is an issue that bears looking at by us in committee, and I'm saying that in a constructive sense to the minister, not a critical sense.

The next issue I want to touch on very briefly is the issue of experience. I take some of the comments that the minister has said quite seriously. I would agree that no two situations are exactly the same. Atlantic City is not the same as Ontario or Windsor; just like Manitoba is not the same as Ontario or Windsor; just like British Columbia is not the same. I think you have to deal with each situation on its merits.

My point about raising some of these issues in the Legislature is not that I don't want to see a casino in Windsor, is not that I don't want to see casino gambling. I do want to make sure, however, that we in this jurisdiction avoid some of the pitfalls that some of the other jurisdictions have fallen into, and Atlantic City, of course, is the most obvious one, so I guess it's the easiest one to refer to.

Infrastructure: If you talk to the city council --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): How are you going to vote?

Mr Eves: We'll get to that. You're going to get to see how I vote on this issue as you're going to get to see how every other member of the Legislature votes on this issue.

Mr Perruzza: Give us a sneak preview.

Mr Eves: Listen for the next hour and nine minutes and 20 seconds and you might find out.

Developing the downtown: There are numerous quotes which I will come to in a few minutes, and I won't read them all, but suffice it to say that the downtown business core in Atlantic City -- the merchants' association and various other associations would now admit that they made a mistake, that the jurisdiction made a mistake when it introduced casino gambling.

They did not put the proper infrastructure in place. They did not do their homework before they introduced casinos. They introduced casinos and then tried to deal with the problems that they created, the fallout later on, and that led to horrendous problems in Atlantic City and problems for which they're still paying. Just one of the issues that I think we have to look at when we're talking about this issue is the infrastructure that we are putting in place to make sure that doesn't happen in the Windsor experience.

I've raised a few other issues from time to time during question period and in members' statements as well. One big issue that I'll touch more on later as well is the issue of money laundering. Because we have not had a history of casinos, or our history of casinos in Canada, in Canadian jurisdictions, is very short on a comparative basis to the United States of America and other places, we don't seem to have in place any revenue measures or laws that go out of their way to prevent money laundering.

Money laundering is a very big issue anywhere you have a casino, because it is quite simple for people who have obtained moneys by less than lawful means to use casinos as a laundering process. As a result, in the United States of America, for example, the Internal Revenue Service has developed rules and regulations and laws that require that any time there is a cash transaction in excess of $10,000, that must be reported to the Internal Revenue Service and the casino where the deposit is being made is required to fill out a form and file that form with all the particulars immediately.

That is lacking, as far as I can see, in the province of Ontario. In fact, it's lacking in Canada, period. I'm not suggesting that it is solely the province of Ontario's problem, but I would submit to the minister that I think that issue bears substantial consideration before the Windsor casino project proceeds.

Hopefully, the federal government will see its way clear, with your prodding, I hope, to do something about that issue. But if it doesn't, I would submit to the minister, I would ask that the province of Ontario seriously consider a similar reporting requirement by provincial law if the federal government indeed is not willing to cooperate on a national basis, which is how I would prefer that the matter be dealt with.

There's the issue of increased crime. We'll get to that in a minute; I have a file on it as well. But as I've pointed out at various times, and other members have as well, there are, unfortunately, some side-effects that go hand in hand with casino gambling in whatever jurisdiction it has ever been introduced in. Money laundering is one, and increased petty crimes of all kinds. I note that there are 10 or 12 casinos in Atlantic City, and so it's a larger problem, but the crime rate there went up 171% over the first three years casinos were in place in Atlantic City.

As Donald Trump himself says, with casino gambling come some not-so-nice aspects. Sure the income comes, the money comes, but there are some side-effects that aren't so wonderful: drug trafficking, increased petty crimes of all kinds, increased prostitution, policing costs, policing needs, societal costs, gambling addiction. What's the effect or fallout going to be on charitable organizations, in this case particularly, in the Windsor area? What's the fallout going be on the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario, but then again in particular on Windsor Raceway?

I think we have to have a game plan with respect to all of these aspects before we jump into the casino gambling game, so to speak. Another thing that concerns me is that I don't know why we are rushing headlong into an interim casino without having done all these things. I mean, the mayor of Windsor has said, and I take him at his word, that the infrastructure will be in place by the time we have a permanent casino up and running in two years' time. Fine. What about the interim casino? Are all these measures going be taken care of before the interim casino is up and running in the city of Windsor? I would think that's a serious question that perhaps we should be asking ourselves.

On gambling in general, I heard a couple of comments yesterday. I think it was the member for Cochrane South who alluded to the fact that these people are going to gamble anyway, so why not have a casino? That may well be true. They are going to gamble anyway. They gamble in forms of lottery. They gamble in forms of horse racing industry now.

There are only so many gambling dollars, like shopping dollars, to go around, though. I think the impact or the fallout that you might find on some of the established, for example, the horse racing industry and agriculture in the province of Ontario, the fallout that you're going find on charitable organizations perhaps is going be a little bit greater than you think it might be.

Governments of all political stripes in all provinces in Canada, and indeed in the United States as well, seem to be becoming more and more addicted themselves to the revenue that's obtained from gambling; Nova Scotia, for example, with respect to its video machines. We have seen recently, in the last few months, where the province of Nova Scotia indeed has pulled the plug, I believe, on some 2,500 video slot machines. They said that they were too easily accessible and they said that they had quite a few instances of people becoming addicted to them. That's a whole other issue I will deal with in due course.

I'd also like to say to the minister that it would be helpful if we could obtain copies of the three studies that are being done with respect to casino gambling, or have been done in two cases, I believe, and perhaps is still being done in the third case.

I do understand, from talking to her House leader earlier, that we are going to be shortly getting the Ernst and Young study of the social impact of the casino on Windsor, and hopefully we will get that later today, but we have been asking for some months now for the report of the Windsor Police Services Board. I first raised this issue in the Legislature back in May, I believe it was.

We've talked to several members of the police services board in Windsor, and they indicate that the ministry has been in possession of this report since about January of this year. They indicate that they would like to release the report themselves but have been instructed by officials in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations not to release the report. They indicated in May that the ministry's wish was that it not be released before June 30. We are now at July 27 and we still haven't received a copy of the report.

One can't help but wonder if the date that's being chosen here just doesn't happen to coincide with the adjournment of the Legislature. I'm sure that's far too cynical. I'm sure that couldn't possibly be the reason. But it is kind of strange that it was June 30 and now it's almost July 31 and we still don't have a copy of this report. But I'd almost be willing to bet that if we adjourned this Thursday, next week somehow that report would find its way into our hands mysteriously.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I can see how you would say that, but it's much too cynical.

Mr Eves: It is much too cynical.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Far too cynical.

Mr Eves: Well, then, I presume we'll be receiving it this afternoon.

The other report, I understand, is the Coopers and Lybrand study. There seems to be some debate as to whether or not that report in its draft form or some other form has been made available to officials in the ministry and whether or not that will be forthcoming soon, and hopefully it will be.

I noted yesterday -- and despite the fact that I wasn't here while the minister was delivering her remarks, I do want her to know that I watched her on television in my office as I was doing some other business and listened quite attentively to what she was saying.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Did she convince you?

Mr Eves: She doesn't need to convince me. I just want to make a few points with respect to some of the things she said.

She indicated that, well, the horse racing industry was concerned and that there were other competing factors that put some pressure on the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario. Two examples she cited were the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team and the success of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team and that that was putting some immense pressure on --

Mr Wood: What about the Argonauts?

Mr Eves: Well, the Argonauts don't put pressure on anybody these days, including their opponents.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): The shareholders maybe.

Mr Eves: Yes, the shareholders. I'm sure they put a lot of pressure on them.

The difference, I would say to the minister with all due respect, is that those two entities are not government-sponsored entities. They're not being paid for by taxpayers' dollars or government money. They are indeed private industry, and I think the horse racing industry expects that competition from private industry.

But there is going to be a very real effect, I believe, on the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario. It has happened in every other jurisdiction where they've introduced casino gambling and had a viable horse racing industry, and there's no reason to believe it will be any different here in the province of Ontario.

Going back to the issue of infrastructure, I would like to deal with a couple of these quotes from the Atlantic City Merchants' Association:

"The right way to do it" -- that is, to introduce casino gambling -- "is to revitalize the downtown first. That way you already have something that can induce people to come out of casinos."

I think that whether you have 10 or 12 or one, that's pretty viable advice. I think it's advice well taken, and although the mayor and the city council and the minister on occasion have assured us that that is being done with respect to the city of Windsor example, is it going to be in place before the interim casino site opens?

Again I come back to my question, why the rush to introduce the interim casino without doing our homework and taking care of these issues I've raised -- and I'm sure there's more that others have raised -- without making sure that the proper infrastructure, not only capital infrastructure but societal infrastructure, is in place as well before we get on the casino gambling industry in the province of Ontario?

Thomas Carver, the president of the Casino Association of New Jersey, had this observation. Interestingly, it's a similar observation to that of Mr Rae before he was the Premier of the province, and that is:

"'It's human greed and public greed basically,' Carver said. 'The real problem is that the government can get so greedy and want so much. I see this repeated over and over again. They see something coming in and they think it's the gravy train, and they assume they'll be able to be a part of it, a result of which becomes milking it for all you can milk it for."'

I don't think this is the goose that lays golden eggs. I know that the mayor of Windsor believes that he is not treating it that way, that he is treating it as a way to diversify the economy of the city of Windsor. I respect that, but I'm not so sure the public sees it that way, I'm not so sure the public understands that this is not going to be the be-all and the end-all to the economic problems of the city of Windsor or any other community in the province of Ontario. I think we have to approach this, as I keep on repeating, in a very orderly, prepared fashion or we're going to regret the day we rushed in perhaps before we should have.

Speaking of the interim site, I want to put on the record concerns that I have raised before about the process with respect to the interim site. Firstly, I have several quotes here, which I will come to in a minute, under the police

section of my discussion. I believe I'm correct in saying -- I'm not quoting the Windsor police chief verbatim -- that he didn't see any need to rush into an interim casino site. I believe I even have a quote here from Mayor Hurst himself saying that several months ago, back in January or February of this year. I say again, why the rush?

There were, as I understand it, three basic sites that were being considered for the interim casino in the city of Windsor. Eventually, the government made a political decision that it wanted to locate the site for the interim casino at the art gallery in the city of Windsor, which is a downtown site. That's what one of the purposes of the casino is: to help the downtown core in the city of Windsor.

I quote the ADM, Domenic Alfieri, who is in charge of the casino project team: "It's regrettable it had to happen," and, "These things are not done lightly and one can appreciate why [the losing bidders] are seething. But what I would say to them is, 'Take comfort in the fact that it has never happened before and it is very likely never going to happen again."'

Then we went on and visited this issue previously with respect to the fact that the ministry has indicated to the two losing bidders that it would -- it hasn't said that it would do it, but it has indicated it, as I understand it -- "consider a reasonable request from you for compensation for your actual expenses." That is a quote that comes from a letter, as I understand it, to the losing bidders.

I think it is of some note that the government is proceeding rather rapidly with respect to an interim casino site. I don't see the need. I don't know why we are rushing into an interim casino site before we have some of these difficulties ironed out. We certainly have a problem with the process as to how the interim site was chosen.

If the government had decided that it was going to, for whatever reasons, its own reasons, locate the interim site downtown, fair enough, but I think it would have been fair and equitable to indicate that ahead of time to the bidders that submitted bids, especially the one from Windsor Raceway, well out of the downtown core in the city of Windsor. What you have is an entity that spent, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000 putting together a proposal which, as it turned out in the end, had absolutely no chance of success or succeeding.

Another issue that I would like to touch on briefly with respect to casino gambling in the city of Windsor and proposals are the numerous groups that paid their deposit and therefore requested the information that was required to submit a proposal, one of which, of course, was Sun International, which operates a resort, Sun City, in South Africa.

This was an issue of some concern, not only raised by myself but I believe by other members of the Legislature as well over a period of a few days or a couple of weeks. The minister seemed to be intent on saying that because they didn't make it to the short list and fell off the list, or chose, by their description, to no longer proceed of their own free will and volition for business reasons, not for political reasons -- she seems to think that there was nothing wrong with the fact that officials in her ministry indeed were discussing the possibility of Sun City filing a proposal, that there was nothing wrong with them seeking information.

In fact, the officials at Sun City whom we talked to indicated that they were totally unaware of the Ontario government's policy of not dealing with South African companies until we told them that in a telephone conversation. I'm just telling the minister that's exactly what the chief financial officer of Sun International told us on the telephone: that at no time was he told by officials of the ministry that they could not deal with him.

He told us that he decided his company was not going to proceed because they currently were proceeding with proposals or bids on casinos in Athens and Amsterdam and just didn't feel that it could do Windsor at the same time, and that this was the reason why they withdrew.

Hon Ms Churley: That's not the way it happened.

Mr Eves: Well, the minister says, "That's not the way it happened." Obviously, she has been told by officials in her ministry that this is not the case. This gentleman says that is the case. Obviously, they're not on the same wavelength and they don't have the same recollection.

I want to deal a little bit with the effect on the horse racing industry and with the effect that casino gambling will have on charitable organizations in the province of Ontario, in particular in the Windsor area. As I have stated, I believe there are only so many gambling dollars to go around, just like there are only so many shopping dollars to go around. People are going to spend

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	1993-07-27
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p35 s3 1993-07-27 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	389e56fbfebd9d17a339fbe1422273cb8b6958e6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).