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

November 17, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by members. The member for Brampton North.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I see four government members. I don't believe we even have a quorum for this

section of the Legislature.

The Speaker: Quorum count.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present.

The Speaker: Call in the members.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Mr Speaker.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PAROLE OFFICERS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today to speak on a very important issue. It's the question of probation officers and the credentials they require.

The former Solicitor General, followed up by the new Solicitor General, has advanced the proposition that probation officers should not require any formal education. I understand it's under review and it's been raised by my friend the member for London South in terms of young people who perhaps are taking courses with a view to becoming probation officers and being disappointed.

I suggest it has far greater ramifications than that. The probation officer's report is the foundation on which a judge makes a determination of how to deal with a person in a criminal trial. More important than that, it is the foundation on which the parole board members, who are laypeople, make a determination of whether a person should be released conditionally, unconditionally or not released at all.

I suggest that this Minister of Correctional Services had better realize that it's not just a question of making jobs available for people who perhaps are supporters of his, but of maintaining the integrity of the system and ensuring that there will not be people released into the streets to commit crimes such as the tragic event of the Stephenson boy in my community and other events that will take place, I suggest, if the probation officer's report is done by someone who does not have the appropriate background and education.

I suggest it's a matter of justice -- the Minister of Correctional Services had better understand that -- and it's not just a question of making everything the same for everybody else.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): We know that the Jobs Ontario program is not creating the jobs promised by the government for this fiscal year. One part of the province which is suffering to a greater degree than most others is that part of eastern Ontario outside of Ottawa in the area I represent.

At around 20% unemployment, which is the rate in Cornwall and area, it is worse than in Sudbury, Windsor or Hamilton; 37% of families in the Cornwall area are on some form of social assistance. In the textile industry alone, some 3,000 eastern Ontario jobs have disappeared in the last three years.

The day after royal assent was given to the labour reform bill, Courtaulds Fibres announced the closure of its Cornwall rayon mill, leaving 360 employees without work. The jobs moved to a US plant where labour costs are actually higher.

The problem is that this government still fails to realize the importance of building investor and employer confidence. Not one legislative initiative has been taken by this government to make Ontario a more attractive investment place. Not one budget initiative has been announced that will help create private sector jobs.

The Jobs Ontario program is founded on the belief that government can buy its way out of a recession without taking any other measures whatever. Governments can help, but this government has not.

The Jobs Ontario Capital fund spoke about safe drinking water. But farm wells in Ontario show a large number are contaminated. We do need help from this government.

CAMERON WATSON

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I would like to recognize a constituent of mine, Mr Cameron Watson. Maybe some members of this House have already come across Mr Watson. He can be found in the St Lawrence Market on Saturdays where he sells the apples that he grows within the riding of Scarborough East.

His commercial orchard is located in a residential area and remains a viable operation. To spend time there is a real education about the varieties of apples and the challenges of growing and marketing them. Mr Watson frequently receives school parties and is a valuable resource for city children, helping them to understand food production. Centennial Creek passes through his property and he contributes to conserving it. He is deeply committed to animal welfare and helps individuals advocate for it.

I do not draw the attention of the House to Mr Watson and his work just as a sentimental reminder of the past. Economic and ecological needs should make us look seriously at urban food production. Jane Jacobs reminds us that viable city neighbourhoods require a mixture of uses: economic and residential. The Sewell commission is looking at the preservation of farm land and the avoidance of urban sprawl.

I'd like to make a note of the example that Mr Watson has been able to show us right here in Metropolitan Toronto and hope that the valuable resource he provides will continue indefinitely.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise today to address the current confusion that surrounds the education community in this province. Every day I meet various stakeholders who ask me what this government plans to do to improve the quality of education in this province. We really don't know what its plans are and frankly we don't think it does either.

Let me recap some of the events that have led to this confusion. School boards have been waiting for capital announcements since earlier this year. This minister first said it would be June, but nothing happened. He even indicated in estimates in July that the announcement would be forthcoming, but nothing happened. He sent a letter to opposition parties in October stating that the announcement would be made in early November, but nothing happened. To this date we have yet to see anything.

The minister has also introduced destreaming, but he has yet to offer definitive answers to questions as basic as what is it and when will it be fully implemented? The reality is that school boards, parents, educators and students don't know what the minister's definition of destreaming is because he has not provided one. At a recent meeting the minister and one of his assistant deputy ministers could not even agree on the implementation date for destreaming.

School boards are troubled, to say the least. Now boards are panicking as there has been some suggestion that transfer payments may not be the 2% promised in last year's budget, but no one knows anything for certain.

It's time for clear action on school capital, transfer payments, destreaming and curriculum reform. Minister, students, parents, teachers and trustees are waiting. What is your response?

VELMA MITGES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I'm sorry to inform the House that Grey and Owen Sound lost one of the leaders of our community when Velma Mitges, wife of Gus Mitges, MP for Bruce-Grey, recently passed away.

Mrs Mitges was a true inspiration to her community and will be sadly missed by her many friends. She was a former city councillor in Owen Sound, a member of the children's aid society board, the library board and the waste recycling committee. She belonged to the women's hospital auxiliary and she owned and operated a downtown restaurant.

But perhaps her greatest contribution to her community was her extensive involvement with the arts. As a founder and past president of the Owen Sound Little Theatre, Velma was in part responsible for its fine reputation. The Minister of Culture and Communications will remember that I have praised this theatre in the House before, when I advised her that this cultural centre in our community badly needs a small capital grant to assist it in providing, among other things, further access for the disabled.

I notice that the minister has not responded either to my statement or to two of my subsequent letters on the subject. However, she has managed to find the resources to give $30 million to renovate the O'Keefe Centre in Toronto. If she can find the money for this, I cannot understand why she ignores the Owen Sound Little Theatre, which is administered and maintained by volunteers and which is so vital in stimulating the life of the city's downtown core.

Velma Mitges loved the Little Theatre. I am hopeful that to honour her memory, the minister will finally agree to help the theatre to continue to delight and educate and to provide a love of culture and the arts to many.

ONTARIO-ALSACE ASSOCIATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Almost two centuries ago, pioneer families founded the communities of the Waterloo region. Many of those founding families came from what is now the French province of Alsace. Lutherans, Mennonites and Catholics all came from France to Canada. The names that came down to us through the decades remain as landmarks in our region, but the historical connection was often forgotten.

However, five years ago a young French couple began to forge those links anew. André and Michelle Spetz discovered that one of their ancestral relatives, Théobald Spetz, had emigrated to North America, where he helped to found the village of St Agatha. In 1991 the Spetzes contacted Lynn Myers, mayor of Wilmot township, with an invitation to bring a delegation to Alsace to help strengthen the long-dormant ties between the two districts.

From that experience was born the Ontario-Alsace Association, the Waterloo region counterpart to the Alsace-Ontario group in France. The president is Mary Knowles. Other executive members include Lynn Myers, Glennis Yantzi, Jean-Pierre and Diane Traendlin, Trudy Gross, Dieter Euler and Paul Knowles.

A highlight of the association's activities this year was the return visit of 38 Alsatians in August. Several highly placed French representatives, including Jean-Paul Heider, vice-president of the regional council of Alsace and responsible for international relations, and Jean Klinkert, head of tourism for Alsace, both expressed confidence that tourism and trade links will now flourish between the provinces of Ontario and Alsace.

Special thanks go to Mary Knowles and the many local residents and businesses whose contributions made the 10-day experience possible.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): In a movement of judgement, I'm going to temper my remarks as a result of --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Oh, don't do that.

Mr Mahoney: Just a little bit. I have some concerns. You may recall Bill 92, which is the private member's bill I introduced to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act that would prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to our young people in this province, has been introduced for first reading.

It was my understanding from the government House leader that he and members of the government were going to do anything they could to bring that bill in here for unanimous agreement. I've been informed by him this morning that he doesn't really consider it a crisis. The Ontario Lottery Corp has only received six complaints and, furthermore, some lawyer in their bureaucracy is afraid of a challenge to the charter, that young people may take offence that they're not able to gamble in the corner stores.

What I take from that is that the House leader is using it as a poker chip to try to set his own agenda, or the government, perhaps the Treasurer, is concerned about loss of revenue from all the money the kids are spending in the corner stores, or perhaps this government really doesn't believe this is serious.

I would invite the House leader and the Treasurer to go to any corner store in the city of Toronto or Mississauga or anywhere else where this lottery is available right after school today and see what kind of crisis it is. You'll see the kids lining up to bet their lunch money, and this government can put a stop to it with a very simple action. Bring in Bill 92 now.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The NDP denial that extensive welfare fraud exists in Ontario is entirely in keeping with a government which is mismanaging the trust of the taxpayers. For example, unemployment insurance applicants who collect welfare for eight to twelve weeks before receiving their retroactive benefit cheques are required to pay back the amount they receive in welfare. Few are doing so, which results in the loss of millions of dollars by municipalities and the province.

In September of this year, Hamilton-Wentworth region instituted a dual-income repayment scheme, the first of its kind in Canada, to recover welfare from unemployment insurance recipients. This will save the region and the province, which pays 80% of the welfare bill, more than $1 million annually. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Hamilton mayor Bob Morrow and his council and Alderman Dominic Agostino for their important cost-saving initiative. It has been calculated that if Metro Toronto followed this lead and implemented the same program, it could save the province $40 million and the municipality $10 million on its welfare rolls alone.

According to a recently leaked memo, the NDP Ministry of Community and Social Services will be cutting nearly $1 billion from such programs as women's shelters, children's aid societies, training for the disabled and home care for the elderly. Marion Boyd, like her predecessor, refuses to work with the municipalities on this initiative.

Treasurer, don't cut these programs; reduce the fraud and abuse in our welfare system. That's where you'll find the money to preserve our social services in this province.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I rise today to compliment the Treasurer and the Minister of Skills Development on the Jobs Ontario Training fund and the success it is having in my riding of Cambridge and in the regional municipality of Waterloo. In total, 2,000 new jobs are expected in the Waterloo region in the very near future because of this innovative program. Two important Cambridge employers, John Forsyth Co and Terra Plastics, have already received grants and are actively involved in working with the government to get people back to work.

The program is not just for big business. Many small businesses are taking advantage of Jobs Ontario as well. The Waterloo region is currently working with over 30 employers, who will create 60 new jobs through Jobs Ontario, and it has received calls from another 160 employers who want to be part of it.

The region, the employers, the people who will be employed as a direct result of this program of consultative partnership between government and business: Businesses are getting help in upgrading the skills of their workforce, the region is reducing the number of unemployed residents, workers are getting an opportunity to get back to work and learn new skills, and indeed many companies, large and small, are receiving a very timely stimulus.

Despite the criticisms of the opposition members, who are looking for overnight solutions, this program is working and it will prove to be an excellent investment for our most important resource, the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers. The Treasurer.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL HIGHWAY INITIATIVE

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was carried away with the enthusiasm of the member for Cambridge.

Last February, Premier Bob Rae urged first ministers to consider capital infrastructure projects that would stimulate economic renewal and create badly needed jobs. At the first ministers' conference on the economy on March 25, first ministers agreed that investing in infrastructure to create short-term and long-term economic benefits is a priority for Canada. The federal government has since proposed to the provinces a $14-billion national highway initiative, but the federal offer is both insufficient for economic renewal and unfair to Ontario.

First of all, it is too narrow in focus. The federal proposal falls well short of the broader infrastructure initiative suggested by Ontario and discussed by first ministers. First ministers agreed that forms of infrastructure other than highways, such as municipal infrastructure, information technologies and other types of traditional physical infrastructure, be looked at as well. Second, the first ministers emphasized the need to link infrastructure with the changing economy. The federal proposal does not do this. Third, the amount allocated to Ontario in the current federal proposal is unfair to the citizens of this province.

Ontario accounts for 37% of the population of Canada, Ontario taxpayers contribute 43% of federal revenues, yet under the federal proposal Ontario would only receive 15% of federal money. This was emphasized over and over again by our Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Gilles Pouliot, in Quebec City at a meeting of transportation ministers. Any program that offers New Brunswick more than $750 per capita, as this one does, and offers Ontario only $64 per capita is by anyone's standard clearly inequitable.

In addition, considering that 80% of the jobs lost in the recession have been in Ontario, a 15% share of a national job creation program for Ontario barely begins to meet our requirements.

Of the $14 billion to be spent on upgrading Canada's national highways over 10 years under the federal proposal, $7 billion would have been spent by provinces anyway. The remaining $7 billion would be shared equally between the federal government and the provinces. For Ontario, this means $62 million annually in federal spending over the next 10 years. That is simply not enough. And the narrow focus on four-lane highways means that this investment may not go towards the most economically beneficial projects.

The federal proposal lacks a vision of what could be done to promote economic development. However, I should add parenthetically that the Prime Minister, in his comments last night to an important event, announced that he seemed to be having a broader vision of what was required, so we'll have to wait and see how events unfold.

Infrastructure such as public transit, roads and highways have long been important to economic development. It is for that reason that we must continually upgrade existing infrastructure. But we must also respond to the need for new kinds of infrastructure.

This government recognizes that in the emerging information-based economy, innovations in telecommunications benefit productivity in all parts of the economy. In today's world, infrastructure investment should include a substantial commitment to new information technologies.

We have already undertaken initiatives in many of these areas. But given the tremendous importance of these investments to people in all parts of the country and also given their costs, it is imperative that the federal government also be involved.

A national infrastructure initiative is badly needed, but it must be done properly. We must ensure that economic renewal is the number one priority of such a program. We ask that the federal government re-examine its offer in light of the economic needs of the country and of this province.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to respond. My opening comment would be, "Here we go again." It was just over a year ago that the Premier in the House said: "It may be politically convenient for both governments to take shots at each other, but the public interest demands cooperation. Finger-pointing is a luxury our economy cannot afford. We must improve the climate for jobs and investment and increase the level of trust between the economic partners." That was the Premier of Ontario a year ago.

I would just say that I think the people out there understand that the time of finger-pointing is over. We demand cooperation between the levels of government.

In the statement by the Treasurer, he also says, "The federal proposal lacks a vision of what could be done to promote economic development." I would say to the Treasurer that a year ago, in that same statement, the Premier said, "Renewing our economy must be the central focus of our work as a province," and he promised that you would have your economic renewal plan a year ago.

Then in the speech from the throne, which was again the Premier's text read by the Lieutenant Governor -- this was dated April 6 -- once again the Premier promised. He said, "My government has already launched an economic renewal plan," which we still have not seen, and, "There is no subject more important to the people of Ontario than getting our economy back to health." After that speech, we still haven't seen the economic renewal plan.

Mr Speaker, I think you'll remember, the Premier, right after the referendum debate, said, "We must now turn our attention to the economy," and again promised that we would see the economic renewal plan. We still have not seen it.

I would say to the Treasurer, we understand why you are mad at the federal government -- because it's convenient -- but to say that the federal proposal lacks a vision of what could be done to promote the economy -- and we have still to see your plan, the Premier's plan, for the economy.

Treasurer, you said in your budget plan that the whole idea of building jobs would be through your Ontario capital plan. I would say again, in the numbers that the Treasurer himself released just a week ago, we now see substantially less money spent in capital in the province of Ontario this year than last year. All we're saying to the government is, come clean with the people. There are no new jobs in the Ontario capital program. There is less money being spent in the capital program than last year.

Finally, regarding the promised plan by the Premier on economic renewal, we've seen two parts of it so far. We've seen two budgets, both of which are now proving to have been major mistakes, and we have seen the partnership bill, the bill that was going to establish better working relationships in the workplace. That was something called Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments. Never before have we seen the business community and the labour community so divided.

The Premier promised that we would see all of the training programs, something called OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. We have not even seen the legislation. We are months away from that legislation being passed in the House. It has not even been debated, not even introduced, and that was something the Premier promised. The Premier promised that we would see a whole

section of venture capital funds. We haven't seen that.

I find it mildly hollow when the Treasurer attacks the federal government for lack of vision. We are waiting for the Premier's plans. He promised them a year ago in the speech that I've quoted. He promised them in the speech from the throne. He promised them after the referendum. All we've seen are two parts of the plan, neither of which is working, both of which are failing.

We insist, we demand that the Premier come forward with his economic renewal plan as soon as he returns from Japan. In the meantime, we appreciate the Treasurer attacking the federal government and attempting to get more money out of the federal government, but I would say to him that the people of Ontario took the Premier at his word when he said the time for finger-pointing is over, the time for cooperation is at hand.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Because the Treasurer's statement concerned roads, I want to use the remaining few moments of this to report to him, as the finance minister for this province, that in my part of eastern Ontario the concern that people have today about roads is that the winter maintenance budgets of the department of highways for the province of Ontario have been so constrained that the health and safety of the motoring public across Ontario, and particularly in my part of the province, are in jeopardy according to, among others, police officers --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Conway: -- who are reporting as recently as this weekend that those budgets are so constrained --

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

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): In reading the news release and hearing the Treasurer's statement today, I think it's ironic that we have heard in this Legislature so often that this recession is worldwide, North America-wide, Canada-wide, yet we see an admission in his statement that 80% of the jobs lost in this recession have been in Ontario. What more do we need from the Treasurer than an admission of the failure of his policies and the policies of this Ontario government?

Next, I'd like to say the headline of his press release reads: "Ontario asks Ottawa to Re-examine National Highway Program." We would like in this Legislature for this government to re-examine some of its own programs. Why don't you examine Bill 40 and the disastrous effect that it's having? Why don't you examine your Jobs Ontario program which has produced a wonderful 675 jobs, a billion-dollar program? Why don't you examine what OTAB is doing and not doing?

I think one of the worst parts of this kind of approach by a government at this time is the sad fact that during the late 1980s, neither our federal government nor our provincial government under the Liberals put away money for a rainy day. We are now in those rainy days. If we had put away money for those rainy days, if David Peterson had not increased spending at an alarming rate, we would have the money to undertake these programs on our own.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Norm, over there.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sterling: All the problems are not over there; a lot of the problems are to my right and are in the Liberal Party. They caused a lot of this spending.

I'd like to say that my party has continued to say to this government, "Do not look to Ottawa for more programs." On any program that the national government brings forward Ontario pays a disproportionate share of a national program, yet we continue to have a Premier who is chagrined at the deal he's getting in this case but continues to call for additional national programs to spend money.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, they called for it.

Mr Sterling: We can guarantee you, Mr Treasurer, that on any national program you are going to get a raw deal. We are going to pay more than we get, so stop calling for the national government to spend more and more money. You have set forward a pattern and invited the federal government to put forward this program and now are angry because you're not getting a fair share. You are getting what you deserve in this case with regard to that.

Lastly, I want to say that I don't think that this government has been able to negotiate a fair share for Ontario with regard to this particular program.

The Speaker: Further response?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would like to add my comments to this. I would hardly think that this House needs to hear, in the words of the Treasurer, a lecture on capital financing and debt financing and programs to put this economy back on the right track. This is the capital program that you announced, where you said you spent $123 million so far this year of $500 million. Where's that program?

Jobs Ontario is a dismal flop -- $1 billion for 675 jobs. Now we have to listen to you, who have very difficult trouble with simple mathematics, start lecturing this House and the federal government on how to implement capital programs when you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, have been the biggest flop at introducing any of these programs -- the biggest flop.

So, Mr Speaker, pardon me if, when this Treasurer gets up and lectures anybody on finances, capital funding, I look at him as if he's got two heads, because I can't listen to these lectures any more.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome a very special visitor to our midst this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Right Honourable Bernard Weatherill, the former Speaker of the British House of Commons and now a distinguished member of the House of Lords. Welcome to our chamber.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Mr Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. I submit to you that my rights as a member of this Legislature generally and specifically as a member of an opposition party have been infringed. I feel that this is a matter of grave importance and I will provide you with the essential facts in order that you may be able to give it your careful consideration.

This breach of my privileges took place yesterday during a sitting of the standing committee on resources development, on which I sit as the Liberal Party whip. Our committee was dealing with a standing order 125 matter, which, as you know, Mr Speaker, is the only means by which any member of an opposition party can compel the government to consider a matter and hear from witnesses from whom the government would otherwise prefer not to hear.

Prior to yesterday's meeting, the resources development committee had requested that nine witnesses appear before us in connection with a 125 procedure invoked by a member of the third party. The purpose of our hearings was to inquire into the circumstances surrounding Al Holt's sudden departure as president of Ontario Hydro.

Eleven hours were set aside to hear from these witnesses. Because the committee had concerns relating to the witnesses' disclosure of certain information relating to Al Holt's severance package and also relating to discussions between members of Hydro's board of directors, we prudently obtained two independent legal opinions on this issue. Both legislative counsel and the Information and Privacy Commissioner advised our committee in writing that we had every right to obtain the information we were seeking from the witnesses and that there was no legal impediment in the way of our doing so.

Yesterday, however, we learned by way of letters from five witnesses that they were refusing to attend because they felt to do so would place them in breach of either a law or some contractual obligation.

The historical genesis of standing order 125 is most relevant to my point of privilege and I will touch on this briefly. My research has led me to conclude that standing order 125 formed an integral part of the rule changes passed with all-party support in this Legislature in 1989. Those rule changes were brought about after lengthy negotiations between the three parties, and the final package represented the removal of some of the traditional rights held by the opposition and a replacement of these rights by others.

Specifically, as compensation for a new time limit of 30 minutes on the ringing of bells, 15 minutes on the reading of daily petitions and the elimination of the right to challenge you, Mr Speaker, the opposition parties were awarded the right to invoke opposition days and a very important right to compel the government, through a standing committee, to consider any matter of any member's choosing. This last right was incorporated in standing order 123, lately renumbered as 125.

My research shows that it was never contemplated by the three parties that the exercise of this new 125 right by any opposition member could be deliberately thwarted by the government's refusal to take the necessary steps to ensure that the witnesses sought to be questioned appear before our committee.

In the resources development committee yesterday, the government members emasculated the process available to an opposition party under standing order 125. The government effectively said that we, as members of the opposition, can invoke the 125 procedure and request witnesses before us, but it will do nothing to compel those witnesses to attend.

Two motions supported by the opposition parties requested that you, as Speaker of this House, issue warrants to secure the attendance of these witnesses before our committee in keeping with your authority to do so. Both motions were defeated by the government members, notwithstanding that the second motion contained a provision that we, members of the opposition parties --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat for a moment. The member brings a very serious point to my attention and I would appreciate it if members would allow me the opportunity to hear him.

Mr McGuinty: I was saying that both motions were defeated by the government members, notwithstanding that the second motion contained a provision that we, members of the opposition parties, would ask no questions of the witnesses regarding Mr Holt's severance package.

It is also noteworthy that these motions were defeated, notwithstanding that the Chair of our committee, as you well know, retains the right to disallow questions he feels are inappropriate, and that our committee could, if necessary, move in camera to hear from witnesses on certain matters.

It has now become apparent that our committee will shortly receive written confirmation that none of the eight witnesses who were yet to appear before our committee will agree to attend. The net result is that although the Minister of Energy assured this House on November 2 that our "hearing would reveal all," out of a total of 11 scheduled hours of witnesses we will hear nothing more than the 53 minutes taken up yesterday by the minister himself.

Yesterday, the government effectively and in a very deliberate manner shut our committee's inquiry down. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that by any objective standard, in our committee yesterday my rights as a member of this Legislature and specifically my rights as a member of the opposition to compel the government to consider a matter under standing order 125 were denied.

There is another aspect of this matter, Mr Speaker, which is more subtle but worthy of your consideration because of its pernicious nature, and that is the following: As a result of yesterday's proceeding, the word is going forth from this Legislature that persons called to appear before a legislative committee need not appear if they choose not to. This word has it that one need only decline the invitation on the grounds that to do so would in some way place the witness in a difficult legal position.

I ask you to consider, Mr Speaker: Is it not for the legislative committees and this Legislature to decide whether there is any real basis for a witness's reluctance to appear? Is it not for the duly elected members of this House who sit on our committees to determine, after hearing from a witness in person, whether there are any valid grounds for refusing to appear and whether, if there be such grounds, there might not be some way to accommodate the witness's concerns by means which could include restricting our questions to certain areas and conducting our sittings in camera?

Surely, Mr Speaker, you will agree that the ultimate authority for making these kinds of decisions rests with the Legislature and its committees and not with the witnesses themselves. If the people our parliamentary committee wishes to hear from refuse to appear before us and we do nothing about this, to whom are these people accountable?

I submit that the message our committee sent out yesterday is one which is contrary to the laws and traditions which have developed over centuries and which hold that in a parliamentary democracy Parliament is the supreme authority.

So I ask you to consider, Mr Speaker, that not only has my ability to exercise my rights fully under standing order 125 been infringed in this matter, but the very authority which has been carefully and purposely bestowed on our Legislature is now under attack.

I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the government's passive acquiescence in a decision by any witness, let alone eight, to refuse to appear when called to do so strikes at the very heart of this Legislature and the authority it legitimately wields. In this most fundamental way, Mr Speaker, my rights and the rights of each member of this House were also denied yesterday. I leave these matters for your careful and considered opinion.

The Speaker: On the same point?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I have on occasion come to you before and asked you to think about the difficulties of the minority in a Parliament where the committees are dominated by government members, as is the case in each of the committees. While my friend has not asked such to be considered, I might ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider what remedies you, on your own as Speaker, might have to assist the minority in carrying out the obligations and duties we have as opposition members.

In fact, when you consider, Mr Speaker, the fact that the 125 now is in the rules precisely so that opposition people can inquire into certain issues of their choosing, you might very well, Mr Speaker, ask yourself: If the government can veto every claim that the opposition has to inquire into or investigate issues, in its opinion, of importance, then it would appear that the government, as a result of its numbers, is violating the very nature of the standing order provisions.

With that in mind, Mr Speaker, I would ask you to consider the fact that you might very well, at the behest of a majority of the minority members on the committee -- ie, the opposition members -- issue Speaker's warrants to compel witnesses to come before the committee, thereby upholding the standing orders and thereby allowing the opposition its rights, under the standing orders, to investigate subjects of its desire in a real and effective way.

The Speaker: On the same point?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, if you permit me to add a few comments to, I think, some very valid points that have been raised by the honourable members who spoke previously, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that I was in the committee very briefly yesterday but I happened to be there when the vote was taking place.

I can tell you that the headline that appears under one

article today in the Toronto Sun saying "Gagged By Hydro" would almost want to make any person who believes in democracy in the free world gag if they saw the exercise that the members of the government party went through yesterday in that committee.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you and beg your indulgence, under the point that's been raised by the honourable member, to look to

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act, because subsection 35(2), for example, says, "When the assembly requires the attendance of a person before the assembly or a committee thereof, the Speaker may issue a warrant directed to the person named in the order of the assembly requiring the person's attendance before the assembly or committee and the production of the papers and things as ordered."

As I say, I didn't sit through the entire proceedings yesterday, but it is my understanding that the committee did indeed request that these individuals appear and bring their documentation with them, and in fact these individuals refused.

It's my understanding that there were at least one, if not two, legal opinions sought, both of which concluded that there could be no reasonable grounds on which these people should refuse to appear before the committee. If they wanted to, they could bring their own solicitors, and their lawyers could advise them if they thought that there was anything improper or any line of questioning that was improper.

I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the committee indeed did request that these individuals attend and bring the required documentation with them, that these individuals have refused and that you now have the jurisdiction, and in fact I would submit to you, sir, with all due respect, the duty under

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act to issue a warrant and require these people to attend, because I think that was one of the greatest affronts to democracy I have ever seen that occurred in that committee yesterday.

For a party which, when it was in the opposition wilderness for year after year after year, cried and espoused the rights of free speech and talked about democratic procedures, does "New Democratic Party" mean that you get all your ducks lined up in committee and put a gag order on officials from Ontario Hydro and stop them from appearing before committee, to the detriment of not only the members here but the entire democratic system under which we supposedly operate?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Mr Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. I think you could interpret

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act in two ways.

You might interpret it as saying that it would need a majority of the people in this Legislature or a majority of the people in a committee to issue a warrant to compel a witness in front of it.

Surely, Mr Speaker, I think it's important that you, as the first elected Speaker of this Legislature and as the first truly independent Speaker of this Legislature, look at this particular part of the act, which I don't believe has been used very often in this Legislature, if ever. I'm not certain. I know that it was threatened in and around the early part of 1981, but I do not know of any particular circumstance where it was used.

Surely the rule or that particular

section cannot be there to protect the majority government from proper investigation into matters which that government is involved in. Surely the Legislative Assembly Act, which is stronger than our standing orders in terms of giving individual members rights, should be interpreted as saying that if a legislative committee asks for a witness and is refused by the witness, and then one member of that legislative committee requests of you or one member of this Legislative Assembly requests of you the opportunity to question that witness, you should grant that warrant.

The Speaker: To the members for Ottawa South, Bruce, Parry Sound and Carleton, I first will tell you that I'm very pleased to consider the matters that you have brought to my attention. The member for Ottawa South has identified a number of concerns and I'll be very pleased to examine each one of them in some detail and very carefully. I must commend him on his presentation, both thorough and thoughtful.

I will take the opportunity to clarify two matters. First, indeed there has been a Speaker's warrant issued during this Parliament, at the request of a committee. Second, to my knowledge, I've not received to date a request, from the committee to which the member refers, to issue a warrant, if there was some confusion with respect to that.

The larger point that has been raised, by the member for Bruce particularly, is one that I wish to deliberate on. May I say in closing that the matters the members speak of are serious. I take them as serious, and I will take a look at this as quickly as possible and try to get back to you as soon as possible. I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Point of privilege, the member for Algoma.

Hon Mr Wildman: It's just a small point, but I'm sure that my friend the member for Carleton did not wish to give the impression that your predecessors in that chair were not independent. While I respect your independence and the new process, I would hope that none of us in this House would want to cast aspersions on your predecessors in the chair as Speaker.

Mr Eves: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: I would ask that you take under advisement the fact that this committee normally sits on Monday and Wednesday afternoons, to the best of my understanding. If you intend, which you have indicated that you do, to think about this for a while, and I think that's very appropriate, I would ask that the activities of this committee be suspended so that the clock in effect is not running on the 12 hours under standing order 125 until at least you've rendered a decision in this matter.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound has managed to give me something else to think about. I can tell him that while it's my intention to deal with this matter, of course the proper decision is more important than the speed with which it is made.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, may I say I appreciate your consideration of the point of privilege raised by the member for Ottawa South and I concur with you that it was a thorough, thoughtful and indeed a very serious point of privilege. I would like to follow it now with a question to the Minister of Energy.

Yesterday, the Minister of Energy appeared before a committee of this Legislature to explain his involvement in the firing of Al Holt, the former president of Ontario Hydro. The committee received a letter from Mr Holt which noted "the Hydro board's decision to request me to retire from my position as president." In answering the committee's questions yesterday, the minister again refused to admit that Mr Holt was fired.

I find it incredible that a minister of the crown would refuse to acknowledge what has now become a matter of public record, and I ask the minister, when will he simply acknowledge that Mr Holt was indeed fired and correct the obvious contradictions between his past statements in this House and the reality of what actually happened?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): It would be useful if the leader of the official opposition were to refer to the entire record of yesterday's proceedings.

The opposition is at liberty, if it wishes, to refer to the matter as a firing. The motion that was passed by the board of directors of Ontario Hydro, as I've been led to understand, did nothing more than give authority to the chair of Ontario Hydro to enter into discussions with the then president about a mutually agreeable retirement. If those discussions had led to no mutually acceptable conclusion, there was no finality to that motion and the matter would have again had to reside with the board of Ontario Hydro.

I maintain the comments I've made throughout. My understanding from the chair and from the board members and from the minutes of the Hydro board meeting are that Mr Holt was not fired.

Mrs McLeod: The minister suggests that I refer to the record. Let me refer to yet another record. The minister will surely remember, as is recorded in Hansard, that in responding to some of my earlier questions about Mr Holt's departure, he assured me, "There will be a hearing on this matter in the resources committee and I think that hearing will reveal all."

As the minister is well aware, almost all the witnesses the committee has called have refused to appear, based on legal advice from Ontario Hydro, and the only witness who did show up, the minister himself, continued his line of claiming ignorance of all the issues.

Far from revealing all, this committee is being prevented from revealing anything. I would ask the minister, why does this government want to suppress the testimony of Hydro witnesses? What are you trying to hide?

Hon Mr Charlton: The Leader of the Opposition again blurts out her own contradictions. She didn't listen very closely to the member for Ottawa South, who very clearly this afternoon put on the record the circumstances under which the other witnesses did not appear. This minister and the government have had no contact with the witnesses the committee requested. Those witnesses, each individually, have chosen not to appear, based on legal advice which they've had. I have no connection with that set of events.

Mrs McLeod: This minister's responses and yesterday's antics are just one more example of this government's abuse of power. This is not just about witnesses refusing to appear before a committee. This is about a government which promised openness and accountability and which is using every means at its disposal to hide the truth. This is about a government, I remind the minister, that passed a law giving it direct control over Ontario Hydro now claiming it is not responsible for what's going on at Hydro.

The public has a right to know what is going on. The public has a right to know who is responsible and who is accountable for Ontario Hydro. I ask this minister once again, why are you afraid to let the people of this province know what is going on? Will you today ask your colleagues on that committee to stop their obstruction and let us call the witnesses so that we can all find out the truth?

Hon Mr Charlton: The Leader of the Opposition's appalling lack of concern for any individuals is not acceptable to me. The government has appeared, the minister has appeared before the committee. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act there is a process her colleagues can follow to find out and determine in absolute terms what's releasable and what is not. But what the opposition is doing is asking that individuals who have received legal advice that they may violate the law if they reveal certain information, take that responsibility unto themselves as individuals.

The opposition, if it wants to pursue these matters, has the right to make requests under the freedom of information legislation in this province and to have the commissioner rule on what can be released and what cannot. That responsibility should not be shifted on to individuals who may in fact be violating the law by releasing it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: I think I will let that particular record stand on its own merits. I'd simply remind the minister, as was pointed out by the member for Ottawa South, that the freedom of information commissioner was consulted about the calling of committee witnesses.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Treasurer. Last winter the Treasurer told hospitals, colleges, universities, school boards and municipalities that he was announcing their funding, not for one year, but for the next three years. The very firm commitment he made to those transfer partners for three years of funding was intended to assist them in the kind of planning and restructuring he expected them to carry out. We are now beginning to hear that the Treasurer's promise of the increase of 2% for next year is not going to be kept.

I would ask the Treasurer very directly, will he put an end today to these concerns we're hearing from colleges, universities, school boards and hospitals across this province? Will he assure them that his promise of a 2% increase is in fact going to be kept?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Thanks to the leader of the official opposition for this opportunity to deal with some of the rumours, which I've heard too, that the commitment we made back in the spring for a 1% increase in transfer payments for this year, 2% next year and 2% the following year would be in place -- there is no question whatsoever that the revenue problems of the province, which I've detailed on other occasions here, are causing us very serious problems with funding virtually everything for which we are responsible in the province.

I believe the leader of the official opposition would understand we're not the only province or the only jurisdiction that's having that kind of difficulty. I know as well that she and her colleagues are for ever fretting about the size of the deficit and about the amount of tax increases we might impose in the province.

The leader of the official opposition is quite appropriately raising the question of that commitment. We will be making an announcement much earlier than in previous years. We'll be making the announcement by the end of this month, which I've promised in the past to the transfer agencies, of just how much we'll be able to transfer to them from the taxpayers of the province.

Mrs McLeod: So you're not going to keep your promise.

Mr Treasurer, you will be well aware that municipalities, school boards, colleges and universities and hospitals are now trying to finalize those budgets for next year. They were trying to finalize budgets based on your promise of a 2% increase. They've been told that they have to provide a budget plan by November 30 and yet they've been given absolutely no indication of what their resources will be and, clearly, no confirmation from you today that they can expect the 2% that was promised.

I ask the Treasurer to say very clearly when are you going to tell the transfer agencies exactly what they can expect in financing from your government in this current year and how you can expect the schools, the colleges, the universities and the hospitals to do any kind of a plan in this absolutely chaotic environment that you've now created for them.

Hon Mr Laughren: There's nothing chaotic in the environment except in the mind of the leader of the official opposition; absolutely nothing.

All I've tried to say to the leader of the official opposition is that by the end of the month all of our major transfer partners will know what is being transferred to them. I am not saying today that it will be 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%. I'm just saying that whatever it is will be conveyed to our transfer partners by the end of this month.

There's nothing more to read into that than simply we'll be making that announcement at the end of the month. The leader of the official opposition can draw whatever conclusion she wants. The fact is the announcement will be made by the end of the month.

Mrs McLeod: How soon they conveniently forget their very own words. Treasurer, you made the announcement when you said, "For three years, there will be 0%, 2% and 2%." The transfer agencies are expecting the 2% you promised. They're not waiting for you to announce it will be somewhere between zero and something else.

I remind you that last winter you told those transfer partners that they had to look for innovative solutions to solving their financial problems. They have all been trying to cut costs without cutting essential services. They have accepted the tough reality that you gave them a year ago and said they would work with that reality to try to carry out the kinds of changes that you were demanding they make. Now they don't know whether your part of the bargain still holds.

I ask, Treasurer, why did you even create completely false expectations about the level of funding that would come from the next two years, and what are you now saying to the school boards, colleges and universities, hospitals and municipalities who took you at your word and tried to do what you told them to do?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is the leader of the official opposition jumping to conclusions once again. I simply say to the leader of the official opposition, by the end of the month I will make a statement in the Legislature which will either confirm the 2% that was announced earlier in the year or announce some deviation from that.

I think for the leader of the official opposition to read more into that than simply the timing of the announcement is not doing herself any service, or anybody else out there in the province of Ontario, and I think perhaps she should listen to her seatmate, the member for Renfrew North, who said not long ago:

"For the next few years, we're all going to have to tighten our belts and find new ways to provide services. Neither this government nor any successive government is going to wave a magic wand and create substantial new grants to the public institutions."

What the member for Renfrew North --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Allow me to translate that for some of the members here. What the member for Renfrew North is saying is that the days of spending like a drunken sailor of the 1980s that his government engaged in are gone for ever.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today the Speaker has been put in a rather compromising, difficult position, a position that there's no necessity for, I would suggest to you, regarding the committee hearings into the dismissal of the president of Ontario Hydro.

Late yesterday afternoon the NDP members on the resources committee voted against a motion to subpoena witnesses who had refused to attend these hearings. Deputy Premier, I'm not certain that motion was required. We will find that out when the Speaker rules in due time.

None the less, I would ask you to consider this: Without getting into the specifics of the case, the precedent that is being set here, these are witnesses who have shown absolute contempt for the highest authority in Ontario, the Legislature, and a committee of the Legislature they were asked to appear before. When that occurs -- which is very rare but it does occur -- that is why the Legislature has the authority to subpoena witnesses.

I would ask you this in the absence of the Premier: Can you tell me why your caucus colleagues were obviously instructed to try and shut down these hearings by not allowing the committee to compel witnesses to appear?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): As I set out in an earlier response to the leader of the official opposition --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Slowly, Brian, carefully.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: As I set out in my earlier response, the members of the opposition parties were made fully aware of the legal opinion which was given to those witnesses by the counsel for Ontario Hydro, a legal opinion which suggested that each and every one of them might be liable for breaches of the law if they testified.

Both of the opposition parties have a process by which they can pursue the legality of the release of that information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They have the right to request the commissioner to review that question and to determine what can and what cannot be released. That is a process they've had access to ever since the legislation was passed. For the opposition to be putting the responsibility of potential legal liability on individuals is unacceptable.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I don't think my question had anything to do with the Minister of Energy and I would ask you to rule on whether it was appropriate to refer it.

The Speaker: I allowed the question to be redirected because it had to do with the subject matter of the committee, and indeed an earlier question on the same topic was directed directly to the Minister of Energy. The member may wish to now place his supplementary.

Mr Harris: In spite of the fact that it has nothing to do with the Minister of Energy, since you are a member of the cabinet and have now been delegated to respond to this coverup, let me quote you, Mr Minister. You said, "There will be a hearing on this matter in the resources committee in two weeks and I think that hearing will reveal all."

Mr Minister, the purpose of the freedom of information act is not to supplant or circumvent or take the place of the Legislative Assembly's right to hear from witnesses directly. It is not your duty as minister, it is not any individual member's duty, to counsel members of the public on what questions they should or should not answer once they appear. They have counsel. They can refuse to answer questions on certain grounds. That is their right. All we're asking is the right of the Legislative Assembly, the highest authority in Ontario, to request witnesses to appear before it.

Mr Minister, without getting into the specifics of the case, the individuals are pretty big people. They take care of you every day over in Hydro; they can take care of themselves on what they should say. I would ask you this again: Why have you or your cabinet or your Premier or your House leader or somebody over there instructed the members of your committee to cover up this investigation by telling them to deny the committee, the Legislature, the democratic right, the reason they were elected --

The Speaker: Could the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- to be able to subpoena the witnesses to appear before them? Why are you doing that?

Hon Mr Charlton: This government and this minister have not pursued any coverup. First of all, this minister appeared before the committee and honestly answered all questions that were put to him. Those witnesses who did not appear did not appear because of personal legal advice that they individually had received and chose to listen to. I've set out twice in this House now the process by which the opposition should be pursuing the information that they want to gain. That's the process they should follow.

Mr Harris: I'm sorry, but by way of supplementary, it was you, Mr Minister, who said the committee would get to the bottom of this; it would get the facts. Mr Holt says, "Ontario Hydro has advised me that it expects me to abide by the terms of our agreement, and that voluntary testimony before the standing committee...could potentially expose me...."

We are asking you to subpoena him and the other board members and anybody else that the committee unanimously recommended. It will not then be voluntary, and he can have counsel there to judge what he should reveal and what he should not reveal.

I would ask you this, Minister: We have a president of Ontario Hydro who was requested to retire. We have a board of directors, members, who are refusing to appear. We have a minister of the crown -- you, sir -- accused of misleading the House. We have all of these to get to the bottom to, and you tell us that the legislative committee will find out all; it will discover all.

Can you tell me again why you have instructed the members, your members on the committee, to cover up for these witnesses who have snubbed the highest authority in the province? They have snubbed it by refusing to appear. Why again are you covering this up? What have you got to hide?

Hon Mr Charlton: The Minister of Energy has nothing to hide. The members across the way, in their partisan approach to this issue, have lost the words to the motion which was put under the 125, which was supposed to be a motion delving into my involvement in the process, not into the retirement package of Mr Holt, which is a private personnel matter between the board of directors and that former president of Ontario Hydro. No corporation, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The opposition members have strayed from their purpose. No corporation, either in the private sector or in the public sector, airs and washes its personnel matters in public. It's a right of every board to deal with those matters in private. The issue which the opposition set out to pursue, which was my involvement in the process, I have no problem discussing anywhere at any time.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I'll tell you, you're going to rue the day you put this gag order on and you refused to compel witnesses to appear before the committee of the Legislature when they are snubbing the highest authority in this province.

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is for the Treasurer. Recently, Mr Treasurer, officials in your ministry told the Globe and Mail that they looked forward to Bill Clinton's election as US president. "Ontario Officials Look South for Policy Vindication" read part of the headline. As you know, Treasurer, Mr Clinton's economic policy, which you so heartily endorse, calls for a "significant tax cut for middle-income earners as a means of kickstarting the United States out of recession."

Treasurer, seeing as how you and your officials seem to support the idea of a tax cut for the US middle class, when can we expect your announcement of a similar measure for the hard-pressed taxpayers of your own province, who, by the way, are already paying substantially higher taxes than the US middle-income taxpayer?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Mr Speaker, the thoughts of -- the --

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Um, um, um, um. What a good point, eh, Floyd?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Let me think about it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: There was a day in this House when you were allowed to collect your thoughts before speaking, but I see that's not allowed any more.

The Speaker: I'm not sure when those days were, but perhaps you could allow the Treasurer to complete his response.

Hon Mr Laughren: I actually did have my thoughts collected a minute ago, but I've forgotten what they were again.

The leader of the third party is pressing once again, and I must say that he's consistent in this regard, keeping up his reputation as the tax fighter, keeping up his pressure to cut taxes in the province, but I would say to the leader of the third party, as I've said on other occasions, that reducing the revenues in the province at a time when we're already under siege with our revenues simply makes no economic sense whatsoever. If you really think that cutting taxes would mean new revenues and a new stimulant to the economy that would make up for those lost revenues, I hope you'll explain to me why it didn't happen in the United States when your friend Ronald Reagan tried it back in 1980.

Mr Harris: Contrary to what you have done, ie, you hiked taxes on those making $20,000 a year or more in your last budget, the fact is that some of the leading economists in the United States urged Mr Clinton to enact middle-income tax cuts to stimulate the economy. They have recognized that you cannot hope to rescue a modern economy from recession by taxing the huge purchasing power of the broad middle class half to death. They understand that if you do tax people half to death, you kill the economy right along with them as well.

They know you can't expect people to spend and invest and you can't expect the economy to grow if you rob the middle class, that broad group of people, of the power to spend and invest by taxing them to death. That's what the economists advised Mr Clinton, and that's what Mr Clinton decided to do and to campaign on, and evidently you admired that economic program he brought forward.

Treasurer, I would ask you this: Given that your friends in Ottawa have negotiated economic ties and free trade with the United States, can you explain to me why our middle class in Ontario is not going to be given an opportunity to compete with the middle class in the United States?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party really is engaging in flights of fancy at this point in his political career. I was just browsing through the newspaper the other day, and I read a headline that says, "Tory Tax Hikes Called Unprecedented" -- this is federal -- "Changes since 1984 have added $3,115 to Ontario Family's '92 Taxes, Study Says."

I heard the federal Minister of Finance being asked a question the other day about why he would not reduce the GST or eliminate the GST or phase out the GST, and he replied that the room on the revenue side simply didn't allow him to do that. It is old-fashioned, discredited thinking if you think the way to stimulate the economy is simply to have a tax cut and that will look after the lost revenues. That would raise the deficits to what I think are unprecedented levels in this province, and we're not prepared to do that.

Mr Harris: Listen, you can duck and dodge all you want. You can argue about whether Mulroney taxes more than you or you tax more than Mulroney, but you can't condemn him for tax hikes and say your tax hikes are okay. They're both wrong. They're both coming at the wrong time and we all know it. Canadians know it and they're going to express that at the next federal election and they will express it in the next provincial election. You know that and I know that. We know that, so you can duck and you can dodge all you like.

The fact of the matter is this: I have told you where you could find the money. You can take your failed billion-dollar program that's not working and you can cut taxes a billion without increasing the deficit one cent. I suggest to you that surely you must have enough evidence today that you cannot tax and borrow and spend your way to economic recovery. You have tried this through two budgets, the Liberals tried it, but that will not work.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Harris: So I ask you this, Mr Treasurer: Given that we're already the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America, that we have no more tax capacity -- as you say, we have no more borrowing capacity -- will you abandon your ridiculous approach of trying to spend your way out of this recession, and will you bring in tax cuts similar to those proposed by Mr Clinton before he does so we can stay on a more level playing field with our neighbours to the south?

Hon Mr Laughren: Once again, I'll try not to be provocative in my response. However, in his question, the leader of the third party raises a question in my mind that has to be answered. I can't answer it; only the leader of the third party can answer it. Because of his condemnation of the federal government and its tax policies, is it now confirmed that Michael Harris will be campaigning for Preston Manning in the next federal election?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You did say you wouldn't be provocative.

Hon Mr Laughren: But, Mr Speaker, the trouble with the Conservative Party's position is that not only does it want us to reduce our revenues through tax decreases, which would be very nice to do but doesn't deal with the problem of the deficit, but his party also does not want us to get our fair share of revenues from the federal government.

His colleague the member for Carleton said today that the 15% the federal government offers on a national highway initiative is enough for us. The member for Etobicoke West --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Would you let me finish?

Interjections.

The Speaker: We require help on both sides of the House. If the members would come to order and if the Treasurer will be succinct in his response, then we can move on.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm trying to show the contradictions, because the third party, the Conservative Party, is saying we should reduce our revenues by reducing taxes. At the same time, the member for Carleton and the member for Etobicoke West, on that much-watched program -- well, a few people watch Focus Ontario; I saw it myself. The member for Etobicoke West said the federal government had no intention of giving us the fiscal stabilization program money to which we're entitled, and he said, "and they had no right to get."

The Speaker: Would the Treasurer complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the leader of the third party believes, as his colleague does, that we have no right to that money, let him stand in his place and say so.

The Speaker: New question, the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of --

The Speaker: Point of privilege, the member for Carleton.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. A point of privilege was raised.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): The Treasurer indicated that I had said the 15% was adequate. I said, and he will check with Hansard, "Ontario negotiated a lousy deal with our federal government." Interpret that the way you would, Mr Treasurer.

The Speaker: The member has a point of debate, not privilege. The member for Renfrew North with his question.

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm particularly pleased to be able to put a question to the chairman of the treasury board, the provincial Treasurer. I want to say at the outset of my question that I certainly appreciate the dire straits in which the finance minister finds himself with respect to the ongoing recession in this province. I can well appreciate the Hobson's choice he has as he looks at the fall and winter of this particular fiscal year.

With that in mind, and having regard to what he said I said not long ago, which is absolutely accurate, let me be specific about one particular provincial agency that he might care to do something about against the backdrop of these tough times. What does the Treasurer, the chairman of the treasury board, think about the following proposal from the Workers' Compensation Board?

According to the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, a decision has been taken in recent weeks that the board will move by 1995 to acquire new office space. The Workers' Compensation Board is going to take 525,000 square feet in Simcoe Place at a cost of $200 million, or $380 per square foot, at a time in this city, Metropolitan Toronto, when we have 27 million square feet of excess commercial space at an average retail price of $20 per square foot.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the question. I am concerned about it and have asked that arrangements be made for a meeting with myself and WCB officials.

Mr Conway: I appreciate that response, and I assume that the Treasurer and the chairman of treasury board, faced with the very severe budgetary pressures we all know he has, is going to order a stop to any move of a provincial agency or department that would cost the taxpayers $200 million, or $380 per square foot, at a time when there are 27 million square feet of available space at an average cost of $20 per square foot. It seems to me incredible that any public sector agency, no matter how pressed, could imagine spending those kinds of dollars under these conditions.

Will the chairman of the treasury board give this House an assurance that, either today or very shortly, he will come back to this place and say that the Workers' Compensation Board is staying put and is going to make do with the facilities it has and we are not going to burden the economy of this province, either the injured workers or the employers' association, with these kinds of outrageous and untimely costs?

Hon Mr Laughren: As always, the silver-tongued yet dyspeptic dilettante from Renfrew North has put his question very well. I would make a commitment to respond directly to the member for Renfrew North.

TVONTARIO EMPLOYEE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. A member of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, known as NABET, received a letter from Margarette Kaszecki-Pyron, vice-president of the NABET region 7 and an employee at TVOntario. This letter, which solicited NABET members' support in a union election, arrived in a TVOntario envelope that is metered and dated November 13, 1992. I have sent across to the member copies of the letter and the envelope.

This NABET candidate used TVOntario stationery, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, for her union campaign activities. It appears that TVO is endorsing this candidate. It is even possible that TVO paid the postage for this mailing.

Minister, you are responsible for ensuring that TVO is accountable to the people of Ontario. Do you approve of this candidate's use of TVO materials and facilities for union campaigning?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I thank the member for her question. This is the first time I have seen this. The member is correct that TVOntario is an agency of the ministry. I will take this up with the chair of the board. I understand that there was a letter from Steve Droz, who is the manager of industrial and talent relations, regarding this. I will, as I mentioned, take this up and get back to the member.

Mrs Marland: I wish I could tell this House that this is an isolated incident, but it is not. In November 1990, Local 700 of NABET filed a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board about the campaigning activities of this same candidate for the NABET executive, Margarette Kaszecki-Pyron.

I have a copy of a letter dated February 25, 1991, to the OLRB from TVO, which is signed by Steven Droz, manager of industrial and talent relations and it says, and I will read you the quote:

"TVOntario admits that some election material was distributed on behalf of Margarette Kaszecki-Pyron along with the paycheques of some members of NABET Local 700 during the week of November 5, 1990. TVOntario further admits that while unintentional, it was an unwarranted intrusion into the administration of the trade union to have permitted that material to be distributed with some employees' paycheques."

TVOntario also agreed to post an apology for a period of 45 days.

So this is the second incident with the same employee.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's question?

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, my question is this: Minister, neither Ms Kaszecki-Pyron nor TVO has learned a lesson from the first incident. It seems that TVO is still permitting her to use its stationery and equipment for her union election campaign. What will you do to ensure that this situation can never happen again?

Hon Mrs Haslam: As I've said, I will speak with the chair of TVO, Mr Herrndorf. It is an agency of the ministry and, as such, the board will obviously be aware of the situation. I will speak directly to him and I will get back to the member.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Housing with a response to a question asked earlier.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Yesterday I undertook to get further information for the leader of the Conservative Party concerning the announcement I made yesterday on our new energy conservation and fuel switching program.

I'd like to let him know that the figures that have been used in the information we have provided publicly are based on a 1987 study by Clayton Research Associates related to the employment levels generated by conservation and renovation work. That includes direct, indirect and induced jobs. There are jobs in many fields related to this work.

The estimate is based on a formula that says that $100,000 worth of work generates three person-years of employment. The exact employment figures that will be associated with this program are very difficult to estimate. We have made an estimate that we will be looking at about 1,100 person-years of work, but it will depend very much on the projects that come to us through the proposal call, which is going out immediately.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Since really what we're talking about is straight guesswork about what jobs may or may not be created, I would ask the minister two things. Number one, since most of your projections on job creation from your government are half or a third or a tenth or 1/50th of what you actually told us when you announced the program, will you report to the House how many jobs are actually created on a project-by-project basis, not each individually but at an interval, let's say, of six-month or three-month periods?

Secondly, since your estimates seem so ridiculous, will you guarantee that the men and women who will be working on these construction projects will be paid fair wages?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I consider that last question to be an insulting question, but I would be very pleased to provide a continuing report to the House on the number of jobs involved. The member will recognize that some of those jobs included in the estimates which I've provided are jobs which will be occurring because of this program, not directly related to construction within the program.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Deputy Premier. Mr Deputy Premier, is it the policy of your government to promote the borrowing of money to buy lottery tickets in this province?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): Not to my knowledge.

Mr Elston: I have here a circular from the Ontario Lottery Corp which includes in it a registration form that says people can spend up to and probably over $520 at one time and they can use their VISA cards or their MasterCards to buy lottery tickets to give away at Christmas time. I want to know from the Deputy Premier why his government has promoted the use of plastic borrowing apparatuses so that people can gamble away money before they have earned it.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure that I would buy into the language the member is using on what characterizes borrowing and what characterizes simply --

Mr Elston: You use a MasterCard to buy lottery tickets.

Hon Mr Laughren: Would you let me answer the question? I'll try to answer the question. I'm not sure what the member is saying. Buying lottery tickets with a VISA card surely is an alternative way of paying for the tickets. It doesn't mean you have to go out and borrow money. You could pay it off the next day. It seems to me a matter of convenience as an alternative method of paying. I don't see why the member would be upset about that.

CROP INSURANCE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): In the absence of the minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Villeneuve: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I will ask the Treasurer a question; it has to do with crop insurance. I'm sure the Treasurer is aware of the very poor growing conditions that we had in Ontario this year and the lack of heat units for growing purposes. Particularly hard hit are our corn producers.

The situation now is that the crop insurance is telling our corn producers that they should wait for any claim until they have harvested the crop. We've had severe wind storms and we now have snow and the harvesting is going to be almost impossible. These farmers have paid the premiums for coverage. They need cash flow. The corn crop that's out there is grading number 5 or inferior. There's no market and there's no home for it.

Mr Treasurer, could you not tell these farmers, "Do whatever you want with your crop; it is a write-off"? They've paid the premiums. They need the cash flow. They're not likely to get the harvesting done this year. Please provide some leadership here.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): The member for Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville asks a most appropriate question. It is my understanding that in order to apply and receive crop insurance funds, the crop must be harvested in order to know what it is. I stand to be corrected on that, but that was my understanding, and that those rules are set by the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario, which is a federal-provincial agency, and that the minister of agriculture for the province of Ontario is aware of this, as is the member, and that they're trying to work with the crop commission to see if there is a solution to the problem, because I believe it is a legitimate problem.

Mr Villeneuve: Mr Treasurer, an advance payment is a must in any event, because the quality of the crop right now is such that the feed dealers are not looking for grade 5 or inferior corn, the mould and the microtoxins have already infested, and the chances are that very little of this crop will be harvested in any event. So please allow them to write off.

Secondly, we're going to be faced with more than 50% of this year's corn crop in that particular situation. I want you to assure our farmers, who've paid their premiums, that the crop insurance will indeed be there, and honour their financial commitment to agriculture.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do understand what the member's saying, at least I think I do: that it costs more to harvest the crop than it would be worth in the end, so that it does pose a particular problem. I think, as well, that the member would appreciate -- and I don't mean this to be passing the buck -- that it does have to be worked out between the federal and the provincial governments with the crop commission. I will speak to the minister of agriculture, but I know that he and his parliamentary assistant, Mr Paul Klopp, have already been doing some work on that, but I'll make sure that that's reinforced.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Solicitor General. In my riding of York East there are quite a large number of constituents living in older apartments and many of these constituents have expressed concerns about the safety systems during a power failure. I would like to know what provisions have been made in the fire code to ensure that when a fire occurs and there is also power failure people in low-rise and high-rise apartments can find their way to safety.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): As members of the House know, on October 7 I made certain announcements which are now in effect with respect to these fire safety regulations. The regulations required high-rise residential buildings to have emergency power supply for fire alarm and voice communication systems and to provide lighting in exits, stairs and public corridors for at least two hours to ensure residents can find their way to safety. In low-rise buildings containing more than 24 people or 10 dwelling units, emergency power to light stairwells and corridors must be provided for at least 30 minutes to ensure residents can safely exit those particular buildings.

Mr Malkowski: Supplementary: How long will property owners have to comply with the new regulations?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We attempted to balance the concerns of both residents and building owners, and in an effort to do that we provided a two-year phase-in period for this particular regulation. We will allow, in certain unusual circumstances, if there are unforeseen circumstances, the chief fire official to grant an extension to that time frame if it becomes necessary. But, as I say, the rule of thumb with respect to this will be an approximate two-year phase-in period.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP LEGISLATION

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General will know that the provisions of the Advocacy Act, which is soon to come before the House in committee of the whole and for third reading, create a new investigative structure in Ontario. The act will entitle a person, who doesn't necessarily have to identify himself or herself, to enter a public hospital at any time of the day or night to conduct a search. Many people believe that those provisions contravene

section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Will the Attorney General refer the search provisions of this bill to the Court of Appeal for an opinion before the bill is enacted as to its constitutionality?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): The member identifies one area of the Advocacy Act which has led to some controversy. She will know that this has been the subject of some discussion before the committee, which has at various times over the last year examined the Advocacy Act and the whole list of legislation which is tied together with the Advocacy Act. I can only say that while she obviously holds one view of the legislation, that view is not shared by legal counsel in the Ministry of Citizenship and is not shared by legal counsel elsewhere in the government, and we see no need at this time for any reference.

Mrs Sullivan: The Attorney General speaks with some understatement when he speaks about areas of controversy surrounding this bill and the companion bills, the consent to treatment and substitute decisions bills.

I want to refer back to this particular issue because the Attorney General will remember that less than two years ago a man wandered around the Hospital for Sick Children. His intent was to molest children who were within that hospital. That hospital can only respond to such intruders by using the Trespass to Property Act. Hospitals across Ontario rely on that act to ensure that only people who are involved in providing health services to a patient or people whom the patient specifically wants to see have access to the patient.

Bill 74 would allow a person who is not a part of the health care team, who is not family, to be wherever a patient is, including in the operating room, with or without the patient's consent. No warrant is necessary. There's nothing to stop that person from intruding at the most intimate of times. In fact, hospital personnel may be charged for not allowing the person to enter a patient's room or other area of the hospital. There is only one point to the forced entry and that is to conduct a search.

Will the Attorney General -- and I'm asking him again -- respond to the demands of health care workers and hundreds and hundreds of other people across Ontario who believe that this bill authorizes a massive invasion of privacy, creates a danger in a public hospital setting and is unconstitutional? Once again, will the AG refer the search provisions to the appeal court for an opinion now, or is he going to wait until this law is challenged in court and he loses?

Hon Mr Hampton: I can only say again that while the member has her particular perspective on this issue, that perspective is not shared by others, and it is not felt that the degree of intrusion that this member believes exists -- that view is not shared and there does not seem to be a need for reference at this time.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation responsible for the Ontario Lottery Corp. On November 4, the member for Mississauga West introduced a private member's bill which would restrict the sale of lottery tickets to individuals under 18 years of age, to children, Mr Speaker. Our Progressive Conservative caucus supports the principle of that bill and we would like to see that bill passed this afternoon.

The Ontario Lottery Corp Pro Line Select lottery is obviously designed directly for children. The marketing campaign directly appeals to children under 18. They bet on their favourite sports team. Thousands and thousands of dollars every single day, as long as the minister is delaying, are bet on sports teams by children. My question to the minister is this: Why are you dragging your feet? Do you support the concept of children gambling?

Hon Ed Philip (Acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation): No, I don't support the concept of children gambling and I don't think any member of the House does. I think for the member to ask that question then says more about him than about anything else.

I'm prepared to support the bill of the member for Mississauga West. That bill will come forward in the regular way in which private members' bills come forward. If there's any way in which our House leaders can get together and move that bill forward, I'd be happy to both speak on it and support the bill. But I think we should put it in some context. There are five provinces that have sports lotteries. None of them have legislation of the kind that has been asked for. There have only been six --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Philip: The opposition obviously want to grandstand on this. They don't want to do something about it. That's why they won't let me answer the question, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that I will support the bill. We will move forward with it as quickly as we can and we will be the first province that has it in legislation.

I can tell you also that there have only been six complaints about that particular matter in the province. It is not a widespread problem, and I think the parents have some responsibility as well for what their children do with their money.

Mr Arnott: I was the minister's critic for Transportation. I'd forgotten about the personal cheap shots he employs.

I would ask him, in supplementary, will he then support allowing unanimous consent to be presented in this House to pass Bill 92 today?

Hon Mr Philip: Unlike that party --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Come on. Yes, yes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat. The member for Markham is definitely out of order. The member has asked a question and I assume he would like a response. I would ask the members to be quiet so that he can hear a response.

Hon Mr Philip: The House leaders make those decisions. It is not my role to be both Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Minister of Tourism and Recreation and government House leader at the same time. Maybe that's how the Liberal Party operates, with several House leaders; maybe that's how the Conservative Party operates, with several House leaders. We don't operate that way.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Arnott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to move for unanimous consent that Bill 92 receive third reading this afternoon.

The Speaker: Such a motion cannot be permitted on the floor at this time, during our routine proceedings. Would you wait until we have completed routine proceedings.

PETITIONS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have yet another petition signed by residents of the city of Toronto who are concerned about Metro's MVA plan.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition with which I wholeheartedly concur.

POLICE JOB ACTION

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

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I'm happy to sign my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by several people in my riding from Comber, Staples, Tilbury, St Joachim and the town of Essex.

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

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

Signed by residents of the county of Middlesex; I have affixed by signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which states in part:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I have affixed my name to the top of that petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Margery Ward (Don Mills): I have a petition addressed to the members of provincial Parliament. It reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day would be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act 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 deleted."

I have affixed my name.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads in part as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly opposing the introduction of a new tax on real estate gains.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases, a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the taxes proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

I've affixed my name to the top of the petition.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I present the following petition on behalf of the Lambton County Association for the Mentally Handicapped.

"Whereas the association believes that the respite care bed currently in use at the Maple Street children's residence in Petrolia should continue to operate and not have this vital front-line Lambton county community service reduced or eliminated in any way whatsoever."

I affix my signature. There are 850 names on this petition.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly which reads:

"Whereas the Ontario Lottery Corp has introduced the Pro Line sports lottery; and

"Whereas our young people are being encouraged to gamble on professional sports games; and

"Whereas this gambling has turned all lottery outlets into bookie joints, thereby legalizing gambling on professional sports,

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the province of Ontario should immediately pass private member's Bill 92 to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to children."

As the sponsor of that bill, I hereby affix my signature to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1992

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

Bill Pr73,

An Act respecting the City of York.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Given the fact that the acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation has said he supports Bill 92, I would like to move unanimous consent that Bill 92 be brought on to the floor of this House today so that we can finally eliminate the problem of children gambling on professional sports and do it today, second and third reading. I would move for unanimous consent.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections: No.

The Deputy Speaker: There isn't unanimous consent.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GAMING SERVICES ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES SERVICES RELATIFS AU JEU

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I ask for unanimous consent to move a motion with respect to Bill 26, the Gaming Services Act.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Hampton: I move that the order for committee of the whole House be discharged with respect to Bill 26,

An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services, and the bill be ordered for third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to move third reading of Bill 26.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any comments at all?

Hon Ms Churley: Yes. Although they're not in the House right now, just briefly I want to thank the members of both parties, both my opposition critics and others, who spoke yesterday in support of the bill and I would like to thank them for their support for third reading today. This is a very important bill for the charitable gaming organizations out there and it's nice to see that we were able to get full cooperation in the House in passing this very important bill, so thank you to the opposition.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill 26, which concerns, as we know, amendments to the lottery business that the government undertakes -- no, it's the issue of --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Gaming.

Mr Arnott: -- gaming services, correct. It's an important bill for many reasons which have been brought forward by the various opposition critics and speakers. But I'm concerned about it as it may pertain to casino gambling.

In my particular riding of Wellington, there's a very strong concern about the way this government is approaching the casino gambling issue. We see today, with respect to the Ontario Lottery Corp, the way the government is manipulating that particular corporation in an effort to maximize the revenues that may come in to the government.

It's very, very clear that this government is running out of control with respect to its gaming policies. On this bill, we've received many assurances from the government, from the minister, that it does not impact on the lottery corporation, does not create a problem or does not have anything to do with gambling casinos. But we've heard assurances from this government before, and we find on a number of different occasions that these assurances that are provided to us do not ring true over time.

As I say, in my riding there's a very sincere and strong concern about this government's willingness to go ahead with gambling casinos. The government has announced that it's going to have a limited-scale casino policy, a pilot project in Windsor, and really we have a great deal of concern about even that, because we're concerned that it may in fact lead to wide-open casinos in Ontario.

I'm concerned about that particular side of the issue, and perhaps I just want to put the government on notice that I'll continue to oppose its policy of casinos in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): We spoke at some length on this bill in second reading just yesterday. I do want, however, to make some additional comments with respect to Bill 26, as I search for some additional information which I think follows up on what I had started to talk about yesterday.

I am trying to make the case to the minister, with respect to Bill 26, that there are a number of concerns she must entertain and that she must be looking at with respect to the impact of casino gambling on charitable organizations. It's not so much that Bill 26 fails to overcome these difficulties. Bill 26 is moving forward to enable charitable organizations, as I said in my earlier remarks, to mitigate some of the impact that may result from the advent of casino gambling in the future.

But I want to make the case that in fact there are some negative implications associated with the introduction of a casino-type economy in a locale such as Windsor, and I'd like to bring out some relevant facts, if I may, with respect to what the experience was in Atlantic City.

As I pointed out yesterday, Atlantic City has experienced some very negative impacts as a result of the implementation of casino gambling, casino development, and it continues to go on unimpeded as the expansion of casinos takes place in that city because it has been very fruitful for the casino operators. In fact it's an overwhelming success for the casino operators, Atlantic City is, but see, that can be and should be instructive for the minister.

Casinos are benefiting. They are operating at the levels which were anticipated, but the so-called spinoff effects which the minister has so amiably put forward as the positive results that Windsor will encounter down the road -- the economic spinoff effects for the hotel industry, for local businesses, tourism in general, the creation of jobs and the revenues which will result in increased taxation, a revenue base increase for the local municipality etc -- we could look at these things. We could look at Atlantic City and, as I pointed out yesterday, the business community there was sadly disappointed in the results.

Let's look at some figures. Of the 383 businesses that list themselves as food suppliers to the casinos in Atlantic City, only 75 have Atlantic City addresses and most of those are small sandwich shops rather than large-scale operators. Of the 221 office supply and furniture dealers, only 16 are local. So you see that a lot of the casino purchasing which is taking place comes from around the country, in fact probably from other places in the world. Again, looking at the spinoffs for the local community and the suppliers that may be involved, only a small fraction of what was intended resulted in direct spinoffs to that community.

Here's another interesting fact. In Atlantic City, 40% of the 34 million visitors come by charter bus and stay for less than one full day. That's what's happening in Atlantic City; you get one-day visitors. For the most part, a significant proportion of these people, and those who are not one-day visitors, tend to be people who are high-stake gamblers, tend to be people who go to Atlantic City to do one thing and that is to gamble.

In looking at the situation in Atlantic City, you don't get the kinds of spinoffs people thought they were going to get, and I point this out once again to the minister. I hope I've been able to provide her with some more specific information because, quite frankly, these are the kinds of things we need to look at. Why is it that the spinoffs aren't there? The so-called spinoffs which are supposed to and are intended to help the city of Windsor, the local economy, just haven't resulted in a place like Atlantic City where they have, and I may suggest, a full-scale, Las Vegas style of operation of casino gambling.

There's also a problem with underage gambling, and this is very interesting and very much to the point today as we talk about my colleague the member for Mississauga West's private member's bill intended to curb gambling of underage children. In Atlantic City they are having a terrible time with underage gamblers, and it's suggested that it's common.

The kinds of controls that are in place in casinos are very limited in Atlantic City. They don't restrict as well as they should perhaps. I hope it will be the case in this country and in our jurisdiction that we do not allow underage citizens to gamble freely. That, I think, is fundamental as a consideration.

I think it's important that we again look at what is occurring with respect to the loss of potential revenues for charitable organizations. Again, I raise these arguments -- and I want to repeat what I said -- because it's important to note what kind of impacts have already been seen in other jurisdictions. When the minister stands up and says, "We're going to undertake a pilot project to get that information which will then determine the best ways in which to proceed," I sort of say to her: "Look, this is putting the cart before the horse. It's not the way to proceed in its entirety.

I agree that we should move forward with the initiative -- it's been decided -- but let's do so in a proper fashion. Let's do so so that we know what we're doing, that some studies have been undertaken to look at these situations in other jurisdictions that have had these experiences, which can be very instructive for Ontario.

Quite frankly, taking a position to bring about legalized gambling in the form of gambling in casinos in this province without the real extensive public consultation, public input and public hearings process which I believe is so fundamental I think is leading to a great deal more cynicism in our society.

I want to quote from what Bob Rae said back in the days when he was in opposition. I think this is very instructive. This was a very famous quote from Bob Rae. It speaks to the kind of cynicism which is created as a result of the comments we make in this very chamber. It's very instructive with respect to the issue at hand today. I'm quoting from what Bob Rae said, as reported in the Toronto Star November 27, 1986: "There are high rollers who are benefiting directly from the ripoff of the working people. They are gambling with your lives. They are gambling with your jobs.

They are gambling with the future of your country. What is moral about a system that creates that kind of unemployment just because somebody gets greedy? What is moral about an economic system that feeds on greed? It's time we presented the Canadian people with a vision of a democratic society that is far more compelling because it draws not on what is most narrow in people but on what is most generous in people."

Very compelling words; very profound words. I think it's important that we look at the things we say in this chamber and how those measure up to the actions that are taken.

If we're going to have casino gambling, if this decision has been taken -- it has and it's been finalized; we are moving forward with it -- then I say, at least do some of the things which are necessary to ensure that we do not have the kind of society Bob Rae was alluding to. I know he wasn't just strictly talking about casinos. But we do not have a society created in this province that fosters the kind of values he was alluding to in his comments here when you say we're going to have unbridled, unrestricted casino gambling, and right now we see underage youth undertaking the same kind of gambling that we, I hope, are very much opposed to.

I know the government wants to act on the private member's bill that my colleague the member for Mississauga West has put forward in this House which would restrict young people from gambling. It's a very serious matter. I take it seriously and I know that all members in this chamber do as well.

I implore the government to take the initiative to bring that bill forward for debate and do it as soon as we possibly can. It's been called for today and it was rejected. You would have had unanimous consent from this side of the House. Make a serious commitment to bringing that forward because as we move forward I say, again, as we move forward with casino gambling, the values in our society will change. People will be affected.

I want to point out one other thing that I made mention of in respect of the kinds of impacts which will result. I alluded to the removal or the eradication, actually the closing down and the elimination of funding for Gamblers Anonymous, which was a group to help gamblers overcome their addiction. There's an interesting fact here with respect to that.

I quote from an

article in the Toronto Star, dated July 20, 1992: "While only 2% of the people who seek the help of Gamblers Anonymous are able to recover with its assistance alone, the success rate jumps to 50% if the compulsive gambler first undergoes treatment of this kind. Yet while the United States has more than 60 such clinics" -- very important fact -- "and others have been established in Europe and elsewhere, not a single one exists in this province or, indeed, in all of Canada." That's a startling fact.

I think it's important that this government realize that if we move forward in this way, that we make this a priority, that we establish a clinic, that we establish funding for this very real and serious problem -- it's not taken that lightly in the US, as I pointed out; 60 clinics have been started in the US, do exist there and are operating.

People do get addicted to gambling, so it's not something that we can ignore. I say to the minister, it is certainly an area that she has to look at.

There's the other matter of competition. Once Windsor gets its casino and it is operational, it'll be interesting to see what happens with respect to the competition that Windsor might possibly face from Detroit. In the last US federal election, the presidential election which just took place, there was a question on the ballot in Michigan to the residents of Highland Park. They were asked the question, "Do you want casino gambling in Highland Park?" It was answered 3,116 yes, 2,274 voted no.

It was the first time, after three votes had taken place in the Detroit area with respect to this question, that a yes resulted. I think it's informative what Detroit Mayor Coleman Young said. He said the scramble for gambling dollars on both sides of the border at the Detroit River was inevitable. It was to be expected. I think this decision, taken on behalf of Windsor, is one that, again, I do not quarrel with.

The city of Windsor has suffered irreparable damage to its economy. The effects of cross-border shopping, the recession and a number of other things which have taken place have resulted in a real downturn, a savaged economy in the Windsor area. But it's another factor to consider. I'm pointing this out for the minister to take account of the fact that we may perhaps have competition right across the river in Detroit. Once Windsor sets up its casino, we could very well see competition immediately thereafter in the city of Detroit.

I think it's important to realize that and to look at this seriously, to look at ways in which to compete and to look at the revenue projections that will result from this. This is another thing. We are talking about a pilot project here. Initially, perhaps, in the absence of any competition from the other side of the river, revenues and other projections might be higher. You've got to factor in the possibility of competition.

I think that's something that goes largely unnoticed. It hasn't been talked about. I know that people in the city of Windsor are euphoric about this decision and I don't want to rain on their parade. I just want to caution the government to factor that in and make provisions for a very competitive environment, because that could very well be the reality once we open a casino in Windsor.

I've tried to point out the effects with respect to gambling. We talked about the increasing crime that results. It certainly has been a factor which is not to be ignored. It has been a factor in Atlantic City. Almost immediately, there was an increase in crime, some outrageous figure with respect to the increase. I don't have it in front of me, but it was a startling increase in phone calls to the police department shortly after the casinos opened up and started to operate. Again, I point out to the minister and the government that you have to make provision and take that into account, factor that into the equation.

The reason I'm once again rising to my feet to point this out is that I've seen a real lack of information from the government. I want to make sure you don't forget the message. I say to the members opposite, if the minister had more information, was a little more forthcoming with respect to the decision that had been taken and had supportive documentation, which has really been sorely lacking on this question, I probably would not have been on my feet again today asking these questions, not have been on my feet to repeat the kind of concerns I stated yesterday in response to this bill on second reading.

I have yet to see the kind of commitment to the charitable organizations which indicates a plan for their survival, a realistic plan which can be brought about to ensure that charitable organizations are not devastated in the future. I think they have not been fully apprised of and did not fully realize the information that was put to them by the minister. In fact, I think they were led down the garden path.

I want to point that out because we know now, today, that charities will not be part of the revenue-sharing. In fact, no one will be part of that revenue-sharing. There is no revenue-sharing. This Treasurer intends to fill his coffers completely with the revenues from casino gambling. Of course, that's going to be a drop in the bucket in so far as an $11-billion or $12-billion deficit is concerned, but it's a significant amount of money for local eco