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

December 8, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L066A - Tue 8 Dec 1998 / Mar 8 Déc 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

POVERTY

DIABETES FUNDRAISING EVENT

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

SAFE HAVEN

STRIP SEARCHES

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

SHARE THE WARMTH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATUS OF BILL PR22

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

THEATRE INDUSTRY

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

MINISTER'S COMMENT

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

ADOPTION

LAND USE PLANNING

EDUCATION FUNDING

ADOPTION

PALLIATIVE CARE

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

ADOPTION

MARRIAGE

VISITING SPECIALIST CLINICS

ADOPTION

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ELECTION CALL

ADOPTION

PROTECTION OF TEMAGAMI

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

STATUS OF BILL PR22

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm addressing my remarks again to the Premier and the Minister of Housing. We have a long and growing list of homeless people in Toronto. We have a long and growing list of 100,000 people waiting to get into affordable housing; one third of those are children.

I'm calling on the Minister of Housing and the Premier to do something about this. It's about time that this government, this Premier and this minister take this matter seriously and deal with the crisis they have created.

The tenant protection legislation which they introduced does absolutely nothing to provide any new affordable housing units for needy people; it does nothing to promote even one new affordable unit. It does help people who want to convert good rental units to condominiums.

I'm glad the minister is in the House today. The city of Toronto has on the books some 1,200 units ready to be converted from rental to condominium. This is a total shame. It does absolutely nothing. I'm calling on the Premier and the minister to do something about this big problem, the crisis they have created. It does nothing to bring about any more units for our most needy people. I'm calling on the government to act and take serious action on this grave matter.

POVERTY

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): The Harris government crows much about the decline in welfare rolls in Ontario, but the reality is that poverty is getting worse for families in Ontario, and this government's policies are not helping families in need.

This week two reports dealing with poverty in our communities were tabled, showing that the plight of poor children in particular is worsening. The National Council on Welfare has condemned the government's child tax credit as discriminating against families on welfare, who receive no benefit from the scheme. The Canadian Council on Social Development says in its progress report that the well-being of children is declining in more than half of its nine indicators, from health to economic security. No wonder the United Nations committee on economic, social and cultural rights was so scathing in its report on poverty in Canada.

What's worse is this government's policies towards families in need - it wants to break them up. I have a case in my constituency of Ottawa West where a 50-year-old woman with a 10-year-old daughter with special needs, a single parent on assistance, moved in with her 80-year-old mother because, according to her doctor, she needed care. Yet the government's new rules would cut her benefits in half, effective this month, to $446 a month, despite the fact that her rent is $500 and her child needs medication. I say to the Minister of Community and Social Services, you are breaking up this family and costing taxpayers more.

I have another case in Ottawa West where a constituent on assistance has an open custody arrangement with his ex regarding his three children, ages 11, 9 and 8. He lives in a two-bedroom apartment where he pays $600 in rent. Your new rules, effective this month, cut his social assistance to $551. He will no longer be able to handle his parental obligations.

DIABETES FUNDRAISING EVENT

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): On October 15, I introduced a very special guest to members of this Legislature. Ayden Byle of Inverhuron, Ontario, was more than halfway through his run across Canada to raise money for diabetes research. I am pleased and proud to announce that Ayden completed his journey in Halifax last Friday, December 4.

This was an outstanding achievement. From Vancouver on June 1 to Halifax on December 4, Ayden ran a total of 6,515 kilometres. His journey was not without difficulties. Ayden suffered from heat and foot problems throughout the run, but he would not give up.

As the first diabetic to run across Canada, Ayden wanted to impress upon all Canadians the seriousness of this disease and the need to find a cure. In this he was successful. Schoolchildren, diabetics, community leaders, sports teams and ordinary Canadians all came out to encourage and support Ayden during his journey.

Upon his arrival in Halifax, Ayden and his team had raised nearly $103,000. While somewhat discouraged by the lack of funds raised to date, Ayden intends to undertake an aggressive fundraising campaign over the next four years. By then, Ayden hopes there will be a cure.

I also wish to recognize Ayden's parents, Marshall and Wanda, for the love, support and encouragement they have provided to Ayden throughout his journey. He could not have completed it without the support of his family, friends and sponsors.

I congratulate Ayden and his team on this remarkable accomplishment. Ayden, welcome back to Ontario. We are all extremely proud of you.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): This government's ignorance of the needs of the disabled has been further exposed. I have received a letter from Huguette Burroughs of Cornwall, who as a reporter with le journal de Cornwall was invited to attend a major event hosted by the Minister of Health recently at a major hotel. Unfortunately, Ms Burroughs was unable to attend because the location which the minister chose for the event was not accessible to the disabled.

According to Ms Burroughs, Minister Witmer's function was held on the second floor of the hotel and there is no elevator to get there. Ms Burroughs understands that hotels and restaurants may not always want to comply in becoming fully accessible. However, she finds it incredible that the Minister of Health would commit such an indiscretion in staging an event of this nature.

This government's half-baked disabilities legislation is insulting enough. The health minister and her colleagues must seriously consider Ms Burroughs's suggestion that this faulty legislation should be revised. It should state clearly that when such functions are held, these should be held in fully accessible locations.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): I rise today to remind the government of the ongoing damage caused by the Mike Harris government's cutbacks to health care. Le centre de santé communautaire de Sudbury is one of the many CHCs that is underfunded. Dr Meratto left in July 1996 and the Sudbury Community Health Centre started offering part-time services in September 1996. Thanks to my predecessor, Floyd Laughren, and the member for Sudbury East, Ms Martel, the CHC was able to secure some permanent resources in October 1997 for both Rayside Balfour and Valley-East, although no funding was received for rent, phone, postage, supplies, cleaning, computers or other essentials.

The demand for services in both places is very high in an underserviced area for physicians. There are two physicians interested in the positions in those communities but not in the fee-for-services model. They want to work in a CHC.

The Sudbury CHC wants to offer more health promotion and prevention programs, but the resources are just not there. As it is, the physician is often left alone as the nurse has to attend to part of the adult day program.

The CHC services a large population in my riding, with various health care needs, and many of them are without family physicians.

This government must reinvest in health care dollars, particularly in northern Ontario.

SAFE HAVEN

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): In rising, I extend my personal appreciation to the Cobourg Chamber of Commerce and the Cobourg Police Service for working with me to launch a new program entitled Safe Haven in the town of Cobourg.

As a block parent type of program for retail districts, Safe Haven provides a network of easily recognizable businesses where citizens of all ages can find help in times of distress. As the first of its kind in Ontario, Safe Haven is based on businesses working together to look after their community's interests and to alert authorities to the potential of crime or an emergency situation.

We realize that most businesses and retail store operators have always been willing to help people in need of immediate assistance. Unfortunately, some people, such as the young and the elderly, are reluctant to enter locations where they are not known and ask for help.

The participating businesses will be carefully screened by police and will be provided with a telephone list, training and protocols which will prepare them to deal effectively with emergencies. Safe Haven demonstrates how communities can work together to promote personal safety.

Again, I compliment those who are involved in the Safe Haven program: the chamber of commerce, the Cobourg police, the town of Cobourg, Northumberland Services for Women and, most important, the retailers who have been willing to take on this program as a pilot project.

I would encourage other communities that are interested in community and personal safety to follow Cobourg's example of creating a Safe Haven -

The Speaker: Thank you.

STRIP SEARCHES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Last Friday an incident took place in my riding of Essex South at Kingsville District High School. A number of young boys were strip-searched in an attempt to find money that was stolen.

The Greater Essex County District School Board has initiated an investigation into the incident. I believe the director of education and the board have taken the appropriate first steps to investigate the incident and make recommendations for a policy that would prevent anything like this happening in the future.

The director of education, the board, many parents, constituents and I agree that this incident is a violation of the rights, dignity and respect of the young people involved.

I would urge the Minister of Education to work with the Greater Essex County Board of Education in developing a policy on individual and group action in such circumstances and that this policy be recommended as a policy for all school boards in the province.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This is indeed a sad day for the taxpayers of Ontario because they are bearing the burden of an issue that they ought not to have had to pay for at all.

Ever since September 1996 we have had in this House a pending allegation of sexual harassment against one of our members. That is a very serious matter. What has happened today is that a settlement has been reached in the civil cases that rested among this matter without any finding of fact, without any of us being aware of who was telling the truth and who was not in this particular case.

Normally in a civil matter, when responsibility is assigned, the person responsible pays the cost of court action. In this case, the government members of the Board of Internal Economy have subverted the process in the courts and have determined, for what we believe is a political reason, to reach a settlement in the case without a finding of fact ever being made. The people who pay the cost of that decision are the taxpayers of Ontario.

We believe this is a very, very serious matter. It is the politicization of a matter which is extremely serious and ought to be regarded as such by this House, but it has been subverted by the government of Ontario.

SHARE THE WARMTH

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the corporate challenge issued on Thursday by Share the Warmth to Bay Street firms.

Share the Warmth is a unique non-profit, private-public partnership of citizens, utilities, social service agencies and business. Partners include Enbridge-Consumers' Gas, Toronto Hydro, Cambridge Self-Help Food Bank, Fasken Campbell Godfrey, Levis, Toyota and Zehrs.

Unlike traditional charities, Share the Warmth does not give money but instead provides practical relief to low-income families and agencies throughout Toronto by purchasing energy from participating utilities.

Since 1995, Share the Warmth has helped 38 agencies and 14,000 individuals stay warm; 100% of all donations are converted to energy. It is run mostly by Osgoode Hall law students in co-operation with Toronto Hydro and Enbridge-Consumers' Gas. Families, seniors, disabled persons and people living with HIV may apply through their local daily food bank for assistance.

I'm excited to speak about such a program because it is in keeping with the province's own efforts in supporting innovative approaches to prevent homelessness. This is a great example of how integrated community-based services can make a difference.

Donations of $30, $60 and $90 can be made through their automated donation line at 1-900-565-9276.

Again, I would like to congratulate Share the Warmth for their hard work and wish them much success with their 1998-99 campaign.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Speaker: It stinks in here more than usual.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's exhaust from a truck outside. They're going to ask the truck to shut its engine off.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Can I do routine proceedings before your point of order?

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Municipal Act, Assessment Review Board Act and Education Act in respect of property taxes / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'évaluation foncière, la

Loi sur les municipalités, la

Loi sur la Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière et la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'impôt foncier.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Monday, November 30, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to the standing committee on resources development and Bill 71, the Professional Foresters Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 15, 1998, outside of its regularly scheduled meeting times, but not during routine proceedings, for the purpose of considering Bill 71,

An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATUS OF BILL Pr22

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Bill Pr22, sponsored by the member for Kingston and The Islands, is in our opinion out of order. I would like you to rule on this.

I refer to Beauchesne's

section 1055, which states, "There are four principles which have been followed in determining whether" a bill is properly a public bill rather than a private bill.

The first is that the matter is an issue of public policy. Bill Pr22 allows the municipality, under

section 6, to delegate to corporations initially owned by the municipality "any of the city's or the council's powers or duties relating to the provision of a municipal service." This affects a very wide range of powers that are normally subject to the Municipal Act. It also does this in a way that is very sweeping and would set a precedent for the conduct of municipal government in this province.

One particular requirement of the Municipal Act that could be affected is the requirement under

section 55 that a municipal council or local board hold public meetings. Bill Pr22 specifies in subsection 5(3) that the municipal corporations created by the act are not to be considered local. Local boards, as you know, are required to have open meetings.

Beauchesne's second criterion is that the bill should be public if it "proposes to amend or repeal public acts." I would contend that references made above also fit this criterion. I would also ask the Speaker to note subsection 7(6) of Bill Pr22, which allows money to be transferred to new corporations from various reserve funds despite various acts, including the Development Charges Act, the Municipal Act and the Public Utilities Act.

Beauchesne's third criterion refers to, "The magnitude of the area and the multiplicity of the interests involved." Since the bill refers to virtually the entire scope of municipal activity in the newly amalgamated city of Kingston, it is our view that it fits this criterion.

Finally, Beauchesne's fourth criterion is "that the bill, though partly of a private nature, has as its main object a public matter." I think I've made clear in my previous comments that this indeed deals with public matters.

This bill is scheduled to go to the standing committee on private bills tomorrow morning. I would ask the Speaker to rule before then that it is not a proper private bill and that it should be ruled out of order.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: As sponsor of the bill, I was only aware of this point of order being raised at this time. The matter is coming before the committee tomorrow at 10 o'clock. Obviously the members from the Kingston community who are involved with this bill are perhaps already on their way down here. I suggest that they be given the courtesy of having the hearing held at that point in time, and perhaps some of the points that have been raised by the member for Algoma can be raised at that time, either by government members or other members.

Mr Wildman: It's not a debatable matter; it's either in order or not.

Mr Gerretsen: I would suggest that whatever decision is made on this matter, Mr Speaker, it be done quickly, so that at least the people will not be coming down here without having their say, in effect. I really and truly believe that since a meeting has been scheduled for them to meet with the committee, that meeting should go ahead. If other members have any concerns about the bill at that point in time, they're of course free to state so.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's a good point of order the member for Algoma raises. I understand the predicament you're in, member for Kingston and The Islands. Normally I would reserve and ask the committee to deal with another matter tomorrow, but the fact is that I understand that people are scheduled to come. I would ask the indulgence of the House that if I could rule later today, it would be good for me, but I won't necessarily have all the members or even the two parties in the House. I would endeavour to give my ruling and then after that, if you're not here, contact you as soon as possible, if that's okay. Agreed? Agreed.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to raise an issue of great concern to this House and to the people of Ontario. Public money is being used to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid embarrassment for the government and for a government member in a sexual harassment case. This amounts to hush money by the government, paid out to try to smother a scandal. But while this has all been orchestrated by the government House leader and the Deputy Premier's parliamentary assistant, against the best legal advice, over the intense objection -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I need a point of order, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: This has all been attempted behind closed doors, and we hear a lot of concern from this government about taxpayers' money. I repeat again, this has all been done against the best legal advice available. So I'm asking for unanimous consent to set aside this afternoon's business in orders of the day for an emergency debate on the Harris hush money being paid to smother the Al McLean scandal.

The Speaker: That's after routine proceedings, to set aside the business of the day. Agreed? No.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Speaker: Yesterday you ruled a number of questions related to the decision, the Al McLean matter, to be out of order, and I have a point of order to raise in that regard.

Section 87(

e) of the Legislative Assembly Act states, "There shall be a Board of Internal Economy composed of...three commissioners appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council." Speaker, this is important for two reasons. First, it is clear that these three members of the cabinet sit on the Board of Internal Economy because they are members of the cabinet. Second, as appointees of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, they are responsible in a very direct sense to the cabinet itself and therefore accountable to the people of Ontario.

Second,

section 36(

a) of the standing orders states, "Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to the ministers of the crown but the Speaker shall disallow any question which he or she does not consider urgent or of public importance." This is important as well for two separate reasons, Speaker. First of all, I doubt that any member of this Legislature would argue that the expenditure of approximately 600,000 taxpayer dollars was not a matter of important public business. Second, given that not less than two hours ago the Board of Internal Economy met again to discuss the decisions and arrived at a conclusion, I doubt that anyone would dare say that this is not urgent.

Finally, given that these three ministers sit on the Board of Internal Economy as ministers, given that question period is the forum for us to hold ministers accountable for their actions, I would argue that questions placed to the Chair of Management Board, the Minister of Transportation or the government House leader on their actions at the Board of Internal Economy would be in order.

As well, Speaker, I would add that before you rule, if those ministers, if the government, could not be held accountable for the expenditure of 600,000 taxpayer dollars then who would be accountable?

The Speaker: The one point of disagreement with your point of order is that the members who make up the Board of Internal Economy who are members of the executive council all have responsibilities as members of the executive council and they're allowed to field questions from the opposition relating to those ministries. It seems to me that the Minister of Transportation and the environment minister and the third one, the Management Board Chair, have responsibilities that they're asked to respond to in the House.

The dealings in the Board of Internal Economy don't relate to their position as a minister of the crown. The Minister of Transportation has responsibility for transportation issues, not necessarily the Board of Internal Economy.

Second, the Board of Internal Economy is made up of all parties, and all parties have access and full opportunity to discuss any information allowed to all three parties at that board. It is not a decision taken by a government at that board. It is taken by the board, represented by all three parties, and therefore they're not liable nor responsible to respond to those decisions in their position as ministers of the crown.

I appreciate your question. Understand that I allowed some questions yesterday to the Deputy Premier because they were couched with respect to government business. To ask a minister to stand up and defend that decision, in my opinion, would be inappropriate for the Speaker to allow and profoundly out of order, because in my opinion it would just be a wide-open debate at that point about what then becomes ministerial responsibility, even though they have no responsibility.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a further point of order, Speaker: I think all of us as members of the Legislative Assembly would accept and agree that it is a fundamental tenet of responsible government that the executive is accountable to the Legislative Assembly for the expenditure of public funds. That is a basic element of our parliamentary system.

The question that is before us now and the reason I am standing on a point of order -

The Speaker: I'm not cutting you off, but I want to be clear about what your position is. The government is not responsible for the expenditures of the Legislative Assembly funds. They have no responsibility for that. That's the responsibility of the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy. I don't want to burst your bubble, but the premise is fundamentally flawed. The government does not have responsibility to answer to the expenditures of the Legislative Assembly. Only the Speaker has that responsibility and you can't question the Speaker.

Mr Wildman: All right, then I'll follow through with that, thank you very much, Speaker.

Section 86 of the Legislative Assembly Act stipulates, "The accounts and financial transactions of the office of the assembly shall be audited annually by the Provincial Auditor." Furthermore, the Provincial Auditor has a duty to report to the public accounts committee of the Legislative Assembly.

Therefore, would it be in order, Speaker, for the public accounts committee of the Legislative Assembly to be seized with this matter?

The Speaker: Yes.

Mr Wildman: And to deal with this matter?

The Speaker: Yes.

Mr Wildman: That would then be in order?

The Speaker: Yes.

Mr Wildman: In that case, Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent that the public accounts committee suspend its regularly scheduled business and immediately examine the Board of Internal Economy's settlement with respect to the matter related to former Speaker Al McLean.

The Speaker: Agreed? I heard a no.

Mr Wildman: On a further point of order, Speaker: I'll try another approach. Since the estimates of the Board of Internal Economy are part of the estimates of the Legislative Assembly, and since these estimates are the appropriate subject of review by the Legislative Assembly committee, would it then be in order for the Legislative Assembly committee to be seized of this matter?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On that point, Speaker: Just to add, in our rules, clause 105(i), in defining the role of the standing committee and the powers of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, says that committee is also empowered "to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the standing orders of the House and the procedures in the House and its committees" - and then, and this is the important part - "to advise the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations" etc.

So there is a direct reference there to the role of the Legislative Assembly committee as it pertains to the business of the Board of Internal Economy.

The Speaker: You see, the difference with that standing committee, as opposed to the public accounts committee, is that it's there to advise. They don't have the power, in my opinion. It's an advisory committee.

You could go through the other route, the first route that the member for Algoma brought forward. That's properly before the House. I don't think the Legislative Assembly committee has the power to do what you're asking them to do. They're an advisory committee and all they do, in fact, is advise the Speaker on Legislative Assembly matters.

Mr Wildman: In that case, Speaker, I would ask again for unanimous consent that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly convene tomorrow afternoon, which is its regularly scheduled meeting time, to review the financial settlement reached in the matter regarding former Speaker Al McLean and to advise the Speaker and the House whether this is a good expenditure of public funds.

The Speaker: I'm going to call that one, but you know something? With unanimous consent, you can do anything. You don't need to cite the rules if you want to seek unanimous consent to do any of these things.

Mr Wildman: No, I was asking for you to rule that -

The Speaker: Oh, I see. OK. Do you understand the motion? He's asking for unanimous consent. Agreed? I heard a no.

Mr McGuinty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I understand it, we've had today a motion for unanimous consent for an emergency debate. We've had some motions to refer this to standing committees. I have another motion.

I seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: I move that the Ontario Legislative Assembly direct the Board of Internal Economy to reconsider its decision requiring taxpayers to fund the settlement between the member for Simcoe East and his former employee.

The Speaker: Do you understand the motion? Agreed? I heard a no.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier and, more important in this particular context, Minister of Finance. As the person responsible for Ontario's purse strings, the person who is charged with a special responsibility of protecting Ontario taxpayer dollars, would you agree with me that forcing taxpayers to spend $600,000 on the Al McLean matter is a terrible misuse of taxpayer dollars?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the leader of the official opposition, I don't have any control over decisions that the Board of Internal Economy makes with respect to legislative monies and how they are spent. If he wants to know any details about transactions and discussions that occurred at the Board of Internal Economy, I would suggest that he ask a minister who was in fact present and a member of the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr McGuinty: I would be delighted to put that question to a minister who sits on the Board of Internal Economy, but those ministers will not take those questions, so it is left to me to put those questions to you. As I understand it, 600,000 taxpayer dollars are going out the door today. You have responsibility for taxpayer dollars here in Ontario. Do you or do you not think this is an appropriate expenditure?

Should we be spending 600,000 taxpayer dollars on this matter when the lawyer acting for the Legislative Assembly specifically advised that this was not a good thing to do, told us that the Legislative Assembly would not be liable if this matter proceeded to court? Do you think this is an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer dollars, yes or no?

Hon Mr Eves: I am not a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I was not present at any discussion.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You can't stonewall it.

Hon Mr Eves: I don't have any control over your personal budget either, Mr Gerretsen, I would say to you, any more than I have control over the budget of the Board of Internal Economy or the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. If the leader of the official opposition wants to talk about how taxpayers' dollars are spent by this government vis-à-vis a government that he was a part of, David Peterson's government from 1985 to 1990, I'd be more than happy to engage you in that debate.

Mr McGuinty: We now have a Minister of Finance for Ontario who's responsible for all finance except for this particular $600,000.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Stop the clock. OK, final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: This is a matter of important public business. We're talking about the expenditure of 600,000 taxpayer dollars. I need to know from you, Minister - this lends some definition to you. Simply stand up and provide us with your opinion. Do you think this is an appropriate expenditure or not? Had you been sitting on the Board of Internal Economy, how would you have voted? What would you have suggested was the appropriate use of 600,000 taxpayer dollars? It's a very simple matter. Please tell us where you stand on this.

The Speaker: Hold on. Government whip, do you want to stand up on a point of order?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Yes, Mr Speaker. I believe you have already ruled that these are not appropriate questions and this has got nothing to do with the conduct of our government of this province. Accordingly, I would presume that you would want to rule it out of order.

The Speaker: The point I want to make to the chief government whip - I appreciate your point of order - is on direction from this House and how this House's questions are fielded and answered. Is it appropriate for the opposition to ask ministers' opinions on issues of the day in Ontario? Frankly, I say to the chief government whip, it happens every day in this place, and it would be very difficult for me to start setting rules down that say you can't ask opinions about issues of the day in the province of Ontario. It would be virtually impossible for me to police that. I understand your point of order, I appreciate it, but I think I need a little bit of leeway on this one.

OK, Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the official opposition, I have no idea how I would have voted unless I knew all the facts pertaining to any particular case. I don't know how you make decisions. I would suggest to you that you would not be very happy if any member of the government was to dictate to your party or any of your members how they spend their global budgets or how you spend your caucus research money.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It has nothing to do with that.

Hon Mr Eves: It has everything to do with it. They are both expenditures of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that are determined by the Board of Internal Economy. They are not determined by the government.

Would you be happy, I say to the leader of the official opposition, if we determined how you and every one of your caucus members expended your money and how much money you had to spend?

The Speaker: New question; leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and House leader. In keeping with the advice offered by the Minister of Finance, I will now direct a question to him.

Minister, 600,000 taxpayer dollars are going out the door today. Those dollars are leaving this precinct because of a decision taken at the Board of Internal Economy, a board on which you happen to sit. Can you now please provide us with your opinion? Can you tell us whether or not you believe that this is in the interests of Ontario taxpayers that we spend $600,000 -

The Speaker: Pardon me. Leader of the official opposition, this is out of order. It's completely out of order.

Mr Gerretsen: The finance minister said -

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, you can't ask a member of the board questions about issues at the Board of Internal Economy. It doesn't fall under his jurisdiction. That was my ruling earlier.

If you want to direct your questions, you can direct them to the -

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Speaker: I would like to draw your attention to Beauchesne, sixth edition:

Section 410(2): It is in order "to ask about matters reported in the media or statements by ministers outside the House or `certain questions regarding government policy.'"

Sub (6): "The greatest possible freedom should be given to members consistent with the other rules and practices."

Sub (10): "The subject matter of questions must be within the collective responsibility of the government or the individual responsibilities of ministers." I would submit that these matters are within the collective responsibility of the government to oversee the public exchequer.

Section 408, sub (1)(a): "Such questions should be asked only in respect of matters of sufficient urgency and importance as to require an immediate answer."

Section 409, sub (6): "A question must be within the administrative competence of the government...." I would submit to you that one of the members of the executive council on the Board of Internal Economy is the government House leader.

I would suggest to you, Speaker, that there are suggestions in Beauchesne that latitude should be given in asking questions on these matters, particularly as it relates to the competence of the government House leader to answer questions related to the overall expenditure of public funds.

The Speaker: I think the

preamble to the Beauchesne's argument you make is that there is a minister of the crown designated to respond to questions at the Board of Internal Economy. I know it works that way in Ottawa. The difference here is that we do not have a minister of the crown designated to respond to questions for the Board of Internal Economy. I am that person, and you can't ask me a question.

In three rulings - June 27, 1996, Speaker McLean; November 26, 1990, Speaker Warner; April 21, 1994, Acting Speaker Villeneuve - and I won't bother belabouring you with the reading, all three rulings say exactly the same thing: The government doesn't nor can it answer for the dealings of the Board of Internal Economy.

Although you make a very valid argument, the

preamble to that argument is that a minister is responsible, designated by the government to respond to questions for the Board of Internal Economy. We do not have that here, so therefore I must answer the questions and you can't ask me questions. Sorry.

Mr McGuinty: On a point of order, Speaker, arising from your comments: When I put the question to the Minister of Finance, he said that I ought to be directing it to a member who sat on the Board of Internal Economy, to one of the ministers who's sitting on the Board of Internal Economy. I think we can draw the inference from that that this government is taking responsibility and assigning that responsibility to the House leader.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): That's not what he said.

Mr McGuinty: That's what the finance minister said, Speaker. He understands full well that the public will not understand that $600,000 can go out the door and nobody in government be accountable for that. He understands that. That's why he's directing me to direct my question to the House leader, which I'm trying to do.

The Speaker: You know what? I heard the same thing, but he doesn't have the power to do that. He can advise you all he likes, but the advice wasn't good advice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I heard the same advice, but that isn't sound advice because there's no minister on the front bench who may answer for the Board of Internal Economy. Even if they wanted to answer for the Board of Internal Economy, it wouldn't be allowed.

We're at second question. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, $600,000 -

The Speaker: Who are you going to?

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to the same minister, Speaker. Are you allowing me to go to another minister now?

The Speaker: Yes, I will allow you to go to another minister, considering the ruling I made.

Mr McGuinty: I want to go back to the Minister of Finance. Minister, you made reference earlier to the fact that you have no control over our budgets. I think it's important for the public to understand that $600,000 was not budgeted for this expenditure. This has come out of nowhere. This is not part and parcel of the normal, usual dealings of the Board of Internal Economy. This is a very special circumstance.

Your members make up the majority of the Board of Internal Economy. You control what goes on in the Board of Internal Economy. I'm going to ask you once again, do you think it was an appropriate expenditure to spend 600,000 taxpayer dollars on the Al McLean matter?

Hon Mr Eves: I do not control what goes on at the Board of Internal Economy. I have no control over any member, how they vote, what decisions they make. I don't have a vote; I'm not a member of the board.

I was a member of the board for 10 years, between 1985 and 1995. I say to the leader of the official opposition, during the five years that your party was in power and during the five years that the third party was in power, there were often decisions around employees, settlements with employees who sued the Ontario government. They were determined at the board by members of the board from 1985 to 1990 and from 1990 to 1995, and they're still determined the same way from 1995 to now. But I don't control what goes on at the Board of Internal Economy. I'm not even a member. I have no control over the Legislative Assembly budget, period, or any aspect thereof.

Mr McGuinty: You may not have any control over what goes on there, so you claim, but surely you have an opinion. You're the MPP for Parry Sound, you're the Minister of Finance and you are the Deputy Premier. If one of your constituents were to ask you, if an Ontario voter were to direct a question to you, "Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?" how would you respond? That's a very simple question. Do you think it's an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money, $600,000 on the Al McLean matter? Answer that question now.

Hon Mr Eves: I don't have all the facts upon which members of the board made a decision on this issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: I think I've answered the honourable leader's question.

Mr McGuinty: It's perfectly obvious from your answers that nobody in government, apparently, is prepared to take responsibility for $600,000 going out the door today, 600,000 taxpayer dollars out the door today, contrary to the advice of the lawyer that the Legislative Assembly had retained and paid. That lawyer told the Board of Internal Economy that it was highly unlikely that the Legislative Assembly, meaning Ontario taxpayers, would be found to be financially responsible for the actions of Al McLean. That $600,000 apparently is going out the door, notwithstanding the advice of the lawyer we paid to advise us.

If I could get a page over here now, I wonder if I might help the Minister of Finance today. I'll send over some paper towels so he might thoroughly wash his hands of this affair.

Hon Mr Eves: I am sure that every single member of the Board of Internal Economy who was presented with facts today and who made a decision one way or the other today, if in fact a final decision was made, will have an opinion as to why he or she voted in a particular way. I suggest that if you want an answer from one of those people, you ask them their opinion just as you're asking me my opinion.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. I am asking for unanimous consent for the Minister of the Environment and government House leader, Mr Sterling; for the Minister of Transportation, Mr Clement; and for the minister responsible for Management Board, Mr Hodgson, though he is not in his seat right now, that they may assume the responsibility as representatives of the crown, members of the cabinet, and that they answer questions here today and be held accountable for the decision they have taken on the Board of Internal Economy with respect to the expenditure of $600,000 of taxpayers' money to cover up, to hush up a sex scandal.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Since those cabinet ministers won't answer and assume their proper responsibility -

The Speaker: Who is the question to?

Mr Hampton: - as ministers of the crown, I will ask this question of the Deputy Premier. It is so obvious that the Harris government is desperate to avoid full public disclosure and full public discussion of this hush money being paid to smother the Allan McLean sexual harassment scandal. You refuse to allow an emergency debate, you try to hide behind your House rules, to duck questions on your responsibility and your accountability, but the fact of the matter is, three members of the Board of Internal Economy are cabinet ministers appointed by Premier Mike Harris.

The fourth government member, Mr Baird, is your parliamentary assistant. They're your appointees, your representatives. Surely you hear the public outcry.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Hampton: Will you recall these three cabinet ministers from the Board of Internal Economy and replace them with people who are prepared -

The Speaker: Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: I do not have any ability to appoint, call, recall cabinet ministers or parliamentary assistants.

Mr Hampton: These members are appointed to the Board of Internal Economy by order in council; they're cabinet appointees. You, as Deputy Premier, could convene a cabinet meeting today and replace them with somebody who is prepared to speak up for the taxpayers of the province. The reality is that this is public money. We understand now that over $600,000 of public money is going to be used as hush money to avoid embarrassment for your government and one of your government members. You tried to do all this behind closed doors, you tried to do it in secrecy, but the word got out.

You can't avoid your responsibility. Somebody in your government has to be responsible. You appointed these people to the cabinet, so you and the Premier must be responsible for their conduct. Are you going to hold them accountable for their conduct or is it the reality that you approve of the expenditure of $600,000 as hush money to shut down this scandal around sexual harassment? Do you approve of that?

Hon Mr Eves: It is ludicrous for the leader of the third party to suggest that any Deputy Premier in the history of the province of Ontario has the authority to appoint, demote, reappoint, change responsibilities.

Mr Wildman: The cabinet does.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the member for Algoma, when he was a cabinet minister in Bob Rae's government, how many cabinet ministers did you appoint?

Mr Hampton: The line of responsibility here is so clear. Your Premier and your cabinet put Mr Clement on the Board of Internal Economy. You put Mr Hodgson on the Board of Internal Economy. You put Mr Sterling on the Board of Internal Economy. These three people have voted behind closed doors to spend $600,000 of taxpayers' money to hush up a sex scandal involving a government member against the good legal advice of counsel who was retained by the Board of Internal Economy.

Are you going to do the right thing as the Deputy Premier? Are you going to go to your Premier and say: "Premier, these people have to be taken off the Board of Internal Economy. This is a disgraceful decision. This is a misuse of taxpayers' money. It flies in the face of independent legal advice. This is wrong?"

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: Are you going to take responsibility and accountability for your appointees by order in council to the Board of Internal Economy?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party has been in this place for a good number of years. He knows full well who makes cabinet appointments, parliamentary assistant appointments.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: In theory, yes, they are made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. He also knows the Lieutenant Governor doesn't make these appointments. He knows it's the prerogative of the Premier of the day, as it was in Bob Rae's government, as it was in David Peterson's government, as it was in Bill Davis's government and so and so and so.

He suggests that members of the Board of Internal Economy are hiding. They're not hiding. I see two of them here today. Undoubtedly -

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): They won't answer questions.

Hon Mr Eves: - I say to the member for Dovercourt, when they leave the chamber today, they will be scrummed by members of the media. The public will have -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Eves: To suggest that any member of the government sets the budget for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is ludicrous. It has never happened that way under any government.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the leader of the third party, he knows full well that I don't have the power he suggests I have. He knows full well that those members on the board, be they on the opposition side of the House or the government side of the House, will have to answer these questions -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I draw your attention again to the standing orders, 105(i), on page 82. It says, "Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly which is empowered to review on its own initiative or at the request of the Speaker or the direction of the House...to advise the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to members."

Does not that give you as Speaker of this assembly the opportunity and the ability and indeed the responsibility to request the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to consider this matter and give you and the House its advice on the advisability of the expenditure of public funds on this matter?

The Speaker: Let me think about that one.

New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Again to the Deputy Premier, last May the Board of Internal Economy was looking at increasing the housing allowance for members of the Legislature, because a number of members - in fact, I believe it was government members - had raised with the Board of Internal Economy that it was difficult to find an apartment near Queen's Park that came within the housing allowance. When your Premier heard about this: "Harris said government House Leader Norm Sterling, who advocates hiking the subsidies, will be asked to quash any increases at today's meeting of the Board of Internal Economy. Harris advised Sterling to reach into his own wallet for the difference, saying, `I have done that.'"

As I understand it, the Board of Internal Economy was looking at increasing the housing allowance for members by perhaps $1,000 or $2,000 a year. Here we're dealing with $600,000 in one shot. Since the Premier had very clear views last spring, can you tell me what the Premier's views are on this matter now?

Hon Mr Eves: No, I cannot. I have not spoken to the Premier about this matter. I do not recall the incident or the item you're talking about that was apparently before the Board of Internal Economy, as you say, last May. As you know, I'm not a member of the board. I don't have anything to do with your expenses or the expenses of the leader of the official opposition or any other member's expenses, for that matter. I'm not a member of the board. The board makes the decision. Individual members vote according to what they think is appropriate, having heard the facts.

I don't know what the Premier's attitude is about this or any other matter. That's a personal question you'll have to wait to ask the Premier.

Mr Hampton: Here's the situation: When it comes to a housing allowance last spring that might amount to $1,000 or $2,000 a year, the Premier has a very definite opinion. Here we're talking about $600,000, all at once, in a decision reached behind closed doors, against the legal advice of independent legal counsel, dealing with hush money in a sex scandal, and we're to believe that the Premier has no view, no opinion.

Let me be very clear about this. As reported, again last spring: "When Premier Mike Harris got wind of the proposed hike, he put an end to it. `I'm sure that our members of the Board of Internal Economy will reflect that we believe the allowances are adequate as is,' Harris said."

Last spring the Board of Internal Economy and your members on the Board of Internal Economy weren't very independent. They took direction from the Premier. What's the direction of the Premier here, sir?

Hon Mr Eves: I have no idea what the Premier thinks about a lot of things. I don't have any idea about what you think about a lot of things. You might have an opinion about - in fact, as I recall, you did have a very definite opinion about some of your expenses. I never commented on those. I don't think it's in my purview, quite frankly, to comment on those.

All I do know is that the Board of Internal Economy will not be allowed to expend the money of the Legislative Assembly budget if the Legislative Assembly budget does not provide for it. There will have to be some sort of supplementary estimate process that will find its place either before a committee or before this chamber itself.

Mr Hampton: The Deputy Premier tries to skate, but he can't skate away from this one. Here is the reality. Last spring, the Premier of this province gave direction to the government members on the Board of Internal Economy. He said to them: "I know you're talking about increasing the housing allowance for members of the Legislature so they can rent an apartment near Queen's Park. I'm telling you to vote against it. I'm telling you to put an end to it." What happens the next day after the Premier gives the direction? It is totally shut down.

Here's the situation, Deputy Premier. Last spring, your members of the Board of Internal Economy were not independent. They took specific and clear direction from the Premier. I'm asking you now, quite simply, in a matter where $600,000 of taxpayers' money, of public money is going to go out the door - it hasn't been subject to an open process; in fact, it happened behind closed doors against the independent advice of legal counsel - what's the opinion, what's the direction of the Premier now?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the leader of the third party knows full well that the minutes of the Board of Internal Economy meeting will be public. That was changed, by the way, several years ago. It's not behind closed doors. That provision was changed the minute -

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): There have been closed-door meetings where this has been discussed.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, the leader of third party has been around this place long enough. I hear the member for Ottawa West saying, "A decision was made behind closed doors." I guess he's no smarter over there than he was over there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the leader of the third party, tell me one time when you were in the Rae cabinet that a cabinet meeting or a Board of Internal Economy meeting was open to members of the public.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Deputy Premier, are you telling this House today that at no time did you offer any input, any advice, any direction, any comment to any member of your government who sits on the Board of Internal Economy regarding the Al McLean matter?

Hon Mr Eves: That is correct.

Mr McGuinty: Are you telling us that you had no discussion of any kind with your own parliamentary assistant who sits on the Board of Internal Economy? You are also telling us, then, I assume, that to your knowledge the four government members who sit on the Board of Internal Economy were completely renegade in terms of the decision they made with respect to this matter and that they consulted no one, that the decision that was made was completely internal to those four government members, that they sought no direction from the cabinet, that there was no consultation with you or the Premier.

Is that what you're telling us, essentially, that your own parliamentary assistant and the three other government members who sit on the Board of Internal Economy operated completely independently of all other government members in this matter?

Hon Mr Eves: Let me state this very clearly so you can understand: At no time have I ever talked to my parliamentary assistant, either one of them, but the one you're referring to who sits on the Board of Internal Economy; that has nothing to do with his duties as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. I would not be so presumptuous as to tell him what to do, and at no time have I had a conversation of any description whatsoever with him about this issue. Is that clear enough for you?

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

Mr Hampton: My question is again to the Deputy Premier. It is on the public record that the Premier last spring gave direction to the government members on the Board of Internal Economy as to how they were supposed to vote and what position they were supposed to take on an issue.

I'm asking you now: Are you telling us the Premier doesn't have a position on this? Are you asking us to believe that when he had so much to do with directing them how to vote last spring, he has no position on this, when $600,000 of taxpayers' money is going to go out the door after a closed-door process, against the advice of independent legal counsel? Are you asking us to believe that? Do you believe that yourself, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I have no idea what the Premier said, what his idea is. They're his ideas. He can explain them to you when he appears in question period tomorrow. However, there can be no expenditure by the Board of Internal Economy if it's not provided for in the budget of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. If the fact is, as the leader of the third party seems to believe, that this is an expenditure above and beyond that allotted to the Legislative Assembly and the Board of Internal Economy, it will have to find its way to a committee of this House or to the floor of this House to be discussed at some time.

Mr Hampton: The Deputy Premier says we should wait and ask the Premier. I suspect we could be here a couple of months before we see the Premier again in this Legislature anxious to answer any questions.

It is very clear what's going on here. The Premier had so much to say. His directions to your members of the Board of Internal Economy were very clear, very specific last spring. On May 28, he says: "This can't happen. I'm going to put an end to this. I am opposed to any increase in these expenditure allowances." The next day, on May 29, the government members on the Board of Internal Economy salute, they go in and they vote against any changes. It's very clear the Premier gave direction, it's very clear your members of the Board of Internal Economy weren't independent and they followed the Premier's direction.

I'm asking you, what direction did the Premier give, and if you don't know, will you find out what direction the Premier gave to the members of the Board of Internal Economy in this case?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party is assuming or inferring that the Premier last May, on another issue, gave direction to members. It is reported in some parts of the media what he did. However, to answer your question very directly, today the Premier is currently in a conference call with all the other premiers in Canada, talking about the social union. I'm sure if you wait until tomorrow at this time, the Premier will be in question period and you can ask him for yourself.

THEATRE INDUSTRY

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Toronto's live theatre community has been in the news recently with the troubles at Livent and the successful efforts of the community to ensure that many shows go on. Of course, Livent is just one company. There is terrific live theatre across the province, including the Red Barn theatre in my riding. It's the oldest professional summer theatre in Canada and it had a great season this year. Can you inform the House how Ontario's live theatre industry is faring?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I want to thank the member for Durham-York for the question because I want to say that this government is absolutely committed to fostering the growth and success of live theatre here in Toronto and right across the province, and our efforts are certainly paying off. Live theatre is growing. For example, the Stratford Festival has reported its most successful year ever.

In addition to that, the live theatre industry here in Ontario adds $400 million a year to the economy. It employs 4,200 Ontarians and it brings literally millions of tourists to the province. For example, we have on record that 17.6 million tourists took in at least one show last season here in Toronto, which is wonderful. Toronto, by the way, is the third-largest theatre centre in the world.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Ms Bassett: I want to applaud the communities around Toronto for uniting and making sure that all the shows cancelled by Livent -

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mrs Munro: Can you tell the House how this government supports the live theatre industry?

Hon Ms Bassett: We support the live theatre industry in many ways. First of all, we have the $800,000 commercial theatre development fund, which helps small productions to get going and produce right across the province. We've eliminated all property taxes for small theatres, those under 1,000 seats, and all property taxes for large publicly owned theatres, those over 1,000, and we've cut by half the property tax paid by large privately owned theatres. Also, our arm's-length Ontario Arts Council funds, to a large extent, theatre production, and we have kept the budget at $25 million this year. We support live theatre in the province and we expect it to continue to grow.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Just so I understand clearly here, are you telling us that ministers Hodgson, Clement and Sterling, to your knowledge, never discussed this matter with the Premier, the cabinet or the caucus at any time?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I don't know what these individuals have done. I know what I have done. I can't tell you what Mr Hodgson has done or what Mr Sterling has done or what Mr Clement has done. I suggest to you, I say quite seriously to the leader of the official opposition, if you want to know what conversations they have had, it's not within my purview of knowledge, and you should ask one of them.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you were telling us that this came as a complete, total and absolute surprise to the entire caucus. Nobody knew what was brewing inside the Board of Internal Economy. These three ministers, plus your own parliamentary assistant, apparently acted independently of the rest of the government members. Is that what you would have us believe? Because that is simply incredible. It is beyond belief.

Nobody would believe that these four individual members of the government, including three cabinet ministers, on a matter that is obviously very controversial involving 600,000 taxpayer dollars, acted entirely and completely on their own. A renegade operation, acting entirely independently of the government: Is that honestly what you would have us believe, that these four members were acting entirely on their own?

Hon Mr Eves: That is not what I've said. There have obviously been reports about rumoured discussion of this matter in the media for many weeks now, so obviously anybody who's an observer or reader of the media knows that. They've heard it, they've seen it or they've read what has been reported in the media. But I have not discussed this matter with any of the members that you have mentioned. I'm not a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I don't direct them as to how they act or don't act, how they vote or don't vote, what they decide or don't decide.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Again to the Deputy Premier: We're told today by the government House leader that the government members on the Board of Internal Economy sought the legal opinion of another lawyer. We're also told that this lawyer was paid for by the Conservative caucus. Now, Deputy Premier, if your members on the Board of Internal Economy are independent, why would they need the advice of a lawyer who in fact is retained by the Conservative caucus? It seems to me that any element of independence is wiped out there immediately because the lawyer works for the Conservative caucus.

Further, can you confirm these things, because they were told to us by the government House leader? Can you tell us, please, how any semblance of independence can be retained when the legal advice was in fact legal advice for the Conservative caucus? And can you tell us when that legal advice -

The Speaker: Thank you. Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: I don't know. If you want to know the answer to a statement that you allege or hypothecate has been made by the government House leader, you should ask the government House leader.

Mr Hampton: The government is creating literally a theatre of the absurd here. If legal counsel is retained by the government caucus, by the Conservative caucus, then that legal counsel is responsible to the Conservative caucus. That's who that legal counsel makes the report to. And if your government members then take that advice, it's pretty clear that they are not acting independently; they're acting at the behest and in the knowledge of the Conservative caucus.

We want to know two things: When was this legal advice discussed, when was this lawyer hired by the Conservative caucus, and will you produce this independent legal opinion that was retained by the Conservative caucus for the benefit of the Conservative members on the Board of Internal Economy? Show us the independence that you claim is there.

Hon Mr Eves: I don't know what you're talking about. If you want to ask the government House leader, ask the government House leader. I don't know how many lawyers over the years the NDP caucus has hired. I don't know who they are, how much you paid them or what you paid them for. Maybe you'd like to tell the public about that; I don't know. But I don't know what it has to do with the decision of the Board of Internal Economy under a Legislative Assembly budget. The Board of Internal Economy is responsible to the Legislative Assembly; the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly chairs the Board of Internal Economy.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, farmers have hit on some pretty hard times at this point. A good example is the pork producers who rallied here last week. They're really being hit with very, very low prices. To add to that, there's a strike at Quality Meat Packers. This is one of the largest packers in Ontario and this is certainly adding a burden to it.

The Ontario government realizes that there is a need for a Canada-wide assistance program. Minister, can you tell the House and tell the people in my riding and the pork producers in Ontario the kind of discussions that you're having with your federal counterpart, Mr Vanclief, and what kind of relief package they're coming forward with?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): There is no doubt that agriculture and indeed the pork industry in particular are having serious problems, not only here in Ontario but across Canada, across North America and across Europe. I have been working to develop a program to assist our farmers, and this is urgent, particularly in view of the fact that Quality Meat Packers employees have gone on strike. Quality Meat Packers exports about 40% of their production to Asia and they process about 25% of the hogs that go to market in Ontario every week. That compounds a problem that was already very serious.

The Premier and my cabinet colleagues have been meeting with the farmers of Ontario, particularly the representatives of the pork industry. We will be working very closely with the federal government, and I'm awaiting, hopefully this week, an outline of the program from my federal colleague so that we can step into the breach immediately and provide them with some financial help, which is urgently needed.

Mr Galt: Minister, hog farmers in Northumberland visited my office on December 4. They're certainly hit by these very low prices. They blame it, to some extent, on the Asian economic crisis.

Also, Minister, you will recall that back in August there was a very severe hailstorm that literally wiped out some 30 apple growers in Northumberland. We appreciated your visit at that time. Can you give me some assurance that the apple farmers in Northumberland -

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, please come to order. I'd like to hear the question.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): McLean's a farmer. Big hat, no cattle. Where is the money?

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, when I stand up it doesn't mean to heckle. Please come to order. Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: Minister, what assurance can you give the apple farmers in Northumberland that they will indeed be eligible for any compensation that might come through as a federal-provincial disaster relief package?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I will certainly discuss this with my federal colleague, and that is why we support a whole farm program. The triggering effect - I am waiting for the program to be announced by the federal minister. We want to make sure this is not countervailable; that's why it's a whole farm program. We understand the need to act quickly.

There have been in parts of Ontario some very difficult situations for farmers this year, and we are in position as soon as my federal colleague announces. We are spending some $75 million annually in safety nets, but that does not cover a situation like we've had this year where disaster conditions exist, particularly in the pork industry, where less than 60 cents a kilogram is being received by farmers for market hogs which cost them $1.25 a kilo to produce. Yes, we are going to be there with an aid program as soon as we have a program from the federal government.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. We have been talking today about a very sensitive issue, a case of sexual harassment. You are the minister responsible for women's issues. Was your opinion ever sought or did you ever seek to comment to any member of the Board of Internal Economy regarding this particular matter, the Al McLean matter?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): The answer is no.

Mr McGuinty: You are telling me, Minister, that there was a case of sexual harassment, an allegation made against a member of the government that was going to be the subject of discussion at the Board of Internal Economy, and you as the minister responsible for women's issues never sought at any time whatsoever to have some input to ensure that justice was done, to ensure that you carried out your responsibilities? Is that what you're telling me?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In this case, I did not.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Deputy Premier: It's pretty clear now that the lawyer who worked for the Board of Internal Economy gave advice that this $600,000 settlement should not be entered into -

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems to me that yesterday you made a very clear ruling with respect to the appropriateness of questions regarding the Board of Internal Economy.

The Speaker: Your point of order?

Hon Mr Turnbull: It seems you have given great latitude. Either your ruling yesterday was valid - it seems to me -

The Speaker: Chief government whip, if you listen to the questions carefully, you'll find that they are in order. I've listened to each question very carefully and determined whether or not it's a public issue question. I've not allowed any questions to the Board of Internal Economy members, but I can't rule out of order a question about a public discussion in Ontario. We do it every day. Now, if they get specific and they don't have the general nature of the question in order, I would rule it out of order. It has not been out of order.

Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: It seems very clear now that the lawyer who worked for the Board of Internal Economy advised: "Don't spend this $600,000. Don't pay the legal costs of Al McLean. Don't do this. There's no legal requirement that you do this." That legal advice was not followed. Instead, the legal advice of a lawyer who works for the Conservative caucus was followed. It is a lawyer who works for the Conservative caucus who recommends that $600,000 of taxpayers' money be used to hush up a sex scandal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Have you finished? No? OK, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Since that's the case, since it's really a lawyer who worked for the Conservative caucus who is determining that $600,000 of taxpayers' money should go out the door to hush this up, will you make available that legal opinion so that the taxpayers of Ontario will understand who clearly ordered this money to be spent?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I have no knowledge about a lawyer who was working for the Conservative caucus. But even if I did -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Essex South, come to order. Member for Nickel Belt, come to order. Please.

Mr Wildman: Colonel Klink of the Tory caucus.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma. Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: If I did, I'm sure the leader of the third party would not want to share with me any advice that's ever been given to the NDP caucus by anybody who's come in to talk to you, advise you, work for you as a lawyer. What you do with your funds with respect to any advice you are given or your previous government was given has nothing to do with me. I don't want to know about it. I'm not entitled to know about it, and it works the other way as well.

Mr Hampton: Sir, you are the Deputy Premier of the province. It is frankly shameful that you come here with the attitude, "I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing" and it's apparent you don't ask any questions either. You don't want to know what's going on. You don't want to know how $600,000 of taxpayers' money is going out the door. You don't want to know who's accountable. You don't want to know the contents of that legal opinion that was given to the Conservative caucus and was paid for by the Conservative caucus. I don't think we've got three cabinet ministers here on the Board of Internal Economy. I think we've got three monkeys.

The Speaker: Order. I ask you to withdraw that.

Mr Hampton: Sorry, Speaker. I was insulting the monkeys.

The Speaker: Withdraw.

Interjections.

Mr Pouliot: What about "see no evil," Speaker?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Is that what you did?

The Speaker: Chief government whip, let me get this withdrawn, please.

That's unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw.

Deputy Premier, it's very clear that the independent legal advice of the lawyer who worked for the Board of Internal Economy wasn't followed. Instead, it was the lawyer who works for the Conservative caucus whose advice was followed. It's their advice that has led to the expenditure of $600,000 of taxpayers' money on something that no one agrees with. Will you produce that legal opinion so the people of Ontario can hold someone accountable?

Hon Mr Eves: I have no authority to produce a legal opinion, if there is one, of one that was done for the Conservative caucus, any more than any member of your caucus has the authority to release a legal opinion provided to your caucus or any member of your caucus, for that matter.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Speaker: Very simply, who's the lawyer? Where can we find him? Show us the report.

MINISTER'S COMMENT

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): On a point of personal privilege, Speaker: I would like to apologize to the member for Ottawa West for an inappropriate remark I made earlier in question period today. I would like to withdraw that remark and I offer my sincere apology.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Speaker: Earlier this afternoon, I raised a point of order related to standing order 105, and you said that you wanted to think about it. I understand that you might want to confer about it. Could you give me some indication as to when you might rule on that point?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You know what? There is no rush, actually. If I find I do have this power, then I will use it for the good of all.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows. It's to the government of Ontario.

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here signed by residents from the Dunnville-Welland area in support of legislation to reform access to adoption information. The petitioners are asking the Legislature to support that legislation which would allow access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives; implement a no-contact notice option; recommend optional counselling and offer access to other adoption information; also, acknowledge open adoptions.

I'm pleased to affix my signature to it.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I have a petition here which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, ask the government of Ontario to take the opportunity to protect 15% to 20% of the Lands for Life area from logging, mining and hydro development, not the 6% to 8% being recommended;

"That you reject the round table recommendations to open 92.4% of public land for industrial uses.

"Lands are the legacy of our children and our children's children and must be protected now."

I submit this on their behalf.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas parents, students, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than a reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Whereas Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty has pledged to repeal Bill 160;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a co-operative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I'm happy to affix my signature.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have petitions here signed by residents in Ottawa, Orleans, Gloucester and Rockland.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revisions of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"Permit unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information to adopted persons, adult children of adopted persons, birth parents, birth grandparents, siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches 18;

"Permit access to identifying information to adoptive parents of minor children, emancipated minor adoptees;

"Allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file notice stating their wish for non-contact;

"Replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling;

"Permit access to agency and court files when original statistical information is insufficient for identification and contact with birth relatives; and

"Recognize open adoptions in the legislation."

I am pleased to affix my signature to it.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 38 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas as of April 1, 1999, G-code therapeutic physiotherapy services will not be covered by OHIP; and

"Whereas the only recourse for patients will be through hospital outpatient services that already face waiting lists of three to four months; and

"Whereas these same services are provided in other areas of the province through

schedule 5 clinics, which are funded through a $39-million allocation by the Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas of that $39 million none has been allocated for northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas if the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services goes forward because there are no

schedule 5 clinics in northwestern Ontario, there is a real fear that a two-tier system for physiotherapy services will be the norm, that one system would accommodate those who have private insurance or enough money to pay out of pocket, while the other tier will be one where those in need wait for months on waiting lists while continuing to suffer; and

"Whereas as our population ages, those requiring physiotherapy will increase and without these services the strain on our medical system will only increase as people aggravate old injuries that were not properly treated through modern physiotherapy treatments; and

"Whereas the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services is further indication that there is a real erosion, by this government, of sound medical services in northwestern Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the planned fee

schedule delisting of G-code therapeutic physiotherapy services and provide northwestern Ontario with a portion of the $39-million Ministry of Health allocation for physiotherapy services."

I am very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition signed by residents of Alfred, Orleans, Stittsville, Renfrew and Arnprior with respect to adoption legislation reform.

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario (ARCO) brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas existing adoption secrecy legislation is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws and the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;

"Whereas 20% of persons in Ontario are directly or indirectly affected by restricted rights to personal information available to other citizens;

"Whereas the adopted person's right to his or her birth identity is rooted in a basic and fundamental human need;

"Whereas most birth parents did not ask for lifelong confidentiality, it was imposed upon them involuntarily;

"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents, adoptive parents and other birth relatives; and

"Whereas research in other countries has shown that unqualified access to information at adoption satisfies the overwhelming majority of the parties involved;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revisions of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts."

I affix my signature to it.

MARRIAGE

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the majority of Ontarians understand the concept of marriage as only the voluntary union of a single, that is, unmarried, male and a single, that is, unmarried, female; and

"Whereas it is the duty of the Legislature to ensure that marriage as it has always been known and understood in Ontario be preserved and protected;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking

section 33 of the Canadian Constitution, the `notwithstanding' clause, to protect marriage in law so that marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female."

This is signed by over 50 constituents, and I add my signature.

VISITING SPECIALIST CLINICS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the objective of the visiting specialist clinic program is to provide specialty services in communities where the population base cannot afford a full-time specialist and where specialty services are established more than 40 kilometres away from those communities; and

"Whereas communities in Algoma-Manitoulin, including Espanola, Manitoulin Island, Elliot Lake, Blind River, Chapleau, Wawa, Hornepayne and Manitouwadge are situated great distances from the nearest established specialty services and travelling such distances poses undue hardship on people requiring these services; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has withdrawn funding for specialist support staff, seriously threatening the clinic program; and

"Whereas funding by the Ministry of Health for travel grants would far outweigh the costs to the ministry of providing support staff funding;

"We, the undersigned, ,petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore funding for support staff for the visiting specialist clinic program."

I agree with this petition and affix my signature.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here signed by residents of Nepean, Kanata and Brockville and I will simply summarize the petition.

The petitioners are calling upon the Legislature to support amendments to adoption information legislation. In particular, the petitioners are asking that such amendments would allow access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives; implement a no-contact notice option; recommend optional counselling; offer access to other adoption information; and acknowledge open adoptions.

I'm pleased to affix my signature to it.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school-age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent educational materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of and appreciation for Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

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

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's education system."

I support the petition and I affix my signature.

ELECTION CALL

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas the current provincial government under Mike Harris has destroyed labour relations, gutted the WCB, caused rampant dependence on gambling, has contributed to mass homelessness and poverty while eroding our health care, educational and municipal institutions, we, the people of Chatham-Kent, are demanding that an election be called now, before the province is destroyed, morally, ethically and financially."

I affix my name to it.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here signed by the residents of Prescott, Kitchener, Port Elgin, Spencerville, Peterborough, Cardinal, Brockville and Ottawa. I will read the pertinent part.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revisions to the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"Permit unrestricted access to full identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons or unrestricted access to the amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents and siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches age 18;

"Permit unrestricted access to identifying information to adoptive parents of minor children, emancipated minor adoptees and individuals with legal guardianship of an adopted person in special circumstances;

"Allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file notice stating their wish for no contact;

"Replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling;

"Permit access to agency and court files when original statistical information is insufficient for identification of birth or contact with birth relatives;

"Recognize open adoptions in its legislation."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to it.

PROTECTION OF TEMAGAMI

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition that reads:

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to the following:

"That we believe it is important that the Temagami old-growth wilderness is not exploited and that we believe in protecting our natural heritage;

"Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament take legislative measures which would prevent the sacrifice of the Temagami old-growth wilderness through short-term exploitation."

I'll sign it on behalf of the constituents.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proper mental health care is essential to all Ontarians; and

"Whereas mental health care is severely underfunded in northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has called for the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital with no replacement services in its place; and

"Whereas appropriate community mental health treatment is so lacking in northwestern Ontario that those who need treatment, support and rehabilitation are incarcerated in district jails; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has not delivered on its commitment to set up the Northwestern Ontario Mental Health Agency over one year after it promised to do so; and

"Whereas there is a dramatic shortage of psychiatrists in northwestern Ontario, to the point where the doctors are severely overworked; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health promised a 12-bed adolescent treatment centre and has failed to deliver on that promise;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit those funds necessary to provide full and proper mental health care to those in need in northwestern Ontario and we call on the Minister of Health to cancel the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital."

This is signed by people from the AIDS Committee of Thunder Bay. I'm grateful they sent it in and very pleased to add my name to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to call orders 27 through 36 inclusive so that they may be moved and debated simultaneously.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I move concurrence in supply for the following ministries and offices:

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Ministry of Education and Training

Office of the Premier

Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Management Board Secretariat

Cabinet Office

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Ministry of Transportation

The Acting Speaker: Since you moved the motion, you now have the floor.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: My colleague from Northumberland will be participating in the debate, but this is simply an opening so that we have concurrence with the House to debate the supply motions simultaneously. I now relinquish the floor.

The Acting Speaker: I understand that I can't do it that way, that I now have to go in rotation, so we'll get back to you, unless there is unanimous consent, of course, if you'd like to ask for unanimous consent to share your time.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: In order to save time, I ask for unanimous consent to pass on to my colleague from Northumberland.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and thank you, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, for arranging this rotation.

Speaking on concurrency, there's certainly a lot of good news in what's happening here in Ontario. It's just great in politics to be able to bring good news, because we have had so much bad news, particularly during the lost decade from 1985 to 1995, but in particular the five years of 1990 to 1995.

You'll recall the tremendous increase in net new jobs that has been occurring in the province, and November was no exception, with some 21,000 net new jobs in Ontario. That is following in the footsteps of the previous two months, where some 95,000 net new jobs came into play in the months of September and October. This 21,000 from the month of November brings the grand total in our province to 461,000 net new jobs since we took office back in June 1995.

That's to be compared with the first five years of this decade, where we had a net job increase of minus 10,000, and I can assure you there was absolutely no reason for that; there should have been an increase. It was only due to the high taxes and the tremendous red tape, which were enough to drive jobs out of this country.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mulroney's high interest rates, Mulroney's free trade agreement.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.

Mr Galt: It's interesting to note that during that month with the 21,000 net new jobs, the unemployment here in Ontario dropped from 7% down to 6.9%, a real record low in this province for some time.

I have here an

article from a local newspaper talking about some of the local statistics and what's been going on. Certainly the number of employment insurance recipients in the Cobourg-Port Hope area is significantly reduced during the month of November, and they also point out how the employment has increased. Bob Keating, a labour market information analyst with the Human Resources Department with the federal government, is from Peterborough, and he's talking about how people are now "plugging into the job search." I think that's kind of an interesting comment that he makes.

It relates to the fact that they were seeing other people getting back to work and realized it was time for them to get back into it as well.

He goes on to point out that in our region - and it's interesting how the federal government measures unemployment in the region they look at - being Northumberland, Peterborough, Victoria-Haliburton and Muskoka, the unemployment rate actually edged up a wee bit during that period to 4.8%. It was at roughly 4.75%. However, it's interesting to note that a year ago it was at 8.5%, so during the year it has dropped a full four percentage points or has been almost cut in half. I think what's interesting, even though it came up just a hair, is the fact that it's now reasonably stable. It has come down and it's holding; it didn't just go down for a little spike and then bounce back up again.

It's also interesting to note that at the beginning of the month in Port Hope and Cobourg there were 1,267 people on unemployment, and now there are 1,250, a 1.3% drop, or 17 people. It also makes the point that unemployment in Ontario has dropped from 7% down to 6.9%, and at the same time it has also dropped across Canada. There's no question Ontario is once again the engine that is driving the country. We're back in the position that we had when we had a PC government in this province back in the 1970s and early 1980s, and Ontario is once again taking its position.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: I appreciate the opposition ensuring that we have a quorum present.

I wanted to relate for a few minutes to an

article that really highlights Mr Martin, the federal Minister of Finance, and also an interview with Maurizio Bevilacqua. It says that what should happen from that finance committee is that Canadians deserve a cut of some $3 billion in taxes. Does that sound familiar? It's certainly something we've had a platform on since back in 1994, when our platform first came out. It was obvious that the Liberals in this House in particular - both opposition parties, but particularly the Liberals - stood for increased taxes, charging more taxes; spend, borrow and tax.

But their federal counterparts are finally starting to understand, now that they've balanced the budget - and it's obvious why they've balanced the budget. Because of the economic climate this government has brought to Ontario, more dollars have come in to their tax revenues and consequently they have the budget balanced.

They're saying that Canadians deserve a tax break. This is the chairman of the parliamentary finance committee, when they issued the report, a Liberal - amazing. It also goes on to say that Martin should kill a 3% surtax on Canadians who earn more than $50,000 a year. What have we been hearing from the other side? "Oh, you're giving a tax break to your rich friends." What's being recommended in Ottawa? Take the 3% surtax off people with $50,000 or more. Are they our rich friends or are they the Liberals' rich friends? It then goes on to talk about a 5% surtax on those making $65,000 or more.

Would those be classified as our rich friends? This is a Liberal government in Ottawa, first cousin to our provincial Liberals. This is what they're now recommending.

It goes on to say that these surtaxes were brought in as a temporary measure to fight the deficit. We all know that the Income Tax Act in the first place came in as a temporary measure, but that was many, many years ago and it looks like it's rather permanent now. So it's hard to trust when you bring in a temporary tax such as income tax - it was probably a Liberal government that brought that in many years ago.

The finance chair goes on to say that people want tax relief. We recognized that back in the early 1990s. This is what was being said across Ontario. That was why we designed our campaign and our platform based on that kind of thinking. The problem is that the federal Liberals governing Canada are about 10 years behind in recognizing what should be happening. They want to see some of this money returned to the pockets of the hard-working Canadians who have been working so hard to support the social programs we have.

It's interesting when you look at what the opposition critics and interest groups are saying. They're saying that more spending on health care is in order. The Liberal government has cut about $6 billion from transfers just since 1996. We've experienced that here in the province of Ontario. One of the biggest problems we've had with our health program is handling this more than $2-billion annual transfer cut that the federal Liberals have made to Ontario. However, I'm sure the people of Ontario, particularly the elderly, appreciate that we didn't cut our health spending, like they did in Quebec.

We've actually increased it. We came into office with it at $17.4 billion, and now it's well over $18.5 billion.

We recognized what the federal government was doing. When the Canada Health Act first came into place, they started out giving us 50-cent health care dollars. That's how they were going to support health care in the province of Ontario. Where has that evolved over time? It has dropped now to the point where, of each dollar spent in Ontario for health purposes, it's down to 7.6 cents; 7.6% of the Ontario health dollar is being supported by the federal government. If people want to know where the cuts have come in health care, the only cuts in health care in Ontario have come from the federal Liberals.

There's no question; it's there in hard facts and figures. It's great that we've been able to have a tax cut, stimulate the economy and create the dollars coming in, in tax revenues, so we could increase the spending in health care.

It's intriguing to look at some of the statistics that are coming out that are good news for the province of Ontario. As a matter of fact, the Ontario help wanted index is up some 0.7% in November, its highest level since August 1990.

Welfare: 17,000 people in November got off welfare, so now a total of 357,000 people off welfare since June 1995, and a lot of those people have well-paying jobs. They've gone through the workfare program, something which the opposition resisted, at least the NDP did. The Liberals came out with a platform that they were going to have a mandatory opportunity, but we still haven't figured out what that meant. Lyn McLeod didn't explain it to us, but their new leader, Dalton McGuinty, may be able to explain what a mandatory opportunity is.

Anyway, this is the number of people who are no longer a load on the taxpayers of Ontario but are out there earning and supporting this country, supporting Ontario, as a matter of fact doing a great job. They appreciate programs such as workfare so they can go out and prove themselves and get a recommendation from a supervisor. It's really good news when you see this kind of thing happening.

Ontario department store sales are up in October, an indication that there's confidence from business, confidence from the consumer. Ontario department store sales rose by 7.1% in October compared to a year ago, and up 8.2% annually from a year ago.

Ontario retail sales: strong in September, up 1.2%, and in the first nine months they're up a total of 9%. This list just goes on and on. It's so much good news.

Ontario auto sales: up in 1998. For September this year over September last year, sales are up 14.7%, and the average this year over last year is 8.2%. People in Ontario and in Canada very much enjoy their cars, and this is an indication of the economic growth in the province of Ontario.

If you want to see the kind of economic growth that has occurred in this province, just get your car out on the 401 and take a drive, particularly in the late evening, and you'll see transport after transport on 401 carrying goods that people are purchasing in this province. There will be a dozen in a row, without a car in sight. These are transports moving goods that people are purchasing.

Or go down to the railway track between Toronto and Montreal and see the number and the length of trains moving on that track, carrying goods for the people of Ontario, for the people of Canada, and also carrying goods being exported. Some 80% of the exports from Ontario go to the US, but a very large portion of those do go on rubber by transport.

The housing market has had a tremendous turnaround: in Toronto, up 1.1% in October, and 4.7% over 10 months. The Ontario urban area is up 11.3%. This list just goes on and on.

If we look at the non-residential building permits, they are up significantly, up this year some 30.6%, and that's after last year's increase of some 32.6%.

You move on in this list. Ontario manufacturing shipments are up some 3.7% in 1998 over the same period last year. Ontario exports are up. Ontario wholesale trades are up. The list goes on of good news here in the province of Ontario.

It's interesting, as we read that

article that relates to the federal finance committee and think about what the problem is in our country. We've talked a lot about excess taxes and the problem with taxes. I'd like to use an example of a young Canadian working in Silicon Valley in California making $100,000 Canadian, converted from American dollars. He was paying, for income tax and health insurance, $15,000 Canadian. He was there for four years. He comes up north to work in Silicon Valley North in the Ottawa Valley area and he's still making his $100,000 Canadian, but what is he paying in income tax?. It's $45,000.

His income tax, by that move, went up a third of his salary, up $30,000. And you ask, why is there a brain drain? Why is there a brain drain from Canada, from Ontario? It's because of taxes. It's the number one reason.

What do we hear from the federal government about our professional athletes? How are we going to keep them in Canada? How are we going to get the quality athletes who are going to win a few games, whether it be the Blue Jays or the Maple Leafs or whoever? The problem becomes taxes. The federal government is recognizing that and trying to address it, but that's only piecemealing it by looking at some special, expensive athletes. They need to look at taxes in general, and that is exactly what the finance committee is telling them and what a lot of federal Liberals are telling Mr Martin. We certainly hope he will pay attention to this.

Just some interesting statistics: A Canadian earning $63,400 or more is taxed between 45% and 53%, depending, of course, on where you are in Canada,

whereas an American does not face a 45% tax rate until their income becomes - now listen to this - $263,750. That's when a 45% bracket would kick in, and ours is so much sooner.

The other suggestion that I mentioned a few minutes ago, this 3% surtax, another 5% surtax - they are doing some very serious rethinking on what they're going to do with their income tax system, and it's very much in order that they do exactly that. They're saying to leave some money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians and hard-working Ontarians, and that's exactly what we've been saying for so long.

Just to take you back to farm country, I was raised on a dairy farm, worked with a veterinarian with a large number of animals. There was a common saying out there about looking after your livestock, and it applies to taxes very well: A good shepherd shears his sheep; he doesn't skin them. I'm afraid that the people of Ontario for the last 15 years or so have not been sheared; they have indeed been skinned by the kinds of taxes and the tax level we've had in the province of Ontario.

It's interesting also to observe, a little bit to the east, some of that campaign that went on. What won that campaign? It became a fight over the platform on the economy. It became a fight over who could create the greatest tax cut. It wasn't about the gimmes and the handouts; it was about the economy and stimulating jobs, simulating the economy, giving some tax cuts and getting people back to work. That's what the people in Quebec voted for, and it was a real toss-up between the two about who could come up with the better one.

I've gone over some of these articles. I don't think there's any question that the federal government must look at the cuts they have created across this country to health care. If you want to talk about why provinces are having to restructure, why provinces are having to do something with hospitals and their closures, just have a look at the cuts of some $6 billion in health care across this great nation of Canada; in Ontario over $2 billion cut in health care.

It's time that the federal government returned some of the employment insurance dollars. How many billions do they need in reserve to maintain against a downturn in the economy? They're way, way beyond any reasonable bankroll to handle unemployment in the future.

When will the federal Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Lyle Vanclief, recognize the disaster we have in this province with the hog farmers, with those who have had some disastrous drought experiences, with the apple farmers in my area? Some 30 apple farmers were literally wiped out because of a hailstorm, because of disaster.

When will the federal Liberals recognize the problem with the Young Offenders Act?

There are a lot of things that the federal government should be doing. I think they're on the right track with this report from the finance committee. There's no question they're recognizing what's been going on in Ontario, and I know that if they follow our example we'll go a long, long way in this great country of Canada.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to speak this afternoon to the concurrences that have been moved by the Minister of Agriculture. I find it interesting that the previous speaker would, in his entirely predictable fashion, walk us through the evils and ills of the national government and, quite frankly, the evils and ills of provincial governments in the province between 1985 and 1995.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: The lost decade, as the equally charming member for Huron opines.

You know, I find it particularly interesting when this comes from the member for Northumberland. I really do have to control myself here, because I want to say, all of this from a man who spent most of those so-called 10 lost years swimming in the buttermilk of the Ontario public trough, and I don't think he complained very much. Of course, he's been out there in the -

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I'll tell you, Elmer Buchanan knows about your complaints - the knife in the chest.

Listen, I'm the last one to talk about anybody else in the public trough because I've spent my entire working life here under the conditions of five or six or seven general elections. I try to be mindful of the fact that, for good or for ill, I've spent 23½ years here as the member for Renfrew North. I don't hold myself out as some captain of industry. I'm always interested in hearing from people like the member from Humber, because unlike me, he's actually been out there in a different life, as the member from Muskoka has been, and I think it's an important perspective.

But I've got to tell you, to get these lectures from the member for Northumberland, who would have you believe that he was some kind of latter-day captain of industry is just a little hard to take. It's a little hard to take. Those 10 lost years are well reflected, I'm sure, on that fat, deluxe government pension he cashes every month. I doubt if he's discounting that and sending some of it back to the beleaguered public treasury of Ontario. I am not arguing for a moment -

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Don't go there, Sean.

Mr Conway: I'm quite prepared to go there. I'm absolutely prepared to go there because I'm not disguising -

Mr Pouliot: You've been there.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Conway: I'm not disguising for a moment who I am and what I've done for 23 years, and members of this House have every right to hold me to account for that. But to hear Galt up on this perpetual lecture about economy in public finances is a bit like Conway getting up and offering the virtues of silence in public speaking. I'd expect all of you to keel over in incredulity and laughter.

It is a little hard to take, I say to the now absent member for Northumberland, that he can stand here as routinely and as automatically as he does to simply say how terrible it all is when, I want to say for the record, as I understand it, most of his working life was spent, I'm sure with distinction, in the veterinary service of governments, provincial and national. I just wanted to make that point because he really does excite me to that observation.

We're here today talking about concurrences and I want to take a moment later in these remarks to talk about health care and about energy, but I can't let the afternoon pass without saying something as one of the members of the assembly about the so-called McLean affair. I was home on the weekend, as most of my colleagues were. I have not been following the debate in the Board of Internal Economy, where I'm happy to say I spent two or three of the most unhappy years of my life as a government House leader.

I've got to tell you, on the basis of that experience I find what my good friend from Parry Sound offered this afternoon just laughable. He's an honourable member, I have to believe him, but it certainly violates every moment of experience I ever had on that committee.

But I tell you, in Renfrew county this weekend more than a few people stopped me and said, "Are you serious? Do you people honestly think, given all of the dictates that you" - and they meant the collective - "have offered the taxpaying and consuming public of Ontario about changes in this and cuts in health care and `Do more with less,' that Mr Speaker McLean should have his legal bills in the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars and the damages that may have in fact ensued from inappropriate private behaviour paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario?"

I want to say very seriously to this House, we'd better, all of us, think very seriously about what we're asking the public of Ontario to endorse. I gather this afternoon the Board of Internal Economy, on a divided vote, with the government voting for the settlement and the opposition voting against the settlement, has in fact agreed to pay several hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle the McLean affair.

As one member, I object. I object strongly. I don't take any particular delight in grinding an axe against a colleague with whom I've served for 17 years. It's not easy, but I'm going to tell you, this is just not acceptable for this assembly. We're just not going to get away with it. The poor old Deputy Premier did as well as he could under terrible circumstances trying to advance the line today, but it's simply not going to wash.

Apparently this Board of Internal Economy retained as its legal counsel Neil Finkelstein. The member for Muskoka may know him. I remember when I minister of the crown, in a major case, a very significant case, retaining the services of Mr Finkelstein, and I'll tell you, I was very impressed by the work he did for Her Majesty's government, and that was 10 or 15 years ago.

Finkelstein apparently has advised the board that their liabilities were very minor, if any, and that nothing should be paid unless a judge ordered such a direction. I'm not a lawyer but I do know and respect Neil Finkelstein.

If that's the advice he gave the board and the board chose not to accept that advice and went on its own, apparently, with some kind of private legal opinion having been tendered to the government members, and notwithstanding that we, in trust for all of the people of Ontario, are going to sign a cheque in the neighbourhood of $500,000 to settle this case, let me tell you, it is over my protest. And I've got to believe it's got to be over the protest of a majority of members representing all three parties in this assembly.

I can understand friends and colleagues wanting to assist with a legal defence fund. That's an entirely separate matter. These costs are significant. I was sued in this past year. I paid my own legal bills. They certainly weren't in the order of magnitude