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

October 6, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My message is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, your decision to terminate what is known as the triministry program funding on April 1 of next year is causing tremendous concern in the province. In particular, the region of York and Simcoe county will be hardest hit. Almost half of all provincial funds go into those two areas.

The triministry program provides services to children and adults with developmental handicaps. The ministries of Health, Education and Community and Social Services are the three ministries involved. The allocation to York region of $1.3 million provides residential, day, speech, seating clinics and leisure programs, and case management.

I have received strong representations from the York Support Services Network, the Newmarket and District Association for Community Living and the Georgina Association for Community Living asking that the minister involve herself directly to ensure that these funds are not cut.

The impact on the Newmarket association, for example, would be dramatic. The association would experience an 8% to 11% cut which would remove between $320,000 to $440,000 from its budget. This association provides services to some 283 individuals, employs some 157 staff and has a $4-million budget.

The bottom line is that there are no other options and people are going to suffer directly by this triministry cut. Their quality of life, self-esteem and sense of worth in the community will suffer severe damage.

Minister, on behalf of all those who will be directly affected, I ask you to review your ministry's priorities and restore the triministry funding.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY SPENDING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to bring to the attention of the House a waste of taxpayers' money that is currently going on within the region of Peel and specifically the town of Caledon. The Interim Waste Authority has been looking for a potential dump site to hold Peel's garbage only since June 3 and as of this date it has already spent some $5 million. Just so we can have some concept of how much money that is, that works out to the Interim Waste Authority spending more than $1 million a month to find a dump site in Peel.

I am not an audit accountant, but I've spent some time watching the Interim Waste Authority and over the last four months it has set up an office in Bolton, has manned phones to answer questions and concerns the public has regarding its selection process, and there are many, and has held a few public information sessions in order to try to educate the public on how its site-selection process works.

I can't imagine where the $5 million was spent, but of more concern to me is the fact that the general manager of the IWA said it would cost much more before a site is actually chosen.

How much more money are the taxpayers of Ontario going to be asked to contribute to a flawed process that doesn't seem to have any concern for the bottom line? There's a black hole of taxpayers' money and there seems to be no limit as to how much pain and frustration they are going to cause the residents of Caledon, where they hold their lives in limbo waiting for a decision on this issue.

EVENTS IN LINCOLN

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of a four-day event in my riding of Lincoln that begins this Friday, October 9, and runs until Monday, October 12. The event is the Annual Thanksgiving Craft Show and Sale at Balls Falls Historical Park and Conservation Area in Jordan. The event is hosted by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and will feature 120 talented exhibitors who will display and sell fine handcrafted items.

Besides the exhibits, visitors can stroll through one of the most beautiful parks in Ontario and experience the autumn colours while learning about the historical significance that the Niagara area played in shaping Ontario.

This is the 17th year for the festival, which started as a two-day event and has grown into a four-day event because of its popularity. At the first Thanksgiving Day festival, less than 1,000 people attended. Since that time it has grown into an annual event which attracts over 30,000 visitors from near and far.

As well, many of the people who travel to the Thanksgiving Day festival take the opportunity to visit many of the Niagara wineries that are located within a couple of miles of Balls Falls.

I encourage all members and their constituents to come down and enjoy some freshly pressed apple cider and a day they will not forget. I will be there with my family this weekend.

DAVID AGNEW

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Few actions so far have revealed more clearly Bob Rae's true agenda than his pernicious appointment of NDP campaign director David Agnew as head of Ontario's civil service. It shows all too painfully how far he and his government will go to have all Ontarians march to the tune of NDP doctrine.

Agnew's appointment is a shameless case of political interference and infiltration. It's unprecedented, at least in recent Canadian political history, and totally contrary to the proud standards of our non-partisan civil service. It's American political patronage at its worst.

So far the media have been quite mute in their criticisms of this outrageous act, but I will not let it pass unnoticed. At every opportunity during this session, inside this House and elsewhere, I will remind Ontarians how far Bob Rae's attempt has gone already to control our minds.

The name David Agnew will become synonymous with NDP thought control. It's a very bad omen indeed for this session and for the rest of Bob Rae's mandate that the Premier has chosen to politicize the civil service at the highest level.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Last week I finally received a response from the Minister of Education to a letter I wrote 10 months ago about an episode on the TVOntario program Imprint.

The episode, called "Not Tonight, Dear, I Have a Book," which aired at 9:30 pm, concerned sex in contemporary literature. It included a reading of a passage which graphically depicted homosexual relations.

Ontarians trust TVO, our province's public educational broadcasting authority, to provide programming that is appropriate for family viewing. At 9:30, many young people are still watching television. A program with this content is not what parents want their children to view. I therefore wrote to the Minister of Culture and Communications, the Minister of Education and officials at TVO on behalf of persons who contacted me about this episode, which they found to be "unacceptable for unsolicited living room viewing."

While I received an adequate response from both TVO and the Minister of Culture and Communications, the Minister of Education would only say, "I trust that the rationale provided by TVOntario in its responses has addressed the concerns expressed by" the persons who contacted me.

I wrote to the Minister of Education because I wanted his views on this type of programming during prime time in our province's educational TV station. After 10 months, surely the minister could have addressed the issue, rather than providing me with this copout of a response.

DELTA AIRLINES

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Last Thursday evening, as I was driving back to my riding, I was listening to the CBC radio program As It Happens. I was appalled as I listened to a discussion about Delta Airlines' policy regarding its flight attendants' weight requirements. If a flight attendant is considered overweight for his or her height, they are subject to disciplinary action, including suspensions from their jobs.

A spokesperson for a group of Delta Airlines flight attendants, who are launching a class action suit against the airline, outlined the terrible impact this approach can have on people. In one situation a flight attendant, who had been a long-time employee for an airline Delta Airlines purchased, was given three months to lose 26 pounds. The flight attendant attempted to lose the weight through obsessive dieting and exercise. Only a few days before the weight-loss deadline, the woman suffered a heart attack.

A Delta Airlines spokesperson defended the policy by saying that flight attendants must be "professional." It's worth noting, though, that only flight attendants, not all Delta Airlines employees, are subject to this demeaning practice.

I find it reprehensible and abhorrent that in the 1990s companies, and particularly some airlines, still have such an outdated attitude towards people's appearance, and in particular, their weight. I encourage everyone in Ontario to find out if the airline they are booking a flight on has such discriminatory policies, and if they do, to boycott airlines with such a Neanderthal approach to employee relations.

LIONS CLUB OF MISSISSAUGA

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): In a bit of good news, I'd like to tell you about the Lions Club of Mississauga, District A-11, which is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the foundation of Lionism by presenting the play The Miracle Worker, in association with Mr Rick Torres and Canadian Spectrum, which is a multicultural television organization working out of Mississauga.

Performances of this play, based on the life of Helen Keller, are running from October 5 to 11 at the Meadowvale Theatre in Mississauga. It's particularly significant that it would be based on Helen Keller, since the Lions clubs in this country do an awful lot of work -- don't worry; I'm not worried if they're not listening.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat for a moment. There are a number of private conversations in the chamber and it would be appreciated if we could have some quiet so the member recognized could have an opportunity to make his statement. I would ask the Clerk to reset the clock and the member is invited to begin over, if he wishes.

Mr Mahoney: That's good. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The Lions Club in Mississauga -- as I was saying, the members may not be interested, but if they have Lions clubs in their communities I'm sure they would be, would like to know that the international president of Lions was here, was indeed in Mississauga at a presentation -- is celebrating its 75th anniversary of Lionism.

I happen to know from firsthand experience the tremendous work the Lions Club does with the sight-impaired. My mother actually is blind and the Lions Club has been helpful in helping her get out into the community whenever it could, and we really appreciate that kind of assistance and the great contribution it makes.

To celebrate the 75th anniversary, they are putting on and sponsoring the play The Miracle Worker, which is based, as I said before I was interrupted, on the life of Helen Keller, a life that obviously makes a great statement about folks who are sight-impaired.

On September 28 I had the honour of attending a reception with Mr Rohit Mehta, the international president of Lions clubs, who had come from India to Canada to help celebrate this very special anniversary.

I want to congratulate some of members, notably Mr Louis Lawrence, Sean Russel, Wayne Chambers, Don Stevely and Bob Emond, along with all members of the Mississauga Lions Club and indeed the international Lions throughout the world.

JACK ACKROYD

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Members will know that former Metro Toronto Police Chief Jack Ackroyd passed away last week. On behalf of all members of my party I want to express sincere condolences to Jack's family, his wife Lyn, their five children and two grandchildren.

Jack Ackroyd served as Metro's police chief from 1980-84 before leaving to head the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for six years. Known affectionately as Kojak, Mr Ackroyd was known for instituting a new era of policing in Metro. Specifically, he introduced community-based policing in the 1970s and commanded the respect of not only his officers but the residents of Metro as well.

Jack Ackroyd was known for his humane approach and he established an open-door policy when he served as chief of police. He has been described as a giant among men and the greatest cop Metro ever had. Jack Ackroyd joined the Metro police as a cadet in 1941 and served his community in a distinguished career that spanned 43 years.

Jack Ackroyd set an example that continues to be the goal of Metro's men and women in blue. While he will be sadly missed by us all, there is comfort in knowing that his style and professional manner will be with us for many years to come.

CASINOS

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise in the House today to denounce the proposed pilot casino project in Windsor, Ontario. I'd like to make it very clear that, as I've said in the House before, I have strong commitment for most of the policies of my government but there are certain policies I believe that conscience dictates one must stand up against. There's no question that casino gambling is one of those.

I was sent many letters recently in my fight on casino gambling and I will read part of one that comes from a person in Windsor, Arlene Rousseau, who writes: "I am a New Democrat and stand in opposition to casino gambling. My opposition is based not on religion or morality, but one of great concern for this province and its future, as my children will have to live with the legacies that we leave behind."

There's no question in my mind that to continue in this direction is not only going to bring this province into disrepute, but we're going to have more and more social problems. Yes, we need tax revenue in the province, but we cannot accept that tax revenue if we don't see the social problems that will be accruing because of such a decision.

I think that this pilot project is the thin edge of the wedge. It's a way of beginning a movement in this province to establish more and greater casinos. We must not allow it to happen and I would ask members of all parties to agree with that.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yesterday the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville, Mr Runciman, raised a point of order regarding the wearing of buttons expressing a particular political point of view in the House. In his argumentation he mentioned that it's our practice not to allow displays, and in the case at hand he alleged that the wearing of buttons could, through television coverage, influence the public in its decision.

I have considered these points seriously and, although I agree with the honourable member that it is our practice to discourage displays of any kind in the House, the wearing of buttons with a particular message is a difficult one for the Speaker to control. Members, I am sure, are aware of the proliferation of buttons in recent years expressing all kinds of opinions which, I am sure, all members are not always in agreement with.

The wearing of buttons has never been challenged in this House, and I might say that it has become an accepted practice. Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the point raised by the honourable member, there's not much I can do in this regard rather than add this consideration to the ones I have already referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for its opinion.

SMIRLE FORSYTH

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I regret to inform the House that a long-time officer of our House has resigned, and I know that members from all sides may wish to have a few words to say. With your indulgence, I would like to just offer a few comments and observations myself, and if others wish to have something to say I would be delighted to allow that opportunity.

Mr Smirle Forsyth has served this chamber with distinction for 14 years, if I could be permitted to refer to him as Smirle, because I think that's the name that all of us who knew him well knew him by.

Smirle is a person who has a very deep love of Parliament, of parliamentary democracy. Rarely have I ever seen a person so devoted to serving the House as a House of Assembly, with no particular consideration for any party but rather to the higher objective of a parliament.

Smirle always sought perfection in everything he did and he achieved it. He was a man who, while here, worked tirelessly, endlessly, always in the pursuit of the very best that this Parliament does.

Smirle, as many of us knew from work in committees, no matter what task it was that was given to him, no matter how close the deadline, would move heaven and earth to make sure that it was done. He would put in endless hours. I can tell you that if you were able to visit him at times when he wasn't feeling well, he still had his computer there and he made sure that the work that he felt he was assigned to do would get done whether he was able to be in this building or not.

I know that I speak on behalf of every member when I say that the assembly will miss Smirle. We hope to see him from time to time. We hope that he will be able to come and visit us on occasion, but I can tell you that I personally will miss the service that he has given so graciously, in such a dedicated way, for such a long period of time.

I think, finally, all of us who have known Smirle and worked with him feel that in Smirle we always had a friend -- a professional, but also a friend.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I would like to say a few words on behalf of the government and the government caucus.

Smirle, as you indicated, was here for almost 15 years, in which he served on numerous committees as clerk and then served specifically as the clerk for the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. In the role of clerk of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, he really brought this place into the 1990s: television and

interpretation, the language facilities that we now have. He played a major role in that in the kind of advice he provided and the kind of perspective he had on the importance of this place and the importance that we move with the times and be able to communicate with the province at large more than we had previously.

He also found time to serve full-time at the table, as we in this place call the main clerks' table here, to provide advice and support to the Clerk of the House and also to serve as the clerk of committees, which in my language is like the chief clerk around here, next to Mr DesRosiers.

Quite frankly, it took me a while to warm up to Smirle when he first came here, but I did indeed warm up to Smirle and grew not just to respect him -- everyone respected him; I grew to like him very much as well. He had a humour that was not always evident at first, but he had a humour that was both wit and humour. It could be sly, it could be clever and was invariably warm as well, so I grew to appreciate and like him very much.

As someone who chaired one of the standing committees for quite a while, I didn't always like the advice he gave me, but I always knew that it was objective and terribly professional. I certainly never challenged the advice he gave me because I knew it was based on objective reasoning and the best interests of the Legislative Assembly, its members and the public at large.

I know all of us are sad that he has felt he must resign from this place at this point. We understand that, but I do want Smirle to know that we will miss him very much and he will remain with great fondness in our memory.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I guess in many ways as the Treasurer and you have said in a very warm personal way, Mr Speaker, I'd like to express our unhappiness with the fact that Smirle has felt that he must resign and acknowledge to him personally today our great sense of gratitude we owe to him for all of the guidance he gave us.

I too came in with -- I didn't come in with the Treasurer; my goodness, people think the Treasurer's been here long enough. I came in in 1981, just after Smirle really started to hit full stride. He came in in 1978, myself in 1981, and when I came into the standing committee on administration of justice I felt that I had someone to whom I could go who knew what was happening, because Smirle made it his business to understand what his job was here. That allowed the members, I think, to go about their business -- loosely described on some occasions -- in committee in a way which allowed us to feel we would be treated fairly.

Even in those days in 1981 and following, before the rising of the new democracy in 1985, we felt that the House itself really was conducted on the basis of very sound precedents, and the materials which Smirle generated for us to talk about in committee were things which were given, freely and without exception, to every member of this Legislative Assembly no matter what party the person served with.

Smirle, as the Treasurer said, had an interesting humour. You could never question his wit: a very brilliant man, a very studious individual who I think sometimes for that very reason might have been misunderstood on occasion. I have always found Smirle, however, to be extremely approachable. Like the Treasurer, I haven't always agreed with every piece of advice that has been offered, but after having gone through the materials Smirle went through, I found that perhaps my sort of intuition on things wasn't always backed up by the precedents of this particular House.

From time to time, of course, I think all the members here tend to forget what is written and hope to perhaps rewrite in just their own way, slightly, some of the materials on which the procedures of this place are based.

That, quite frankly, is why having a person of Smirle's calibre and qualities is so important to our democratic institutions, because while the mind is somewhat feeble in its recollections of the word, it is nice to know that there are officers on a non-partisan basis who know exactly where to find the precedent, who know exactly how to communicate it for our edification and who know the word "patience" with a great boundlessness as they listen to us putting our arguments even in face of some of the very good, scholarly work that is done around our precedents.

That's one way of saying that perhaps we've been wrong from time to time as members when we confront the materials that are generated from the table, but to Smirle, on the occasions when you have been extremely right and we have been slightly off target, may I express my real thanks and pleasure for the fact that we knew you wouldn't bend, that you would ensure that if we were to change the way things were done we would change them by specific activity as opposed to a lazy easiness, if I can put it in those terms.

I started out, as I said, in 1981 in the standing committee on administration of justice, and spent a great deal of time there. In fact, in the early going the justice committee was full of all kinds of interesting things like implementing the roadside breathalyser, the RIDE program, Bills 179 and 111, which introduced the wage controls in those days. As you might well expect, there were some days when there were heated debates around those things. It was nice to know that when we lost our patience, Smirle was as steady and steadfast as ever.

In fact, this may be of interest to some of the members. While we can go out of committee from time to time if we get a little bored or carried away, generally the clerks who reside in those standing committees and even special committees, if not forced, at least feel some kind of moral obligation to hear the whole story so that they can keep us all in line when we make our summation speeches. That too is something Smirle did with a great deal of resoluteness.

I know how avid a fan Smirle is of the Legislative Assembly, of the whole idea of being able to come here to this chamber, this decision-making chamber, and putting arguments, good, bad or otherwise. As a result, I'm prepared, if Smirle drops us a line and says he wishes it, to actually bind all of my old committee speeches in my early days to send for him to read again. He heard them, but there is nothing like reading some of your original speeches to really get to understand what was being said or to understand that maybe you shouldn't have said nearly so much.

Smirle, as you might well know, Mr Speaker, never told us what to say, how to say it or when to say anything, but he was there to advise us on what had already been said if we asked. For that steadiness and for that very professional approach to his business, our caucus and myself in particular wish to extend Smirle a very large thank you. I think it only fitting that we set aside a few minutes of this chamber's business to tell Smirle the things that perhaps in the heat of the moment none of us thought were appropriate to approach him with. To Smirle, our best wishes always.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): As the House leader for our party, I would certainly like to rise and talk about Smirle Forsyth for a while. The first recollection I have of Smirle is when I was elected on March 19, 1981, and I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that the then Premier thought my level of competence would be Chairman of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments. Perhaps he's a far smarter and more knowledgeable individual than I, and I'm sure there are many who would concur with his viewpoint to this day.

However, one of my first duties was to sit down with the clerk of the committee, who was Smirle Forsyth. We had this rather elderly, dignified counsel to the committee in those days named Duke MacTavish, and between the two of them, Duke MacTavish and Smirle Forsyth, they managed to teach me a little about procedure, tradition and the parliamentary way of life. We managed to reform that committee to include private bills and make it somewhat more stimulating than it was before, although that is very hard to do.

Some people who don't know him very well may regard Smirle Forsyth as being a rather dull individual, but I can assure you that Smirle was anything but dull. He was sometimes misunderstood, but certainly not dull. The Treasurer has alluded to some of the progress Smirle assisted in with respect to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, televised proceedings of this chamber and of committees, participating and assisting in bringing

interpretation into committees and into the House, and reforms with respect to witnesses appearing before committees. He also served on the special committee on the parliamentary precinct. A lot of members here may not have much regard for that, but I think it displays the tradition and the feeling that Smirle has for this place.

I sought Smirle's advice, as I do other people at the clerks' table, and I think that all too often we take them for granted. It's a very difficult job. I often sought his advice and his counsel. He always gave me unbiased, objective, knowledgeable, loyal advice.

I think Smirle was loyal to the institution and parliamentary democracy as we know it in the province of Ontario today. I find it indeed unfortunate that Smirle has decided that he can no longer continue in his current capacity. I know that during the last period of time that he did serve in this chamber and in committee, he was not feeling well at all, but like the classy individual he is, Smirle did not let that fact be known to many or any of us by his own accord.

I also gained a new appreciation for Smirle as recently as the summer of 1991, when I attended the CPA conference in Victoria, British Columbia. I saw there how well regarded Smirle Forsyth was and in what high esteem he was held by his contemporaries across this country.

Sometimes we take people who are close to us for granted, and we assume that everybody in that capacity operates in the same classy, loyal, dignified manner. Smirle Forsyth is indeed one of the premier people with respect to his profession in this great country called Canada, and Smirle leaves his employ here in the same classy, dignified manner in which he performed his duties throughout his years.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): As assistant Deputy Chair, I'd also like to pay tribute to Smirle Forsyth today. Thomas Jefferson once said, "When a man assumes public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Although Jefferson was addressing his comments to those in elected office, he could have equally spoken them about individuals who commit their lives and talents to public service.

There is no finer tribute to offer Smirle Forsyth than the acknowledgement in this House that he assumed his public duties as Clerk Assistant of the House with commitment, insight and total devotion. He loves the institution which is Parliament, and he showed his passion for things parliamentary by virtually living in the Legislature. Many times, late at night when the House had long before risen, I witnessed Smirle leaving his office long after the members of Parliament and other staff people had gone home.

Similarly, many mornings when I needed information pertaining to a particular matter in the House, I could call at 7:30 or 8 o'clock and be assured that he would be there to answer my inquiry.

Smirle's ever-helpful, non-partisan approach never wavered even in the midst of the most impetuous of debates. No matter how contentious the issue, no matter how difficult the person trying to get his or her own way on the given procedural matter, Smirle would discuss the point with care and precision.

I am reminded of Mark Twain's famous line: "Always do right. This will gratify some and astonish the rest." Smirle, on behalf of the gratified members of the government caucus, I want to thank you profoundly for your hard work and good example. In a very real way, this House will always be your house. We will all miss you. Best wishes to you from the government caucus.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): It is an honour for me to speak to you about a dear friend, a great coworker and a unique person. Smirle Forsyth is all of these to me and to the many who know him and have worked with him over the years. It is therefore with sadness and regret that I know Smirle will not be able to return to work.

I have known Smirle since 1985, when I was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. One of my earliest responsibilities was as Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House. I was a novice. I had no experience and no knowledge of the procedures of the House. What an intimidating situation it was. Fortunately, there was Smirle. Smirle's patience and constant support gave me the confidence needed to do the job. Once a week, from 8 to 10 in the morning, we studied together the procedures of the House. He counselled me. His assistance went beyond the call of duty.

I want to recognize Smirle and, through him, the excellent work accomplished by the clerks at the table. Members of the public who watch the proceedings in the House may sometimes wonder, what do these individuals in ceremonial garb do? Basically, they are there to help the members of this House and the presiding officers.

When the Speaker rises and says, "Order," there are countless precedents, procedures and rules behind that single word. The clerks at the table are professionals. They know those precedents, procedures and rules. They are familiar with the protocol of the House. Their knowledge and advice is essential to the smooth running of the House. More importantly, they are neutral, non-partisan. They ensure the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings of the House. The respect for the House is based partly on this assumption of impartiality. So behind the word "Order" one finds a dedicated team, and Smirle was an effective member of the team.

I am a member of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, of which Smirle was once clerk. Smirle was meticulous, hardworking and always, always dependable. I know he spent hours preparing notes and reports. He fulfilled his professional obligations with much grace and goodwill.

Smirle has since become a good friend of my wife and myself. I very much regret that he can no longer work with us. I want him to rest assured that if it were up to us, we would have kept him on. Smirle, if you're listening, we're thinking of you. We will all miss you.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, it's hard to follow in the eloquence of all members of the House, including yourself, and the remarks that have been made in honour of one of those distinctive servants of the Legislature, Smirle Forsyth. I stand to share in this moment in which all of us -- in fact, isn't it something, how in this Legislature we can be drawn together, of one accord, with one voice, when it has to do with someone who has been such a dedicated servant to the Legislature, that we can drop our partisan things and realize the depth that is within the people who are at the table and within this precinct.

I too served with Smirle as Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House from 1981 to 1984 or so. The late-night sessions gave us a chance, as we'd sit around the table with Alex McFedries, who's still there, and Dave Callfas, who's no longer alive, and Rod Lewis, who was then the Clerk of the House. So things go on. We have a new Clerk and new people at the table, somehow carrying on a tradition of service to all members of the Legislature and the people of Ontario.

Smirle certainly epitomized the best of what we hold dear in having a group of people there dedicated to the public service for the best and for what is good in a non-partisan way. Smirle was one of those who has been duly and properly recognized for that gift of dedication that he gave so generously while he served in this House. I didn't know him in committee, as some did, but through our work at the table he was also one of my teachers, as previous speakers have testified.

Also, I saw Smirle in another light. I don't think many people get to the St Andrew's Ball on as regular a basis as I used to, but he could sure cut the old Scottish reel and had a good time as well in that part of his life.

I hope Smirle is listening this afternoon, and if not, that he has a chance to read the script and realize that seven MPPs have fully agreed on something. We've cut across all party lines. Smirle, you've helped make history again. I'm just delighted to share with all my comrades and colleagues here at Queen's Park my esteem and to share in the recognition of one whom God has given to us to make it a better world. May he enjoy his days and may he find health and happiness wherever possible.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I would like to add my very brief comments. For a while, I was the assistant Deputy Speaker and had a chance to work with Smirle. I would like to throw a light on another aspect of Smirle, and that's how he worked with the pages in the pages program for the young people. He was very good with the young people, very patient with the young people. Not to reiterate and repeat anything that's said here, I would just like to add my own comments about how important it was to have that calibre of person to work with at the clerks' table. It certainly helped me in my position, as I know it helped all of us here in the House.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): As you know, Mr Speaker, I was the Deputy Speaker of this Legislative Assembly and had the honour to serve from 1987 to 1990. Of course, all of us who have served in that position were very thankful, and still are, for the excellent help and consultation that we received from the officers of the table, but in this particular case, Smirle.

I've always thought of Smirle as the Rock of Gibraltar. I think that if at the time of Hurricane Andrew Smirle had been standing in Florida, he would have been the last person to be moved by Hurricane Andrew. When you were sitting in the Speaker's chair, no matter how delicate the debate became, you knew that, especially if there was only one table officer, if Smirle was there, you would pray the Lord that Smirle would look your way and give you a reassuring nod, a reassuring smile.

And if you still looked bewildered -- that meant, "Smirle, come up to the chair; I need your help" -- you were most thankful when Smirle would come up to the chair and give you sound advice, like all table officers do.

I want to say thank you, Smirle. You've been a most precious friend and collaborator in helping us to understand this sometimes very difficult process and the often not easy task of chairing this humble and peaceful assembly. Therefore, we want to say thank you, Smirle, and j'apprécie immensément tes bons conseils et tes bons services, and may your sweet tooth serve you well.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Just very briefly, there's been a lot said about Smirle. I count Smirle among my friends in this place. I wanted to tell the members of the Legislature that a short time ago, we circulated a rather large card throughout the Legislature. I received a note from Smirle. In his usual fashion, he said it took him quite a while to read it and to decipher the names, and he wanted through that letter to express his thanks to each and every member of the Legislature, each and every member of staff, people at the table, for thinking kindly of him and taking time out to sign their names to that card.

Smirle is a rather remarkable person, as I think has been said. I have, since 1985, chaired probably every committee in this House, and I have to relate to the leader of the third party's problem. I was asked to chair regulations and private bills, I think it was called, and I remember, after I'd been told that I was going to do that, the Premier of the day, Premier Peterson, saying, "Well, your legal background will help you." I said, "Well, what is it?" He said, "I don't know." I asked a number of other people, and nobody seemed to know what that committee did.

Then I asked Smirle, and Smirle did know. So I have to thank him for that. I might still be wandering around the darkened halls of Queen's Park, trying to figure out where the statutory instruments or the private bills and regulations were, and a lot of those people would never have had their corporations revived and they'd still be resting peacefully.

I want to thank Smirle for that, and I think each and every member of this Legislature certainly wishes Smirle well. He'll be remembered every day by us in each and every way each of us remembers him, and we wish him Godspeed.

The Speaker: I want to thank all the honourable members who spoke about Smirle and to tell you that both a printed and an electronic copy of Hansard from today will be sent to Smirle, though I hesitate to send all the speeches of the honourable member for Bruce, but certainly today's remarks will be sent along.

Later this month, the Governor General of Canada will be visiting our building and presenting to us our own coat of arms. We will be the first Legislature in Canada to receive our very own coat of arms. The inspiration for this comes from Smirle. Smirle is the person who did all the background work and has made it possible that the Ontario Legislature will be the first assembly in Canada to receive its own coat of arms, a very fitting tribute to a most extraordinary servant of the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CASINOS

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Since the 1992 Ontario budget, members on all sides of this House have expressed interest in possible casino locations. I rise today to inform members that our government will be moving ahead on an initial casino project located in the Windsor area.

This pilot project approach demonstrates our government's commitment to proceed carefully and responsibly on the introduction of casinos in Ontario.

Our goals in launching the Windsor casino pilot project are straightforward: to create jobs, stimulate the tourism and hospitality industries, and provide much-needed assistance to the largest border community in the province.

Windsor's proximity to an enormous US market can draw new dollars into Ontario, while at the same time creating new job opportunities and stimulating local economic development.

By starting with a single pilot project, we can make sure that the most effective regulatory and law enforcement systems are put in place, and we can develop a made-in-Ontario working model that other communities can watch and learn from.

We will be working closely with Windsor area municipalities to finalize the best approach and structure for the casino pilot project. After consultation with Windsor area communities, we will determine how the casino will be owned and operated. Once the structural and operational details have been worked out, we will begin the process of selecting a specific site for the Windsor area casino.

I know that some Ontario communities will be disappointed that they were not selected for the pilot project. Once the Windsor area casino is up and running, we will review and evaluate its operation. If there is community support for casinos in other areas of the province, we can then look at expanding the number of casino locations. As I've stated before --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the minister take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: As I've stated before, any casino location must have the support, by written resolution, of the local municipality. Members of the community must have opportunities to express their support and their concerns through their municipal council.

In addition to moving forward in the Windsor area, we are also continuing our discussions with the native communities as to the possible development of native gaming operations. Our government recognizes that a number of first nations are interested in gaming as a source of revenue for community economic development.

In addition, we will continue our consultations with representatives from the horse racing industry, charitable organizations and law enforcement officials both in Windsor and across the province.

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: I expect to be introducing casino legislation -- I'm almost finished.

The Speaker: Will the minister take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: I expect to be introducing casino legislation in this session of the Legislature and hope that the Windsor area casino will be operating as early as next year.

The Speaker: Statements by ministers? Responses. The member for Lawrence.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Lawrence.

Mr Cordiano: Today's announcement is obviously not a surprise to anyone. But I think it's important to note that what is sad and regrettable is the fact that this government has brought forward this initiative as a major one to provide economic stimulus for a hard-hit part of the province, as many other border communities are.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Mr Cordiano: I think it's rather regrettable that the only thing this government has to offer to those communities is something like casino gambling, the prospect of increased revenues and economic spinoff, and I say this isn't at all certain either. The minister's announcement today is probably surprising in this regard, with respect to what's missing from her statement.

I think it's appropriate to say at this time, Minister, that you have not conducted a proper consultation process. You said on many occasions that you would take things slowly and not rush into this decision. I think it's appropriate to also note that you have not done as extensive a consultation process as I would have liked to have seen.

You announced the pilot project in Windsor without having answered the questions we're so interested in: for example, the impact of casino gambling on local communities with respect to social ills; the impact on the economy -- we don't know what positive or negative results there are going to be from this: the impact on charitable organizations, the impact on the horse racing industries, will this have a positive benefit for tourism?

Madam Minister, I asked you these questions many times in this House. I asked that you bring impact studies forward. Quite frankly, I haven't seen those. Perhaps you've conducted those studies, but you haven't shared them with this House.

You mentioned in the press conference that you had no idea how much revenue this casino will generate. But can you answer this? Do you know how much you intend to spend to get it up and running, do you know how much you'll need to spend in order to create crime-free casinos and will your casinos generate enough revenue to cover all the costs associated with introducing them?

I've asked, as I said, on many occasions for information that the casino project team working on this has in its possession and what kind of consultation process it has conducted. I asked you in a private meeting on one occasion to bring that information forward so that all of us could see and share it with you. I think it's important to note that as of the present time we have not seen enough information to be able to determine whether the pilot project will be successful.

Also, I ask the minister, if she intends to introduce legislation this fall, then why has she announced a pilot project that won't commence till next year? What kind of legislation that she announced today is she going to bring in later on this session? What kind of legislation is she going to bring in if she's going to wait to see what happens in the pilot project? Do you know what the pilot project is going to indicate in terms of what's good for legislation to be brought forward?

How can you possibly draft legislation, bring that forward in the fall and then announce that you're going to have a pilot project to see the results of the pilot project, the impact that it has, and then do what with it? Are you going to change the legislation at a later date? Are you going to deal with the legislation on a piecemeal basis and stretch it out through next year when the results of the pilot project will be in your possession? I think the minister has to answer that question.

Quite frankly, if this is a job creation program, as the minister indicated in her press conference, if the pilot project should fail, then what happens after that? Will you close down the casino? Will Windsor be at a loss? Will Windsor lose out on casinos and will the rest of the localities that desire casino gambling be cut off? What impact will that have on job creation? If this is a job creation program and this is only a pilot project that you're experimenting with, what if the results of this experiment fail? Are you going to close the casinos down? That's a legitimate question that needs to be asked. You haven't indicated that.

There are very few details in this announcement. I'm looking forward to hearing additional details from the minister.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The member for Lawrence has indicated that he's not surprised at this announcement today. I must say that we on this side are rather surprised, particularly when we have a minister who, when she was a member of Toronto council, voted against this process.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: You did. You voted against having gambling casinos at the CNE and you know you did. Furthermore, we have a government that in the past, prior to getting elected, said it was against lotteries, it was against gambling. But now we're going into it full-fledged. We're going to have everything. We're going to have fun. Both the Treasurer and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations have said that they're going to have fun.

I must say that it's rather surprising to me that this position is going to be taken. We're going to have a gambling casino somewhere in Windsor. We don't know where, but it's going to be somewhere in Windsor, and we're going to move very slowly. Madam Minister, there's no question that you don't want it. Obviously, from your press conference, you have no idea what the heck you're doing over there with respect to this policy.

Yet the Treasurer, of course, has told you that we're going to have gambling casinos. You've now taken the "s" off; you're going to have a gambling casino somewhere in Windsor, but you're not sure. You're not sure whether you're going to have liquor licences in these places. You really don't know too much about that. You don't know about law enforcement. You don't know what sort of law enforcement you're going to need in these places, notwithstanding the statements that have been made by law enforcement officers around this province expressing grave concern about the criminal element that's going to be moving into this province because of your policy. But you don't know that.

You don't have any projections; you don't have any impact studies done. You don't know exactly what you're doing or what has been done in the past. You haven't made any study about this whatsoever. You don't know whether it's going to be public, private or public and private. You don't know; you're simply plowing ahead. You're not sure about tourism. You're not sure about the jobs.

"We're going to have it anyway. We're not sure about these things. We're not sure about generating revenue. We think it's going to give us revenue, but we're not sure. We don't have any studies as to the type of revenue it's going to give us or indeed it may cost us because of the lost jobs and the increased policing that's going to be required."

It may cost us more than it's going to give us. You've ignored the fact of what's happened in Manitoba. You've ignored that a gambling casino was put in Winnipeg for the purposes of raising revenue there, and what happened? Some 500 jobs were lost immediately in the racing business.

You have absolutely nothing to say in this House, and that's another matter, Minister. You come to this House after the member for Victoria-Haliburton has made a statement voicing his objections, and obviously there are a number of people applauding over in this section. I understand the House leader is making a simultaneous report in Windsor, and then you come to this House to make your announcement. What a preposterous and strange way of doing things.

But you have nothing to say about the need for more addiction treatment centres. Your party has talked about this over and over. You're plowing ahead with the process, but you have no plans for additional addiction treatment centres. You have nothing to say about the $2.2-billion horse racing industry and its 50,000 jobs that will be killed off by casinos. That's what's been estimated. You have nothing to say about the threat casinos pose to charitable organizations which now use gaming to raise funds for their charities. You have nothing to say about that.

You have nothing to say about the lost sales tax revenues, should people spend more and more of their money on gambling and less and less on other goods and services. You have nothing to say about that. You have no impact studies to talk about that. You have nothing to say about the potential losses, through corruption and fraud, due to inexperienced or insufficient regulatory personnel within the gambling casinos themselves. You have nothing to say about that, absolutely nothing, in your statement in the press conference today or in this House.

You have nothing to say about the escalating law enforcement costs which could accompany these gambling houses. That's been said over and over, but you've had nothing to say about it. You say: "It's a test project and we're going to talk about it. We're looking for consultation."

You have nothing to say about the fact that the Attorney General has written a very detailed report telling you, "Don't do it." He has said that virtually every study undertaken in the United States, Britain, Australia and elsewhere points out that gambling casinos, whether legal or illegal, encourage criminal activity. He has told you that if a jurisdiction is not willing to accept this involvement, then it should not get into legalized gambling. You've ignored those statements.

You've told us nothing. You say: "We'll roll the dice and we'll pick Windsor. Then the woes of Ontario will turn around. Then the financial woes will turn around." You have said: "Let's move more slowly. Let's roll the dice more slowly." What a strange way of doing it. You should shelve this operation and you should do an extensive study and can it until you know what you're doing.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a brief point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to move for unanimous consent for the member for Victoria-Haliburton to respond to the announcement.

The Speaker: Order. Is there unanimous consent? No, there is not.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I'd like to rise on a point of privilege which I have given you notice of earlier today. To paraphrase Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by members without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. This, of course, echoes Erskine May's

interpretation of "privilege."

Mr Speaker, I would like you to allow me to outline the details of what I consider to be a breach of my privilege as a member of this assembly.

In the course of my duties and responsibilities as a member of this assembly representing my constituents, I occasionally file requests under the freedom of information act. I have received numerous bills for this service, including one for $820, another for $1,400 and yet another for $2,600.

Paying these costs takes away the funds available to me as a member of this Legislature to serve my constituents and thus limits me from filing information which I believe is necessary to me, as Beauchesne's puts it, "to discharge my function" as a member of this House.

I believe that as members of this Legislature we should be allowed the freedom to make requests of this government in the course of carrying out our duties as elected representatives without being monetarily charged for this request.

I believe the current practices of this government, as legislated by the former Liberal government, impede my ability to carry out my job and responsibility as a member of the Legislative Assembly to represent and serve the best interests of the people of Ontario. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I would ask that you consider whether or not I have a prima facie case for privilege in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel, while I will be pleased to consider the matter you've brought to my attention, if I'm not mistaken, the fees to which the member refers are provided for within the legislation itself and the members of the House do not enjoy a special privilege not enjoyed by any other member of the province of Ontario. None the less, I'm pleased to take a look at what you've raised. As is the member's practice, he has raised it in an exemplary fashion and I always appreciate his approach to points of order and privilege.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, last week in this House you said you did not have any input to the board regarding the departure of the Hydro president, Mr Alan Holt, from Hydro. You also said that you found out about his departure in a press release dated September 30.

It is now apparent that you had discussions with Marc Eliesen about selecting a new president. This was confirmed in a letter to Marc Eliesen dated September 16, a full week before the board meeting on September 25. Minister, in light of these facts, how can you say that you knew nothing about Mr Holt's departure and that you had no influence whatsoever on the board's decision?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): There are a number of issues that the Leader of the Opposition has raised in her question and they need to be dealt with seriously and straightforwardly. I was asked last week whether I had directed the departure of Mr Holt; my response was no.

The letter which I tabled with the Clerk of this House and which I made available to the opposition and the press yesterday raised a number of issues with the chair of Ontario Hydro as a result of conversations I'd had in September with the chair of Ontario Hydro around transition, around successor issues and specifically around knowledge that they intended to discuss at the board the position of president and a number of other management issues.

I wrote to the chairman of Hydro suggesting to him that in my view it was important that if there was going to be a new president, in fact the new chair of Hydro, if and when he or she has been appointed, be part of discussions, along with the board of Hydro, around that issue. That's what I wrote to the chair about. The decision of the board to deal with the president's position was a decision of the board.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Minister, you said last week that you had no input whatsoever to the board's decision. Minister, in that letter of September 16 you explicitly discuss the appointment of a new president. On September 16, to the best of anybody else's knowledge, Ontario Hydro had a president; it was not looking for a new one. Your letter went on to direct the board to deal with these issues as quickly as possible.

The letter you wrote was referred to the board meeting of September 25 and your own deputy minister attended that board meeting. Minister, even if you were not physically present at the meeting, you surely cannot deny that your influence was being represented through your letter, through your appointed chairman of the board and through your deputy minister. It is absolutely inconceivable that neither your appointed chair nor your own deputy minister failed to inform you of the outcome of that meeting. How can you say you knew nothing of Mr Holt's departure and had no influence in that board's decision?

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess the easiest way to address this question from the Leader of the Opposition is to say that her assumption yesterday about what the outcome of that meeting was was incorrect.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Tell the truth.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take his seat for a moment. Members will recall that it is not possible to do something indirectly that is forbidden directly. Asking for a member to tell the truth is suggesting that a member of the House is not telling the truth. I would ask the members to just exercise a bit of caution and restraint with respect to the language that is used. Allow the minister an opportunity to respond to your question. Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition's question is based on her assumption from yesterday and perhaps I'll just read it to you: "Signed by you, directing them to ensure that Mr Holt would leave Ontario Hydro? How do you explain that the Hydro board voted 7 to 5 to fire Mr Holt?" There was no such motion at the board, to the best of my knowledge. Mr Holt has not been fired and the assumption that the Leader of the Opposition has made is an erroneous assumption.

The Speaker: Final supplementary?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I've spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter very carefully. I have checked Hansard and the news clippings. I've spoken with many people, I have listened to the minister here today and I want to lay down the facts for all to know.

On September 16 the minister wrote a letter to Marc Eliesen. In that letter he indicated that there was going to be the selection of a new president in a timely way by the board.

On September 25 Hydro's board of directors met. A resolution was put forward at that meeting requiring that Mr Holt be suspended immediately, notwithstanding that at the time he was in Spain. In a debate that ensued, the minister's letter was used in support of that resolution. The resolution was passed. The deputy minister was present and oversaw all of this.

On September 30, in this Legislature, the minister said he had no input to the board regarding Mr Holt's departure. In addition, outside the House on that same day, the minister said Mr Holt had retired voluntarily and was not fired.

With much regret and a great sense of loss for all members on all sides of this House and for the people of this province, I have to conclude that this minister has deliberately -- not inadvertently, but deliberately -- misled this House.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member knows that he must withdraw those remarks.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Speaker, I can appreciate full well that you must enforce the rules of this House, but I feel duty-bound to speak the truth, no matter how distasteful it may be. But out of respect for your office, Mr Speaker, and for the rules of this House, I will withdraw my statement.

My question for the minister is, will you now do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon Mr Charlton: I'm in fact pleased that the member noted in his diatribe that my letter in fact had been used in the discussion at the board. Perhaps the House would be interested and all the members of the House would be interested in knowing what it is that this minister said to the chair of Hydro.

"I'm writing to follow up our discussion about the search for your successor and the transition. As minister responsible for Ontario Hydro, I believe that it is extremely important that the new chair and the chief executive officer have the opportunity to work with the Ontario Hydro board of directors to select a new president and chief operating officer."

That was written in the context --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: That was written in the context of the full knowledge that the president's position was going to be discussed in succession matters.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That part of the letter was written in the full understanding, from my discussions with the chair of Ontario Hydro, that the president's position was going to be discussed, along with other succession issues.

The letter went on to say, this letter that was used in this debate around this position, "In accordance with

section 6 of the Power Corporation Act, it is the responsibility and the authority of the board of directors to appoint the president of the utility, exclusively its responsibility." That's the advice I provided to the board.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, it's quite clear that this issue is a question for the Premier, it's a question of the Premier's standards of behaviour for his cabinet ministers. In the absence of the Premier, we will have to defer further questions on this issue until the Premier is back in this House.

CASINOS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier and therefore in our inability to continue with this issue today, I will ask my second question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In responding to the minister's statement earlier today, our critic said we were not surprised that the statement had come. The reason that we weren't surprised was because we knew it was coming and today we've seen it: the Bob Rae government turning to gambling as a way of solving Ontario's financial problems.

Instead of taking the steps that we keep urging this government to deal with the economic problems that this province has, it seems that Bob Rae and his government are relying on a roll of the dice to grab the desperately needed revenues.

I would ask the minister, how can you and how can your Premier justify using casino economics as some kind of pathetic substitute for responsible financial management? Is gambling the only solution that you're going to offer the people of Ontario in these tough economic times?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): When the issue of casino gambling was announced in the budget, it was made clear at that time -- and I have made it clear myself, and so has the Treasurer when asked -- that in fact casino gambling is but a very small piece of the economic agenda. Of course it isn't the answer to all of the problems. What a ridiculous suggestion.

The issue is that some border communities came to the government and are looking at all kinds of pieces of an economic agenda to try to help them in these very difficult times. This government responded, and since the budget we have been working out and talking to people about the best approach and the best way to start such a project or projects in Ontario.

Of course it's not the answer to their problems. We all know that with the GST and free trade and the global recession it's not going to solve all the problems, but ask people in Windsor today. It sure is going to help them.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, of course we remember the budget. We remember a $150-million desperate attempt on the part of the Treasurer to solve a $10-billion deficit problem, and we asked then: What kinds of studies has your government done, what kind of studies have you done, on the social and economic impacts of the proposals to establish casinos right across this province?

So, Minister, I would ask you again today, and let me be very specific: I would expect that you are aware of the experiences in other jurisdictions which clearly indicate that casinos can attract crime. Michael Pollock, of New Jersey's Casino Control Commission, is quoted as saying, "You're going to see an increase in everything -- panhandling, pickpockets, murders, everything." In fact, Minister, in the three years following the opening of Atlantic City's first casino, calls for police help increased by 2,000%.

Minister, I ask you: Have you weighed these concerns at all in your decision to proceed? Does your government believe that the potential for increased violence, assault and crime in our communities would be justified by casino revenues?

Hon Ms Churley: The Leader of the Opposition I think refers to a story and a statement that was made when there was speculation out there that there could be five or six casinos. In fact my announcement today that what we're looking at is a pilot project I think will make law enforcers happy, because the advice we listened to, to move slowly and carefully, to make sure --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): We know full well that the bad people don't bother with pilot projects. It's a pilot project.

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

Hon Ms Churley: If you want to hear the answer, I'm happy to give it. Otherwise you can speak to me later.

The reason why we are announcing a pilot project is for precisely those reasons. We are listening to people. We are listening to the police. We know that we can have a crime-free casino, and we're going to make every effort to make sure that's what happens. The very fact that we're starting with one, in a controlled and careful way, indicates that that's exactly what we are concerned about and will be moving carefully to make sure that doesn't happen.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I seem to recall the Treasurer putting $150 million into his budget based on the six casinos you were going to set up for him. Has the Treasurer now changed his budget estimates? You now expect us to believe that you have no other casino proposals up your sleeve, Minister, but we're still afraid that you may rush headlong into something that could in fact change the face of this province for ever without really looking at the consequences of what you're doing.

Minister, our concerns are heightened by the kind of comments we read in the background statement which you put out with your announcement today. One of the background statements is that, "Nevada is an example of one jurisdiction that built its economy around gaming."

Minister, will you assure this House that Ontario is not about to build its economy around gaming, that this casino in Windsor is really a pilot project, that you will put all other casino plans on hold until you've had an opportunity to fully study the potential economic and social consequences?

Hon Ms Churley: The answer to that is very simple. If she had read the full package that went out today and had listened to my statement in the House today, that is precisely what I said. Let me reiterate, for the member's comfort level, that we have announced today that we are going to begin consulting with people from the Windsor area to start a pilot project in that area and that no other proposals will be looked at until that casino is up and running and an evaluation is done. That is precisely what we're telling you today and telling the people of Ontario.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Once again I want to ask, did you not tell me on September 30, as quoted in Hansard, that you had no input whatsoever into the dismissal of Mr Holt? You did not at any time, relative to that question, indicate that you had had not only verbal communication but written communication with the chairman of the board. Remember, the chairman of the board is Marc Eliesen. He's not only chairman of Hydro; he's chairman of that board.

I ask you again: In your letter, in the paragraph you just read, Mr Minister, you say "to select a new president and chief operating officer." Is that not the job Mr Holt was holding at the time? You don't realize --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Jordan: You're dealing here, first of all, with a high executive office which is already filled, and you are putting in writing to the chairman of the board that that office is vacant. Then you go on to say, "I am therefore requesting that you raise this issue with the board and ask them to resolve this in a timely way."

The Speaker: Will the member please conclude his question.

Mr Jordan: What position was open at the time you wrote this letter?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The member raised a number of issues in his

preamble, and his question was, what position was vacant at the time I wrote the letter? There was none. As I've explained a number of times, I had discussions with the chair of Ontario Hydro in September, discussions which made me aware that the board of Hydro would be having discussions around succession issues, including the president's position.

I wrote to the board, Mr Speaker, in the letter which has been tabled with your clerk, suggesting to the board of Hydro that it was important that the new chair of Hydro be part of the board in terms of any consultation around a new president. In his question, the member raised yet again, as he's done several times in this House, incorrect material about the dismissal of Mr Holt. No such event has occurred.

Mr Jordan: The minister says no such dismissal has occurred, that Mr Holt still has his position. Well, he doesn't. You just told us that no such dismissal has occurred. Our information is that Mr Holt has been fired by your board of directors under the chairmanship of Marc Eliesen, and you're trying to tell me that you had no input into it. You say, "This minister and this government have not directed any of those actions." This letter completely contradicts that statement, and you lied to me that day.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. The member for Lanark-Renfrew knows that he has made an unparliamentary remark. I ask the member for Lanark-Renfrew to withdraw the remark.

Mr Jordan: Mr Speaker, I was elected on the basis of honesty, integrity and accountability. You were asked yesterday, Mr Speaker, to assess these two documents --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The honourable member knows that no member of the House may accuse another member of lying. I ask the honourable member simply to withdraw his remark.

Mr Jordan: But, Mr Speaker, please, do you agree that these two documents are contradictory?

The Speaker: I ask the member if he will withdraw the unparliamentary remark he made.

Mr Jordan: I can't withdraw the remark, because the remark is based on --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If it is of any assistance to the member, what is at question here is not the veracity of statements but rather language --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Sure it is. Integrity of the whole House.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. The honourable member is being asked to withdraw a statement which is unparliamentary. In withdrawing such a statement, he does not make any comment on the veracity of the statement but simply is adhering to the parliamentary principle that all members are honourable and no member will accuse another member of lying in the House. I ask the member, now that he's had an opportunity to reflect, would he please withdraw his statement.

Mr Jordan: Mr Speaker, I understand your point that by parliamentary procedure I should withdraw the remark, but I have a conscience too and I have to live with it. I have two contradictory documents in my hand and I cannot withdraw the statement.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew: I regret that he is unable to subscribe to the parliamentary language which we must insist upon in this chamber. The member leaves the Speaker with no option but to name him. Mr Jordan, you are named and I ask that you withdraw yourself from the House and its committees for the balance of this sitting day. Would the member voluntarily leave the chamber.

Mr Jordan left the chamber.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Final supplementary, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Sorry. The practice in this chamber is that the question had belonged to the member for Lanark-Renfrew; he is no longer to be with us for the balance of the afternoon, thus the question itself has been killed. The third party is entitled to its second leadoff question, and I invite any member of the third party.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: How do you know, sir, with all due respect to you, that the member for Nipissing wasn't going to ask the second supplementary to start with? As far as I know, there's no rule in this House that says that the same member who asked the question has to ask any supplementary. If there is, show it to me in the rules and I'll be glad to accept the fact that I'm wrong.

The Speaker: My understanding is that the practice is that because the member who had the question was ejected from the chamber, he has in fact forfeited the opportunity for him or any other member of his caucus to ask a question. It's not a rule in the standing orders, but it is indeed the practice of this House.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Mr Speaker, I think if you read the standing orders you will see that the official opposition and the third party are each given these questions during question period time. They are not owned by any one member of either of those two parties. They are owned by each of those parties, and as long as one of the members of those parties wants to take any

part in any one of those questions, he or she is entitled to do that. That has been the practice here on a number of occasions. We have even seen it today where one member led with one part of the question and another member followed. The point is that within the standing rules the questions are owned by the parties and not by the individual members.

The Speaker: The member for Carleton pursues a very logical response. With respect to the clock, I will do two things:

(1) I will review this matter and (2) allow a supplementary with the understanding that we are not setting a precedent. I require some time to take a look at this. In the meantime, I will allow a final supplementary to any member of the third party. I believe the leader would like to have such supplementary.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. By way of final supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Minister, we have just heard from one of the most honourable members I've had the privilege of knowing, the member for Lanark-Renfrew. Fulfilling his mandate to carry out his role as your critic, critic of the Minister of Energy, minister responsible for Ontario Hydro, he asked you on September 30: "My question to the minister is, did your ministry give any direction? Did you have any input to the board regarding Mr Holt leaving the corporation at this time?" This was on September 30. You responded, "The answer to the question is, very simply, no."

Mr Minister, how do you rationalize that answer you gave on September 30 with the copy of the letter dated just about two weeks before that, September 16, directing the Hydro board and the chairman to take into consideration certain matters with regard to the hiring of a new president and chief operating officer? How can the member for Lanark-Renfrew fulfil his responsibilities if you give that kind of answer on September 30 when you're clearly on the record on September 16 having an influence, having an input by way of letter to the board?

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: That's my simple question. How can the minister do his job if you're going to act this way?

Hon Mr Charlton: My answer is just as simple. My letter in no way directs the board of Ontario Hydro to do anything.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: This House stands in recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1516 and resumed at 1526.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mr Charlton: I think, Mr Speaker, I had concluded my response to the leader of the third party.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for a supplementary, but I believe it's now time to move on to a new question, so I'll move on to my second question.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Treasurer, the Deputy Premier, in the absence of the Premier particularly.

Mr Treasurer, we are losing over 500 jobs a day for every day that you don't have a plan to put Ontario back to work. I'd like to quote, Mr Treasurer, from your throne speech last spring. "Doing our part to build a stronger economy," you said, "is the first priority of this government."

Treasurer, I have here a copy of an NDP caucus memo outlining the 18 priority items for this fall session. Not one of these 18 priority items of "must have" deals with the one thing that people need most: a job. Treasurer, is this list of 18 priorities that is your priority for this fall session your idea of an economic plan? Secondly, how do you jibe this with your commitment that the first priority of your government is to build a stronger economy?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I do appreciate the question from the leader of the third party. I don't have the list in front of me that the leader of the third party does, obviously, but I can assure him that in the budget, we indicated that there were three priorities of the budget for this fiscal year. The first one was job creation and the protection of existing jobs, the second one was the preservation of essential services in this province, and the third one was keeping the deficit in check at a time of the worst recession since the 1930s. Those were our priorities in the budget and those remain our priorities today.

Mr Harris: The 18 priorities in the document that came from the Cabinet Office to the caucus executive indicated the 18 priorities, and some of them I can give you. This is your document, not mine. Some of them I can tell you, what you thought were the important ones.

Casinos: Well, we saw today how little you actually know about casinos, whether they'll generate any net jobs or not, or any revenue or not, or whether the money will stay in Windsor or come to Toronto to Queen's Park.

Another priority here on your agenda is false security alarms. That's a real job creator, Mr Treasurer. Another one is an important "must have" before Christmas: political activity rights. I suppose, Treasurer, that will maybe create some jobs for NDP hacks.

I suggest to you that it doesn't jibe with what you said your first priority was: the economy. Treasurer, if someone can't feed his family, he doesn't care about 90% of what's on your priority list for this fall session. I ask you if you could point to a single thing on your list of legislative priorities, the reason we are here and here till Christmas, that will put someone in Ontario back to work.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, the leader of the third party has been in this place long enough to know that there's a difference between what's on the order paper for a legislative session and what the priorities for a government are as we move through our first mandate.

I shouldn't have to, but I will remind the leader of the third party that still ongoing, day to day in this province, is a major commitment through our Jobs Ontario funds: the Jobs Ontario Capital, the Jobs Ontario Homes. We created almost 9,000 jobs for youth this summer with an additional injection of money for youth in the province. We created, through Futures, 27,000 jobs for youth in 1992-93 with a budget of about $100 million.

I could go on and on and on. The point is that these major --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Go on and on and on. It's a joke.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't need a lecture from a Conservative anywhere in this country on how to create jobs, because that party has destroyed more jobs than any other party in this country.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: I refer the Treasurer back to the throne speech. The throne speech lays out the legislative priority. It says, "This is what our government's priorities are." It's in the Legislature, and it's the legislative priorities. It says that the first priority of this government is to build a stronger economy.

Mr Treasurer, other than creating work for Ben Silverberg -- Ben Silverberg is the entrepreneur who gives lie detector tests -- I want to know how your legislative priority jibes with the first priority of creating jobs.

Since you mentioned Progressive Conservatives, how does it jibe with Leslie Frost, with George Drew? How does it jibe with Bill Davis? How does it jibe with builders we had in this province for 42 years, who created jobs, created economic opportunity, created prosperity? And now in two years you have killed and destroyed more jobs than were created in that period of time. Treasurer, how does your economic agenda jibe with what should be your first priority?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try to be calm and reasoned, because I don't want to tease the bears over there again, but --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would ask members on both sides of the House to attempt to exercise some restraint so that we don't have to have another recess.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will try and give a non-provocative answer, but it is difficult sometimes when the third party has such an opposition mindset that it will not step back and see that a lot of our initiatives this year do not require any changes in legislation so therefore do not need to be part of a legislative agenda for this fall session.

There's no legislation required for the Jobs Ontario funds and base capital. It's creating and supporting more than 90,000 jobs this year. There's no legislation required for the youth fund. There's no legislation required for the Futures program, for the social services employment program, for the municipal and first nations job creation programs, for Transitions, for the Ontario help centres, for the Environmental Youth Corps, for Jobs Ontario Capital.

There was no legislation required this fall to carry on with what I think is the most far-reaching, forward-looking investment in this province that it has ever had by any government in the history of the province.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, although the work slowdown being undertaken by the Toronto police cannot be in any way condoned, it's quite clear that this situation is continuing to grow more serious and that police in other jurisdictions are contemplating similar protests.

Minister, as I stated yesterday, I continue to believe that you must accept responsibility for the poisoned atmosphere and for the sense of alienation and demoralization being felt by police officers across the province. In light of the escalating concern, will you tell us what immediate and specific steps you intend to take to improve relations between your government and the police of this province?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The member opposite alludes to a very troubling matter that is present with respect to some members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police. The chief of police, Mr McCormack, and the board will deal with that particular matter. It is their responsibility to do so, and of course I urge them to. I will be monitoring those particular actions, as is my responsibility under the act, and I will involve myself if and when it becomes necessary.

In terms of the second part of the question regarding the atmosphere with respect to policemen and policewomen all across this province, I have done nothing but sing the praises in this House in terms of those dedicated men and women who defend our rights in this province. I would challenge members opposite, from either party, to indicate anything in Hansard over the last 12 months that has indicated otherwise.

In addition, to be more direct to the question with respect to the OPP, $45 million, 241 officers and new regulations that speak to more professional training and standards are all very positive aspects which build towards the confidence and support of our law enforcement agencies in the province.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, give that long list of all the things you've done to the police and then ask, "Why are you still so frustrated with what this government has done?" I don't understand why it isn't obvious to you that the NDP rhetoric has absolutely demoralized police forces across this province.

Your government and the ministry under your leadership have created a crisis situation. It's important that you understand that and it's important that you understand that it is now your responsibility to help resolve this situation.

Last night the chair of the Metro police services board, Susan Eng, said that the protest by Metro police is a demand to be heard. Mr Minister, that's all they're asking. Will you at least commit today to meet with representatives from the Metro police association and from other local police associations to at least hear and review their concerns?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member opposite says that she just doesn't understand, and I can't account for that lack of understanding.

With respect to the use-of-force regulations which I announced in this House, one part of that which seems to be of some concern to some members of the Metropolitan Toronto force was developed within our ministry, yes, but it was also developed after a very broad consultation with the major police stakeholders, all of them: the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario police service boards and then a wide variety of other community representatives, such as the Block Parent association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario -- all of the police stakeholders.

There were also other representations there from other community organizations and groups, and all of them collectively had the opportunity to discuss and bring input to this particular issue.

The issues that are before us in terms of the regulation are all aimed at improving officer and public safety. I think the public is well served by these new recommendations and resolutions, and they should simply be given the opportunity to work.

CASINOS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. We learned this morning that this government has once again made a decision in the dark, this time about casinos.

Minister, this morning at the press conference, you indicated in response to questions that you have no idea if this gamble will generate any tourism dollars, that you have no idea how much crime a casino will attract, that you have no idea how much money this will take away from existing charities or businesses in the Windsor area, that you have no idea who is going to run this private project, that you don't even know when or where it will open, yet, in the absence of all that, you've promised Windsor a casino.

Minister, I would ask you two questions. First, wouldn't it make more sense from a sound management point of view, something we haven't seen very much of, to do the social projections and economic studies before you announce the casino? Second, in the absence of having done that, when can we expect to see the economic and social projections and results of those impact studies, even though you've already made the announcement?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): If the government conducted all the impact studies the leader of the third party is asking for, we would never get anything done for the economy. The reality is that we have spent some time looking at the implications of this decision we made during the budget announcement. We believe we have listened to people. We have talked to the law enforcement officers, we have talked to the major stakeholders, and what everybody is telling us is to move in a cautious, controlled way, which is what I said we should do from the beginning. That is exactly what we are doing.

We certainly now will go on to start working with the members of the community from the Windsor area and the municipality and the officials in that area to work out with them, in a consultative way, the best model for that. We will be working with the police to come up with the best model to make sure that this casino is crime-free and that it does in fact generate revenues.

Mr Harris: Minister, we know the motivation is to generate money. Otherwise, why would you violate every principle your party has stood for during the last 50 years by taxing the poor? So we know it's to generate money. The only government that has jurisdiction in Ontario that's giving money back to the poor is Brian Mulroney: GST credits, more to the poor; taxation, tax the rich, give to the poor. That's the only government that has brought in any policy. What do we have from the NDP government? That's what we have, as embarrassing as that sounds. From the NDP, we have a Treasurer who taxes $40 more if you make $20,000. Now we have this tax on the poor. So we know the motivation is money.

This morning, Minister, you said, "We don't know how much revenue it will generate." Why haven't you done those impact studies? And let me ask you this question, Minister: Since you don't know how much money, and we know the motivation is money, will you today commit the money that you are going to take away from Windsor hospitals, the money that the casino will take away from Windsor charities, the money that the casino will take away from all of the fund-raising projects now going on in and around the community of Windsor -- will you commit that if there is any profit, that money, 100%, will stay in Windsor from where the money is generated? Will you commit to that?

Hon Ms Churley: I would say that it is precisely because of GST and free trade that the border towns have come to us as a government to ask for our assistance, and that is why they came and asked us to look at the possibility of casino gambling, and we are responding to their concerns and their requests.

What I want to make very, very clear is that in terms of the model and in terms of the revenue that can be generated, we want to and will consult with the people who live in Windsor to make sure that we have the kind of model that they would like to see in their community.

I feel there is no doubt that there will be revenue. I can tell the member the revenue that is made in Winnipeg, Manitoba; however, that is a different circumstance. It is the first time that we have, in Ontario, decided to start casino gaming, and this in fact is a pilot project which will give us a lot of the information that we need. I'm sure Windsor itself is very happy that it has this opportunity. We will shortly have this casino up and running, and that will tell us a lot of the things we need to know.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I've listened carefully to everything she's had to say today, and I'm confident she told us everything that she can tell us about casino gambling in the province of Ontario during the course of her press conference.

However, as a New Democrat and as a person who's been active for 25 years in that party, I, along with other New Democrats, have persisted in explaining to our friends, co-workers and neighbours that our party is different, that our policy comes from the convention floor, from the grass roots, from the women and men who make up the body of that party, not from some clandestine backroom, not from some corporate boardroom.

My question is this: In view of the fact that there's been a provincial convention and several provincial council meetings since the budget speech, and in view of the fact that there's been absolutely no consultation or discussion within any of those bodies about this radical change in policy, when is the minister going to ensure that the party -- those women and men who worked so hard for so many years to see an NDP government in this province -- has an opportunity to discuss this very radical departure from long-held views by New Democrats and CCFers before them?

Hon Ms Churley: I understand that tomorrow the member for Welland-Thorold is turning 40, so I'll forgive him for being just a little bit edgy today. I want him to know, because I've already turned that corner, that there is life and there is fun after 40. There really is.

On the issue of consultation, casino gambling is not new. It is new to Ontario, but it is not new. It already exists in BC, Alberta, Manitoba and the Yukon. Other jurisdictions are looking at it. We have been --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the minister take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: We have been and we will continue to consult with the stakeholders who have some stake in this and particularly we will be talking to people in Windsor because that is the community that will be first impacted and we will continue to do that. In regard to the party, it's my understanding there is no particular party policy on this; however, of course we talk to our friends and neighbours in the party.

Mr Kormos: I thank the minister for those, I presume, somewhat backhanded congratulations. Yes, I am turning 40 tomorrow and in those 40 years I've learned that you don't do things behind closed doors, you don't do things in secrecy. If you're going to develop policy that's going to impact on 10 million people in this province, you do it openly and publicly. If you believe in a party that is a democratic party that generates policy at the grass roots, you go to that party before you start changing policy.

My question to the minister is this. In view of the fact there is clearly a wide range of strongly held views about casino gambling, its impact not just on the city of Windsor but on the whole province, its impact on poor people and other persons who might be lured to spend time at the slots among other things, in view of that, in view of the fact that this was not a party policy at the time of the last election and was not part of the New Democratic Party campaign -- and I appreciate that John Chalmers, one of this minister's senior bureaucratic staff, was cavorting down at the Las Vegas Hilton two weeks ago --

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Kormos: -- at an international gaming conference, but that doesn't constitute consultation. Will this minister today commit herself to a process of open, public consultation so that all of the views that are held, so that all of the opinions and valid submissions that could be made about the impact of casino gambling, its impact on tourism, if any, and the types of models that we ought to pursue, so that all of those views can be discussed, debated, exchanged --

The Speaker: Would the member complete his supplementary?

Mr Kormos: -- and presented clearly and openly to the people of this province?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Point of order.

The Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Cordiano: I have sat patiently today and waited for the Speaker to allocate time appropriately for each member to have his or her say and I think today the question period has been going off on all kinds of directions. Most members around this place wait for their opportunity to ask questions --

Interjections.

Mr Cordiano: Just let me say what I have to say, please.

I think that it's incumbent upon us to allow members from all sides of the House to have their say and I appreciate the member previous putting his question, but I think you allowed far too much time today for each of the members to ask questions and quite frankly we never got very many questions in this question period. I think it's an atrocious question period and I think you should review what happened today.

The Speaker: To the member for Lawrence, I agree with him that as long as members are not prepared to exercise restraint, then indeed it will be very difficult to get the appropriate number of questions on the floor of the House. All I can do is continue to urge members to exercise some restraint so that we can get the maximum number of questions possible.

The time for oral questions has expired.

Interjections.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): We want an answer. Come on. There's got to be an answer.

The Speaker: To the House leader of the opposition, he will know that every point of order should be raised immediately, dealt with immediately. The clock continues and we've reached the end of the time period. At this point, the only way that we could allow a response from the minister is if the House agrees.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, it has long been held that as long as the question can be started before the clock expires, the minister is allowed to respond to it. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that you're not remembering quite the way it is, because I can tell you that as soon as a question is begun, even if there's four seconds, the answer is given by the minister.

The Speaker: I stand corrected and I appreciate the advice of the House leader of the opposition. I stand corrected and indeed that is the practice of our House and the minister is permitted a response.

Hon Ms Churley: I appreciate the concerns the member raised. I just want to say that the reason why I announced today that we're starting with a pilot project very clearly deals with our concern, my concern, about some of these questions and that is why we're moving slowly and carefully.

We are not by any means operating behind closed doors in the dark. This was announced way back in April. We have made other announcements. We have talked to the press. We have, in fact, consulted widely on this, so it's a ridiculous allegation. This has been a very open process. The people out there, believe me, know what is going on. I just want to assure the member that those consultations with the party, without party, for all of the people of Ontario, will continue.

The Speaker: Now the time for oral questions has expired.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to give you notice pursuant to subsection 34(

a) of our standing orders that I'm not satisfied with the response given earlier to my question by the Minister of Energy and I'm asking for a late show.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member, I trust he will file the necessary document within the prescribed time at the table.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the above-mentioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

This is signed by approximately 200 people from Fergus, Elora, Arthur, Flesherton and Dresden, among other places.

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for the citizens of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the Assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report of the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It's signed by 18 citizens of Middlesex county, and I affix my signature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to table a petition signed by concerned citizens who live within my riding, in Oakville and Burlington and the surrounding area, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed changes to labour legislation will increase potential job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery of a sound economic environment; and

"Whereas a recent public opinion poll showed that 83% of Ontario citizens support the withdrawal of these proposed changes;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the existing labour legislation."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 29 residents of the county of Middlesex, including people from Strathroy, London, Lambeth and Mount Brydges. They petition the Legislature as follows:

"That the arbitrator's report for the city of London and the county of Middlesex be set aside because it does not reflect the express wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings. It awards far too extensive an annexation area to the city of London, and it will jeopardize the vitality of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life."

I have signed my name to this petition.

HOSPITAL LEGISLATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I'd like to read into the record a petition in the form of about 600 letters I have received expressing concern with the proposed changes to the Ontario Public Hospitals Act. It goes as follows:

"Archbishop Aloysius Ambrozic has made his concerns known about the proposed changes to the Ontario Public Hospitals Act made by the Minister of Health, Ms Frances Lankin. The proposed changes include replacing volunteer boards of directors by appointed or elected boards. These changes would include Catholic and other hospitals presently administered by different religious communities. These changes would fundamentally change the direction, values, philosophy, tradition and mission of Catholic hospitals, which have been a bright light in the health care field for over 150 years in the province of Ontario.

"I would like to add my voice of concern to those of thousands of concerned citizens that are members of St Maximilian Kolbe parish community. We strongly oppose the changes proposed by the Minister of Health and believe that the quality of health care and the values and philosophy that are now part of Catholic hospitals would be jeopardized or even destroyed by the proposed changes.

"I am forwarding to your offices hundreds of letters written by our parishioners regarding this matter. For the most part, they are constituents of Mississauga East and West. Please present them to the Minister of Health and voice our concerns during the upcoming debate in the provincial Parliament.

"On behalf of myself and the parish community of St Maximilian Kolbe, I thank you for your attention and concern, and offer you my best wishes and prayers."

It's signed by Reverend Nowak.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have well over a thousand signatures from people in York region with regard to the proposed landfill sites in York region.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to uphold legislation to protect environmentally sensitive areas from landfill sites;

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario;

"Whereas we absolutely reject the notion of the establishment of garbage dumps for the Metro Toronto waste in York region;

"We, the undersigned, protest and petition the NDP government in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to protect environmentally sensitive areas and look at all viable options for waste disposal. York region protests the location of landfill sites on the environmentally sensitive Rouge Valley and Oak Ridge systems.

"We therefore call upon the government to repeal Bill 143 in its entirety, consider all alternatives to site selection in York region and directly consult with all of the residents of Georgina and York region with regard to their wishes, possibly by referendum, and immediately cease the process of site selection in York region."

Humbly presented and affixed with my signature, Mr Speaker.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition here with approximately 50 names from people from the Bright, Plattsville, New Hamburg and New Dundee area, and the petition reads:

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

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is a great deal of unacceptable pornography and violence on television, movies, videos, in books, magazines etc; and

"Whereas this prevalence has a negative impact on our society in general and on children in particular; and

"Whereas there appears to be very little restriction on the availability of these materials;

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislature as follows:

"We believe the government of Ontario should institute more strict controls on violent and pornographic movies, television, videos, etc."

It's signed by about 50 of my constituents.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I have a petition signed by approximately 60 people, saying:

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

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

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

"Whereas on June 11, 1992, the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton, Mr Drainville, moved a resolution, 'That in the opinion of this House, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly should be authorized to review and report to the House on recommended changes to the standing orders to allow independent members of the assembly the right to more fully participate in the work of the assembly'; and

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly on that date, June 11, 1992, did unanimously vote in favour of that resolution;

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

"We request that the government allow the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to study and debate the said resolution."

I have signed this.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Cooper from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill 74,

An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons / Loi concernant la prestation de services d'intervenants en faveur des personnes vulnérables, the French title of which is amended to read "Loi concernant la prestation de services d'intervention en faveur des personnes vulnérables"

Bill 108,

An Act to provide for the making of Decisions on behalf of Adults concerning the Management of their Property and concerning their Personal Care / Loi prévoyant la prise de décisions au nom d'adultes en ce qui concerne la gestion de leurs biens et le soin de leur personne

Bill 109,

An Act respecting Consent to Treatment / Loi concernant le consentement au traitement

Bill 110,

An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 / Loi modifiant certaines lois de l'Ontario par suite de l'adoption de la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement et de la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui, the title of which is amended to read "An Act to amend certain statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Advocacy Act, 1992, the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 / Loi modifiant certaines lois de l'Ontario par suite de l'adoption de la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, de la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement et de la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui"

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 28, 1992, these bills stand referred to the committee of the whole House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): With respect to the debate this afternoon, there's been agreement among the three parties to divide the time equally. I expect a vote at about 5:50 this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there agreement? Everybody agrees? Agreed.

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION

Mr Harris moved, pursuant to standing order 42(a), want of confidence motion number 2:

That this House, noting that since this government has taken office it has pursued policies which have discouraged investors and consumers and punished taxpayers and which have compounded rather than ameliorated the economic problems facing the province by imposing multibillion-dollar tax grabs, by adding billions to the provincial debt, by pursuing an anti-business agenda as expressed through its biased and unbalanced labour law reforms, by creating an environment hostile to the private sector and by showing itself to be hostage to the special interest groups as opposed to an advocate for the public interest, and further noting since this government took office two years ago:

(

a) that more than 290,000 additional Ontario workers have been forced on to unemployment,

(

b) that the unemployment rate has increased by more than five percentage points,

(

c) that 86,000 jobs in manufacturing, 60,000 jobs in the construction industry and 24,000 jobs in the trade sector have vanished,

(

d) that the welfare case load has increased to the point where today more than one million Ontarians depend on welfare,

finds that this government is incapable of managing the economy of the province in a manner which will create new jobs, new opportunities and lower taxes and therefore this government lacks the confidence of this House.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Nobody regrets more than I the necessity for bringing this non-confidence motion forward today. Behind all of the 290,000 Ontario workers who have been forced on to unemployment lies a family, lies lost hope, lie crushed dreams, lies lack of opportunity and hope for children in this province.

Behind each and every one of the 86,000 jobs that were lost in manufacturing, there is a family story, not a happy one.

Behind each one of the 60,000 jobs in the construction industry, there is a family, there are children. It's not a happy story.

Behind each one of the 24,000 jobs in the trade sector that have vanished, there are families, there are hardships, there are lost dreams, there are crushed hopes.

It is for that reason that I truly regret the necessity of this motion at this particular time.

At no time in our history that I can recall over the last 50 or so years have we seen such absolute incompetence in managing change and in managing the situation that Ontarians are faced with. I was looking back to George Drew and the 22-point plan for organized economic and social growth. It's not the first time that Ontario has faced the downturn. It's not the first time that there has been a restructuring going on.

I've heard the government say things like "when this recession is over." We're not in a recession. If you think recovery is just going to come about and then the good times will roll, you're very sadly mistaken. We've had recessions before -- we had one in 1981-82 -- and we've had restructurings before. What we're in today is another restructuring. We're in a period where there is global restructuring, where there is North American restructuring, and yet we have a government sitting back and saying: "When the recession is over, here's what we'll do. We'll spend $10 billion.

We'll borrow it and then we'll pay it back somehow when the recession is over." There is no recession; there is a massive restructuring taking place.

When you review, and if you view the situation and understand that it is a restructuring, then you see opportunities. You see hope and you deal with it and you manage those changes. That's why this province prospered and led this country for so many decades, because we had governments that weren't stuck to any ideology, that weren't stuck to any notions of the past but were constantly adapting to the changes of the future, the changes that were happening around it.

I was reading back on Drew, who really started a lot of the economic prosperity, the modern prosperity that Ontario enjoyed. He drew up a 22-point plan for organized economic and social growth. At that time it was based upon the renewal and expansion of Ontario Hydro, tax cuts and reforms in support of a modern economic and social policy, not the social policies of the decade previous but new, innovative, progressive social policies to adapt to the restructuring that was going on at that time. Premier Drew said, and I quote, "In every field of employment, individual initiative will be encouraged and hard work rewarded by reducing taxes and removing bureaucratic restrictions."

Ontario started on a path of investing in and building our infrastructure. Think today of the differences. They planned 5, 10, 15 or 20 years in the future with Hydro needs and a Hydro grid across this province, not the disastrous Hydro policies of this government we've seen today.

Think of the roads, where roads were build in advance of development, where the infrastructure was developed, where there was an education system adapting to the time, ready for the challenge of educating our youth for the jobs that were coming about with the restructuring at that time. Ontario prospered. We were envied across Canada. We were envied around the world. They came here to Ontario from far and wide to seek a better life, and through the decades a succession of Premiers -- Frost, Robarts, Davis -- actively managed the change of their decades by building a future instead of being victimized by it.

Had Davis and Robarts sat back as the change was coming upon them in the late 1960s and 1970s instead of thinking ahead to the future, building and creating the whole community college system to be able to reflect the changing skills that were required for a workforce then, looking ahead, planning ahead, planning and managing that change that was