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

November 18, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LEGAL AID

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): People in Ontario who are disadvantaged thought they had a friend in Bob Rae. Now they know that Bob Rae, a captive of organized and powerful special interest groups, does little for the truly disadvantaged.

Another example is the removal of access to justice for the disadvantaged at Ontario's legal aid clinics. Clinic directors recently issued a release stating, "This government does not value the work of legal clinics and does not value the plight of the poor." Clinics are being forced daily to turn away clients, including injured workers with compensation claims.

Bob Rae is Robin Hood is reverse. He takes from the have-nots and gives to the haves. For example, the Attorney General, while starving the clinics, is giving raises of over 5% to the ministry's head office lawyers and 10.5% increases to retained Bay Street lawyers. While clinic directors are facing meltdown in their clinics, the ministry has just hired five new managers to work in its communications branch. We get spin doctors instead of substance.

Surprisingly, the Rae government, in its quarterly financial report, boasts that "significant savings were realized from the legal aid plan." Why are these savings being used to hire spin doctors and provide 10.5% to Bay Street lawyers while clinics serving the disadvantaged go into meltdown?

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns her so-called reasonable land use policy.

Minister, in your recent letter to your colleague the member for Simcoe Centre, you said, "Planning the location of a school to allow connection to a municipal sewage system would, in many instances, involve moving the school under five kilometres, which may add five minutes to the school bus routes."

This is a ludicrous statement. Your tradeoff between increased bus travel time and your reasonable land use policy will kill the traditional rural school in Ontario. Your policy effectively prevents school boards from expanding existing schools or building new facilities if they do not have sites of approximately 150 acres.

The county of Simcoe is essentially a rural municipality, and our rural schools play an important role in the formulation of a sense of community and the preservation of a traditional rural culture. Minister, for you even to suggest that rural schools will eventually be eliminated and that children should be bused to urban centres, only to take their lessons in a growing number of portable classrooms, shows a disturbing degree of insensitivity on the part of your government to the needs of our rural communities in Ontario.

I would urge you to work closely with the Simcoe County Board of Education to develop innovative waste disposal programs rather than focusing exclusively on killing off our rural schools. Minister, passing the buck to your local Ministry of the Environment office for its non-action is not satisfactory.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Today I would like to share with my colleagues the success of Jobs Ontario in my riding, Sault Ste Marie.

Since August 17, we have seen 20 permanent full-time placements. Some of the positions filled are with small businesses where fewer than five employees exist and where duties range from purchasing and computer work to developing new techniques. In all these areas where jobs are being created, training is new. It is the type of training you couldn't receive at school or from a previous position, therefore allowing everyone the opportunity to be eligible.

Some 600 to 800 positions will be filled during the length of these three-year Jobs Ontario initiatives in the Sault. Our Jobs Ontario broker, the Sault Community and Career Information Centre, has been a great help. They have told me that the response to this government project has been tremendous, and both the ad and word-of-mouth campaigns have helped significantly in making these Jobs Ontario initiatives work.

I see the Jobs Ontario project as a benefit for people to access information about the job market: an added tool to job search. The participants are out there self-marketing, trying to get employers interested in the program. In terms of effectiveness, everyone concerned -- participants and employers -- is enthusiastic.

Most importantly, Jobs Ontario in Sault Ste Marie and area has helped to develop a good community partner relationship. The participants, the employees, the trainers and our broker, the Sault Community and Career Information Centre, have been remarkable in handling this important initiative.

BLOOD TESTING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The New Democratic Party government has ignored the needs of a group of people who are ill and who are dying as a result of a delay in the implementation of an appropriate blood screening program in Ontario in the early 1980s.

Three hundred and seventy-five people are known to have been infected with the HIV virus through blood transfusions, and 60 of those people have died.

Months ago, Hemophilia Ontario asked that the province participate alongside the federal government in a compensation plan that would ensure that those who contracted HIV through tainted blood transfusions have security for themselves and for their families. The government has refused to act or even to provide the courtesy of interviews. Now people are left in the position of having to sue for damages, at enormous personal cost and emotional strain.

Yesterday people who have been infected by HIV through blood transfusions called on the government again, this time to establish a public inquiry to determine why adequate testing and public safety measures were not put into place for months, and sometimes years, after the risks were known. Many people who contracted HIV still don't know that they are HIV-positive and may pass it on to others, including their own spouses and children. There are 41 people in the HIV-T group in Ontario, and only five of them had been notified in any way of the possibility of having been infected.

The government must act. There must be a compensation plan, and there must be a public inquiry. That is the right and just thing to do.

DUFFERIN COUNTY MUSEUM

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to rise in the House to inform all members of the presence of an exhibit put on by the Dufferin County Museum in the Legislature's west wing.

The Dufferin County Museum was established in 1963. It is dedicated to preserving the social history of the county, the activities and lives of all of its residents. Most of its display items are everyday objects the people of the time would never expect to see in a museum: a pair of children's mittens, a blacksmith's ledger, a quilt embroidered with the names of its various creators. The stories these objects tell of are of working and raising children and everyday life.

Like all museums, the Dufferin County Museum is open to the public. What distinguishes it from many of the others is its approach to history. Fuelling that different approach is the museum's curator, Wayne Townsend, and a group of dedicated volunteers. His energy and commitment to the museum makes it a popular place with visitors from inside the county and out.

The museum's extensive archives are used to research family, property or community history. Perhaps its most important aim is to pass on an appreciation of our heritage.

The museum is presently housed in the tiny old registry office in Orangeville. There are plans to move it to a more spacious location. The museum is eagerly awaiting a grant from the Ministry of Culture and Communications to enable it to continue its good work.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I rise today to bring forward an issue of great importance to my constituents in the town of Pickering. This issue is one that I have become familiar with, this being the issue of garbage.

I had occasion to attend a public meeting in my riding a few weeks ago. This meeting was sponsored by the Tory caucus to promote the concept of shipping garbage throughout the province.

This concept terrifies my constituents. They know well what it is like to have to suffer with someone else's garbage. The people of the town of Pickering have had to deal with Metro's garbage and incompetence for decades. The past Liberal government had decided that Pickering was to continue to take Metro's garbage, only this time without a full environmental assessment.

When I ran for office, the people of Pickering told me that they did not believe in the concept of export of garbage. They know they cannot in all conscience say that they don't want to be host to some other community's garbage and then say it's all right to force a less fortunate municipality to take theirs. That would be immoral.

That is why the Tory members who came to my community were disappointed. They fully expected to create a fury in Pickering and have the full support of the community. They didn't have it. They don't have it. As a matter of fact, the only support they had was from people who came to this meeting from outside my riding, people who don't have the many years of experience with garbage that the people of the town of Pickering do.

So I would like to thank the Tory members for an enjoyable evening. Perhaps I could offer one piece of advice: Know the history of an area before you come in and make all sorts of outrageous statements. Their definition of "willing host" is one that is not acceptable to my constituents.

TAXATION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I want to bring to the public's attention the indirect taxation which the NDP government is inflicting on this province. Rather than come clean with the people of Ontario through legislated tax measures, the Rae government raises revenues in an underhanded and devious fashion by raising fees, fines and any other levy imaginable.

Over the last few months, I have received complaints on at least five substantive fee increases or new provincial levies. There is the new camping fee for seniors. Tough new tax collection measures have been put in place on the sale of used cars. This measure is especially hard on some of the most vulnerable members of our society. There is the $50 fee for simply updating one's business registration. There are the substantially increased traffic fines. The managed forest tax rebate program has been cancelled or seriously delayed, and the Ministry of the Environment now charges a 2% review fee for all certificates of approval for sewage and waterworks.

Because each individual tax measure affects only a limited group of people, this revenue grab has largely gone unnoticed. Collectively, though, this indirect taxation is making a significant dent in people's pocketbooks.

If the Treasurer needs the money, let him have the courage and honesty to raise taxes up front rather than by the back door and without public scrutiny by this Legislature.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Now that the provincial Legislature has resumed sitting after constituency week, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the recently concluded Holocaust Education Week. I don't think the importance of Holocaust Education Week to both the Jewish community and to the people of Ontario could be overstated.

In the 1930s and 1940s over six million Jews were systematically annihilated by the Nazis in virtually every town, village and city in eastern Europe.

The best means of ensuring that the atrocities of the Holocaust are not repeated is through education. Through education, hopefully, we can learn that racism is unacceptable and intolerable in any form.

In the past few weeks there has been an increase in neo-Nazi demonstrations in Germany. Right here in Canada a so-called historian was deported because he denies the authenticity of the Holocaust. Earlier this year, in the Toronto area, three synagogues were desecrated with racist, anti-Jewish slogans.

While it is discouraging to hear of events such as these in the 1990s, these events serve to reinforce the importance of Holocaust Education Week. So long as there are people who deny the facts of the Holocaust or threaten the rights of any race, we must redouble our efforts to educate the public about the importance of history and of the basic reality of human rights.

The generation of Holocaust survivors is coming to an end. It is important that we, the next generation, remember and deepen our understanding of this dark period in history. The goal of Holocaust Education Week is awareness. Our generation must ensure that the tragedies of the past are never forgotten. We must never forget.

VIMY BAND

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I rise to bring to the attention of the House an issue that will have serious consequences for my riding. This is the proposal by the Department of National Defence to move the renowned Vimy Band from CFB Kingston to CFB Borden.

Information generously supplied by Sergeant K.W. Brown of the Communications and Electronics Museum of CFB Kingston says that the band of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals was organized at the Vimy barracks in Kingston in 1952. In its early years it saw tours of duty in Korea, Japan and Germany. In 1968 it became the Canadian Forces Vimy Band.

Over its 40-year history, all of it while based in Kingston, the Vimy Band has become a much-loved institution. It has frequently entertained area residents and tourists and, on occasion, lent its unique sound to raising money for worthy causes. The band has enriched Kingston's Remembrance Day ceremonies through producing marvellous music in the face of bitter November weather blowing in off Lake Ontario.

As you can see, the Vimy Band is very much a part of our community. The members strengthen music-making in Kingston, both through their own performances and through association with the Kingston Symphony and the Queen's University school of music.

On behalf of my constituents, I urge the Department of National Defence to make the sensible decision here. Have the seven instructors in need of a band at CBF Borden move to Kingston to join Canada's finest military band, the Vimy Band. Don't uproot the band, disrupting the lives of its members and their families and causing a deep sense of loss in our community. Move the instructors to Kingston where they can join the Vimy Band in building on its outstanding achievement of the last 40 years.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Point of order, the member for Norfolk.

SPEAKER'S BIRTHDAY

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Mr Speaker, it has come to my attention today that I have some concern over the Speaker himself, this being the Speaker's 12th anniversary of his 39th birthday. I thought that I'd bring to the attention of this House that this is an occasion that would bring forward best wishes on the part of every member in this House. I thought I'd bring that to your attention today, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I don't think the member has a point of order. If it is anything, it is reminding the Speaker of something about which he does not wish to be reminded of. But I thank you for the kind remarks.

It is time for oral questions. The member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This maybe is one of those days you can have your cake and eat it too, Mr Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In announcing the transfer payments to municipalities last January, the Minister of Municipal Affairs wrote a personal letter to everybody in the municipalities and told them: "In 1993 and 1994, the unconditional grants will increase by 2% each year. We have chosen to make this multi-year announcement to help municipalities plan their financial futures."

Given this personal commitment by the minister and given the fact that he has promised that municipalities will be able to plan over the various years, how does the minister think the municipalities are going to stand for the broken promise by both him and the Treasurer of this province?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I didn't hear anything yesterday from the Treasurer that indicated that the promise was going to be broken. I heard from the Treasurer that in view of the fact that inflation in Metropolitan Toronto is about 0.5% and inflation in the rest of the province is about 1.2% and that in view of the fact that the recession continues to be very tough on revenues for this province, we have an obligation to control our costs. The only way we can control our costs is to look at all our expenditures. So this expenditure, like every other one, is up for review. I think that's appropriate and what you'd expect from a responsible government.

Mr Elston: I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am when a minister of the crown stands here and says, "I promised this last winter but I'm reviewing all of my promises," just as Bob Rae did after the election of 1990.

The municipalities of this province understand how important the unconditional grants to them are. They've already entered multi-year cost-sharing programs with the province. They've already entered into contracts with various organizations in their municipalities. How does the Minister of Municipal Affairs expect them to live up to the commitments that they made on the basis of the 2% promises? How do they expect to live up to those commitments other than by raising local taxes?

Hon Mr Cooke: Last week the Treasurer and myself met with all of the regional chairs, and I think the regional chairs indicated very clearly to us that nobody should overstate the importance of unconditional grants in terms of the overall grant structure for the municipalities. Unconditional grants represent about 20% of the revenues that municipalities have. It's a very small portion of their revenues, and I don't think it would be fair or accurate to say that if unconditional grants went up 1% or 0% instead of 2%, that's going to have any impact at all on local mill rates.

Mr Elston: I think the honourable minister should file for this Legislative Assembly the impact of each of those scenarios on the municipalities and do it forthwith, because last year, when he was talking to these municipalities about their three-year planning scenario, he talked to them in the terms that, "Everyone's help and creativity to work out fairest ways to maintain services, streamline operations and preserve jobs" is needed.

After having had the councillors and staffs of municipalities around this province endeavouring to carry out that work, in fact receiving kudos from the minister and the Treasurer on various occasions for having done that and having reached this stage where the second year of your commitment is required, how do you explain your withdrawal from the commitments you made to those people if they showed creativity and ways of preserving jobs and services in their municipalities?

Hon Mr Cooke: What we will continue to do with the municipal sector, as well as all of the other sectors in the social service, health care and education fields, is to meet and work with our partners to make sure that our expenditures are under control and that we provide and maintain good public services from one end of this province to the other. But I find it strange that today the Liberal Party is saying: "Don't review your expenditures even though your revenues have dropped by a few hundred million dollars. Let the deficit rip. It doesn't matter." We know that next week they'll be saying the direct opposite.

I think the House leader for the official opposition should not overreact. The Treasurer hasn't made an announcement. All he has indicated is that this matter is under review. When the Treasurer and the government have come to a final decision, then that decision will be communicated to the House.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I will address my question to the Treasurer. Last January the Treasurer told hospitals that their transfer payments would be 2% for the upcoming fiscal year and that their planning could be totally based on that. Yesterday the Treasurer indicated that he could no longer guarantee that the figure will be 2%, that a new announcement will be made before the end of the month.

The Treasurer should know that hospitals are required to file a full operating plan and budget within 12 days from today's date. That plan has to include details of how hospitals will control costs and live within the provincial cost requirements. It has to include details of how hospitals will preserve as many health care services and sector jobs as possible. The plans had to be developed in the context of collaboration with key stakeholders in the community. That process took over a year. It appears that the entire revenue side of the operating balance sheet is in jeopardy.

I see that the Minister of Health is now back, so I can redirect the question. Will she be changing the deadline for the submission of the operating budgets and plans, since every hospital in the province may well have to go back to the drawing board?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): It seems to me that the member's question is premised on an assumption and projection of what the announcement with respect to transfer payments is going to be. I think the Treasurer's been very clear that no decision has been taken and that the review that's being undertaken is certainly being done in light of the fiscal situations that have been put forward.

Any of the timing questions with respect to what we expect of the hospitals around operational guidelines, around any of those issues, are things that I'm certainly willing at any time to sit down and talk about with the hospital association as to what's a reasonable approach.

Mrs Sullivan: The Minister of Health knows, because she set the rules, that the hospitals have to have their plans into her office 12 days from today. She should have been in touch with them long before this. Hospitals have few alternatives if their payments from the province are lower than 2%. The Treasurer indicated yesterday that they may well be lower than 2%.

Hospitals' alternatives? They can cut beds, they can cut staff, they can reduce services, they can decide not to replace broken or damaged equipment. They will also have increased costs. The minister knows that full well. There are arbitrated settlements outstanding for 35,000 hospital employees, with 40,000 nurses yet to come, and the minister has promised that health care services will be preserved and that medicare will not be put at risk.

The Minister of Health should be telling the hospitals if she is going to be making the judgement, providing the guidelines, the directions and the instructions on where hospitals will have to cut to meet reduced revenues. Will she spell out to every hospital and to every person in Ontario what hospital services will be available and what hospital services must be eliminated?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member raises the issue with respect to changing the deadline on the submission of operational guidelines as if this is the first time it's been talked about or as if I'm unaware of the issue. I've had direct discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association about this issue. It was raised in the question-and-answer period at their annual convention, which I spoke to. I understand full well that if decisions taken by cabinet cause hospitals to go back to the drawing board, they will require more time to work with their partners, in terms of the unions and district health councils they have to consult with. That would be an obvious consequence of any changed decision.

What I've said to the member, echoing the Treasurer's statements here in the House and to the media, is that a decision has not been taken with respect to confirming or not confirming the projected transfer payment announcement. The question she's asking me is premature. I do, however, understand the concern she raised, that if that eventuality came about we would have to address those concerns.

Mrs Sullivan: There has not been adequate discussion with the hospitals on what would happen if the province were to transfer less than 2% to them. They have been planning, ever since the Treasurer made that announcement, for a 2% increase this year and a 2% increase next year. There has been no discussion about what would happen and how the province and the hospitals would deal with a transfer of less than 2%. That is nonsense.

Within the past couple of weeks the Treasurer met with the Ontario Hospital Association and told the hospitals that they've been doing a fine job over the past year coming to terms with the 1% transfer of last year and with the restructuring they've had to go through. I agree with that. I further agree that the hospitals have met, and are really attempting to meet, demanding planning standards that have been put in place by the Minister of Health to cope with service delivery for the coming year, including making wrenching decisions about staff cutbacks. They've worked with your government.

I'm asking the Minister of Health, what kinds of incentives will she provide to the hospitals to work with her again when she's changing the rules not only in midstream, but when the boat's already in port? How will the hospitals ever be able to trust this minister and this government again? There's no trust left.

Hon Ms Lankin: The member, in the third supplementary, twists the answer I gave to the second supplementary. I specifically said we had had discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association about what would be an inevitable delay in the deadline for the submission of reports and plans from the operational guidelines if there was a change with respect to the announcement that the Treasurer is hoping to make near the end of this month.

I made no assertion that there had been full or lengthy discussions with the hospitals on how to plan for anything other than the projected transfer payment announcement that had come out, so it's nonsense to suggest that I said that and then to decry that's not true. It's not what I said.

I think the member acknowledges there has been a tremendous effort of all the parties in the health care sector to work through very difficult fiscal times and to have rigorous planning exercises, and to continue down that road would be my intention. I would obviously say if there is any change in the course of what we expect of hospitals, we would have to sit down and undertake exactly what the member suggests. She is premature, though, because no decision has been made.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Education. Today is the ninth time in two years that I've asked your government to coordinate a nutrition program in our schools. Six months ago, you said you'd be making an announcement soon. I believed you, so I waited and thousands of children waited. Over a month ago I asked the same question again, for the eighth time, and you said, "Very shortly."

Minister, we now know that 1.1 million children in this country live below the StatsCan definition of the poverty line. Our children can't afford to wait any longer for you to get your act together. When will you be announcing that all Ontario children will have a nutrition program in their schools?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party. I want to say to him that we continue to work on this, together with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which has lead responsibility for this issue within the government. I remain very much committed, as we all do on this side of the House, to proceeding with this as quickly as possible.

We have been holding some discussions with school boards very recently to look at the experiences where programs are already in place. I know that through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, discussions have also been held with a variety of other groups within the last little while, and I expect all of that information is going to come together over the next little while. I realize this is taking longer than any of us would have wanted it to, but I can tell the member opposite that the commitment is there and the will is there to proceed with this as quickly as possible.

Mr Harris: It's been two years since I started raising this issue and I've been getting the same answer for two years. Over a year ago, I put forward a resolution in this House calling for nutrition programs, which received all-party support. I have visited schools in Toronto that already have a nutrition program. I've met with teachers, nutritionists and parents on this issue. My caucus included it as part of A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario, which was New Directions, volume two.

I have done everything I know to push your government to act on this issue and you have done nothing. Why is it that a higher priority is more power for Bob White, a higher priority for your government is casinos, a higher priority for the NDP is developing and implementing new lottery games, a higher priority is 62 new ways to rip every last nickel out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this province? You've got all those studies, you've got all that time, but you have done nothing for hungry children going to school. Can you explain that to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: I disagree fundamentally with the comment opposite that we've done nothing for hungry children. I think we would all agree there is a lot more that could be done and I think we're interested in doing that. I think, however, that through the work my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has been undertaking, in fact a number of significant improvements have already happened outside of the school sector. There is very clearly an interest on our

part in moving on this.

We know there is also disagreement out there. I think this is something the leader of the third party would also acknowledge, if he were to put partisanship aside, that there are also disagreements out there about how we should proceed with this, and in some cases, whether we should proceed with this. But I think we've been clear in saying that we want to do that, that we want to proceed, and what we are trying to do is to find the best way to make this work.

Mr Harris: This government seems to think that before anything can be brought in, it needs an interministerial committee, a study, a task force, and that you have to throw more money at it to solve the problem. We have more than a million people now on welfare, we have more and more people depending on food banks and more and more people living in shelters. Minister, government handouts or more money or more bureaucracy is not the answer to every problem.

There are parents, there are teachers and there are private sector businesses willing to help and donate. My program, which I gave to you two years ago, could have begun that day. It could start tomorrow at little or no cost to the taxpayer with a little cooperation and a little leadership from the Premier and from all 130 of us in this Legislature.

What I want to know is why your government has, obviously, with all the other hundreds of priorities, reneged on its promise to help feed hungry children in our schools.

Hon Mr Silipo: Trying very much to stay above the partisan fray in this one, because I think I agree with those comments the member opposite has made that indicate the seriousness of this matter, I think what I would say to him is that he knows full well that there really is nothing that prevents people from continuing to work on this issue and continuing to develop programs.

The issue he's put before us is how we can be of assistance in helping this kind of initiative develop and be entrenched throughout the province. I think we've said very clearly that we are in favour of doing that and we are continuing to work on the best way to put that in place. I for one am not particularly happy about the fact that it's taking us as long as it has, but I think we're sincere in our efforts to try to put this together in the best way possible.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding market value assessment for Metropolitan Toronto. Mr Minister, on November 3, I asked you in the House to begin public hearings on this issue immediately. Now it's over two weeks later and you still haven't begun public hearings. In fact, you haven't even given a commitment that you will have public hearings. I understand you plan on introducing this legislation either today or tomorrow. Will you also announce now that you plan to begin public hearings immediately?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): First of all, I will be introducing the legislation today. The House leader for the third party will understand that when Metropolitan Toronto passed the resolution with its interim tax plan, that was simply a resolution. Then a formal request had to be made to the province. That was into the Thursday of the following week, so that was a week. Then a policy discussion had to ensue and the announcement was made and the legislation was drafted. Legislation is not drafted overnight; it takes some time to go through the approvals process. In fact, on what is a subject that is very controversial, the legislation is ready in very quick time.

I have indicated to the House leader for the third party in House leaders' meetings that this government will not stand in the way of public hearings. We never have and we never will.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This issue demands public hearings. The interests of the taxpayers, whether residential or commercial, are at stake. They deserve the right to have their say on the issue. The hearings that were held at the municipal level were not on this plan. In fact, according to the media reports, what you intend to do is to introduce a lot more than enabling legislation. Minister, we demand public hearings immediately. Just tell us when you will begin and how long they will last.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'll be discussing the matter with the House leaders tomorrow. I've already had one discussion. It's not as if we haven't talked about this at all. I certainly think we should get second reading of the bill dealt with as quickly as possible and have public hearings before the House adjourns at Christmas. Then this matter will go back to Metropolitan Toronto, because all this bill does is give Metropolitan Toronto the same power that every other municipality has in the province. It's their decision. It should be their decision. That's what this bill will do, give the power to Metro Toronto, just like every other municipality in the province already has.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The Municipal Affairs minister knows full well it's not the same power everybody else has. Why do you say that? If it were just the same power as everyone else had, you wouldn't have to bring legislation forward to amend it. Why are you telling me it's the same power as everyone else has? It's not the same power. It's not the same deal. You know it's not the same deal. You know it doesn't fall under

section 63 or

section 70. It's different.

You should be bringing legislation before this House, and you know full well that while you've been dilly-dallying for two weeks, you could have had public hearings. The public knows what the deal is. We know what the deal is. You're simply drafting it up in legal form.

The question that needs to be put to you, Mr Minister, is, why can't you have public hearings on this issue, beginning immediately? This committee doesn't have to travel. All those concerned citizens are within the Metro region. It can be held here, in this building, in a very short period of time. It's not special powers. Everyone knows what the deal is. We know what your position in opposition was. Why can't we do that in the very near future?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I'm about to say scares the heck out of me: I agree with the member. I hope that between the three House leaders, we can get this bill dealt with for second reading and begin the public hearings on this next week.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, in January of this year, your colleague the Treasurer issued a statement. In that statement, referring to all the major transfer partners of the province -- hospitals, schools, colleges, universities and municipalities -- he said, "To help plan the reform and restructuring that must take place in each of these sectors, I am today announcing their funding levels for the next three years... For each of the two following years" -- to the one we're in now -- "transfer agencies will receive a 2% increase."

I say to the minister, you served on a school board. You were a chair of a school board. You know the need for proper planning. You know the need to be able to count on the province to provide the funding that it has promised. You also know of the tremendous pressures school boards are under today. My colleague from Nipissing has noted the need for a nutrition program. You're going into destreaming, junior kindergarten, a whole host of programs that need funding.

Minister, will you commit here and now that the school boards of this province are going to receive a 2% increase in transfer payments for next year?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I think the Treasurer has answered that question already, when he was asked yesterday. It's interesting and useful that the rounds are being made of all the ministers in the sectors. Obviously, the announcement will be made by the Treasurer in due course. What I can tell the member opposite is that all the concerns he's outlined today are all concerns that clearly we are aware of and that clearly are part of the discussions we're having and will be reflected in the decision that's made.

Mr Beer: It's a delight to know that you're talking, you're concerned, you're consulting, but what boards need to know, what parents need to know, what the school population of the province needs to know is, will the educational system be adequately funded for next year according to the promises that you and your government have made?

If you're not prepared to commit to the promise on the transfer payments, then what about capital? It has already been noted that you had made commitments around a nutritional program on many occasions. I have risen in this House and in estimates to ask you, on at least three or four occasions, when you were going to announce the next capital funding allocation. As recently as October, you said by the end of October. Again, Minister, school boards are waiting, and by waiting, it means that kids are still in portables, that plans can't be done.

Minister, will you commit to a specific date before the House rises prior to the Christmas recess when you will stand in this House and tell us what the capital allocations will be? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Silipo: The capital announcement is scheduled for tomorrow in this House.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm going to follow up my colleague the member for York North's question to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, you've just announced that the capital grants will be announced tomorrow to the school boards, and that's good news because school boards are in the business of planning and this government isn't.

I would like to ask you, with regard to the questionnaire that you sent out on implementation of debenture financing, whether any of the information that you did receive from the school boards in this regard will have any impact on how you're going to make that announcement tomorrow and whether or not you're going to do it in a new manner.

Hon Mr Silipo: No, there have not been any decisions made with respect to the issue that the member raises with respect to any possible move to debenture financing, so the announcements will be made in the normal course of events. Obviously, they're subject to any changes that we might make in the way in which we might fund projects, but I think what's clear and what I want to be clear about is that there has never been any intention in the process to do anything other than continue to fund projects.

In other words, even if we were to go to a debenture system, we would be, through that system, continuing to pay the borrowing costs and the costs on an annual basis that would be the equivalent of the provincial grant. So there is no reduction in any way, whatever format we would use, of a commitment of funding from the provincial end.

Mrs Cunningham: With regard to the response that the minister has just made and the servicing costs that his government is prepared to pay, he should know that any announcement that he makes tomorrow, because he has waited so long -- traditionally we would have these announcements in the spring of the year -- that no school board will be able to get through the process of approvals so that they in fact can build new schools by next September.

I am going to ask the minister right now if, because of the statement coming so late and these announcements being made so late in the school year, he will be making recommendations to his staff that the approvals process could be speeded up so that schools can be built and opened in September 1993 for the students who have been waiting for so long.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think the member would know that the announcement that we are talking about, the funding that we're talking about, relates to the 1995-96 allocations, and certainly there are approvals that would have to be carried out. I don't see any problem in looking at whatever we can do to speed up the approvals process. I think that would make absolute sense, and certainly we would do that.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It's been about two years since the GATT negotiations were scheduled to end. They were scheduled to end in December 1990. For nearly a year now, the GATT negotiations have appeared to be in a state of complete deadlock because of a failure of the European Community and the United States to resolve their differences in regard to agriculture and subsidies. Recent press reports indicate that the EC and the US are now close to resolving the differences that they have.

I would like to know what chances there might be, and what changes there might be in the chances, of resuming those negotiations very shortly, or are we headed, as some of us fear, into an all-out agricultural trade war? I wonder what you could tell the producers in my riding of Norfolk to let them know what the feedback is that you're getting right now from the federal counterparts at this point in time.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I want to thank the member for his question. Indeed I get that question from a number of farmers across the province: What is the future of the GATT negotiations?

First off, I would like to reassure the members in the House and the farmers in the province that Ontario and Canada indeed still have the same position in terms of the GATT negotiations. We still support supply management, the clarification of

Article XI, and we still support the reduction of export subsidies for grains.

We have some concerns about what the United States has done in imposing tariffs on some European Community products in terms of wine, rapeseed oil, wheat gluten which they intend to bring in on December 5. We are concerned that may lead to an all-out trade war.

We do have reason to be optimistic in terms of the GATT talks. One of the reasons -- notwithstanding what's in the newspaper, because there's some optimism being expressed in newspaper stories -- but the fact that Mr MacSharry has returned to be part of the GATT talks would suggest to us at least and the federal minister, whom we met with yesterday, that there's some optimism about having a successful conclusion to the GATT talks.

Mr Jamison: I know we're all very hopeful that these kinds of concerns that deal directly with the welfare of our rural communities, the future, the whole economic fabric of our rural communities indeed -- but we have the federal government negotiating, and if I look at history, I don't have a great reliance in the federal government negotiating any trade pact.

My question is, how would Ontario in fact respond if the GATT agreement on agriculture is signed shortly?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It's difficult to respond to an agreement where we don't know what's in the agreement. But it is useful to let everyone know that there is in fact a plan. The ministers of agriculture from across the country met in Toronto in the last two days and that was one of the issues we talked about: What if there is a GATT agreement, and how will we work on implementation?

All the ministers agreed on four or five principles that we would start to work on right away. One of the things we agreed to was that provincial and federal governments would assess jointly the impact of the GATT agreement that's signed. We agreed, again jointly, to develop a set of principles we would use to design an implementation process. We also decided to work on efforts to define or decide on opportunities we would have to export as well as open up our markets and, finally, we agreed to assess the support programs for farmers jointly between governments.

We believe that by working with the farm industry, the farm leaders, the food industry and other levels of government we can implement any GATT deal that's brought in successfully and will be good for agriculture here in Ontario and in Canada.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the minister -- actually for the Premier, but he's not here, he's off in Asia -- so I have this question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The minister will remember that in the latter part of 1991 I brought to the attention of the government the fact that there was a good possibility there would be a closing of General Motors operations somewhere in the province of Ontario, and I mentioned specifically the foundry and engine plant in St Catharines.

He will know that in February of this year, General Motors announced that the foundry would be closing and that one of the engine lines would be closing down, and there had already been an announcement of 750 indefinite layoffs, which usually means permanent layoffs. That's 3,000 jobs lost in the auto industry in one community, the community of St Catharines.

With the purge of corporation executives that has taken place in the United States, it is clear now that this means that the proposed cuts General Motors had announced (

a) will come faster and (

b) will be more drastic than those announced by Mr Stempel.

Would the minister tell the House what personal representations the Premier of Ontario has made to the top executives of General Motors in Detroit in an effort to persuade them to keep all of their operations in Ontario open so that workers in St Catharines, Oshawa, London and Windsor can be assured that the top gun in the province of Ontario is personally handling this problem and trying to prevent those job losses?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): We've appointed a full-time person, my former deputy, Mr Tim Armstrong, to work with the auto industry --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): All the Premier does is leave town.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, it's very hard to be heard over the member for Oriole. If she'd at least like to listen, then I'll give an answer.

We've been working closely with Mr George Peapples, the chairman of GM of Canada, who also serves on the Premier's advisory council, and I'm also a member. We recognize that there are some 5,500 auto jobs in the St Catharines area and we're concerned about those jobs. We have been doing some very specific things to make the auto industry more competitive, things that should have been done under the Liberals.

For example, my colleague the Minister for Skills Development announced an $18-million program --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: -- on skills development to make the auto industry more competitive. That's the kind of thing that will go a long way when it comes to GM deciding where the plants are going to close and how it's going to rationalize its operations.

Mr Bradley: I have a list of plant closings in the province of Ontario which goes several pages and indicates clearly that whatever policy you are developing so far hasn't worked.

The minister will know that when the Premier visited the city of St Catharines this summer, it was reported in the St Catharines Standard, an impeccable source, that he told a group, including the Save the Foundry Committee, and I quote the following:

"Ontario Premier Rae said, 'It is an illusion to think General Motors will change its mind on closing its St Catharines foundry and killing 2,300 jobs. No company in the world could lose $4 billion like GM last year and not make changes. This idea that somehow government can solve the problem or that we can get General Motors -- or any government can get General Motors -- to do something totally different is an illusion.'"

Given that General Motors will be aware of what the Premier had to say, given that General Motors will be aware that the Premier appears to have rolled over and played dead on saving the foundry, will the minister place a telephone call to the Premier of the province of Ontario today and ask him to come home from the Far East to deal with what is obviously a genuine and real and immediate crisis in the auto industry in the province of Ontario so that we can be assured, not that a deputy minister or a former deputy minister or a minister is dealing with this, but that, as in the United States, where the governors deal with this, in this country the Premier, the top person in this province, will deal with the top person in General Motors to save those jobs?

Hon Mr Philip: I think what the people of Ontario want is the truth and that's what the Premier of Ontario has told the people of Ontario. He's been realistic in his assessment. His assessment is consistent with other analyses done of the auto industry.

Mrs Caplan: You have to do something. You can't let this happen.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Hon Mr Philip: What the people of Ontario want is the truth and I think the Premier told the truth to the people of Ontario and told them exactly the state of the auto industry, and that's what the people want. They don't want the doom and gloom, the foam and fume of the opposition that we hear day after day.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Philip: Are you going to bring order so that I may answer, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: It would be helpful if the members in the opposition would allow the minister to complete his response, and I'm sure he can do it quite succinctly.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for St Catharines said that all he hears about is closings. He doesn't mention, though, that Ford Motor invested $2 billion, the largest investment of any auto company anywhere in the world in one place, and it invested here in Ontario. He doesn't mention that GM on July 13 announced that its Oshawa 2 plant had been awarded production of the 1994 Chevy Lumina.

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

Hon Mr Philip: He doesn't mention that GE is moving a number of its major operations into Ontario, because he doesn't want to hear good news. He only wants the doom and gloom for his own partisan, political purposes. That's what he wants to hear, not the truth from the Premier.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services, in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services, I must say at the outset. In September I raised issues about the Syl Apps centre and about overcrowding at closed- and open-custody young offender facilities in this province. I direct the minister to the November 2 Hansard in this House.

It has come to my attention that York detention centre here in downtown Toronto, which is rated with 36 beds for young offenders, had 47 children in that facility on the weekend, of which quite a few have been forced to sleep on the floor in that facility. The boys' unit, which has been a boys' unit for many years, has 19 beds. Of the 27 who have been jammed into that one unit, six young girls are also in that unit.

As a result of this serious overcrowding situation, even though there are 18 empty beds at Syl Apps in Oakville, a decision was made under the cover of darkness last night to move four young offender girls into an adult women's prison here in the city of Toronto. I ask the minister, are you aware of the decision that was made, did you approve of this decision to put these young girls into your jail and, if you're not aware of it, what are you doing about it?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm aware, obviously, of the overcrowding issues that exist across the system and in particular in the Metro area. With regard to young offenders, we have a surplus of beds in the overall system, but, again, in specific locations, particularly in the Metro area, we do find ourselves with a shortage. We are dealing with that as best we can. We are looking at moving people more often to other facilities.

The honourable member will know this is not something that is done lightly and it's not something we like to do, because it does move young offenders further away from their homes, from their communities, from the centres, from the courts and from services.

The specific incident that happened last evening I am not aware of. I will follow up and I will get back to the member.

Mr Jackson: Minister, for your information, these four young offenders were transferred to the Vanier facility here in Metro Toronto at 7:15 last night. I've had several conversations with staff and others associated with this transfer, and what is completely distressing here is that they failed to advise you and your office of this incident and that the child advocates, who are allegedly, under the law, there to be able to protect these individuals, have been denied access.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: I'd appreciate it if the former Correctional Services minister would allow the minister to receive this question. It's a serious matter.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I'll bet you would.

Mr Jackson: I am asking the question. I wanted the undivided attention of the minister.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member place his question through the Chair, please.

Mr Jackson: I will. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that under the protocols in your prisons, those girls were denied access to the phone call of the advocate. These girls, in tears, have talked to one advocate. They've been threatened and they want out of that facility. One of these young ladies has never been in closed detention before. The Attorney General of this province and the police will not put adult offenders and child offenders in the same holding cell in a court --

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

Mr Jackson: -- and you have them locked up in a jail in this city. I ask you, Minister, to get on the phone and get this resolved today, and get those four children out of that facility. When you have 18 beds at Syl Apps in Oakville sitting there doing nothing, no wonder the Minister of Community and Social Services isn't in the House today.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Obviously, I will of course discuss the matter with my colleague from Comsoc. But let me say once again that obviously an issue like this that's raised in the House will be followed up.

Let me also say that it is not unusual for an incident that happened last evening with regard to transfers of individuals. That's an operational matter and I think the honourable member would know that, with 50 institutions across the province, it is the policy that these decisions are made by the superintendents and it is not possible for a minister. I think the member knows that. I will take what he has said, review the matter very promptly and get back to him.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. My riding of London South is located in a university city. This is one reason I want to ask you, Minister, about our government's outlook on the income-contingent repayment plan. I understand that this is a plan to amend the student loan plan so that a student's repayment of financial assistance is determined by the student's future income level.

I also appreciate that under a contingent repayment plan the means test for receiving a public subsidy is shifted from the student's parents to the student as graduate. The rate of repayment would depend on how high a level of income the graduating student will earn in his or her chosen field.

The Council of Ontario Universities has spoken of contingent repayment plans as a way of promoting greater access to higher education and maintaining excellence in an affordable university system. Minister, how actively is your ministry considering implementing an income-contingent repayment plan?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): It is not just the Council of Ontario Universities. As recently as yesterday, a new student organization in Ontario, holding a media conference in this very place, made reference to its interest in an income-contingent loan repayment plan, which can be otherwise interpreted as a progressive way of debt management for students upon graduation.

Certainly there has been a need for some time to have a better way for students to be able to handle the debt they build up in post-secondary education. The research that has been done to date indicates this can be a viable plan. Indeed, our own ministry has been very active over the past year in funding some research on simulation models to see how well they might be applied in the Ontario case. Two principal difficulties face us.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Allen: The question of debt management is always an important matter for any one of us, and I think it's important to address it for students. The difficulties facing that kind of plan are, first, that the upfront money required to put it in place is very expensive, and, second, that you have to have access to income tax techniques and revenues in order to get a repayment system geared to income going.

Mr Winninger: The opposition may not be entirely interested in the future of higher education in Ontario --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Tell him it is our plan, Mr Minister.

Mr Winninger: -- but I wonder, Minister, how soon a contingent repayment plan, such as guaranteed Ontario assisted loans for students, might replace our current Ontario student assistance program.

Mrs Cunningham: Come to my meeting on the 28th, David.

Hon Mr Allen: The member for London North is very interested in this question because the same university that the member has in his riding is also very close to hers. The answer to that question as to how soon is not exactly in my hands. In order to implement this, as I said, it's important to have access to the Department of National Revenue and its income tax computer system as a means of collecting the repayment plan from students. To be able to control the federal dollars that go into student loan programs today is also a necessity. It is necessary to work this out with the federal government.

Currently, I have a working group which represents my ministry, the Treasurer's ministry, the Department of National Revenue and the office of the Secretary of State federally working on this very project. It will require the recruitment of some other provincial ministers to come on board, but at the end of the day I think we can devise a progressive scheme. If other people will support it, we can get on with it. But I can't make that answer unilaterally.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the acting --

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for London South imputed a motive to the caucus of the Conservative Party vis-à-vis the issue of the income-contingent loan repayment plan. I would ask him to withdraw that. At the same time, I would ask a page to send over New Directions.

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader take his seat, please. The member does not have a point of privilege.

Mr Harris: Page 22 will tell him and the minister how to implement an --

The Speaker: Would the leader please take his seat. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I suppose now that my question and the answer from the minister are going to have to use up the remaining eight and a half minutes.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation regarding a bill I think he's become very familiar with over the past couple of days, Bill 92, the private member's bill I put forward,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

I've heard rumours flying all over the hall. I heard yesterday that the House leader received clearance -- I'm not sure whether it was from the Orient or where -- to proceed with this. I heard today that the bill would be introduced for second and third reading tomorrow. Then I heard that the minister was on a media show today saying that he was thinking of changing the age in the bill from 18 to 16 and that perhaps it could be done by regulation instead of legislation.

I don't know what's going on here, but I can only tell you that every phone-in radio talk show in the province is talking about this, every media outlet is talking about this, every parent is talking about this, every retailer is talking about this.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your question?

Mr Mahoney: They want to know --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you have an opportunity to do something about this, and all the House leader can do is act like a smart-aleck about it.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Look who is talking, for God's sake: Mr Steve Ego.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: My question to the minister is, are you prepared to grant unanimous consent today to bring Bill 92 on to the floor of the Legislature this afternoon so we can stop kids from spending their lunch money on gambling in their corner stores?

Hon Ed Philip (Acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Only that member would have such an ego to think that the most important thing in the world is his private member's bill.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Look who's talking.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, stand back. His head may explode.

Mr Eves: No wonder you don't wear a hat, Ed. None will fit.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You are too much.

The Speaker: Order. Surely the last thing we want to do is to compare egos. Would the minister please respond.

Hon Mr Philip: I've always been nice to him. I sent him a can of moustache wax for Christmas last year and he doesn't seem to appreciate it.

We are prepared to move ahead with this bill. There are ways in which legislation moves ahead. I've asked that we deal with the bill before the House adjourns. I think that it is up to the House leaders to

schedule the bill in an orderly way.

There are some concerns which I think we should debate openly, as with any bill and as with any private member's bill; namely, should it be, as some people have suggested, age 16 or age 18? I haven't made a decision on that. We have had legal opinions as to whether or not there could be a charter challenge. The legal opinion by the Attorney General is that the bill would be in keeping with the charter. There are a number of issues like that which we are looking at.

We're also concerned about how you implement the bill. Should it be implemented in a different way than we presently implement our regulations concerning the fact that you're not allowed to sell to young people, or are there other ways in which we should implement it? We do not want to have a bill that will impose an unnecessary, excessive reporting system on merchants.

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

Hon Mr Philip: Those are issues which I'm sure the member would want to discuss in private members' hour, or whenever the bill is introduced.

The Speaker: Could the minister please take his seat.

Mr Mahoney: I'm not interested in this going to private members' hour. We and the public in Ontario, more than on any issue I've ever seen, are interested in this becoming law immediately.

Don't give me all this cockamamy stuff about charter challenges. If some lawyer wants to challenge a kid's right to gamble in the corner stores let him do so, because that leads to challenging his right to drive a car before the age of 16 or to buy booze in a bar before the age of 16 --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Or 19.

Mr Mahoney: Whatever, 19, that's right, or to buy cigarettes. I said this before: Maybe what we should do is lower the eligibility age for cabinet. Maybe we'd get somebody with some brains over there who would deal with this.

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

Mr Mahoney: Even the kids understand how serious this is. The kids understand.

Minister, don't start dithering on this. This is not a personal problem. This bill should have the names of 130 members of this Legislature on it -- not my name; every member of the Legislature.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: I hope you're going to bring this bill in by unanimous consent and have a recorded vote and support the bill.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member please take his seat. Does the member have a supplementary? If so, please place it quickly.

Mr Mahoney: Minister, will you support this bill being brought in with unanimous consent this afternoon so we can stop kids from gambling their money away in this province?

Hon Mr Philip: I'm sure the member, who never made it into a cabinet when his own party was in government, has a lot of ideas about the qualifications for cabinet ministers.

We will proceed with the bill.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

We've been watching for some time now the frustration, at least on this side -- I know the member for Leeds-Grenville has been observing the answers given by the Solicitor General on the problems of increasing crime in this province, the lack of funding to the police, the increasing sexual assaults that are taking place and the violent crimes that are increasing.

Madam Minister, you are the minister who is in charge of the Ontario Film Review Board. The Ontario Law Reform Commission released a report last week recommending that the Ontario Film Review Board change its role to one of only classifying films and do away with censorship. Do you agree with the law reform commission's views of stripping the power from the Ontario Film Review Board to censor or prohibit certain films from being shown in Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, it's important to remember -- I just read the report a few days ago myself -- that the commission does not suggest that restrictions of certain types of pornographic materials aren't necessary. They are saying that they've made a whole series of suggestions, and you can't take any one of those out of context. They all have to be dealt with in context.

My view is that the report says there may be more effective ways for government to restrict these images than through the film review board. I believe that although the report provides examples, several of them, as to how that may be done, we have to have a very careful analysis of whether or not it would work. The law report did not specify and did not do an analysis of its ideas, whether or not they would be better or worse or about the same.

Mr Tilson: The commission is simply saying that all it is going to do is classify films. They're essentially doing away with censorship, and that is the question I asked of you.

Violence in Ontario is spiralling upwards faster than the police or anyone else can do to control it. Certainly, your government and the Solicitor General are doing absolutely nothing to solve this problem.

My question to you is, when are you and when is the Solicitor General going to show some leadership in this province and become part of the solution instead of ignoring the problem?

Hon Ms Churley: Certainly, I've already said in this House that some of the recommendations made in this report have already been suggested by me to the film review board. They are going to be reporting back to me in the very near future about some of the very recommendations that were made in this report. That involves more information pieces, the information pieces being larger, and we're looking at labelling, particularly the pornographic material.

I certainly will say categorically to you today, no, I don't support at this time just adopting this report. We have to do an analysis of the suggestions in it. I'm not about to do anything that drastically changes the mandate of this board without analysing if another system would work better or the same or what.

Certainly, we don't want, I don't want child pornography out there, slasher films, the kind of horrible stuff that comes to the board. So, no, of course, at this point we have to do an analysis, and we're not about to make drastic changes. We are in fact in the process of making information to people more available at this time.

PETITIONS

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the proposed NDP use-of-force legislation requiring police officers to write a report whenever they should unholster their pistols in anticipation of a situation of danger poses a potentially serious threat to their safety and security;

"Whereas the proposed legislation also poses a grave threat to the safety and security of citizens and the communities the police officers are sworn to serve and protect;

"Whereas the police officers themselves are not being consulted in a meaningful way by the Rae administration concerning this proposed legislation that seriously affects their safety on the front line of service to the public; and

"Whereas we in the union, with the spouses of Ontario police officers, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province;

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

"That Premier Bob Rae undertake to invite immediately representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns without setting any preconditions for such a meeting, and

"That this NDP administration, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, determine to exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I've also affixed my signature to this petition, which has got thousands of names on it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to introduce a petition on behalf of the member for Beaches-Woodbine. It states:

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

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition here expressing opposition to Bill 38. It has 72 signatures of people from my riding in Mississauga East, from Etobicoke and from Toronto and surrounding areas.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region;

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

This is signed by many constituents of mine and to which I have also affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from 40 residents of the county of Middlesex, including the villages of Lambeth, Dorchester and Thamesford, who petition the Legislative Assembly to set aside the report of arbitrator John Brant as it relates to the greater London area annexation, because that report does not reflect the expressed wishes of the residents of Middlesex for a reduced annexation and will jeopardize the agricultural land and viability of the county of Middlesex.

I have signed my name to this petition.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly, which reads:

"Whereas the Ontario Lottery Corp has introduced the Pro Line sports lottery; and

"Whereas our young people are being encouraged to gamble on professional sports games; and

"Whereas this gambling has turned all lottery outlets into bookie joints, thereby legalizing gambling on professional sports;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the province of Ontario should immediately pass private member's Bill 92 to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to children."

I agree with this petition and affix my signature thereto.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metro Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region; and

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a second petition here from seven members of the riding of Middlesex who ask the Legislative Assembly to set aside Bill 38 and return Sunday to the list of legal and business holidays.

I've signed my name to this petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): This petition is now particularly important since the government has announced it's going to introduce the dastardly market value assessment plan.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metro Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived plan to bring in market value assessment in spite of the solid opposition of the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas we believe market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto is the wrong tax at the wrong time in the wrong place; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas, if the province changes legislation to deny the city of Toronto the right to determine our own method of property tax reform, Toronto home owners, tenants and businesses will in future be left to the mercy of regional government; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and our small businesses will be devastated by further increases; and

"Whereas city of Toronto residents account for 29% of Metro's population but Toronto taxpayers foot 40% of Metro's bills;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto and to allow each local municipality in Metro Toronto the autonomy to determine our own method of property tax reform in our own municipality."

I have signed this petition, both in accordance with the rules and because I wholeheartedly agree with it.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario.

"As a citizen of Ontario, I give my full support to our police officers in their stand against the NDP government's new regulation, use-of-force reporting, and therefore request the immediate resignation of the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, Ms Susan Eng. This petition is for the safety of the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto and its police officers, also regarding Ms Eng's lack of support for the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and the chief of said police force, William McCormack."

I have signed and fully endorse this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature "to reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, to condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It's signed by residents of the county of Middlesex. I affix my signature.

POLICE JOB ACTION

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

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have signed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I present a petition on behalf of the Hellenic Canadian Community of Ottawa and District.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I present the petition, Mr Speaker.

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the proposed NDP use-of-force legislation requiring police officers to write a report whenever they unholster their pistols in anticipation of a situation of danger poses a potentially serious threat to their safety and security; and

"Whereas this proposed legislation also poses a grave threat to the safety and security of the citizens in their communities the police officers are sworn to serve and protect; and

"Whereas the police officers themselves are not being consulted in a meaningful way by the Rae administration concerning this proposed legislation that so seriously affects their safety on the front line of service to the public; and

"Whereas the union and the spouses of Ontario police officers support the health and safety concerns of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: That Premier Bob Rae undertake to invite immediately representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns without setting any preconditions for such a meeting, and that this NDP administration, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, determine to exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I've affixed my signature, Mr Speaker.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "Whereas the Ontario Lottery Corp has introduced the Pro Line sports lottery; and

"Whereas our young people are being encouraged to gamble on professional sports games; and

"Whereas this gambling has turned all lottery outlets into bookie joints by legalizing gambling on professional sports;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the province of Ontario should immediately pass private member's Bill 92 to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to children."

I have affixed my signature to this.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My petition is to the government of Ontario, specifically to the Premier and the Solicitor General.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police associations across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite" -- this is what it is -- "representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns." It's hard to believe you have to put a petition in just asking for a meeting.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have signed this as well because I believe that when you have to petition for a meeting it's a pretty sad day in this province.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region; and

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment value plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

This is signed by many members of my constituency and to which I affix my signature.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I also have a petition to the government of Ontario and it's signed by many thousands of people.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about the people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have also signed this.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The other day -- and I appreciate that you were not in the chair at the time -- the member for Ottawa South and the member for Parry Sound asked the Speaker for some direction in dealing with the standing committee on resources development and the witnesses who were supposed to attend there.

The request was essentially that the Speaker rule about whether to issue Speaker's warrants to compel witnesses to attend before that committee. That committee begins its deliberations after routine proceedings today, and we therefore need some direction so that these hearings can proceed properly and so that witnesses will attend and make these hearings realistic and accomplish the purpose that was set out as requested in standing order 125.

I wonder if you might be able to provide us with that direction or call upon the Speaker who was in the chair so that we can have this resolved before 3:30 today and so that we can begin our hearings properly.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): As you know, the Speaker yesterday reserved his decision and he will deliver the decision as soon as possible.

Reports by committees.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Another point of order?

Mr Harnick: Yes, if I may. "As soon as possible" is really not very much help for us today because the committee is about to sit, probably in 25 minutes. I wonder if we could impose upon the Speaker who was in the chair to provide us with some direction now, because that committee is about to start sitting.

The Deputy Speaker: As mentioned before, the Speaker has the prerogative of doing all the research and then come out with a decision. He doesn't have the authority to tell the committee when to sit and where to meet. Perhaps I should not make a recommendation to you, but I believe I've said enough to you.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 18th report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Runciman presents the committee's 18th report. Do you have any comments to make?

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REASSESSMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES NOUVELLES ÉVALUATIONS DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

On motion by Mr Hampton, on behalf of Mr Cooke, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 94,

An Act to amend certain Acts to implement the interim reassessment plan of Metropolitan Toronto on a property class by property class basis and to permit all municipalities to provide for the pass through to tenants of tax decreases resulting from reassessment and to make incidental amendments related to financing in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin de mettre en oeuvre le programme provisoire de nouvelles évaluations de la communauté urbaine de Toronto à partir de chaque catégorie de biens, de permettre à toutes les municipalités de prévoir que les locataires profitent des réductions d'impôt occasionnées par les nouvelles évaluations et d'apporter des modifications corrélatives reliées au financement dans la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA

On motion by Mr Murdoch, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 95,

An Act to revise the Law relating to the Protection of the Niagara Escarpment and the Surrounding Wetlands / Loi révisant la loi concernant la protection de l'escarpement du Niagara et des terres marécageuses environnantes

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member have any statement?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): The bill repeals the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. The bill provides for the designation of the Niagara Escarpment and surrounding wetlands as a natural area. The designation can only be made if it is approved by each municipality within the area to be designated. Development in the natural area is prohibited unless approved by the municipality where the land is situated and assembled. If the natural boundaries of the Niagara Escarpment and the surrounding wetlands change, then the boundaries of the natural area can also be changed.

The changes to the boundaries of the natural area must be approved by the municipalities affected and by this assembly.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Because of major concerns with respect to Bill 74 and its companion legislation, I'm going to request unanimous consent of the House to place a motion that would enable reconsideration of the House's motion of May 28, 1992, which required time allocation in committee of the whole House. I can put that motion to you so that unanimous consent can be considered. My motion would read:

"I move that the House reconsider its motion of May 28, 1992, with respect to Bill 74 and companion legislation and the consideration of Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110 should proceed according to the regular standing orders of the assembly."

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections: Yes.

Interjections: No.

The Deputy Speaker: There's no unanimous consent.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO ISLANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE DES ÎLES DE TORONTO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 61,

An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands / Loi concernant les îles Algonquin et Ward's et concernant l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Etobicoke West, you have the floor.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Interjection: No more.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, there's more. There's a lot more, as a matter of fact, Mr Speaker. Those lucky members across the floor are probably going to hear a lot about this sweetheart deal they cut with the islanders, probably more than they're going to want to hear, because you've just cut a deal where you've given those people on the island a deal for a house in the park that Metro pays for, for a buck a day. For 100 years they get a buck a day as their rent.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): You said that 10 times yesterday.

Mr Stockwell: I said that 10 times; I'll say it 50 times. I'm going to keep saying it in committee, I'm going to say it in this House, because it's one of the most unbelievable affronts to the taxpayers in this province that you can suggest, considering you won both polls on the island, that you can pay these people off for 100 years, to give them rent on a house in a park on the island for a buck a day for 100 years.

In Metropolitan Toronto you can't even get on the bus and go to work for a buck a day, but if you happen to vote NDP, you happen to live on the island and you happen to want to live on an island in a park paid for by the taxpayers, your rent will be a buck a day for 100 years. Now that has got to be one of the sweetest deals that any government has ever cut with any citizens. I had a lot of phone calls about this, believe it or not, from yesterday --

Mr Mills: So did I.

Mr Stockwell: -- and a lot of the people who phoned me said, "I can't believe it, Mr Stockwell."

Mr Mills: You should hear what they say about it.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, do your best to control the member from Durham. I understand he's got a very intense interest in this. But what they told me was --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): How much is a lot, Chris? Is one a lot, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: Oh, there's Drummond. It's good to see you've opened your eyes. Good. Thank you.

They said to me: "How can I get one of those houses? What do I do to go about applying for one of those houses that costs a buck a day for 100 years that I can hand down to my children and my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren?"

Some of those people were single mothers, some of them were seniors, some of them were people who were looking for a place to live and they're paying $500, $600, $700; some were presently paying upwards of $1,000 for their three and four children.

They said, "How do I go about getting one of these units?" I said, "You can't get them, because the only people who can live in those units are the people who happen to be living there at the time."

You know what else I did? I wanted to go through this list and I wanted to come up and just let all those people opposite and all the people in the province know exactly who's living on these islands, exactly who's going to be paying a buck a day, $30 a month, for 100 years.

You know, it's kind of interesting. I won't give any names, but I went through the assessment rolls and I found out some of the occupations. You have doctors living on the island for a buck a day for 100 years. You've got lawyers. Lawyers living on the island will pay a buck a day, $30 a month in rent, for 100 years. You've got councillors in the city of Toronto with NDP affiliation who are going to live on the island for a buck a day, $30 a month, for 100 years.

Mr White: Any Tory councillors?

Mr Stockwell: Funny, there weren't. There are teachers in the public school system who are on the island paying a buck a day, $30 a month, for 100 years. School principals -- and we all know how well school principals are paid these days. There are school principals on the island who are going to pay a buck a day for 100 years; never increase the rent. Funny enough that both these polls overwhelmingly voted for the sitting NDP member. You'd think that would have had something to do with it. I'm not sure.

Get this: academics. We've got university professors who are going to live on the island for 100 years, and their children will live there for a buck a day for ever. This is the tough, hard-nosed negotiated settlement that Mr Cooke --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): How many people are there, five million?

Mr Stockwell: Some 650 -- can you get that? -- 650 people live there. This is incredible: 650. I'm just listing you some of their occupations.

Hon Mr Pouliot: How long have they been there, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: There's another question coming from the Minister of Transportation: "How long have they been there?"

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I'd just like to remind the members, there's a period of two minutes afterwards given to you to address the debate and ask questions. In the meantime, I would ask you to refrain from heckling.

Mr Stockwell: I couldn't help but hear the last question, chiding me as if they've all lived there a long time. He said, "How long have they lived there?" I got the assessment rolls, Mr Speaker. Do you know that some of those people have lived there less than a year? Some of those people have lived there two years, three years, some a few months.

How come they got to live on the island? How come they get this deal? They were in the right place at the right time, because they were Johnnies-come-lately and they were squatters in our park, in the middle of a park. They arrived some few months earlier and they've got a lease for 100 years for a buck a day, 80 cents American. This is what it comes down to.

But I'm not finished. There are some other people on this list. The university professors I'll tell you about. University professors living on this island making very good money pay a buck a day for the rest of their lives as a rent. Civil servants who work in this province, whose income is guaranteed by the taxpayers -- now get this one: The taxpayers guarantee their wages and the salaries and then they're also going to guarantee their rent to live in the middle of a park at taxpayers' expense for a buck a day.

Therapists live on the island. Alpha Consultants is based on the island, which this group opposite tried to hire during the Constitution meetings, and you called them animators. You said they were animators, not consultants, and they would help you facilitate. These people live on the island and they're going to live there for a buck a day for 100 years. You'd think they had an in up here. Now, I wouldn't be so abrupt to say that they had an in up here, but you'd think they would, considering the deal they got: a buck a day for the rest of their lives, 100 years.

Psychologists, several businessmen, engineers, architects, all these people. We've got children who don't have a home; we've got single mothers; we've got seniors; we've got families in the streets, but we better house doctors, lawyers, teachers, consultants, therapists, civil servants, university professors on a buck a day for 100 years. That's Bob Rae's Ontario. That's his socialist Ontario at work. There's Bob Rae's Ontario. There's Floyd Laughren's Ontario. There's the socialists' Ontario: "We'll house these people for a buck a day for 100 years and we'll let all others be damned, stay on the streets. We don't mind."

So we've now had a government so morally and socially bankrupt that owed a debt of gratitude to two polls on the island. It had two polls help to elect one member and you're paying them off in spades. You're giving them thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars.

You know what I did? I went to my accountant and I asked him, "Gee, what would it be if we present-valued this rent?" He said that if you took $600 a month as an average rent, which I consider reasonable in a city the size of Metro Toronto, and said just assume the inflation rate of 4% a year -- they're still going to be in these homes in 2092 -- take that rent at $600, add 4% interest, you know what the rent would be in 2092? Their rent would be $28,000 a month. What will this government's action charge them? Only $30, a buck a day. If you took the $600 and factored in a 4% increase due to inflation, it would be $28,000 a month.

But these people voted NDP. So, since they voted NDP, we got a government that had to pay them off. No matter how socially corrupt, no matter how morally bankrupt, no matter how unfair and twisted this kind of decision is, they had to pay them off. Boy, they paid them off, I'll tell you. They paid them off as well as anybody's been paid off. I don't think anybody's been paid off like this by a government. Nobody.

I dare anyone to go out and find a house in the middle of a park with all the services provided that would rent to you for 30 bucks a month for 100 years. That's unbelievable.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On the waterfront.

Mr Stockwell: On the waterfront.

They say this is an equitable and fair and rational decision to make on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario. Shame on you, the deputy parliamentary assistant to the minister. You accepted this deal. This deal's a ripoff. Shame on you. You say you care about seniors. Why don't you fill the houses with seniors who are in need of rent, needing a place to stay for a buck a day? Shame on you. Because these people, the doctors and lawyers and teachers --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, these doctors and lawyers and principals and professors and therapists and consultants and psychologists and businessmen don't need --

Hon Mr Pouliot: And car dealers.

Mr White: Car dealers.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Curbsiders.

Mr Stockwell: This isn't funny, Mr Speaker. This isn't funny. It is unbelievable that you people would accept this. This is not funny. These people don't need a subsidy. These people --

Interjection: Stick to the truth then.

Mr Stockwell: The truth? What is the truth then? Let's hear you stand up and give me the truth. Get back to your seat and tell me the truth then. Go ahead.

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind you to address your remarks to the Chair and perhaps you'll have less of a response from the --

Mr Stockwell: I apologize to you, Mr Speaker. It really infuriates me when I get heckling from the other side of the floor about such a despicable act as this. This underhanded backroom deal that you cut with the socialist élite on the island when people are dying for places to live, looking for accommodation, you could cut a deal like that with the socialist élite on the island for a buck a day, a buck a day for 100 years, and they say this is equitable and they say this is fair.

The people who called my office today after seeing the debate yesterday on television didn't think it was fair, didn't think it was equitable, didn't think it was reasonable. They thought it was a ripoff. They also thought that if they were going to spend this kind of money, they should spend it on those in need.

When I told them those people that were on the island included lawyers and doctors and teachers and professors and consultants and businessmen and psychologists, they were absolutely overwhelmed. Absolutely overwhelmed. This is at the very crunch of the issue. This is at the very basic underpinnings of the issue.

I am astounded, absolutely astounded, that these people would have the gall to heckle. I would be so embarrassed, absolutely embarrassed, if I were them that this was the deal that they cut when they claim at the same time to have a social conscience, looking out for those in need, when they've just given away 250 homes for 100 years for a buck a day.

The other fact that must be mentioned is that the same people that are on this island, the same people that are on this island that they just gave away these homes to, haven't paid rent since 1981. They haven't even paid their way since 1981. They've lived there for free and you've rewarded them for being squatters, for living there for free, with an agreement for 100 years at a buck a day.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Don't be so disrespectful to the islanders, please.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, there are islanders who have been there from the beginning that I have respect for, but they're very few and far between. Most of those people since 1953, when this reared its head, have long since left. Most of the people who were there in the 1960s have left. Most of the people who were there in the 1970s have left.

This is a whole new breed of squatters who moved in when the opportunity provided itself and they've won the lottery at the expense of the taxpayers in the province of Ontario. That lottery says, when this minister announced his decision, that you could have this house on this property at great expense to the municipal taxpayer with fully serviced schools and policing and ferry and fire service for $30,000 for 100 years.

This is called the fair and equitable social conscience of our new socialist government. This is Bob Rae's Ontario. Don't worry about the single mothers. Don't worry about the families. I tell you that the difference between my province and the province you're running is that I wouldn't give lawyers, doctors, councillors, principals, professors, civil servants, therapists and businessmen a home on the island for a buck a day for 100 years.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Yorkview, order please.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I ignore them. I truly ignore what they have to say. I'd like the member for Yorkview to go back to his constituents and explain this deal to them. I understand the member for Fort York. These are his constituents, and he just got them in to win the lottery. I want you to go back to your constituents and explain this deal to them. How come they can't have this kind of housing for a buck a day for 100 years? Why don't you answer that to them? Why can't we give it to the single mothers who are looking for space? Why can't we give it to the senior citizens who need assistance?

Why can't we give it to the unemployed or those on welfare? Why don't they deserve the opportunity? Why don't they get the opportunity to live on the island for a buck a day for the rest of their lives and sign a lease for 100 years?

You know, they don't want to debate the issue -- typical socialists. They want to talk about some federal program or they want to blame somebody else, but they don't want to talk about the issue of the day. And the issue of the day is an agreement you made with the islanders that is one of the most warped and dishonest agreements that has come down from this provincial Legislature that has benefited few at the expense of many. That's what this legislation does. It takes away parkland from three million citizens so you can pacify 650 vocal socialists on the island. That's what this issue does.

Don't talk to me about other governments. Don't talk to me about other programs. Talk to me about your legislation and the way you've benefited these 650 people like no one's been benefited before. Tell me about it. Tell me about the explanation as to why. Explain to me how these people got picked, these doctors, lawyers, and all those people who got picked to have this excellent treatment. Tell me how come it just so happens that on that special day, when some of them had only been there for months, they got to win the lottery and stay there?

Why are they allowed to transfer? Why are they allowed to sublet the houses? If they really wanted to live on the island, why do they need to sublet? Why? Because they want to live there, shouldn't they live there? Now they sublet and move off. Why do some of the people on the island treat it like a cottage? They don't even live there year-round. They treat it like a cottage.

This government today is allowing doctors and lawyers to have a cottage on the Toronto Islands subsidized by the taxpayers for a buck a day for 100 years, and they say that's fair and equitable. With all the people who are homeless, with everyone who needs a place to live, with single mothers, seniors and people on welfare, do you think it's reasonable to give a cottage to a doctor on an island for a buck a day for 100 years? That's a reasonable, socially motivating decision? I think not.

I don't think they even investigated this. I think they got this from Mr Johnston. Most of them didn't know the issue, and they just bought into this. They just said to themselves, "Oh, this must be a good idea."

Mr White: Eighty cents American.

Mr Stockwell: Eighty cents American, a buck a day Canadian, and they just bought into this. They just said, "Oh well, it must be a good idea." You didn't even think about who you mandated to do this study. You mandated Richard Johnston, an ex-member of this House, who was always in favour of the islanders staying, who was never respected --

Mr Mills: He was respected by everybody.

Mr Stockwell: -- never, ever respected by the Metropolitan Toronto council, which owned that land; never, ever respected in his position on the Toronto Island. Don't pretend he was, because he was never respected for his position on this issue.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): You don't get a political hack to solve this problem.

Mr Stockwell: And this was a political hack, exactly. They brought in a political hack and gave him a very defined mandate, because he wanted them to stay for as little as possible, and told him to bring in an unbiased third-party report. What a joke. An unbiased, third-party report from the man who is on the record as a member of this government when in opposition as opposing any park-like setting for the Toronto islanders? This was supposed to be a reasonable approach to resolving this issue.

They suggested that Mr Johnston solve this problem in 60 days. Well, of course he solved it in 60 days. He gave the farm away. I could solve every problem in 20 days if I gave the farm away. That's no solution. That's a public ripoff. That's robbery without a gun. Of course he solved the problem in 60 days. Who couldn't? He gave these people houses in a park on the island with ferry, police, fire and school service for a buck a day for 100 years. You'd have to have rocks in your head to turn this down. Of course he solved it. Who couldn't solve it when you were going to give them this kind of deal?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I notice they're not here today.

Mr Mills: They're disgusted.

Mr Stockwell: Do you know what? You're embarrassed. You're absolutely embarrassed about this. You should be embarrassed about this. Your cabinet should be embarrassed and your backbenchers should be embarrassed that this is the kind of deal you did. This does not smack of the socialism and the fairness I heard NDP governments speak about. This smacks of exclusivity, this smacks of deal-making, this smacks of preferential treatment, this smacks of nothing but a government that is paying off a group of people that it felt it owed a debt to. That is what this smacks of.

The other part about this is that these are not needy people. These are not people who are in need. These are doctors and lawyers and so on. To really add insult to this whole debate, for goodness' sake, at one point in time during this island issue the leader of the New Democratic Party lived on the island. He lived there. He was your leader. He wasn't short of money. He didn't need a special place. He didn't need to be subsidized. For goodness' sake, he lived on the island, the leader of your party, and you're telling me people like him deserve a subsidy at the expense of the taxpayers for a buck a day for 100 years. Go sell that to your constituents.

It's a sham. They're not here. I'll tell you why they're not here: They're embarrassed. And you should be embarrassed.

This really bothers me. Of all the decisions you've done, this really bothers me, because I had people phoning me who have told me that the Toronto Islands should be park for everyone to use, for all three million constituents to use. Nobody should be able to have an exclusive right to live on that island, to use that island as his home. No one should ever be allowed to use a park as his home at the expense of millions and millions of constituents.

They said those people shouldn't be there. They never were supposed to be there. In 1953 they were being evicted by Metro, and most of those people left. All these people we're talking about today came later, and in some cases as recently as a year ago.

Mr Mills: He's full of it.

Mr Tilson: Come on, Gord.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Durham East --

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you, please, to address your remarks to the Chair. This is the third time I've asked you this.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, Mr Mills, the member for Durham East, suggests I'm full of it. It's really frustrating when something is as blatant as this ripoff. You tell the members opposite -- and you, Mr Speaker -- what these people do for a living, you tell them their professions -- you could probably give them their income levels -- and you tell them what a 100-year lease at $30,000 breaks out to per month -- $30 a month.

You tell them they're in the middle of a park, you tell them about all the services the taxpayers will have to supply, you tell them it will cost $1 a day for them to live in this place, you tell them about all the people looking for housing in this city, and all you get back is, "You're full of it."

Clearly, this is not a chamber for debate, this is not a chamber for information, this is not a chamber to tell you or ask you to reconsider, considering the information that's brought forward. This is a place where you come in close-minded, regardless of the deal that's been cut, and tell other members they're full of it when the facts are staring you right in the face.

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): What's frustrating is such blatant falsehoods.

Mr Stockwell: Blatant falsehoods? I challenge the member for Scarborough West. I'll go to Scarborough West, okay? We'll have a public debate about this in Scarborough West. I'll bring in my assessment rolls, I'll bring in the job rolls and I'll bring in the financing packages, and we'll go to Scarborough West and we'll have a debate in your riding.

What I'd like to know is whether the people in Scarborough West, whose Metro councillors, I might add, voted en masse to make this a park, really believe that by giving doctors and lawyers and city councillors and teachers and principals and university professors and civil servants rent in a park on an island for a buck a day for 100 years is a good use of taxpayers' money. I'll be happy to.

Ms Swarbrick: And I guarantee you when I present the truth I'll have support.

Mr Stockwell: We'll see about the truth. I've been debating this issue for about 10 years now. I got the assessment rolls as they moved along. I got the assessment rolls year after year. I know who's moved in. I know who's moved out. I know how long these people have lived there. I have all that information. I also know what they're doing. They've applied and come before committees and told us what they do for a living. I've seen that. I have the building permits as to what improvements they've made in the homes because I sat on council when they needed our approval. I'll be happy to. I think this would be a really interesting debate.

I think it would be really intelligent for us to go out there and talk to the people directly and tell them exactly what benefits these people are getting, and then we'll let them decide. We'll let the public in Metropolitan Toronto which is going to have to pay the bill for these islands decide whether they think it's a good deal. You know what, Mr Speaker? These people are going to think it's such a good deal, they'll want the same deal. They'll want to move on to the islands. They will take this --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): What does your leader think?

Mr Stockwell: My leader doesn't support this. God. Mr Speaker, I think they've been in government about two years too long.

It's hard to believe, but that is a really encouraging thought. It's a really exciting thought that I will be allowed to go to Scarborough West and debate this issue with the member. I'm really excited about that because I think that'll be a really interesting debate. I think what you'll find is, most people don't know about this deal, and when they find out about the deal, they stare at you in shock. They don't believe you. They don't believe that someone get a 100-year lease for 30 bucks a month, a buck a day. They don't believe you.

Ms Swarbrick: And so they shouldn't.

Mr Stockwell: Let's hear from the member across. Unless I read the bill incorrectly, unless Mr Cooke announced it incorrectly, it's $30,000. As far as I know, it's $30,000. As far as I know, the top price is $40,000.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's $36,000.

Mr Stockwell: Thirty-six thousand. That breaks down to about 30 bucks a month, or a buck a day.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That's a lot of money where I live.

Mr Stockwell: It's a lot of money where you live. Thirty thousand dollars is a lot of money where I live, except that $30,000 is an investment to get you a place to live for 100 years. They'd call that a thief in Metropolitan Toronto. If you can get a place to live for $30,000 for 100 years, you've just fleeced somebody. That's a steal. You've just ripped them off.

Mr Tilson: That's better than rent control.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: The member suggests that's a lot of money where he lives, but I would even suggest that where he lives, in Manitouwadge, if you got a house to live in for 100 years for $30,000, I'm certain there are some residents who would jump on that deal as well.

Ms Swarbrick: What about the fact that they already own the homes?

Mr Stockwell: They don't own --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Will you stop the clock, Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: No, I won't stop the clock. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I just heard from the member for Scarborough West that they own the homes. They don't own the homes. Every court in the land has said they don't own the homes. That's how much you know about this issue. Every court in the land has said it's Metro land. They can do what they want with it. There's no ownership. There's no ownership of the homes. That's the issue at issue here. That's why they spent 20 years in the courts fighting about this, because Metro Toronto said it owned the lands and therefore, if it owns the lands, it has the right to remove the homes. That was approved by every court, every level.

Shake your head all you want, but you can go check the minutes in Metropolitan Toronto council. Those are the decisions that were rendered by courts.

Clearly we have a disagreement here, and I'm going to be happy to go to Scarborough West to air it out. I think it'll be exciting. I think it'll be exciting for the member to find out exactly how her constituents feel about this issue and I think it'll be exciting for the constituents to find out just how out of touch the member for Scarborough West is with the real world and the real difficulty of finding a place to live for 30 bucks a month for 100 years.

This sickens me. I'll go on the record: This sickens me. It sickens me that a deal can be cut like this in the back room at the expense of the taxpayers and a 100-year lease can be given to people who are professionals and they can have it for a buck a day for 100 years.

I wash my hands. There's no getting through. Let this be on your heads. When people come looking for housing from you in your constituency office, you refer them to the island and tell them, "If you're lucky, you might get a house for a buck a day for 100 years."

The Deputy Speaker: Now is the period of questions and comments; now is the time to air your opinions. Are there any questions or any comments? The member