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

October 24, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MANDATORY LEGISLATION REVIEW

Mr Carr moved resolution 30:

That, in the opinion of this House, all future legislation which would establish an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or create new direct expenditures or tax expenditures must contain a sunsetting provision which would, after a specific period of time, require mandatory review of the original legislation by a committee of this House. The committee would be mandated to report to this House on the impact of the legislation, the degree to which the program and policy objectives have been met and make recommendations on whether the program or agency should be continued, terminated or amended.

Further, that all existing legislation which has established an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or created new direct expenditures or tax expenditures should, over the next five years, be reviewed by a committee of this House with the mandate indicated above.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Carr: I want to say first off that I am pleased to be able to move this resolution and to speak to it this morning. I think it is a very important resolution. When you look at the objective of this particular resolution, what we are talking about really is efficiency in government.

I was interested to note that in a recent poll called NDP Watch: The First Six Months, 80% of the people said they believed there is a tremendous amount of waste and duplication in government. That was non-political; that was 80% of people who identified themselves as NDP supporters, Liberal supporters and Progressive Conservative supporters. This is something that I think crosses all party lines. I was interested to note in my riding, when a recent newsletter came back with the survey, people were saying the same thing. The perception out there is that there is a tremendous amount of waste.

What this resolution would do is say to the people that we are reviewing it, we are taking a look at the programs.

I know in our household there is not a month that goes by where we do not take a look and say: "Can we cut some costs here? Should we be spending it here? Should we maybe reallocate some of the resources?" In fact, right across this province companies and businesses are doing the same thing. Workers are being asked to look at their particular area to see where they could be more efficient. Has something that was put in place a few years ago now become outdated? I think that government in this period of time should be doing what we as individuals with our households and in our workplaces are doing almost every day. It has become more critical.

One of the big factors with this is that I honestly, truly believe that all the social programs that all of us care about in this province do not depend on the compassion of any particular government or any particular party. What they depend on is having money to be able to afford them. As was mentioned, I guess in the throne speech, the Premier said that what we have to do is to look at priorities, and priorities change. Something that might have been a valid program in 1985, for example, might now be outdated, it can be improved or it may be at a point where we can reallocate some of those resources.

If we do not do that, I am afraid there is not enough money to be able to provide for all the programs that are out there, and I think what the people of this province are looking for is some guidance.

I was at the Constitution convention this weekend, and the member for St Catharines-Brock and the member for Middlesex, during one of the workshops, said what we need are some sort of sunsetting provisions in government to take a look at some of the expenditures. That was when we were talking about the Constitution, so hopefully we will have some support.

What I attempted to do was get something that was non-political. I tried not to get something that would be aggressive and slamming the government of the day or the previous government or any particular government. I tried to get something that would be practical and I tried to work with it as best we could.

I think the reason we need to have each ministry look at it, and I would like to have the elected officials do it, is that with agencies and boards, some people will say, "They're supposed to look at their own programs and decide what happens." Unfortunately, they look at it from their own perspective. A particular board may look at it and say, "I think this is the most important thing in this province," and if you are in fact dealing with that every day, day in and day out, it becomes the most important thing to you.

But I think, as elected officials, what we need to do is have elected officials look at the bigger, broader picture. The person administering the particular program that is being put in place may think it is the best and the most efficient program, but I think we need an objective view and it needs to be done by the politicians, who can be elected and ultimately are accountable to the electorate.

I think governments of all political stripes realize the old days of when we had programs and every year it was just inflation-plus are gone. There just are not the tax dollars to be able to afford it. We all know that unfortunately we are the highest-taxed province in all of Canada and in fact the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America, so if we want to pay for any new programs, what we need to do is reallocate the money from some of the other programs.

Some ideas were originally thought out and very worth while. I had the pleasure of going to a rent review hearing yesterday morning. When it was put in place, the simple idea was, "We'll have this board that will review it." I also had my eyes opened a great deal with that, because we literally spent all morning, from 10 o'clock when it convened until 11:45, just deciding whether they would proceed that day because one of the lawyers was not there. Basically half a day was wasted, and in fact they tell me it was the second time this has happened, so there has been a full day basically on debate about whether they were going to adjourn or not.

Obviously, something like that particular board or agency needs to be reviewed to see how we can streamline it, how we can be more efficient. I am a little bit used to delays, having sat on some of the committees in here, but I was interested in some of the tenants when I walked out. They were saying to me: "The system doesn't work. This is ridiculous. It's crazy." A well-thought-out idea that I think everybody thought was terrific when it came in needs to be looked at from the standpoint of reviewing it to see what can be done to make it work, because there were about 100 tenants and every one, to a man and a woman, said, "This system doesn't work."

What we are saying with this particular resolution is that we need to look at them with a very clear understanding to make improvements. In some cases it may be that we amend what is done; in other cases it may be that we terminate what was a good idea at the time, but there needs to be that review.

Anybody who has done any studying of modern management techniques knows that controlling is probably the most important key element in getting things done. That is regardless of whether you are a supervisor or you are a worker in your particular area and you are managing that area. Controlling the results, I guess probably second after staffing and getting the right people, is the most important thing. What we are saying with this is that we are going to control, we are going to measure, we are going to monitor the results to see where we can be more efficient and streamline them.

It was interesting to note that when we talk about how man made the journey to the moon -- and everybody knew what the objective was, we wanted to get the spacecraft from here to the moon -- they tell us that when they travelled to the moon, that rocket going to the moon was off course virtually 95% of the time. They knew the goal was to get to the moon, but they were off course, and what they kept doing was bringing it back on course continually so they could reach their objective.

I think we in government should set very clear, very worthwhile objectives for our programs, and then what we need to do is, along the way, keep correcting, keep refining, keep improving them so that at the end of the day people will say that we in fact did everything to the best of our ability to make the government as efficient and as effective as possible.

I say to the members opposite and my friends in the Liberal Party as well --

Mr Hope: Where are they?

Mr Carr: -- those in their offices watching me, I am sure, with the television on this morning, that the public perception is that there is a tremendous amount of waste, a tremendous amount of duplication of services. This resolution, which was put forward in a spirit of non-partisanship, is something that is very practical. I believe it is something that is needed.

When we sit back and reflect on the future and see the young people who come in here to watch, it is their future we need to guard, because as members know, if we do not begin to be more efficient and to improve, the legacy we are going to leave to the next generation is unfortunately going to be one of a tremendous amount of debt and overtaxation.

I think this will be a first start. Rather than taking a look at the taxes and saying, "We're just going to reduce taxes in that area," I think this will be a good start towards making government more efficient. I believe it is needed. I encourage all members in the Legislature to take a look at this resolution and offer their support to it. I hope they will. The future of this province is too important not to have this resolution passed today.

Mr Winninger: I believe the resolution put forward by the member for Oakville South is a very thoughtful one, as I might expect from one who has served so ably on the standing committee on administration of justice and who is one of the select few from his party to be elected in 1990 as support for his party slips gently away.

While a sunsetting provision calling for mandatory review of agencies, boards, commissions and regulatory systems may be appealing on the surface, I submit it is unnecessary and represents additional costs the taxpayer does not need to bear at this time. To borrow the metaphor used by the member, I believe his rocket is indeed off course in this matter.

We have a standing committee on government agencies that is working very well. It reviews the operations of agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario. It has reviewed and reported recently on TVOntario, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Rent Review Hearings Board and many other tribunals too numerous to mention.

Under standing order 104(g), reviews are made "with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies." It is difficult to find a more comprehensive mandate than that of this committee.

Pursuant to a provisional change in the standing orders adopted last December, the government agencies committee also reviews intended order-in-council appointments to agencies, boards and commissions to ensure appointments are made in accordance with merit or a legitimate governmental policy initiative rather than as a political favour, as has often been done in the past.

In addition, standing order 106 provides that the standing committees on justice, general government, resources development and social development are "authorized to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation" of agencies, boards and commissions reporting to ministries and offices these committees are concerned with. Further, as the member well knows, a member of a subcommittee of these committees can designate a matter under standing order 123 "to be considered by the committee relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation" of an agency, board or commission.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the good work of the standing committee on public accounts, which reviews the public accounts and reports of the Provincial Auditor, to promote the economy, efficiency and effectiveness in public spending that I believe the member for Oakville South is honestly seeking here today. We also have the standing committee on the Ombudsman, which reviews complaints to the Ombudsman against agencies, boards and commissions, and the standing committee on estimates.

I urge the member for Oakville South, before he would establish yet another committee, to consider the mandate of the committees I referred to with a view to identifying possible duplication. This kind of review may in fact be more useful than the creation of a new committee. While there may be room for improvement, the existence of these committees certainly contributes to increased efficiency, public accountability and democracy.

I might add that internally we have the Management Board of Cabinet directives and guidelines, which contain criteria to evaluate the creation of new government bodies and procedures and review guidelines and implementation plan guidelines that ministers are expected to follow when undertaking sunset reviews. In many cases sunsetting can certainly be handled by the respective minister, Management Board and cabinet.

I might add that a sunset review provision is required in all memorandums of agreement entered into between agencies, boards and commissions and the respective ministries. These sunset provisions provide the minister with an opportunity to assess ongoing programs in relation to new priorities and to determine whether funds could be spent in another area or not at all. It could be argued that it is generally better for ministers and their departments to decide, as part of a coherent approach to policymaking, if programs are to continue.

Less government is not always better government. Experience with sunsetting has shown that the termination rate for regulatory or operational agencies is not high compared to that of advisory bodies, which brings me to two other relevant issues when we are considering the kind of mandatory sunsetting called for by the member. I speak of time and cost.

The resolution calls for mandatory review of all new agencies, boards and commissions within a fixed time period. This approach is fraught with difficulty. It is too inflexible. Different bodies may require different sunset periods for review. Who would decide which bodies are to be selected first for review while others go without scrutiny for a period of time? There is no clear way of knowing where potential savings are greater or services are of greater significance.

This resolution also calls for review of existing bodies within the next five years. At last count, this government had 510 agencies, boards and commissions. Five years may not be enough time to review the enabling legislation.

Last, dealing with the question of cost, sometimes the cost of establishing and maintaining the kind of committee the member recommends can outweigh any cost-saving benefit from reducing the mandate of or closing down a committee. Resources may be difficult to justify in this period of restraint. I note that the Macaulay report of 1988, which reviewed Ontario's agencies, boards and commissions, concluded that sunsetting was not meeting its desired goal of self-justification.

It went on to observe that since 1980, when sunsetting began, out of 580 agencies only five were actually terminated and 10 merged with other agencies while 77 new agencies were created, of which 15 could be classed as regulatory.

John Chenier, an employee with the federal Secretary of State and professor in the school of public administration at Carleton, has identified in an

article many drawbacks of sunsetting. To name but a few, the fixed renewal date frequently becomes an excuse to delay desirable changes, beneficiaries of the program about to expire will only remind the minister of the good works of the program when the sunset date arrives, and a fixed renewal date often raises expectations that the program will be enhanced and problems solved with more effort and money.

Another study published last year noted that 12 US states have abandoned sunset review due to high monetary and temporal costs, unfulfilled expectations of agency termination, low levels of citizen participation and other problems.

Finally, I think I have identified many of the weaknesses in the member's resolution and provided the underpinnings, the basis, for my position in this matter, which is opposed to his.

However, the implementation of new measures announced last fall guaranteeing greater fairness in the appointments process will continue. We hope to secure more trust and respect from the people of Ontario for our government through an open system of applications for government agencies, boards and commissions, accessible to people with diverse backgrounds and experience.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to rise this morning during private members' hour in support of the resolution of the member for Oakville South. I think it is important that it be read out. I have been listening to speakers who oppose it. I look at it as an amendment and a resolution of the House that everyone should be able to support, because it really calls on the individual private member, in his role as a member of the committee, to be able to do his job better and to play a meaningful role in a process that already occurs within government.

I am very much aware that sunset review, program review, was an ongoing mandate of the Management Board of Cabinet during the five years I was on the government benches. During that time, as any new agency was established, there was an automatic five-year mandate review conducted by the Management Board. It seems to me that the new government, which has spoken about enhancing the role of all members of this Legislature, and members of the government benches would be supportive of a resolution that would do just that. It would take that five-year mandated review, which occurs right now within government, and allow a standing committee of the Legislature to be part of that process.

I do not think it is anything that anyone could philosophically oppose. It is certainly a part of the process today because we know the agencies, boards and commissions are reviewed by a standing committee of the Legislature. We know there is a standing committee on the Ombudsman which also has the powers to review programs of the government in depth, even though it has met only a very few times.

Let's take a minute and read again the resolution of the member for Oakville South. It says:

"That, in the opinion of this House, all future legislation which would establish an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or create new direct expenditures or tax expenditures must contain a sunsetting provision which would, after a specific period of time" -- it could be five years, it could be longer -- "require a mandatory review of the original legislation by a committee of this House.

The committee would be mandated to report to this House on the impact of the legislation, the degree to which the program and policy objectives have been met and make recommendations on whether the program or agency should be continued, terminated or amended. Further, that all existing legislation which has established an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or created new direct expenditures or tax expenditures should, over the next five years, be reviewed by a committee of this House with the mandate indicated above."

As we look through this resolution, what we find is that it is really a way to involve, inform and fully educate not only members of this House but the public. We know that standing committees of the Legislature, which today review most pieces of legislation and have full and open public hearings, are a vehicle for informing the public in an open public forum about what the work of the Legislature is, what the role of the individual member is and how we conduct our business. The public is very cynical today. They are very cynical about all politicians. They do not like any of us very much.

Anything we can do that will inform the public about who we are and what we do is a positive way of reducing the level of cynicism through public education, of reducing the level of cynicism by opening the doors even wider rather than excluding anything the government does from review.

For me, as a private member of the Legislature, one of the most exciting opportunities I have had over the last six years as a provincial legislator has been the opportunity to ask questions not just in the theatre of question period but as a member of committee, to meet with people who are very knowledgeable in their field of expertise, both inside and outside government, and then to take the information I have gathered and share that.

I want to share one experience, particularly with some of the new members of the government caucus, because I think it will help them to understand why I support this kind of resolution. I was a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and we were studying what was then to be the free trade agreement. The more we looked at it, the more concerned we were about the impact it would have on Ontario's workers and jobs. In fact I think we were quite prophetic in our view of what was going to result.

As a member of the committee that studied intently the proposal by the federal government, we also had the opportunity to meet with the office of the negotiators. We met with the European Community. We met with the people who were knowledgeable in the field of macroeconomics, and I remember coming home from one of these meetings and saying to my children, "I now understand macroeconomics." My son, who was in business school at university, said: "You understand it all in just two days? There are people who study for years."

I said: "It is a different kind of understanding that we legislators, we members of this process here in the assembly at Queen's Park, must have. We don't need to have the technical expertise of the master's degrees and the PhDs. We have to understand it so that we can bring common sense, take a look at what is proposed and what we think is going to happen. We represent the people in our constituencies. We need to be able to go back to them and not give them a professional, professorial response. We need to be able to explain in common, everyday language, what is going on, how this is going to affect you and why we either support it or we don't."

When I look at a resolution such as the one proposed by the member for Oakville South, I think it would be an opportunity for members of this Legislature to become even better informed about how precious tax dollars are being spent. I think it would allow members of the Legislature to review in depth and make recommendations to the government about whether a proposed agency, board or commission, whether a proposed expenditure which had been fully reviewed at a legislative committee and passed into law, had achieved its goals. By allowing members to be a part of that review, I think the public of Ontario would be better served.

The members are already today involved in those reviews to a minor degree.

As I mentioned, the standing committee on government agencies today is empowered by the standing order of the committee "to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the operation of all agencies, boards and commissions to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes some or all of the appointments, and all corporations to which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, such reviews to be made with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies."

That exists today, so this proposal by the member for Oakville South just enhances a role which already is available to members of the Legislature. It takes it one step further.

It seems to me it is something which would be difficult for members, particularly members who are new to the Legislature, who when they talked about wanting to come to this place were not sure whether they were going to be on opposition benches or government benches, as we were not sure. When we stand for public office in this province, under the British parliamentary system, we never know which side of the House we are going to sit on. We run as members in our ridings to represent our people and their views. We tell them what our policies are, what our party's policies are, and then after the election is over, it is the electorate who determines where we sit.

To be perfectly honest, in 1985 I had as one of my goals, as I said before in this House, to sit in opposition. I consider my five years in government as indeed a privilege and an honour to have served the people of my riding in the cabinet and in the government of Ontario. But I am privileged and honoured, as a member of this Legislature, to serve today as a member of the official opposition and I have pledged to the people of my riding that in my capacity as a provincial member of Parliament, I will be as well informed as I can be, I will be as responsible as I can be and I will be as effective as I can be.

I have a role as an opposition critic of the new treasury board, which has exactly the same kind of mandate of review, of looking at programs, as we talked about a few minutes earlier, as the Management Board of Cabinet formerly had. It has undertaken a massive program review. I believe, as a member of the opposition, that it should not just be the critic who has that opportunity to review what the government is doing. It should not just be one individual critic who has the opportunity to be part of the sunset review provisions.

I think it is important that members of the standing committees of the Legislature be fully informed and have the opportunity to fully scrutinize, to hold the government accountable. That is a very important function. I cannot stress that too highly. As well as holding the government accountable, frequently members of those committees come up with very good ideas.

One of the things I have said to my constituents in the riding of Oriole is that I feel it is my role to oppose and to criticize. That is my role as a member of the official opposition. That is our role and function in our democracy. The official opposition has a mandate to criticize the government, to keep it on its toes, to fight with words and to hold it accountable by a kind of responsible criticism, to oppose when it has made a mistake or erred or when its proposals may not yet be perfect and in the public interest.

I also believe, and I believe this with all my heart, that as a member of the official opposition I must have the opportunity to propose. To be blunt, the best way, the best forum and the best vehicle to be able to propose new ideas, good ideas, is at committee. I have been a Chairman of committee, as I am now. I have been a member of committee, looking at rent review, pay equity, the free trade agreement, and good ideas came from the opposition members.

As I speak in support of the resolution of the member for Oakville South, I think it would increase the opportunity for all members of this Legislature on the government side and in opposition to bring their good ideas forward as we review expenditures, as we take a look at agencies, boards and commissions, make recommendations on sunsetting those that have not achieved their goals and objectives, be critical about those that have not been fiscally responsible, and at the same time serve the people of this province well by doing the job we were sent here to do.

Mr Villeneuve: I am here to strongly support my friend and colleague the member for Oakville South in his private member's notice of motion. As my colleague the member for Oriole repeated, the resolution is simply that agencies, boards, commissions and regulatory systems, once in place, have a sunsetting provision which would not put them out of business but which would simply ask: Are they doing the job they are mandated for? Are they too expensive? What direction should they be going in if they are not going in the right direction?

With this member's background as a professional hockey player -- and as I was going from the baseball game last night to the Nordiques and my Montreal Canadiens -- maybe the Nordiques should have brought him up and kept him. But I am glad they did not because we now have a new, fresh outlook in this Legislature with my colleague the member for Oakville South. He could have probably helped the Nordiques last night. However, he is here helping the people of Ontario.

As an athlete, and I understand his background, he had to make the team every year. You are only as good as your last game. So this goes right in line with his thinking. It is somewhat different from, say, a lot of the thinking of union members who somehow or other would prefer not to bring any more stuff into the open than need be. That is a known quantity. I congratulate my colleague the member for Oakville South for his openness and his refreshing outlook on politics, "Let's have a look at it; let's open it up." I have no problem with that.

I do have a little problem with some statements that were made by the member for London South, however, when in his participation here, he had the audacity to say how well the committee system is working. I happen to have substituted on a committee, the standing committee on general government. It was mandated, after sections 1, 2, and 3 were put in by my party, that we have one opportunity during a session to look at changes in regulations.

With the stroke of a pen, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations shut down 14 registry offices, three of them in my riding, two of which had been there since 1795. The amazing thing is that this was all done and he continues to systematically close these registry offices in spite of the fact that a committee of this Legislature had hearings. Not one person who came to the hearings was in favour of closing these registry office, yet the minister continues to systematically do it.

The idiosyncrasy here is that a solicitor acting on behalf of the ministry made these statements, and they are worth repeating because it is an absolute insult to the committee system of this Legislature and to the members who participate. When the member for London South says that the committee system is working well, he needs to listen closely. I will read some remarks that were uttered by a solicitor on behalf of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations:

"The solicitor for the ministry said it would serve no purpose for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to await any input from the standing committee on general government, which is looking into the closure of land registry offices under standing order 123."

The solicitor gave three main reasons. "The general government committee is of no significance." That is the first statement.

Mr Winninger: That is one opinion.

Mr Villeneuve: Acting on behalf of the minister. The member is a solicitor and he knows what the solicitor-client relationship is. They are acting on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

"The general government committee is really just a way of creating political heat." That is statement number two.

Statement number three: "The general government committee is composed of six members of the NDP and five from the other two parties and all theNDP members could be absolutely counted on to stick to the government's position of closure of the land registry offices."

It is an insult to the members of committees, it is an insult to anyone who sits in this Legislature, and they will tell us it is working. Mr Speaker, I cannot accept that. I will strongly support my colleague the member for Oakville South.

Mr Fletcher: It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this resolution presented by the member for Oakville South. I can sympathize with what the member is saying about trying to get control over government. In fact, I think that through the years, whenever new governments come in, one of their first priorities is to try to get control. But then the governments of the past have already implemented a system, and we are using the same system, where reviews are done periodically throughout the ministries and then Management Board has the job of reviewing them.

As far as sunset legislation is concerned, it has been used in the United States, as my colleague the member for London South has already said.

Some of the problems they had with this sunset legislation were that -- let me just read: "There was a failure to reduce the size of government; high monetary costs; lack of meaningful citizen participation; disappropriation; influence of agencies and their lobbyists; a lack of adequate evaluation criteria." The only recommendation that came from any committee was that they "should lengthen the review cycle to permit more thorough reviews of fewer agencies each year." In other words, going from a five-year review, as this system evolves, we will be looking perhaps at an eight-year review, a 13-year review.

How many governments will pass through this Legislature in that time? How many governments will be controlled because they cannot go against this sunset committee?

An hon member: They will all be NDP governments.

Mr Fletcher: We hope they are NDP governments, as my colleague says.

Having a five-year review and then watching it go to a 13-year review would only start an evolution in the system getting back to where we are now. As my colleague the member for London South has already said, we have standing committees that are already doing the job. These standing committees were not put in place by this government; they were put in place by previous governments. They seemed to work for those previous governments and they work for this government.

Also, each ministry does a review. In fact, when we did a review of the land registry offices and came up with a conclusion that would be more expedient and cheaper, the opposition jumped on us and said: "No, that's wrong. You can't do this." Now they are standing there saying, "We need a review." Each government, when it comes into power, will do a review of its plans and policies and will implement programs that go along with its ideology, its way of looking at things.

To my friend the member for Oakville South, I can understand the frustration, but instead of just starting to implement a program that suits today, we have to look at the long-term effects. From what we have seen in the United States so far, the long-term effects are a lengthening of the process.

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased to rise today to express my support and that of my other caucus colleagues for the resolution put forward by the member for Oakville South. As my colleague from Sand, Dust, Gravel and East Grenville said just a few minutes ago, this resolution is a fresh, new way to do business around here.

One thing that struck me -- and it is a new point to the debate this morning -- upon my arrival at Queen's Park many years ago when I was an assistant here was how media-driven and interest-group-driven governments' agendas tend to be. But this resolution would give the government -- and I cannot understand for the life of me why the NDP would not support this resolution -- a fresh opportunity to be proactive, to take the bull by the horns around here, as it were, and to review, on an ongoing basis, agencies, boards and commissions and the programs they deliver.

The good part of the resolution that says the review must be conducted by a standing committee of this Legislature -- and there are two points there -- is that, first, we will be sure the review takes place and, second, we can have elected people ensuring that the taxpayers of this province are actually getting value for their tax dollar, which certainly was a demand made on us as we went to the doors during the last election campaign.

We are overtaxed. We are the most highly taxed jurisdiction in North America. We have many boards and commissions and I am sure most members of the government could not tell me what their purposes are. We have a commission called the Soldiers' Aid Commission which was established in 1960. It is still operating, but no one seems to be able to tell what it does. It has never had a review of its mandate.

As the member for Oriole pointed out, since 1986 the Management Board has been doing internal reviews of programs -- Management Board with the exception of the Chairman and the cabinet members who sit on it; the reviews though are done primarily by bureaucrats. It is an internal review. My experience with bureaucrats over the past eight years is that their first inclination is to protect their own turf. Their own inclination is to send the minister a briefing note about how important their program is, whether that program is delivering value for money or not. Their first inclination is to ensure that the status quo is maintained.

I have talked to some cabinet ministers in the NDP government privately. They say, "We can't do that because the bureaucrats sent me a note saying we're going to have to hire X new civil servants" or, "It's going to require new money for anything we try to do." I remember very well talking to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. He said, "I can't do this, that and the other thing because I'm told it will require new civil servants." Those are the standard briefing notes they get from bureaucrats. They have to cut through that.

By reviewing programs and referring them to a standing committee of this Legislature, which does not include bureaucrats -- there are no bureaucrats on the standing committee; it is politicians from all three parties sitting around -- presumably on something like this they could work in a co-operative atmosphere and could actually find out whether taxpayers are getting value for the billions of dollars, some $52.3 billion, that they give to this government each year.

I also want to mention that we do not have to set up a new standing committee of the Legislature, as the member for London South said. He said it might cost more money to do this than it is worth. I sit on the standing committee on regulations and private bills. We do not do anything. We meet once a month to rubber-stamp five or six bills. Frankly, and I will say it publicly, it is very often a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

The only good thing about that committee is that the legislative counsel, again a bureaucrat, has a mandate to review some of the regulations of government from time to time, but he can only review regulations to see if they are constitutional. He has no authority whatsoever, because he is not elected by the people, to inform the committee whether there is value for money in the regulations or the bills he is reviewing. He will simply tell the committee whether it is constitutional or not.

In questioning the other day I said, "What if you found something that the government was trying to do to be unconstitutional?" He said: "I have no teeth to do anything about that either. I would send a memo to the appropriate minister, hope the minister reads it and hope the minister will amend the legislation or regulations to conform with Canada's Constitution."

A standing committee such as regulations and private bills could easily undertake this task of reviewing regulations to see if taxpayers are getting value for money and certainly reviewing legislation and the mandate of programs delivered by boards and commissions around here. It is an excellent idea.

In 1988, the member for Nipissing, the leader of my party, the Ontario PC party, brought forward this exact resolution. Unfortunately the Liberals -- the word "hypocrisy" comes to mind because the member for Oriole today --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not accept that. Please rephrase your sentence.

Mr J. Wilson: I withdraw the term. I thought if you called her the H-word, that would certainly be directed at her, but certainly the terminology --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I ask you to apologize.

Mr J. Wilson: That was then, this is now. We see that with the NDP in opposition and in government; we see that with the member for Oriole in the Liberal Party, who in 1988 would not support this resolution. It made perfect sense then and now we see the government also not supporting this resolution. It does not make any sense for the NDP this time around not to support this resolution. This resolution is long overdue. I credit the member for Oakville South for bringing it forward. It shows real courage.

The only reason I can think of why this government will not support it is that it is afraid if it gets into sunset provisions, the public of Ontario will actually sunset the government right out of office.

Mr Martin: I am happy to rise this morning to speak to this resolution. I would like to make perhaps three points about what has been presented to us here today. One of them is that when we look at all the things this government has to do today regarding the recession we are dealing with and all the pain that has been felt out there by the people of Ontario, this is not a piece of business we have time for. Perhaps at another time when the economy is better and we do not have so many pressing things to deal with we might want to look at this again, because it certainly has some things in it that have some value and that we should perhaps look at.

The other thing I would like to say is that in my estimation of how government runs, we do not at this time need another level of bureaucracy. Who pays for it? Who is going to spend time on it? How do we involve some of the members of the public when we need all the energy we all have here focused on more important things, such as the legislation this government is trying to put through this House and is being obstructed in doing by the opposition so many of the days that we sit here.

I would also like to say to the member for Oriole, who spoke earlier, that I agree we have an opportunity here for input on various pieces of legislation. When she was in government, she said that she listened to the opposition as it presented points of view. I want her to know that there is not a piece of legislation that we as a government have put through in our tenure so far that does not reflect a very serious attempt to listen to both the opposition and the public out there so that legislation we bring down actually reflects those in our communities. I suggest when it comes to the regulation of boards and commissions that we are listening as intently at that level as well.

So in fact at this time this particular provision is not necessary. It would be a waste of resources and a waste of people's time and energy. Perhaps another time, but not now.

Mr Turnbull: I am delighted to speak on the issue today that my colleague the member for Oakville South brought forward. I think it is essential to get some responsibility back into governments, and I am surprised the government does not embrace this as it looks at ways of saving money, which undoubtedly it is going to have to do. This gives them a tool to do it, one which we would support them in. It is reasonable that people cut out the bureaucracy. It is quite obvious that bureaucrats have a vested interest in making sure that programs are ongoing.

If we have sunset clauses in all the new legislation and indeed over the next five years bring in existing programs for sunset reviews, we will have an opportunity to determine whether the programs are working or not. I also suggest that we should consider zero-based budgeting as a viable tool. If we do this, we will finally be able to wrestle this massive government to the ground and start getting value for taxpayers' dollars.

The suggestion made by the previous speaker was that the opposition was stopping the government getting its legislation through the House, but if he reads parliamentary journals, he will find that is the job of opposition. Only 23% of the people who were eligible to vote in the last election voted for them. They do not have a sweeping mandate to do whatever they want.

Constructive opposition is what we are offering, and this, more than any other measure, is constructive opposition. It gives the government a tool to be able to address the massive, clogged bureaucracy that we have. Indeed, we should put this into one of the committees that exist so that we do not create extra committees. We have to make our committees work more effectively.

Having sat through two days of estimates on the ministry which I critique, I would say it is just an opportunity for the bureaucrats to strut their stuff and baffle us with bafflegab. Anybody who has watched Yes, Minister will know that is exactly what goes on.

I suggest that if we are going to make committees more useful, we should have equal representation on the committees and, believe me, the NDP will get the benefit of it when it is chucked out on its ear, as it is undoubtedly going to be after the next election. The taxpayers are fed up with what it is doing with this province. They are destroying business and they are destroying jobs, and if we started to be more constructive with the way we operate government, we would then start to see the province moving again. Sunset clauses and zero-based budgeting would be the most appropriate start. It would help the government and it would help the taxpayers.

Mr Carr: I want to thank everyone who participated this morning for their valued comments. I want to just touch on the remarks of some of the people who spoke against the resolution.

The member for Sault Ste Marie said that now is not the time. I say to him that because of the crisis we are in, now is the time to do it. When things are going well and there is enough money, there is not the need to review what has already been done. It is now, when the times are pressing, that it is so serious. I think he is a little mixed up. The government cannot get through the legislation he is talking about, not because of the opposition but because there is no money to pay for it.

They could not put all the best-thought-out programs in legislation that they might want to, even if there were no opposition here, because we are flat broke. There is no money. We are almost out of business in this province. That is the reason it cannot go through.

To my friend the member for London South, who said the system is working, I say the system is not working, not in my estimation nor in theirs. In the recent poll, the NDP Watch, 80% of the people who say they are NDP supporters say that with governments at all levels and of all political stripes, whether it be municipal, provincial or federal, there is a lot of waste and duplication in the programs that are there. I say to him that it is not what I believe and it is not what he may believe; the public, 80% of them, say that with all political stripes, the system is not working as effectively as it can.

To my friend the member for Guelph, who said it is based on ideology, I say it has nothing to do with political stripes. I listened to Mr Harcourt after the election, the following morning. Four times -- I counted them -- he talked about a balanced budget. Four times he said, "If we have no money, we can't do it." So it does not matter if you are an NDP member, a Liberal or a Conservative, the fact of the matter is that the public needs to look at it. I say very clearly that the reason it is not working is that there is no money. Members have to look to the chief Treasurer of this province who has talked about selling assets off because the system does not work. There is no money left.

I encourage members to support this resolution. It is needed and the province needs it today.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Cooper moved resolution 29:

That, in the opinion of this House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles.

Mr Cooper: The purpose of this resolution is to initiate a broad-based discussion on a much-maligned form of transportation, the motorcycle.

I believe, along with our government, that public transportation is the best solution to our transportation problems, but in reality most people, because of their busy schedules and their refusal to give up their personal automobile, have chosen not to embrace public transit. As a rule, the people of Ontario still use their own cars as their main source of transportation. Car pooling does not seem to have caught on and I believe it is because of the loss of independence, somewhat the same reason people do not rely on public transit.

In most cases, if members look around they will find most cars on the roads and highways contain only one person, and that is the driver. This is the reason I believe the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles as an alternative to the car.

Environmentally there is at present nothing superior to the motorcycle, except maybe the bicycle. Motorcycles take up less space on highways and roads and need very limited space for parking. At a time, especially around Toronto but also in many larger communities across Ontario, where one feels the entire province is being paved over, the increased use of the motorcycle will slow down the need for more highways and parking lots and save our precious agricultural land.

The growing number and size of tire dumps across the province is causing the government problems. While not a solution, obviously, replacing two tires instead of the four which have to be replaced on the automobile gives the motorcycle the advantage as a better choice of transportation. Motorcycles are for the most part more fuel-efficient than cars. We therefore have less pollution and preserve our limited fossil fuels.

I believe that if the government of Ontario actively promoted the use of motorcycles as an alternative to the car, it would eliminate the "bad boy" of transportation perception people in general have. Motorcycles are slowly becoming more popular, as can be seen by the growing number of people using them. Motorcycle enthusiasts include all ages and groups, from students right up to senior citizens.

Much more needs to be done and a good start would be to follow the lead taken by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. In a news release in Markham on October 18, 1991, the ministry states:

"The Ontario government and the snowmobile industry have joined forces to help launch a major awareness campaign to reduce the number of serious snowmobile accidents in the province.

"The Snowmobile Safety Committee is conducting an ongoing public education campaign about trail safety. The new committee is supported by the Ontario government, Arctic Cat, Bombardier Ski-Doo, Polaris, Yamaha, the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, the Ontario Cottagers Association, the Royal Life Saving Society and the Canadian Sport, Head and Spine Injury Research Centre.

"'People are dying and suffering serious injuries from accidents that could have been prevented,' Dan Waters, parliamentary assistant to Ontario Minister of Tourism and Recreation Peter North, said today at a news conference in Markham. 'It's time to reverse that trend.'"

This same approach can be taken to promote the use of motorcycles. The government of Ontario, along with the major motorcycle dealerships, should join together in a promotional partnership to this end. The Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario would be the ideal group to spearhead this initiative because it is the main group chosen to be the lobby to the Ontario government. Its constitution states:

"The Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario is a non-profit organization composed of motorcycle enthusiasts, standing together in a common interest to make government and law enforcement agencies aware of the necessity for reasonable and fair motorcycle legislation along with safety education and public awareness programs.

"Their aims and objectives are:

"to foster and develop improved community understanding and awareness of motorcycles and operators, by actively supporting charities by providing services and/or moneys, and by instigating motorcycle safety through public awareness programs.

"to foster and promote motorcycle safety and responsible riding practices in the motorcycling community.

"to promote and develop friendship and understanding among all motorcyclists.

"to promote legislation affecting motorcycles generally and to oppose and support as the case may be any contemplated legislation by provincial, municipal, or other authorities in so far as same may affect the motorcycling community.

"to endeavour to achieve a closer relationship and better understanding between motorcycle owners/operators and law enforcement officers with a goal to identifying and solving problems of mutual concern."

There are several areas of concern to the motorcycle enthusiast. The first and possibly most important issue is that of insurance. This can best be explained in a letter submitted to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board in 1989:

"Dear Mr Kruger:

"I am writing this letter in response to the upcoming hearings on establishing motorcycle insurance rates. As a citizen I have often felt that we could not change what bureaucrats were about to do, nor was I convinced that writing a letter could help. After realizing the errors in my thinking, I've decided to at least say my piece.

"I've been riding for more than 20 years now and belong to a club that is very aware of safety and impresses on its members the need to be safe motorcyclists. It always astounds me when my insurance premiums come in to find that complete coverage on my bike is higher than my brand-new car. I've never had a claim on my bike. I have on the car. I've never had a ticket on the bike, not quite as good a record on my car. Recently I bought a slightly larger bike (500 cc up to a 800 cc) and my insurance company said that they don't insure bikes over 750 cc.

They have made an exception but to be sure I had to give them my automobile coverage first. I'm very concerned that insurance agencies can do this but am afraid to rock the boat or I'll be without insurance.

"What is going to happen when insurance companies decide that motorcycles are too small a portion of their business and we are unable to get coverage? Will one or two companies be allowed to charge outrageous rates so that we enthusiasts will no longer be able to afford coverage? Will more people get coverage to get their plates then cancel and take a chance? What happens when one of them hits me? I'm also very concerned about how easy it is to get a licence for a motorcycle. If insurance companies insisted on safety courses and restricted the size of bikes a beginner could use, we would all reap the benefits.

"In conclusion I feel the cost of motorcycle insurance is high enough now and with recent releases of information on payout, it appears that this statement could easily be supported. I hope your board rules that rates can be held, that all insurance companies should provide coverage and not just through the facilitator, that restrictions be suggested on size of bike a new rider can have and that licences be made more difficult to obtain.

"Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I hope it gave you some food for thought. Your job is not an easy one but I do hope you remember the little guy who pays those premiums when deciding about the rates."

Mr Harnick: You're not a little guy, Mike. You're the biggest guy in the Legislature.

Mr Cooper: This is not my letter. I have gone through similar circumstances and I feel the government may have to take a lead on this issue.

As mentioned in the letter, it may be necessary to bring in legislation requiring that for the first year of riding a motorcycle only a bike under 125 cc can be used. This would prevent people from going and getting their licence on, say, a 100 cc Honda and then going out the next day and buying a 1,000 cc rice rocket and killing themselves, which is what we read about in the paper every spring.

This is the law in Britain. Also, a mandatory motorcycle safety and operation course is necessary to receive a licence in Britain. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation, working through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, has set up such a course, but unlike in Britain this course is not mandatory. As a graduate of this course at Conestoga College in Kitchener, I would endorse that these training courses become mandatory.

These classes include things like classroom instruction on "maintenance and inspection, controls and operation and pre-riding drill."

Then there are the practical courses which cover "basic operation, balance, starting, stopping, gear changing, basic braking and slow turns; starting, stopping and parking on grades; operations using cones and barricades to achieve serpentine weave, circle and figure-eight performance; off-road riding (ie sand, gravel, grass, shallow ditches); emergency braking and collision avoidance; Ministry of Transportation written and visual tests; riding on public roads with the objective of introducing the students to every conceivable type of road condition and riding experience, and individual discussions, evaluation and licensing of students by instructor.

"It is understood that all phases of this course are to be demonstrated by instructor before being performed by students."

With better legislation in conjunction with a better-educated rider, I am sure insurance rates would come more in line with that of car insurance, making the motorcycle a more economically viable alternative to the car.

The public's perception of the motorcycle needs to be changed. During the 1990 election campaign I was interviewed by the press and they knew I owned a bike. One of the questions asked was, "Are you a biker?" When I asked what that meant, they responded, "Have you ever belonged to a gang?" I do ride a bike but, no, I have never belonged to a gang. These images have to be changed.

In contrast to having belonged to a gang, what I have done in conjunction with riding is to take my son on a 1,000-kilometre road trip to northern Ontario to visit his grandfather, and I found this was very well spent, quality time with my son. For all these reasons, and to help save our environment, I would like to see the government of Ontario promote the use of motorcycles as an alternative to the car.

Mr Mancini: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few brief comments on the resolution introduced by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. I think it is imperative that the resolution be read into the record again. He moved, "That, in the opinion of this --

An hon member: Spare us.

Mr Mancini: No, it is important for us to get the true feeling and essence of this resolution. "That, in the opinion of this House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles." It is not often we get a resolution like this. It is not often that we get a resolution that is so wide-sweeping, impacts on so much of the government policy and gives the government members so much to think about.

We heard the member this morning, and I apologize for only hearing the last portion of his comments because I was in committee, talk about insurance and the high cost of insurance, and we know how the government feels about that. We know about its promises to bring in lower premiums for car owners through the use of public policy. We know they campaigned from Windsor to Ottawa and from Ottawa north and west to the Manitoba border telling citizen after citizen, "You vote for us, you give us your trust and we'll give you a public auto insurance scheme that will cause you to pay less for your insurance."

That is what they said. They got the votes. So I was surprised and I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House were surprised --

Mr McClelland: Shocked.

Mr Mancini: -- some say "shocked" -- to hear the honourable member for Kitchener-Wilmot bring up the issue of insurance and insurance premiums as it relates to the operators of motorcycles. Why would any government member, after having participated in repudiating the centre of his party's campaign platform, the centre of its manifesto, want to talk about premiums, auto insurance, motorcycle insurance, or anything of that nature? Why would any of them want to bring that subject up? Why would they?

They have broken their promise to give Ontario drivers lower premiums. They broke that solemn promise they made. Every New Democratic Party candidate in Ontario asked for votes based on government-owned car insurance, based on the fact that the premiums would be lower. The people believed them and trusted them, and they have broken that trust.

Why should we believe the honourable member for Kitchener-Wilmot is concerned about premiums motorcycle operators have to pay when he showed complete disregard for the premiums car drivers had to pay by repudiating the centre of the NDP platform, the core promise of his vote-getting scheme?

What else did the member talk about? He talked about safety. He talked about legislative authority and initiatives to make motorcycle riding a more pleasurable and more safe activity. That reminds me of something which came up in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation just a day or two ago. It reminded me, after listening to the member, of what his colleagues had to say a number of weeks ago about bicycle safety and it reminded me of the speech given by the member for Windsor-Walkerville. It reminded me of the demonstration that he gave the House.

Mr Hope: You can't put any foot pedals on it.

Mr Mancini: Does the member for Chatham-Kent have to continually interrupt my speech? Is it part of the standing orders that he has that privilege?

The Deputy Speaker: Please go on.

Mr Mancini: It reminded me of the speech that my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who also campaigned on government-owned auto insurance and lower premiums, gave to the House on bicyclists wearing helmets. During that speech and in the estimates I recalled some of the words. I also recalled for the members of the committee and the Minister of Transportation the questions that I had raised in the Legislature that morning that were pooh-poohed by the government members. They want to make it mandatory, along with some other members in the House, that everyone who rides a bicycle wear a helmet. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that.

But I asked a number of questions. I said to them: "Have you consulted with the municipal police forces to see if they would be able to police such a new regulation? Have you had discussions with the municipalities to see where the extra money would come from when additional resources were put into specific policing?" Most important, "What would you do for families, large families or families whose finances would not allow parents to buy helmets?" Some of these helmets go from $40 to $80.

If you have three or four children or if you have just lost your job, if you have just been laid off, maybe you cannot buy a helmet. Who would ensure that those children who could not be provided with a helmet would in fact be provided with one so that they could ride their bikes to school or to the corner store and partake in an activity that all of us, as young people, took for granted?

During those moments in the Legislature a number of weeks ago when I placed those questions there were catcalls and I was interrupted but there were no answers to those questions. In the committee we got no answers from the minister on those questions.

I say to my honourable colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, it rings hollow to me when I hear government members get up and speak about safety, speak about courses which are necessary, increased safety regulations which he deems to be necessary for motorcycle riders, when they have done absolutely nothing, taken no initiative whatsoever to answer any of my questions about the statement they made and the principles they espoused on helmets for bicyclists.

I say to my colleagues on this side of the House, why should we believe the honourable members opposite?

Mrs Caplan: You shouldn't.

Mr Mancini: My colleague the member for Oriole says that we should not believe them. Based on the government's performance, based on the performance of all of the backbenchers who come to the Legislature regularly to support the activities of their Premier and cabinet, we should not believe them. My colleague the member for Oriole is absolutely right. We should not believe them.

I understand that the member is a motorcycle enthusiast and I understand that is quite a thrilling sport and I understand from conversations that I have had with other motorcycle enthusiasts that there are certain things we can do to make the highways safer for all, to make this activity one not only for sports enthusiasts but for people who would like to use their motorcycles to go to work or any other legal activity they would like to undertake. I understand his interest in this matter and I understand his right to present this resolution to this House.

But I would say to the honourable member that he does his resolution some disservice by making it so wide-sweeping, by making it without any specific details in the body of his resolution. When we read that the government should promote the use of motorcycles because they use less of everything, it leads us to believe that maybe the member himself was not quite sure what the government should do and maybe he was looking towards other members of the House to find their views and to see what we could do to advise him.

We are willing to do that. We are willing to be of help to the member. We are probably willing to be of more help to the member than his cabinet colleagues will be, because as the Liberal Transportation critic I am willing to wager a glass of water that we will see absolutely no initiatives from this government on this honourable member's resolution in the next 12 months.

Mrs Caplan: You could bet the mortgage, never mind the water.

Mr Mancini: I would love to bet my mortgage, but we cannot. I say to the honourable member that we want to support him in making the highways safer for all who use the highways. We want to ensure that people who wish to ride their motorcycles to work or for social activities have that right and privilege and all the safety that goes with it, appropriate premiums, etc. We expect no action from the members opposite on that.

We will sit here patiently and we are prepared to support some of his initiatives, but I think he will find that he will get more support from us on these benches than he will from his own cabinet colleagues. I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that in a year's time or two years from now this will be just another NDP broken promise.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to participate for a short time and share some of the time with my colleagues on this particular motion. I am quite prepared to support it, but I do not believe it will make very much difference to whether there are more or less motorcycles on the roads of Ontario. The interesting thing is I get a very confused message from this government right now. They were the ones that this spring said that the Golden Helmets OPP precision driving would be cut off. "We don't want you any more."

Yet in the same breath we have a member, a backbench member I will grant, come up and say, "We should encourage motorcycles and the use of motorcycles, because they are more fuel-efficient and what have you." That is a very different message than I got whenever the OPP Pipes and Drums band, which came to my town of Maxville to participate in our Highland games, was done away with. The Golden Helmets came to my rural areas on a number of occasions. I was very proud to have them there. They came and they entertained.

They entertained as proud OPP officers, precision motorcycle drivers setting an example for exactly the type of legislation that is being suggested this morning. But they do not exist any more. A very confusing double standard. I have a problem with that.

I did some research and it is interesting. There are a number of very high-profile, well-known and well-accepted motorcycle groups across the province. The Harley Owners Group, very important people, I understand basically are in the salary range of $45,000 to $50,000 a year and are 40 years old and over. That is very interesting. I guess this is where that puts this particular member of the Legislature.

Mr Cooper: I am too young.

Mr Villeneuve: He is not 40 yet. I am sorry.

Mr Cooper: Mine's a Yamaha.

Mr Villeneuve: He has a Yamaha. Whether he is driving a Yamaha, a Honda, a Davidson, a Suzuki or whatever, they are all machines. My wife and I are the parents of five children and one thing we dreaded was that our son would want to purchase a motorcycle or that one of the boyfriends would come down the farm lane some day on one of these motorcycles.

It made us very nervous as parents, and I think rightly so, because I have some statistics here from the Ministry of Transportation. They go from 1984 to 1988, and they are a little bit alarming. I will quote -- 1984: 116 drivers killed, 19 passengers killed and almost 7,000 serious injuries; 1985: 97 drivers killed, 23 passengers killed, 6,000 serious injuries; 1986: 99 drivers killed, 15 passengers injured, almost 6,000 serious injuries; 1987: 120 drivers killed, 12 passengers killed and over 5,000 injuries; 1988 -- the statistics get better -- only 76 drivers killed and 13 passengers killed.

One little mistake when you are on that motorcycle and you do not live to tell what happened. There is the problem. Some are lucky, but those are the real facts of life. I do not care about insurance at this stage of the game. I am talking about people who are either scarred or maimed for life or indeed gone from this world because of a slight mistake.

We have the reasons for some of these same accidents, and I will not list them because time is of the essence. But it concerns me very much when someone has suggested -- and there is nothing wrong with suggesting we should encourage, but with that goes the awareness of the danger of the vehicle. That must be first and foremost, and with that goes putting the OPP Golden Helmets precision riding team back in business to set the example. What is wrong with that? I did not see that as part of the member's motion. I could support his motion much more easily and readily if that were part of it.

"Institute tougher licensing requirements." I do not know who is going to buy the first motorcycle and who is going to buy the second motorcycle, but quite obviously we are talking about a smaller, slower machine for the first year and then as you realize how dangerous the machine can be you are licensed for something a little more. Experience is all part of the learning process.

Will the member clarify the Highway Traffic Act to outline and enshrine motorcyclists' rights? Let's face it, these people pay fuel tax and they pay for their licence. Sometimes it is only a motorcycle. For us as car drivers, "Well, it's only a motorcycle." It is not only a motorcycle. It is a person or two people on a motorcycle and a life could well be at stake.

Will he include motorcycle awareness components in the training of OPP officers and in the training of new drivers who see the fun side of this but do not see the very dark side of it, which is injuries and death?

Will the member reinstate the Golden Helmets? I ask him to address that. Will he suggest to the Premier to reinstate the Golden Helmets? The cost was minimal. They were already on staff and they were very much appreciated by people particularly out in rural areas. On a number of occasions I had them in my communities. People -- and young people -- came out en masse and they were very proud to see the excellent job the Golden Helmets did.

Will he work with the municipalities to encourage parking laws and safety for motorcycle drivers?

I will speak from personal experience again. Certainly those members from northern Ontario know that at this time of year it can be very nice and warm on a particular Saturday morning and by the time Saturday night or early Sunday morning comes along, you could be in a snowstorm. I have experience. Coming home from the farm show in Ottawa, for example, at 2 o'clock in the morning, I was following a motorcycle and it was snowing. It was a heavy snow. He was having trouble staying on the road, and I can appreciate why. It was not easy for cars either.

Those are the circumstances motorcycle drivers sometimes find themselves in -- being victims of weather conditions. Certainly the weatherman can be of assistance, but we know he is not always correct.

Those are the perilous areas, the real areas of concern, where human life is involved. I am quite prepared to support the motion, and I would very much like to see the Golden Helmets come back.

Mr Mills: It is indeed a pleasure for me to stand in my place this morning and speak to the resolution of my colleague the honourable member for Kitchener-Wilmot. I do not intend to parlay the discussion of this resolution into some political battle, as the member across the way started off doing and as some of the other members tend to continue.

My experience in motorcycles goes back to 1944. I was living in England at the time and, rather foolishly -- the war was winding down and the American troops who were in England were disposing of some of their assets over there -- I was persuaded to purchase an Indian 500 they did not want to bring back to the United States. Having purchased this motorcycle, what I failed to take account of was that gasoline was rationed and I did not have anything to make it go on the road. I remember going down to the war surplus store and picking up this motorcycle and pushing it home, which was no easy feat.

At the time I was working on a farm, and we used to have German prisoners of war arrive every morning to work on the farm by way of an army truck, with two British soldiers as guards. The Speaker will appreciate this, as an ex-military man. I guess the guards must have had some hard nights, but they used to fall asleep and thus leave the truck unguarded.

The Germans would come to me and say, "We can get you some gasoline for your motorcycle out of the truck, because the guards have fallen asleep, if you'll give us a pack of cigarettes." I must say I agreed to this arrangement and that allowed me to have gasoline to run a motorbike when, to all intents and purposes, all the motorcycles in the country were shut down.

It is rather interesting -- and I just pass this along for members' general information -- that the policemen of the day over there were riding push-bikes. My good wife, whom I was courting at the time, lived some 15 miles away, and the pressures and urges of young love made me get my motorcycle out of the barn and ride it to visit her, knowing full well that I should not have done that. These Indian 500s have quite a purr to them and, being a young man, I really opened up this purr. It caught the attention of the local constabulary, because in the middle of the night, you wonder what is going on.

The next morning the policeman came to visit me on his push-bike and said he had heard and had reports of the exhaust of a motorcycle ringing through the countryside during the night. I said to him that he must be kind of nuts, because for me and for him there was no gasoline available to ride a motorcycle and where would I get such? He said, "Well, I'm just following up some reports on that and I just wanted to let you know." That gave me the message that this foolishness would cease and I would keep the motorcycle in the barn until after the war, and then gasoline again was free for everybody to get.

Later on in my career I was a member of the Canadian Forces, as members know. During that time I had the opportunity to take proper courses on how to operate and maintain a motorcycle, and had the pleasure of being a dispatch rider, sort of, attached to the 2nd Battalion of the Canadian Guards. I had the pleasure of riding that motorcycle many, many times from Canadian Forces Base Petawawa way down to a Canadian Forces base in New Brunswick. I must say that was quite an experience. Through that motorcycle I was able, through my training, to effectively move large convoys of traffic through -- I remember one particular city was Ottawa, which was no easy feat.

When I speak to this resolution, I am not a Johnny-come-lately-on-the-spot about motorcycles. I have heard my friend the member for Simcoe West, who is not here now, make some sort of comment that if you ride a motorcycle you are doomed to an early grave, and I think that as I stand here today I am living proof that you can ride a motorcycle carefully. It all depends upon proper training and proper respect for that vehicle. It does not necessarily mean that to promote motorcycles means you are doomed to a sudden death.

I think we have to go a long way to educate car drivers in the province that bicycles and motorcycles are indeed vehicles on the highway and they need and expect as much respect from car and truck drivers as other vehicles. I think therein lies the crux of some of the problems with the accidents that happen with motorcycles in our province today, that the respect for another person on a vehicle that does not necessarily have four wheels is lacking.

In a time of economic crunch, I can see that a motorcycle makes very good sense in so far as it uses less of everything. It uses less gasoline. You can park about five motorcycles in a space occupied by a car. I have some difficulty in coming to grips with the winter weather in Ontario in so far as the use of a motorcycle goes. That is a real challenge, to say the least.

Nevertheless, I think the member's resolution is with good intent. He means it to be taken in its presentation, and I am sure that, like him, I remain very perturbed that such a harmless resolution, such a meaningful resolution, should be taken in such a political, partisan way and ripped to pieces in here.

I would also like to pay particular attention, as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot did, to the charity work that motorcycle riders do in Ontario. They are very well known for riding and raising money for all kinds of charities and I think that is very worthy. It just goes to show that sometimes people use the connotation that motorcycle people are a little bit less than we are, and that is not true. I know some very well-off doctors and dentists who ride motorcycles on the weekend and partake in these efforts to raise money for so many worthwhile charities in Ontario.

In closing, I commend my colleague and friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for bringing this very topical item to debate, and I thank the members for the time I have had here to debate it.

Mr Bradley: I find it passing strange, first of all, that a member of the government that is withdrawing the funding for the Ontario Provincial Police Golden Helmets, a group which is noted for maintaining the traditions of the province of Ontario, would be promoting at the same time the use of motorcycles.

The second thing I would note is that the people in St Catharines who are represented by Local 199 and Local 676 of the Canadian Auto Workers may be just a bit concerned about the fact that their automobiles would not be promoted to the same extent if there were promotion of motorcycles in Ontario.

I think one has to be very careful. It is a matter of choice. There are some people who are going to enjoy the use of a motorcycle and find that it is to their liking and to their benefit. There are others who are going to enjoy the use of automobiles in Ontario. They of course will reflect, as I do, upon the fact that there are many people employed in the automobile industry, represented so ably by the Canadian Auto Workers in St Catharines and other communities across the province.

My concern is certainly that. I will relay that concern to my good friends on the executive of the Canadian Auto Workers in St Catharines and indicate to them that the NDP is promoting motorcycles to the detriment of automobiles in this province.

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased to have a minute or two to express my opposition to this resolution put forward by the NDP member. It is probably the most vague, unrealistic resolution I have ever heard of being put forward in Parliament. The member for Oakville South had a very serious resolution in the last hour that the government is not going to support, something that would have actually done some good for the taxpayers of this province, and here we have a resolution that says because motorcycles use less of everything, we should promote their use.

This does not even make any sense. It is useless. The explanatory remarks from the member are pretty useless in the context of my experience. I used to work at Earl Rowe Provincial Park in Alliston and we had motorcycle gangs for many years. I will not, on behalf of my constituents, support a resolution that may bring back the possibility of motorcycle gangs. Wasaga Beach is cleaned up now, but for many years there was a very dangerous situation there. We had a tremendous number of OPP officers assigned to the Wasaga Beach detachment during the summertime to deal with the motorcycle gangs.

Interjection.

Mr J. Wilson: It was not in the 1950s because I was not alive in the 1950s. It was during my lifetime.

Second, I have a vision. I expect the members of the government to show leadership, if this resolution passes, by getting get rid of their drivers, chauffeurs and limousines, which they criticized both the Liberals and the Conservatives for having for many years. But I am not sure I really want to encourage that, because my vision is that the unruly gang of former garbage truck drivers and motorcyclists and God knows what else who now run our government will be travelling down Highway 400 as Bob Rae's motorcycle gang, coming into your riding. Can members imagine what a scary picture that would be?

I thought motorcycle gangs going into Wasaga Beach were scary in the past, but to see the NDP caucus gang come into your riding would be a scary sight indeed, and I fear for the lives of my constituents and their wellbeing.

Mr Mills: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I take exception to the member referring to the members of this government as ex-garbage truck drivers. That is not true and I would ask him to withdraw that.

The Deputy Speaker: There are times when language used in this House goes a bit too far. There are times when certain language is used that more or less entices people to get angry. It is as simple as that. This is not a point of privilege, but it is certainly a point for me to tell you that you should be careful in the type of language you use in order not to offend each other. It is as simple as that.

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was going to say that even if I were a former garbage truck driver, I would have been proud of that job and that profession.

Mr J. Wilson: I will be careful --

Mr Frankford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would also like to point out to the members that in my training in London, when I was in medical school, I rode a motor scooter. I would like that to be added to the record.

The Deputy Speaker: I think I have heard enough points of order on that issue. I ask the member for Simcoe West to continue the debate.

Mr J. Wilson: These frivolous points of order are taking up our party's time here in the Legislature. I will point out that the Minister of Energy used to be a part-time driver for Dusty's Disposal Service, so for the member for Durham East to tell me it is not true --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Speaker stands, it is normal procedure that the member should take his seat. I just want to remind the member for Simcoe West that you still have three minutes and six seconds to debate the issue. You do not want to take advantage of it?

Mr J. Wilson: No, I have sat down.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My colleague had sat down before that point of order was raised, and in fact you let the clock continue to run, so it was subtracted --

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: It was not a point of order because everything my colleague said was absolutely correct. Mr Speaker, I would ask that you add the two minutes on to the clock.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, but the Chair rules that there will not be any time given back. We will continue. I think it is a lesson for all of us that we should make sure debates are conducted properly.

Mr Hansen: I am proud to speak on this particular private member's notice of motion.

Mr J. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order -- in fact it may be a point of privilege -- is that I gather your ruling is that my debate was not conducted properly, and I find that offensive.

The Deputy Speaker: I made a ruling and as you know the standing orders are very clear. You cannot challenge the Chair.

Mr Hansen: I have to say to the member for Simcoe West that my dad was a motorcycle rider. He rode in the war. I took up riding a motorcycle when I was going to college. My son is in college and he owns a motorcycle also. It is very good alternative transportation, especially for long distances if there is no public transportation available. I would say that our government likes to recognize all sectors of transportation -- not just transportation, but whatever it is.

The fabric here in Ontario is that there are quite a few people who do things in a different way, and some of them like riding bikes. I was a sponsor this last May for the Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario. For the first time they had a podium on the steps of Queen's Park to relay to Queen's Park and to people in Ontario what they are looking at as motorcycle riders. The member for Simcoe West has the wrong impression of motorcycle riders. I think that by coming out to one of these rallies, he will have a different impression. I think it is a stereotyped image that has developed over the years.

We have to take a look at what a motorcycle rider is today compared to maybe 30 years ago with Hell's Angels. Not everybody out there belongs to Hell's Angels. Times are changing.

There are a few things that even the previous government has done. At one time bikers were not allowed to come and camp in provincial parks. There has been some change, some giving by the past government to give the bikers rights equal to those a car driver has.

I have to say too that during the war we exercised rationing when rationing was necessary. That is why a lot of people were riding motorcycles. This is one thing that cuts down on pollution. I heard Pollution Probe yesterday outside Queen's Park talking about how maybe we should be taxing that second car a little bit more, or how maybe if there is already transportation in a particular area, there should be extra fees for using roads in that area. These are ideas from Pollution Probe. They are not government suggestions but suggestions from the public out there.

Something that came up on the insurance issue is that 45% of the insurance is purchased from a company outside Ontario and Quebec. In 1989, the latest statistics I have, income was $38 million and expenses were $25 million for the insurance companies, which gave them a 35% return on their money. One thing members have to understand is that while there is a popular perception that motorcycles are a bad risk for insurers, it is a fact that motorcycle insurance generally is far more profitable than automobile insurance.

Ministry of Transportation figures indicate there has been an improvement in motorcycle safety resulting in lowered accident and fatality rates. The other thing is that the average age of motorcyclists in Ontario is increasing.

I have met with the bikers' rights organization and their whole thrust is on safety on the highway. As my friend stated earlier, they would like to get a learner's permit that would have a small bike, 125 cc and under. You would have to hold that for 180 days, and then you would go into a probationary licence that would be for 365 days, during which you would still be on a smaller bike. After you have completed 365 days, you would wind up going to a class M motorcycle licence with full riding privileges.

Some of the restrictions would be that a learner would not be able to ride a half-hour before sunset or a half-hour before sunrise and would have to have a zero blood alcohol content. If you accumulate six demerit points, there would be suspension of the learner's permit.

This is coming from the motorcycle riders. It is what they are looking at. They are looking at their own lives and they want people out there to be aware that they are on the road too. They pay to have a licence. They have a right to also be on the roads here in Ontario, not just automobiles. I think this is what they have been trying to put across for a long time. There are 145,000 licensed motorcycle riders out there, and we cannot ignore those riders.

Mr Turnbull: In my abbreviated time I would comment that I am extremely disturbed that the members of the governing party find it necessary to bring such trivial motions forward in private members' hour. My good friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot certainly has told me that he does not have enough time to ride his bike and I have a lot of sympathy. I will be voting against this, not because I have anything against motorbike riding, but I do have a few comments to make.

Surely this government should be trying to promote this province, and to my knowledge there are no motorbikes made in this province or in Canada. Here in Canada the automobile companies are struggling to make efficient, safe automobiles. Surely, given the fact that many of the large bikes today cost more than small automobiles, it would be in our best interests, if we are going to bring something forward, to try and promote their efforts.

If the member were to suggest that perhaps Bernard Ostry, the chairman of TVO, and his successor were to have motorbikes, I would say that would be a great idea when we consider that the taxpayers of this province paid in excess of $50,000 for his chauffeur last year until our party pointed this out.

It has been suggested that we encourage the practice of ministers going around on motorbikes. I would say absolutely not. Ministers have a very busy schedule, and we certainly want to make sure that on the way to their various functions, they learn the speeches their high-paid contract speechwriters have written for them. God help us that they should have an accident trying to learn the words or having them read for them if they have difficulty.

The automobile is surely a safer vehicle to be riding in here in Canada. In the summer, motorbikes might be relatively safe, but they are not very safe on winter roads in Canada. I do not want to be negative about this. I just want to say that I think the government should surely consider bringing forward more constructive private members' resolutions rather than wasting our time with this kind of effort. We are not against the motorbike riders, but we do not think the government should do anything to promote motorbike riding.

It should do everything to promote the economy of Ontario, and that would mean safer, fuel-efficient cars and making sure we emphasize the made-in-Ontario aspect of it.

Mr Hope: In the short time I have, I would like to contradict some of the things that have been put forward today. What we are talking about is for the people out there to be safer-minded about using motorcycles, promoting the use of motorcycles. Those of us in rural Ontario, and I am speaking on behalf of the biking club in my community, do not have the luxury of GO Transit and other transits that are there.

I heard the member for St Catharines saying, "Well, your CAW friends will be upset with you." A lot of our auto worker friends will still be happy, because there still are certain times of the year we need the automobile, the car. But for us who travel back and forth to work, the motorcycle is cheaper on gasoline and is not as hard on the roads. It is is very important for those of us who do not have high-wage values, when we need a second vehicle, to have the ability to purchase that second vehicle, because motorcycles are cheaper.

The statistics that were put out earlier, I must mention, did not tell members how many people are actually killed in car accidents. This resolution is not very detailed for the simple fact that we did not want to confuse the opposition. We wanted to keep it simple so they understand that what this government wants to do is promote safety in the use of motorcycles, promote their use, make sure we use them wisely and help the people of rural Ontario, who do not have the luxury of other transit, to take advantage of them.

Mr Cooper: I think most of the concerns raised by the opposition members have been covered by the members on this side. I started off this resolution saying it was to generate a broad-based discussion on the use of motorcycles. I think we have achieved that this time.

The second part was to change perceptions. As we have seen from the members opposite, the perception is that all motorcycle riders are gang members or long-haired hippies with tattoos and earrings.

I have ridden in groups. I have ridden with my union brothers on day trips. I have ridden with church members. I attend a United Brethren Mennonite church. The assistant pastor has a bike. We got a group of 15 church members together and went on a tour. We had some spiritual enrichment while we were out doing this. It was a day that was filled with quality, because we were out with our wives. That is the recreation aspect.

But I am not talking of recreation here; I am talking about an alternative form of transportation. I think motorcycles use less gas and cause fewer pollution problems, such as the tire dump problem that filters in here. I was hoping to get more constructive comments from the opposition, which I did not get.

Mr J. Wilson: Then put forward a more constructive resolution.

Mr Cooper: As for this being a trivial resolution, I think it is a very important one because it shows our commitment to the environment of this province. As for the economy of this province and my auto worker friends, if we had more motorcycle use, we could probably put on pressure and get some motorcycle manufacturing going here.

I thank the members on this side for supporting this resolution, and I am sure the members opposite will, in principle, support this.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired, but before we start to vote, I would just like to give you a few words of wisdom. Let me read from Erskine May, "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: I will not accept any point of order. I am about to proceed to a vote.

Mrs Caplan: I think it is an important point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: I will listen to it, then.

Mrs Caplan: I think your interjection and the wisdom you shared with the House were very valuable. Certainly, members have to be reminded from time to time that language, the use of words, can incite behaviour in the House that is unbecoming. Your interjection was timely, and I want to thank you as part of my point of order.

MANDATORY LEGISLATION REVIEW

The House divided on Mr Carr's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 16

Arnott, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cunningham, Curling, Mancini, McClelland, Miclash, Poole, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Nays -- 33

Abel, Carter, Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Hansen, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

MOTORCYCLES

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooper has moved resolution 29.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DONATION BY PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS

Mr Henderson: Many honourable members will share my sense of the tragedy of suffering and poverty in some Third World nations.

Several Ontario pharmaceutical manufacturers have made a significant contribution to the alleviation of shortage and suffering in Third World Latin America through a donation of medications with a total value of about $30,000.

Members will know that many Latin American nations are reaching very actively to develop stronger economic, trade, cultural and other ties with Ontario and Canada. Besides satisfying our altruistic wish to help less wealthy peoples, that can benefit Ontario as well. There is a real chance for Ontario to benefit by seizing the initiative in broadening our interchange with Latin America.

I applaud the generosity of these Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers and especially wish to thank Richard Benyak of Nu-Pharm Inc, Leslie Dan of Novopharm Ltd, Ron Fozo of Genpharm Ltd, Saul Magder of Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc and Bernard Sherman of Apotex Inc.

VISITORS

Mr Carr: We are fortunate today to have in the members' gallery a group study exchange team from Rotary District 9750 in Australia. The five men are visiting Rotary District 7070 in Toronto and are accompanied today by Mr John Gregory, who is the chairman of international service for the Rotary Club of Toronto.

The team is here to learn about Canada and our way of life. They are midway through a five-week stay and have been living with Canadian families and touring Canadian industries and manufacturing firms, looking at various facets of commerce, law, education and government.

We welcome Graeme Watchers, Sam Carella, Nevelle Stephenson, Paul Brady, Kevin Barrington and Phillip Glutz and wish them an enjoyable visit and a speedy return to Ontario.

OPENING OF UNIVERSITY BUILDING

Ms Carter: On Saturday, the Minister of Colleges and Universities will be coming to my riding to open the new environmental sciences building at Trent University. Imaginatively designed by Vancouver architect Richard Henriquez to blend in with the existing buildings designed by the late Ron Thom, this $9-million addition to Trent houses the departments of biology, geography, environmental and resource studies and watershed ecosystems.

The university launched a major fund-raising campaign to pay for this building, which has been successful. In addition to funding for the building from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the Ministry of the Environment provided generous funding for a toxicity testing laboratory which Trent scientists will operate on contract to the ministry. Other research projects are funded by private industry.

Trent currently has environmental research teams studying atmospheric and botanical impacts of greenhouse gases, ozone layer depletion, acidification and solar energy. Toxicology studies are examining the transport of toxins through ecosystems and attempting to predict any harmful effects from them. Other research aims at developing strategies for rehabilitating lakes, wetlands, mine tailings and depleted species of plants and animals.

The new building and its research laboratories will be open to the public at an open day on Sunday. The research work in this building will play a significant role in helping to protect our environment for future generations.

DIABETES

Mrs Fawcett: Today I rise to lend my support to those from my riding who have expressed their very real concerns with this NDP government's projected $1-billion cutback in health care and how this will especially affect those with diabetes.

Last year I participated in the Diabetes Celebrity Challenge and gained a better understanding and appreciation of how this disease can affect one's daily life. I learned even more when I had the opportunity to speak with Ken McColm on his incredible journey.

Great strides have been made to expand programs in diabetic care. There is an urgent need to build on these achievements and to improve the services for diabetic persons.

Diabetes knows no barriers, yet it has been proven that seniors, natives and those living in rural communities are the most susceptible to this debilitating disease. In total, over one million Canadians have diabetes.

I remind this government that wise management of health dollars will mean less costly expenditures in the future. Proper care and education of persons with diabetes could mean better health and productivity, shorter hospital stays, fewer complications and a better quality of life. Diabetes is the second leading cause of hospital treatment.

I sincerely hope that as this government attempts to control its runaway spending, it will look to sound management of ministry dollars and careful consideration of the over one million Canadians who suffer from diabetes.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Villeneuve: Members may know that in the last seven years Ontario's revenue from tobacco sales has virtually doubled. The tobacco tax now brings in over $1 billion, almost double the entire budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Tobacco revenue has increased by some $457 million, but our agricultural budget has gone up by only $288 million. More than that, one quarter of the agricultural budget is nothing more than a property tax rebate for school and municipal taxes paid on producing fields, orchards and their service buildings.

In the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, there has been a very unfortunate relationship between tobacco and property taxes. Tobacco taxation has driven many tobacco farmers out of business. We all know that. High tobacco taxes have reduced the value of properties and farms on the Norfolk side of the region. The result is that under the last reassessment the Haldimand side is now paying much higher property taxes.

This is not the fault of the residents of Haldimand. The value of their properties and their wealth has not skyrocketed in the last four years at all. They have not received a bounty of new municipal services. And it is certainly not the fault of tobacco growers in Norfolk. There are no equally valuable crops to replace the tobacco that is being grown on the sandy soils.

If the government expects to collect huge taxes from tobacco, it should be willing to use that money to help the farmers and property taxpayers in areas hurt by that same tobacco tax.

BLOCK PARENTS PROGRAM

Mr Mills: It is currently Block Parents week in the town of Bowmanville, which is located in my riding of Durham East. I would like to remind members of the importance of this community project.

The program has been very successful and has spread to communities throughout the province. Local police forces are pleased to give advice on how to set one up. Any community resident over the age of 18 can become a Block Parent after police screening. It is a great way to serve one's community and I strongly encourage all citizens to get involved.

This program is an excellent example of co-operation between parents, teachers and the police. It shows how effective crime prevention can be when citizens and the police work together. I fully support the Block Parents program and encourage all members in the House to support it as well.

CLOSING OF TREE NURSERIES

Mr Miclash: We on this side of the House are very concerned about the planned Ministry of Natural Resources closing of tree nursery programs in Orono, Dryden and Thessalon.

Let me read a letter from a tree nursery worker from Dryden which he recently wrote me:

"Dear Mr Miclash,

"I'm a concerned worker who has worked for Dryden Nursery for a number of years. I work on a summer basis and need the income to make ends meet. Most of the other employees need it to make ends meet too. If the jobs are taken away, they would have to cut staff to one third of what they employ now.

"Dryden needs those jobs just as Thunder Bay. Most employed by the tree nursery are older workers and have not had the opportunity of proper education.

"I do not think in all fairness these jobs should be sent elsewhere. The size of this is greater than one might expect. We the workers will not stand for the uprooting of our jobs.

"I'm greatly opposed to sending Thunder Bay our jobs. Do you think if the shoe was on the other foot that they would let us have their jobs without a fight? I think not."

I have received a number of these letters and a good number of phone calls from some very concerned workers, workers who I think have a real strong sense of what they do in our areas of these three tree nurseries. I would just ask that the government take another good look at what it plans doing in terms of moving these jobs out of areas that very much need them.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr J. Wilson: The proposal for massive staff cuts and bed closures at Toronto Hospital is another example of how Ontario hospitals are being forced to go it alone while this government sits on its hands.

Three years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, said in a news release:

"Ontario's health care system is on a collision course with Elinor Caplan and the Liberals' fatal prescription for health care. The Liberal government's hatchet job on hospital funding, combined with their broken promises on health care, has produced a growing list of casualties across the province.

"Bed closures and program and staff cuts are becoming a standard response to the Liberals' crusade on hospitals."

By now, no one in Ontario is surprised to learn that the NDP election promises were simply put together so they could con enough people into voting for them, but the people of Ontario are surprised to see just how silent the Premier and his caucus are on issues such as hospital bed closures that once were so sacred to the NDP before they inherited the government benches.

One half of all the hospitals in Ontario are forced to carry deficits because the government of Ontario continues to mandate programs and services on to the backs of hospital boards without a cheque from Queen's Park to pay for these services and wage settlements. It is unthinkable that residents in Ontario, who are paying more and more in taxes, now have less and less in the way of services under this NDP government.

In view of these circumstances, I want the Minister of Health and her government to immediately provide a coherent, co-ordinated plan for Ontario hospitals so they can retire their operating budgets without having to randomly slash services.

OKTOBERFEST

Ms Haeck: Oktoberfest is wunderbar. Those who visit Kitchener-Waterloo will agree with that.

There is another Oktoberfest in Ontario. On October 26 and 27, everyone is invited to St Catharines to participate and partake in the fun. This weekend will see bands playing, dancers dancing and even a re-enactment of the original reason for Munich's festival; that is, the wedding of King Ludwig's daughter in the early 1800s.

St Catharines is located in festival country. Throughout the year all and sundry can enjoy an array of activity: Folkarts, the Sausage Festival, the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival and now Oktoberfest.

A lot of credit must be given to the organizer of this festival, Mr Steve Ruf. Steve is credited with being the founder of Folkarts, two weeks of multicultural celebrations which have been taking place for over 23 years. Nine years ago he was integral to the start of the Sausage Festival, an activity which again demonstrates his energy and his commitment to the city of St Catharines. Now there is Oktoberfest. Steve truly deserves the local chamber of commerce award for his festival activities. I extend to Steve and his co-celebrants my wishes for a successful weekend. Ein prosit.

LAND REGISTRATION

The Speaker: On Thursday last, the member for Dufferin-Peel raised a question of privilege with respect to a matter in which I had given a decision on Tuesday, October 15, 1991, concerning remarks made in a court of law by a lawyer representing the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations on a matter which was before a committee of the House.

On October 15, I ruled that this was a matter which was specifically before the standing committee on general government and, as such, ought to be settled in the committee and not in the House.

I reiterate that this matter may only be brought before the House by way of a report from the committee. I did not ask or instruct the committee to report back to me or the House. Whether a report is made to the House on this matter is for the committee itself to decide. I do not propose to hear further submissions on this matter.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Conway: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier this week, you ruled on the question of statements being made outside the House. I found it quite an interesting ruling. I was particularly struck by your reference to Mr Speaker Weatherill who gave, I thought, some very timely advice in the Mother of Parliaments on July 16, 1991.

I understand very much what you are trying to tell all of us, and in particular members of the executive council. I will say as well that I understand some of the pressures that are on any executive council in these matters, but I want to bring to your attention, sir, an incident yesterday that I find about as offensive and as obnoxious as anything I have witnessed in a long time.

Let me just tell you what happened, Mr Speaker, in light of your very sage counsel. Yesterday, outside the very doors of this place, an agent of the Attorney General was passing out a news release containing very significant, and I think positive, policy on behalf of the government with respect to advice and directives to crown attorneys across the province regarding victims of sexual assault.

My colleague the member for Eglinton raised this very point three or four weeks ago in a good exchange. An extremely sensitive and important public policy was raised in this House, and not for the first time. Just three days after your ruling, a member of the staff of the Attorney General stood right outside this chamber at the end of question period and distributed a positive, timely and important announcement of public policy with respect to the protection of victims of sexual assault.

I find it breathtaking and mind-boggling that this government, particularly on an issue of such sensitivity to all members, would do something as offensive and obnoxious as to stand right outside the front doors of this legislative chamber and hand out a statement of government policy that we all have a very real interest in and, I suspect, a strong and real support for. I want to register my most deep-seated personal complaint on this kind of ongoing manipulation and offensive attitude to this Legislative Assembly, something that I have to believe my friends Donald MacDonald, Stephen Lewis and the late Jim Renwick would have found even more obnoxious and offensive than I do this day.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I would be glad to look into the matter. I might also point out to you that when this matter was raised a couple of weeks ago, the House leaders had a discussion. We said we would make our best effort to correct problems that offended the opposition with respect to announcements. The opposition House leaders agreed that if there was a problem and if a particular announcement were made outside the Legislature that they felt should be made in here, they would make sure they got on the phone and talked to me about it so we could try to correct it.

Until now I have heard nothing from the official opposition. I am trying to work with the opposition House leaders, but if they do not want to follow through with their own agreements, it is hard to do that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: We do not need to debate this. Would the member take his seat for a moment, please.

To the member for Renfrew North, I appreciate his observation on the remarks which I made earlier in this chamber. Indeed, I believe I expressed on that occasion that I shared the view expressed earlier by Speaker Weatherill in the House of Commons in England. I stand by that observation. The member also knows the rules are quite clear with respect to the opportunity to make statements in the House.

To the government House leader, if there is a demonstrated willingness to co-operate on this matter, that of course will be appreciated, I take it, not only by the Speaker but by all members of the assembly. Hopefully that process will begin to take shape. If in that process the office of the Speaker, in the capacity as described, can be of any assistance, then of course the Speaker is more than delighted to provide any assistance in making it a more smooth operation here in the chamber.

Mr Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The government House leader has said that the opposition House leaders are supposed to go and tell him when a problem exists. It has happened several times. Surely somebody over there is giving the orders one way or another. Either the Premier has a strategy to deliberately avoid the House, which I think he has, or he has not. If he has not, then he should tell his ministers to start making their announcements in the House instead of playing the game they played yesterday.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines knows it is not a point of privilege, but the Speaker knows it is a point of frustration.

Ms Poole: For me, this goes beyond a point of order; it is a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: On September 24 in this Legislature I specifically asked the Attorney General about his plans to ameliorate the effects of the Supreme Court decision on the rape shield law for the women of this province. I specifically mentioned training. I specifically mentioned crown counsel and some of the objectives he had said he was going to pursue.

Outside this House, at the same time as the Attorney General's staff was handing out this press release, a member of the press asked the Attorney General, "Why are you not mentioning this in the House?" The answer from the Attorney General was that this was not a legislative matter; this was a legal matter.

Because I raised this in the House almost a month ago, surely this minister should be sensitive that this is a matter of great interest to the members of this House and the women of this province. If this Attorney General cannot seem to get that through his head, I suspect the Premier should be looking for a new Attorney General.

The Speaker: The member for Eglinton knows this is not a point of privilege. The matter has been addressed earlier, both by the member for Renfrew North and in a statement which was delivered to this House earlier by myself.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Is this a different matter? Do you have a point of order?

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, if I can say one sentence, please, I want to tell you these are not isolated incidents. You will remember my discussion with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation about statements that had not been made in the House but were dropped on the way to the press room. They were not even indicated by a press release. If our residents and constituents are affected by announcements that ought to be made here, then we must really strenuously object to this kind of process.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member knows this is not a point of privilege. It has been addressed several times.

On a new matter, the member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I want to rise on a point of order simply to advise you, sir, that what the Attorney General has done in this House would represent professional misconduct in the practice and profession he engages in.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. There is nothing out of order. It is time for ministerial statements.

Mrs Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On the issue of ministers' statements in the House as discussed by the House leaders, speaking for our caucus, I expect that we would not have to pick up the phone after the fact. What we would like is for the ministers to make their statements in this House.

Maybe we have a new beginning today, right this very moment. I see there are two ministerial statements. None of us expects to have to have to phone, and surely the government House leader does not want a phone call after the fact. All of us, the representatives of the people of Ontario, should be expecting to hear from ministers in this House. I want to make that point very strongly. Hopefully we have a new beginning today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Hon Mr Ferguson: With regard to the controversy surrounding executive salaries at Ontario Hydro, I would like to make an announcement. Effective today, the salary of the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr Marc Eliesen, has been set at 80% of the salary paid to the Ontario Hydro president. This means Mr Eliesen will be paid at a rate of $260,000 a year. This formula is consistent with the compensation formula established by the former Conservative government for the previous Hydro chair and chief executive officer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat, please. It would be very helpful if all members on both sides of the House could wait quietly and patiently and allow the minister to make a statement, after which there will be an opportunity for responses.

Hon Mr Ferguson: I find it somewhat inconsistent, Mr Speaker, that they complain about our not making statements in the House and when we do --

The Speaker: The minister will continue with his statement, please.

Hon Mr Ferguson: As for benefits, those paid to Mr Eli