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

November 23, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

REGULATION OF MORTGAGE BROKERS

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

WATER QUALITY

WASTE DISPOSAL

CLOSURE OF PERTH JAIL

BEYOND WORDS

SENIOR CITIZENS

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

JUSTICE SYSTEM

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

GASOLINE PRICES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

CHARLOTTE ELEANOR ENGLEHART HOSPITAL

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

HEALTH INSURANCE

FIREARMS SAFETY

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

SARNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994

CITY OF LONDON BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1994

SIMCOE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1994

BUSINESS REGULATION REFORM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ENTREPRISES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX PRATIQUES DE GESTION ET AUX SERVICES DU GOUVERNEMENT

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES VALEURS MOBILIÈRES

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

REGULATION OF MORTGAGE BROKERS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to say that I think we're close to a solution on a problem that I've been dealing with and that I think other members of the Legislature have had occasion to deal with, and that is the scam loan brokers in this province.

You may be aware that there are literally hundreds of people who have been ripped off by, I think the best description is, scam artists who say: "Need a loan? We can get you a loan." You then get a promise of a loan from these individuals. They virtually commit that they've got the loan and say it's simply a matter now of coming down and signing the piece of paper.

People get down there and then they're asked to give a $300 or $400 or $500 fee. They find out one or two days later that the loan doesn't materialize and that the fee is gone.

I have literally hundreds of letters and I suspect other members of the Legislature also have similar letters.

You may recall that I introduced a private member's bill. It passed second reading here and then essentially was shelved. I'm pleased to say that the government has indicated it has some amendments that it's going to propose to the bill, which as I understand them seem acceptable, certainly to myself. It is my hope that we can deal with these amendments over the next two weeks so that by the time Christmas comes around, there'll certainly be some good news for future people who might get ripped off and hopefully some redress for individuals who may already currently have been ripped off.

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Every day, Ontarians receive junk mail which they regularly throw out without reading. What increasing numbers of consumers are finding, however, is that in so doing they are unknowingly consenting to be continually billed for a product or service such as pest control, extra cable channels and monthly book clubs.

This is called negative option marketing, because the onus is placed on the consumer to say, "No, I don't want what you're selling," by way of a phone call or a letter to the company before he or she is taken off the direct-billing treadmill.

According to the Stop Junk Mail Association, every year more than 44% of the 55 billion mail order catalogues and other pieces of third-class mail sent to consumers goes directly unread into the trash.

Because negative option marketing enters our homes as third-class mail, the fine print is unread and many vulnerable consumers such as seniors, those with disabilities and others on fixed incomes are then faced with unwanted and unbudgeted bills they can barely afford.

The Consumers' Association of Canada recommends that only the positive consent option, where consumers make an informed request to purchase a product or service, be allowed. Unfortunately, Ontario lags behind Quebec and Prince Edward Island, which already have forms of this legislation within their consumer protection acts.

I call on the NDP Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Marilyn Churley, to take time out of her busy promotion of casino gambling in Ontario to protect vulnerable and unsuspecting consumers who are forced to gamble with their personal budgets as a result of being caught in the money trap of negative option marketing.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): In the past few weeks, I've received a number of calls in my riding regarding the auditor's report on water quality. Much of this concern is due to the reactionary opposition response. Our government is acting on all of these concerns. I know our water is safe and I want to assure the residents of Haldimand-Norfolk that this is the case.

In my own riding, scores of improvements have been made to ensure the safety of our drinking water. In fact, more then $52 million has been spent on water projects in Haldimand-Norfolk. Previous to 1990, water treatment plants in Delhi, Dunnville, Port Dover and Port Rowan experienced problems, and we've been constantly investing in those plants to ensure water quality. Recently, I opened a new $10-million treatment plant in Port Dover, with another $500,000 earmarked to upgrade watermains and service to area properties. As for Dunnville, we're investing $1 million that will improve their sanitation system.

In Delhi, we have funded a complete study which is expected within months. In addition, we've also funded $800,000 to drill a new well for that community.

Since we've taken power, all of those water treatment plants are in compliance with all requirements, and there are more improvements on the way. Since 1990, we have done more than previous governments to ensure water quality.

Just to round out my statement, I would ask that the rhetoric be lessened on this issue.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): A proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp for a treatment plant to handle toxic waste in our province was rejected by the Environmental Assessment Board today.

The Ontario Waste Management Corp was created in 1981 to develop, establish and operate an industrial hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility. Today, this proposal for a hazardous waste treatment plant in the township of West Lincoln was rejected. I recognize that there is a right of appeal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to this decision, but there is no question that the issue around the disposal of toxic waste remains, and the question is, how is it to be disposed of?

The Ministry of Environment and Energy, the government of Ontario, has a duty, a responsibility to clearly indicate the direction it is to take. This toxic waste must still be disposed of. Will the government permit existing facilities to enhance their capacity to dispose of this waste? Will the government permit this waste to be exported? Clear questions require clear decisions. Issues of the environment and the safety of the people of this province lie in the balance.

I call upon the Minister of Environment to indicate clearly the course of action he is prepared to take in this matter.

CLOSURE OF PERTH JAIL

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Premier on behalf of every municipality in Lanark county. Our message to the Premier is this: Your government has trumped up the costs of the Perth Jail, downloaded costs to the municipalities and deprived the entire county of an essential service. You have failed to achieve any savings.

When every town in Lanark county came forward to work towards a solution, we faced extreme prejudice against the Perth Jail and a done deal based on grossly exaggerated government accounting figures.

You claim to be reducing staff costs but have shifted these expenses to other facilities. You project a 12% increase in wages over last year, which is impossible under the social contract. Operating expenses which should have been stretched out over five years were crammed into one. Equipment costs were bloated by $38,000 over last year's figures. Per diem rates were blown out of proportion and occupation levels grossly underestimated. All told, the government has overstated the annual costs by $218,000.

Premier, we ask today that you look at the real costs and help us work towards a reasonable solution.

BEYOND WORDS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to tell the members of the Legislature about an organization and a group of individuals who are excited about Jobs Ontario Training. The organization is Beyond Words, and the role they play in the Waterloo region is exactly that -- beyond words -- but I'll try.

Beyond Words has been operating in the region for the past eight years. For the past year, they have been Jobs Ontario trainers and they have quite a success story to tell. They offer five training courses, which include New Directions Work, Office Literate, Preparing the New Manager, Leadership, and the Sole Support Parent Program. These courses offer a variety of training from basic to advanced computer skills, management and office skills, production, marketing, graphic design, database management, presentation skills, communication, interactive and interpersonal skills.

In one year of participation in the Jobs Ontario Training program, Beyond Words will have over 130 graduates from their program. On October 25, I had the pleasure of attending the graduation of the most recent group of graduates from the Preparing the New Manager course. They were George Balan, Sherry Loree, Heni Lloyd, Nidal Jazar, Roberto Duran, Michael Klzakowski, Michael Coward, Crista Wright, Jacqueline Lichty, Wolfe Prince and Margaret Hitchcock. These individuals know that Jobs Ontario Training works.

I would again like to offer my congratulations to the graduates and my thanks to Sharon Mackinnon, general manager of Beyond Words, Joanne Young-Evans, and everyone else at Beyond Words.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): At a time when the number of seniors in Niagara needing the use of senior citizens' homes is increasing significantly, the government of Ontario is warning of funding cuts that could leave the Niagara region with a shortfall of up to $4.2 million.

I have received numerous telephone calls and letters from the families and friends of Alzheimer's patients who are alarmed that the cuts that have already taken place have diminished service to these vulnerable individuals. Further cuts by the provincial government of Bob Rae will mean even less care for patients who require almost 24 hours of observation and assistance.

With a larger-than-average seniors population in the Niagara Peninsula, the impact of provincial budget cuts will be devastating to the people of our part of the province. Major layoffs will result, according to the social services and senior citizens department director, Doug Rapelje, with the most vulnerable in our society being hurt the most.

At a time when the Ontario government has millions of dollars for self-congratulatory advertising and when many in its ranks were such vociferous advocates of those in need before being elected to the Ontario Legislature, it is ironic and unacceptable that the Rae government would contemplate a reduction in financial resources for senior citizens.

I call upon the Minister of Health to end the uncertainty and to restore adequate funding for senior citizens' homes in Niagara.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise to inform the House and members of the public listening today that the Interim Waste Authority has once again flexed its muscles and is trying to prevent the public from being heard during the preliminary hearings for the three mega-dumps being planned by the NDP government for Durham, York and Peel.

The consolidated board will be meeting for the first time in Bolton tomorrow to listen to requests for party status at the environmental assessment hearings. As members of the public will know, party status is basically reserved for groups and organizations with the financial resources to hire a lawyer to fight on their behalf. This entire process has been taken away from the public because the board does not allow for reasonable individual public participation.

I have personally been told that it is unnecessary for me to attend the preliminary hearings tomorrow and Friday because I will not be called upon to say anything as a participant. Many residents, myself included, have neither the time nor the resources to study the thousands of pages of documents being prepared by the IWA to mount a scientific defence.

The IWA has a blank cheque provided to it by this government to hire all the lawyers and consultants that it wants. That cheque is now over $75 million to date, with the cost rising every day. From the standpoint of the average person in York, Durham and Peel, it feels like we are fighting a monster that has unlimited resources. To make matters worse, the IWA is using its own money to fight us with and to prevent the public from speaking.

It is one thing my being told that I can't speak; it is incomprehensible that I have been told, "Don't even bother showing up."

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I would like today to recognize in this Legislature that November is Adoption Awareness Month. The Adoption Council of Ontario, on behalf of one million Ontario citizens who have been touched by adoption, would like to join with them and celebrate the month of November 1994 as Adoption Awareness Month.

By recognizing Adoption Awareness Month, the Adoption Council of Ontario hopes to encourage appropriate celebrations of family-building though adoption, increased public awareness of the plight of children waiting for permanent families and increased public awareness of adoption community issues.

The Adoption Council of Ontario is committed to working as an advocacy group to improve the lives of all parties to adoption. The Adoption Council of Ontario provides support, information and awareness to adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and prospective adoptive parents. The council works with several agencies and professionals to improve the lives of adopted people and their families in our communities.

I hope that the citizens of Ontario will recognize the month of November as Adoption Awareness Month and celebrate and honour its importance.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Later today I will be introducing the Assessment Amendment Act, 1994. This bill will enable the government to put into effect a consensus solution that has been reached to relieve property tax burdens on smaller retail stores in Metropolitan Toronto shopping malls. To protect smaller retailers, the agreement will shift approximately $8 million in property taxes to the large anchor stores.

The government worked to bring together representatives of the smaller retailers and the anchor tenants, nine months of hard work building bridges between people in order to save jobs, retail jobs that Metro needs. With all sides committed to solving this problem, the government was able to broker what I believe is a fair deal.

As a result of recent rulings by the Assessment Review Board, a store's share of the mall's property taxes has been based on the tenant's portion of the total rent paid by all the mall's tenants, in accordance with the Assessment Act. Previously, stores were assessed according to their share of the mall's total area. Since smaller stores generally pay a higher per-square-foot rate than the larger stores, the Assessment Review Board ruling shifted a large tax burden from the anchors to the smaller retailers. Property tax increases for smaller tenants ranged from 18% to more than 800%. It threatened the survival of the smaller retailers and the thousands of jobs that they provide.

This bill will amend the Assessment Act to allow the Minister of Finance to set a regulation to apportion shopping mall assessments in Metropolitan Toronto. It will increase taxes for anchor stores by $8 million and reduce taxes for the smaller stores by the same amount.

I hope opposition members will cooperate in this effort to produce a speedy solution for smaller retailers in Metro Toronto malls.

In closing, I want to thank the representatives of the anchor stores, who've been very helpful, as well as the Fair Assessment Coalition Toronto, affectionately known as FACT, which represents the smaller retailers, for their work in developing this compromise to provide stability for this vital part of Ontario's economy. Both sides worked extremely hard to fashion this compromise.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I was concerned that this legislation was not going to be tabled before the House adjourned, and in fact there are just two days left in which to table new legislation.

I want to say to the minister that I congratulate the Fair Assessment Coalition, the representatives of the anchor stores and those who worked out this consensus solution. The reason for my concern was that the solution that has been found, while it is a consensus, is not unanimous and I was worried that the government would get cold feet about introducing it, because the truth is, not everyone agrees.

In fact -- and this is fact -- many small businesses will still be paying more, significantly more, than what they can afford. They are struggling to hang on to their businesses. We know from StatsCan that it is in the small business sector where we are seeing jobs created, and this sector, particularly those in malls that are suffering from this reapportionment, will see jobs lost, notwithstanding this legislation, because of the reapportionment decision.

Those store owners, like many across the province, are feeling the burden of NDP tax increases during their mandate.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Tell your pals in Ottawa to stabilize the interest rates.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Caplan: People are worried that their businesses will go bankrupt and that their jobs will disappear.

Mr Wiseman: We took away the commercial concentration tax and the tire tax.

The Speaker: The member for Durham West is out of order.

Mrs Caplan: Mall apportionment and reapportionment are all about taxes, and I can say to you that we will cooperate in all ways possible to see that this legislation is passed through this House before the end of the session. But I want to point out to the government House leader that we would expect that this would stand alone and that you would not use this as a bargaining chip in other discussions with the opposition.

I said to the members of the Fair Assessment Coalition that I would withdraw the legislation that I tabled and would expedite this if the Finance minister tabled his before the end of the session. That has been done and I will be withdrawing my bill as a result.

The Treasurer says this is a fair deal, and I want to say that most of those who support the deal feel that it is better than the alternative. Many of them feel that while everyone gave a little bit on this, the real issue -- the problem of high taxes, the problem of high business tax and commercial assessment issues -- has not been resolved, and it's my view that a first priority must be commercial property tax relief.

We know that those retailers in Fairview Mall who are in Oriole riding are supportive of this. The Fair Assessment Coalition had a meeting last week that I attended and they were assured that if the government came forward with its legislation, we would hope to see that passed before the end of the session.

I would repeat that the real issue of high property tax levels has not been addressed, and if we're going to see revitalization, particularly in the small business sector --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Who raised those?

Mrs Caplan: The minister says, "Who raised them?" The NDP tax increases over the last four years have killed small businesses, and I would say to him it's no laughing matter. On behalf of the small businesses which will receive some relief as a result of this, I say to the government that this legislation is worth supporting but it does not solve the entire problem.

Hon Mr Wildman: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma, please come to order.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I just want to add my thoughts. I think this particular problem is symptomatic of a whole series of tax issues going on across Ontario, particularly in Metro Toronto. If one reads the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto's submission, it will point out that Metro Toronto has lost 200,000 jobs since 1989, roughly 15% of the jobs in Metropolitan Toronto. As a matter of fact, even here in 1994, where the rest of Ontario is seeing good job growth, Metro Toronto actually continues to lose jobs -- 200,000 fewer jobs.

The board of trade would say to us and others that there is a major problem with taxation on businesses in Metro Toronto. I think many assumed the Fair Tax Commission, with I guess a budget of roughly $7 million, was going to find a solution. It now appears that's not the case. I would just say that businesses in Metro Toronto are looking to this government to find some solutions to the job-killing situation they find themselves in right now.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The government members are having fun with the Liberals because it was the Liberal Party that introduced the commercial concentration tax. I have to concur with the government in that respect. That was the most burdensome tax on business in the Metropolitan Toronto region. But before, I must say, they pat themselves on the back too much, the facts of this particular situation indicate that this problem arose a year ago. I don't know what the definition of the word "broker" is.

The government's patting itself for being a broker, but essentially the government has sat on the sidelines, thrown the problem to the retailers, thrown the problem to the anchors and said: "That's your problem. You solve it."

To the credit of the small retailers and to the credit of the anchors, they have come up with not one but two solutions: one for 1994, which has already been implemented, and one that we'll see in this particular bill for the years ahead. But the credit there is due to FACT, which represents the small retailers, and to the anchors, led primarily by Hudson's Bay.

That's where the initiative has come from. The initiative has not come from this government, nor has the initiative come from this government in terms of the broader issue of taxation, of assessment within Metropolitan Toronto. And you know something? Both parties are right. The anchors are right; the retailers are right: They both pay too much in taxes.

The Metropolitan Toronto board of trade has issued a booklet that's entitled Killing the Golden Goose, and the subtitle is How High Business Property Taxes Are Suppressing Metropolitan Toronto's Economic Recovery. That's what's happening: over 200,000 fewer jobs today than five years ago in Metropolitan Toronto; vacant industrial buildings, vacant commercial buildings.

Why? The Metropolitan Toronto board of trade says it's high property taxes because of the antiquated assessment system that this government refuses to address; high taxes because of school taxes; high taxes because of the welfare burden on the property tax. Those are the conclusions of the Metropolitan Toronto board of trade. That's what's killing jobs in Metropolitan Toronto.

Does the board of trade talk about Jobs Ontario? Do they anywhere in this booklet mention Jobs Ontario? No. They know what the real problems are in Metropolitan Toronto: the assessment system, the high taxes. Last year, in Scarborough there were 42,000 property appeals; 24,000 appeals in North York; 11,000 property assessment appeals in the city of Etobicoke. In the city of Toronto there are hundreds of millions of dollars of business assessment under appeal as we sit here. Is the government addressing these problems? No. Sweep it under the carpet. Let time go by. Ignore the problems.

The city of Scarborough has hired an individual to appeal property taxes in the hope that with lower taxes businesses will stay in Scarborough. I have a letter from the mayor of Scarborough. She is raising an issue with regard to a large printing company in Scarborough. This printing company has hired a consultant to find a location outside of Metropolitan Toronto. Some 200 jobs, $353,000 in tax revenue and 160,000 square feet of vacant industrial space, and the minister will not even meet with the mayor of Scarborough to discuss this most pressing issue.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a more personal note, I would like to thank the Treasurer for keeping us abreast at least of the negotiations and the ongoing letter writing that is taking place. I will note the Treasurer offered us this information a couple of weeks ago that a deal was taking place and in fact a deal had been struck. I'd like to thank the Treasurer for doing that. We in this party appreciate being kept abreast.

We will promise that we will not, as the member for Oriole did, simply lift your piece of legislation, put their name on it and submit it as their solution to a problem that she had nothing to do with in arriving at. That, my friends, is not the way politics is played, in my opinion. It is a partisan approach that is used by the member for Oriole to score points on her behalf that I find repugnant.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question was going to be to the Premier, but in his absence it will be to the Minister of Transportation and has to do with Highway 407, which is, as I think most people in the province know, the largest contract ever awarded in the province. At the time the negotiations were going on, the minister will remember that the government committed that it would release the details of that agreement. We have yet to see the details of that agreement. The question to the minister today is: Will you undertake, forthwith, to release the promised details of the Highway 407 contract?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): When we were planning to deliver Highway 407 in an innovative and creative way, the private sector firms demanded that we keep any bids received confidential. In response to this demand, the request for proposals we released clearly stipulated that bids would remain in fact confidential. I would explain to the member that confidential means that you do not disclose it.

The bids we received contain substantial commercial information about the consortia involved. Therefore, to release the bids would offend the province's freedom of information and privacy legislation. Releasing the bids would also be in violation of good contract management and the RFP practices. I think that very clearly speaks for itself.

Mr Phillips: I can almost guarantee you that you will not be able to stand on that position. The people of Ontario are going to demand to know the details of this contract. I will go further and say that the previous minister, in the House, in answers to questions in the House, guaranteed that we would get this information. Among other things, he said: "Within a matter of three or four weeks we are hopeful that all the details will be released. We will release all that is known and said."

What we've got here is an attempt to hide from the people of Ontario the important parts of the largest single contract ever awarded in the province. This is ridiculous. The people of Ontario deserve to know the details of that contract. You're spending $1 billion of their money, and it is quite permissible to release that information. You have an opportunity to release that information.

I will say again to the minister: Will you undertake to fulfil the specific commitment made by the previous Minister of Transportation to let the people of Ontario know all of the details of this massive contract?

Hon Mr Farnan: Contracts, as I explained, in this particular project contain proprietary information, information that is of significant commercial value to the consortia involved. If indeed the private companies, the private corporations, were prepared to release the information, to break the confidentiality of the agreement, that would be their business and their right, but we have a process in which confidentiality was a significant component of that process. When you enter into a process, you enter into it with integrity and the reality that you will follow through on the commitments that you make. We would be breaking commitments if indeed we broke the confidentiality component.

Mr Phillips: It is absolutely unacceptable that you entered into an agreement where you're not prepared to disclose things that are absolutely fundamental to the people of Ontario to know. Why you would ever, ever have agreed to that, I don't know. Why you structured the proposal that way, I don't know. It is crazy that we spend $1 billion worth of taxpayers' money and you're unwilling to disclose the details of it.

We're told there are escalator clauses in that contract that are important for the people of Ontario to know about. You've said this was going to be a model that we can use around the rest of the world. The world is going to be laughing at you when you're unprepared to tell the people who are paying for this the details of it.

I repeat to the minister, it is clear that you can release data under this agreement. Will you today commit to tell the people of Ontario the important details of this huge contract and stop, if I may say, stonewalling the important public business of this province?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me suggest to this member the process that was followed: a team of deputy ministers to select the winning process; a committee that was supported by an interministerial advisory committee of senior managers, which in turn was supported by six evaluation teams which were assisted by external engineering, financial and legal advisers. Both proponents were given the opportunity to present their proposals to the evaluation teams and the selection committees. Price Waterhouse was retained as a process consultant. They subsequently certified their complete and unequivocal satisfaction with the adherence to the evaluation methodology and the process.

This is a process that was very, very carefully designed for fairness and objectivity, and it is underlined by the endorsement of Price Waterhouse, a firm of irrefutable excellence. For the member to be questioning such a process and such an endorsement simply doesn't hold water.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Deputy Premier. It's a question, I think, that goes right to the integrity indeed of your government.

Mr Deputy Premier, I'm sure you're aware of the very serious allegations which were contained in the Toronto newspapers this morning regarding the fund-raising activities of the New Democratic Party. Your Premier will remember, and you will remember, that there was a fund-raising dinner which was held in the Premier's honour last January 20, and this fund-raiser was organized by Local 183.

According to newspaper reports, the head of an Ontario construction company says he was approached by a senior union official. That official told him, "You are a big company and you should buy a table for the Bob Rae dinner. Make sure you buy some tickets or we will make lots of trouble for you," the whole time waving his fist at this individual. This is a very serious allegation. Threats of violence and intimidation have been alleged.

To the minister, are you aware if the Premier has obtained a copy of this letter, and if so, has he undertaken an investigation into this matter?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): First of all, I don't know if the Premier has received a copy of that letter, but I appreciate the fact that the member from Mississauga West quite accurately uses the words "alleged," "allegations." I think that's the way questions such as this should be put in this assembly, and I would simply reinforce that aspect of the issue, that certain allegations have been made. I don't know whether those allegations are correct or not, and I suspect that the member opposite doesn't either.

Mr Mahoney: It appears that we all know that the Premier indeed attended the fund-raiser. The money was in fact raised in his name. Allegedly an individual was threatened and intimidated in the Premier's name, and I think the Premier frankly has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this. People went out and threatened at least one company, in the allegations that are made in this letter, telling them to buy tickets or else.

The question is, do you know, sir, what steps have been taken to look into this situation, and can you tell us what the Premier has done to see whether or not these techniques were in fact used to raise funds for a dinner on his behalf?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I do not, but I can assure the member that I will have a conversation with the Premier to determine just what actions have been taken.

Mr Mahoney: Can we ask for a clear undertaking from the Deputy Premier that he will meet with the Premier on this matter forthwith, that he will look into these very serious allegations?

There is a president of a large Ontario construction company who feels he has been intimidated in the name of the Premier of this province, who feels that he has been treated very roughly and very unfairly, and we want an absolute, clear-cut assurance, sir, that you and your boss, the Premier, will investigate this matter, will get to the bottom of it and will bring a full report back to this House, and indeed if the allegations turn out to be true, that you will ensure that this type of activity is not carried out in the name of the Premier under any circumstances whatsoever. Will you give us those assurances?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't think the member said anything with which I would disagree, and I just want to reassure him that the kind of behaviour that is alleged, if that's true, is not the kind of behaviour the New Democratic Party or the government, the Premier or I, certainly, or any other members of our government would ever condone. I would suggest, even further than that, that if at the end of the day such allegations were proved to be true -- and I hasten to add, I have no idea. People can make allegations on any matter, as the member knows.

Mr Mahoney: I sure do.

Hon Mr Laughren: As a matter of fact, I know he knows that. But if such allegations were ever proven to be true, then I would endorse what the member is suggesting, that something really should be done about it.

The Speaker: New question, the third party.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The minister will well know that I have been questioning the Highway 407 deal for many months to the total dissatisfaction of myself and my party. Today's press contains very serious allegations of intimidation tactics --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: It's very sad that the government is making light of the fact that serious allegations of intimidation tactics have been made today on the part of the Labourers' International Union, Local 183, with regard to a fund-raising dinner, as has already been mentioned, which apparently raised the largest amount of money in history for your party, sir.

The union is also under police investigation for allegedly using Jobs Ontario money to renovate the home of a federal bureaucrat who approved a $1.6-million grant to the union.

Your ministry has given two significant roadbuilding contracts, for almost $1 billion, in the case of the first contract, and then $60 million, to the consortium that signed a very lucrative deal with Local 183.

The bottom line, Minister, is that multimillion-dollar contracts have been awarded without proper public scrutiny. They have been awarded, without any allowance for the public to understand through the public process what is going on, to a consortium which uses a union accused of strong-arm tactics during fund-raising for you. Will you turn this matter over to a legislative committee for investigation?

Hon Mr Farnan: Mr Speaker, I know how awkward it is when you're a member of the third party and a question has been asked by the member immediately before you. You have to rejig your notes and have to work around the issue and somehow get a question in. I congratulate the member for managing in a roundabout way to get back to the 407.

How many times must we repeat the absolutely extraordinary process that we went through? I don't think there has ever been a process that has been so detailed, so significant in pushing for fairness and objectivity. I could recount again that process, but clearly I'm not going to do that, because it's been written into the record several times now.

But I do want to emphasize that Price Waterhouse was retained as a process consultant, an independent objective body looking at the way this was handled. Their result, after a detailed examination, is that they certified complete and unequivocal satisfaction with the adherence to the evaluation methodology and process. They gave it a complete bill of health.

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

Hon Mr Farnan: What more can we ask for?

Mr Turnbull: Well, Minister, let me first start out by saying that you, sir, and your government have absolutely no right to give contracts in secret without the public having any scrutiny of it. You have no right whatsoever.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You guys wrote the book on that. You wrote the book.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, come to order.

Mr Turnbull: The process that was put in place in 1952 was to ensure that contracts were open and aboveboard and that people understood it. You have subverted this process.

You refer to Price Waterhouse. Let me point out the fact that Price Waterhouse reported on a very narrow basis as to the fact that the process you had set up had been complied with. That is all they certified. The fact is that the government has never released any details of how this contract was arrived at. You gave a contract which I have continually asked in this House and in estimates as to whether the lowest bidder got the deal and we have never had a straight answer to that. They are building six lanes of concrete, instead of four lanes of asphalt for the losing consortium. We have never seen any details as to how you compared that.

My question to you is, how can the government treat the workers for this consortium differently and award a contract with this highly lucrative contract which is going to give up to 23% wage increases over five years when you treat the public service with wage rollbacks?

Hon Mr Farnan: It's an extraordinary convolution of issues, but let me turn to one point. He goes back to the old way of doing business, and certainly the way of doing business has changed in this province. You know, there was a time when you contracted out. The Ministry of Transportation engineered an area of road. It was contracted out. You were comparing apples to apples. That was the old days.

We were looking at a major project, a project that the Liberals were going to take 20 years to build, and we went out and we developed, with consortia, a possibility of building the 407, not in 20 years but in four years, then working with the consortia. Remember, it was the private sector firms that demanded that any bids that were received must remain confidential because there was proprietary information. The member understands what that is. He can talk to the business leaders. They will tell you, "Why are you not releasing the information?" It's because it is of significant importance to us. If we're going to go after contracts abroad, that information is significant to us.

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

Hon Mr Farnan: They don't want to release it. All the government is doing is respecting the confidentiality demanded by these companies.

Mr Turnbull: It's quite clear that the public has a right to know about the awarding of a contract of $1 billion. I really have to emphasize that you, Minister -- not you, but the minister before you put in place a process where the ministry insisted on the confidentiality clauses.

The reason that was given at the time was to protect the proprietary aspects of the financing agreement, which at the last moment you took out of the deal. I don't doubt that there may be some aspects that might be proprietary, but in a general sense this can be released. The ministry is using this to hide behind the process you put in place. It wasn't the contractors who bid on it. Let's get that quite straight. I was around at the time; you weren't, Minister.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr Turnbull: "Accountability" is the key word and taxpayers have a right to understand how public money is being spent on this highly controversial secret contract that is being handed out to somebody, and we don't know how you're spending our money. Questions of propriety have been raised about the relationship between --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Turnbull: -- your government and the Premier and this union. Will you not agree to a public legislative process which will examine the circumstances around the contact between you and this union and indeed the awarding of this contract?

The Speaker: The question has been placed.

Hon Mr Farnan: This member needs an entire question period all for himself. I couldn't possibly begin to answer the five or six questions contained in the one

preamble, but let's go back to a couple of points.

The first point is that the confidentiality was demanded by the private sector firms involved. That's the first point.

The second point is that I'm delighted that in the member's question you have at last recognized that there is proprietary information, that this information is significant to those companies, that this information must remain confidential.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member for York Mills come to order.

Hon Mr Farnan: Because that information is proprietary, we're talking about two different kinds of contracts, we're talking about apples and oranges, and you should realize that, seeing you've been around the issue long enough. If there is any information that I can release that doesn't break the agreements that have been made with those companies, everybody in this House knows I will release it, but I will not break a contract of confidentiality.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, as you know, the consolidated board this morning brought down its ruling on the Ontario Waste Management Corp's proposed hazardous waste facility in West Lincoln. As you know, the ruling rejected the proposed facility.

My question to you is, what are the government's contingency plans? Now that this alternative is gone, would you tell us what the government's contingency plans are for dealing with hazardous waste in the province of Ontario?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Indeed, the joint board has rendered its ruling. It's quite voluminous, as you can see, and it's dealing with a very complex and important issue. The integrity of the environmental assessment process, of course, required that as we move forward with dealing with the reduction of hazardous waste in the province and the development of new technologies and new approaches, we await the final decision of the board before we make a final announcement of a comprehensive strategy.

The member knows very well that there is now a 28-day appeal required by the process, and we will await the expiry of the 28 days in order to determine whether or not the decision is final. We will be making announcements early in the new year.

Mr Tilson: I understand. I expected your answer was going to be that it was going to take you 28 days to read that thing, and I understand that. I guess my question really was that you must have contingency plans if this fails. Hazardous waste is really a serious problem in this province and I think we're all interested in knowing what you're going to do if this fails.

As you know, $140 million has been spent on this process in the last 14 years. It has been a long process. Are you telling the people of Ontario, with the answer that you've just given, that there are no contingency plans in the province of Ontario in the event that this facility will ultimately be rejected, as it was this morning? Is that what you're telling us? Are we back to square one after $140 million has been spent, and you still don't have any alternatives for disposing of hazardous waste in Ontario?

Hon Mr Wildman: The short answer is no, that's not what we're telling you. The member is quite correct in saying there has been a great deal of money spent. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives proceeded with this proposal without an environmental assessment. I can't believe that they would propose that we should proceed with such an important facility that might have ramifications for the environment without an environmental assessment.

The Conservatives indeed spent $43 million on this proposal and were prepared to proceed without proper environmental concerns being dealt with. The Liberals spent $70 million on this process. Our government has spent approximately $26 million. We slashed the annual budget last year from what it had been, around $15 million a year, to $2.1 million.

The member wants to know what our strategy is. I would point out that while we awaited the final decision, we have developed a number of projects. Some 165 municipalities have received grants through our household hazardous waste collection program. The industrial waste diversion program has distributed grants of $4 million, which have resulted in 100,000 tonnes of waste being diverted from landfill and incineration. Since 1990, almost $5 million has been contributed by this ministry through the environmental technology program to develop private enterprises for the development and commercialization of new technologies for the treatment of hazardous waste, such as Eco Logic.

We've been involved, we're developing it and we will make a final decision that will take into account all of the work we've done so far, the decision rendered by the board and any appeals that might be brought forward in the 28-day period.

Mr Tilson: Minister, I didn't stand up in this place to have a debate as to who's spent the most money on this project. I'm simply --

Hon Mr Wildman: I bet you didn't.

Mr Tilson: I can tell you, we all know who's spending the most on these types of projects. All you've got to start to do is to get into the Interim Waste Authority, where it's $75 million, and look where you are. So don't start lecturing us as to who is spending more money.

I'm simply saying that as to the ruling this morning, I haven't read the thick pages well but I have read a

summary of it. It appears that much of the ruling this morning was based on the fact that the Ontario Waste Management Corp has not thoroughly looked at the alternatives that are available to dealing with hazardous wastes. That was in the second paragraph of the

summary, which I'm certain you have before you.

Minister, this ruling by the consolidated board tells us that the three proposed dump sites of York, Durham and Peel will also be turned down -- at least it would seem to me the board is bound by its decision it has now made today -- because the Interim Waste Authority under your direction has not looked at alternatives.

My question, Minister: Are you prepared, as the sole shareholder of the Interim Waste Authority, to direct the Interim Waste Authority to consider all alternatives, whether they be energy from waste, long rail-haul to willing host communities and all the many other alternatives, knowing today, as a result of this decision, that the three sites will be turned down by the consolidated board if you don't make these changes? You're going to avoid the taxpayers spending zillions more dollars on three sites that aren't wanted. If you won't do that, are you prepared to stop the process until this matter can be resolved?

Hon Mr Wildman: In that question, which I guess is supplementary, there were a number of statements made that I think I should respond to. The member says that we shouldn't be talking about how much money was spent on the OWMC proposal. I think that in this House we've all been hearing today arguments that we should indeed be talking about how much money is spent of the public purse.

The ministry of course is working very hard to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced. We have agreements with many companies which --

Mr Tilson: You're storing the stuff, that's all you're doing, you're storing it.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member says we're just storing it. Just to clarify that, in just one sector, the auto sector, Ford, GM and Chrysler, we have 15 pollution prevention projects which we've entered into. In this sector alone, chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents have been reduced by 151,000 kilograms, toxic metals by 7,300 kilograms, paint sludge by 227,000 kilograms and liquid industrial waste by 228,000 litres, and the member says we've just been storing.

Specifically with regard to the IWA, the member knows full well that the Interim Waste Authority process has looked at many, many alternatives to the three sites that are now going before the full environmental assessment. He also knows that is a scope process and that there is no indication whatever --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Wildman: -- in this decision that it hinges upon the Environmental Assessment Board's decisions. The member also knows, as I've said many times, that if anyone wants to develop a proposal for moving waste into Kirkland Lake, they're welcome to go through the environmental assessment process.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Attorney General. In view of the decision of Judge Patrick Lesage agreeing to the request of the lawyer for Paul Bernardo to move the site of the trial on charges of the murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy from St Catharines to another location, I asked the Deputy Premier last week if the provincial government would agree to compensate the parents of these victims for the costs they would incur as a result of this judicial decision.

The Deputy Premier agreed to discuss my request with you and certainly did not rule out this possibility. Would the Attorney General inform the House of the result of this consultation with the Deputy Premier? Would you inform us if you are able to reply positively to my request on behalf of my constituents the Frenches and on behalf of the Mahaffys?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I did have an opportunity to speak with the Treasurer about the issues that the member had raised.

The member may be aware that there is no precedent in Ontario for such compensation, even though we've had many tragic cases where the families of victims have certainly been inconvenienced by the changing of the venue. I think of families like the Jessop family and the Buxbaum family and so on, and there has not been in the past a program set up to do that.

It is a bit premature, until the honourable justice rules on what the venue will be, for us to have any notion of what the families' needs and wants might be in this respect, but we are working very closely with them. Both the police and the prosecutors have maintained close contact with both families, offering them what support we can and information as time goes along.

We regard them as we do other victims of crime. I think most people in this place would recognize that in these tragic circumstances, the families of the victims are indeed victims themselves. We have committed ourselves to doing everything within our power to assist them once we know what the venue is and what their needs and wants would be in that respect.

Mr Bradley: I am encouraged by the answer of both the Deputy Premier and the Attorney General that there are those discussions going on that would look at least to the possibility of covering some of those costs.

If I may be just a bit more specific, and I understand why the minister cannot at this time be as specific as she would like, would the minister when considering those costs take into account the cost of accommodation, the cost of transportation, the cost of meals, and a fourth one, which is the loss of wages for these people?

I know in at least the Frenches' case, both are working at this time. You would understand they've incurred a lot of costs that don't show up necessarily on the public ledger. As to the Mahaffys, I'm not certain of their employment situation. Would she consider the four things that I have mentioned as potential for some assistance from the government?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I don't think there's any doubt that compensation for lost wages is a much more difficult issue than out-of-pocket expenses. I think we all recognize that and I can't make a commitment on that at this point in time. I understand that my colleague had wondered aloud as to whether the criminal injuries compensation fund had any provision for that, and it does not.

So at this point in time I could not commit myself to that, except to say to the member that we certainly are aware of how the tragedy multiplies for families like this when costs and the cost of participating in this kind of trial continue to mount. We will certainly do what we can in conjunction with them to meet the needs and wants they identify, but I cannot commit to that at this particular point in time.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Attorney General. Yesterday, I raised with the Premier a court decision that will mean an individual charged with rape will never come to trial and justice will not be served because there was not a courtroom available. Attorney General, can you tell us today exactly how many cases currently in the system in fact could be thrown out due to delays on the same basis as the judgement that was used in this trial?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The member should realize that there is an appeal process in these cases and should not make a statement quite as blunt as he did, that there is no hope this charge will come forward. The crown attorney for downtown Toronto has recommended that an appeal be launched by us. My expectation is that may happen, and if it does, it would be inappropriate for us to talk about that particular case.

I can give the member some information about the current backlogs and the kind of situation there is, and say to him initially that it is a very, very serious issue. As the member knows, when the Askov decision came down at the very beginning of our term, the backlogs that had grown up over many, many years in our courts were such that over 50,000 cases were lost as a result of that decision. The last four years have seen a really remarkable change in terms of how we are dealing with some of these issues.

The first thing the member needs to know is that we have fully implemented in the Toronto region, and are gradually implementing in the rest of the province, what we call an investment strategy, which focuses on the early screening, the disclosure and the resolution of cases. It's designed to reduce the delay and many of the costs that are related to the prosecution of criminal offenses. The delay in the provincial division right now is under six months. That's well within the Askov rule. The early resolution rate in Toronto has increased from 46% to 65% in the one year since this has been in place, and so there is no backlog at the provincial level.

At the General Division, though -- and Mr Speaker, this will take some time. The member asked for information that relies on --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I appreciate that the minister has a great deal of detailed information. She should know that she also has an opportunity to table information if it is detailed and can't be contained in a concise reply to a member's question. I would ask her to try and conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, I will. I will give the brief information, though, because tabled information does not go to the public, and I think the member is concerned that the public get some of this information.

Seventy-five per cent of the General Division cases are less than a year old, again within the Askov rule. Another 25% are above, but in many cases there are relevant reasons why they are: the unavailability of counsel, a change in counsel, the unavailability of the witnesses. So we know that we are in a situation --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- where very few of these cases are in fact in danger, and where they are, we will do everything we can to expedite them.

Mr Harris: There are ministerial statements or tabling information to be public. The fact of the matter is that we are interested in the information. Today, though, I was asking the question how many, and clearly you either don't know or won't tell us.

By way of supplementary, Attorney General, I want to tell you that I assume you're giving us the information laying out the seriousness of the situation and I sympathize with the mess you inherited from the Liberals. I understand that.

Hon Mrs Boyd: And you.

Mr Harris: But it has been four years -- 10 years since my party was in government -- since the Askov decision warned you that unacceptable delays would result in cases being thrown out of court. It has been over a year since the Martin report told you how to fix the system.

Attorney General, why have you not implemented the Martin report recommendations that would have fixed the problem? Clearly, those within the system and working within the system tell us that if they had been implemented, you would not have had this problem yesterday. You don't know how many other cases there are or you won't tell us, which was my first question, so an indeterminate number of cases. You've been sitting on that now for 15 months. That's when the report came out, August 1993. Why have you not implemented those recommendations of the Martin report that would have prevented this from happening and when are you going to get on with doing it?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is clearly mistaken. We have implemented the Martin commission. That's what the investment strategy is. We have increased the early resolution rate from 46% to 65% in Toronto since the introduction of the Martin commission recommendations. It is working.

Mr Harris: It didn't work yesterday and it's not working now. The other cases, that's what I'm asking about.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Indeed, there has been a 20% reduction in new indictments in the General Division. There are 4,455 criminal cases currently before the General Division and 89.4% of those are less than a year old.

Mr Harris: The Blue Jays aren't playing baseball. It has nothing to do with my question. None of your studies have anything to do with my question. Answer the question.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Boyd: That is a remarkable record. We are working very hard with all parts of the judicial system and with the bench to ensure that we continue to improve. We are succeeding. We have implemented Martin and it is working.

Mr Harris: Why are you covering up the information?

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party please come to order.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. For months, the Liberal Party has criticized this government for closing its international offices. I was interested to read recently in a Toronto Star

article by Thomas Walkom that the Liberal leader was equivocating on whether in fact a Liberal government would reopen the offices. I guess that means they're finally agreeing with our course of action.

On this subject, I read a press release from your ministry on a further development in this area. Could you elaborate on how that announcement ties in with the closing of the international offices? I'm sure my colleagues across the floor would be interested.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I am assuming the member is referring to the press release last week that referred to the memorandum of understanding signed between the federal and provincial governments with respect to an era of much more cooperation between the two governments on our international trade strategy.

When we decided to close the international offices, I said at the time that we would be embarking on a new strategy and that it would involve working with people in a different way. You will know that we've brought about the private-public sector joint venture in the Ontario Investment Service; we have the Ontario International Trade Corp headed by former Premier Bill Davis -- the work it will be doing will be important -- and the special envoy program which we'll be rolling out later this month.

We talked about working with all sorts of organizations, whether they be the chambers of commerce, like the Japan-Canada Chamber of Commerce etc, to use those networks more effectively. We also talked about improving the way in which we work with the federal government.

This memorandum of understanding -- it might seem odd to the public that we would have to actually negotiate a memorandum between levels of government -- moves us to a point where we're coordinating our timing of planning strategy, our trade missions. We are coordinating that we do more export readiness and they do more of the foreign posts. I think it's actually a remarkable step for governments to reach this level of cooperation and I'm very pleased to have been part of that.

Mr Malkowski: Back to the international offices themselves and the ever-changing Liberal position, I read now that Lyn McLeod is not so sure she would reopen the offices, but rather she would consult with business to see what she should do. Minister, did you consult with business before embarking on this new trade and investment strategy?

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes. With respect to the whole strategy, we did. I want to say, specifically on the issue of the closure of the international trade offices, that we had extensive support in writing and verbally on the record from the Ontario chambers of commerce, the exporters' association, the manufacturers' association. They all supported that move and said this made sense, that we shouldn't have that kind of bricks-and-mortar representation, that there are better, more cost-effective ways of doing it.

I want to point out that we saved $17 million from our budget as a result of that move. That may be why the Liberal leader has changed her position. As I read in another article, while she's been slamming us around the province for months on this and saying that they would open it immediately, she's now saying that she actually wouldn't commit to it because it may not be "financially realistic." I thought that was kind of interesting.

I want to say that I appreciate the work I was able to do with Minister MacLaren and Minister Manley. Minister MacLaren has made comments that have been quoted in press releases about this kind of cooperation and building the Team Canada approach, his appreciation of it, and that he intends to work with other provincial governments to achieve similar arrangements. So I'm very pleased.

I'm not quite sure that I can explain to the member why the Liberal leader is changing her position on this or with respect to her target for unemployment or her target for deficit reduction. It really isn't something within my ability, to explain why the leader can change her position --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- on this, or on any other issue for that matter, which seems to be the regular course of matters for the Liberal leader these days.

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, last month, I believe at the end of October, you were quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying: "I've come to the conclusion that we need school boards. The province is just too big to move every school to school-based management. Even so...there are too many school boards in the province, and that includes Metro Toronto."

Minister, since you made that statement we've learned from numerous people around the province in the education community that in fact you are working on a plan towards the amalgamation of school boards. What we would like to know is, is it your intention to introduce legislation regarding the amalgamation of school boards before the Christmas recess or are you intending to wait for the report of the Royal Commission on Learning? Could you share with us today what your plans are with respect to the amalgamation of school boards?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I believe tomorrow's the deadline for legislation and I guess we'll just have to wait, but it's highly unlikely that we'll be introducing legislation before the royal commission reports. Perhaps in your final question you could indicate what your position is. I know what the position of the Conservatives is. If we do bring in legislation, will we pass it very quickly in a reduction of the number of school boards? We could have all-party support.

Mr Beer: Interesting. One has to always remind the Minister of Education that he is now the government and supposedly we're going to learn from them what things they're going to do.

One of the problems, Minister, with this is that we now learn that the royal commission report won't be released until mid-January or late January. Perhaps when you get up to answer the supplementary you might confirm what the date is when that report will be released. Yet the minister knows there are many serious problems that are facing school boards, in particular the whole question of the reform of educational funding.

I understand that circulating within your ministry right now is a paper entitled Building on Progress, and in that document, which is supposed to be going to cabinet, if indeed it hasn't already been, you talk about appointing a task force to develop educational funding reforms for October 1, 1995.

Minister, we have been in this House for four years and more days, waiting for proposals on educational funding reform. At different times you've talked about perhaps draft legislation, at other times about white papers. Minister, what we need to know in this House is what you are planning to do specifically with respect to educational funding reform. Will you be making a statement on this issue before we rise at the Christmas recess?

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, I wasn't really asking for the position of the Liberal caucus on the number of school boards for the purposes of deciding government policy. It just would be nice to know, at least in one area, what the Liberal position is. When we bring in legislation, we will want to know what your position is. If you want to do all-party support, we could move very --

Mr Beer: Present the legislation and we'll tell you.

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, that's the other point with ed finance reform. We are working on some proposals, but it would be interesting to know where you stand, because when we've made changes at this point, changes to the grant ceilings or changes to the sharing of commercial-industrial assessment on one hand, you one day get up in the House and you encourage us to move forward with education finance reform. Then, when we make steps forward on it, you automatically raise all of the concerns of the boards that are losing some revenues in order to adequately share it.

You're constantly and always trying to have it both ways. That's the position of the Liberal party, always has been and does not contribute to fairness or progress in education at all.

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister, what he just stated, that is not correct. I have supported him on a series of issues that --

Hon Mr Cooke: Look in Hansard.

Mr Beer: Mr Speaker, the minister is wrong. Those remarks which are misleading --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No. The honourable member for York-MacKenzie will know he does not have a point of order. There's obviously a difference of opinion.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question's for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. It concerns a report from the public institutions inspections panel of the county of Simcoe, which said it was "extremely pleased in general and pleasantly surprised that the provincial government has a productive self-sufficient institution incorporating the inmates as a workforce. We strongly feel that this facility be a model for other minimum institutions due to its cost-effectiveness, self-sufficiency, assistance to outside charitable organizations and the community at large and other government-run agencies."

Minister, why did you close down Camp Hillsdale?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I didn't hear the first part, but I think I have the gist of the question. If I've missed a piece of it, please reiterate in the supplementary. The question, as I understand it, is why did that particular facility close.

The honourable member will know that in the auditor's report of last year, which we took very seriously, as we did the auditor's report this year and are attempting very much to respond to the recommendations there, one of the things that needed to change in our correctional prison system is to be far more efficient, not just in terms of the individual facility but also in terms of the overall system that we have and to emphasize in the areas where we need to provide better service and more service and recognize that in other parts of the system we have room already in terms of capacity.

This is an absolute minimum security facility, or was. There were no fences, there was nothing there at all. Quite frankly, we had spaces in other parts of the system that would allow us to accommodate those individuals and we were able to save a fair amount of money in the system that the auditor has said needs to be run more efficiently and as efficiently as possible.

Mr McLean: It's unfortunate that you didn't read any reports because there's a report on institutional services from the standing committee on public accounts which shows Ontario had the highest staff-to-inmate ratio of all provinces studied. However, of the 51 Ontario institutions surveyed, Camp Hillsdale had the lowest staff ratio.

Surely the Minister of Correctional Services is aware of the Attorney General's recent comments about finding alternatives to imprisonment of non-violent offenders. The Attorney General said that, despite the 30% expansion since the mid-1980s, the Ontario prison system remained overcrowded because more than 75,000 people were sent to prisons last year; more than 80% of them were jailed for municipal and provincial offences.

Minister, you've closed down one of the most economical operating facilities in the province and left the most expensive ones open. This is the most reasonable and the cheapest one to operate. Why did you close it? When the Attorney General said that our prisons are too costly and crowded, why wouldn't you put them out in a farm such as this to save money for the people of this province?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I've attempted to respond to that, and let me say that I understand the honourable member's need to represent his community and certainly taking issue with this would be an important part of his local responsibilities; I understand that. But my responsibilities are to make sure that the taxpayer is getting the safest and most efficient system that we can provide.

The fact is that we have enough room elsewhere to provide this particular service. This is minimum security, as I've said. There are no fences, there's very little security there, and that is a particular part of our system where we have capacity elsewhere to put those individuals who need to be in an institution or, if there are alternative measures that can be applied to them, again since it's such a minimum security, it lends itself to those individuals who were there.

Again, to close, I understand the concern of the local community. It's not something that one likes to do, but the fact is that we need to run the safest, most efficient system we can and this decision is very much a part of that kind of thinking.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As you are aware, the Queen E is now being widened through the Niagara Peninsula. Construction will start in the Grimsby area next year, and the mayor of that town has led people to believe that the province should be paying for the construction of an adjacent service road. Will the Ministry of Transportation be constructing a south service road connecting through Grimsby as part of the Queen E widening project?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): The south service road connection in Grimsby is not part of the QEW widening project. It serves a municipal function and serves mainly local traffic. The mayor and the council of Grimsby have been told many times that the Ontario government is not responsible for building this road.

I understand from previous conversations with the member for Lincoln that the local citizens are concerned about emergency traffic being diverted through the town. Our government is receptive to their concerns, and I can assure the member for Lincoln that the improvements to the QEW -- the addition of lanes, the construction of median barriers and better lighting -- will make it a safer road and will allow traffic to move more freely through Grimsby. Indeed, there is a north service road to handle emergency traffic if necessary.

Also, by widening the QEW using a total project management approach, we will get it completed three years ahead of

schedule and create 1,100 full-time jobs for the local construction community.

Mr Hansen: Can the minister advise this House and my constituency of what kind of assistance he can provide to help the town get this road built?

Hon Mr Farnan: In 1992, my ministry funded 75% of the cost of a transportation study for Grimsby that included the south service road extension. The report concluded that the connection was needed, but it also concluded that it would serve a local function only. My ministry has offered to help the town of Grimsby pay for an environmental assessment plan for the road if they choose to build it. I think the member can go back to his community and say yes, my ministry will be prepared to put dollars forward for an environmental assessment plan.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and the members of the House will be aware of the considerable difference in gas pricing in terms of northern and southern Ontario. We have the new minister actually on record, as have been many of his cabinet colleagues, saying that, yes, this is a problem in the province of Ontario and, yes, we must fix it.

Let me remind the minister of his comments in Sudbury just back in 1991 when he said: "Above all, what I would like to see is the assurance that I am being treated fairly in terms of gas prices. What I want as a consumer and for the people I represent is that I get a fair shake for my hard-earned dollar."

As the new advocate for the people of northern Ontario at the cabinet table, I'm very interested in what you are doing as that advocate and what measures you are taking to address this problem.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): The member opposite knows full well that the Liberals in Ottawa, that the federal government has indeed a direct relationship and a responsibility regarding the cost of gasoline and its discrepancies -- fairness across Ontario.

The member took a great deal of pride in reminding me of my responsibility to protect the interests of the consumers in northern Ontario in 1990, and he could have gone back since 1985. But let's reminisce.

In the year of our Lord 1987, the then Minister of Finance, the Treasurer of Ontario, sitting where the legendary Floyd Laughren is sitting, the very seat, in answer to a question posed by the member for Lake Nipigon vis-à-vis the discrepancy between the riding of Lake Nipigon and the boys at Earl's Shell, a 15-cents-a-litre difference, and the Treasurer tells me then, "You are being ripped off."

That's what he said. It's a federal responsibility; we know of the discrepancy. It's a little better, not as bad as it was under that regime. We will work with our federal counterpart, investigate the matter. We are doing that. We will get it rectified but we need the Liberals in Ottawa to help us.

Mr Miclash: The minister has just indicated that the problem is better and I indicate to the minister at this point that we have as much as a 20-cents-a-litre difference today, and this is you and your government giving a commitment to the people of northern Ontario back in 1990. We were given that commitment during the campaign in 1990.

Mr Minister, I have had thousands of people sign petitions which indicate that they want you to follow through on the commitment that was made, again a commitment made during the campaign of 1990. These petitions have come in to your members in northern Ontario; they have flooded my office; as well, I have a good number of resolutions from communities in your riding, communities that say, "Yes, we must have equalization of gas pricing, as the NDP promised during the 1990 campaign."

Minister, again I ask you as the advocate for people in northern Ontario, what you are doing to ensure that this issue is at the cabinet table?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is right and the question is most legitimate and I thank the member, so therefore he shall recall, and vividly he should, that in 1991 this government eliminated the sticker fee, the registration fee. It saved the residents of the north $90. You could have said yes, you could have done it. We've been asking for it for decades. We did it.

There are 490,000 registered cars; supplementary to it of course, the recreation vehicles in the province of Ontario. We're acting on it. We're doing the best we can.

We want to make railroads more competitive. We don't want to rip up the track like Jean Chrétien and the chairman of CNR. What's good for CN-CP, what's good for the gas company first and foremost must be reflected because it is good for the consumers in the province of Ontario in our special part, northern Ontario. We're doing all we can. We're acting on it, but we need cooperation from the feds.

PETITIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition here, Mr Speaker, that the residents want you to take very seriously, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming houses, group homes and psychiatric care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas the nearby community could be assessed and treated differently; and

"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents; not the business community; not leaders of community organizations; not education and child care providers; and not even the NDP member of the provincial Parliament for Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents, therefore petition the Parliament of Ontario and the NDP government to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I have affixed my signature to this document.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173,

An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled community are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize and value the work of volunteers in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that amendments are made to Bill 173 to allow for provision of community care based on the needs of the local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of care."

That is signed by several members of People First in Burlington. Both Rosalynn Kitchen and Marilyn Heintz are present in the chamber this afternoon. They signed this petition. It also has my signature of support.

SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition about a rather unrecognized medical condition:

"Whereas sickle cell anaemia is a serious medical condition with 10% of the population of African origin carrying the gene; and

"Controlled studies show a significant reduction in the number of childhood deaths by long-term treatment with penicillin to such a degree that it must be considered an essential drug;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services to ensure free provision of the drug to all affected children."

I am signing my name to that.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition here signed by some 1,000 people to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads:

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

"We are pleased to provide support to Parents for Giant Steps Toronto. This project is an initiative of parents of children whose needs cannot be met through existing programs. These children require comprehensive and focused therapeutic and special education intervention to address underlying neurological dysfunctions in order to progress academically and in their ability to function in their communities. The Giant Steps model is well-organized, offers a complete range of therapeutic services that addresses the child's needs as a whole and provides value for money. The model has been in operation since 1981 and has been replicated in five very different jurisdictions.

"We urge the provincial government to build bridges for these families between ministries and departments and support the proposal by Parents for Giant Steps Toronto."

I have signed my name to that petition.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae has not enforced existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation, to respect their native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

I've signed my name to that. That petition is from Petrolia, Wyoming and Sarnia.

CHARLOTTE ELEANOR ENGLEHART HOSPITAL

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition from members of my riding to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I present the following petition from the residents of Lambton county:

"Whereas the residents feel that it would be an injustice to the Lambton county area to consider closing the Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital in the town of Petrolia. The hospital provides an essential service and support relied on by the community not only for emergencies but for continual health care."

I have affixed my signature to this petition, as I agree with it.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are extremely upset that Bill 173 will result in less client service, a more costly service system and a decrease in volunteers in the long-term-care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the Minister of Health amend Bill 173 to correct these flaws."

That petition is signed by almost 200 of my constituents, and by me.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by several hundred residents of my riding:

"Whereas the provincial government has recently slashed health coverage by 75% for Ontario citizens who are hospitalized out of the country; and

"Whereas this reduction in coverage will affect all Ontarians but will have the greatest impact upon our seniors, many of whom travel south of the border for important care health reasons and who will be forced to absorb a tremendous hike to their health insurance premiums; and

"Whereas the government has justified its decision on the basis of not wanting to pay exorbitant hospital costs, even though, currently, out-of-country hospital coverage is based solely on the rates charged by Ontario hospitals; and

"Whereas the reduction in out-of-country hospitalization coverage below the rates charged by Ontario hospitals represents an indisputable violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act; and

"Whereas the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, under the leadership of Mike Harris, makes the preservation of medicare a priority in its Common Sense Revolution policy document;

"Therefore, we petition the government of Ontario to act in a fair and just manner by preserving the sacred principles of medicare and to immediately restore out-of-country hospitalization coverage to the rates charged by hospitals in Ontario."

I'm affixing my signature in support.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a number of petitions:

"To 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 costs 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 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 firearms safety course or examination."

This is signed by many members of my constituency, particularly from Kagawong and Gore Bay.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas Christopher Higginbottom is a known homosexual paedophile who has been released into the Burlington community even though he was diagnosed by medical experts as remaining highly at risk of reoffending; and

"Whereas Higginbottom was acquitted of another sexual assault involving a child on the basis of an inappropriate and unjustified conclusion drawn by the trial judge in relation to the evidence of the victim, all of which are unjustified in law; and

"Whereas in rendering the decision to acquit Higginbottom the fact of his breach of probation and the long history of his past sex attacks on children was not adequately taken into account by the judge;

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

"That Attorney General Marion Boyd undertake an appeal of this case and that she pursue amendments to the Mental Health Act of Ontario and/or support federal high-risk offender legislation to prevent the release of offenders such as Higginbottom into the community, and that the government of Ontario undertake to entrench within law a bill of rights for victims of crime."

This has my signature of support as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Petitions? Reports by committees.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Petition.

The Deputy Speaker: I had asked for petitions. If you have a petition, the member for St Catharines, please go ahead.

Mr Bradley: No, that's okay. I don't want to upset things in the House.

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 bills without amendment:

Bill Pr129,

An Act respecting the Ontario Professional Planners Institute

Bill Pr135,

An Act to revive Durham Regional Police Association Inc.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary

Bill Pr132,

An Act respecting the Township of East Luther and the Village of Grand Valley.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Marchese from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that Bill 56,

An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario, be not reported.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

Mr Laughren moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 197,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act / Projet de loi 197, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'évaluation foncière.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): The Assessment Amendment Act, 1994, will enable the government to put into effect a consensus solution that has been reached to relieve property taxes on small retail stores in Metro Toronto shopping malls. To protect smaller retailers and save jobs, the agreement will shift approximately $8 million in property taxes from the smaller stores to the larger anchor stores.

The bill will amend the Assessment Act to allow the Minister of Finance to file a regulation prior to roll return. The regulation will apportion the shopping mall assessments to increase taxes for anchor stores by $8 million and reduce taxes for the smaller stores by the same amount pending reassessment.

SARNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994

Mrs MacKinnon moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr139,

An Act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

CITY OF LONDON BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1994

Mr Winninger moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr151,

An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of London.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

SIMCOE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1994

Mr O'Connor, on behalf of Mr Wessenger, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr153,

An Act respecting the Simcoe County Board of Education.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I call the first order, we'll be working our way through three orders today, and obviously I can't predict precisely how far we will get. But the orders I'll be dealing with today are the 37th order, the ninth order and the 38th order. The ninth order will be for committee of the whole House on Bill 175. I have some agreements with the other House leaders that I have to raise before we start that process.

Firstly, on the ninth order, for committee of the whole House on Bill 175, we have agreed, and I seek the consent of the House, to see any votes that are required in that committee stacked until the end of committee of the whole.

Secondly, there has been an agreement in the subcommittee of the finance and economic affairs committee that should we finish the 38th order either today or sometime between now and Thursday, December 1, the bill will be referred out to the finance and economic affairs committee for one day of hearings on December 1. I seek the agreement of the House on those matters.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it agreed? Agreed.

BUSINESS REGULATION REFORM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ENTREPRISES

Resuming the adjourned debate on Bill 187,

An Act to reform the Law regulating Businesses / Projet de loi 187, Loi portant réforme du droit réglementant les entreprises.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe that the last time the member for Dufferin-Peel had the floor.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to make a few comments with respect to Bill 187, which is put forward by the minister. It's called Clearing the Path legislation and it's designed, I suppose, to be a plank in this government's platform, which is going to say, "We have cleared up bureaucracy." In fact when introducing the bill the minister actually said that this bill reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape for business.

I must say anyone in this House obviously encourages any government reducing red tape, reducing bureaucracy, but I have to say that watching what this government has done in the last four years and some-odd months, and the bureaucracy that has been created, I'm rather cynical. The names that are thought up for these pieces of legislation -- Clearing the Path suggests that all the red tape is going to be cleared up.

I recall another word that was used, I think it was in the insurance legislation -- I could have the wrong number -- Bill 164, the NDP's answer to auto insurance. I think that was called The Road Ahead. When you look at that legislation, the insurance companies are just going berserk trying to figure out whether they can pay all the benefits that are being charged as a result of this legislation without increasing the rates unbelievably.

That was called The Road Ahead, that piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is called Clearing the Path. It's like the road's already been cluttered. I don't want to play games with names, but I sometimes think that's what the government's doing when they create these wonderful names as to their pieces of legislation. It's almost designed to say, "How can you not support this legislation," and of course we all support removing red tape from bureaucracy.

But I will just remember that the minister, the House leader, was in charge of bringing forward the auto insurance legislation and the problems that have been created. All you have to do is ask anyone. Ask your neighbour next to you how their insurance premiums are going and they'll tell you their rates are going up and up and up. That was the answer why that legislation was brought forward. That legislation was brought forward to stop the increasing premiums.

It started back with the Liberal government and its Ontario motorist protection plan legislation, OMPP, and of course we watched how the Conservative Party and the NDP, when they were in opposition, fought that legislation. But all they've done with that legislation, that Bill 164 legislation, is create unbelievable bureaucracy and a myriad of regulations that a lot of people have trouble understanding.

An interesting document was put out by the government, Clearing the Path for Business Success. It really explains some of the things that are being done. It talks about, and I mentioned it in one of my responses to one of the previous speakers, some of the things that are being introduced to assist people in understanding this legislation. Remember what this legislation is for: This legislation is to stop bureaucracy.

I think someone has mentioned four forms are going to be eliminated or consolidated into one form, although I can hardly wait to see the size and the length and the complication of this new form. Who knows what it's going to look like and who knows how complicated it is. It may well be brief, and I hope it is, but I have my doubts.

As I explained in one of the responses I made to one of the earlier speakers, this document has just been put out by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations talks about some of the things that they're using, some of the tools that they're using, to help members of the public understand this legislation.

It talks about kits that have been prepared by the government -- I have no idea at what cost or how many bureaucrats it took to prepare them -- which include existing registration forms and provide general information about registering business names and for retail sales tax, employer health tax and workers' compensation. I assume those are the four forms that this legislation is designed to improve. Our party, of course, will be doing away with the health tax, so you won't need that anyway.

But then they say they're going to talk about a pamphlet. They're going to have a kit, and then they're going to have a pamphlet that's going to describe the kit, which is going to tell you how to understand the kit. Remember what we're talking about. We're talking about eliminating bureaucracy. So this pamphlet which is going to describe this kit also tells you how to get one, how to get this kit. They say it's now available for general distribution. It'll be available at constituency offices, government offices and business self-help offices.

Then it comes out with another thing. They say they're going to have a telephone line. They're going to have a help line where you can call to explain the pamphlet which explains the kit. So they're obviously anticipating -- if someone has seen this form, I'd love to see it. I've never seen it. Has anyone over there seen it? I'll bet not. But I'm anticipating it's going to be very complicated. Otherwise, why are we going through kits and pamphlets and help lines and self-help offices where work stations are going to be located?

This document, again which is prepared by the ministry, says the kit includes a covering letter describing this package. It talks about qualifying questions to aid clients in determining which forms are to be completed, an explanation of the registration process for each program area. This makes me dizzy just reading it, and yet what the legislation is designed to do is to simplify.

So I must say I'm terribly cynical about this legislation as to whether it's really going to solve the bureaucracy that has been created, and I don't care who it was created by. Whether it was created by the New Democratic government, the Liberal government or the Conservative government, there's no question the bureaucracy and the forms have to end, and many of the taxes have to end. Much of the taxation has to end, because it's the taxation that has created these forms.

You have to fill out all these funny forms. I know many offices in my riding hire people. They haven't got the time, and in many cases they haven't got the ability, to complete these myriad forms, so they actually hire people. Now, they do other things, but one of their job descriptions is to complete these many forms.

It's not just this government that's at fault for that. There's no question the government has forms as well. But I guess that's what our society is doing, so on the one hand I compliment the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for at least making an attempt, but if she and other members of her party are going to come forward and say during the next election, "We reduced bureaucracy," I can tell you I am not going to accept that line if that indeed is what's going to be used.

I get cynical as well. Everything it seems that this government has done in the last four years -- I know they honestly believe that some of the things they have done have been good things, that they help people, whether you're talking employment equity, whether you're talking advocacy -- every piece of legislation has a commission. The employment equity legislation has an Employment Equity Commissioner. The advocacy legislation has a commissioner, and of course that was very controversial. Mr Reville, I think, is the head of that now and it was very controversial in his appointment -- but the bureaucracy that goes with these things.

Again, I remind the government that they have now an opportunity to eliminate bureaucracy, and I think it has gotten so bad, the bureaucracy of this province, that no one knows what to do. The very fact that we have to hire people to complete forms is unbelievable.

When you start talking about the Advocacy Commission, which was established by Bill 174, and all the criticisms of that bill -- I know I'm getting a little bit off topic when I start talking about advocacy commissions, but we're talking about bureaucracy. We're talking about advocates, which the advocacy legislation created, and in many cases people don't know what to do. They don't even know what an advocate is. The legislation doesn't make any mention as to who or what an advocate should be.

It doesn't offer any guidelines as to the types of qualifications that an advocate should have or the levels of training that should be required. Again, we're creating bureaucracies with all of these things, and yet we come along with Bill 187 and the minister in her opening statement says, "This bill reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape for business."

I hope you can see why I'm cynical of it, because I don't understand, particularly with these bureaucracies that have been created. The Advocacy Commission: I've no idea what it costs. I'm sure it came out in the hearings what it's anticipated it's going to cost and the complications that are going to be involved, the forms that are going to be involved, the regulations that are going to be involved for the average person to deal with these things, particularly when we're talking about advocates and we don't even know what an advocate is.

You know, there is a candidate who told the committee that heard this legislation that she believed it was appropriate for an advocate to offer advice to a mentally challenged pregnant woman on whether to carry her child to term or discontinue her pregnancy, even though the advocate was an active member of the pro-choice or pro-life movement. So you question the ability of any individual to advise objectively when their own personal values are involved.

What I'm saying is that we're very critical of these pieces of legislation that have been introduced gradually in the last four years plus so many months, because of the bureaucracy, because of the weight of the debt that has been impacted. Will these things work? Will these bureaucracies work?

The advocacy legislation, for example: There are over 100,000 people in Ontario in rest homes alone and there are over 220 hospitals across the province. There are only going to be 150 advocates, assuming we know what they are, paid for by the taxpayer. I guess the question is whether it's even possible to handle this bureaucracy. We create this bureaucracy and then we come along with Bill 187 and say, "Look what we're doing to solve the bureaucracy of this province."

I attended some of the hearings with the Employment Equity Commission, and one of the big concerns was that the Human Rights Commission doesn't handle, can't handle, all of its cases, that they're bogged down for something like over a year before any case is heard.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, just a small point of order: I'm wondering if the member would like to stick to Bill 187, as opposed to reaching beyond into other areas that in fact are not in the ambit of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for kindly helping the Chair. The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I know what you're saying when you say, "Are these topics of commissions relevant?" I get concerned when your minister stands in her place and says, "This bill reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape in this province." I'm only saying the obvious. I'm listing off some of the commissions and some of the bureaucracies that you've created, and I'm saying that the bureaucracies and the red tape that you've created for the people of this province simply are unbelievable.

I'm terribly cynical of this piece of legislation. I suspect the bill is going to carry. I suspect that you're going to get support from all three parties, but I can tell you that we're cynical when we listen to you give the implication that you're solving the red tape.

I can't let go by another commission that was created.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): What happened after 42 years?

Mr Tilson: Well, you know, the good old line of what happened after 42 years: I'll tell you what happened after 42 years. This government has created more red tape and more bureaucracy and more commissions than have ever been heard of in this province, all in the short space of four years. We're overwhelmed with bureaucracy. We're overwhelmed with red tape. So don't try and tell me what's been going on after 42 years. I'm telling you what's been going on after four years and the red tape that you've created.

I can't let it go by without talking about the red tape that was created with the Environmental Bill of Rights. Everybody supports the principle of the Environmental Bill of Rights, except it's creating a bureaucracy that we can't afford. The minimum estimate that it was going to cost for that bureaucracy is $4.5 million.

I guess the principle of that piece of legislation is that you have an office called the Office of the Environmental Commissioner, and I'm not questioning the ability --

Ms Haeck: Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order? When you stand up, you have to say "On a point of order," otherwise I don't know why you're getting up.

Ms Haeck: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm sorry; I don't do these very often. But I have been paying attention to what the member has been saying and I really would be interested in his remarks on Bill 187 since I know that he probably has some good things to say, but up until this point he's been a little wide in his smart remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: It's been quite a habit recently for members not to address themselves to -- and I'm sorry to say that all members were guilty of that. I would like to remind the member for Dufferin-Peel just to debate Bill 187.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I am trying to do that and I feel I have the right to refer to other examples of bureaucracy. When you read Bill 187, it talks about what the purpose of the bill is. The purpose of this is set out in

section 1 of Bill 187 and it talks about, "The purpose of this act is to assist the formation and operation of businesses in Ontario by simplifying government regulatory requirements and eliminating duplication in procedures and improving government organizational arrangements." That's the purpose of the bill.

I have every right, Mr Speaker, to stand in my place and talk about the massive bureaucracy that's been created by this government in a very short period of time with unheard-of commissions that are doing absolutely nothing; most unsatisfactory results. So I have every right to say that, Mr Speaker.

I know that I am not referring to specific sections and it may be at another time we'll get into going through clause-by-clause debate of this, but when this bill talks about, "That's the purpose of this piece of legislation," I have every right in this world to show how this government has, in the last four years, created all this bureaucracy and then they have the nerve to come into this place and say, "We've solved the bureaucracy."

Can you imagine it? Can you imagine at the next election campaign they're going to stand on the campaign hustings, they're going to wave Bill 187 in our faces and they're going to say: "We solved the bureaucracy of this province. There's no more bureaucracy. We've made major cuts with respect to the red tape"?

I say to you, Mr Speaker and all members of this House, that is not what has happened. In fact, we've gone the other way. With all the many, many commissions that have been created, and it's most relevant for me to list -- I know the government doesn't like to hear that. I know they don't like to hear about the bureaucracies that they've created. They can't pass a piece of legislation in this place without creating yet another bureaucracy, yet another commission that's doing who knows what.

The most amazing thing happened to me with the creation of the environmental commission with respect to environmental rights. It was supposed to deal with environmental problems that different ministries are not following. It's supposed to deal with cutting back on bureaucracy. It's supposed to do with solving environmental issues or assisting in drawing to people's attention environmental problems in this province.

When the bill was passed, myself and Mrs Marland, the member for Mississauga South, or wherever she's from --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Go easy on Margaret. Get it right.

Mr Tilson: I will. You're right; I should look it up.

Mrs Marland -- and everyone knows who Mrs Marland is -- we wrote a letter to the Environmental Commissioner expressing our concern with this wonderful Flying Toad co-op on the Toronto Islands. We were concerned with the environmental issues that were being created and the bureaucracy that's being created at that particular site.

The Office of the Environmental Commissioner wrote me back a letter in response to our letter -- and this is a group that's trying to solve bureaucracy in all environmental issues and other matters -- saying:

"The commissioner has completed a review of Bill 61 and the consequent expansion of housing on the Toronto Islands. The information and documentation available indicates that the proposal to develop cooperative housing on Toronto Islands is within the jurisdiction of the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust Corp and is mandated by Bill 61." Well, I knew that.

"Pursuant to

section 61(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, and Ontario regulation 73/94, a request for a review" -- and this is the request that Mrs Marland and I made -- "of the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act may not be considered until April 1, 1998." That's when they're going to look at it.

The building's going to be up and who knows if the problems are going to be solved. All we're trying to do is to ask the Environmental Commissioner's office to deal with matters that we feel are inappropriately taken by the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and that's the earliest that she can look at it.

This is a commission that is supposed to cut through the red tape of other ministries. That was the very first thing I saw when this bill came forward: this letter. This is a prime example of unbelievable bureaucracy. The building will be up, the people will be living in it before the Environmental Commissioner can look at it and determine whether or not our charges are well-founded.

I'll tell you, if that's an example of what the commissioner's office is going to be doing, then the whole thing is a farce, the whole environmental commission is a farce.

Look at other pieces. Look at the Human Rights Commission and, yes, that was not created by this government, but there's no question there are a lot of problems with it. Why don't they cut down some of the red tape there? Why are they talking about unifying some four forms? Why don't they cut down on some of the red tape there? There are very serious human rights problems in this province in that this government doesn't appear to be doing it.

Of course, then we get into conflict of interest, and the scads of bureaucracy that's created with that. I think we shake our heads even when decisions are made. We had the former Minister of Mines charged and convicted, essentially, by the conflict commissioner of violating the rules. Yet nothing happened. You have all these rules, you create all these commissions, you create all these bureaucracies, they cost zillions of dollars and nothing happens. Then we come out with this bill which was introduced November 3 and we listened to the minister say, "Oh, this reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape for business."

It says that the purpose of the bill is to simplify government processes for starting and operating businesses. Bill 187 allows the Lieutenant Governor to designate any act for the purpose of the bill and so on, pretty boring stuff. As I say, I'm sure most members of the House will support it, notwithstanding the fact, I hope, that they're not taking four forms and reducing it to one form which will be unbelievably complicated. If someone has that form over there, I'd love to see it, because I'm very suspicious that it will be even more complicated than the previous forms.

I look at some of the forms that are being created. One of the forms I gather that this government's going to deal with in this piece of legislation is the change-of-name form, or the registration of a business name. Look at some of the forms that exist for corporations. It used to be, I thought, fairly simple. I mean, there's no question that the public is entitled to know who the directors of a corporation are and who the officers are and their addresses and when they became directors and when they resigned; that's all standard stuff. It used to be in a very simplified form.

Now, of course, you look at it and it's rather complicated. It is, if you have to look at it. It was just changed fairly recently.

Of course, I guess you have to justify charging $75. The minister stood in her place and made some comments when this matter was last debated in the House, talking about the $75 that's charged as the annual fee. She said, "The reason why we're doing it is because everybody else does it." It seems that at that very time the forms started to get more complicated. In other words, I guess if you make things complicated, that's going to cost money.

We're talking about doing business in this province; we're talking about surviving in this province. I'm sure someone over there's going to stand up and list off all the many businesses that have started, but I can tell you, in my own riding of Dufferin-Peel, I have had individuals come to me and say: "Listen, I have been approached by some of the southern states. I've been approached by the governments in North Carolina and Tennessee and some of these other governments. They don't have all this stuff. In fact, they encourage us to operate. They really do."

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, they do, they encourage, and companies are going down there. They're leaving this province with all the jobs that did exist here and they're going to those places. Why are they going down there? Because of the tax structure, because of the union laws, because of less bureaucracy, because it's much simpler to operate in those states.

I know -- I will guarantee -- that in some two-minute response or at another time, members of the government are going to stand up and list companies. I can't believe that you don't have people in your own ridings where you've experienced that, where they have told you that they're going to other jurisdictions because of all of this stuff. So here we are with Bill 187, and it's supposed to be the saviour of bureaucracy.

I stand here. I'm terribly cynical when I look at the forms. I understand that there are in excess of 43,000 forms that the government requires to be filed every year, 43,000 forms in different aspects throughout our society that have to be completed by the citizens of this province every year, and this bill is going to do away with four of them. In fact, they're going to make one out of four, and it'll probably be a very complicated form.

I give a slight pat on the back to the minister, but you can do much better. I'd get the member standing up in her place criticizing me for getting off topic listing all the bureaucracy that's been created, but I get annoyed when you stand and you say: "This is what we're doing. This is how we're solving the bureaucracy of this place."

As I say, I support the principle of the legislation. The purpose of the legislation is to move towards a single form for registration in businesses, reducing some four forms to one.

The bill won't reduce taxes, the bill won't reduce the regulatory burden, but it purports to reduce the compliance burden. I think as well, for example, that the number of dates is being diminished. Some members are right: There are some positive aspects to t