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

April 21, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

TENDERING PROCESS

ORGAN DONORS

FABULOUS FITNESS

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

LIBRARY GRANTS

HEATH'S DEPARTMENT STORE

WASTE REDUCTION

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

WASTE REDUCTION

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

WASTE REDUCTION

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

WASTE REDUCTION

WILL FERGUSON

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

LABOUR RELATIONS

TAX INCREASES

REPORT ON VICTIMS OF ABUSE

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

HEALTH CARDS

WASTE DISPOSAL

TOURISM INDUSTRY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

ORGANOCHLORINES

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

WEST SCARBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMUNITY CENTRE

GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

WOLF POPULATION

POLICE USE OF FORCE

ONTARIO HYDRO

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

RESPONSE TO PETITION

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

506548 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 1993

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON)

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

JOHN G. TODD AGENCIES LIMITED ACT, 1993

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mr Charles Beer (York North): For some time now, we have heard from the Minister of Education and Training and the Premier that they would like to introduce testing this fall. The question which neither the minister nor the Premier has been able to answer is, what kind of testing?

This is an issue of tremendous importance to students, parents and teachers. The throne speech has raised more questions on testing than the minister has been able to answer.

Teachers have specific concerns as well. Should their students be specifically prepared or not? Where will the final results from the tests end up? Will they be included in report cards or in final grades?

If these questions are not enough, the most fundamental question students, teachers and parents still need to know is, when does this minister plan to come up with a final common curriculum?

The quality, the excellence, of our system of education must be of paramount importance to us all. Is the throne speech announcement merely a short-term ploy to appease public opinion, or is it the beginning of a concerted effort to change dramatically, and for the good, our education system? We need answers now.

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It was a pleasure this morning for me to attend a function in my riding along with other colleagues from all three parties in the Legislature, and in particular the Health critic for our caucus, Jim Wilson, when today Astra Pharma Inc opened a $40-million, state-of-the-art manufacturing and laboratory facility in Mississauga.

According to Astra's president and CEO, Gerry McDole, the new facility has created 100 high-tech jobs for Canadians. Astra has announced a new investment of $150 million for research also, to investigate disease, discover treatments and develop new medicines. This is one of the most significant private research investments in Canada.

Astra believes the first phase of its research investment will create more than 50 jobs for medical research scientists in Canada. Initially, the major research areas will be pain relief, new analgesics and anti-inflammatory processes. This research could have implications for crippling diseases such as arthritis.

In the longer term, Astra plans to pursue research into many medical areas and therapies, both on its own and in cooperation with several Canadian universities and other institutions. For instance, last year I announced in the Legislature a joint venture between Astra and McMaster University to investigate the role of inflammation in asthma and inflammatory bowel disease.

Astra's new investments have helped make the company Canada's fastest-growing research-based pharmaceutical firm. I would like to congratulate Astra on its investment in science and technology and, most of all, in Canadian talent.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise to congratulate Ontario's wineries on their magnificent showing at the international wine competition held recently in Verona, Italy. Ontario wines took home seven awards -- four golds, two silvers and a bronze -- with only Italian wines garnering more awards than Ontario. French wines came third.

As the member representing the heart of Ontario's wine country, I must point out that of the seven award winners, six came from the Niagara region. Our showing at this renowned international competition is further tribute to the success of Ontario's wineries. Whether it be the glossy front-page spread on Ontario wines in the US-based Wine Spectator, considered the bible of the wine industry, or the serving of Inniskillin wines at the recent gala dinner for Mikhail Gorbachev, it's clear that our international reputation for excellence continues to grow.

I'd like to list those wineries and congratulate them personally: Inniskillin 1991 Pinot Noir Reserve; Inniskillin 1991 Ice Wine; Konzelmann Estate's 1991 Pinot Blanc and Konzelmann 1991 Ice Wine; Stoney Ridge's 1990 Vintage Chardonnay Eastman Vineyard and -- I'm sorry, this is one of those that didn't make it from the Niagara Peninsula, but I know that it's a good wine because they won an award, and that's Magnotta Winery's 1990 Limited Edition Cabernet Sauvignon, and 1991 Vinoteca Ice Wine.

I urge all members of this House to take some time this summer to explore the wine regions of our province. The Wine Council of Ontario's slogan may say that they are ready when you are, but perhaps it's more appropriate to ask, are you ready for them?

TENDERING PROCESS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to address an issue to the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. A concerned citizen has contacted my office with regard to the tendering process for government contracts in the former Ministry of Government Services. He has outlined a number of serious concerns in a letter, which I have already given to the Chair of Management Board.

I'm raising this issue in the House in order to emphasize its importance. This is an important issue. The integrity of the tendering process has been questioned, and I have asked the honourable minister to investigate this issue immediately.

Due to the seriousness of this complaint, I hope that the investigation will be conducted quickly and thoroughly, using all available resources. It's my hope that the constituent will be interviewed and called -- my hope would be as quickly as possible -- because he has additional information which I know the minister and his staff will find essential to ensuring a full investigation.

My request to the minister is specific: I believe this is serious enough that the investigation should be completed within two weeks, and I would request that the minister let me know the results of his investigation, as well as ensuring that the constituent not only is involved in the investigation but is made aware of the result.

ORGAN DONORS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to congratulate the Mutual Group for launching a program, By Mutual Consent, to promote organ donor awareness among Canadians and address the increasing need for vital organs for transplant.

At the official launch of the By Mutual Consent program last Thursday, Mr Robert Astley, president and CEO of the Mutual Group, said that the program is designed to help people understand the need for organ donation and to encourage them to sign an organ donor card and discuss their wishes with family members.

Although 14,425 organ transplants had been performed by the end of 1991, with an overall survival rate of 90%, there are still 2,289 patients across Canada awaiting transplants.

While a majority of people support organ donation, many organs unfortunately are lost because people are unaware of the critical need for organs, or they do not take the time to sign a card and discuss their wishes with their family.

It is important that donors make their wishes known to their family, because while a signed organ donor card is considered to be a legal document, hospitals will not retrieve an organ over the objection of the family.

Along with our PC Health critic, Mr Jim Wilson, I would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to make Ontarians aware of the steps that must be taken to ensure that their wishes to have their organs donated for transplants are indeed fulfilled.

FABULOUS FITNESS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Today I stand to honour another small business that has opened in my riding, in the worst recession, I might add, since the 1930s. Recently, a health club by the name of Fabulous Fitness has opened up at Steeles and Fenmar. It's fantastic to know that this organization has hired 35 people within the community. For me that's fantastic; it's fabulous.

The activities include aerobics, track, sauna, steam room and whirlpool, providing, of course, the health store, masseuse and day care. It also includes a co-op for students who are currently taking phys ed education studies. For me, that's fabulous.

Mr Speaker, 1,600 members belong to this wonderful and fabulous organization, and of course I can't tell you enough and praise these people enough for holding charity events four times a week.

I'd like to welcome, in the east gallery, Frank Cirillo, Libretta Cirillo, and of course say hello to their son Enzo, and I hope that you all give them a warm round of applause. Thank you for coming.

I would also like to challenge any of the members who are here today and listening, of course, to a squash match at Fabulous Fitness.

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, you will notice that some class has been added to both members' galleries today. Of course, I am referring to the delegation which has given us the pleasure of its company here in Toronto. I refer to the delegates from the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association who have travelled from that great part of the province to be with us here today.

NOMA is made up of mayors, reeves, councillors and aldermen from the cities, towns and communities of an area covering the Kenora, Rainy River and Thunder Bay districts. These are the front-line politicians who have entered public life to serve the citizens of the province at the local level.

They have travelled to Toronto to meet with us at the provincial level to discuss areas of concern, areas where the province has a significant role in developing policies that affect northern Ontario residents. This group will be meeting with the caucuses as well as the cabinet to discuss some of these very specific issues. It is my true hope that all parties will take the time to listen and to offer real solutions to their concerns.

Might I ask the members to join me in welcoming these folks to the Legislature today.

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): I feel it imperative to draw to your attention a situation occurring in our municipalities concerning our local libraries.

Libraries are much more than book depositories; they now serve as community resource centres disseminating information to an ever-growing population. To continue to provide this valuable service, they need adequate funding. Equally important, they need to know when to expect that funding.

In my own riding of Don Mills, the East York Public Library has been trying, for the past four months, to get an answer to the question of when it may expect a response from the ministry. In fairness, they have received a response, a non-response, as no one seems to be able to give any indication as to the timing of the announcement.

Mr Speaker, as you are aware, I have a background in municipal government, and municipal governments and their boards, such as the library board, live and die by their budgets. They carefully create them, they stick to them as the year passes and they do not run deficits. I am just now becoming aware of the meaning of the word "deficit."

My point is that municipalities and the library boards must be made aware of the available provincial grants in order to set their own budgets. Timing really is everything, yet this year the announcements are being made later and later. My own board received last year its grant on July 21.

Our public libraries do perform a vital service to our communities, and I feel it is our responsibility to support them rather than to discourage them.

HEATH'S DEPARTMENT STORE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): People often think of Timothy Eaton and Robert Simpson as the early entrepreneurs who created the department store heritage in this country. I would like to add another name to that legacy.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Heath's Department Store, a family-owned business in my riding of Oxford, celebrating its 150th anniversary of serving its friends and neighbours.

The Heath business history begins in 1843, with the opening of a single store in Delhi by James Whiteside. His son-in-law, Eugene D. Heath, took over the business in 1895 and became sole owner after Mr Whiteside died in 1910. Mr Heath's son, Harold, joined the family firm in 1929.

The business flourished and in 1945 expanded to Tillsonburg, taking over the J.H. Rush and Co department store that been a retail outlet since 1873. It eventually expanded into a four-floor department store.

Another store was added in 1948, when Heath's continued its Oxford expansion with a new outlet in Woodstock. That store's move to Dundas Street in Woodstock in 1971 doubled its retail space.

It was during Canada's centennial in 1967 that a fourth generation of the family entered the business when Eugene Heath joined the company.

While joining Mr Heath at a recent ribbon-cutting to celebrate this special event, he stressed that there are three main philosophies behind Heath's business success: customer service, satisfaction guaranteed and staff buyers.

Let me once again congratulate Heath's Department Store on its anniversary. I believe they have earned a place in Canadian retailing history.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WASTE REDUCTION

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): In the speech from the throne last week, the government outlined its 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. We talked about our plan to invest in jobs and people, to sustain essential services such as health care and education and to control the provincial deficit. We talked about the need for debt control, not for its own sake but so that we can continue to invest in jobs and services, so that we can continue to do the things that will make Ontario a better place to live and work.

One of the points in our plan to put Ontario back to work is sustaining the environment. Protecting and preserving the environment has always been a part of our agenda, from working with businesses, labour and environment groups to develop the environmental bill of rights to encouraging green agricultural practices or creating North America's largest urban park in Scarborough's Rouge Valley.

As my colleagues in the Legislature are aware, this is Earth Week and I can think of no more appropriate time to announce an important environmental milestone for Ontario. I am pleased to tell the Legislature that we have reached the first goal of the waste reduction action plan. In 1992 Ontarians sent 25% less waste per capita to landfills than they did in 1987. We achieved this milestone through the efforts of hundreds of municipalities, thousands of businesses, schools, hospitals, community and environmental organizations and millions of Ontario households. These groups and individuals have shown how much can be accomplished through strong partnerships.

Ontario has come a long way since it had the dubious distinction of being among the world's leading garbage producers. In 1987 about one tonne of non-hazardous solid waste per person was generated in Ontario. In October 1990 the Minister of the Environment, my colleague Ruth Grier, announced two ambitious goals: to reduce the amount of waste going to disposal in Ontario by at least 25% in 1992 and by at least 50% by the year 2000. These targets are based on the 1987 disposal rate.

To meet the 25% and 50% reduction rates, the waste reduction action plan was introduced in February 1991. It made the 3Rs -- reduction, reuse and recycling -- the cornerstone of our strategy. The strategy is working. Data collected by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, in cooperation with municipalities and the private sector, confirm that we have reached the 25% target. We believe that this is a great achievement. It shows that the waste reduction message has hit home with the people of Ontario and that they are willing to make the changes in their daily lives to protect the environment.

Many individuals and groups deserve credit. First and foremost, there are the more than three million Ontario households actively recycling with the blue box. The success of the blue box is the best indicator that people across Ontario are committed to diverting waste from landfills into productive use. This commitment also is reflected in the fact that nearly one million households are composting kitchen and yard wastes.

Municipal governments also share the credit because they helped build and are helping to maintain the infrastructures which enable the blue box and home composting programs to work.

In the private sector, many businesses voluntarily have established programs to reduce the amount of waste they generate. In fact a number of Ontario companies have already met, and in some cases exceeded, the 50% target. The newspaper industry deserves special mention because it recycles half of the newsprint it uses.

Within the provincial government, successful 3R programs have been set up within a number of ministries and agencies. For example, the head office building of my ministry has reduced waste by 77% in the past three months.

This province has made great progress in achieving the 25% reduction target, but an even greater challenge remains: the next 25%. To meet this challenge, I will soon release 3R regulations to expand participation in reduction, reuse and recycling activities across Ontario. These expanded 3R activities will spur green industries in the province and make us more efficient in our use of resources.

We need the continued strong effort of municipalities to reach the 50% goal. They need to be able to plan, develop and operate new 3R facilities. Later today, my colleague Mr Philip, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will table amendments to the Municipal Act which will give municipalities these and other additional waste management powers.

Again I'd like to congratulate all who have participated and ask them to join us in the challenge of meeting the next 25%.

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): As my colleague has just noted, sustaining the environment is one of the keys to our plan to put Ontario back to work. Our government is committed to encouraging the emergence and growth of the green industries and to environmental responsibility.

Today I'm pleased to introduce a bill that will give municipalities increased powers to develop and operate effective 3R programs. As you know, Ontario is a world leader in reduction, reuse and recycling efforts. You heard from my colleague the Minister of Environment and Energy, who a moment ago today told you about Ontario's laudable achievements in waste reduction during the past year.

The 25% reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill sites is an admirable effort, but we must ensure that we continue these efforts over the coming years in order to reach a 50% waste reduction target by the year 2000. That is why I am introducing our bill today. This bill gives municipalities the enhanced powers they need and want to develop and operate effective and comprehensive waste management programs.

Our extensive consultations during the last year with municipalities, with private waste management firms, with environmental groups and with ordinary citizens told us that we are on the right track. Our bill clearly defines which level of government is responsible for waste management programs while also giving municipalities the flexibility they need to meet local needs.

Our bill is both timely and necessary. Indeed, Mr Joe Mavrinac, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, stated, "We support the province's legislation, which represents a close fit with the recommendations AMO has made in the past for clear municipal legislative authority for waste management activities."

I thank all of those who have had input to this. I particularly thank the representatives of AMO who have been so helpful in this matter. We are confident that this legislation will help municipalities carry on with the 3R work that they are doing and provide them with greater powers for future years.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm responding to the statement of the part-time Minister of Environment. The minister stands in his place today and reveals earth-shattering news: Less waste is generated during a recession. He says today what everyone in this province already recognizes, and while we support waste reduction initiatives, let us be clear: The part-time minister has not announced anything new today. He says that targets have been reached, the measurements of those targets which were eroded by the NDP government.

So why this announcement today? Could this non-announcement by the part-time Minister of Environment have anything to do with a rally that's planned to take place in front of the Legislature tomorrow? I hope the viewing public recognizes that tomorrow many hundreds of people will be coming to this Legislature concerned about the air they breathe, the water they drink and the place where landfill sites are situated. They'll be here tomorrow expressing their frustration at the policies of the NDP government and the way in which it carries out these policies. They are frustrated that their right of representation in matters of an environmental nature has been stripped away by this government.

I can tell you that in my riding we have the Britannia landfill site, and it's not that long ago that the now Premier made a statement that there would be no extension of a landfill site without an environmental hearing. Well, the people in my riding, the people in the region of Peel and in York and throughout the province know that this government and their policies have taken away their rights to be heard in matters that are so important to them.

The part-time Minister of Environment, if he were truly concerned about waste reduction, wouldn't be wasting the time of the public making statements like this today but rather would be there tomorrow meeting the concerns of people who have very real concerns about the policies of the government and the way it is carrying them out.

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I take pleasure in responding to the statement of the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this matter and indeed take the opportunity to congratulate the municipalities of Ontario for attaining a 25% reduction. Great work. Many have exceeded that guideline, of course, and will continue to do so.

Speaking to the responsibilities of municipalities, certainly they should have more responsibilities, and let's get on with it, but we have to remember the other side of the coin, and that's the cost factor. It is noted that the blue box funding will end next year unless more money is allocated. Municipalities want to continue the programs of reduction and recycling etc, but we have to be aware of what the local taxpayer can afford, because it's real estate taxation.

This government must remember that downloading new costs to municipalities does not solve its problems; it only creates new tax burdens for local municipalities and taxpayers.

In this respect, what was missing from the statement is a response to municipalities concerning the costs of these programs and indeed the matter of downloaded costs on sewer and water charges. It's a very great concern what's happening, because the Ministry of Environment has seen fit to charge Ontario municipalities an extra $8 million for laboratory costs in the operation of various water and sewer facilities.

This has been going on while the disentanglement process between the municipalities of Ontario and the province is being negotiated. If the matter of responsibilities and costs between the municipalities and the province is so important -- it is of great importance and will be discussed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and indeed municipal members on Friday -- then the province must look at the cost of downloading services to municipalities.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Charles Beer (York North): In response to both these announcements, but in particular to the Minister of Environment, let the record show that today when he should have stood up and announced that the travesty we're going through in the region of York and in Durham and in Peel should end and that this whole matter of waste disposal should go through an Environmental Assessment Act process where all the options are going to be looked at, today when the minister should have risen in his place and said that, he chose to duck the issue.

Tomorrow, people will be here for Earth Day and they will be here to send a message to this minister, to the former minister and to the government that they have not acted properly in this matter.

Interjections.

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

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): I recognize that this is the greatest challenge facing the municipalities in the province of Ontario and that's the issue of waste disposal. I do give credit to the municipalities for the leadership and the targets they have met in identifying and tackling this issue. I would be mindful in my comments, though, that the problem is not purely responsibility. The problem involves funding, and this is what has not been addressed in the announcement today.

The recycling programs across this province are very expensive programs. The municipalities are eager to get on with the job. The municipalities are getting on with the job, but the problem they're facing is not simply responsibility; the problem is funding, and they are not being given the resources.

They are not being given the resources to tackle the blue box program. In Metropolitan Toronto, for example, there is a very excellent system of collecting through the blue box program, but it cannot be extended to apartments because there is a shortfall in funding.

This government has not provided adequate funding to the municipalities to carry out the responsibilities to date, and unless this announcement is accompanied by additional funding, then it will not be successful.

The second point I would make is that it's very interesting that just a couple of years ago the municipalities, such as Metropolitan Toronto, were making excellent progress in terms of finding a landfill site under their jurisdiction, under their authority, and that authority was wrestled from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and taken back by the provincial government. Metropolitan Toronto, through the process, had spent about $15 million of taxpayers' money in identifying a solution to the problem. The Interim Waste Authority has taken that over, spent more money than that and has not found a solution -- a waste of taxpayers' money.

It's interesting in that case that this provincial government went exactly in the reverse direction, took the authority away from the municipalities, took it unto itself and has not been successful in finding a solution -- indeed has caused confrontation across southern Ontario, and we've yet to see the end of that confrontation.

The third point I would make is that in terms of waste reduction, again using Metropolitan Toronto as an example, the waste has been reduced from three million tonnes per year to about one million tonnes per year going into the Metro landfill sites because of the recession and because a lot of the garbage is being shipped south to the United States, unfortunately. Metropolitan Toronto has approached this government with the possibility of closing off the borders to the transfer of waste to the south and has been rebuffed in all of its efforts to achieve the closing off of the border.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): A couple of comments on this announcement: Firstly, it's astounding that this announcement comes forward today when a mini-budget can be announced on Friday, the only day this House doesn't sit, and that's not considered significant enough to come to this House. That's very disappointing.

Secondly, this minister needs a check on reality. The reality of the situation is, there's a recession. That's what has reduced the amount of garbage in the system today: the recession.

The blue box program is fundamentally broken. You've got the mayor of North York who's saying: "This program doesn't work, it's too costly, we're not participating." You've got the Metropolitan government saying to the local municipalities, "We're going to start charging you to run the waste disposal system or the blue box program."

So the Metropolitan government is saying it's too costly, the local municipalities are saying too it's too costly, and they've come to the province and said it's not working. They're taking credit for diversion because it's a recession, and Metro's shipping maybe as much as 600,000 to 1 million tonnes of garbage to the United States, and you're taking bows for this. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Finally, it's not going to solve the problem by giving more powers. What these people need is a program that's implementable and money to run the blue box. If you don't fix this, this blue box program will be kaput in two years.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before -- on a point of order.

WILL FERGUSON

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm rising on a point of privilege. People in this Legislature know that I have been working on an issue for a long time and the issue is Grandview, and yesterday I feel that my whole position on this issue was misinterpreted, and I can't say wilfully or unwilfully, by the Premier of this province.

Mr Rae, in his answer to me, said, "I want to say to the honourable member that she says the matter is now closed." I wouldn't have been asking the question if I thought the matter was closed. I used those words and I used them with quotation marks and said so in my remarks yesterday as what the Premier has said on this issue. I am not complete on this issue, the people of Ontario are not, and certainly the victims are not.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau, I certainly understand and appreciate why she's concerned. The member will know that the only person who can correct the record is the person who made the statement.

I fully realize and appreciate what the member is referring to and it may be that when the Premier has returned and he has seen Hansard, that may allow him an opportunity to correct the record. It will certainly be drawn to his attention.

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before starting oral questions, some members may recall that a procedural concern was raised in the House yesterday and I undertook to consider it and to report back as quickly as possible and it was my anticipation that I would report back today.

I did receive, and for which I am most grateful, a lengthy written submission this morning from the Liberal caucus and it was, if I could say so candidly, a very thoughtful and helpful document.

This matter has turned out to be a touch more complex than it appeared at first blush, and so I do not have a ruling for you today. I will make every effort, and it's my expectation that I will have a ruling for you tomorrow.

I apologize for not being able to bring it to the House today, but as I say, it's turned out to be a little more complicated than I had anticipated. I will make every effort to have it here tomorrow.

Yes? A point of order?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On that very issue, if I might, on a point of order: This morning I attended, along with others, the opening of a facility in Mississauga, the Astra Pharma Inc facility, and the associate Minister of Health was in attendance along with the Premier and with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

At that time, the associate Minister of Health was introduced to the people as a member of the Premier's cabinet and took the introduction, and that's fine. We in fact accept that because, as you know, yesterday the member for Renfrew North rose to ask a question of that particular minister.

Aside from a number of issues that clearly point out in the rules and in documentation and in past decisions that a Minister without Portfolio with certain responsibilities is indeed a minister within the cabinet, within the executive council, and has certain responsibilities, aside from that, the public perception --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): And your point of order is? Spit it out, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: If the Treasurer would stop interrupting me, he might hear a point of order.

The public perception in introducing this minister and other ministers without portfolio as members of the Bob Rae cabinet would clearly add to our perception that they indeed are responsible for certain areas.

Just to summarize briefly, Mr Speaker, in our point of order, it is our respectful submission that any question put to a Minister without Portfolio to whom a specific responsibility for a ministry has been designated -- and that designation would indeed be by the Premier -- that a question posed by the opposition to someone in that responsibility does indeed warrant a response.

Standing order 33(

h) addresses the fact that parliamentary assistants may indeed answer questions for their ministers. Now, they have to be designated by their minister to do that -- in other words, have the permission, the agreement -- and this standing order does not address ministers without portfolio. However, standing order 33(

a) states, and I read for you, sir, that, "Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to the ministers of the crown," and according to the Executive Council Act,

section 1, and I quote from that, "The executive council shall be composed of such persons as the Lieutenant Governor from time to time appoints" -- and this is important -- "and all executive councillors so appointed are ministers of the crown."

So if you put that back to standing order 33(a), where it clearly states that questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to ministers of the crown, it seems to me your decision is clear.

The Executive Council Act continues on to deal with the salaries of ministers of the crown, including subsection 3(3), which states, "The annual salary of every minister without portfolio is" and it goes on to outline that.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's going to be 10% less than that.

Mr Mahoney: It's about to be less, I understand, the minister for Etobicoke central points out.

With the inclusion of ministers without portfolio in this particular section, being subsection 3(3), the Executive Council Act is clearly stating that ministers without portfolio are indeed ministers of the crown, as we contend.

It's necessary also to point out that ministers without portfolio in the current government, by admission of the Premier, are indeed assigned specific responsibilities, as in the case of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Health. That statement has been made by the Premier and clearly is the direction this government is going. It's the Premier's own admission that by reducing the cabinet down to 25 and increasing the ministers up to 27, he's somehow magically reducing the size of the elected body of the particular government. So he assigns them specific responsibilities.

The question posed on April 19, 1993, was to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Health, and according to the dictionary -- I'll go through some of this a little quicker, if I might, because I think this is very important. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "responsible" as "liable to be called to account...; (of a ruler or government) not autocratic; morally accountable for...actions; capable of rational conduct." That may be the hook that lets them off, by the way.

The Speaker: I don't like to cut the member off in full flight. I take it that the member is reading from the document which he sent to my office. I don't want to impinge on the member's rights. If he feels compelled to read into the record that which he sent to my office, then of course I'll allow him to do so. I'm sure that he's aware of how precious our time is, and I would ask him to be succinct.

Mr Mahoney: I am using several documents here. I'm using Hansard, wherein yesterday -- and you've given us your reason -- you explained that you would attempt to come to it today. The reason that I rise and use these other documents is that every day, as you well know, opposition parties meet in their respective caucus rooms to discuss question period strategy or what we're about to ask the government on that particular day. Because we don't have a decision on this, sir, we're limited in our ability to perform our duties as members of the opposition.

I think it's critically important that all documentation be a matter of public record, and we have given you a detailed document for you to study, as bedtime reading I'm sure you're going to enjoy. But I think members opposite, I think the media, I think the people at home would like to know that indeed there is a point of order of some significance to members of the opposition.

The dictionary assigns the word "responsible," as I said before, as "liable to be called to account; not autocratic; morally accountable for actions; capable of rational conduct; of good credit, position or repute; respectable; evidently trustworthy." As I said, those are all perhaps

definitions that this government could use to avoid answering questions, because I think they could put an argument that they are none of those. However, in fairness, they are the government of the day, and this refers to the government.

The member for Renfrew North was attempting to ask the member for Perth a question regarding the Ministry of Health, a ministry to which the Premier has told this House and the people of Ontario that that member has now some form of responsibility.

In the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, the following is stated on page 285, and I quote, "Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs" -- this is very, very important, Mr Speaker.

"Questions addressed to ministers,"and we all acknowledge that the member for Perth is a minister, "should relate to the public affairs with which they are official connected," and we all, including the Premier, acknowledge that she is officially connected with the Ministry of Health, "to proceedings pending in Parliament" -- clearly, my honourable colleague's question pertained to proceedings pending in Parliament -- "or to matters of administration for which they are responsible," and you could also interpret that my honourable colleague from Renfrew North was asking about questions for which this minister is responsible.

In your own ruling, sir, on December 12, Speaker Warner states, and I quote, "that if the minister in question is a minister without portfolio, has no responsibility for a particular program, and is not officially acting for a minister who has a portfolio or program of responsibility, no question can be put to him or her." This is very key. "If the minister without portfolio does have a program responsibility," as the Premier has told us this person does, "then he or she can be questioned on a matter touching on that responsibility." That is not Erskine May, sir, that is Speaker Warner in this Legislature in Hansard.

You went on, sir, to say in the Hansard of December 12, and I quote, "that question period should not be used as a vehicle to question a government member about the duties of an office that is not of a ministerial or governmental nature." This ruling was made when questions were posed by opposition members to the chief government whip. I remember it well. The Speaker concluded that the chief government whip performed duties of a party nature and did not perform duties of a ministerial or governmental nature.

It is our submission that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Health indeed does perform duties both of a ministerial nature -- I saw her today doing that at an opening in Mississauga -- and of a governmental nature, wherein I'm sure she works with the staff and showed up with the limo and the supporting staff at the particular function today. That strikes me as being of a governmental nature and a ministerial nature, those being duties to formulate government policy within the Ministry of Health.

Mr Speaker, those are just some of the submissions I would like to make. The reason I want to read them into the record and to suggest to you that it is critically important that we get a decision as quickly as possible from you, sir, even to the point where I think this House would be prepared to stand down today and allow you to consider the matter, is that it clearly affects our ability, and therefore each and every member of the opposition, to perform our duty as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Our duty is to hold this government accountable.

The only way we can do that, sir, when you look at the fact that they're apparently announcing to bring out a budget in a press release on Friday instead of in the Legislature where we're sitting, the only opportunity that we, as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, have to hold these people accountable is in question period. If you are restricting our ability, sir, then you are hampering our ability to --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member may not have been in the House earlier when I made an announcement. I appreciate the member's interest in this procedural matter. I had hoped to have had something ready for today. I think the member would not want the Speaker to come in with a decision which was hastily drafted and was perhaps flawed. In order to do the work properly, I require some additional time.

The member has read the document which was sent to my office this morning. As I stated, it's a document which is helpful. It was put together very thoughtfully and it assists me. In fact, I think the member can appreciate that this is not a simple matter, and I will do everything possible to have a decision here tomorrow so that everyone is clear as to the practice and procedure.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate a few of the points made by the honourable member for Mississauga West.

This indeed does place both opposition parties in a very difficult position. As I'm sure everybody is aware, the opposition caucuses have question period meetings every morning to define their questions of the day. We now find out, at least argued by the government House leader yesterday, that six out of 27 cabinet ministers indeed aren't really cabinet ministers and can't be asked questions. Yet we talked at some length yesterday about the fact that they are indeed cabinet ministers, as defined by the Executive Council Act.

In fact, we even read the Premier's own press release wherein he appointed these people and referred to them as ministers of the crown and went on to define their particular duties and responsibilities.

For my part, I fail to see why they therefore cannot be questioned in this place. To me it seems to be quite simple. The Premier has named them as cabinet ministers. They've been sworn in as cabinet ministers. As the member for Mississauga West quite correctly points out, this very morning the member for Perth appeared and was introduced as a cabinet minister, a member of the executive council in the province of Ontario. She has indeed specific responsibilities, as the Premier himself defined in his own press release when he appointed her as a cabinet minister.

Now, if she doesn't feel that she -- or if any other one of those six junior ministers, or ministers without portfolio, are being referred to, and if any of them do not feel capable or qualified to answer a question, like any other of their cabinet colleagues they may simply refer the matter to another minister. So I fail to see why we're going through this debate in the first place. If they're not capable of answering a question relating to the responsibilities and duties that the Premier himself has said they have, then they, like any other minister, can simply refer the question.

I tried to point out to you yesterday, sir, that in Ottawa they do indeed have a similar system of junior ministers, except that they call them secretaries of state, and indeed they work with other senior ministers. A few examples are the Secretary of State for Transport, who works with the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Agriculture, who works with the senior Minister of Agriculture, and the Secretary of State for Finance, who works with the senior Minister of Finance. They have paralleled the same system here, except that they choose to call them, as opposed to secretaries of state, ministers without portfolio with the following defined responsibilities.

Another thing that concerns me here today is that not only are we now being told that we cannot ask those six ministers any questions; the premier minister himself, the Premier of the province, is not here. I can recall all too well yesterday when my colleague, my friend the member for Renfrew North, was trying to ask the then senior Minister of Health a question, the Premier took it upon himself to answer the question. Perhaps the suggestion that was made by one of the members opposite here yesterday indeed is the way it should be. Perhaps the only minister in this government who should be empowered to ever answer a question is the Premier.

But that presents us with another difficulty in that the Legislature, first of all, came back approximately one month or at least three weeks later than it was supposed to. We thought that after four months' time this government would have its act together and that the ministers of the crown, especially the Premier, would be here every day for question period. This is the fifth day we've had question period since we've been back, and the Premier's been here exactly two times in those five days to answer questions. The opposition benches are now told that the Premier won't be arriving today until 2:45.

The very least I would suggest, Mr Speaker, is that you stand down question period until you either decide that six out of 27 cabinet ministers can answer questions or that at least the Premier of the province, who chooses not to be in his place for question period after having a four-month vacation, show up and answer some questions.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Parry Sound, he did indeed present a useful and thoughtful presentation yesterday. He has added some points of interest today.

I must say to him that as much as I would like to have a ruling for today, it is not possible. I believe that the complexities of the issue will become clear when the ruling is delivered.

The honourable member, as I know him, can never be accused of lacking imagination when it comes to Parliament, and I suspect that he will find a way to direct the questions on the subjects in which he's interested to an appropriate person on the other side of the chamber.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have another point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yes.

Mr Eves: On a separate point of order altogether, I was rather astounded today, when ministerial statements were read, that there was not one by the Treasurer of the province, or whatever he calls himself, the grand Poo-bah of finance in the province of Ontario. I cannot recall another time in the history of the province of Ontario when a mini-budget has been introduced by a government and not introduced in the Legislature of Ontario. I can recall just last November 1992 when the very same Treasurer of this province introduced not a mini-budget but indeed an economic statement, and he did it, quite properly, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I can recall in the early 1980s -- I believe it was 1981 -- when the economy of the province happened to encounter a recession, and the Treasurer of the day, Mr Miller, introduced his mini-budget in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think the honourable member for Parry Sound knows my views on this subject. I hold a very strong view that matters of substance dealing with Parliament should be announced in Parliament. I think that's a very sound principle.

The member will also know that for better or worse there is nothing in our standing orders or procedures which compels ministers to make statements in the House, including budgets, and indeed there is nothing out of order about announcing a budget outside of the House, and if memory serves, that in fact has occurred in this province.

But I would reiterate that all matters of substance of a parliamentary nature should be made here. I have no control over making that happen. I can only ask that people do that.

Mr Eves: As a gesture of goodwill, Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest that we get unanimous consent to allow the Treasurer of the province to introduce his mini-budget in this House this Friday afternoon, where it should be introduced.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice. It is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My questions today will be addressed to the government and will concern the Premier's social contract. The first question to the Premier -- and what a difference a day makes. Yesterday, the cabinet and Michael Decter couldn't describe, define or put flesh on the Premier's social contract and today details begin to flood forth. Happily, the social contract talks are leaking like a sieve.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Tabloid speculation.

Mr Conway: My first question to the Premier is this: Can the Premier --

Hon Mr Laughren: The Star saw Elvis too.

[Laughter]

Mr Conway: Well, they laugh opposite, but it is their fiscal mismanagement that has led us to this chaos.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Conway: Will the Premier confirm that key elements of his social contract include a cut of between 7,000 and 8,000 Ontario government jobs, almost all of which are in the managerial category and almost none of which are in the bargaining unit represented by OPSEU, and can he further confirm that his social contract will mean that in this fiscal year, 1993-94, his social contract will cause a clawback of between 3% and 5% of provincial government grants to hospitals, school boards, children's aid societies, municipalities and all other partners in the province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can't confirm either of those things. I'm not surprised the member would engage in all kinds of speculation. That's his wont, I think is the word I'd use.

I would say to the honourable member that, as I said yesterday -- and he may not have asked me these questions before, but when anybody asks me a question in a scrum, and I get asked questions in scrums all the time, I've answered very clearly, put out as clearly as could be stated, and so has the Treasurer. We did it in the initial press conference that he and I held, in which we said very clearly that there will be the following elements to what the government is facing:

There will be a social contract negotiated with our own employees. There will be a vigorous exercise in expenditure reduction. There will be a continuation of our commitments to investments in infrastructure and investments in jobs and in partnerships with the private sector. There will also be revenue increases in the next budget. Those four points have been very consistent. We've stated them consistently. We've stated them as clearly as we can.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Is that like tax revenue increases? Tax increases: Why don't you say it?

Hon Mr Rae: In answer to the question from Mississauga, there will be tax increases in the next budget. That's no secret, no secret at all. We've said that for some time. The Minister of Finance has been saying it for quite some time. Those elements are all there.

If the honourable member says, "Well does that mean this, does that mean that?" I can say to him that the social contract is being negotiated with the representatives of the 900,000 people who work in the broader public sector. The government is still working on the expenditure reduction plan and we're still working on the budget. So any further comment on that would simply be pure and simple guesswork, speculation or allegation by the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Since the Premier and his Treasurer will not come clean with this House, since they will not talk to all of their partners -- oh, they'll talk to Sid Ryan and Fred Upshaw, but they're not talking very much to the managerial group in their own public service; they're not talking to small business; they're not talking to a lot of other people in this province. They are truly a very, very selective group of negotiators.

My supplementary to the Premier is, since very specific issues are now on the table, being advanced by Messrs Decter, Kaufman and others, since other people in this province are now being given specifics, I ask him to give the Legislature and all the people of Ontario that this Legislature represents some of the specifics that are now very much on the table.

Will the Premier further confirm that in fiscal 1993-94, this fiscal year, his social contract will claw back $500 million from the education sector and $600 million from the health sector, including in the health sector a $200-million clawback of physicians' payments and a significant increase in user fees for those seniors who participate in the Ontario drug benefit plan?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member that I think the Minister of Finance has already said that whatever information is provided on Friday will be shared with the general public. There will be briefings for members opposite, there will be briefings for whoever wants them, and as much information as we're providing to any of our partners will be provided to others.

I just want to say to the honourable member that the statement he made as a matter of allegation, that there were discussions going on with some that were not going on with others, is, as are many of the statements that he makes in the House, a complete and utter fiction. The negotiating teams have been discussing these issues with a broad range of people. There has been as much as can be. We're being as open as we can be. As I say, when the government has determined its overall position with respect to one aspect of the challenge we face, not the entire picture but certainly one aspect of the expenditure reductions, that information will be fully shared.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My supplementary is to the Premier. Just two months ago, it was, I think, February 12 of this year, your government announced that it was going ahead with its planned job relocations to the following communities: Brantford, Guelph, Haileybury, Niagara Falls, Orillia, Peterborough, St Catharines, Windsor, Chatham and Elliot Lake. Today, the Chair of Management Board admitted that this program could be on the chopping block as part of your social contract. This means 5,000 jobs are at stake in 10 hard-pressed communities.

Will you, Mr Premier, confirm, once and for all, are you going to proceed with this program or are you going to renege on your promise to the communities of Brantford, Guelph, Haileybury, Niagara Falls, Orillia, Peterborough, St Catharines, Windsor, Chatham and Elliot Lake in your desperation to extract concessions from public service unions in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I think the member is engaging in speculation that is really not positive or helpful. The government, in the course of our expenditure review, and I think it would be unfair to put it in any other context, one of the first decisions the cabinet made was that all aspects of expenditure -- all aspects of expenditure -- had to be legitimately considered. That is precisely what we are doing. But I wouldn't want the member to read into that anything other than the simple fact that all aspects of expenditure are being considered.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a second question on the social contract, to the Treasurer. Though I note that Bob Rae, author of the Agenda for People, has the nerve to come and talk about fiction elsewhere, I repeat, two and a half years into this mandate we are in a calamitous, chaotic fiscal situation, brought to you, in large measure, by Bob Rae and others who can't read a balance sheet, who don't understand what recessions mean to revenue lines and continue to spend in a way that has now brought all of us, from hospitals to the public service, to this situation.

A second question to the Treasurer: The Premier has just reiterated the view of the Rae government that what Ontario needs in the spring of 1993 is significant tax increases levied on Ontario citizens. The Treasurer has himself indicated and press reports today suggest that a very significant part of the social contract brought to you by Bob Rae is going to involve billions of dollars worth of revenue enhancements.

Let me say on behalf of my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that we understand that you expect to achieve hundreds of millions in revenues by a fire sale of the public's assets, but it is equally clear that you're planning to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in additional taxes.

Will the Treasurer confirm that intention, and will he indicate further how raising taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars upon this very fragile economic recovery which we've got at the present time is going to help the number one concern of all members in this Legislature and all citizens of Ontario, namely, economic growth and employment growth?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'll try to give a measured response to that question, because coming from a senior member of a government that raised taxes substantially when there were boom times in the 1980s and miscalculated on its projections of revenues and deficits as well, sometimes by over a billion dollars a year, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that this government is dealing with the problem.

We do have a serious problem. We do, as the Premier said, see that in order to resolve the problem, we need to address the expenditures of this province and we need to address the shortfall in revenues. But I can tell the member opposite that unlike his party, we're not going to run and hide when we see a problem. We're going to deal with it.

Mr Conway: A supplementary to my friend the Treasurer: The sad and pathetic and painful reality in this province for the last two and a half years is that my friend the member for Nickel Belt has for some reason been running and hiding from a clear and consistent fiscal situation that everyone else in the province has been pointing to.

Of course other parties have their accountability to give, but no party in this province has ever had to face its public service now with the kind of draconian measures that you are going to be offering everyone from orderlies in hospitals to the clerks working for the public service. No other government has ever had to talk about an in-year deficit of $17 billion.

My supplementary to my friend the Treasurer: It's just a few days ago that the Treasurer told the Canadian Business Life journal that he was very concerned, and I won't quote him, but I could. The Treasurer said just a few days ago that he was very, very worried that any kind of tax increases would stall or snuff out the very fragile economic recovery. He said that just a few days ago, and I accept him at his word because he was right when he made those comments.

Given that, I think, quite proper analysis and given our collective concern about economic growth and job creation, how in heaven's creation can he imagine that raising taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars on Ontario workers and business people is going to do anything but freeze and snuff out this economic recovery and kill job creation?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd love to hear you if you were still --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Mississauga West, please come to order.

Mr Mahoney: I apologize.

The Speaker: Accepted.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Renfrew North is correct on a couple of accounts: one, when he says that we have to be very careful in selecting the ways in which we raise revenues in this coming fiscal year. We will be very careful and we'll try and strike the appropriate balance. He's also correct when he says that no other government has addressed the problem of compensation in the public sector and government spending the way we have; no other government has negotiated with its employees the way we have.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's never happened before and pray God it will never happen again.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order. Would the minister complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I'll try and be as non-partisan as possible in addressing this very serious problem, but I can tell you that it really is inappropriate for members of the opposition to imply that the fiscal problem that we're dealing with was created in the last two years.

To be fair, the other two governments, the Liberal and Conservative governments, in this province layered program after program on top of program after program and never did anything about existing programs that were already there.

It is time that some government, and it happens to be this one, addresses the problem of expenditures of this government, and that includes the compensation in the public sector. We are prepared to do it in as fair a way as possible and to negotiate it with our employees. We very much want to make that happen.

Mr Conway: A final supplementary to the Treasurer: I think it is clear that job creation is the primary concern of all honourable members. I think that is a shared objective obviously. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association estimates that one job is killed for every $40,000 of tax revenue that's taken out of the economy. I repeat, the CMA estimates that one job is killed for every $40,000 worth of tax revenue pulled out of the economy. If that kind of benchmark is to be credited and if you are serious about increasing taxes at this time by hundreds of millions of dollars in a recession, then clearly you are bound and determined to kill thousands of jobs.

My question to the Treasurer is, can he indicate, since he and the Premier have made plain their intention to significantly raise taxes, what impact studies have they done at treasury or elsewhere in the government about those kinds of tax increases at this time upon the employment base in this recession-ridden economy, where everyone is concerned, rightly, about keeping their job and ensuring that other people in their family and their circle get a job?

Hon Mr Laughren: When we brought down the budget about a year ago we indicated that we had three priorities. One of those priorities was investment, training and job creation in this province. We haven't altered from that view. But I can tell the member for Renfrew North that paying billions of dollars to service the public debt also kills jobs in this province, and we're determined to get that under control. Finally, I say to the member opposite, if we applied his formula to all the tax increases that the Liberals brought in when they were in office, there would have been nobody working at the end of their reign in office.

Mr Conway: By your works you will be judged, and I'll ask people if they're better off today than they were four years ago in Don Mills and in St George and in Essex and in Burlington.

The Speaker: Order. Leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Treasurer. While we have the same information on job cuts, on the program cuts that have been expressed by the Liberal Party, I want to be very clear and I want to indicate to the government we're concerned about not consulting with all the partners, we're concerned about how you're proceeding 24 hours a day, we're concerned with policy on the fly.

But I want to be very clear, through you, Mr Treasurer, to the Premier and the government, that we are supportive of the amount of cuts and we don't think you've gone far enough yet. I want that on the record, that unlike the Liberals, we do believe you have a spending problem and you must significantly reduce the size of government and the amount of spending. I want that clearly understood.

However, Treasurer, one issue has been brought up by the Liberals and that concerns quite reliable information that we have that in your mini-budget you plan to table on Friday -- or whatever you call it, the documentation -- in addition to some of the spending cuts that you indicate direction, as a sop to your union partners you've also had to come up with a pretty full budget before they're going to talk meaningfully to you and, the real cruncher, that you plan $2 billion minimum of revenue enhancers, which I call tax hikes.

Can you confirm, Treasurer, that on Friday you will be indicating, either by way of mini-budget or by tabling of a document or as part of the negotiations, that you plan next year to extract $2 billion more from taxpayers through taxes or fees?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm a little disappointed that the extensive research department that the leader of the third party has hasn't gone beyond reading the Toronto tabloids.

I would simply say to the leader of the third party that we are not bringing in a mini-budget on Friday. What we're going to do is table very publicly a set of expenditure reduction proposals, and we intend to share that with the public at large. The leaders of the two opposition parties have been invited to a briefing at the same time so that there is no abuse of the privileges of members. They will get the information at the same time as anyone else.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Why don't you do it here?

Hon Mr Laughren: As far as the question, "Why not do it in here?" it simply isn't ready, and we'll have the entire package ready by that time.

I would just reiterate to the leader of the third party that I hope he's able to attend that briefing on Friday.

Mr Harris: Aside from the fact that I'm disappointed that it's the union leaders who are setting the timetable and the

schedule of announcements in this province, aside from that, you could easily have done it on Monday if it's not ready, or we would agree to have a full sitting of the Legislature on Friday. But no, you wouldn't give us consent for that. So now we have the union leaders telling us the

schedule of when announcements will be made and when your mini-budget will be announced.

My question, though, is very simply this: Can you confirm that on Friday you plan to indicate $2 billion of new revenue enhancements as part of the plan as the Treasurer of the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm surprised to hear the leader of the third party refer to Dennis Timbrell as a union leader, but nevertheless, if that's how you wish to describe him, that's fine.

Hon Mr Rae: That's the nicest thing he has to say about him.

Mr Harris: I don't know why it would surprise you for me to say that.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm going to tell Dennis Timbrell you said that.

First of all, it's not a case of anybody setting the agenda for us. We have been through an exercise in which we've tried to come to a conclusion, shared with all cabinet members, to come up with a set of proposals that will reduce expenditures in the province. I think that, unlike governments in the past, we want to be as open as we possibly can with everybody in the province, and we intend to share that information. We will be judged according to how fairly we're seen to be distributing those expenditure reductions all across the province.

I'll repeat my invitation to the leader of the third party. I very much hope that you can attend on Friday morning.

Mr Harris: We are going to find out on Friday that the Treasurer plans to take $2 billion more out of consumers' pockets, out of taxpayers' pockets, out of the private sector, out of the economy. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that is the most ludicrous thing this government has done to date, and that's saying a lot, because you've done a lot of ludicrous things in the first two and a half years of your mandate. To get $2 billion of revenue enhancements will be the biggest tax grab in the history of the whole province, bigger in one year even than David Peterson, and that is saying a lot because he was a master taxer.

Treasurer, I ask you this, since this is what you are going to table on Friday -- if it isn't, you can tell me what the actual figure is -- you must then know how you're going to get the money, because to get that amount of money, you'll have to double gas tax to 31 cents a litre, or you could raise income tax by 7.5 percentage points or you could hike sales tax to over 10%. Any one of those measures will stifle jobs, will slow and reverse recovery in this province and very likely throw us back into recession.

I would ask you this, Treasurer, since you're putting a number on the table on Friday, can you tell us what taxes, what fees you plan to hike to generate $2 billion worth of revenue?

Hon Mr Laughren: The examples that the leader of the third party uses should not be considered a budget leak. On Friday it is not our intention to table a package of tax moves or revenue moves. I would say, however, that it is true that we do intend to have a revenue package in the budget to increase revenues. Because we intend to raise taxes and engage in some asset sales does not mean it's a fire sale. There are some assets that we think should be sold. We were not the people who made the arrangements for the SkyDome. It was the Conservatives and the Liberals who ended up with a package on SkyDome that we're trying to get out of. It's as simple as that, and we intend to do that.

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

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My second question is for the Minister of Health who was here, and I see her papers there. Maybe I could go to the associate Minister of Health. Treasurer, if you could confirm that she's coming, fine. If not, I'll stand down the question if that's acceptable to everybody.

The Speaker: Do you wish to stand down the question?

Mr Harris: If the Minister of Health is not here.

The Speaker: We'll move to the official opposition for a question. The member for Ottawa-Rideau.

REPORT ON VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Attorney General and the minister responsible for women's issues. When asked a question on December 7, 1992, Madam Minister, regarding the release of the 1976 report on sexual abuse at Grandview School for Girls, you said, and I quote, "It is a question that the Attorney General has areas of responsibility that he alone can exercise."

Madam Minister, you are now the Attorney General. Will you tell the House today if you are going to accept the decision on your requested judicial review reached yesterday at Osgoode Hall regarding the release of the very heavily edited report as first recommended by the freedom of information and protection of privacy commissioner on September 22, 1992, a full six months ago?

I ask you the same question my leader asked you on that very day six months ago. I ask you to determine what possible justification you and your government can give to these women, especially now after yesterday's decision, for withholding this information from this province, this Legislature and these victims.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The decision was rendered yesterday but the oral reasons will not be given until next week, and until we see the oral reasons we will not be making a decision on whether to appeal that. I would remind the member that the only reason that I and the previous minister have taken the position that was taken on this report was in the interests of preserving the prosecution case. It will be reviewed when we have the reasons that were delivered yesterday.

Mrs O'Neill: Madam Minister, there are many people in this province who have not agreed from the very beginning with that position, but you have stated it.

We have known from the beginning that this report, especially in its edited version, would not jeopardize the investigation. We've had that from the victims; we've had it from the privacy commissioner. The release would indeed, as we know, add to the credibility of the victims, who have long suffered and have requested from day one, over and over again, that it be released.

It's clearly a responsibility through both of your portfolios to support women in their efforts to bring forth their evidence of violence suffered over 20 years ago in a government institution. Will you stand before this House today, Madam Minister, as Attorney General and as minister responsible for women's issues, and accept the responsibility that you know you have and is by your very statement? Will you begin to show the victims of Grandview that you really are going to take action on their behalf? Promises are just not good enough; just not good enough from this so-called open NDP government.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would say to the member that we have done many things to assist these victims, not least of which is to insist that this investigation go forward with integrity. That is the most important thing that we can do for these people. If this investigation is jeopardized in any way, they may not have their day in court, and that is our biggest concern.

So I would say to the member, yes, I can stand here and say very clearly that I have advocated and will continue to advocate on behalf of those people who have made complaints about Grandview, and that every action that we have taken as a government has been directed at maintaining the integrity of the investigation with the hope that we indeed will be able to bring responsibility where it belongs.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Premier. Premier, we have in this province today a very uncertain situation around the subject of sexual harassment. We believe the reason for that is the chaos that's been caused by your personal mismanagement of the Masters case.

We have right now going on in this province an investigation by the police into a civilian employee's case -- and I'm going to send the particulars over to you. In this case, this civilian has been accused of sexual harassment, not sexual assault, so one would understand very simply that if it isn't sexual assault it's not a criminal charge and therefore should not be investigated by the police.

I have the permission of the accused to give any information, publicly and in this House, about his case. I ask you, Premier, because it was your handling of the Masters case that has set the precedent that is sending out all these uncertain signals around this province to where we can have cases of false accusations, to where we can have cases of serious legitimate complaints and nobody is going to know what to do about them.

Premier, do you think police investigations are appropriate in cases of sexual harassment where there are no accusations of criminal behaviour?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, I can't comment on this because you've just sent it over to me and it would be, I think, really quite injudicious of me to wade in, only having just seen the letter as you've sent it over to me. I could refer it to the Solicitor General but I'm not sure he'd be in a position to comment either. So all I can say is I'll take her question under advisement and ask the Solicitor General to respond to her tomorrow.

Mrs Marland: As well as this accused being placed in the position of a police investigation although he's a civilian employee -- and he's a civilian employee, by the way, in the OPP -- in his case, he, as the accused, has had no right to even know the names of witnesses who were interviewed, nor does he have the right to test their evidence in cross-examination.

Obviously, the danger here is that a complainant could make a false allegation without needing corroborating evidence or independent witnesses. The accused would have more rights if he were accused of a criminal wrongdoing.

We have seen through our examination of the Masters case and this example that I give you today that the Ontario government's process of handling sexual harassment complaints serves neither the complainant nor the accused in a fair manner, and I think we have heard from Mr Masters in his own personal defence on that aspect.

Premier, I ask you, will you investigate not only this case that I have raised today but the whole policy and the process, particularly the process, for investigating and settling allegations of sexual harassment in the civil service, so that any man or woman in any employment in this province is protected and has the protection that he or she needs?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the member makes some excellent points in terms of the latter part of -- without wanting to comment at all on the particular instance, because I can't. I think her concern about process and the issues that she's raised are quite legitimate issues. I don't take them lightly at all. I can assure her that these are issues that are being reviewed by the government, by Management Board and by others, precisely because of the kinds of concerns that she's raising.

I would say to her in addition, however, without wanting to comment on anything, that I would be very concerned if the names of complainants, for example, were released in any information that's being provided today by the honourable member to me or to others. I would hope very much that the complainants' names are not released and in fact are not part of the public record which she is establishing today, because if that were to be done, then that causes concerns from a particular perspective as well.

I can say to the honourable member: These are not easy issues. I think we all have to recognize that in every workforce and every workplace and every part of our society we're wrestling with these questions as to how they can be judged effectively. I can just say to the honourable member that I've listened very carefully to her question. As I said before, I think with respect to the particular instance that she's raised, I'd prefer that the Solicitor General answer her tomorrow in an answer to a previously asked question.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Since the Minister of Health is obviously not going to be here to answer questions and we can't ask the associate or junior or whatever Minister of Health, I will ask the Premier a question concerning health cards in the province of Ontario.

Premier, I'm sure you'll be aware, as you flip to both the minister's briefing book on health cards and your own briefing book on health cards, that this is an issue that was raised by the auditor, it's an issue that was raised by the member for Simcoe --

Interjection: East.

Mr Harris: Was it Simcoe East? -- our critic for Health on numerous occasions. I'm sure the Premier will be aware as well that the deputy minister, Mr Decter, somebody whom I know the Premier has great confidence in, under intensive grilling before the legislative committee said in February that, "We have a $20-million problem that we're pursuing." He called it a $20-million problem.

I would like to know if the Premier has been made aware that Mr Decter had a report commissioned for him over a five-month period, that he has had this report in his hands now for some considerable period of time, certainly since April 1 at the least, which shows that health card fraud is at least eight times worse than he told the legislative committee and in fact is virtually out of control. Is the Premier aware of that? Has Mr Decter told him that? Has this come up at the cabinet table?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): If it's come up at the cabinet table, I suppose the rules of cabinet secrecy would prevent me from replying directly to the honourable member. But I can say to the honourable member that naturally I've had the kind of conversations with the minister that one would have about an issue like this, indicating that it's obviously a concern to everyone. It's a concern to patients, it's a concern to doctors. I might add, it's a profound concern to the government since, if there are examples of misuse of cards or of fraudulent use of cards, then obviously we have a major issue for OHIP itself.

I can honestly say to the member that I'm not aware of any reports which may have been commissioned, but obviously we'll look into it and ask the Minister of Health to reply directly to the member.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, CKLC, a CHUM affiliate in Kingston, has obtained a document prepared by the documents registry, programs branch, Ministry of Health. This is from OHIP in Kingston. The report is dated March of this year. It was prepared for deputy minister Michael Decter. He didn't tell the committee that the report was being prepared. We've had no statement from him that the information he gave the committee was totally inaccurate.

One of the aspects of this report shows, from the period November 1992 to March 1993, a five-month period, that of the number of fraudulent claims, over 60,000 of them were made by non-residents who gave US drivers' licences, that the total amount involved was $85 million, or on an annual basis, over $200 million, identified as out-of-the-province-of-Ontario claims. Has Mr Decter made the Premier and the minister and the cabinet aware of this information that he's had now since April 1?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I indicated already to the honourable member that I haven't seen that information and I can't answer whether the minister has or not. I can only say directly to the honourable member that I think that the Ministry of Health is to be commended for having commissioned such a study, for having attempted to get to the bottom of what is obviously an issue that's of concern to all of us. I'm quite confident that the minister and the ministry together will be responding effectively to this issue. No government could be happy about such a situation and I'm sure that there will be a very effective response from the minister.

Mr Harris: Do you think that Mr Decter should be commended for appearing before the committee on, I believe, February 23, making no reference to the study, saying, "We have a $20-million problem. No, you critics in the Conservative Party, no, it's not that big a deal. We're concerned, but it's a $20-million problem," when at the same time the study came out -- just one month later it would have been under way for a five-month period -- that said that $691 million in fraudulent claims were made by 600,000 people, over $200 million a year from out of province, many of them using US addresses?

You commend this Mr Decter of yours for hiding that information from a legislative committee, for not coming forward and apologizing once he found out, all the things that our critic and the member from Simcoe East had been saying were true and more so? You're proud of that, Mr Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member, in my experience in this House if you want to call me a dud, an incompetent, a louse, anything you want to call me, that's fine. I'm here to answer and I'm here to take it and I'm here to respond, and you can do that, but to turn this into some kind of character assassination against a member of the public service of this province is quite inappropriate, quite unfair and quite out of line.

I haven't seen the report, I don't know all the contents of the report. Now that the member has brought it to my attention I will look into it and I will have to judge and make the assessment as to whether the member has characterized it fairly or inaccurately, but to turn what is a public policy issue which everybody in all parts of the House can agree is a problem, has to be dealt with, has to be dealt with effectively, into an attack on a member of the public service of this province is truly unworthy of the leader of the third party. He's better than that and I'm surprised he'd stoop to that in order to try to get a headline.

Mr Harris: I criticized you for praising a guy who's lying to the committee, lying to the Legislature and lying to the people of this province. That's what I complained about. It's your attitude that's under attack, Bob.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party, please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy.

The Speaker: Does the member have a point of order?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I have my point of privilege. When the Premier was present, I was trying to let question period progress, but now he has left before question period ended and I do not get my point of privilege answered.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's concern. She will know also that we do attempt to deal with points of privilege outside of oral questions. With any luck, it will be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.

The member for Sault Ste Marie.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I'd first like to congratulate him and his ministry on the announcement of today. However, I have some concern as to the impact this will have on northern Ontario.

You are aware that I recently chaired a consultation called SCAN North on the impact that the 3Rs will have on us who live in the north, both from a cost perspective but particularly from an industrial perspective. We traditionally do resource extraction, and this will impact in significant ways on our ability to make a living up there. I was wondering if you'd seen that report and what you intend to do in light of some of the recommendations that are in that.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I want to thank the member for Sault Ste Marie for his question and commend him for the work he did, along with others, on the SCAN North project, looking into recycling and waste management in northern Ontario.

I have read the report. My colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and my ministry are reviewing its contents and have already started to implement some of the recommendations. We're currently reviewing a proposal from the town of Ignace to study waste options in northwestern Ontario. It's important to ensure that the development of green industries in the north will proceed, as well as waste management initiatives. So I hope to be making an announcement in regard to that very soon.

Mr Martin: I appreciate that. I know that any information that you will gather will go a long way towards our ability in the north to develop new industry to help pay for some of the initiatives you're bringing forth. However, I'm wondering what you're going to do in the northeast.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to answer this question during Earth Week. It's very appropriate. Based on the recommendations of the member's SCAN North project, I went to Kirkland Lake --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): This is just like the Politburo, for God's sake.

Hon Mr Wildman: Well, there are some people in the House who are concerned about northern issues.

I did go last week to Kirkland Lake, and I announced a pilot project, along with the mayor of Kirkland Lake, Joe Mavrinac, to look at a pilot project for the northeast. The study will identify ways of processing facilities and markets for the viable 3Rs initiatives in northeastern Ontario. The study will be completed within a year.

Kirkland Lake and my ministry are also working on a pilot project to be conducted this summer for the testing of rubberized asphalt in northern Ontario to see if we can identify new economic opportunities and the possibility of establishing jobs based on recycling, reuse and reduction of waste in northern Ontario.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question is for the minister responsible for tourism in the province of Ontario. Minister, the economic and social importance of the tourism industry to the Ontario economy, as you know, is immense. It is a fact that the tourism industry is Ontario's largest employer of women, youth, indigenous peoples and visible minorities, the province's fourth-largest export industry, the economic mainstay in areas of the province where economic alternatives are few or nonexistent, and also the largest industry in the service sector, which accounts for 72% of all new jobs in Ontario.

On January 20, 1993, the Tourism Ontario group submitted its proposal, entitled A Competitive and Sustainable Recovery Strategy for Ontario's Tourism and Hospitality Industry, to your Premier and the government for consideration. Minister, could you tell us, what is the delay in the implementation of the tourism sectoral strategy?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I am very happy that the member for Quinte is raising the issue of the problems facing the tourism industry in this House, and I was very happy that yesterday he and the member for Wellington were able to join my associate minister, Shirley Coppen, and I in meeting with Tourism Ontario, particularly in congratulating the new chair, Bruce Stanton, on assuming his new position within that organization and congratulating the former chair, Ted Zientara, on the years of wonderful work that he has provided there.

I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Quinte that the tourism industry in fact has probably been the industry that's been hardest hit in this province. As our fourth-largest industry and an industry that's growing globally, there's a lot that our government needs to do, and has been doing, in fact, to be helping it.

With regard to the overall direction of coming out of the hardship of the recession and positioning itself for the future, my government has made the development of a tourism sectoral strategy a major priority. I look forward very soon to being able to announce to the members the minister's advisory committee for it so that we can work on the tremendous research that we've already prepared as a basis for that committee to develop that sectoral strategy to better position this industry to become the global leader in tourism that it's possible of being.

Mr O'Neil: Of course, minister -- and I hope the Treasurer is listening to some of your comments and what's being said here -- the problem is that when you talk about the sectoral study, it's been around for some time now and nothing is happening. Of course, we have the summer season fast approaching, and the tourism industry is hoping to see positive signs of support and encouragement from your government. According to industry officials, the lingering recession and the inequitable fiscal environment have resulted in indefinite layoffs -- and I ask the Treasurer again to listen to this -- for more than 62,000 employees.

So I would ask you, Minister, with the Treasurer listening very carefully, how will the problems faced by the tourism industry in this province be addressed in your government's upcoming budget?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: This government certainly didn't cause this recession that's creating hardship to industries like the tourism industry, but we are doing a lot to help this industry to come out of the recession.

As the new minister, I've been sitting down looking at, just whom do I want to be on that minister's advisory committee? I've been making some changes, one of course to reflect the composition of the new ministry. I think there's a lot to be gained by the Premier's wise decision to put culture in with tourism, to their mutual benefit, and I'm making sure that the minister's advisory committee will include people from the cultural industry as well so that synergy can take effect in making it work.

This government has put $26 million in Jobs Ontario funding to help the tourism industry. We've been developing a new central registration and information system that will provide tremendous structural support. For the second year in a row now, we've organized the Prospect Ontario marketplace to bring buyers and sellers together. We've introduced a new consumer-led rating system, working with the industry on that, called Canada Select, and finally --

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- not finally, but since I appreciate I'm running out of time, I want to say that we've developed in partnership with the industry the new Ontario Tourism Education Council. For the first time ever, we have a government in the province of Ontario that's effectively developed apprenticeship training for the staff who need it in our hospitality sectors.

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: It's high-quality service, and I appreciate the tourism industry's hard work with us in developing that important council.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. The decision to provide WCB coverage to college and university students on work placement will be finalized on April 30. You have announced that your government will pay $1.5 million to cover the cost of this decision -- a ridiculously low figure, I might add, because the former Minister of Colleges and Universities estimated the cost at $8 million and the Ontario Hospital Association estimated it could cost $12 million. Unfortunately, this decision has also been made without the benefit of any cost impact analysis to determine the impact on the WCB's $11-billion unfunded liability.

Given the huge budgetary deficit the province is facing, could you explain why your government has decided to assume the cost of covering students under the WCB when they are currently covered under private insurance at no cost to the taxpayers?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think all of the trainees are not covered. I think the member across the way knows that. I think what we intended to do right from the beginning is to make sure that the training programs we're putting in place in the province of Ontario to deal with some of the problems we have in terms of unemployment are not at risk, and that's why we're making sure that they are covered in training programs for the WCB coverage.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, you didn't answer my question. I asked you to explain why this government, with its huge deficit, was going to assume more deficit. And furthermore, the students at the present time are covered under tuition fees.

Minister, according to the definition of "learner" and "student" under the Workers' Compensation Act, employers believe that you do not have the authority to cover these training participants. As a result, they're concerned that if they cancel their private insurance, they might be liable to future lawsuits.

Can your government guarantee individual employers that they do indeed have the protection of the act against legal action brought on by individual training participants? Can you guarantee that?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The responsibility at the moment is for the Workers' Compensation Board. We are undertaking the cost of the coverage, and I think that frees the employers.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I have received many letters from my constituents in my community raising concerns about the government's intentions on social assistance reform. Media reports have noted that the ministry will be putting out a white paper later this spring.

Could the minister clarify for myself, my constituents and other members of the House what the purpose of the paper is and what work is being done to ensure that Ontario's fragmented and inequitable system of social assistance is in fact reformed?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the member for York East for his question. As he has noted, there has been some speculation about the government's white paper on social assistance reform. Some have referred to it as a study paper or a consultation paper. I can say very clearly to the members of the House that it is neither of those things. It will be a position paper.

We clearly have consulted very broadly over the past two years and are now in a position, or will be in a position very shortly, to come back to the people of the province who are greatly concerned about our present system and to tell them what we've heard and, more importantly, what we as a government are going to do about it. So when we release the paper in early summer, we plan to set out in that paper our plans for action and the framework for an entirely restructured system of social assistance in the province.

Mr Malkowski: I appreciate the minister's clarification of the position paper. The minister will be aware of the concerns expressed in my community and no doubt in other parts of the province that in the difficult economic times -- government revenue has dropped and the province is facing a severe financial challenge -- the reforming of social assistance may not be possible. Could the minister clarify for the House what his ministry and the government will be doing in this regard?

Hon Mr Silipo: Certainly the financial situation that we are in does present some problems for us, as it indeed does for the whole government. However, in many ways this is also exactly the time for reform.

As we mentioned in the throne speech, the system isn't working. We need substantial reform, and in fact we need to get at the financial situation in order to, among other things, allow us to bring about some changes in the social assistance area.

Our present system, as we know, too often encourages people to stay on social assistance rather than assisting people to gain employment or to gain the skills they need to seek employment in today's economy. Current case loads are up 150% since 1989. We have over a million people in the province who are relying on social assistance and, clearly, experience shows that the economic recovery we experienced in the mid-1980s to late 1980s did not benefit social assistance recipients. We have to therefore be prepared for the next economic recovery by moving on the reform of social assistance now.

ORGANOCHLORINES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Mr Minister, on February 2, your predecessor announced proposed regulations relating to the discharge of chlorine compounds in the production of pulp and paper. The announcement, and what has been said since, has confused not only the people in the pulp and paper industry but your own colleagues as well.

The announced regulation refers to reaching the goal of zero discharge by the year 2002. Since pulp mills have to submit plans to achieve zero discharge, it does not appear to be a voluntary provision. Yet the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Transportation have both said it is only a guideline; achieving zero is not mandatory. The Minister of Natural Resources, on the other hand, says you need a plan by the year 2002, but don't have to reach the goal. You have said yourself that you will decide what companies will have to comply.

Minister, I ask you, what is the difference between a goal, a ban and a plan? Exactly what does your draft regulation require companies to do? Can we get one clear statement from you on your government's position. Lastly, Minister, how does this meet your government's commitment to develop partnerships, to help industries compete and to provide more and better jobs?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank my colleague for this important question and the opportunity to deal with some confusion that has arisen, and there really is no reason for it. Frankly, it is quite clear, the difference between a goal and a regulation. A regulation is a requirement that the industry must meet by a certain date, and the regulation is that the industry, by a certain date, must reach 1.5 kilograms per ton, and then by a later date, 1999, it must meet 0.8 kilograms per ton, by that date.

The ministry and the province are committed to a goal of reaching zero discharge of organochlorines from kraft mills by the year 2002, and that is indeed a goal. What is required, though, under the regulation is for the companies to file a plan on how to reach that; first, an interim plan, and then a final plan to be filed with the ministry by the end of 1998. I should point out to the member that two of the kraft mills in northern Ontario already can meet the 0.8, and all of them can already meet the 1.5. We don't believe this to be an onerous regulation at all, but one that will assist us in cleaning up the environment. I thank the member for the opportunity to clarify.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that was submitted to me by a Mr Dave Switzer in the village of Frankford in my riding and is signed by many other people, and I'd like to read it if I may.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas there is a great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

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

I add my name to this petition.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise again in the House to add these signatures to the thousands that have already come forth against casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very pleased to affix my signature hereunto.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Please be informed that we are highly opposed to Bill 164. We feel that the passage of Bill 164 would increase auto claim costs and therefore premiums by 20%. It would also force drivers in low-risk groups to pay higher rates, subsidizing higher-risk drivers. As a result, over 80% of all drivers would pay more.

"We feel the government should stay out of the auto insurance business and deal with more important issues, such as the high unemployment rate."

It's signed by approximately 50 residents of Fergus and Fort Erie, Ontario.

WEST SCARBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMUNITY CENTRE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I've got a petition submitted to me by the West Scarborough Neighbourhood Community Centre asking for support. In the city of Scarborough, there are over 21,000 residents of Italian origin. Few ethnocultural groups exist for this community with the exception of the bridging project with West Scarborough Neighbourhood Community Centre.

Through this program over 500 people, largely seniors, enjoy many valuable social, educational, recreational, cultural and health programs and services. Moreover, the programs serve to bring the scattered communities throughout Scarborough together.

It is hoped that the government will respond to the plea of this community and that they would warrant the assistance of this government to make sure that this project comes into being.

GAMBLING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I've a petition from about 30 residents of Scarborough East calling for the government to immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have two petitions. The first is on behalf of Mrs Iona Lynch and hundreds of people in the Matawatchan and Whitney portion of south Nipissing in my constituency, and these people are extremely concerned about not being able to retain, on a full-time basis, a medical practitioner under the underserviced area program and are petitioning the province of Ontario that this deficiency in health care provision be remedied forthwith.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your second one?

WOLF POPULATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): The second petition I proudly present on behalf of Reeve Gilbert Welk, the reeve of Brudenell and Lyndoch township and hundreds of other citizens in Renfrew county who are extremely concerned about the dramatic growth in the wolf population. I'll just read a very short portion of this.

"Whereas the wolf population is increasing in rural areas of Renfrew county to the point where wolves are attacking domestic farm dogs, killing newborn calves, attacking sheep herds and wounding animals that farmers have to destroy;

"We petition the government that action be taken to remedy the situation, in part, by reinstating the wolf bounty."

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have another petition which I would like to present. It has been sent to me by a Mr Keith Bottoms from the city of Trenton, along with many other signatures, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas it is the duty of a free people to constantly guard and, if necessary, defend their freedoms; and

"Whereas it is the duty of the police officers of Ontario to exercise primary responsibility for upholding and enforcing the laws which guarantee these freedoms; and

"Whereas the people, through their Legislature, must fully support and not encumber the said police officers in the lawful performance of this very important duty; and

"Whereas police work inherently involves life-threatening situations, many of which cannot be seen in advance; and

"Whereas the police officer must therefore be allowed sufficient discretion to defend himself from these situations, with full accountability after the fact; and

"Whereas the new use-of-force regulations may well cause a police officer to pause momentarily before taking appropriate defensive measures, to the detriment of his life;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that in order to allow the police officers of Ontario to continue to perform their duties in the fine manner to which we have been accustomed, without undue restrictions on their right to defend themselves, we ask this House to reject and cancel the implementation of the proposed new use-of-force regulations."

I add my name to this petition.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order around the petitions, if I might: Yesterday, I attended at a public meeting with the honourable Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Environment and Energy, as he now is called, and I received a petition of some 15,564 people in the province to present to the Legislature with respect to the issue of Bruce A and making sure that it continued in operation and that the people of the province had reasonably priced power.

Mr Speaker, my question to you is around the circulation of that petition to ensure that the petition itself will go to the broadest number of people. I presume that if I bring it here to this place, it is appropriate only to circulate it to the Minister of Environment and Energy and that this is all the duty the Legislative Assembly requires.

It seems to me, sir, that because of the interesting nature of the relationship between Hydro and the minister, my point of order really is to inquire whether or not the Legislative Assembly will forward it also to Ontario Hydro, because of its unique content and because of the attempt by the government of today to distance itself from the decision of the chairman, or at least the type of decision taken by the chairman.

I wonder if I can count on the Legislative Assembly to forward it not only to the minister, but also in its entirety to the chairman of Hydro so that he and the board members will be aware that 15,564 people in the province have signed a petition over a very short period of weeks asking that the Bruce A plant stay in operation, and in fact asking that the viability study, which was halted by the chairman of Hydro be completed so that we can have the full story on Bruce A and its operation.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On the point of order.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the point of order, yes, Minister?

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm sure that the member did not intend to give a speech but rather really wanted to express his concerns about how the petition might be forwarded. I would say to you, Mr Speaker, that it is my understanding as a member of this House for a number of years that a petition to the Legislature is also often addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. So that then is to the whole government, and in fact from the tradition of an ordinary citizen being able to petition the crown.

I would say that therefore a petition going to the assembly is directed not just to the Minister of Environment and Energy but to the whole government, and frankly I'd be happy to turn over the petition to the chair of Ontario Hydro.

The Speaker: Indeed, the minister seems to have answered the inquiry by the honourable member for Bruce. I will say to the member for Bruce, first of all, that I appreciate the point he's brought to my attention. Indeed, the procedures are quite clear, and the minister's correct: The petitions are addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It is not up to the assembly to forward the petitions to crown agencies, of which Ontario Hydro is one. However, the minister has made an undertaking to in fact do as you had asked and that would seem to be a good resolution to the request.

Are there any other petitions?

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition signed by nearly 700 people in my area.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health is proposing to reduce the budget of the 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals by $45 million without first having developed community services for the seriously mentally ill; and

"Whereas we believe that this measure will have tragic results for those individuals who have major illnesses such as schizophrenia, which afflicts one out of 100 people at some time during their lives and places an enormous burden on them and their families if left untreated,

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

"We, the Kingston

chapter of Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics, and others who support us wish to petition the Ontario Legislature not to cut back the funding to those people who need care and services in our psychiatric hospitals and in the community."

I affix my name to this petition.

RESPONSE TO PETITION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Again, concerning petitions, under standing order 36(h) -- and I will read it for you -- "Within eight sessional days of its presentation, the government shall file a response to a petition with the Clerk of the House and shall provide a copy of the response to the member who presented the petition."

Under this standing order, I would like to bring to your attention that while there may have been some materials being filed with the Clerk, there has not been, to my knowledge at least, on several occasions from members of our caucus, a receipt of that filing by the government.

It may be that they have omitted to send notice or the filing of the copy with the Clerk's table to the members. If that is so, sir, I would ask that a report be obtained from the Clerk as to the number of filings that he currently has in his possession and that we then will be able to seek the copies from the government as they are required to provide for us within the eight sessional days.

As you know, Mr Speaker, I probably wouldn't stand on this point of order this early in the session, except that we have come to discover that if we overlook any part of our standing orders at any time, it is taken as being a consent to a change of the standing orders. We know from past habits that the standing orders are being manipulated far too often for our liking and it is causing us considerable concern about our ability to provide dissent and provide some opposition to the matters that are being brought forward to be studied by the government party.

So, Mr Speaker, I would ask, if you could, to verify that all petitions in the last session were reported to the Clerk and that, if there were some omissions, we should pursue those, because the petitioners require a response and we, as their representatives, require that copy so that we can pursue our duties.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Bruce raises a concern and one which I would share with him. The standing order is there to ensure that the petitioner receives a response and that the government responds within eight days.

I think the member can appreciate that there is quite a volume of petitions that are filed during a session. We will, however, endeavour to track down the information which he seeks. This may take a little bit of time, but we'll do our best. Of course, at the same time, we would ask that, if at all possible, the minister to whom the petition is directed would respond as quickly as possible so that no one is inconvenienced.

Mr Elston: Sir, I should apologize. Of course the volume of petitions is extremely high. What I should do, I think, in fairness to the Clerk and the table, because there are a number of these, perhaps I should go to at least the members I know about and first identify them so that I can bring their names and the dates, roughly, to the Clerk.

If there is a problem, by the way, that the eight sessional days are passing without the filing and if there is a problem with many of these petitions not being properly responded to, I think that perhaps in a general sense we should do something about it. We should require absolute compliance with the petition standing orders. We can't put anything on the table that's not in good form, but if they get there and if they are in proper form, then we ought to be assured that there is a response.

I sense that there are a number of non-replied-to petitions, and if that is the case, then I think we ought to pursue that here in this House to force compliance. By the way, I might ask, if that is the case, what can we do to force compliance with the standing orders?

The Speaker: It may be of some disappointment to the member to learn that there are no sanctions. There's a standing order. It asks that certain things be done. If the eight days, for example, are not complied with, there is no particular penalty for that.

I would certainly agree with the member's point that the standing orders should be adhered to, just as all standing orders should be. It would be helpful, of course, as he mentions, if he could give us specifics as to which petitions have not been responded to that were in acceptable form, and I would certainly urge all involved to provide answers as quickly as possible.

Mr Elston: One final point, one observation, Mr Speaker. I understand this. I know your patience is growing a little thin, but it looks like the only people against whom there is any ability to enforce the standing orders are in fact the minority. If in fact there is a clause in here that prevents us from speaking more than four days, because a motion comes on or whatever under the new rules, then a vote of the majority can