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

June 25, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the third annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario for the year ending 31 December 1990.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr Chiarelli: This is what I told the House at the last recess, 18 December:

"Ontario is sadly disappointed by the performance of the Minister of Financial Institutions.

"Over the past session, what have we seen in the way of needed legislative protection and reform from this minister? Diddly-squat. Zero. What have we seen for the 40,000 people whose uncertain future livelihood will hinge on his Utopian pie-in-the-sky scheme for driver-owned auto insurance? Nothing. What have we seen in the way of protecting Ontario's savings and loan industry in the wake of federal reform? Nothing. What have we seen in the area of safeguards for financial consumers in the wake of a collapsing real estate market and loose control of mortgage brokers? Nothing. On pension reform? Nothing.

"What have we seen to address the uncertain status of the Ontario Securities Commission? Nothing.

"Despite the recession and mounting job losses across the province, not once has the minister stood in this House to announce a program, make a statement or to introduce a bill to alleviate some of the uncertainty and increase protection for consumers and investors alike in these volatile economic times.

"Has the Premier dispatched his cowboy minister out on to the range, never to be heard from again?"

Yes, the member for Welland-Thorold is gone, and at this recess the new minister gets the same grade: diddly-squat, zero. He has done nothing.

TAXATION

Mr Stockwell: Today is the day that Ontarians, the most heavily taxed people in the country, can finally start working for themselves, after having spent the last 175 days working for governments. It is a pity that governments do not spend more time working for the average Ontario family, which spends about half its income on taxes.

Again this year, Ontarians are the last Canadians to celebrate tax freedom day. The old adage "better late than never" is probably not going to be sufficient to forestall a long overdue tax revolt in this province.

Death and taxes may be inevitable, but Ontario taxes are becoming the more painful. Contributing to the pain is the fact that taxpayers are no longer receiving quality services in return for their tax dollars. If we were to apply the principles of value-for-money auditing to the current crop of greedheads occupying the government benches, there would be millions of taxpayers in line for refunds.

As it stands, however, they are only in line for another increase in the gasoline tax next 1 January. At the rate the NDP is going, by the end of its term we will be observing tax freedom day and Labour Day concurrently. The prospect is enough to make most of us in the province hope that Thanksgiving Day comes early, as on that day we will get rid of all these turkeys. If you throw in the deficit, it would be some time in August before people would start earning money for themselves. Unbelievable.

FAMILY FARMS

Mr Mills: Many of my constituents in Durham East live and work in rural communities. There are more than 2,000 farms in the Durham region, and a large number of them are family farms located in Newcastle and Scugog.

As all members from rural ridings know, family farms have been suffering for some time. High interest rates, unstable commodity prices and the recession have all had a devastating impact on farmers in Durham East.

But farmers are pleased that our government is helping them in these difficult times through the net income stabilization account and the gross revenue insurance program. They also welcome the farm interest assistance program and the feeder cattle loan guarantee program.

Many of my constituents are concerned about the loss of agricultural land to development and the disappearance of the rural way of life. Long-term planning is crucial to keep family farms viable for the future and to strengthen our rural communities. That is why our government is looking at proposals to deliver long-term affordable credit to farmers.

Much work still remains to be done. There are no easy, quick-fix solutions to the problems facing our farming and rural communities, but farmers I have spoken to are pleased with what we have done so far and with our government's commitment to work in partnership with them to find long-term solutions to their problems and help strengthen rural communities.

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP

Mr Curling: Yesterday the Minister of Citizenship held a press conference to outline her ministry's initiatives over the last nine months. Understandably, it was a rather short meeting. Here are the highlights of the minister's first term.

In March the minister announced she would implement Liberal proposals to strengthen the race relations directorate, which she has renamed the anti-racism secretariat. Five months have passed and the secretariat is still directionless, as its top position has not even been advertised.

Plans were announced to provide core funding to community groups. This funding represents less than 1% of the minister's budget. Five months later, no criteria have been developed and none are expected until late into the year.

The now Premier made a commitment last summer to immediately implement the recommendations of the task force on access to the trades and professions. The community is still waiting to hear from the minister.

A so-called employment equity consultation strategy was announced last week. This consultation will last all of six weeks and will take place at a time when, in the minister's words, "It wouldn't make sense to hold consultations, because people are not available during the summer."

Why then this hollow public relations exercise? Why not reintroduce the member for York South's private member's Bill 172 so the Legislature can get on with the debate and public hearings on this important legislation?

We have heard platitudes about fighting racism and discrimination, but nothing has been done to address concerns about the current ability of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to fulfil its mandate.

Public confidence in the commission is eroding, yet the minister will not look into allegations of discrimination within the commission itself, and despite the findings of a recent report by the provincial Ombudsman the minister has done nothing to address the immediate need for additional compliance officers and other frontline staff at the commission.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Eves: I rise in the House today to bring attention to the intersection of Highways 124 and 69 in McDougall township just outside of Parry Sound.

As a result of my correspondence with him and meetings which we have both attended to discuss this matter, the Minister of Transportation is well aware of my concern and that of others over lack of safety at this intersection.

After much persuasion on the part of local citizens and McDougall council, the previous government agreed to construct an overpass at this intersection. However, completion of this intersection has been postponed by ministry officials twice and MTO now has a scheduled completion date in fiscal year 1992-93.

That is very little consolation indeed for the family of the individual who was killed at this intersection or the four persons who have sustained major personal injuries in accidents at that intersection, the most recent being on 18 June.

Local residents are so concerned about the uncertainty of safe passage at the intersection that the West Parry Sound Board of Education has decided to change its school boundaries and transfer students to another school rather than have them cross this intersection in a school bus. The Ontario Provincial Police division in Parry Sound also agrees that this intersection is totally unsafe.

Surely there is no greater priority than saving lives, and I would suggest that construction of this very important overpass start tomorrow.

JAMES WALKER

Mr O'Connor: In 1934 James Walker started planting trees on his property located in the township of Uxbridge, and he never stopped. Fifty-seven years later he has planted over two million trees and transformed more than 1,000 acres from barren wasteland into productive forest. He has been referred to as Ontario's Johnny Appleseed.

However, unlike the legendary figure who went about scattering seeds wherever he went, Mr Walker's forest is a product of scientific management, careful experimentation and old-fashioned hard work.

Before Mr Walker bought the land, it had been rendered useless by the removal of the huge white pines that had grown up there over the centuries. Without the trees and vegetation to hold the remaining soil, wind and rain washed away the thin topsoil, making the land infertile for agricultural purposes. He started by planting 100,000 quick-growing poplars each year in an attempt to stop the worst of the soil erosion. He has now turned what was once barren land into a forest that by the late 1980s was producing approximately 400 full cords of firewood and 30,000 to 40,000 board feet of hardwood lumber per year.

Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources announced in the House that he was releasing interim guidelines to protect the Oak Ridges moraine. Mr Walker's property is located on the moraine and is part of the headwaters for Duffin Creek. As part of the minister's announcement, he indicated the government was fully committed to the plans of the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to purchase the James Walker --

The Speaker: I realize 90 seconds is not enough.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr Ramsay: Yesterday I put a question to the Minister of Natural Resources regarding his ministry's interest in Pinegrove Forest adjacent to the Rouge River Valley Park.

This site has been recommended by his staff as an area of natural and scientific interest, and I requested that the minister express the corporate position of his ministry to Pickering council. As of 10 o'clock last night, during the council meeting discussing this issue, it was stated that the Ministry of Natural Resources had not informed Pickering planning department that it had concerns.

Why did the minister not inform Pickering council of the natural history value of the site, which his staff people believed deserves protection afforded by the ANSI status?

On the same day the minister expressed concern about natural history protection in the Oak Ridges moraine, he was unable to take this very simple step of informing Pickering of the value his ministry scientists put on this particular site. This was not an oversight, because he was made aware of it yesterday. We can only conclude that natural history protection in the Rouge Valley area is a very low priority with this minister.

I hope he acts more responsibly with respect to the recommendations put to him by the Rouge Valley Park advisory committee. These are that the province apply interim protection controls on land in phase 3 of the park, and seek co-operation from all parties, and that the province provide a commitment that the public lands in the North Pickering greenbelt-agricultural reserve will remain in public ownership.

The Rouge Valley Park advisory committee meets tomorrow, and we are all looking forward to this minister's support for its recommendations.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mrs Cunningham: University Hospital in London, which is internationally known for specialized programs such as the multi-organ transplant program, orthopaedic surgery, the epilepsy unit and in vitro fertilization, to name a few, recently announced it would be closing 47 beds and the entire ninth floor by 1 November 1991. Closing beds seems to be the only way they can receive the tax dollars needed to maintain the services they have been providing for years. The volume of transplant patients has increased, yet the revenue generated to perform this specialized surgery has not.

This short-term solution could jeopardize the integrity this hospital has worked so hard to develop for over 18 years. By closing hospital beds, the number of transplants and other operations that so many people desperately need will decrease and, as a result, patients will be forced to seek treatment in the United States, which will cost Ontario taxpayers substantially more. Physicians, some with specialties that Canada has supported with education tax dollars, will be beckoned to the US and other areas where they are appreciated and welcome.

University Hospital is a provincial and national resource that attracts patients from all over Canada and the world. The hospital has worked for 18 years to become a world-renowned hospital. Because of a lack of provincial government leadership in health delivery management in this province and of a commitment to integrated, cost-effective, long-term provincial policies, University Hospital and others are stuck with short-term, piecemeal decisions that hurt patients, hospital workers and taxpayers.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Mammoliti: I would like to bring to the attention of every member of the House a matter that causes me grave concern.

We are all aware of the major problem of the lack of affordable housing in Metropolitan Toronto. Every member of government at every level, federal, provincial and municipal, must work together to find a solution.

I represent an extremely densely populated riding, Yorkview. Any type of further development in my riding would require careful consideration. Affordable housing is a pressing problem and there has been much dialogue and correspondence between me and the other elected officials representing Yorkview on this issue, as there should be.

To my utter disgust, I have a copy of the correspondence from Mayor Mel Lastman. He, too, has grave concerns on already densely populated neighbourhoods, but he states that he would "consider supporting a condominium development" as opposed to an affordable housing complex in my riding. Condos? Are we to believe that Yorkview is too crowded for non-profit assisted housing but not too crowded for more condos?

What is Mayor Lastman saying? That only certain people, those who can afford condos, need housing, and no one else needs housing? This is a man who will spend millions on an art centre rather than putting the money towards housing projects. Disappointment is not a strong enough word for my feelings on this matter.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS / FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

L'hon. Mme Lankin : J'ai aujourd'hui le plaisir de passer brièvement en revue les améliorations au Programme de subventions accordées aux résidents du nord de l'Ontario pour frais de transport à des fins médicales. Ces changements ont été annoncés par le Trésorier lors de son budget du 29 avril dernier.

Ce programme s'adresse aux résidents et aux résidentes du nord de l'Ontario qui doivent parcourir de grandes distances pour obtenir des soins médicaux spécialisés.

Le gouvernement est sensible aux défis particuliers que pose l'immensité du Nord.

In 1988 and 1989 the NDP task force on northern health care issues travelled throughout northern Ontario for 18 months. Residents of northern Ontario communities spoke passionately about their concerns around health care in the north. Presenters to the task force consistently pointed to improvements that were needed to the health travel grant.

The Ministry of Health agreed with the need to expand the program after a review was completed in 1990, along with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Hospitals, patients, health care professionals, medical societies, and local social and family services were all consulted. These consultations, as well as contributions from many of my colleagues from the north, as well as the member for Parry Sound and the member for Kenora, formed the basis for the changes I am announcing today.

We want to ensure that northern residents receive the quality health care they need and deserve. We believe the expansion of this program is an important improvement to ensure access to necessary health services in the north. The changes I am announcing today will enable more people in the north to qualify for the program.

Beginning 1 July, residents in Parry Sound and all of Nipissing district will be able to make travel grant claims. This change complies with the redefinition of northern Ontario which came into effect for all government programs on 1 June 1989.

In the past people had to travel at least 250 kilometres within northern Ontario or to Manitoba to qualify for the program. The minimum distance required will be reduced to 100 kilometres. As well, patients in the north had to journey at least 300 kilometres for specialized medical care in southern Ontario to be eligible. This requirement will be lowered to 200 kilometres.

Before now, only people accompanying patients under the age of 18 could apply for travel grants. As of 1 July those travelling with patients of any age will be eligible, provided the need for a companion has been recommended by a physician. Program grants will also be expanded to include patients referred to the Speech Foundation of Ontario's Toronto Children's Centre. Patients travelling to abortion clinics licensed under the Independent Health Facilities Act will be eligible as well.

The improvements I have outlined today will increase grants under the program by $3.4 million a year. Since December of 1985 the northern health travel grant program has helped more than 80,000 patients and their travelling companions. It has awarded approximately $35 million in grants for about 212,000 trips.

This program makes health care more accessible for people in the north. As well as assisting with travel costs associated with medical care, the program gives patients the freedom to choose their own practitioner. It also encourages the effective use of health care resources in the north and supports the goal of self-sufficiency in northern health care.

The changes I have outlined today support these goals and will enhance access to health care services for residents of northern Ontario.

FIREFIGHTING

Hon Mr Farnan: I am pleased this afternoon to introduce for first reading a bill that will give the fire marshal and assistants authority to deal more effectively with threats to environmental and public safety.

This bill will amend the existing Fire Marshals Act. It will permit the fire marshal and assistants to issue an order for corrective action where, although the risk of fire is low, the potential environmental consequences of a fire would be high. It would allow the fire marshal and assistants to take the corrective action themselves where fire would cause a serious threat to environmental or public safety and the person responsible is unable or unwilling to do the work. Action could only be taken with authorization from the fire code commission.

Once authorized, this corrective action could be performed even though the original order was under appeal. The appeal process would not prevent or delay necessary corrective work, as is currently the case.

The amendments will also give the fire marshal and assistants power to take remedial action in all buildings and premises where there is an immediate threat to life safety. Currently the fire marshal only has the power to close a building, requiring the tenants to move out until the hazardous situation is remedied. These changes, as well, permit recovery of the costs of any necessary corrective action through a person's municipal taxes or a court judgement. In all cases, there is a right to appeal an order to pay costs.

The proposed amendments will also cover fire protection in areas lacking a municipal government. Fire protection teams currently exist in many such communities in northern Ontario, but there is a need to formalize their existence. We are therefore proposing that these amendments give the fire marshal the power to make agreements for the establishment and operation of fire protection services in communities with no municipal government. As well, the province will have the power to make regulations for the operation and administration of these services.

The proposed amendments also recognize the importance of the mutual aid system, a system that co-ordinates firefighting resources in neighbouring municipalities during an emergency situation. The amendments authorize the fire marshal to appoint fire co-ordinators, determine their duties and provide them with immunity from legal action.

In addition, the revised legislation will expand application of the fire code to cover the occupied parts of buildings under construction or renovation.

I submit for first reading these amendments to the Fire Marshals Act. They will greatly improve the safety and security of Ontario residents.

RESPONSES

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Curling: I am glad the minister brought forward this amendment to the Fire Marshals Act. As a matter of fact, it is Liberal legislation which was introduced in June 1990. Basically it is a Liberal legislative amendment he has brought in. It took him some considerable time to do this. If this is indicative of most of the regulations that are now sitting in the minister's office and not being introduced, we realize that nothing will be done.

I am somehow feeling he did not want this to pass, having introduced it at such a late stage in the game. We have about two days to go before the House adjourns.

We had hoped also that the minister would have taken some action in regard to the coroner's inquest into rooming houses, specifically the recommendations that were made on the Rupert Hotel fire.

We are quite disappointed. We find that in one of the most active ministries in the government, most of the regulations that should have been introduced in many areas have not been done. I hope this is not the way he performs in the coming sessions. I am quite disappointed. But we hope that Bill 22, which was introduced by the then Solicitor General, will be a good guide to the minister.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to respond to the announcement on the northern health travel grants and to say it is rather typical, I think, of the government. The health travel grants were originally implemented by the previous government in 1985. Then the improvements were announced, almost word for word, a year ago in August 1990. Now finally, eight months later, the minister has been able to get around to examining them and finally announcing them.

I raised this issue in the Legislature with the previous minister in November. The response I got then -- the previous minister probably will recall -- was that she is dealing with them and we would be seeing something, I believe the words were, "in the next few weeks." Finally we see the announcement today. Believe me, it is essentially the same announcement that was made last August.

Obviously I am particularly delighted on behalf of my colleague the member for Kenora, who has been pushing very hard for this announcement for some time.

We are pleased to see at last the northern health travel grants coming forward. They are now coming out eight months after they were announced by the previous government. The people in the north have been very much waiting for these announcements to come forward. I would just urge the minister to deal as quickly as she can with many of the issues that are backing up in the Ministry of Health. We really cannot wait eight months for an announcement like this to be analysed and then essentially reannounced.

Mr Miclash: I too would like to say I am pleased the minister has come forth with an announcement regarding the northern health travel grants. As the House will know, this was the topic which I surrounded my resolution with on both 31 May 1990 -- where it received unanimous approval, I must admit -- and then again on 4 April 1991, where it actually did not receive the approval of the NDP caucus. I am just very happy that she has seen fit to go forth today and announce these improvements to that travel grant -- again, as the previous speaker indicated, announcements that were made back in August by the former Premier.

I must point out as well, as the minister will know through my correspondence and my many discussions with her, that a good amount of correspondence to my office has been concerning the travel companion, concerning the distance and concerning many other things surrounded by this. Again, I am happy to be able to report back to my constituents that we are finally moving ahead in terms of meeting their needs in terms of health care throughout the north.

Again, I would just like to say I am happy, even though it did take a couple of resolutions and a good amount of time, to see these coming forth from the government.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Carr: I think I speak for all members when I say we all believe the fine men and women across this province who are working in our fire departments are doing a terrific job. I would also say that anything we can do to support those men and women in their task would be met with support from all members of the House, and I think some of the measures they talk about in terms of fire protection to help some of the municipalities would be a good thing.

When we talk about some of the things like the immediate threat to life, however, we are going to be very interested to see how those things are defined. The problem we have with this government is that when we get involved with regulations, we are a little bit sceptical and a little bit concerned. The last time we had any regulations that were doctored in this province, the people of this province lost the oath to the Queen, so you can rest assured that when it comes to changing the regulations in this province, we will be very mindful and will be watching the Solicitor General.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Eves: I would like to comment on the statement made today by the Minister of Health. I never thought I would actually live to see this day when the riding of Parry Sound, in its entirety -- meaning the district of Parry Sound and the district of Nipissing, both of them in their entirety -- was finally included in northern Ontario for the purposes of northern health travel grants.

This a promise that has been made by succeeding premiers, ministers of Northern Development and ministers of Health over the last fair number of years, I think it is fair to say.

I recall back to 1988 when the then Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the then Premier of the province promised that the Parry Sound riding would be included in its entirety in northern Ontario for the purposes of all provincial government ministries, boards, agencies and commissions, only to find out about a year later, on 1 June 1989, when the changes went into effect, that several ministries still refused to recognize Parry Sound as part of northern Ontario. One of these was the Ministry of Health and another was the Ministry of Natural Resources, to name a couple.

We then pursued that matter at some length. It took an election campaign, during which -- 14 August 1990, I believe the date was -- the Premier of the province, Mr Peterson, appeared in Parry Sound at a barbecue to which he had all of about 50 red-T-shirted people in attendance, I believe. That is an increase compared to previous elections, actually; I want to get that on the record. Obviously that was a big waste of time because not only did he not do anything in that riding in the election campaign; he also failed to deliver on his promise to include Parry Sound district and Nipissing district in northern Ontario for the purposes of the northern health travel grant program.

I would be very remiss if I did not mention in my comments here today the efforts of many municipal officials and concerned people in the districts of Parry Sound and Nipissing. It is the people who are less fortunate in society who benefit from a program such as this. It is for those people that I think everybody has been fighting for a great number of years now to have this program include the people in this district in their entirety.

I have received literally hundreds of letters and phone calls over the last two to three years with respect to this particular problem. Some of those stories are very sad indeed, especially with respect to people who require cancer treatment. They often have had to come to Toronto for treatment and in some cases literally could not afford to come to Toronto as often as they should for this treatment. I am pleased that these people will now have that opportunity, an opportunity that unfortunately for many has been lost over the last few years.

For those in the future it has been gained, and I would sincerely like to extend my thanks to the minister today for her commitment.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FUEL CONSERVATION TAX

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Treasurer. I have examined his statement yesterday as carefully as possible and read the statements made by the Treasury officials. Can he confirm that the former gas guzzler tax as he announced it in the budget would impact on about 10% of the cars sold in Ontario and that his Bob White fine-tuning will impact on about 99% of the cars sold in Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, I can confirm those numbers very roughly and assure the leader of the official opposition that when we made the change we thought very carefully about the fact that more cars now would be subjected to the fuel conservation tax. We all know a lot of the cars that now will have a fuel conservation tax could not be categorized as gas guzzler automobiles. We appreciate that fact.

However, the member will notice that the more fuel-conservative the car is, the less tax is paid, until you get right down to the point of the most fuel-conservative automobiles, where there is for the first time anywhere in North America a $100 rebate on the purchase of those automobiles.

Mr Nixon: I appreciate the confirmation from the Treasurer. I remember a year ago when he was talking about a minimum tax on corporations. It appears this has transformed itself into a minimum tax on automobiles. Frankly, I have never seen the cars that are not only exempt but carry with them a $100 cheque from the Treasurer. They are a little small for people like me. On the other hand, the Treasurer may have a fleet of them; I do not know.

It seems to me that his commitment to a minimum tax has finally been fulfilled, since every car sold in Ontario except for less than 1% will carry a minimum tax of $75, and upward from there.

Can the Treasurer explain why he feels this is going to do anything other than augment his revenue? In fact, it will have little or no impact on the environment but will have a substantial impact on reducing whatever buoyancy there is in the car market as it fights against the depredations of NDP policy.

Hon Mr Laughren: I must take issue with what the leader of the official opposition says. If we had not consulted so widely on the change, perhaps I would give some credence to what he says. I can tell him that the automobile manufacturers say this is a much better package than the previous one; the Canadian Auto Workers, the union representing the workers, says it is a much better tax; the automobile dealers say it is a better tax; and, quite frankly, environmentalists in the province are very pleased with this tax as well. I think it is not appropriate for the leader of the official opposition to depict this tax as anything other than a much better package than the previous one.

Mr Nixon: I am not sure all of the people of the province would agree with the tax as the Treasurer sees it. As a matter of fact, it looks as if it were dreamt up by the same geniuses who thought of the tire tax, if members know what I mean. But in the case of the tire tax, all of that money, as the former Minister of the Environment will tell members, went to support the environmental budget. We were very proud of that accomplishment. At least we not only made that commitment but were able to see that it was fulfilled.

In this instance, I know members would agree with me that this is nothing more than a tax grab. For the Treasurer of Ontario to allow the Minister of Finance for Canada to put the GST of 7% on these cars, and then to put his own 8% on in parallel and then a minimum $75 on top means that he is seriously damaging this industry. Surely the people who are contemplating the purchase of a new car will postpone it on that basis.

What steps is the Treasurer going to take to see that there will not be a reduction in car sales and that in fact he has not further damaged this industry, which is one of the basic foundations of our economy?

Hon Mr Laughren: The fact is that the previous tax was higher on a lot of the categories than is this one. It should not be too difficult to understand that if you are going to reduce the amount of tax on a certain number of vehicles, then you broaden the base. You broaden the base so that the revenue base is not eroded. I do not think there is anything unreasonable about that.

What I find difficult to understand is how the leader of the official opposition sets himself up as a better expert on the automobile industry than the manufacturers, than the unions that represent the workers. I do not understand why the leader of the official opposition does not understand that those people with the most at stake are very supportive of this rearranged tax, and he should be too.

Mr Nixon: I discount Bob White's approval, but the president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada, Donald McArthur, has said, "As the tax stands now, it will damage the automobile industry at a time when it is just beginning to recover from recession."

FOOD BANKS

Mr Nixon: I want to move my attention to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who, along with her party, promised the elimination of food banks.

The minister is aware that the Canadian Association of Food Banks predicted that two million Canadians, 700,000 of them children, will require emergency food assistance in 1991. That is a 40% increase from 1990. The facts and figures in Toronto indicate that year over year the demand is up 48%. Here in Toronto the Daily Bread Food Bank is now supplying food to over 50,000 young people per month. Food banks in Ontario are now feeding 275,000 people a month.

I would like to ask the minister, although she has already conceded many months ago that she will not be able to abolish food banks, how she is getting along in providing programs that are going to at least level out the increase in demand on the food banks in Ontario, and particularly Toronto.

Hon Ms Akande: The Leader of the Opposition will recall that this government has dedicated and addressed itself to removing the need for food banks. In an attempt to do that, we have been quite effective in moving many of the Back on Track recommendations towards achieving those ends. We have made it possible for single parents to hold on to more of their income because we have taken out the tax and reduced the tax and increased the level of income they may acquire before they pay Ontario tax.

We have directed many of the single parents towards back-to-work programs and retraining programs. Many of them have been quite effective and are now earning income and gradually moving off social assistance rolls. We have indeed moved in the direction to which we dedicated ourselves, that of reducing the need for food banks.

Mr Nixon: I could not hear all the details, but the minister will understand that her answer boils down to the fact that her government has increased the payments to the needy people by 2%, from the 5% that was allocated in the previous budget to 7%. The problem here is that many people do not realize there are hundreds and thousands of people who depend on this. Many of them voted for the NDP because they felt it more sincerely put forward the concept that it could do something about the problem. Now it is 48% worse than it was. The Daily Bread Food Bank is rationing food, and now instead of 15% of these young people going hungry on a daily basis, it is as many as 25%.

Most of us, believe it or not, are well fed. Most of the people who may be watching this exchange are looking out at one of the best crop years in the history of our province. It seems incredible that the NDP, which very properly was critical of inadequacies in the past, has not been able at least to move in the direction of a solution. In fact, it is getting worse.

Can the minister not give us some specific plan that is going to come to grips with this situation, moving at least in part towards the solid promise and commitment that she and her colleagues made a year ago?

Hon Ms Akande: We have in fact identified what we are doing. We have dedicated $215 million, which by the way the opposition at that time said was excessive, towards directing services to make sure they are fairer, to make sure those people who need those services and that support the most get it, and towards a back-to-work initiative so that in fact people are receiving a great deal of assistance.

It is unfortunate, though, that while we are doing this with such dedication and determination, we are affected by the policies of the federal government, which make it impossible for us to contradict what is happening in terms of unemployment, in terms of its removal from support on unemployment insurance and in terms of its continuing with the cap on CAP. Yes, our determination has not changed.

Mr Nixon: The minister and all members of this House know that the year-over-year increase in the budget was 13.4%, probably the largest in history. The minister and all members in this House know that instead of the regular $200-million increase for the 22,000 medical practitioners, the budget found $484 million extra and it found $220 million extra for the civil servants. The minister has allocated an extra $1 million to food banks, which is 40 cents per month per customer.

Is she satisfied with this? Does she not understand that, I suppose because of political realities, the pressure on her on this matter has decreased, but the numbers out there are still going hungry and her commitment has not been fulfilled or even nearly fulfilled?

Hon Ms Akande: Yes, we do understand. These people are real to us, and we have addressed many of the programs we have in order to meet their needs. Certainly the supports to employment program has done that, the employment opportunities program has done that and our anti-recession program has done that, and we have met with much success.

The thing I must emphasize is that while we continue to work this way, there are other forces, the recession for one and the unemployment numbers for another, which work to add more and more people to the needy. I would mention to the Leader of the Opposition that when one increases social assistance from 5% to 7%, it does make for an overall 40% increase.

COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES SPENDING

Mr Harris: My question as well is for the Minister of Community and Social Services, and perhaps explains why there is not enough money for those who truly need assistance.

I recently received a copy of a letter to the Premier which I believe was also sent to the minister. My copy was received about four days ago. It is from a civil servant in her ministry's central regional office. The letter states in part:

"At a time when welfare rolls are increasing, food banks are strained, the number of homeless is growing, many of us are outraged by the spending of the senior management in central region. Rather than holding senior management meetings in the boardrooms, the staff frequent resorts and hotels all over southern Ontario and in Metro."

Would the minister tell us if, four days after receiving this letter, she has investigated this alleged abuse and waste of tax dollars? What does she have to say about the spending priorities of her ministry's staff when we hear of food banks and those who are needing assistance and we see this kind of spending by her ministry's senior staff? Could she tell us the results of that investigation?

Hon Ms Akande: Yes, I have received the letter and I have set about, although not as promptly as the leader of the third party has, to ask questions, and those questions are directed.

I would want to correct the member, though, in that he has assumed the spending is excessive and unusual. I was surprised -- I might say I was appalled -- to find out about the practices of both of our previous governments in terms of the use of hotels and extravagant settings. If anything, we have reduced that spending and we intend to continue.

Yes, I am interested in finding the answers, and when I do, I will share them with the member in this House.

Mr Harris: I would suggest that if the minister spent more time looking at what is going on today instead of re-reading history from 42 years ago, we might have more money for food banks and for the needy and for the hungry.

I was quoting a civil servant in her ministry who is appalled. That is who sent the minister the letter anonymously, because she has not changed the rules as she promised for the whistle-blowing legislation.

While she was asking questions, let me tell her about what is going on next. The SkyDome Hotel has confirmed a three-day extravaganza for senior staff in the central region office at the end of July. Nine rooms have been booked at a cost of $90 per night per person. An interoffice memo, which incidentally staff are directed to destroy and take out of the computer after reading, says, "There will be a voluntary evening session on July 31, which includes the Cleveland Indians and the Toronto Blue Jays."

Unless these two teams have joined the minister's staff, does she not think this three-day retreat, compliments of Ontario taxpayers, is at the very least improper and irresponsible?

Hon Ms Akande: I must express my appreciation to the leader of the third party for the express information he has given me. I must be clear with this House. Let us be frank. I will deal with this immediately and I do appreciate it. But I am interested in history, because unless we learn our history, we are condemned to repeat it, and that would be the last thing we would want to do.

Mr Harris: The minister had the letter at the same time I had. The Premier had the letter at the same time I had. It is tough over here, with our resources, keeping track of every ministry. One would think the minister could look after her own.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: I know it is tough for the minister to hear because her own caucus will not shut up but, if they would like to hear, I think the minister has a problem.

In addition to nine rooms, a two-level suite has been booked at a cost of $350 per night for two nights. That suite is reserved for the director of central region. That director works and lives in Toronto, yet taxpayers are going to spend $700 to put her up in a luxurious suite at the SkyDome. This may be how Bob White and the Treasurer plan to pay down the SkyDome's debt, but I think it is shocking that, according to this letter, we are going to pay down the SkyDome's debt instead of looking after the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the food banks that were raised by the leader of the Liberal Party.

We have already spent thousands of dollars to give this director a bigger office, colour TV, china for 50 people, so she could hold these things in her own office -- redecorated it, a bigger office. While children are going hungry, where are the minister's priorities?

Hon Ms Akande: My priorities are where they always are. I have already expressed some surprise and some concern and I will continue to do so. Let me reiterate my promise to the leader of the third party. I certainly will get complete and specific information and share it directly with the member in this House.

INMATE SECURITY

Mr Carr: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. The minister may have read the headline that was in one of our papers in the Hamilton area: "Guard Watched While An Inmate Was Killed." The

article said:

"Two guards watched while a 63-year-old inmate was beaten to death by an enraged cellmate in one of the jails. Under jail regulations, the guards were powerless to intervene, an Ontario court jury was told. The third guard had to be present before they could intervene."

What is the minister doing to ensure that incidents like this do not happen in Ontario?

Hon Mr Farnan: All I can say to the member is that our policy is under review.

Mr Carr: The Minister of Correctional Services will also note that one of the staff psychiatrists who was testifying said the man was likely suffering from an acute psychiatric episode, which had started before the victim had arrived at the facility. After this incident, he was moved out of the dormitory and placed in a two-person protective custody cell, which was already housing another individual. We had a situation where a man had been violent with the police, he went into protective custody and, as a result of that, the man died. Why was this individual not put in secure protective custody alone, without another prisoner?

Hon Mr Farnan: Whenever a situation like this occurs within an institution, the matter automatically becomes a matter for an inquest. Obviously when the matter is under review in an inquest, it is inappropriate for a comment to be made. That is very clear.

Mr Carr: My concern is that this may be happening and we may be able to prevent deaths. We cannot afford to wait. If there is a problem, I think what the people of Ontario would like to see is that we take corrective actions in case we have another tragedy on our hands.

This would appear to be a case where an individual with a psychiatric disorder was placed in another prisoner's cell as a result of overcrowding. When the minister was in opposition, he said we should take action to reduce the overcrowding in our prisons. This very clearly is a case where, as a result of the overcrowding, we have now had a death. What is the minister doing to make sure that anybody with any psychiatric problems is not being put in a cell with other individuals where he may inflict punishment upon them?

Hon Mr Farnan: Within our system we are responsible for a large range of individuals, many of them requiring treatment. We have facilities that range from Ontario Correctional Institute, where there are very, very excellent treatment programs that compare with the best in the world. It is our continuing intent to give the best level of treatment to all of those within our care. That continues to be our goal. At the same time, the treatment would be geared to the individual. We also have a responsibility for security and for the people who work within our system. We try to balance all of these and we continue to refine the process as we go along.

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Education. As the minister knows, her ministry provides 100% capital funding for child care centres in new and replacement schools on her priority list. Mr Speaker, you yourself are a Metro member and you are very much aware that in Metro we are not building new schools. However, we are replacing our older schools which desperately need it.

Many of those schools currently have child care centres which should be replaced when the schools are rebuilt, but the Minister of Education is refusing to allow these schools even to go on the waiting list for capital funding for child care. Without this funding, when the schools are rebuilt, the existing child care facilities will not be rebuilt. If these spaces are lost, not only will the associated jobs be lost but more importantly our children will be left without care.

I know of nine replacement schools among the six school boards in Metro where the minister has denied funding for the construction of child care centres. I would ask the minister, when the need has been proven and has been documented, why is she refusing to fund these desperately needed child care centres in Metro Toronto?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is quite right that under the current capital allocation scheme, the situation for Metropolitan Toronto means these replacement schools are not entitled to child care funding, as she stated. The Minister of Community and Social Services and I are very aware of this problem and have been talking at some depth about how the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which is the lead ministry in terms of child care, and the Ministry of Education might find some way to collaborate to prevent this from happening.

I should point out to the member that this is a concern not only in Metro Toronto, although it is most urgent in Metro Toronto, but in some other areas where previously unused school space has been converted to child care space and now, with the increased demand, there is a real need for this.

We are very aware of it. We are trying to deal with it as best we can under the recession. We can only assure the member that it is not through lack of caring, but through our need to come up with a comprehensive child care plan that is going to address this and similar issues.

Ms Poole: This is more than a matter of caring; this is a matter of equity. All we want in Metro Toronto is our fair share for child care. By restricting funding for child care to the construction of new schools and by denying it for replacement and renovated schools, the minister has clearly discriminated against Metro. How can she justify it?

She cannot deny that the need in Metro is particularly acute. We have the highest number of single parents in the province and we receive no funding from the province for education. We know the minister has saved $2 million by cutting the Ontario scholar award. If she insists on making that cut, why does she not do something worth while with the money and give Metro its fair share for child care?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is well aware that under the general legislative grants there is a formula that was intended to ensure some equity. It is a formula that is based on the assessment base of municipalities and on an equalized mill rate. Under that formula, Metropolitan Toronto is entitled to no grants, either capital or operating, at the present time. We have indicated very clearly that we do see problems with equity in this. We have made a commitment in this House many times to look at the financing of education, to revisit this whole issue of how are funds are divided in the province, and certainly we see this as a first call.

I should remind the member that during the discussion of Bill 30, we clearly indicated our intention of changing the regulations to allow replacement and renovated schools to include child care facilities. That still will not affect Metropolitan Toronto under the current allocation grants. The member is quite right that we need to be looking at this and finding ways to attain more equity and funding of education across the province. At the present time, however, until we do that study, we are simply not in a position to change our formula willy-nilly.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Premier. Last Friday I met with representatives of the corporation of the city of Brockville and 21 manufacturers representing well over 1,000 jobs in my community. They were expressing concerns with respect to tax levels in this province and administrative costs brought on by legislation, much of it brought in by the former Liberal government. They were talking about proposed legislation that the Minister of Labour and other ministers have talked about.

Today I tabled a resolution from the city of Brockville calling on the Premier to respond to the concerns of these manufacturers, many of whom are suggesting they are going to move out of the province, freeze expansion or even close. Besides inciting 1930s class rhetoric with Conrad Black, what is the Premier planning to do to initiate constructive discussion to resolve the very real concerns of Ontario's business community?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question. I was meeting with the mayor of Brockville, among others, on Thursday when I had an opportunity to talk very directly to him and to the other eastern Ontario mayors about their concerns. I want to say to the member that I think I have had nearly 100 meetings with members of the business community since 6 September.

At the last meeting I had at the Premier's Council, to which I call people together from all sectors of the community, I made it very clear that there is no room in this province for a return to the outdated views of the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s, that we do have to work together, that this government is interested in working with people and that we are determined to do so.

We have also stated very clearly that the policies we bring forward are ones that are going to be discussed with people. I think the Treasurer yesterday showed this very clearly. We had the industry, the manufacturers, the workers, the environmental community and the dealers all on side, and the Treasurer willing to make a creative change. I think we have shown that we are willing to do this and that we are interested in doing this.

Anyone who is in the Premier's chair has to speak on behalf of all the people. That includes the manufacturers of this province as well as the workers of the province. I am interested in working with the manufacturing sector. I have been talking with them and trying to do my best to work with them since becoming Premier. We are going to continue to do that as we face the most difficult structural change we have faced as a province since the Depression.

Mr Runciman: We have heard a lot of rhetoric in this House from the Premier with respect to co-operation and partnership, but reality is something quite different. The response I got from the mayor of Brockville, when he met with the Premier and other mayors from eastern Ontario and raised these very real concerns of manufacturers in eastern Ontario, was that the response from the Premier was less than positive, that he was rather agitated that the matter was raised. That is the response the mayor reports to me.

The business community is sounding the alarm bells. The message is loud and clear. If jobs are to be saved, if business is to remain in Ontario and remain competitive, then the policy direction must change and it must change now. Will the Premier commit to a full consultation with the business community and, in his words, "co-operate with business," or is he hog-tied to his ideological view that capitalism is an offence in NDP Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I must tell the members that since I have a cottage in the member's constituency, I consider myself at least a part-time constituent of the member for Leeds-Grenville.

The member, whose views and outspokenness are well known in the House, has asked me not to be ideological on these questions and I can assure him that is exactly the approach I intend to take. He said, "Will we consult with business?" Of course we will.

We do so with a sense of clear responsibility and with a sense of eager anticipation, because our sense is that the vast majority of business people in this province want to continue to do business in Ontario because they know it is a good place to do business, because the workforce is keen and positive and because the quality and the standard of life have been described, in the latest survey conducted by the World Economic Institute at Davos, as the second-best anywhere in the world.

We happen to think we are in a very difficult period in terms of the economy, but we are determined to work with everyone, I might add including very much the member for Leeds-Grenville.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

The Speaker: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has an answer to a question asked earlier.

Hon Ms Churley: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the question raised yesterday by the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville and, I hear, part-time MPP for the Premier.

It is important that I take a moment to answer this question now, as promised, because after looking into this issue for the member, I realized the reason I had such trouble answering the question. I remembered that when I heard the member's statement a month ago, I had the same trouble with it. The problem is that the question and the statement were distorted; there were inaccuracies in his basic premise. I would like to answer it now.

The member talked about the purchase of surplus grapes by this government. This whole argument seemed to be based on that premise. In fact, it is the federal government that purchases the excess grapes, not the provincial government. We help the grape industry in other ways, but it is the federal government.

He also implied that the LCBO gives preferential treatment to foreign brandy products. This also is not true. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario carries a wide variety of brandy --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat for a moment, please.

Mr Mahoney: I am just trying to help you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I appreciate the help of all members. At this point the greatest help you could be would be to remain quiet so that I can hear the response. I ask the minister to make her response as succinctly as possible.

Hon Ms Churley: I am not sure the member who is concerned about this question was able to hear. I will continue quickly.

The LCBO does carry a wide variety of brandy, including five different sizes of the Rieder Distillery small cask brandy. I would be happy to further enlighten the member on this issue later, if it so pleases the Speaker at this point.

Mr Runciman: That is a very generous offer, that the minister is going to enlighten me, when I raised this issue yesterday and she was not familiar with it at all. In fact, she still does not have her facts straight.

The reality is I was talking about the LCBO not purchasing brandy from an Ontario producer. I am not talking about it having products on the LCBO shelves; of course it does. I am talking about products carrying the LCBO crest, the Ontario crest, that are purchased from France. They are not purchasing Rieder brandy. Rieder brandy is in its own bottles on the shelves of the LCBO. I posed the question to the minister, why does the LCBO not start supporting an Ontario producer, an Ontario distillery and start purchasing brandy from Rieder? It is as simple as that.

Hon Ms Churley: The member still does not have the story straight on this. As I just said, the LCBO sells this particular type of brandy, five different sizes of it, in all its stores across Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take her seat, please. It is not productive to simply shout at each other.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr H. O'Neil: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last year, in response to a questionnaire circulated by the Ontario division of the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Premier stated that he fully supported the Graham report which established a comprehensive model for community mental health services and that he would urge the government to implement it.

Now that the member for Beaches-Woodbine is the Minister of Health, would she explain why we have heard nothing about the Graham report, which emphasizes community-based mental health delivery, and can she tell us, what is her timetable for implementation?

I raise this because I am told by officials of the Hastings-Prince Edward county community mental health program in my riding that there are waiting lists of up to anywhere from three to six months in our area. These are people who require counselling for mental health, suicidal tendencies and sexual abuse.

Hon Ms Lankin: I can give a preliminary response to the member today. I cannot be completely detailed in terms of the time frame at this point in time for implementation. The ministry has been working, as the member is well aware, on a number of the recommendations from the Graham report. Our government is very committed to those recommendations.

I have been reviewing some of the suggestions flowing from the ministry coming out of that, with respect to the community advisory boards working with the psychiatric hospitals and the regional structures that might be put in place to work with the community mental health side of it, in conjunction with some of the planning that would implement those Graham recommendations.

We are currently working on that. In the time I have been in this portfolio it is something I have been getting up to speed on and intend to move ahead with. I cannot give the member an actual time frame right now -- and that is not a matter of stalling; I personally do not know the time frames involved yet -- but I will get that answer for the member.

Mr H. O'Neil: The next question I am going to raise is going to have some shocking figures, at least figures that are very shocking for me. Fundamental to the Graham report is the sense that mental health services need to be integrated to make them responsive and accessible to all who need them. Yet the system in the Hastings and Prince Edward area is so fractured that case loads are being juggled in order to respond to demand.

Even more horrifying is the incidence of suicide over the past 12 months. Staff of the community mental health program in Hastings and Prince Edward counties, a service for children and adults, are aware of seven suicides among teenagers and 22 adult suicides in the last year. I relate that again to the three- to six-month waiting list. Community mental health services in Hastings and Prince Edward counties have submitted a proposal for additional staff to serve the area. We have a crisis in our area. Can the minister tell me how she is prepared to act on it?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member for Quinte indicates that a report has been submitted from the group, and I will undertake to review that report expeditiously. However, I know reports such as that are being activated from many areas around the province through the district health councils and through working with the mental health community out there. Quite frankly, I share his sense of urgency about moving in this area. Some of those reports are further developed in both their community development and the review by the ministry.

I know the areas of Durham, for example, are looking at the catchment area for Whitby Psychiatric Hospital and the community mental health services there. That has been under review for some time and there are some suggestions coming forward in that area.

I will undertake to look at the specific report the member is referring to, from that area of the province, but I suggest it is in the context of a shortage of services across the whole province that need to be addressed.

PAY EQUITY FUND

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health in her capacity as Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. The hospitals in Ontario have been waiting for approximately four and a half months to access the pay equity assistance fund initially announced by the Treasurer on 11 February 1991. At that time he announced some $100 million was being set aside by the Treasury. Then in his budget of 29 April he announced that a further $25 million was being set aside to help with pay equity costs for different transfer agencies such as hospital boards, municipalities and boards of education across the province.

Hospitals across this province have been closing beds and laying off staff. As my colleague alluded to earlier, a university hospital in London last week announced the closing of the entire ninth floor; 57 beds are being closed and between 75 and 100 people are being laid off at this one hospital alone. Could the minister please tell the House, and more particularly the hospitals in the province, why they have had to wait almost a quarter of the way through the fiscal year and still have not gained access to this fund?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member raises a number of issues in the

preamble to his question. I would like to try to address a couple of those so I can give him as full an answer as possible.

With respect to the hospital budget process, as I have responded a number of times to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who has raised this issue, as of next week we should be receiving all of the budgets from the hospitals. The deadline is currently the middle of June. We will have a chance to review the implications of those budget cuts in a number of areas. Having said that, there are also a number of formulas of growth and equity funding. We are reviewing the reports from the various hospitals to try to put this in place.

I met with the Ontario Hospital Association on Friday morning, with the assistant deputy minister of institutional health there, and I gave an undertaking to expedite that process and get that money to the hospitals this fall. We are working closely with them. They admitted that the hospitals themselves are part of the problem.

Mr Speaker, you are getting anxious but there were several parts to the question.

With respect specifically to the question about pay equity funding that the member raises, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics is currently working --

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please. If it is of help, sometimes if there are quite detailed responses to the members they might best be put in written form or on Orders and Notices. We do try to limit the amount of time for responses.

Mr Eves: With respect to the minister's remarks, I have talked to the OHA. Officials there tell me they have asked her ministry several times how they could access this fund and, including her meeting with them last Friday, they are still in the dark as to how they can access it. In fact, they indicated to me that she told them they should be contacting the Treasurer to see how they could access the fund. This does not coincide with what the Treasurer said on 11 February in this House when he stated, "The ministries responsible will be in touch with the major transfer groups to explain how to access these funds."

The OHA says that it has been in touch with her ministry several times and that her ministry does not know how to access the fund. They claim she indicated to them on Friday that they should talk to the Treasurer. The Treasurer said on 11 February that they should talk to her. What is going on over there and why can these people not get access to this money?

Hon Ms Lankin: That is a fair question. With all due respect to the ruling of the Speaker, I have to say that if members are going to ask very long, detailed questions, it is only fair that we get a chance to respond or we will be criticized by the members of the opposition.

Specifically to respond to the question the member asked, I did meet with the OHA on Friday morning. I genuinely do not recall suggesting to them that they should contact the Treasurer; I believe I said those discussions were ongoing with Treasury. If I left that impression with them, it was incorrect and I can correct that and speak with them directly.

The member is quite correct that our ministry will be giving them the response directly. That is what the Treasurer said and that is what we will be doing. We are currently working with the Ministry of Treasury and Economics to develop a plan of how the transfer payment agencies will access that. The member is right in that we have not got that finalized yet. We have informed the OHA of that. I told them that as of Friday morning and we will get to them as soon as we can with a response.

The Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources has an answer to a question asked previously.

ROUGE VALLEY

Hon Mr Wildman: Yesterday the member for Timaskaming raised a question with regard to an area of natural and scientific interest, an ANSI, in Pickering near the Rouge Valley. I have some details in response to that question.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wildman: Does he want an answer or not? The proposed subdivision development is adjacent to the Rouge River ANSI that was referred to in my response yesterday. The ministry has not identified a great blue heron nesting site actually within the 55-hectare Bramalea development area. The ministry will continue to protect the species where their rookeries are located in the Rouge Valley.

The development has been given draft approval and commitments have been made by the municipality under the Planning Act, but last night the municipality deferred final approval until August. The ministry is currently reviewing the subdivision plan to determine the impact of storm water runoff on the surrounding area. We had engineers on the site yesterday and are looking for the developer to ensure that the storm water concerns will be addressed effectively and sensitively.

I will work with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs to review the proposed development and look to the councillors in Pickering to ensure that the local environmental considerations are addressed in the future.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: The members obviously do not want the answer.

Mr Ramsay: I am quite happy to have the answer. I just would like to raise a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is it appropriate and part of the rules of order of the House that after a minister has given an answer to a question properly laid on the previous day, the minister has another opportunity just to stand up and volunteer another question?

The Speaker: A point of order, yes, indeed. When members ask questions to which the minister promises a response, the minister then can respond, to which the member who originally asked the question has an opportunity for a supplementary in answer to that, of course, and then back to the rotation normally followed, in this case another member from your caucus. So the member may pose a supplementary if he wishes.

MINISTER'S OFFICE

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want her to understand that it is a frustration to the opposition, which gets only about four or five questions each day to ask of ministers, when an important question about food banks and homelessness in Toronto is put aside by generalities of the type we had this afternoon in response to my leader's questions.

If we cannot get specific answers from the Minister of Community and Social Services, I wonder whether she can answer these specific questions. We have been advised that in the last few months, notwithstanding the enormous difficulties in funding food banks, the minister was able to allocate, dredge up and spend more than $56,000 redecorating her personal office in the ministry, which was fine when Charles Beer left it.

Will the minister explain why and on whose authority she expended that money, and would she be good enough to tell the people in my riding of St George-St David, which is an enormous homeless and food bank community, how many children would have been fed if that money had been spent on food banks and not on redecorating her couch?

Hon Ms Akande: I am very happy to have this question. As a matter of fact, the member is incorrect. He may visit my office if he doubts that, and so may the others in the opposition. I have not redecorated my office. I have replaced the rug and --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Akande: The carpet has been replaced. The boardroom to which the member refers is now the boardroom of the deputy minister. The carpet has been replaced because of an allergy to mould. We found that mould was growing within the office. There has not been a redecoration of my office.

Mr Scott: I would like to have from the minister an account of what was expended on the decoration of her office. I understand decoration may have another kind of meaning in other parts of Toronto, but for me the purchase of a new rug is decorating the office. I would like to have in the House, from the minister, at the first available opportunity, a list of the purchases that were made to redecorate her office and the cost of them. I do this not because I am opposed to new rugs; I do it because in Metro Toronto the demand for food banks has increased 40% over the year. Can I have the minister's undertaking to have that information tomorrow?

Hon Ms Akande: I would gladly present to the member the information concerning the redecoration of my office. I hope that at that time it will be appropriate for him to correct the information he so eagerly got about its cost, because it is inaccurate. The laying of new carpet is necessary because of health conditions within the office.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. I do not see him here right now. The ministry has not told us he would be away. If he cannot be found, I will put the question to the Minister of Education. I am sure she is aware that in London the trustees recently backed a plan to expand technological studies to all classrooms. They talked about the importance of stressing the need for teaching, technology and technological training in our elementary schools.

This information is not new. It is something that should be done. It has to be encouraged from time to time, but it is absolutely not a major breakthrough in the delivery of education in Ontario. What is needed is co-operation among the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Skills Development and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to get those apprenticeship training programs down into the classrooms where they are most important, where they can not only help our young people become skilled, help Ontario become more competitive but, more important, where they can actually help and support young people to stay in school.

Can the minister advise this House today as to what steps she has taken in moving apprenticeship training programs into the elementary and secondary schools, or specifically the secondary schools, where they are definitely needed?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am very pleased to answer the member for London North. I too was very pleased that our local board of education passed that resolution and I know that the technological renewal grants we have given from the Ministry of Education will assist it and many other school boards across the province to do so.

The Ministry of Education is involved in the restructuring of education. The first piece of that restructuring was to look at the needs for technological education. The consultation that has been out among educators in the province for some time is now complete and the analysis of the feedback from that consultation should be available in the early fall for the major conference where we plan to look at where we are with restructuring.

We are working on with it well. We are working together with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, particularly in terms of the linkages that were recommended in the Vision 2000 report, to ensure that we are linking together the elementary, secondary and post-secondary educational areas in this field.

Mrs Cunningham: Certainly I have been a school board trustee for many years and this change has been necessary for at least the last decade. All previous governments did not act when requested to do so by the young people in this province.

The Minister of Education knows and I know that the ratios of apprentices to journeymen are not sufficient, nor have they been changed or looked at. We need more placements for young apprenticeship people in the province. We have talked about business, government and labour working together; I have not been particularly successful in getting that working. Really, this province and country are sick of rhetoric. What specifically have the minister and the Minister of Skills Development done in order to talk to both business and unions about changing those apprentice-journeyman ratios to date?

Hon Mrs Boyd: At the present time I can certainly tell the member that we have been quite concerned about it. The various actions that could be taken have been discussed on a number of occasions. It is certainly a major issue for the Premier's Council on the Economy and Quality of Life. At the present time, the discussion centres around how to improve that ratio, given the reluctance there has been on the part of many members of our community to do so, and how, from our point of view in education, we can more effectively improve the vision and value of the whole apprenticeship program.

We find that our major task in the elementary and secondary schools is encouraging students and their parents to recognize the value of skilled trades and to try to enter into those. We need the assistance of business and industry and labour in order to raise the profile of those very important professions. We are working hard to do that in our sector and are prepared to work well with Skills Development and the Premier's Council in terms of this issue.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Mills: My question today is for the Minister of Energy.

My constituents have told me through householder mailbacks that one of the most important issues of concern to them is the environment. I know this government's new energy directions show its commitment to the environment by emphasizing conservation and efficiency. How will the proposed changes to the Power Corporation Act further this policy direction and help Ontario Hydro encourage conservation and efficiency?

Hon Ms Carter: It is a pleasure to be able to inform the House how this government is putting Ontario in the lead in North America in energy conservation and efficiency. We are encouraging and enabling Ontario Hydro to look at all energy options and to consider the best interests of the environment and the consumer in making its decisions. A key amendment to the Power Corporation Act allows Ontario Hydro to encourage fuel substitution. For example, in home heating, where natural gas is available, there are environmental and often cost benefits in its use. This will allow Hydro to support the delivery of the type of energy which is most appropriate to the end use.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When the member for Algoma, the Minister of Natural Resources, stood and said he had an answer to a question previously asked, I would have joined the fray at that point, but my colleague the member for Timiskaming stood and raised a point of order.

I think it is quite clear, as we reviewed the Hansard from before, that the minister had never really indicated he was coming back to the House. What he was doing was providing a supplementary answer to a question he already answered yesterday. He answered both parts of the question, and I think, more just for guidance, it happened to be the member for Durham East, and luckily on the third try he finally got his question in.

But the member was disadvantaged and there was no indication that the material the honourable minister was providing to us, although helpful, could not have been sent by dispatch to the member for Timiskaming, rather than coming into question period and actually taking up some more time at that point.

I think it is quite clear there is room in the standing orders, when he has given an undertaking to return with an answer, that he can very well do that. There was no such indication in a review of Hansard. I wish to bring that to your attention only so we can progress with the question period. At that stage, Mr Speaker, we also sort of lost several minutes on the clock.

I just bring it to your attention for information purposes and ask that if people have more material to provide after a question has been asked, maybe they should do it by way of a statement, because this likewise could have been done in a minister's statement today, to supplement information we were given yesterday, and it would have then been able to elicit a reply from my colleague. I just think we must be more precise in what the rules allow. I am quite happy when more information is made available, but there are other mechanisms.

Hon Mr Wildman: I take the comments of the opposition House leader seriously. There was certainly no intention on my part to take up the time of the House. I was attempting to provide information following on from the answer I gave yesterday, that I thought would be helpful to the member for Timiskaming and, frankly, the reason I chose to give an answer in this way was to afford the member the opportunity to have a supplementary question, rather than doing it as a statement. That was my purpose and, frankly, I was surprised that he did not take the opportunity for a supplementary.

I certainly was not intending to waste the time of the House. The information was important and I was doing it as a service to the opposition member. I apologize if I was out of order.

Mr Ramsay: On this point, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Algoma for giving me that opportunity. I did not take advantage of that opportunity because I felt he was out of order and I wanted to bring that to your attention. But I appreciate that opportunity. Obviously, in this case there is a difference of opinion between the Rouge advisory committee and the officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources as to the exact location of this Pinegrove Forest and --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Timiskaming, would you take your seat, please.

Mr Eves: On the same point, Mr Speaker: Just suffice it to say that I concur with the remarks made by the official opposition House leader, in that standing order 32(

a) in fact does not make provision where a question has already been answered the previous day and the minister has not undertaken that he or she will take the question as notice and give an answer on a later day. It is inappropriate for the minister to stand up on a succeeding day and then really, in effect, answer the same question twice. If the minister had taken the question as notice yesterday, then he would have been quite proper with what he did today, but that was not the case, as I understand it. I would just bring that matter to your attention.

The Speaker: That is fine. To the member for Bruce, the member for Parry Sound and the Minister of Natural Resources, the point is well taken. The Chair is placed in an awkward position when notified by a minister that he or she has the answer to a question asked previously. Of course, all members are aware that when that occurs and the supplementary is then given to the person who asked the question, in effect the government backbenchers have lost an opportunity to ask a question. That, from a reading of the rules, seems to me to be a balancing with respect to the opportunities for all members to ask questions.

Your points are well taken, and of course along the same line, where there are very detailed questions that would certainly require detailed responses, maybe some of those could be put in Orders and Notices.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

Miss Martel moved that standing order 85, respecting notice of committee hearings, be suspended for the consideration of Bill Pr70 and Bill Pr82 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday 26 June 1991.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that Mr Turnbull and Mr Cousens exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

PROVINCIAL COLLEGES

Mr Daigeler: I have a petition signed by some 34 residents from the Ottawa-Carleton area. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario provincial colleges are not required by provincial law to pay sessional teachers the 4% holiday pay that all Ontario employers are required to pay their employees, we request that the Legislative Assembly move to include these provincial colleges in the above mentioned law."

RENT REVIEW

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by residents of the Diplomat apartment buildings in Burlington urging the Minister of Housing to review the increases of rent that have occurred at the Diplomat apartment buildings at 5166 and 5170 Lakeshore Road to establish whether these increases are within the legal requirements.

ELECTRICAL POWER PROJECT

Mr Ramsay: I have a petition here:

"Whereas the Chiblow Lake dam site north of Iron Bridge, located at the south end of Big Chiblow Lake, has a proposal submitted for a hydraulic generating station;

"Whereas this proposal involves a major lake-trout-producing lake for the area, a deer migration route and a local scenic attraction;

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

"To halt all proceedings for this project and preserve this unique site from future danger."

I will append my signature to this petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms Poole: I have a petition signed by over 100 employees of AXA Home Insurance Co:

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

"Whereas a government takeover of the automobile insurance industry will involve job loss and dislocation for private sector employees; and

"Whereas a government monopoly leads to increased costs through inefficiencies and hidden tax subsidies and eliminates the public's right to individual freedom of choice;

"We believe that the insurance needs of the Ontario public are best served by private industry in an open, competitive, free enterprise market system, rather than a government-run monopoly.

"We want to keep our jobs. We do not want the NDP government to take over the automobile insurance in Ontario."

I have appended my signature to this petition.

TAXATION

Mr Harris: I have a petition that is signed by 5,186 residents of Hamilton and region, all collected by one individual who attempted to present it to the Premier or the Treasurer. They would not accept it, so I am presenting it in the House this way to them. It reads:

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

"We will not tolerate any more tax increases. The proposed budget would push the accumulated provincial debt to over $50 billion. This translates into a tax burden of $5,000 for every woman, man and child in the province.

"Ontario is already the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America. The NDP government expects to squeeze an additional $1 billion in new taxes out of the Ontario residents next year.

"The taxpayers of Ontario want the provincial government to know that we want a balanced budget now. We do not want increased spending. We do not want higher deficits. We do not want to mortgage the future of our children."

I too have affixed my signature to this petition and I congratulate Mr Bobolo, a nurse from Hamilton, who is here in the gallery to see this petition finally being presented to the government.

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cousens: To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from approximately 50 people in northern Ontario, Brinston, Dalkeith, Mountain, Sault Ste Marie, Englehart and other communities:

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

"Whereas the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at the municipal levels; and

"Whereas the current government disputes its self-serving select committee and intends to encourage increased use of French in the courts, schools and in other provincial services to ensure that the French Language Services Act is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to duplication of departments, translations, etc, to comply not only with the written but also the unwritten intent of the French Language Services Act; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education, the French-language school board;

I have affixed my name to this petition.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition signed by some 100 members of the Halton Regional Police Association, reading as follows:

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

"The assembly shall demand that the government of Ontario rescind its decision to eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen of Canada for police officers who must uphold laws that are proclaimed in the name of Elizabeth the Second."

I have affixed my signature to the petition and concur with it.

ONTARIO SCHOLARSHIP AWARD

Mr Sterling: I have a petition from Sarah Lawrence and 27 other Ontario scholars from the Earl of March Secondary School in the city of Kanata.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has unilaterally discontinued the practice of awarding $100 scholarships to Ontario secondary school students who achieve an average of 80% or more on their OAC courses; and

"Whereas the 1991 Earl of March Ontario scholars were not informed of the discontinuation of the scholarship until virtually the end of the school year and therefore feel that they have been treated unfairly by the NDP government of Ontario; and

"Whereas it is the belief of the 1991 Earl of March Ontario scholars that the $100 scholarship, although small, provides an incentive for Ontario's secondary school students to strive to do their best, and the removal of this award has therefore removed the incentive at a time when illiteracy among residents of Ontario is alleged to be a government priority; and

"Whereas the 1991 Earl of March Ontario scholars firmly believe that inspiring Ontario secondary school students to do their personal best will benefit the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Carleton Board of Education has gone on record supporting the position of the 1991 Earl of March Ontario scholars;

"We, the undersigned 1991 Earl of March Ontario scholars, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately reinstate the policy of awarding $100 scholarships to Ontario secondary school students who achieve an average of 80% or more on their OAC courses and to consider increasing the amount of the award."

I am very proud of these Ontario scholars who took the leadership and gave me this petition to present to the Legislative Assembly this afternoon, and I have affixed my name to it.

PARKING FACILITIES

Mr Harnick: I have a petition from the Pineway Area Ratepayers' Association. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is regarding the Old Cummer proposed GO-TTC service integration improvements and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to the recent proposal of the city of North York and GO Transit regarding the extension of parking facilities for the Old Cummer GO station to the area west of the station and east of Pineway Boulevard."

It is signed by 296 residents. It consists of residents on Mandel Crescent, Pineway Boulevard, Adamede Crescent and all the other areas in the immediate residential area where the proposed parking lot is due to be constructed. I have affixed my name.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Turnbull: I have a petition signed by several hundred people. It reads as follows:

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

"To halt the recommendations listed in the first report of the advisory group on new social assistance legislation. These recommendations, called Back on Track, are on the desk of NDP Community and Social Services Minister Zanana Akande.

"Already we have the ultimate welfare madness here in Ontario, but key Back on Track recommendations are to eliminate any requirements forcing welfare recipients to look for work, and then, if they are on welfare for 24 months, put them on permanent family benefits, which deem all recipients unemployable, cash for life."

This petition will be delivered to the office of the Minister of Community and Social Services at Queen's Park as well as a copy to the office of the Premier. I have attached my signature.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Wiseman: I have a petition along the same lines as the one earlier:

"To the honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the government takeover of the automobile insurance industry will involve job loss and dislocation for private sector employees; and

"Whereas a government monopoly leads to increased costs through inefficiencies and hidden tax subsidies and eliminates the public's right to individual freedom of choice;

"We believe that the insurance needs of the Ontario public are best served by a private industry in an open, competitive, free enterprise market system rather than a government-run monopoly."

Only one of the people on this petition is a resident of my riding. The rest are from all over Ontario.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Tilson: I have a petition from the members and friends of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 371, in Bolton. It bears 40 signatures:

"Whereas we the members and friends of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 371, disagree with the NDP government's decision to remove the oath to the Queen from the Metro Toronto or York county police departments; and

"Whereas this action only further erodes the heritage of Canada in a time when unity is an issue, not only for those born and raised in this country but also for those who chose Canada as their homeland;

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

"We wish to add our voices to the protest regarding the removal of the oath to the Queen for the Metro Toronto or York county police departments."

Mr Harris: I have a petition here that is signed by thousands and thousands of citizens from across this province. It says:

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

"Whereas the government of Bob Rae has placed our heritage in danger;

"Whereas we live in a constitutional monarchy;

"Whereas the symbol of our national unity and identity has been removed;

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

"To immediately restore the name of Her Majesty the Queen to the oath of allegiance sworn by police officers."

As I said, this is signed by thousands from across this province. I too have affixed my signature to this petition and contrary to some, I believe this one is all in order.

BUDGET

Mr Sterling: I have a petition which was given to me by Dan MacMillan of Constance Bay in the riding of Carleton.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP budget of 29 April 1991 takes the province of Ontario 180 degrees in the wrong direction; and

"Whereas the only way to end this recession and save jobs in Ontario is to cut taxes and reduce government spending;

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

"To stop this budget."

That is signed by over 100 people from the riding of Carleton. I have affixed my name to it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE MARSHALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES COMMISSAIRES DES INCENDIES

Mr Farnan moved first reading of Bill 131,

An Act to amend the Fire Marshals Act.

M. Farnan propose la première lecture du projet de loi 131, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les commissaires des incendies.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Farnan: This bill will give the fire marshal and assistants authority to deal more effectively with threats to environmental and public safety and to life safety by taking appropriate commonsense action. Just to dispel any doubt that was raised in the House earlier in the day when a Liberal member of the House suggested this bill was merely a reintroduction of the previous Bill 228, that is not the case. The previous bill dealt only with environmental hazards, and this of course goes beyond that. It deals with environmental and public safety and life safety. It is a piece of legislation that the fire community is very supportive of and has waited for and is enthusiastic about.

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE COMTÉ DE SIMCOE

Mr J. Wilson moved first reading of Bill 132,

An Act respecting the Amalgamation of Municipalities in the County of Simcoe.

M. J. Wilson propose la première lecture du projet de loi 132, Loi concernant la fusion des municipalités du comté de Simcoe.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr J. Wilson: The purpose of the bill is to prevent the amalgamation of municipalities in the county of Simcoe where the municipalities do not consent to the amalgamation. During the election campaign the Premier indicated he would not, and his government would not, force the restructuring of municipalities in Simcoe county. Subsequent to the election campaign, the NDP member for Simcoe Centre also has indicated he would not force restructuring in Simcoe county.

I believe this bill I am introducing today fulfils the commitments made by both the Premier and the member for Simcoe Centre and I am looking forward to the government's support of this bill when we resume sitting in September. I am also pleased to report today that my colleague the member for Simcoe East supports this bill. That is important because municipalities are being forced to restructure in his part of Simcoe county also.

PUBLIC SECTOR FOOD SERVICES ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES SERVICES D'ALIMENTATION DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

Ms Haeck moved first reading of Bill 133,

An Act to require Public Sector Institutions to serve Food grown in Ontario.

Mme Haeck propose la première lecture du projet de loi 133, Loi exigeant des établissements du secteur public qu'ils servent des aliments cultivés en Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Ms Haeck: The bill would require public service facilities in which prepared foods are provided to use only food grown or wholly manufactured in Ontario. The bill would also require that any wine provided in the public sector facilities be Ontario wine. An exception would be allowed in the case of fruits and vegetables which are either not grown in Ontario at all or in sufficient quantity, but only if no Ontario-grown fruits or vegetables that are available in sufficient quantity would be a satisfactory substitute in relation to cooking and nutritional needs.

A public sector body or organization receiving provincial funding could have its funding eliminated or reduced if it was found that a facility on its premises was providing non-Ontario food or wine.

UNSOLICITED FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TRANSMISSIONS PAR TÉLÉCOPIE NON SOLLICITÉES

Mr Cousens moved first reading of Bill 134,

An Act respecting Unsolicited Facsimile Transmissions.

M. Cousens propose la première lecture du projet de loi 134, Loi portant sur les transmissions par télécopie non sollicitées.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Cousens: When this House considers this bill, it will have a chance to put an end to unsolicited facsimiles. Those people who end up wasting all the paper from those who send the unwanted fax that has no business purpose are just soliciting some kind of attention for themselves. When we consider this bill and pass it in private members' period we will have a chance to clean up the air waves from some of the garbage people are sending on our fax machines. This is a fax bill, so let us make sure when we consider it that it gets through second and third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION: GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Hon Miss Martel: I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with this resolution as we did last week with the non-confidence motion put forward by the Liberals, that we split the time equally among us and that we move to a vote at about 5:50 this evening.

Agreed to.

Mr Cousens, on behalf of Mr Harris, moved that the government has lost the confidence of this House because:

(

a) Its fiscal and budgetary policies are undercutting Ontario's economic competitiveness, discouraging investment and encouraging the outmigration of Ontario firms, and because these policies will impose an intolerable burden of debt on future generations of Ontario taxpayers and are having a negative effect on cost-sensitive Ontario industries such as the tourism industry, manufacturing industry and the trucking industry and are exacerbating the problem of cross-border shopping.

(

b) In spite of its rhetoric on the need for partnerships, the government has practised arbitrary and secretive decision-making, as exemplified by its unilateral decision to change the oath of allegiance to the Queen and has failed to engage in meaningful consultation with the Ontario business community as evidenced by the debacle surrounding the legislation to establish a wage protection fund, Bill 70.

(

c) The Premier has diluted and failed to enforce the principles established in his own conflict-of-interest guidelines and consequently the government has failed to meet what it described as its first challenge, to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario.

Mr Harris: I do not plan to speak at great length today. Many members of my caucus would like to get their views on the record. So while some of them are in committee, trying to catch up on the government business -- never have I seen such incompetence, even ordering the

schedule of business since this government came in -- I know they will be able to come forward into the House. I will not be able to get --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let's make sure we start on the right foot, okay? Just keep it down, please.

Mr Harris: I know not everybody in my caucus who wishes to speak will be able to get on, but I am going to try to provide an opportunity for as many of them as I can.

This motion is pretty self-explanatory and straightforward. I believe 90% of the public of Ontario agrees with it. Any intelligent observer of politics and of the Legislature since 6 September to this date of 25 June would agree it has been an unmitigated disaster, a disgrace, a terrible period in the history of this province.

This motion refers to three separate parts. I wish to deal with each of the three briefly in ascending order of importance. Part (

c) talks about the guidelines. This is the least important, quite frankly. The long-term damage being done to this province; the opportunity being destroyed for our young people; the taking away of hope of opportunity for the have-nots in our province; the absolute disgrace that we are saying to those young people, to those who have not been able to share in the blessings of this province, "We are going to choke and thwart and take away that opportunity for you even more."

This direction the government is going in is allegedly on behalf of those same have-nots it is absolutely destroying. This philosophy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not hurt the rich, it does not hurt the haves. They have many options. That is the most important

part I want to talk about, this blind, doctrinaire philosophy of a party that was a good lobbyist for causes and now cannot get out of its mind when it is the government that it must stop lobbying and arbitrate in bringing people together from all sides in finding commonsense solutions to the problems.

The guidelines, I say, are the least important of the motion, but it is an important signal that here is a government that says one thing, that has all the rhetoric.

For 10 years in opposition, the member for York South, the holier than thou, smartest, shrewdest person, knew every guideline, knew every nuance of what any cabinet minister ever did in all the time he was in Ottawa and was here in Queen's Park, knew what the conflict guidelines should be, knew when any minister walking down the street was even possibly thinking of contravening either a guideline in the sense of personal gain, or more importantly, perhaps, because we have seen it abused so many times by this government -- not personal gain guidelines being broken so much as the guidelines that go to the heart, the core and integrity of our justice system, of the police, of our courts.

When we are dealing with these we are not dealing with my guidelines, we are not dealing with Liberal guidelines, we are dealing with the Premier's guidelines, the man who said: "I will have the toughest guidelines and we will adhere to them like nobody before us. We care more than the Liberals. We care more than the Conservatives. We care more than anybody in the world about these guidelines. We treat them more seriously than anyone has ever treated them." Eight ministers systematically in a period of nine months have broken and violated those guidelines.

I suspect they did not understand them, but why did they not understand them? Obviously the Premier did not treat them seriously because he did not explain.

I do not believe the Minister of Northern Development sat down and said: "I'm going to write a letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. I know it's against the guidelines, I know the Premier is supposed to sack me if he finds out, but I'm going to write it anyway." I do not believe that. I believe she did not know she was breaking the guidelines and I said so when she came forward with her apology, which I accepted.

The Premier is the one who said, "We treat them seriously," and he refused obviously to even bother explaining the guidelines so that relatively intelligent ministers -- and then there is the other category of ministers who are obviously going to take a lot more explaining -- understand. It is typical of the NDP led by Bob Rae who, holier than thou, knew all the answers. Now we see that not only are they fallible, which of course as human beings they are, but they are more fallible, if you like, than any other government we have seen in the history of North America.

Furthermore, they do not have the courage and the gumption to stand up and admit they were wrong. I see the Minister of Community and Social Services at taxpayers' expense send a newsletter out saying: "We're different. We're a party. We're a government that is human and we'll make mistakes, and when we make them we will admit them. This is a desirable quality, it is what the public of this province are asking for." They have all the rhetoric down pat, they can read the polls with the best of them, but in practice the Minister of Community and Social Services has never once said: "I'm sorry, I apologize.

We made a mistake." Not once. I asked her in the House: "You say this in your newsletter. Could you tell us one mistake you've made in nine months?" She could not think of one. We have abuse after abuse, waste after waste in her own ministry; I brought three examples forward today. Did the government ever say, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake"? It has not. It does not deserve the support of this House or the right to govern. It does not deserve it by its actions over the past nine months.

The second aspect of this motion, part (b), again I say, now more important than part (

c) and not as important as part (a), talks about partnerships. I have heard the rhetoric. I hear the word "partnership" from the minister and the Premier two or three or four times in this House. We see it in speeches. We see it as they travel around the province: partnership, partnership.

Yes, there is partnership with Bob White. Yes, there is partnership with the big unions. But when it comes to taxpayers and ordinary people, ordinary Ontarians, working men and women who do not belong to a large union, small business people and large business people, those who create the jobs, the entrepreneurs, the doers, the risk-takers, the investors, what kind of partnership do they have with them? What it is called is, "We spend and you pay, partner." That is the only partnership we have seen from this government when it comes to the taxpayers, the entrepreneurs, the business community, the doers and the job creators in this province.

The number of unilateral decisions that have been made by this government is appalling, again at the same time as it has championed the cause of consultation, of partnership. When we look at legislation, we look at Bill 70 and the obvious lack of consultation the fact that 99% of it had to be gutted. I give the Premier credit for overruling and shaming the Minister of Labour from Hamilton in just saying: "We have gone too far here. This isn't workable. There won't be any directors left to volunteer or profit-making companies. There won't be any companies left." Somebody woke up a little bit on that one. Had there been consultation before that would not have happened.

We have seen it in the gas guzzler tax. There, fortunately -- I do not for one minute not believe anything to the contrary -- had Bob White not come forward and stood side by side with me in that fight against the budget, we would not have been able to get that tax changed. It is an example that when the Canadian Auto Workers and Bob White and those workers of the province join hands with Mike Harris and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, we will get things done in this province. When we work together, we can make sure there are jobs, and good paying jobs, in this province for working men and women all across Ontario.

We need partnerships. They have read the polls. They have the rhetoric down pat. But the examples they have been setting have been disgraceful. The partnerships need to be built.

If we are going to come forward in this province and be able to restore the opportunities that were here for so many years for so many people -- the environment, the clean water, a facility for taking care of garbage in an environmentally sensitive way -- if we are going to be able to look after those people, we will need help, a hand up; not money to stay at home and do nothing, but a hand up, education, retraining, apprenticeship programs, perhaps relocation.

If we are going to truly be able to help people the way we once helped them in this province, they are going to have to bring new partnerships that have never been before.

They are going 180 degrees in the opposite direction. They are insulating themselves itself. They are not using any common sense in dealing with these problems.

I give the the Quebec example. The Liberal government in Quebec -- not at all like its Liberal colleagues here -- over the last five or six years has cut taxes, got more competitive and said, "We've got to be able to compete." Ontario, thanks to 42 years of proper, sensitive, right-balanced government, is a more appealing jurisdiction to locate business and create jobs in than Quebec, so they moved in the opposite direction while the Liberals in Ontario started us down this path of destroying this province of opportunity.

I want to mention the Liberal government of Quebec over this period of time. I want to mention the relationship they have built up with unions and with business. They recognized they were in a recession in Quebec, that they could not meet the payroll, that they could not balance the books and that they had problems.

They went to the unions and they said, "We think there should be a wage freeze for all those in the public sector, zero increase." They said: "Those of us in the public sector -- the Premier, the cabinet, the members of the Legislature, teachers, nurses, civil servants -- have these guaranteed, recession-proof jobs. We have these pretty good pension plans. It's not fair for us to be taking an increase in wages while the brothers and the sisters in the private sector are laid off and hungry." The government of Quebec said there would be a wage freeze and the unions in Quebec said: "We agree.

We'll stand with you, government. We will help fight this recession, not on the backs of the poor, of the unemployed, but we will share."

That is partnership. That is working together, bringing unions and government and business together. What did we do in Ontario? We wanted partnership, and we have given up obviously with the business community, with the large and small taxpayers, with municipalities, with school boards. They wanted to have that one partnership with that big body of people that pays all the NDP bills, the big unions with their checkoff that give them all the money.

How did they develop its partnership with the big unions? The Chairman of Management Board, responsible for negotiations with this body she used to be president of, put on a new hat, opened the door to the vault, threw it wide open and said: "Walk in. Take whatever you want, and then some, 6%, 8% or 10% increases and then merit pay. What is merit pay? Merit pay is that when you show up you get 4% or 5%. If your attendance is good all year long, you get 6% or 7%. If you actually do the job, you are paid to do, you get 7% or 8% on top of inflation, on top of the 6%.

Then there are those senior civil servants making $60,000 to $110,000. The minister said there would be up to 20% increases for them. Why? She said, "We've got to keep them in the public sector." They want to rush out, commit suicide in the private sector and be laid off, I guess. So we have to give them a 20% raise -- $100,000 a year and 20% to keep them in the public sector. They were not looking for any jobs in the private sector. There are none. Those jobs are going to New York. They are going out west. They are going to Quebec.

In Quebec the public service said: "We'll help. It's our duty to be responsible." That is the kind of partnership they had. In Ontario it is, "Open the vault and take what you want," to buy peace from those people who pay the NDP bills. It is a disgrace. It is time it was exposed and it is time the people of Ontario understood that when it comes to its own vested interest, the NDP will sell its soul and the people of this province down the drain to keep the money flowing into the coffers to the party.

However, I want to talk about

section (

a) of this motion because this is the

section -- the budget, the fiscal and budgetary policy -- that my six-year-old son will pay a horrendous price for, that all our children, all the students, those not working yet, will pay a horrendous price for: the budgetary policy, the deficit, the massive accumulation carrying on from the Liberal spending. They started us down this slippery slope and now the NDP is taking us even farther.

I think back 20 or 25 years ago when the federal government had a fiscal policy where at least it had the ability to pay the interest on the debt. If their total spending they were paying 10, 11 or 12 cents on the debt. Then a succession of Liberal governments started the spending increases, just like the Liberals here. The times were good during the first five years. The money was rolling in and they doubled spending over a period of about four or five years. That is what the Liberals did to this province. But times were good so it was okay.

Then a recession came, a little downturn, as they always do. They said, "We've got to carry on this spending and more." Then the debt started to go up and it is now out of control, as we know, at the federal level. It is a disaster. It is something we all must be trying to come to grips with. What is this province doing? Is it trying to help the federal taxpayer? No, it continues to spend 10% or 12% increases and says to the feds: "We want more and more money, even though there is your $30-billion deficit this year. We want more and more of your money. We want to spend more here in the richest province, Ontario."

We are embarrassing this country. Every other province is struggling to keep up. All other nine provinces are struggling to keep up. In Ontario it is spend, spend, spend more money on new programs. It does not matter if they cannot afford them in Newfoundland. It does not matter if they cannot afford them on the prairies. It does not matter if they cannot afford them in the Maritimes. We are greedy; we want them here in Ontario. If there is ever a divisive factor in the whole constitutional question, it is the massive lack of understanding and spending by the former Liberal government and this NDP government. They are destroying this country and this province.

When you talk about western alienation and about the concerns in Newfoundland, those concerns are saying: "The province of Ontario is out of step with the whole world. They still want more. They want to grab all the wealth for programs. We cannot even afford to half keep up to the programs that they have, and they want to keep going with more and more." It is upsetting this country. It is very harmful in the whole debate over the Constitution.

The NDP and the Premier have talked about those people in the business community who have come forward and gone public, and said that these policies are hurting business and are hurting this province. Premier Rae said, "They're stabbing me in the back." They are not stabbing him in the back. They are up front, face to face, right in front of him. They are drawing attention to it and I applaud them.

Do members know where the back-stabbing is coming from? The back-stabbing is coming from this government. It is stabbing every person in this province who needs an opportunity to get ahead.

Do members know who else is hurting? Those people in this province who are not speaking up, those who are just saying: "The heck with it. I'm taking my money. I'm going to Alberta. I'm going to Buffalo. I'm going to Florida. I'm going to Europe. I'm going to Quebec." You cannot blame those who are leaving, those who are taking their jobs with them. They cannot make a buck in this province. Why should they invest when the government says, "Why should landlords invest in new housing?" The Minister of Housing says, "I'm allergic to landlords."

They are told ahead of time, "If you invest your hard-earned, after-tax dollars in this province -- mortgage your house, work seven days a week to try to get ahead -- make those investments, and if you succeed we are going to take it away from you." Do they blame people for not doing that? Why would you do that in a jurisdiction where the government says: "Even if you survive the highest taxes in North America, the most regulation in North America and all the red tape, and do make a buck, we've got a Fair Tax Commission. We are looking at a wealth tax. We are looking at business tax. We are lo