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

March 30, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION POLICIES

YOUNG VOICES REPORT

RETAIL SALES TAX

ELMVALE MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL

PANORAMA PROGRAMS

CASINO GAMBLING

WETLANDS

DON VALLEY BRICKWORKS

BUD TANGNEY

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

HEAD-INJURY TREATMENT

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WATER QUALITY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGE

WCB PREMIUMS

HAEMODIALYSIS

EDUCATION FINANCING

VIOLENCE

HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION POLICIES

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

LABOUR DISPUTE

FIREARMS SAFETY

DIETITIANS

FIREARMS SAFETY

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

FIREARMS SAFETY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

INTERIM SUPPLY CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): For the past three years I have been working with local officials to lobby the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to approve some sort of an agreement which would reopen the parks of the St Lawrence Parks Commission that were closed by the commission.

Raisin River and Charlottenburgh parks have attracted investors from the private sector who want to make an economic contribution to the area by leasing these campground areas and paying a percentage of revenue back to the province. There is no doubt that the economic spinoff would be great. Students are also looking for summer jobs, but they won't get them at these parks if the government doesn't act immediately to allow the private sector to invest the capital and draw the tourists.

People in eastern Ontario are tired of NDP ministers talking about partnership and then refusing to even meet with municipal officials, union representatives and individuals who want to see the parks open for this summer.

The Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation have all told me they're aware of the importance to the tourism sector. However, they can't be that interested in tourism since OPSEU sent an alternative proposal to the government last fall, but again there has been no response. The union is fully supportive of these parks being open.

I urge the minister to meet with the local municipal governments, the union and the private sector so that these parks can be reopened this summer.

HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION POLICIES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement is directed to the Minister of Education and Training on behalf of many concerned students, faculty, support staff and citizens at our universities.

Last October, the ministry published its Framework Regarding Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities. Colleges and universities were asked to review their harassment and discrimination policies and procedures using the ministry policy framework and submit them to the ministry by March 1, 1994.

Many university professors and students have reacted with anger, claiming the policy is flawed and that the term "zero tolerance" is inappropriate and could lead to jeopardizing academic freedom. They claim that with rules like this in force, it's hard to imagine forthright discussions on many controversial issues as they may trigger formal complaints.

This afternoon, I will introduce petitions that have been signed by over 200 faculty members and students from the University of Western Ontario. They state:

"Although firmly committed to ending discrimination of all sorts, we view the Framework Regarding Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities as an infringement on traditional university autonomy and a threat to academic freedom."

Minister, universities and colleges are also concerned with issues surrounding harassment and discrimination, but had already developed policies on their own without the interference of this government. You have managed to turn what used to be a situation under control into a chaotic mess.

YOUNG VOICES REPORT

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I rise today to praise the work of Ontario youth.

As part of the work of the Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice, more than 200 children and youth from communities across this province were involved in identifying the important issues which affect their lives and require change and resolution. Issues such as educational funding, the need for health information, violence, housing, transportation and employment, to name a few, were identified, addressed and recommendations made in this report, Young Voices.

Certain facts are important to emphasize:

-- These consultations and discussions with children and youth were conducted by youth, and this report reflects their own ideas and their own recommendations towards solutions.

-- The report also contains a description of some of the initiatives that the youth themselves have taken within their communities to effect change. This demonstrates that they are not depending totally on government and other institutions to do this.

-- But the report emphasizes repeatedly the youths' desire to be involved in the solutions to the issues that concern them, not just as a group to be consulted after the decisions are made but sitting at the table, wrestling with the issues, with an equal

part in those decisions.

We have heard the voices of children and youth. The question remains, will we listen?

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to once again raise the issue of the Minister of Finance's decision to impose a new tax on the wine and beer made at brew-on-premises operations in Ontario. This tax of 26 cents per litre on the beer or wine a customer makes for himself or herself is having a devastating impact on the you-brew operators.

The numbers have been in for some time now and the minister will be quite familiar with them. You-brew operators across Ontario are reporting that since the imposition of the tax on August 1 last year, sales volumes have dropped by 50%, and that in these terrible times of high unemployment, over 400 people have been laid off.

Another tragic aspect of this new tax is that it's killing something we ought to be nurturing to the very best of our ability in Ontario: a small business industry which had actually been thriving in the recession.

The new tax isn't even accomplishing the government's objective of bringing in additional revenues. Revenues have dropped by one half since the new tax was put in place.

I'm asking the minister once again to act responsibly in this matter by removing this tax and by at the very least imposing a moratorium on the two additional taxes he has on his

schedule to hit the you-brews.

ELMVALE MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Another exciting event in Simcoe East: The people of the township of Springwater are ready, willing and able to invite everyone to the 28th annual Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival and the third annual arts, crafts and antique show on April 15 and 16.

Ontario farmers know that "frosty nights and warm sun make the maple syrup run" at the second largest maple syrup festival in the province.

The 28th annual Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival gets under way Friday, April 15, with a variety night featuring local talent at Elmvale District High School.

Join with family and friends on Saturday, April 16, for pancakes and maple syrup at the community hall. Take free bus trips to the sugar bush and the arts, crafts and antique show. Midway rides are available for kids of all ages. Visit vendors and displays on the main street and enjoy a full day of dancing and displays and music.

Last year the log-sawing contest was an exciting event. Last year the winners were myself and the reeve of Essa township. I'll tell you, we can sure cut off a piece of wood when we need to.

The maple syrup festival wraps up on Saturday night with two grand dances, an adult dance at the community hall and a teen dance at the Elmvale District High School.

The village of Elmvale is located at the junction of Highways 27 and 92 in Simcoe county. For more information on the 28th annual maple syrup festival, you can call 705-322-3183. The sap is boiling, skies are clear and maple syrup time is here.

PANORAMA PROGRAMS

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): This week several communities in Cochrane North have been the focus of TVOntario's Panorama. Panorama is TVOntario's French-language flagship current affairs and arts series. Each night, Monday to Thursday at 7 pm, Panorama tackles one of the many big burning issues of the day, and in Cochrane North four special programs will be completed on how the towns of Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Hearst and Timmins are faring economically, socially and culturally in current times.

Starting on Monday, series host Adrian Cantin and his team reported from Timmins on the economic impact the mining industry will have on northern Ontario beyond the year 2000. They visited Malette Inc's premier sawmill -- it also operates a sawmill in Hearst -- and its kraft pulp mill in Smooth Rock Falls.

On Tuesday, program highlights included Norbord, a plywood manufacturer, and Nord-Aski, an organization that encourages economic development in the Hearst community.

Today, there's a special interview taking place with Frank Dettori and Norm Leybourne, respectively president and union coalition leader of Kapuskasing's Spruce Falls Inc. They will discuss how the employees bought the faltering pulp and paper mill to keep it from closing. This part of the series will be broadcast live from Kapuskasing at 7 this evening on TVOntario.

Today, Peter Herrndorf, TVOntario's chairman and chief executive officer, will be in Kapuskasing to meet with the people in the community and discuss La Chaîne's many programming initiatives that serve Ontario's diverse francophone population.

Tonight, turn into TVOntario at 7 pm and watch the program.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mr Speaker, I want to take a moment of your and my colleagues' time and comment on the ever evolving and changing policy of the government with respect to casino gambling. Not only do they sort of roll the dice and say, "What are we going to do today? Cut the cards and see what cards we're going to play tomorrow"; there's a sense of not knowing where we're going to go.

The minister on the one hand says, "We're only going to have a pilot project and it will run for a while and we'll see how it goes." Then they float stories that maybe it will go in Niagara Falls, particularly if it's politically expedient. Maybe we'll go to teletheatres. We know that there are some circles that would want to see that expand at a great rate. Perhaps video lottery terminals are next on the agenda, and who knows what will happen after that.

Last week, I asked the minister how much the estimates were for the renovations for the interim interim casino, which in all probability, with the back wall being knocked out and costs escalating, may very well become a permanent casino. We'll wait and see on that. That's my latest prediction, and so far we've been fairly accurate.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Wrong.

Mr McClelland: She says, "Wrong," but she was wrong about other things before. We asked what was the cost, and she didn't know, notwithstanding the fact she was in charge of that at the time, and referred it to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. She very kindly indicated to me that the initial costs were estimated at about $6.5 million, but now they're about $11.5 million. That was last week. This week they're about $12.5 million or $13 million. Next week, who knows?

The whole policy with respect to casinos evolves on a day-to-day basis. We would hope the government would give us some certainty and some exactitude, that the people in this province would know what the government's plans are and that they don't change from day to day and from whim to whim.

WETLANDS

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, your wetlands policy has abrogated property rights and destroyed property values. Under this policy, private property is identified and classified as a wetland. The municipality is then given a map outlining the area and it must designate that wetland and a 120-metre buffer zone within which all development is frozen. Without any prior consultation, the property owners suddenly discover that their land has been rendered worthless.

This policy is a clear example of how this government assumes control but evades responsibility. While the ministry can declare an area significant for the ecosystem, it does not see the land as being significant enough to cover the costs incurred by the owner. The net effect of the wetlands policy is that of expropriation without consultation or compensation, and it is an absolute affront to Ontario's democratic recognition of property rights.

The ministry must consult property owners and local government to determine if lands should be classified. If land must be protected, all stakeholders should be consulted relative to the value of the land, multiple uses, and possible compensation.

DON VALLEY BRICKWORKS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm very pleased to announce that our government has contributed $2.25 million from the Jobs Ontario Capital fund towards the restoration and regeneration of the Don Valley Brickworks located in East York. Funding of this project is in partnership with the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and augmented by private funding through the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto.

About 10 years ago, this part of the Don Valley was in danger of being developed for housing, but people like Jeffrey Smyth and Charles Sauriol, members of Friends of the Valley, felt that this land should belong to the public because of its historical, environmental and archeological significance. This week's announcement marks the beginning of a crucial phase in the Don Valley restoration.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those people who made this vision a reality. In addition to the Friends of the Valley, I want to mention the efforts of members of the Brickworks Task Force, the Don Watershed Task Force and the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. It is by the support and persistence of these community members that we now have a plan to create a park at this site and preserve its important historical and natural features.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I believe there's been some discussion among House leaders that would give all of us in the House today an opportunity --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Actually, one from each party.

Hon Mr Rae: -- one from each party -- to express our gratitude to Bud Tangney, who's retiring as the deputy clerk of the executive council.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

BUD TANGNEY

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Perhaps it's appropriate, on a day on which there's discussion of activities within the cabinet, to reflect on Bud Tangney's retirement as the deputy clerk of the council and as the person, as all people who have been in the cabinet will know, who basically runs the meetings, who keeps count of all the organizational work in the government in terms of the management of cabinet minutes, the management of orders in council, the management of the business of cabinet and of its committees. Bud Tangney today is being recognized in this Legislature for the wonderful job he's been doing on behalf of the people of the province.

It was a wonderful celebration a few short weeks ago when former Premier Davis and I had an opportunity to congratulate Bud on his many years of service and on his incredible dedication to the people of the province.

Bud Tangney is a very distinguished graduate of the Lindsay Collegiate Institute as well as of the University of Western Ontario, where he received his master of business administration in 1964. He worked for the University of Toronto, where he was an active participant in the International Student Centre and in the registrar's office, where he worked just as I was arriving there. But I think I know many of the people whom he worked with, who are very distinguished and fine people.

He then went on to become an administrative trainee in six different ministries. He then was an economist-researcher and an executive assistant to the deputy minister. In 1974, he became secretary to the cabinet committee on social development. Then he was coordinator of operations. Then he was also deputy clerk of the executive council. And from 1985 to 1990, as all of you will know, Bud Tangney has been director of cabinet operations, deputy clerk of the executive council, special assignments, and since 1990, as I say, we all know he's been serving this government as well with enormous distinction and with great ability.

It really is a pleasure for me to say that coming fresh into government as we did in 1990, to have the steady hand, good guidance and tremendous sense of public service of Bud Tangney was, I can tell him, as I've told him on other occasions, a tremendous source of support to us all. Bud Tangney doesn't have the opportunity to speak in cabinet meetings but now that he's retired, I'm sure that he will in conversation be able to remind many of us of the remarkable similarities as well as the contrasts in experience.

He has truly been present at some very dramatic and emotional occasions. I'm sure he will want to reflect on some of those, but members of the Conservative Party who served with him will know some of the historic decisions that were taken. He served the province extremely well in the transition from the Davis to the Miller premiership, from the Miller to the Peterson premiership and, as I say, in terms of the transition to our own government in 1990, he was an absolute consummate public servant.

I want to take this opportunity to wish him and Barbara well on this occasion, and to say that he's not widely known. If you were to ask reporters or television journalists, "Who is this man?" as he emerges from cabinet meetings, I'm sure many of them wouldn't know, but he is representative of the very, very fine public service that we have in this province, of the extraordinary professional dedication which has been shown by them in some major political transitions which have occurred since the 1980s.

He has served each government with tremendous loyalty, with consummate good judgement and with enormous professionalism. The fact that government works at all owes a tremendous amount to Bud Tangney and to the thousands of people like him.

On behalf of my colleagues in the government, those of us who have served with him, those of us who have gotten to know him, I want to say we shall miss you, we appreciate the work that you've done on behalf of the people of the province and we wish you and your wife a marvellous retirement and an opportunity to do some of the things which we have successfully prevented you from doing for all these many years. Good luck, Bud, and thank you very much for your years of service.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's a pleasure and an honour for me to say a few words on behalf of the Liberal caucus today.

I knew when I first met Bud that I liked him, although he did at one point, as I was Minister of Health, I remember, require us to go through those onerous processes all the way through all those committees; always made us do what was proper and correct. Sometimes I had some reluctance, I guess, to follow some of his directions, just because I was in a hurry, but then when I looked at his CV and found out that he'd been trained at the University of Western Ontario, I quickly and most completely complied with his great judgement and his valuable skills in making sure that the world was operated properly.

As a graduate of the same institution, we quickly, I think, got to know each other and understand each other very well and I think his good common sense and good judgement, having come from the University of Western Ontario, has certainly played a major role in bringing good sense and judgement to the cabinet area.

I was a cabinet chair for a little bit of time during our government, and I'll tell you, it was a great comfort to know that when things got to us they were properly there and in most cases the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed and when we had finished our meetings all of the steps that should be taken were taken, because there was a watchful eye, if not anybody who was there prompting the work to be done, someone who knew what had to be done to make sure that the business of the province was done in a proper and correct fashion -- not involved in the policy, but when you took a policy decision, it was there to be done properly.

If anybody wanted to call on how many days you needed after a regulation was passed or how many days it would be before the order in council was posted, the wealth of knowledge was just at hand in that very cabinet office. For that, Bud, we thank you very, very well indeed.

He comes from Lindsay, I understand, and that, of course, is a marvellous sense of small-town Ontario represented in the very heart of the government of the province, and I think it probably explains a lot about why there was such a meticulous care to detail, so much of a dedication to professionalism that Bud brought to his station.

I'm always going to remember, I guess, that in the midst of all the really big decisions and big discussions that were carried on, when we were in cabinet, there was always one calm oasis in the entire area and that was around Bud Tangney's chair and desk, because he had to make sure that while the rest of us were all flying off in discussions on this issue or that issue and getting up and answering phones, sitting down and bringing papers in, order was the way the ultimate decision was communicated.

I have to say to Bud, in some ways I guess it would be great if you could tell everything. I know that's not in your mandate or your character. But at the same time, he has been through a tremendous series of great provincial movements in terms of policy implementation and discussion. He's seen it all. I think, in fairness, he really has seen it all and he has been there to oversee but not to tell what has been going on in the province of Ontario.

With those few shaking fingers on the other side, I wish I could apply for Bud's job. I would really like to be there even now as we go through some of these issues.

Bud, to you, from somebody who's in politics and who hadn't been involved in it from the government side until 1985, who didn't really understand all there was to know, I can tell you that your strength and your determination to be highly professional and to be quietly guiding in making sure things were done correctly was a great help to me, and I'm sure it was for the rest of us who were in government with the Liberal caucus from 1985 through the end of September 1990.

It was always a sense that things were going to be done properly and that we could have our head and do our discussion the way it should be done, but at the end of the day it would all work out just fine in terms of the technical side of government.

You have tremendous experience, and perhaps you will be doing some writing, or whatever, with respect to how things should be done and how they have been done. If that's in your future plans, I wish you very well indeed. We wish you personally, to you and Barbara, the very best of times, and I hope, because I can't imagine you not doing something, that you will be successful in what you and Barbara choose to do. Please have a very long and happy retirement.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): It's my pleasure to wish Barbara and Bud a happy retirement as well on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. You know, Mr Speaker, one of the things that I find amazing, and have found amazing over the last 16 years that I've been in government, is the loose use of the word "secretary." We use the word "secretary" for just about everybody in the government. We have principal secretaries to opposition leaders; we have secretaries to cabinet; we have secretaries to cabinet committees; we have secretaries of all different kinds and functions.

To the layman, the word "secretary" means somebody who actually organizes and keeps things in order and makes certain that the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted and the records are kept in an orderly fashion.

I want to tell the people of Ontario that the real secretary of the provincial government of Ontario for the past 15, 16 years has been Bud Tangney. It hasn't been all these other people who carried that particular title. At least that's what most of the people in Ontario would understand. Bud is an extremely well-organized individual who has been loyal to his masters, whoever they be. I'm sorry for you in the last 10 years, Bud, but notwithstanding that, he has done a good job for all three governments which he has served, under three parties.

During my period in cabinet from 1981 to 1985, only Bob Welch and Bud Tangney saw eye to eye with me. Although Bud is small in physical stature, he is huge in stature among all of us who have had the pleasure to serve with him. I wish you the very best, Bud and Barbara, in your retirement.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have in my hand a cabinet document from the Rae government, a document of just a few days ago. This cabinet document makes it very plain that the Rae government has developed an action plan for the dying days of its desperate mandate, and I'm not surprised that some senior official in either a minister's or a deputy minister's office leaked this document, because I'll tell you, this tells us how far the saints have fallen.

I want to say to the Premier, it is very clear from this document that all work in the Ontario government for the remaining days and weeks and months of this mandate of your government will be set aside and only those items which support your re-election are going to receive any kind of priority attention: page after page after page after page confirming that the only principle left in the Rae government at this point is its re-election.

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

Mr Conway: Can the leader of the government confirm that this cabinet document of a few days ago is in fact the policy of his government for the remaining part of this mandate?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I perhaps could return the favour by referring to the feverish fumblings of a frustrated opposition. One form of alliteration is as good as another.

I would say to the honourable member that if he objects to the government focusing on jobs, if he objects to the government clearly focusing its efforts in terms of the things that we have to do as a government on behalf of the people of the province, if he objects to a government setting priorities and deciding that there are some things that have to be done sooner rather than later, if he objects to getting a clear sense in the public of the fact that the government is focusing its efforts on improving the economy, on simplifying, if you will, the work of government, then I could only say to him, let him stand up in his place and say that's what he objects to.

What citizen of the province could possibly object to a government which is focusing its efforts, to a government which puts jobs clearly first and which asks ministries to bear that in mind in the work that they do? If he objects to the construction of subways, to the establishment of the capital corporations, to the work that's under way --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- if he objects to the kinds of things that are under way, to addressing the issue of employment equity in terms of its administration and its management, if he objects to these questions, then let him stand in his place and say so.

I can't see what citizen could possibly object to the fact that this government has got its act together. We know what we're doing, we know where we're going, and we think it's a good direction for the province.

Mr Conway: Three and a half years ago, when the Rae government met this House for the first time, on November 20, 1990, Bob Rae told the province that politics under his administration was all about what we owe one another; that politics in the world of Bob Rae, politics in Bob Rae's Ontario, was about earning the trust and the respect of the people of Ontario; that politics in government in Bob Rae's Ontario was guarding against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power.

Now, three and a half years later, we have this cabinet document which indicates that the only principle left is re-election. If it doesn't support re-election, forget it; we're not going to do it.

My supplementary is, a key part of this plan, this most cynical plan, is how -- let me read from the document. "A critical challenge facing this government will be managing expectations relating to those initiatives which we will not be pursuing." The document goes on at some length to explain how the government is going to take valuable public sector time and resources to manage the damage because of broken promises.

In this cynical, Mulroney-like manipulation, my question to the Premier is: Do you have the guts to directly communicate with all of those people and all of those groups and all of those communities with whom you have broken faith and with whom you intend to break faith to tell them that they're on your B, C and D lists and that they will not get any consideration between now and the next election?

Hon Mr Rae: If one wants to engage in a discussion about cynicism, I would be more than happy to do that. But let me say directly to the honourable member, whose rhetorical flights of fantasy exceed even the rational and the reasonable in terms of the

interpretations here, if you're opposed to focusing --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa West is out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- if you're opposed to the government focusing and saying that that's what we need to do, that's what government needs to do, if you're opposed to a cabinet setting clear priorities, if you're opposed to our saying there are things that have to be done right away and there are some things that are more difficult for us to do, either because we don't have the money or because it's unreasonable to do, I know we have an opposition over there which is going to be promising everything to everybody for as long as they're there, everything to everybody. Every concern, every grievance, everything that's out there, you'll be arousing all that.

All we're saying is that we're going to have to deal effectively with the people of the province in terms of the issues we have to address. We are clearly putting the jobs issue at the very top of our priority list, because that is where we believe the majority of the people of this province want their government to be, and that's what we have to focus on.

The people of the province also understand that there will always be more good ideas, by definition, than there is money to pay for them. When you're in government, you have to make the difficult decisions and say, "Here is where the focus is going to be."

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

Hon Mr Rae: That's what being in government is all about.

Mr Conway: The author of this cynical and manipulative document, which among other things contains sample letters for the ministers and the deputy ministers to send out to those people with whom the government has broken faith, is none other than the Premier's long-time friend and campaign manager, David Agnew. It's obvious from this document that David Agnew remains in March 1994 what he was four years ago, Bob Rae's campaign manager.

We have said before, and I will repeat now, that your appointment and your maintenance of your good friend and confidant, David Agnew, as secretary of the cabinet while he plots your election campaign is a corruption of the public service.

My question to Bob Rae, the self-appointed saint of Ontario politics, is twofold: Will you today remove your campaign manager, David Agnew, from his $135,000 public service salary and put him over at NDP central and let him run the campaign from there? And will you, if you feel so buoyant and so confident about your record as the fourth year of your mandate concludes, submit your record, call an election in this province and let the people of Ontario decide?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, with respect to his preliminary comments, I think all members of the House recognize that from time to time the honourable member opposite shows he's really incapable of rising above this kind of character assassination as a way of resolving the issues. That seems to be the approach he always takes.

The second thing I would say is that no doubt it was his advice which caused his predecessor to call an election after three years. I have no intention of following that particular advice.

Let me make one last point. The people of the province, when it comes to cynicism and when it comes to judging how politics work in the province, I think will always remember the name of the political party that told the people there was a perfectly balanced budget when it had a budget in the spring of 1990, and then in the middle of the election campaign chose to announce a tax change which it thought would buy votes, and then was singularly repudiated on election day. I don't need to take any lessons on the subject of integrity from the member for Renfrew North, ever, ever, ever.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): From the handbook on how to break promises to a broken promise, to the minister in charge of auto insurance: He promised the public that the increases in auto insurance would only be, at maximum, 4%. The result is in. The increases are well beyond the double-digit figures. I want the minister to tell us what he intends to do about that.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I very much appreciate the question from the member across the way. Unfortunately, his question is an extremely confused question. This minister stood in this House last fall and announced publicly to this House that we had reached an agreement with the insurance industry for a maximum 5% rate increase this year as a result of Bill 164, and no company in this province has exceeded that 5% increase.

Mr Elston: The minister is really going to have to explain to my constituents and the people across the province, then, what it is that makes up what is looking like more towards 17%, 18%, 19%, 20% increases in auto insurance. He is going to have to account for all the scuttlebutt out in the areas in my part of the province that indicates that Bill 164 is contributing to a substantial part of that 18% increase. Indeed, people are being required to pay more for considerably less.

In fact, if they take any part of the policy which will allow them to have a policy that covers their lost income as a result of injuries, the increases will be in the neighbourhood of $200, $300, $400 and $500 more in price.

I want the truth from this minister. Why did you break the promise, and why are you making the people of this province pay for your broken promise?

Hon Mr Charlton: Not only did this government not break its promise, but the member across the way has asked for the truth, so let us deal clearly and straightforwardly with the truth.

There is a handful of people in the province of Ontario whose policies were being renewed in January, February and March of this year who got caught by a double hit, who got caught by the 5% associated with this government's legislation and who got caught by an 8% to 11% associated with the Ontario motorist protection plan, because the companies didn't implement their increases last year until March.

All of the increases last year were a result of the legislation which the Liberals passed in June 1990, and all of those increases are now coming home to roost for the people of this province. The member is going to have to explain that to his constituents, because I'm sure we will.

Mr Elston: It's interesting to note that there were no increases under OMPP from June 1990 until last year, that in fact the program was running rather smoothly until this minister started screwing around with it.

I want the minister to tell the people the truth, that the Minister of Finance added 8% to the cost of insurance premiums by putting the tax back on, and I want that minister to come clean with the seniors in this province on fixed incomes, whom they are requiring to pay 18%, 19% and 20% increases on their auto insurance premiums when he guaranteed, as the minister in charge of auto insurance, that there would be less than 4% increases for all causes.

What are you going to do about the fulfilment of your promises you have broken, just like the Premier is telling you ministers now to break the rest of them?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member across the way is obviously extremely exercised about truth, and the member across the way is going to get more exercised about truth as this story plays out.

The member across the way is correct. There were no increases in OMPP until last year. As a matter of fact, in the fall of 1991, this minister sat down with the insurance industry in this province and negotiated decreases of 5%.

Mr Elston: Oh, sure, just like you negotiated to decrease the $14-billion budget -- a figment of your imagination.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly, any of the major CEOs of the major insurance companies in this province would kindly and happily tell the member across the way that the 5% increase that impacted on residents of the province as a result of Bill 164 saved them from about 10% increases in 1994 as a result of OMPP and from about 15% increases in the following year as a result of OMPP. All of those insurance industry executives are clearly saying that Bill 164 and the work we did through the task force to stabilize price and cost in the industry will cause the rates in this province to be significantly stable in the future.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Today we've heard the response to the member for Renfrew North, and we read in the Toronto Star, and we now all have the cabinet document. Anybody who has read this document, as the Toronto Star has concluded, can draw no other conclusion but that you have given up governing for the sake of electioneering. You cannot read this document, in my view, and not come to that conclusion. Many policies have been shelved.

I would ask you this simple question, Premier: How can you come to this Legislature today, how can you continue to collect your paycheque as Premier when you've clearly given up?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say to the honourable member, as I assume he's trying to ask a serious question, that he perhaps will tell me what it is he objects to in terms of focusing on jobs, because I understand that's what he's been telling us to do over and over again. I don't understand why that would be something that his party would object to.

He's out talking to people, talking about choices to the people of the province. So am I. I don't see anybody suggesting that he should give up his paycheque or that he should stop being the leader of the third party. I'd like him to continue to be leader of the third party for as long as is humanly possible.

I can tell the honourable member that I am enormously proud of my colleagues in government. We're very proud of the work we're doing as a government. I want to say, by the way, that I have been underestimated by many others before, and if he thinks this government is going to stop doing its best in trying to serve the people of the province, he is sadly mistaken. We are going to continue to do our best and we're going to continue to serve the people of the province, and I would call on the honourable member to do the same.

Mr Harris: First of all, the Premier should know, as I have stated on many occasions, that never have I underestimated Bob Rae, the Premier of the province today, and never will I underestimate him. What I am talking about is you giving up.

I would like you to answer this to the people of Ontario. You're collecting a paycheque from the people of Ontario; the taxpayers are paying you. I would like you to explain to those taxpayers who are paying your cheque to be Premier, how it is in their interests that you now suggest that the priority for cabinet time and for bureaucratic time, directed by your 1990 campaign manager, is to develop a communication strategy to explain to the people of Ontario why you are not going to do what you promised you were going to do. How is that in the interests of the people of Ontario, who are paying your salary?

Hon Mr Rae: I can honestly say that in any sessions in which I've talked with the people of the province or with my own colleagues, I haven't heard anybody saying that the solution to the problem is for this Premier to give up. Should I give up?

Interjections: No.

Hon Mr Rae: That's good enough for me.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say directly to the honourable member that when we look at the issues we're facing, when we worked through the weekend, as we did as a government, with respect to the Hydro situation; when we have dealt with business and labour on the reform of workers' compensation, which we've been working on intently, we're working all day Monday on; when we've been working to attract investment, as we've been doing across the province; when we've been working with people to build more; when we've been negotiating with Metropolitan Toronto for the construction of not two but four subway lines; when we've been working with community after community to retain jobs and to expand jobs, whether it's with Bombardier in Thunder Bay, whether it's with Algoma in Sault Ste Marie, whatever community it may be, there is work to be done and there are things that must be done on behalf of the people, and that is precisely why this government has given clear direction to the public service and to everyone else that jobs are number one.

That is the priority we must establish as we begin the work of getting this province clearly back on its feet and headed in the right direction.

Mr Harris: Let me agree with you on one thing, that people think jobs are the number one priority. Second, if you're prepared to take your question and challenge outside this Legislature, they think the number one job creation action you could take would be to quit, to give up, to call an election. That's what they tell me. That will create more jobs in this province than anything else.

Premier, let's talk about your priorities. You spent all your energy this week mud-slinging with the federal Liberals over an environmental office, but not once did I hear you say you were upset about the loss of 30 jobs.

You were upset about being blamed. You entered into the mud-slinging, but I never once heard you -- you were concerned about being blamed -- talk about the 30 jobs.

Your number one priority to create jobs, aside from quitting, should not be finger-pointing; it should be creating jobs right here in Ontario. There are things you can and you should be doing that will achieve this: cutting taxes instead of hiking them, repealing Bill 40, cutting regulation, putting a sign out saying, "We're open for business."

If you're not prepared to get on with these job creating measures in the province of Ontario, and on the basis of the priorities we see in this document and in the Toronto Star today, will you do the honourable thing and call an election?

Hon Mr Rae: The member refers to priorities and he refers to the document. Let me quote from the Toronto Star today:

"Category A: The highest-priority items on the government's agenda, which include jobs initiatives such as capital investments (subways, highways, Metro Convention Centre), Jobs Ontario Training programs, infrastructure programs, cutting red tape for small business and strategies for international and interprovincial trade enhancement.

"Also included in this category is Workers' Compensation Board reform, social assistance reform, dealing with fraud in Ontario's health care system, drug benefit plan reforms, long-term care, an education reform package and employment equity implementation."

What is wrong with that? That's a good program, and that is a program not for an election; that's a program for governing, that's a program for implementation, and that's a program for doing.

With respect to his earlier point with respect to the federal government, let me say to the honourable member that I am proud to have defended this government against what Brian Mulroney did to Ontario, and I will be defending Ontario and the people of Ontario and this province.

Part of the task of any Premier is to defend the collective interests of this province because we have been so sorely and badly shortchanged by Tory and by Liberal administrations. I intend to stand and fight and defend the province of Ontario and defend all the people of the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party with his second question.

Mr Harris: I concede that when it comes to slinging mud, you're the best, Premier. You're the best.

HEAD-INJURY TREATMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, as you know, OHIP has been paying for out-of-country care for head-injured Ontarians since the late 1980s. In fact, there are currently about 120 Canadians being treated in the United States.

Unfortunately, being in the States, away from family and friends, often lengthens the rehabilitation process. Recently, private sector clinics and treatment facilities have opened here in Ontario. Minister, can you explain why your government will pay for patients in private sector clinics in the United States, but you refuse to pay for private sector clinics in Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I would be delighted to, and to say to the member with a great deal of pride that we have created here in Ontario, over the last three years, public sector health care delivery systems that deal with people with acquired brain injury. In fact, we have spent $7 million since 1990. We have enhanced the facilities in Thunder Bay and in Sudbury -- these were announced last October -- and we have a $2.2-million facility now in Hamilton at Chedoke-McMaster.

I agree with the member. People in Ontario need to have those services here in Ontario, close to their friends, close to their families, and the practice of past governments of sending those people out of country to very expensive private sector clinics in the US is not one that our government wishes to follow any longer than we have to.

Mr Harris: You don't want to do it, it's not your policy, but you do it. That's the question, why do you continue to do it?

My office spoke with Shirley Athoe. Her son, Mike McClary, is currently living at Anagram Centre in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Because your ministry will not pay to keep Mike at this private facility in Ontario, he will be forced to go to the United States, to a private facility, to access funding and to access care.

Private clinics such as Anagram, Progressive Rehabilitation Opportunities in Hamilton as well, are willing to take and have the expertise to take head-injured victims. But you have clearly declared "our preference for supporting not-for-profit health care providers." That's your rationale for paying and forcing these people to go to private sector clinics in the United States.

Why do you continue to force head-injured Ontarians to go south, when facilities exist right here in Ontario, with capacity and expertise, willing to take these people?

Hon Mrs Grier: There are some services that we are not yet in a position to offer in Ontario through our hospitals and through our rehabilitation systems. In those cases people continue to go south.

The policy of this government is to begin to rehabilitate and return those people to facilities in Ontario as part of our long-term care and our health care system. That's the progress we've made and that's how we will continue to spend public dollars.

Mr Harris: The members for Burlington South and Oakville South also have constituents at facilities in the United States. You are paying, you are wasting precious health care dollars for no other reason than some ideological reason.

While you sit on your hands, it costs $500 more per day, on average, for every patient who goes to the United States for care. That's also payroll and jobs that are in the United States that could be right here in Ontario. That also is nearly $200,000 per year more per patient that you are spending in the United States than taxpayers would have to pay for the jobs and having these facilities and patients closer to home here.

More important even than the jobs and the dollars are the great emotional and physical costs of being away from community and family and friends. Will you immediately withdraw your ideologically driven policy and provide more compassionate and less costly care right here in Ontario? Will you do this today?

Hon Mrs Grier: That is precisely what our government, as the first government in this province, has begun to do. We have begun to create those facilities here in Ontario, because we believe that's a part of our health care system that has been missing and that needs to be provided here, and we have put the money into the expansion of those services.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Why are they in Detroit when they should be in Hamilton?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Parry Sound please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said in my response to the second question, there are still some very specialized services that are not available here in Ontario. People who need those services continue to go to the United States as we continue to expand both the range and the availability of services here in Ontario.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Name one service.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: That's our commitment and that's what we are continuing to do.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Workplace Health and Safety Agency is in the process of shutting down three agencies currently delivering health and safety training throughout the province: the Care-Givers of Ontario Safety and Health Association, known as COSHA; the College, University and School Safety Council of Ontario, known as CUSSCO; and the Tourism and Hospitality Industry Health and Safety Education Program, known as THIHSEP. These three agencies are being closed down arbitrarily, unilaterally, and all three of them are being moved into the workers' centre for all future health and safety training.

Minister, people from all three areas, health care, education and tourism, are very, very upset at this unilateral action by the agency. Will you use your authority under the act and will you intervene and call a meeting of all the participants and try to resolve this dispute?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member across the way should know that studies done in 1991 at the agency made the point that we could have more efficiency and less cost if we could amalgamate some of the 14 different delivery agencies we had. The joining of these three is part of that exercise. The member should also know that the recommendation was a bipartite recommendation that they come together.

I can tell you also that we have heard the arguments and the points being made that the member across the way raises, and the board will be dealing with that particular issue at its meeting, which I believe is today.

Mr Mahoney: I am just delighted with your answer that you would suggest that this decision was a result of a bipartite effort on the part of the health and safety agency.

Let me share with you, Minister, a letter dated March 28, just the other day, from the management caucus, all seven of them, signed by all seven members of this agency, of the management caucus. It is to your Batman and Robin of health and safety, Bob McMurdo and Paul Forder, the self-anointed CEOs and vice-chairs of this agency. It's to "Dear Mr McMurdo and Mr Forder." It says:

"We have not been kept fully apprised of the agency's activities in regard to the future of these organizations and are distressed that the agency appears to be operating without direction from the board of directors. We strongly oppose the action taken regarding COSHA, CUSSCO and THIHSEP until such time as this issue can be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all stakeholders."

This is supposed to be the model for bipartite cooperation between management and labour. The ship is sinking. Chaos exists at the health and safety agency. Cooperative bipartism, Minister, thanks to your bungling and inept work with this agency, has been destroyed.

Will you act now? Will you intervene? Will you exercise your authority as the Minister of Labour for this province and convene a meeting immediately of all interested parties to resolve this matter and try to save the bipartite process in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have some difficulty in understanding why the member across the way would want this bumbling minister to now step in and resolve the problem. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Mr Mahoney: Just get out of the way.

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

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Let me also say that nobody is doing more damage to the institutions of the province of Ontario than the member across the way with the kind of hatchet attacks he's doing on both management and labour who chair this agency.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services and it concerns social assistance for 16- and 17-year-olds. Yesterday, in response to a question from the member for Nipissing, the minister said that in order for these teenagers to get welfare, "They have to demonstrate, and the worker must be satisfied, that there is an issue of abuse."

The minister is not informed of what's going on today, because today in Wellington county there is a 16-year-old girl receiving welfare who lives in a self-contained apartment attached to her parents' house. She collects welfare and pays rent to her parents.

She had applied for assistance from Wellington county social services but was denied by the county youth case worker, who found no evidence of abuse, not even an allegation of abuse. This young girl then appealed her denial to the Social Assistance Review Board, and without checking with our youth counsellor, Rico Sabatini, they ordered our county to pay her welfare until her appeal can be heard.

Will the minister explain to this House why he's allowing this to happen?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): Assuming that the information the member has given us on the particular instance is correct -- and of course if he says that it is, then I assume that it is -- in that particular instance I think that what he himself would conclude and can conclude from what he has just said is that the only thing that has happened so far is that the Social Assistance Review Board has ordered interim assistance, which is its full right to do under the legislation, pending a final determination on a full hearing of the case as to whether this individual is eligible for social assistance.

Everything seems to be in order in terms of what the member has indicated. There are clearly some broader issues that, as I indicated yesterday, we are addressing. But I think in terms of a particular instance, that has been addressed and dealt with in the appropriate manner.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): We have example after example after example where up to 12 months of welfare can be obtained on an interim basis, as the minister calls it, clearly knowing that "interim" is six to 10 to 12 months -- 10 months in this case.

The minister says, "If the information the member quotes is correct." It's quoted from a copy of a letter to you dated September 29, 1993, so you should know that the information is correct.

"It infuriates me" -- this is from the counsellor, the social worker -- "to know that in cases where I have contacted the parents, sometimes several times, spoken to doctors, youth workers, family counsellors and the client several times and can establish no special circumstances after hours of assessment, that the youth, by simply appealing and with no investigation, no follow-up, can get six to 10 to 12 months of welfare."

Minister, what we are finding out now is case after case of this. This is not an isolated case. The youth counsellor says, "I now have several other youths using the same strategy to get assistance," yet you say there isn't a problem.

I ask you this: Do you know of even one example -- one, all across the province -- where a 16- or 17-year-old who claimed he or she needed welfare was refused? Can you give us one example of that? If not, will you stop this silliness where every 16- and 17-year-old now in the province knows that they've got six to 10 to 12 months --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- without any verification of the allegations they make? Can you give me one case? If not, will you stop the abuse?

Hon Mr Silipo: I have to say this: I find it really unfortunate that the members from the third party are choosing to deal with this issue, with what I think is a very delicate issue, in this kind of way.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Silipo: At the risk of continuing to puncture the balloon of the third party with some straightforward information and facts, I'm going to try to continue to deal with this issue in the kind of calm way that I think we need to deal with it and in the kind of calm way that I think we were able to deal with it yesterday when the member for St Catharines addressed this very same issue in a question to me.

There is a problem. I have never denied that there is an issue and that there is a problem. I said that very clearly in the House yesterday. I've said that on other occasions publicly and privately. I think the approach we are taking to this issue is not to assume, as members of the third party seem to want to assume, that every single 16- and 17-year-old who is receiving social assistance is not entitled to receive social assistance.

What we are doing is trying to ensure that those young people who legitimately have a right to receive social assistance are receiving it, and let's, for the record, be really clear about the number and the circumstances under which those young people can receive.

We have about 8,100 16- and 17-year-olds across the province who are presently in receipt of social assistance in this province. For them to be eligible to receive social assistance, the rules are that they have to be able to establish that there is some element of abuse that is going on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Silipo: It is true --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: I'll try. It is true that in terms of an interim situation, the Social Assistance Review Board has the right to order interim assistance, not on the basis of a full hearing but on the basis of whether it deems that there is financial hardship.

But I think, unlike the six- to eight- to 10- to 12-month time lines the leader of the third party was indicating, it's my very clear understanding -- and I've had this discussion very directly with the chair of the Social Assistance Review Board -- that they in fact have managed their workload down to the point where decisions are being rendered in a matter of weeks in instances like this, not in a matter of months. So I would ask the leader of the third party to update his information.

Having said all of that, I think we do acknowledge that there are problems in this area, and I've said to the members in this House that we are looking at this area to see what improvements we can make, from starting with setting out the rules in a very clear fashion to ensuring that they are being applied in a very consistent fashion.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response.

Hon Mr Silipo: I would conclude by saying we also agree that we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of the province, but we have to balance that responsibility with the responsibility that we have to a group of young people who may be legitimately in need and who may be suffering some form of abuse, and we have to also address that issue.

The Speaker: The Minister of Environment and Energy has a response to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Mississauga North.

WATER QUALITY

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member asked a question yesterday and I made a commitment that I would get back to him with the response.

As the member knows, the ministry for some time has been working with Uniroyal to identify contamination in the water system at the Grand River and to carry out a monitoring program under an existing control order for the rectification of the situation.

Shallow groundwater contamination at the local creek has been identified in the past through investigative studies that were conducted under the control order issued in November 1991 by this ministry. This same order requires the company to contain and treat contaminated groundwater on the site before discharge to the creek. This contaminant system is to be installed this year. The water quality in the creek is expected to improve markedly with the installation and operation of the shallow groundwater containment and treatment system.

In direct response to the member's question, on March 28, Uniroyal Chemical Ltd advised the members of the Uniroyal public advisory committee at a meeting in Elmira of the results of a groundwater contamination investigative study begun in July 1993. The ministry staff had been previously informed of this study and its results on Wednesday, March 23. The ministry encouraged Uniroyal to make the results public as soon as possible.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Come on, Mr speaker, this is a statement for heaven's sake.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Wildman: Uniroyal advised it would release the study results to the public at the Uniroyal public advisory committee on Monday the 28th.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. I just want to assure the member that the company will submit to the Ministry of Environment by the week of April 4 a feasibility study to address the toluene contamination and to ensure that there is a remediation plan put in place.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): By way of supplementary, I think it's clear to everyone that though the information for many in the community was made known just this week, it is also clear that the ministry knew there was an investigation and an examination being undertaken by Uniroyal as long ago as last February. They weren't advised what the results were but they knew something was going on in February 1994.

I would also like to say by way of supplementary that under your expenditure control plan, your government delayed the cleanup of the activities at Uniroyal. It was your government that cut funding that was previously allocated for the cleanup of this project and now, after you've delayed this matter, you restart the matter. That is just much too late. The people in the communities deserve more from the government. You took away the funding that was directed at not only Elmira, but also Smithville. You took it away under your expenditure control plan. It was your delay --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Offer: -- which has caused this particular problem.

My question to you is, what do you say to the people of Elmira whose health and quality of life have been put at risk by your government's negligence in taking this issue seriously, by your reduction in the amount of money that should have been allocated to the cleanup in this area?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is just completely wrong. The fact is that Uniroyal has been working with the ministry to do the studies that have determined the contaminant. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, despite the fact that the members of the third party don't care about the people of Elmira, the fact is that as a result of this study which was published within five days of the ministry becoming aware of it, at the ministry's encouragement of Uniroyal, the discovery of the material will now enable the company to remove much of the toluene by pumping and disposing of the material offsite, as required in the existing control order.

As a matter of fact, we are working with Uniroyal to respond to the genuine, serious concerns about water contamination that have been known for some time near Elmira and we are working to ensure that the people of Elmira's health and safety is protected.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Environment knows full well that the third party is very concerned about the people of Elmira and I would ask him to withdraw that statement.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I just want to reiterate that when I was giving the answer about what was being done to assist the people of Elmira, there were choruses from the third party asking me to stop talking.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: I think the Minister of Environment and Energy will shortly know that his officials had first known of that investigation last February.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, that's not correct.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Minister, last week your government announced a massive hike of tuition fees to students and their parents. I have been informed that in the same week, last week, your social contract secretariat took a two-day retreat to the Eaton Hall inn and conference centre in King City. This facility advertises the complete conference package: accommodation, hot breakfast, buffet lunch, dinner, morning and afternoon meeting break beverages, main meeting room, audio-visual equipment and full use of onsite recreation equipment and facilities.

These people in your ministry in this secretariat all work in the same building on the same floor, the same office at Queen's Park. What justification do you have for the spending of money on this junket?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board): I'm not specifically aware of the event in question. I'll get the information and get back to the member.

Mr Offer: I hope the minister will also report back to this Legislature on this matter as to information we received that this junket was commandeered by a facilitator, Howard Fromkin of Johnston Smith Fromkin McCulloch, receiving $1,800 a day for every day worked in preparation for this junket.

Minister, I believe that you and your government have an obligation to this Legislature and to the people of this province. How is it that you can spend money wantonly on retreats and junkets of this kind on the same day, in the same week that you imposed a tax on every student and their parent in this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: I've said to the member that I will get the information in relation to the specific event and get back to the member.

In respect to the member's use of the word "junket," and the word "high-flyer" that some of his other colleagues used, and "excessive expenditure," in every single operational case that the Liberal Party of this province has raised, we've reduced spending by anywhere from 10% to 40% over what those characters across the way spent. During their term of office, they raised costs in those particular sectors by 40% to 60%. We don't need to take any lessons from them about good financial management.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Transportation: Minister, you'll be aware that before the last federal election the Liberal member for Leeds-Grenville stated that he had full authority from Prime Minister Chrétien to announce that the Liberal federal government would pay one third of the cost of the completion of Highway 416. Have you entered into any talks with the federal government regarding the $60 million or $70 million that is forthcoming on the promise of the completion of Highway 416?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I welcome the question from the member opposite vis-à-vis the need to have a high-quality access road to ease the congestion to our nation's capital. We don't receive, in terms of the national highway program, any participation from the federal government. We never did. Maybe when my phone doesn't ring, it must be Ottawa calling. Those people don't participate. We would welcome them, because we've earmarked $34 million, 640 jobs this year, 1994. The overall cost of the project, 416 north and 416 south, is upwards of $200 million.

What we're doing now is looking at presentations from two consortiums, but that's for the 407. Once we have made a decision on which one will get the contract, and it's the largest contract in North America, then we will be in a position to welcome the opportunity to create yet more jobs by way of a presentation from the private sector, channelled through the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, and maybe some tolls, maybe a bit of users pay so we can accelerate the project, because we're looking at well over $200 million.

Mr Villeneuve: There's supposed to be correspondence between the Minister of Transportation from Ontario and the federal Liberal government. The promise is there in black and white, $60 million to $70 million. The Premier, in his reply to the lead question from Mike Harris, the member for Nipissing, said highways were a number one priority.

You will know also that the federal Liberal government, in the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister this week, was very generous to the province of Quebec, and it got the attention of Bob Rae, the Premier of Ontario.

This money has been promised. We have had deaths upon deaths on Highway 416. I keep sending you the clippings from the newspapers. I keep pleading with you personally and through correspondence. The money has been offered, Minister. Don't wait for your phone not to ring. The initiative is yours. Go after the money. Are you ready to do that?

Hon Mr Pouliot: If we're ready to do our job, to be at our post? We're funding 100%. If the federal government wishes to fund one third, half, it's like going to heaven only to get there and it's even better than you thought it was. Of course we will be at our post. We're looking at 4,000 jobs. You're right: It's high time that the federal Liberals honour a commitment with real cash. Put it on the table. Start treating Ontario like you're treating some other provinces -- food for thought, and real cash for Ontarians to go to work.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: According to the rules, and I just want to bring this to your attention, there are a lot of members here on the government side, and we're entitled to some time during question period. I just want it noted for the record that they hogged all the time, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and we got no time. I would ask you to be more conscious of that in the future, because we have a right to ask some questions in this place as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): If the member, who's been here since 1990, would read the standing orders, he would know that the response by the Minister of Environment and Energy to a question previously asked and which he was unable to answer is a time allocated to the New Democratic Party of this Legislative Assembly, and that member is wrong in saying that they didn't have any time at all.

The Speaker: To the member for Downsview, as by coincidence I was reviewing the time sheets this morning from the previous week, on balance what happens is that both sides utilize on some occasions a great deal more time than would be appropriate in order to accommodate more members. One day it may be a bit more on one side of the House than the other, but over a period of time it balances out. Today was probably a fairly typical example of some questions being too lengthy and some replies being too lengthy. All I can do is to encourage all members to make both questions and replies as short as possible.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the members of the New Democratic side of this Legislature should also be aware that in the future the minister of Management Board is also going to be taking some of their time because he was not able to respond to my question about the junket that the social contract --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): In the spirit of goodwill, I would only ask that we give unanimous consent to allow the member for Downsview to ask his question.

The Speaker: The member has a point of order. Is there unanimous consent for the member for Downsview to pose a question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice. The member for Parry Sound.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I have recognized the member for Parry Sound.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Yesterday my colleague the member for Mississauga South attempted to raise a point of privilege with the Speaker with respect to comments made by the Minister of Housing. I believe that my colleague the member for Mississauga South had a bona fide point of privilege, but I wanted to obtain a copy of Instant Hansard before I addressed the issue myself in the Legislature. I was unable to obtain Hansard until late yesterday between 5 and 6 o'clock, and I was in a meeting at the time, so I have raised it at the first available opportunity.

It is unfortunate that neither the minister nor the member for Mississauga South is here in the Legislature this afternoon --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Why are you raising it now, then?

Mr Eves: Because, if you knew anything about the rules, sir, your smart-ass remark, you would know that you're supposed to raise a point of privilege --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I will be pleased to listen to the honourable member's point of privilege after he has withdrawn the unparliamentary remark.

Mr Eves: I'd be more than happy to withdraw the unparliamentary language I used. As I was going to say, you're supposed to, from my experience around here, raise a point of privilege at the first available opportunity. That is why I'm raising it now.

I have had an opportunity to review Hansard, and I would suggest to the Speaker that the comments made by the Minister of Housing yesterday in response to a question from the member for Mississauga South are not only a breach of privilege but I believe contempt of the House as well.

As you may be aware, Mr Speaker, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms acknowledges that attacks on individual members can constitute a breach of privilege. As well, Beauchesne's sixth edition,

section 62, quotes a Speaker's ruling as follows, "...in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit."

I would argue that the Minister of Housing's comments about the member for Mississauga South fit these

definitions. To say that the member for Mississauga South "is attempting to stall, delay and impede" Bill 120 does a disservice to every member of this Legislature. Our role as parliamentarians, to quote Erskine May, "is to examine legislation, to have an opportunity to amend it and to propose alternatives."

To impute that the member for Mississauga South is not fulfilling her role as a member of this Legislature and to suggest that her actions are detrimental to the parliamentary process is a fundamental breach of the member for Mississauga South's privileges, in my opinion.

There is not one single bit of evidence to justify the statement made by the Minister of Housing. The minister was obviously imputing motive to the member for Mississauga South. She also stated an untruth. I am sure the Minister of Housing is well aware that all members of that committee who are dealing with Bill 120 agreed that the bill would not be proceeded with any further in committee until April 7. Knowing all these things, she still made the comment she made about the member for Mississauga South yesterday.

I would ask you to review the comments made by the Minister of Housing, to review the circumstances and I would ask you to treat this point seriously, please.

Hon Brian Charlton (Government House Leader): On the point of order, I, unfortunately, don't have a copy of yesterday's Hansard, but there are just a couple of issues in respect to this point of order that I'd like to deal with, and to deal with very briefly.

First of all, the member for Parry Sound has suggested that in the exchange that occurred yesterday between the Minister of Housing and the member for Mississauga South, the minister had imputed motives. If my recollection serves me correctly, at the time that exchange occurred, Mr Speaker, you quite rightly pointed out that there was a difference of opinion.

But the motive is not the accusation; the imputing of a motive is the reason for the accusation and not the accusation itself. The minister, as has been quoted by the member, suggested there was a delay. I think anybody who reasonably looks at the circumstances of that committee would suggest there had been a delay. We, the three House leaders, spent considerable time before Christmas allotting to this piece of legislation the longest amount of hearing and clause-by-clause time of any piece of legislation that was dealt with during the intersession.

Having given that bill more time than any other, the bill finished in the intersession on clause 2. The comments of my colleague I think are a reflection of that fact, not the imputing of motive. Mr Speaker, I think that's the way in which you have to approach this question. I didn't hear anything coming from my colleague suggesting what the member's motive for doing the things she was suggesting the member was doing was, simply that she was doing certain things.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I wasn't going to join in the discussion of the point of privilege that's been raised by the member for Parry Sound, but I do have to indicate quite clearly that the people in House leaders' meetings and other places clearly understood that we wouldn't be moving on this until April 7. We've discussed the items; we've been asked about 120. We have communicated on several occasions the issues of difficulty affecting the development of the --

Hon Mr Charlton: -- progress was made by the end of the intersession.

Mr Elston: I'm sorry; I guess the member for Hamilton Mountain wasn't finished with his joining of the issue.

We knew quite a long time ago that this issue would take up some time. For the member for Hamilton Mountain to stand in his place and defend the Minister of Housing, who has accused another member of this Legislature of doing something with some deliberate purpose, which was obviously not the intent that the member for Mississauga South had on her mind at all, is in fact a breach of the privilege of a member by imputing a motive.

The words that are used are quite clearly on the record. I don't think you can be swayed by the interjections from the member for Hamilton Mountain in this case, because we all knew it was going to be an issue of some contention and we all knew it would take longer than other bills. That having taken place, it looks to me like I'm going to have to support the member for Parry Sound on this. I think it becomes a very serious issue when a minister can stand up at any time and accuse some member who is raising a reasonable issue to be enjoined here for discussion in the Legislature of doing it for a purpose of delaying the passage of a very important piece of legislation.

It seems to me that the member for Parry Sound has a point of privilege on behalf of the member for Mississauga South. I would ask you, as a result, to bring to the attention of the member for Ottawa Centre that she has transgressed the rules, ask her to issue the apology and then maybe we can move on with the business of the House.

The Speaker: May I say first to the honourable House leader of the third party that, as always, he makes a very thoughtful and thorough presentation of his point of privilege, which I appreciate. Indeed, he has raised it at the earliest possible moment. I appreciate also the suggestions and helpful information from both the government House leader and the House leader of the opposition. I will be pleased to take a look at Hansard, at the remarks which he speaks of, and to consider the points which he has brought to my attention.

May I say that in general I believe the member knows, as I believe all members know, that I take language quite seriously in this chamber and on occasion am quite unhappy with the level of language that we unfortunately endure from time to time. When intemperate language is used, often it creates an even worse atmosphere and leads to unfortunate comments being made.

I always, as the member will recall from yesterday, allow the member who has been identified an opportunity, if he or she wishes, to withdraw remarks which have been found to be offensive to another member in the chamber. Obviously, at that point it's up to the member whether or not he or she wishes to withdraw.

I did not find the remarks at the time to be unparliamentary. However, I take very seriously the points that the House leaders brought to my attention. I will look at them and I will get back to the member as quickly as I can.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'm asking for your consideration, and I will be brief, in respect to this matter.

In reading the standing orders, and I may be the only one who is very concerned about this matter, under standing order 21 in respect of privileges, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes" -- and, Mr Speaker, this is what I think is important, and perhaps I'm misinterpreting it -- "or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Over the weekend, a matter was drawn to my attention and created significant concern with me as a member of this House for almost 13 years, something which in my view was unprecedented. That was a report in the Toronto Star, a column by Mr Thomas Walkom, which was a detailed report on what transpired in a recent meeting of the executive council.

Clearly, the Premier was quoted; members of the executive council were quoted. There was obviously a breach of cabinet confidentiality, a breach of the oath of secrecy which is taken by all members of the executive council upon entering cabinet.

I am personally very concerned about this unprecedented breach, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to consider this and take it under consideration if indeed it is a violation of the privileges of members of this assembly.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Leeds-Grenville raises an interesting point and one which I will be very pleased to take a look at. In addition to the member for Parry Sound, he's given me some work to do this afternoon and this evening, and I will be delighted to take a look at it.

PETITIONS

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly, and specifically to Premier Bob Rae. It reads as follows:

"Our company cannot afford to pay exorbitant Workers' Compensation Board rate increases at a time of economic hardship and wasteful compensation board expenditures. The financial viability of Ontario industry has been put at risk by the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board. Our company will consider withholding any rate increase due in April 1994 unless the Workers' Compensation Board can guarantee that there will be no operating deficit this year.

"We request that the Office of the Premier intervene at the Workers' Compensation Board by forcing the board to act to stem this crisis."

This is signed by 181 employers in Ontario who are members of the Employers' WCB Crisis Committee, 446 Dupont Street in Toronto, Ontario.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist that they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years;

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

I've signed that petition, and I obviously agree with it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have 56 petitions, containing 598 signatures, sent in by St Rita's Catholic Women's League. I'd like to read it for the benefit of the Legislature.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount,

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that the sale of these serial killer trading cards is restricted to people over the age of 18 years and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

These petitions are sent from the towns of Hagersville, Jarvis, Victoria, Simcoe, Woodstock, Norwich and Burgessville. I'm very pleased to affix my signature to these.

HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION POLICIES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition from the University of Western Ontario on prevention of harassment and discrimination and on free inquiry and expression which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned faculty and staff members of the University of Western Ontario, firmly reject the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training's Framework Regarding Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities.

"Further, we call upon the minister, Mr David Cooke, to withdraw this document immediately. Although firmly committed to ending discrimination of all sorts, we view the Framework Regarding Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities as an infringement on traditional university autonomy and a threat to academic freedom."

This petition has been signed by hundreds of faculty and staff and some alumni. I've added my name to it.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide the needed protection of owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and the owners of modular homes in land-leased communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and the loss of investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord,

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible to third reading."

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Ballinger is kicking in his television set right now. Ballinger can't believe he lost to you. Billy is having a stroke right this minute.

Mr O'Connor: In spite of all the heckling from the opposite side, I support this legislation. In fact, those people don't want it to come forward.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and specifically to the Minister of Labour.

"Whereas in 1986 the present Minister of Labour, then the New Democratic Labour critic, and Premier Bob Rae, then the Leader of the Opposition, introduced a private member's bill to protect building cleaning workers; and

"Whereas the employees of Modern Building Cleaners, the contract cleaners for the Ontario Science Centre, have been on strike for the last two weeks; and

"Whereas the employees, all members of OPSEU, have filed a grievance with the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that management of the Ontario Science Centre have been performing the cleaning duties during the strike in direct violation of Bill 40; and

"Whereas the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, the Honourable Anne Swarbrick, last Thursday evening crossed the picket line to attend a dinner with the trustees of the Ontario Science Centre; and

"Whereas the striking workers are holding a rally at the Ontario Science Centre today while the board meets to make a decision on whether or not to close the centre,

"We therefore petition the Minister of Labour, who only 10 years ago was the standard-bearer for building cleaning workers, to intervene to bring about a solution in this strike action and prevent the closing of one of Ontario's main tourist attractions."

I agree with this petition and I also have affixed my signature thereto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearm safety course or examination."

I agree and have signed this petition.

DIETITIANS

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition prepared by Dana Barack and signed by hundreds of citizens of the province of Ontario, from Ottawa to Toronto to London and elsewhere. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly and says:

"We, the citizens of Ontario, Canada, petition the government of Ontario to reinstate stipends for dietetic interns, or to otherwise provide another form of assistance.

"Whereas this is a necessary, accredited practicum for the completion of a dietitian's education and membership in the Ontario College of Dietitians;

"Whereas this is a profession recognized for its contribution to health promotion and disease prevention, the basic determinants of health;

"Whereas we do not have any form of income during the internship and do not qualify for unemployment insurance, welfare or Ontario student assistance program funding;

"Whereas we are expected to begin full repayment of OSAP loans (both Canada and Ontario) immediately after university graduation...."

They petition to return the assistance and I sign my name on this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. This petition has been signed by many, many people in my riding, and it's to Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are extremely objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearm owners and hunters, and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearm safety course or examination."

I have also signed this.

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition sent to me by Dr Berger in Uxbridge concerned about the periodic medical exams and all that review that was taking place. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, believe all Ontarians should be covered for preventive health and periodic screening procedures and money would not be saved by delisting preventive health exams."

They'll be happy to know that hasn't happened, as a result of that very public review. I've signed my name.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I too have a petition, that is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's from the citizens against Bill 45. I'm not going to take up the time of the Legislature with reading through the whereases, but apparently the undersigned are petitioning the Legislature to stop this bill and any future bills of the same order.

Although I do not agree with all the content of the petition, on behalf of my constituents I'm submitting it to the Legislature and affixing my name as the submitter of the petition.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative assembly of Ontario.

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe there will be enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile homes by the action of their landlord;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

I'm speaking on behalf of the thousands of residents in my constituency who are absolutely appalled at the stalling tactics of both the Liberals and the Conservatives when it was in committee.

Interjection: Can I sign that petition?

Mr Mills: Yes, sign it. It's just awful.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a petition addressed to Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from the Anglers and Hunters.

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously" -- they've got "strenuously" highlighted -- "objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and 'grandfathered' those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination, and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;" -- a good point,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearm owners and hunters, and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearm safety course or examination."

I think that's a pretty straightforward and reasonable course of action. I'm going to sign this petition and submit it on behalf of the anglers and hunters of the great riding of York Centre.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr78,

An Act respecting the Township of Huron and the Village of Ripley.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr63,

An Act respecting the Township of Glanbrook

Bill Pr89,

An Act respecting the Town of Bothwell

Bill Pr91,

An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Given the suspicion cast on the principal secretary of the government earlier today and with the reports that have been reported in the paper, I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent of the House to dissolve the Parliament and let the people have an opportunity to pass judgement on the government. Unanimous consent, Madam Speaker, for dissolution?

The Acting Speaker: Is it the wish of this House to agree to his motion? No.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: I would have thought that by now the Liberals would have learned what happens to parties that call an election after three years.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I move that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, and that it be now read for the very first time.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Laughren moves that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act and that it now be read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Carried. The Minister of Finance may address the bill.

Hon Floyd Laughren: And I think this perhaps would answer some of the queries coming from the opposition. If not, I would like to know.

I am pleased today to introduce the Corporations Tax Amendment Act, 1994. This bill replaces two earlier pieces of proposed legislation, Bill 133 and Bill 66, which received first reading only, and combines additional measures proposed in the 1993 budget.

You will recall that Bill 133 contained legislation to implement a corporate minimum tax as announced in the 1993 budget. Bill 66, the other bill this replaces, contained proposals made in the 1992 budget and included other changes to parallel amendments to the federal Income Tax Act.

This bill includes the proposal to reduce the portion of meals and entertainment expenses deductible for corporate income tax purposes from 80% to 50% and other measures to close corporate tax loopholes and improve tax fairness.

This bill includes a special additional tax on life insurance corporations announced in the 1992 budget designed to ensure that life insurance corporations assume their fair share of taxes. It also includes a revised definition of what constitutes an insurance company for the purposes of the insurance premium tax.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your patience, and the members of the opposition for their interest.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I just received the notes -- they're quite lengthy, I might add -- on this amalgamation of two previous pieces of legislation, plus new. I will say this: There seems to be some difficulty with the government officials and people --

Interjection: Get to the point.

Mr Stockwell: I am.

-- in supplying information to the opposition parties, and I won't speak for the Liberals, but certainly the Conservative caucus, with respect to explanatory notes and compendium notes when introducing pieces of legislation.

We've had this discussion before with respect to the Minister of Transportation. Now I will rise again and say that when the Treasurer stood to introduce this piece of legislation, he was seeking a vote on first reading. When he's seeking a vote on first reading, it's usually in the course of business that we in fact allow that vote to take place. It's a common courtesy that we give the government.

I will add this: We give them that common courtesy because previous to hearing what the minister says on the piece of legislation and understanding what is before the Legislature, we receive compendium notes or explanatory notes about what is being introduced. Once again, for a significant number of times, at least three or four times, we received the notes after the minister has introduced a piece of legislation and asked this Legislature to vote on it.

I would say once again, through you, Madam Speaker, to the government officials, the assistants and the workers who are supposed to bring these notes forward, that it's in the best interests of making sure this place works properly and having up-to-date and well-informed opposition benches that we know, when the minister stands to introduce a bill, what bill he is introducing.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I appreciate your comments. That is up to the government to try to accommodate the opposition.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): No, it isn't. Madam Speaker, on a point of order, if I might, in view of the comments raised by the member for Etobicoke West, which I appreciate, and I understand his concern. However, I would remind the member for Etobicoke West that the purpose of introducing the bill for first reading is simply to do that: to put it in front of members so they can have an opportunity to read it before debate in substance starts, which is the second reading debate on principle.

I'm not sure why the member would object to us introducing a bill so he can have a look at it and think about it and consult with his colleagues before second reading debate occurs. That's the purpose of first reading introduction, so there's time to think about it before the second reading debate occurs.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I heard the comments from the Treasurer, and although I agreed with him up to a point, the point where I stopped agreeing with him was that in the standing orders it says -- I can't find it at this very moment, but if you take the time to review the standing orders, they say very clearly that before a bill is introduced by a government minister, compendium notes or explanatory notes would be distributed to the opposition parties.

Now, that isn't just to have the critics figure out what is being introduced at the time. Sometimes, party politics being what they are, some opposition parties would vote against introduction on first reading. It's not unusual; it has happened. It happened with government when they were on this side of the House on a number of occasions.

So I take great exception to the Treasurer's

interpretation of the rules, and I take great exception to the fact that again, as has happened on a number of occasions, we didn't get the compendium notes, the explanatory notes, before the bill was introduced.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to review the standing orders on the compendium notes and when we're supposed to get them, whether it's not before first reading. If in fact I'm wrong, I certainly will stand corrected. If I am correct, would you please advise the ministers of the government to supply us with the notes.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Since the member opposite has raised this issue a number of times, it's time we got the issue clearly resolved in this House, both for the purpose of the House and for the purpose of the member for Etobicoke West.

The delivery of documents to the member opposite today and on all occasions he's arisen has been precisely the same as the delivery of documents to every opposition leader and opposition critic on introduction of every bill, because the standing orders call for the delivery of the compendium on the introduction. A member who is a minister of the crown stands in his place and begs leave to introduce, and when that introduction occurs is when the compendiums are delivered. That's the point at which the first reading vote happens.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On the same point, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to finish. In the standing orders, 38(

c) does say, "On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics." So you are correct, and it is on introduction of the bill, which would be today. I hope that clarifies.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: When we move to voting on the introduction of a bill at first reading, that is beyond the introduction of bills. There is a clear differentiation between introduction and voting on first reading. The House rules are very clear in this case: It shall be on introduction. No matter how the government may twist and turn this, you cannot vote on something if you are --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Could the member take his seat, please. I have ruled according to the standing orders.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing April 1, 1994, and ending July 31, 1994.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We are resuming the debate on interim supply. When we adjourned yesterday, the member for Etobicoke West had the floor, if he would like to continue.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Timely, very timely. Eight minutes left, and I want to cover maybe two quick subjects, the last one very briefly.

I understand what the standing orders say. I just want to make the point that on the introduction of the bill, we're supposed to get the compendium notes. When they introduce the bill, we get the compendium notes before a vote is taken. That way --

The Acting Speaker: To the member, I would appreciate you dealing with the interim supply.

Mr Stockwell: I am. This is interim supply. It's a tax matter. We get the compendium notes on introduction of the bill, so before it goes to the first reading vote, we know what bill were voting on. The difficulty on opposition benches -- which you may well find out; I don't know -- is that when you just hear a couple of numbers, what bill number they are, you have no idea what bill you're debating or expected to vote upon.

Let me give you a quick example. Photo-radar was introduced. It was introduced by a bill number. We wanted to oppose photo-radar in the first reading. We did not receive the compendium notes --

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Do you want them a half-hour before?

Mr Stockwell: No, we'd like before they ask us to vote on first reading. I don't think that's a lot to ask. Just get the compendium notes before you ask us to vote on first reading. There have been two or three pieces of legislation that we wanted to vote against on first reading. We couldn't vote against them because all the member did when introducing the bill was quote a bill number. We couldn't possibly know what that bill number incorporated, and therefore we couldn't vote against it.

Yesterday, the member for Oxford -- I wish he were here -- suggested to me during my speech about the deficit that in fact the numbers were contained in the budget of 1993 with respect to the deficit figures for the crown agencies and how much debt they would incur, that it was included in the budget book.

I want to make it very clear to the members opposite that the member for Oxford was absolutely wrong and I was absolutely right. If you go to page 93 of the budget book, you'll note that there is a deficit subtotal figure for non-budgetary items of some $804 million. Included in that are education, colleges, universities, school boards and hospitals, where you transferred debt to those agencies to acquire on your behalf that you'd pay for. Below that were the crown corporations: environment and energy, Clean Water Agency, Ontario Realty Corp, Transportation Capital Corp.

In total, they are going to accrue $804 million worth of debt. When you look at the carry-forward column on table C4 --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Will that show up in the budget?

Mr Stockwell: That's exactly my point, I say to the member for St Catharines. I want to make it clear, because the member for Oxford gave the impression I was misleading the House, and I was not. When you take page 93 and look at the debt, the debt total comes in at, planned, $3.096 billion capital. Underneath it is the $804 million, so the gross total is $3.9 billion including those non-budgetary items.

When you flip over to the deficit figures announced by the Treasurer, the deficit figures show capital expenditure to be $3.096 billion. It doesn't include the $804 million for education, where you ask them to build the schools and acquire the debt, it doesn't include colleges and universities or hospitals, where you ask them to acquire the debt on your behalf, and it doesn't include the crown corporations and the debt they're going to acquire over the next year.

In reality, the member for Oxford was saying that people know that new debt is on the books, but the Treasurer did not include that in his deficit forecast figures in his 1993 budget. It may seem a little picayune, but it's very important. It's nearly $1 billion of debt that you didn't show in your books. It's nearly $1 billion of debt that you didn't count in your 1993 budget book.

I take the member for Oxford to task. He is convinced that somehow this is included in your budget book. He's categorically incorrect. I've heard him say, not just in this place but in other places, that it's included, and I wish he'd stop. The proof is in the pudding. It's your Treasurer's budget book. It is not included in the deficit figure originally called for of $9.159 billion. Some $804 million was left off, and this money you're moving off-book to separate corporations and not including in your deficit figures.

Stop telling the public you are. That's all I'm suggesting. Stop telling the public that you're including these deficit figures, because you're not. Your original estimate was $9.1 billion; it should have been $10 billion. The reason it wasn't $10 billion is because it was a magic figure the Treasurer didn't want to go over, so he took out $800 million, moved it off-book and said he had a $9.1-billion budget deficit.

The other point of interest that I had was with the member for Downsview.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: No, Downsview, and I'm sorry he's not here. He was rather vocal yesterday on my numbers that I examined with respect to Jobs Ontario. So last night I went back to my office after hearing his complaints and I went through the budget and went through the numbers that you said you would create as far as jobs were concerned through Jobs Ontario.

In your 1992 budget book, when you announced Jobs Ontario, you called for 90,000 jobs to be created. You said 90,000 jobs. I reviewed the job figures that came forward from the minister yesterday, and this is two years down the road. In fact, you said you'd have 90,000 jobs created by the second year; you said you'd have 30,000 created in the first year. Today, there are 20,000 created and 10,000 waiting to be filled. Give the benefit of the doubt to the government: You filled 30,000 jobs. You're a full year behind your timetable. You're not even close to the 90,000 jobs that your ministry said it would create with Jobs Ontario.

It's very good sometimes to adjourn debate in the House because it gives you an interesting opportunity to go back to the budget, back to the figures, and come back the next day and say categorically, without debate, the figures I quoted yesterday, the deficit numbers the member for Oxford was talking about, were right. He is thoroughly uninformed. The member for Downsview was uninformed with respect to his heckling of me with respect to 100,000 jobs that were supposed to be created.

I think it's a good opportunity for the people out there to realize that there's a spin put on everything by this government. Mr Piper used to put the spin on. He's now gone. I think it's Mr Weppler, is it, who --

Mr Bradley: Yes, Murray Weppler.

Mr Stockwell: Murray Weppler now puts the spin on all product that leaves this place, and what the problem is with spin is this: Sometimes the spin doctors cross the line and they cross the line between spinning and outright untruths. The point the member --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Outright untruths. I'm not saying he's lying; I'm just saying he's spun it so much that it loses its tap to reality. The member for Oxford and the member for Downsview have bought into these so much so in some instances that they don't look at the figures, they don't read the book and they don't understand that just by flipping through this you know that the spin has been spun so much it's absolutely incorrect.

I wanted to get those two on the record. "Absolutely incorrect" I don't think is unparliamentary. I want to get those kind of things on the record because I was challenged yesterday by the two members with the statistics and the analysis that I did with respect to the deficit numbers and Jobs Ontario and I can come forward in good conscience today and say the numbers that I gave yesterday were absolutely accurate.

The numbers I gave yesterday were the numbers that your government used, the numbers I gave yesterday were the numbers that you approved in your budget that I quoted back to you some year or two years later. The only difficulty this government has is how inaccurate its prognosis for growth in Jobs Ontario and how inaccurate its prognosis for the deficit was.

I thank you for the time, Madam Speaker. I look forward to questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Now we have time for questions or comments to the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd just like to comment in regard to the question of spin that the honourable member talks about. I think when it comes to the question of spins, the Conservative Party of Ontario, like the Liberal Party of Ontario, doesn't have a monopoly or a virtue on that particular issue. I think all political parties look at issues from their basic ideology. I grant you the Conservative Party has a particular ideology that it feels is right and it advocates for it. For that, I give them credit because that's what this House is all about. Every political party looks at issues from their particular perspective.

As for the question of off-book financing, I would say to the member -- and I think he's alluded to that and actually he said that in his remarks yesterday -- not every government, but a