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

September 29, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

FOREST INDUSTRY

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

MARKHAM FAIR

PALLIATIVE AT-HOME CARE TEAM

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

MINOR HOCKEY

SENIORS' HEALTH INSURANCE

WCB PREMIUMS

HEALTH SERVICES

ASSISTED HOUSING

POLICE COMPLAINTS

BUSINESS PRACTICES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

FERRY SERVICE FEES

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOUSING PROGRAMS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

GO TRANSIT

GAMBLING

PHYSICIANS' FEES

CASINO GAMBLING

CAMBROCO VENTURES INC. ACT, 1993

CANNETTO SOCIETY INC. ACT, 1993

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS, 1993 / CHARTE DES DROITS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX DE 1993

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a statement directed to the Minister of Natural Resources, and it concerns the ongoing saga of stumpage fees. In July, after a continued assault by the Leader of the Opposition, Lyn McLeod, the member for Kenora, Frank Miclash, the member for Timiskaming, David Ramsay and myself, we convinced the minister to delay the planned increase for the base rate of the non-integrated sector of stumpage fees till October 1.

October 1 is Friday, and the people in the forest industry do not know what the planned increases are. That is just not acceptable. There has been confusion about the date that the fees will begin and what the actual fees will be.

The Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association is concerned about the impact that this increase in production costs will have on its competitive position in the North American market. Of equal importance is the impact that this increase will have on independent truckers and loggers in northern Ontario. This base rate increase will no doubt have a greater impact on this group than on other players within this sector, as profit margins will be shaved considerably.

The lumber manufacturers' association has not been informed officially of when this announcement will be made and there is confusion about the silence of the minister.

It's time for the ministry to sit down with all the stakeholders to re-evaluate the entire stumpage system and to arrive at a consensual competitive rate for the use of our forest resources.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I rise on behalf of St Gregory Separate School in Etobicoke. The minister is well aware that St Gregory's is in desperate need of renovations and expansion. The PTA has worked closely with its trustees and its school board in the 10-year struggle for funding.

Finally, their patience and hard work has put St Gregory's where? In first position for funding. They are aware of the ministry's new loan-based systems of financing capital projects, and the school board is prepared to debenture these funds.

I saw at first hand the condition of this school. It is seriously overcrowded, washroom facilities are inadequate, the playground is full of portables, storage rooms are being used for staff offices, and the list goes on and on and on.

If the minister won't take my word for it, perhaps you will listen to the children themselves.

Michael, a grade 7 student, writes: "The school is very old and in need of megarepairs. I am sure that you would not like it if your house looked like that and you had to work in it all day."

Another Michael writes, "The French teachers needs an office, not a broom closet." I would ask a page to deliver these notices over to the Minister of Education, who's not here.

We are expecting the Minister of Education's capital funding announcement very shortly.

On behalf of St Gregory's, I urge the minister to provide the necessary funding for these much-needed renovations. They have waited over 10 years.

In closing, I will quote from a grade 7 student, David, who wrote, Mr Minister, "I and the rest of my class are counting on you to do something about our problems here at St Gregory's school."

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): During this fall session our government will be introducing legislation to reform social assistance in Ontario. There is a general consensus among my constituents acknowledging the need for reform in this area.

The meaning of welfare has changed from being a temporary emergency financial assistance to a permanent source of income that traps the very people it is supposed to help in an endless cycle of poverty and dependency.

We must work together to create a system that will protect and assist those who are truly in need. At the same time, social assistance must become an investment in helping people enter the workplace. A social assistance policy that discourages people from being productive cannot be successful; it is doomed to fail.

Those who abuse and rip off the system must face stiff penalties. Otherwise, the actions of these very unscrupulous individuals will jeopardize everyone's faith in the system.

This country and this province are highly regarded abroad because of the value that we citizens place on our social programs. As representatives of the people of Ontario, it is our obligation to come together to rebuild a welfare system that ensures fairness and encourages people to work.

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): During hearings in the legislative committee looking into the Workers' Compensation Board, I raised an issue about the Workers' Compensation Board purchasing an American-made floor system for its new $180-million headquarters in downtown Toronto instead of buying made-in-Ontario, indeed, made-in-Oakville flooring that was half a million dollars cheaper than the American product and met the specifications.

I also tabled with the committee an internal memo from the American company that manufactures this flooring in Michigan wherein they admitted to their salespeople that the floor is crumbling around the edges and indeed does not meet the specifications called for in the bidding that was put out by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Members can shake their heads if they want, but it's a fact. It was tabled and Mr King has told me he would look into it. I've yet to hear from him.

The bottom line of this is that the Workers' Compensation board is cross-border shopping to buy a flooring system that is $500,000 more expensive than the same product made right here in Oakville that is currently being installed in the Ontario Provincial Police building and currently exists in the building in Sault Ste Marie with the Ontario Lottery Corp and several other government buildings. It even has the Minister of Housing's stamp of approval for use, but it's not good enough for the Workers' Compensation Board.

MARKHAM FAIR

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, today I would like to invite you and all members of the Legislature to attend the Markham Fair this weekend. It starts tomorrow and continues through to Sunday, October 3.

It's a magnificent fair and offers something for everyone. There'll be 70,000 visitors coming. They'll be coming to see the fair queen, the horse show, the fiddling contest -- that's something you guys are good at, the fiddling contest -- the livestock exhibitions, the demolition derbies, the truck and tractor pull, fresh apple cider, the 4-H Club rabbit exhibit, the goat show -- that's a place for all the NDP -- the mouth-watering food, lively entertainment, exhibits and games; something for everyone.

The Markham Fair is open to everybody. There's loads of parking. Come and enjoy a wonderful weekend. It's right on McCowan Road north of Major Mackenzie off Highway 404.

This fair's been going for over 140 years. Trevor Hurley, the president, is working with thousands of volunteers to make this year's fair even better, and it would appear that Mother Nature's going to provide a super weekend, so, ladies and gentlemen, come to Markham. Markham Fair is this weekend. It's the best fair in the province of Ontario. If you haven't been, this is the year to make a visit to the Markham Fair. We'll look forward to seeing you there. There is room for everybody. Bring your family, bring the young, bring all, because the Markham Fair is the place to go this weekend. If you haven't been, this is your chance.

PALLIATIVE AT-HOME CARE TEAM

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Caring for the dying has always been a part of medical care, and it presents a challenge and responsibility for physicians. The development of palliative care, relieving symptoms in the home or in hospice, owes much to the work of the British physician Dame Cicely Saunders.

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity of sitting in on the weekly clinical case conference of PACT, the palliative at-home care team, in Scarborough. This is a group of family physicians that has been providing care to terminally ill patients in our community, predominantly people who have cancer. The team is directed by Dr Jackie Gardner-Nix. When I was there, they discussed the progress of the patients, the control of pain and other symptoms and the provision of care so that wherever possible clients can remain at home with the loving support of their families.

I know I can speak for many Scarborough families in expressing gratitude for the skill and devotion of the doctors and nurses participating in PACT. It's too easy for medical practice to become isolated, and the satisfaction of working together as a team was quite evident here.

It should also be noted that community palliative care is also cheaper to the system than institutional care, and we all very much hope that the Ministry of Health will continue to fund and expand services in Scarborough and across the province.

Mr Speaker, this coming Sunday, PACT will be participating in a fund-raising sale at Scarborough General Hospital and would welcome your presence, along with its many friends and supporters.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's a strong indication today that negotiations between the Canadian Auto Workers union and General Motors have produced, as part of their tentative agreement, a commitment on the part of the company to continue production of axles for GM at the St Catharines location for the duration of the contract.

While there is no assurance that this production will continue beyond the three-year period, GM employees in St Catharines and in the community as a whole will be relieved that the CAW has established the retention of the axle operation as a priority in negotiations and that General Motors has responded positively to this initiative on the part of the CAW.

We must now turn our attention to the GM foundry operation in St Catharines, the 750 indefinite layoffs and the portion of the engine plant which was closed as a result of GM announcements.

This is an indication that negotiations between the Canadian Auto Workers union, or any union, and the company revolve not only around the dollars and cents issues, around pensions, around benefits and around wages, but also around the operations that take place and the security of employment in any community.

The Canadian Auto Workers, and Local 199 in St Catharines particularly, must be congratulated for taking this initiative. Everyone in our community will benefit as a result, at least for that three-year period. Now all of us have to work together to ensure that the remainder of the operation continues for many years to come.

MINOR HOCKEY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I believe that all members of this Legislature have received letters from the Ontario Minor Hockey Association regarding the serious problems the association is having with the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, which may jeopardize minor hockey programs for 125,000 children in approximately 300 communities in Ontario.

Minor hockey is one of the most popular recreational activities enjoyed by Ontario's youth and forms an important part of our Canadian culture and heritage. If nothing else unites us as Canadians, our passion for this glorious sport always will. It will be devastating if the disagreement between adults at the senior levels of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association prevents boys and girls from taking

part in this wonderful sport.

It's my understanding that some of the benefits which the Ontario Minor Hockey Association enjoys in its affiliation with the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association are reasonable group insurance rates. The loss of these reasonable rates may jeopardize the Ontario Minor Hockey Association's ability to compete internationally in the US and Europe. As well, the potential loss of tourism revenues associated with travelling teams cannot be ignored, should the current dispute remain unresolved.

I understand that the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation met yesterday with members of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, and I am pleased that she has taken this first step. I would urge her to continue to use all her influence as minister to bring all of the parties together to the table in an effort to resolve this problem. I am sure that the children and parents involved in minor hockey in Ontario would appreciate her assistance and interest in trying to reach a settlement to this dispute.

SENIORS' HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): In a few weeks' time, thousands of senior citizens would normally head off to Florida for the winter months. This year, 40% of the seniors who go south will be forced to stay at home. They're forced to stay at home because they can no longer afford upwards of $3,000 for their winter health insurance.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Who's the cause of that?

Mr Mills: These seniors are not wealthy. They are the ordinary folks who have saved up to buy a winter place in the sun to enjoy respite from the cold.

Mr Tilson: Talk to your Minister of Health.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, they keep yapping, and I want more time on the clock.

In some cases, these people sold their homes to purchase two mobile homes: one here, one in Florida --

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Talk to your Minister of Health.

Mr Mills: Listen to me --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, they're out of control over there. For the people whom I represent, this is a serious matter, and I don't want to keep being interrupted by those people.

These seniors have made a significant contribution to the fabric of Ontario. They've paid their way and now they expect some return considerations by way of creation of some reasonable health insurance for their stay in Florida.

I appeal to the Premier and to the cabinet: Set up your war room now and work out a solution to help those who have done so much for Ontario in the prime of their lives. They don't want to be let down. I'm looking forward to the help.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Come on over, Gord.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, it's unfortunate that I've got off track with my statement because of all the rhetoric. This is a serious, serious matter.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WCB PREMIUMS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. The Workers' Compensation Board has recently increased the premium rate for nursing homes and homes for the aged by 181%. That means that for every $100 of payroll, their rate will move from $2.15 to $6.04. For local senior facilities such as the John Noble Home in Brantford, this means an increase in WCB premium costs from $236,000 to $660,000.

Premier, you will surely be aware that the nursing homes and homes for the aged across this province are already struggling to cope with the cutbacks in funding your government gives them, and you will know that seniors are going to have to pay 30% more themselves for the services they receive.

The nursing homes are telling us that with this tripling of WCB premiums, their only alternative is going to be to reduce services to seniors in nursing homes and homes for the aged. I ask quite simply, have you even looked at what this increase in WCB premiums is going to mean in service to seniors?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, I think it's important for members of the House to know that the WCB has made no decision as to the increase in its premiums. They are, as we are aware, looking at reclassifying employer rate groups to more closely reflect the nature of the business and the past accident experiences. The homes for the aged and nursing homes have expressed a concern that this would be a very major rate increase and are in discussions with the WCB at this point, but no final decision has been made.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I am really addressing this question to the issue of the impact that an increase in premiums is going to have on levels of service in nursing homes and homes for the aged, recognizing that government is a very direct funder and therefore has a direct responsibility for the level of service that is going to be provided.

The kind of rate increase that the WCB is talking about would cost nursing homes an additional $23 million over the next year. The nursing home association tells us that that kind of an increase would mean they would have to lay off 4% of their staff and they would have to reduce services to the 57,000 people who are in facilities across this province. When they raised their concerns about the reductions in service that they would have to face if they had these kinds of increases from WCB, the answer they got from the Workers' Compensation Board was, "That's not our problem; that's the government's problem."

That's why I bring the question back to you in the House today, Minister. How do you believe that seniors' facilities could cope with that kind of an increase, and do you really feel that nursing homes and homes for the aged should have to reduce their services to pay for this kind of increase?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that no rate increase has been decided upon at this point. We are, of course, as concerned as she is that whatever the WCB decides should not impact on services in nursing homes and homes for the aged. Let me remind her that under our changes in the payments to facilities, there is over $200 million more investment in facilities and care this year than there was last year. But, of course, as we deal with these issues, we will be expressing our views to the WCB, and the WCB, I know, is hearing from the operators and is taking their concerns into account as it attempts to strike a balance before it sets its rates.

Mrs McLeod: I think I've heard something like this before, where this same minister in this same government said, "Oh, no, the social contract is not going to hurt health care in this province." Now we get the minister expressing some concerns about whether a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board to raise premiums is going to affect services to seniors in facilities across this province. I believe this minister has to do more than simply express concerns.

Let me ask you very directly about how you believe the Workers' Compensation Board could justify an increase anything like 181%. Obviously, we're all aware of the $11 billion in unfunded liability that the Workers' Compensation Board is facing, but I think we would all still agree that any change in premiums for the Workers' Compensation Board should reflect the accident rate and the liabilities of that particular workplace. The nursing home association was told that 10% of the increase that was being proposed in their premium rates was simply to cover the administrative costs of the Workers' Compensation Board.

The homes for the aged operators were told that their increase was indeed based on being reclassified to a new structure, a

schedule which would include workers who are in manufacturing, in construction, in industrial occupations, and they don't understand where they fit in that kind of new schedule.

So I ask you, Minister, how do you feel this kind of rate increase can be justified, and do you believe that the seniors of this province should now be asked to pay for the mismanagement of the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, let me say again that at this point nobody knows what in fact the rate increase will be. The WCB has been in consultations with the industry. The WCB is, yes, looking at reclassifying. But let's put the facts on the table. The reason they're looking at reclassifying is that these institutions have been lumped with hospitals. In fact, hospitals have had a better accident record than either nursing homes or homes for the aged. So in the determination of rates, hospitals have, if you will, been subsidizing the nursing homes and the homes for the aged.

The WCB, I think quite properly, is taking a look at that. We don't yet know the results of that reclassification or what the rates will be, and I can assure you that both the nursing homes and ourselves have made and will make our views clear to the WCB.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: My second question is for the Solicitor General. I understand he is to be present today. So I'll stand down my question, assuming that he is to arrive.

The Speaker: Agreed. Third party.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. There is a national debate going on right now on our health care system; part of the federal campaign, no doubt, has accelerated that. Every time somebody in Ontario takes an ambulance, they pay a $45 fee. That fee for the use of the ambulance is exactly the same fee whether you have an income of $20,000 or $120,000.

I know that the NDP, your government, you as Premier, your minister, your party, provincially, nationally and around the world are against user fees in health care. So I am wondering if you can tell me: Just what do you call this $45 fee that Ontarians are charged for using an ambulance?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm interested to hear the leader of the third party raise this issue. I would say to him that we're not dealing here with a philosophical subject; we're dealing here with a very practical one. We have tried to make the fee structures in the province as fair as possible. We have been consistently strong advocates on behalf of health care for seniors and access to health care for all of our citizens, and we're very proud of it.

In a fashion which I feel is appropriate at this point, I'd like to answer the leader's question with another question. That is to say, what do you call a federal government that has deprived the taxpayers of this province of $5 billion in terms of its cut on the cap on the Canada assistance plan? What do you call a federal government that has consistently denied to this province the means with which to finance the crucial social programs?

What do you call a federal government which instead of paying 50% for health care is now paying 30% and less for health care in the province of Ontario compared to what it's doing in other jurisdictions? I call it a Tory government, and that's the one which you want to see re-elected and I don't think the people of Canada do.

Mr Harris: I'm interested in the Premier's question, because I don't name-call any other level of government; I deal with the problems right here that I was elected to deal with. Premier, let me ask you this, since the NDP is opposed to user fees and the Liberals apparently were opposed to user fees as well. Last spring, following a routine medical that I had with my doctor in North Bay, among the tests that my doctor ordered for me was a screening test for prostate cancer. I had that test. I paid $10 to have that test because I was told that there was a fee for me to have that test that my doctor prescribed.

While the $10 that I paid may not seem like a lot of money to me, and perhaps for some wealthier than I $10 would not have been a problem, there are many people in this province for whom that $10 fee would have caused a considerable amount of concern. So, given, Premier, that you are against user fees -- you, the NDP, your party, your minister, you are opposed to them -- I just wonder if you could tell me what you call the $10 fee that I paid to have a test for prostate cancer.

Hon Mr Rae: The questions of what tests are medically necessary or not are questions that are being discussed with the OMA and with others and that are widely debated. I think it's fair to say that when it comes to the issue of insured services, medically necessary services, our party and our government have been very consistent in their support for the Canada Health Act. I think it's fair to say that there wouldn't have been a Canada Health Act if it hadn't been for the efforts of the New Democratic Party right here in Ontario as well as across the country.

If the leader of the third party is now saying that he is opposed to any form of copayment for whatever service patients choose to have, if that's what he's saying, if he's saying that he's opposed to that, let him stand up in his place and say it. I'd like to know whether you're opposed to it.

Mr Harris: The Premier's now on record, I suppose, saying that an ambulance to a hospital somehow or other is an optional luxury, not one that would be medically designated for that $45 fee.

Let me ask you this: During the standing committee on public accounts earlier this month, the Deputy Minister of Health hinted that your government intends to charge between $5 and $10 for a new health card in Ontario. That would be $5 or $10 for everyone, rich or poor, to pay for the mismanagement of the red-and-white card brought in by the Liberals.

Since I know that you and the NDP and your minister are opposed to user fees, that you would never want to ever have a user fee, I just wonder if you could tell me what this proposed $5 or $10 fee that you're going to charge everybody is to be called?

Hon Mr Rae: There's been absolutely no decision taken by the government with respect to the issue of any fees with regard to a health card. In fact, I think we've made it very clear that we are eager to hear from the public accounts committee and from others with respect to the health card issue.

We believe that there's a problem with the Liberal health card. We think it's there. I think it has to be dealt with. There was also a problem with the Tory OHIP numbers where we had millions more Tory OHIP numbers than we had patients in the province. So don't turn around and try to invent some sense that this is a problem that started yesterday or even last week.

The question today is, what are you going to call the fee? I can only tell you there's been absolutely no decision whatsoever with respect to whether or not to charge a fee for any card. I think you should know that, instead of going around making allegations that have no substance in fact other than in the imagination of the Tory party.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much. I'm sorry if the Premier thinks that the testimony his deputy minister gave to the committee is some allegation of mine. I didn't make it up. This is what the Deputy Minister of Health, your friend Mr Decter, said.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a second question?

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question, Mr Speaker, if you have control now of all members of the House, is to the Premier as well.

This is a picture I would like you to have a look at. I'd be happy to send it over, if you like. This is a picture of a renovated house on Waverley Road in Toronto. It was a house that was purchased and it was renovated into four apartment units.

This house was purchased and owned and is run by the Riverdale Housing Action Group with the encouragement of, I might add, and 100% funding by your government. The total cost of the purchase and renovation of this house was close to $1.3 million, or $318,000 per apartment unit.

These apartments house women and their children who have been in a shelter situation, in most cases women who have been battered. Given that thousands of women and their children are desperately waiting for shelter assistance in Ontario today because of a lack of funds, do you think it makes sense to spend $1.3 million for four apartment units on Waverley Road?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd like to ask the Minister of Housing to answer that.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The project the leader of the third party is referring to is one that received an allocation from the Ministry of Housing as a non-profit project --

Interjection.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- back in 1989. The property was purchased for $221,610. Following a long series of discussions, if I can put it that way, with the neighbourhood and planning changes, renovations and so on, which reduced the number of units in the project from eight to four, the project was given approval in 1991. It was over the maximum unit price. It was decided to go ahead with it because of the nature of the project. It is a small project and it does provide services for people who are difficult to find housing for in the city of Toronto. It is over the maximum unit price.

Mr Harris: Absolutely nothing for sale under $300,000 in Toronto, nothing for rent under $3,000 a month: Is that what you're telling this house? A real estate agent told us you can buy three-bedroom fully detached homes far cheaper than the cost of one of those units. Individual apartments, because of the high capital cost, have an operating subsidy of $2,952 per month per apartment unit. Minister, that is more than twice, in many cases three times, the value of market rents in the same area. In other words, you could house two or three times the number of families for the same amount of money.

I would ask you how you defend this waste to the thousands of women and their children who are sitting on waiting lists because you don't have the money for shelter subsidies.

Hon Ms Gigantes: You're not going to hear me try and say that these are not expensive units. They were expensive units. I want to point out to the leader of the third party, if he didn't hear the first time, that the land and the building were purchased for over $221,000. In fact, the reason for the delay and the increased costs was unexpected costs of renovation, which can happen in an acquisition.

The renovations were very extensive, but a major cost of the increase in this project was neighbourhood opposition. There is a high price to be paid for neighbourhood opposition. This was neighbourhood opposition, as the leader of the third party points out, to the proposal to have eight units to serve women and children in a neighbourhood where it would be very suitable to provide that service.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Why didn't you get the tenant before you bought it? It's called an option.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It forced a reduction to four units, which naturally increased the cost on a per-unit basis. I'd like to know what kind of attitude the leader of the third party would have towards people who objected to an eight-unit renovation and caused that kind of cost increase. Do we in fact give positive reinforcement to that behaviour by backing out?

Mr Harris: A hundred thousand dollars in architectural fees because of neighbourhood opposition? It's because of incompetence. It's because you've got the wrong people involved in housing. You've got people who know nothing about buying or building or construction; ie, you and your government cronies.

Let me ask you this: My office spoke with a transition home in North Bay this morning. They have a waiting list for helping battered women and their children. This is not unique; it is all across the province. They are crying out for additional funding, yet your government continues to waste scarce resources on examples such as this one. It's not an isolated example.

Isn't it time you put an end to the incompetence of government building more and more, buying, renovating more and more at these outrageous prices, and came forward with a shelter subsidy program that could help two and three and four times the numbers of battered women and their children who are sitting now on waiting lists?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The leader of the third party has raised this kind of question before. He has a particular example that he wants to raise today of an eight-unit development that was slowed down by neighbourhood opposition which, I'll put to you, Mr Speaker, was unjustified.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: He is proposing in his question that there is only one way to do things in Ontario to provide housing for people who need assisted housing, and that is to provide what he calls rent subsidies.

In this province, by far the largest amount of money that we spend in providing assistance for people in housing is through the shelter subsidy component, the shelter allowance component, of our social assistance system, where we spend $2.5 billion a year and where we provide subsidies to 40% of the landlords, 40% of the units in this province's private rental market.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: Some $2,952 per month per unit.

The Speaker: Order, the leader of the third party.

Hon Ms Gigantes: He needs to understand a little bit about what happens in housing in this province, and if I keep telling him, maybe he'll understand. And I'll keep telling him.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with her second lead-off question.

POLICE COMPLAINTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Solicitor General. Over the past few days we have been hearing alarming allegations about inappropriate strip searches. The allegations are indeed very disturbing and they raise serious concerns in the minds of the public about what rules are in place for the use of this very intrusive procedure.

Minister, can you tell us what responsibility you feel you have for ensuring that the rules for use of strip searches are clear and that they are indeed being followed?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): It's a very broad question. Let me answer by saying that my ministry is responsible for the overall administration of policing in the province of Ontario. Much of the authority for directing chiefs is with police services boards. The authority for the day-to-day operations is of course vested with the chiefs and the senior officers. Our ministry provides the standards and the directives and the guidelines for the various procedures that we expect the police services boards to adopt and to ensure that the police chiefs are indeed following.

This matter is obviously as disturbing for us, as it is for the opposition. The allegations are very serious. The Attorney General has responded in terms of her concerns about timeliness and fairness, and I would look to the supplementary questions for a further comment.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your recognition that you do indeed have a clear responsibility, as the chief enforcement officer in the province, to ensure that these kinds of guidelines are in place, and I believe the public has a right to know that there are clear guidelines and policies in place. I also would think that the police want to be assured that their policies are adequate and that they are appropriate.

You have acknowledged the role that local boards will play. I would ask very specifically if you can assure us that you are aware of the procedures and the policies that are in place in local jurisdictions across the province, that you are aware of the protocols that are in place for carrying out strip searches, and can you tell us whether you believe, as the chief enforcement officer of the province, that these policies and guidelines are adequate?

Hon Mr Christopherson: The officials in my ministry are obviously there to review the detailed standards. There are well over 100 police services boards, as well as the OPP, and each of them has different procedures to meet the standards. We have a division within the ministry, as the honourable member knows, that is responsible for developing the standards and working with the police services boards to ensure that the standards are being met. These are constantly being reviewed in the context of the Police Services Act. New standards are constantly being developed and, I might add, in some areas we're world leaders in the standards we're developing and implementing.

By and large, I would say I am very, very proud of the work that the police services boards and our police do in dealing with the day-to-day issues that happen on the streets of Ontario, but there's always room for improvement and we're constantly working with the police services boards and the chiefs to improve the standard of service that we have in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I thought I had heard you acknowledge in your answer to my first question that you did indeed feel that you had a responsibility as chief enforcement officer to ensure that there were adequate policies and procedures in place in every jurisdiction across the province. I take you back to my belief that the allegations of recent days have raised some very real concerns in the public mind about just how adequate the procedures are governing this particular procedure. You do have an opportunity to provide that reassurance. You have an opportunity to take leadership on the issue.

In fact, you not only have the power to ensure that adequate policies exist and that they're being enforced, you have the power to issue directives to police forces if you feel that the policies are not adequate as they currently exist.

I'm calling on you today to review the local policies that exist, to accept that personal responsibility for assuring the public of Ontario that there are adequate policies in place and that they're being followed. I ask whether you will commit to carrying out this review today and at the conclusion of the review to determine whether there is a further role for provincial policy and guidelines to be put in place on this matter.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say very clearly to the honourable member that I and this government take all such matters extremely seriously. I believe we need to look to the role of the civilian oversight body and the extraordinary powers it has in this regard. The public complaints commissioner has the authority to make directions or recommendations to me as they might apply province-wide, which indeed, if it's necessary in the current cases, will be part of the final deliberations as appropriate.

Let me say that I take this matter very, very seriously and we will be closely monitoring the situation. We need to allow the public oversight body the opportunity to do the job it's in place to do, but you have my assurance that we constantly review these kinds of matters, we take recommendations from the commissioner very, very seriously, and anywhere we can improve the service to the people of Ontario, we will take appropriate action.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): In the absence of the minister, I'll direct my question to the Premier. As you know, there are about 50 Pizza Pizza franchisees who were outside the Legislature this morning protesting the lack of laws protecting them from what appears to be rather one-sided, arbitrary treatment by their head office.

The franchisees have stated that the head office is treating them unfairly, misspending their money and throwing them out of their stores. These small business people have invested their life savings and in fact have mortgaged their homes to the hilt to buy these businesses. Pizza Pizza has even hired a convicted con man to oversee the company's operations, and the franchisees were not told that this man was coming directly out of jail to run the company.

There are no rules governing franchises. It has been referred to as the wild, wild west of the business world. Your minister has repeatedly refused to bring in any legislation to try to help these people or to even deal with them on an individual basis to try to help them.

There is clearly a problem within the franchise industry, identified as long ago as 1971, when a legislative committee said in a report, "We believe that the evils cry out for some control."

What do you say to the 50 Pizza Pizza franchisees who are losing their homes and in some cases their families over this terrible treatment by a ruthless head office?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The minister isn't here, as the member has indicated. I was aware of the fact that the people were here today, and obviously I've been following the allegations that you have repeated today with respect to the situation at Pizza Pizza and have been following them with a great deal of interest and concern.

There are a couple of points I would make. The first is that I don't want to say anything that would reflect on whatever legal action is now being taken, and I'm not entirely certain what that is. I don't have any music with me that would indicate that, so I want to be sure I don't say anything that's going to prejudice that in any way, shape or form. I know the honourable member would understand my caution in that regard.

Also, I would have to exercise some caution with respect to some of the descriptions, as colourful as they are, that the honourable member has used in the House, and would be interested to see whether he makes similar kinds of statements elsewhere.

I would say to the honourable member that the one thing he has said that is of concern to me is that the ministry or the government has absolutely refused to look at legislation. That is an untrue statement. We are obviously reviewing all of the consumer and commercial legislation and that review is ongoing.

I would simply say to the honourable member that he's right; there have been concerns raised for many years. He was an active member of a government for five years that did zip on this subject.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: We are obviously looking at what can be done realistically to deal not only with this particular problem, which is a particularly difficult and emotional one, but also with some longer-term concerns that are there because of the changes in business practices and business organization and the way in which the economy is organized.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you know better than I what you can say in this place and repeat outside this place. You have a great deal more experience in that particular matter than I do. Let me tell you, Premier, you can also respond with certain humorous anecdotes about this, but it's not very funny to those people and their families. I notice the somewhat sly look on your face about some of these issues. It's not very funny.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: Well, go ahead. These people are losing their homes, their businesses, their families, their life savings and you people go ahead and act that way.

My supplementary to the Premier is that there are reports that some $8.5 million of the franchisees' money has been squandered over the last five years. There's also a human cost involved, which I've referred to, and this week several franchisees were threatened with imminent seizure of their stores.

I want to share with the Premier a letter to one of our members from one of these franchisees, a letter dated September 22 in which he says, "I have owned a Pizza Pizza franchise for five years in North York and I was told today, September 22, that I must vacate my store premises by 10 am, Tuesday, September 28." That's six days' notice to vacate a store that he has owned for some five years. He goes on to say, "Time is running out for me, and unless something is done within the next six days, I will lose my store."

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Mahoney: He refers to the 50 people who are being affected by this very arbitrary, very callous treatment by the Pizza Pizza head office.

Premier, I will admit to you that since 1971 --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: -- successive governments have not tackled this issue. You are supposed to be the champion of the little guy. These are small businesses. They're losing their life savings. Will you instruct your minister to meet with these 50 franchisees immediately to draft regulations to ensure that this kind of treatment is not allowed to take place in the small business community in this province and to find ways to help these people not to lose their homes --

The Speaker: The member has placed his question. Would the member please take his seat. Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer, I guess the shortest I could make it, is that first of all I don't accept for a moment the member's statement that somehow there was anything sly in my response; quite the opposite. I was trying to be careful, because I feel that's part of my responsibility with respect to whatever legal action is now under way, and I have to be careful about that.

I would say to the honourable member that this is an issue that has been discussed in the House on a number of occasions. There are a number of views even among franchisees themselves with respect to the desirability of across-the-board regulation, and this is a very live issue with respect to the matter in the province. The minister, as well as the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and those ministries have been involved in discussions, not only obviously arising from the series of articles that is in one of the daily newspapers but also in terms of the immediate issues that are there.

I can assure the honourable member that we will want to continue that very active review, and I know the minister will also want to be meeting with the particular people you've mentioned.

I can't accept the allegation that in responding in this way, the government -- we don't have a magic wand instantly to wave, but the member has raised an important issue. The issues are out there and, obviously, if there are significant abuses in the marketplace and they appear to be systemic and reflective of a broader problem --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- we will have to deal with a broader solution, even though there are many in the House who would decry the introduction of legislation.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the minister responsible for automobile insurance, who I believe is still the member for Hamilton Mountain. Since your government came to power, you have continually promised us that there would be lower rates in auto insurance, notwithstanding the fact that in the last provincial budget your Treasurer established a 5% tax on auto insurance premiums, and currently the Ontario Insurance Commission is allowing insurers to increase rates under the existing OMPP from 5% to 6%. That to date is a total of 11%.

I've been informed that you've finally finished the regulations on your new legislation, which of course you rammed through both committee and this House without full debate. I understand that you've promised insurers that they can increase their rates by a further 5% over the 11% that's being currently charged if they fast-track approval to your regulations. What you are saying to the insurance companies is that if they close their eyes, hold their nose and accept your regulations, you will give them money. I think there's a word for that.

My question: Is it true that you're enticing the insurance companies to rush through approval of the regulations by offering them a further 5% rate increase after promising this entire House and the people of this province that there would be no auto insurance premium increases in this province?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The member poses an interesting question, although I must say that I think his memory is very short, with a number of clips out of it in the middle. I say to the member two things.

First, one of the clips he left out was that this minister delivered a reduction in auto insurance premiums in this province in the fall of 1991 to the tune of 5% across the board. They don't like to talk about the fact that that reduction happened; they like to forget it exists.

Second, the member refers to increases that are happening this year under OMPP, under a plan which was introduced by the Liberals, which, for the purposes of their re-election, they wanted to make the people believe would solve the cost-crunch problems in this province, which hasn't, but which both of the opposition parties said clearly during the debate on Bill 164 they wanted to continue. The actuarial studies on OMPP show that if we didn't proceed to do something, costs over the next several years would be escalating at an average of about 10% per year.

Lastly, in response to the last part of the member's question, I have been saying for some two years now that the actuaries who costed our plan for us suggested average cost increases by that plan of about 4.4%.

Mr Tilson: I think if you add up what I've just said with the figures that you simply are not disputing, you're already up to 15%, and your answer gives no justification as to why you're proceeding with Bill 164.

Minister, your plan of rate increases, allowing for 5% for these people who purchase full insurance packages -- many people do not purchase full insurance packages, and that includes particularly the seniors in this province who don't buy collision, those people who rarely drive or those people who have older cars. They do not buy the collision packages, so they don't buy the full packages. Those people will be charged a rate of 8% to 9% increase in auto insurance rates. This means that senior citizens will have rate increases of 20% as the result of your package that you're putting forward in Bill 164. Don't you think that you've already done enough harm to seniors?

We had a statement in the House earlier about insurance being charged to the seniors out of this province. We've seen how their drug-purchasing ability is going down the tubes because of the policies of your Health minister, one more attack on the seniors of this province. Why are you doing this?

Hon Mr Charlton: I simply repeat some things that I've said a number of times here in this House. Firstly, I repeat that the increases that are happening this year are a result of current legislation that was passed in 1990, legislation which both of the opposition parties have suggested we should leave in place, legislation which all of the actuarial studies done by the industry show will increase at an average rate of 10% a year for the next several years. There is no year, under the direction we've taken, in which the increase will even reach 10%, let alone 20% in one year. There is no year in which that will happen.

The reality of the question the member raises is that the increases that are happening this year gain nothing for anybody. They are for the coverage that they already have. The increases that are associated with Bill 164 are increases that deliver extra coverage and extra protection to the very vulnerable people the member refers to.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I'm sure the minister shares my gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition for raising a question yesterday about the Wolfe Island ferry. I do want to point out to the leader, though, that if she plans to go to Wolfe Island, it will take considerably longer than the five minutes that she mentioned in her remarks yesterday; it's more like 25 minutes. But you're certainly welcome to come over to Wolfe Island. I know you'll enjoy the trip.

Some of my constituents who live on Wolfe Island are angry that they will have to pay a fare for the ferry service to the mainland for the first time in 30 years. They say that introducing the fare is the same as imposing a toll on a provincial highway because the ferry route is a continuation of a highway.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Kingston and The Islands please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gary Wilson: I know the members of the House would like to find out some answers to this question, judging by the level of interest, so I hope they'll let me continue.

My constituents say that the cost will be onerous on families because there are so few services on Wolfe Island. Islanders must go to the mainland for all their health and dental care, their shopping, to go to high school, to play sports and some even to go to church. In other words, they are almost completely dependent on the mainland and completely dependent on the ferry service to get them there, and the cost is very high.

My constituents say that it's unfair because they will have additional costs while their property values go down. Some say they will no longer be able to afford to live on Wolfe Island and the few businesses that operate on the island will close or relocate.

Will the minister say why he is imposing this additional burden on a fragile community when most people are already struggling through a tough economy, and will the minister respond to my constituents' concerns about fairness and community survival?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for his ongoing concern vis-à-vis what is a serious situation.

Charging a fare on a ferry boat is not without precedent in the province of Ontario. It's been going on for decades. What we strive for is equity and fairness. We operate 14 services across the province, 23 ferries. There are three of them at present, for some political reasons, that have yet to charge a fee. The province pays 100% of capital. The province is trying to recoup anywhere between 20% and 30% of operation. It's called user-pay. It's unfortunate. We have a responsibility to the people of Wolfe Island; we also have a responsibility to all users and all Ontarians. With respect, they're subsidizing the ferry system in the province of Ontario.

Mr Gary Wilson: In talking to my constituents on Wolfe Island about the fare, I am convinced that many islanders face a hardship because of the daily expense. Some estimate that paying $3.50 a day return could cost some families $3,000 a year or more. Adjusting tight family budgets at this time is too difficult for many islanders. How does the minister propose to help those facing hardship because of the proposed fare? Will he agree to phase in the fare, for example, so that families have time to adjust their budgets?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Words of wisdom indeed. We at Transportation have a responsibility to conduct an impact study. You don't want to pick the people's pockets; equity, fairness and a step-by-step approach so people will not be the victims of an undue financial burden. We're looking at it. But I want to remind the member, with the highest of respect, that in his riding, right beside the ferry going back and forth to Wolfe Island, there are shorter distances, and people pay. What we're trying to say is, let's ease the burden; let's treat everybody the same. Fairness and equity is our motto.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. While he returns to his seat, perhaps we could welcome him back to the House from his meetings with the council of ministers.

Last night, at its regular board meeting, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board passed the following motion:

"Whereas the public school boards in Metro Toronto have been asked to send the savings realized from the social contract process to the provincial government; and

"Whereas the province does not provide funding for the public boards in Metro to operate their education systems; and

"Whereas the ratepayers in Metro Toronto have clearly and definitively expressed the view that property taxes raised for education in Metro should not be sent to the provincial government,

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board supports the view that savings realized through the social contract remain in Metro."

Minister, I understand the amount involved is about $41 million and that also last night the board requested an urgent meeting with you. Can you tell the House today that you will meet with them as soon as possible?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): A meeting had already been set up with the chair of the Metropolitan school board. I've already met with Ann Vanstone on this issue a couple of times and another meeting had already been set up, so of course there will be a meeting.

I think it's important for the member to understand that through this whole process of the social contract and the expenditure control plan, when every other school board in this province had to cut back on spending because we cut back on our expenditures through the expenditure control program, the Metropolitan Toronto public school board had absolutely no impact, because there were no cutbacks. Then there was the social contract and Metropolitan Toronto is saying, "We shouldn't be impacted with the social contract either."

The fact of the matter is, even during these difficult times, Metropolitan Toronto has more resources than any other school board in this province, and it's a matter of justice and a matter of equity for education for all of the kids in this province. If you're advocating that other areas of the province should pay more so that Metropolitan Toronto doesn't have to pay at all, then this government fundamentally disagrees with you.

Mr Beer: The hypocrisy that lies in that answer, from a minister whose government has shown no consideration --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York North. That's very surprising coming from the member for York North. I know that he would like to rephrase what he's just said.

Mr Beer: I withdraw whatever it was I said that caused concern.

What I want to be very clear on to the minister is that what is of real concern to Metro Toronto, and indeed to Ottawa, is that the large cities in this country -- and here we're dealing with the two big ones in Ontario -- are facing real and unique problems, problems that go way beyond what many others are facing, and where they need dollars to deal with those problems.

The province pays no money to Metro Toronto. They have capital programs; they get no money. What Metro is saying is: "We have to deal with expanded programs for immigrant adaptation and ESL programs. We have to deal with violence in the schools and develop meaningful programs. We have to build new schools and add to the schools that we have. We have to take in kids from other parts of the province because of the special programs that we have." In addition, Metro itself is looking at cutting some $150 million out of its own budget and may have to stop its capital program, which is going to provide 10,000 needed jobs in Metro Toronto.

What they are asking is not for you to give back money that is yours, but that the money raised from Metro property taxpayers be used here in Metropolitan Toronto so that they can face and deal with their own problems. That's what they're asking.

Minister, will you make a commitment to meet with them and ensure that their needs are met?

Hon Mr Cooke: The fact of the matter is that through the social contract process there is not one dollar that's being taken out of the classroom, and he knows it. Through the controls in the social contract legislation, the $41 million that would come back to the province would have a neutral impact on the school board, because they're saving money as a result of the wage legislation and the freezing of the grid and so forth.

The fact is that of course this government understands that there are additional resources required in a community that has as many challenges as they do in the classroom. They spend over $8,000 per student in this community, compared with other communities that spend just over $4,000. Maybe one of the things that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board needs to take a look at is how much money is going into administrative resources and school boards that don't even run schools. Maybe that's what should be looked at in this community to save money and provide more resources to the kids in the classroom.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a question, again to the Minister of Education, on the same topic.

The question that I would ask you to address is, do you agree? Will you let the Metropolitan Toronto School Board give the money back to the taxpayers who paid the money in the first place? Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers paid that money. Will you allow the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to give that money back to those taxpayers?

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, the member should understand that it's not as if the Metropolitan school board does not get any money from the provincial government. The fact of the matter is that $93 million is paid by the provincial government for the pension plan for all the teachers who work in Metropolitan Toronto. So it's not as if there is no contribution.

Secondly, if we were to follow the honourable member's suggestion, I would ask him to go and talk to the chair of the Catholic school board in Metropolitan Toronto and ask her what her position is and what impact his suggestion would have on the Catholic ratepayers in this community, who would then have to lower their taxes to maintain equal property taxes for the Catholic and public school ratepayers, which would be very destructive to the Catholic school board.

You can take the position you're taking, but you also have kids and ratepayers in your community who go to the Catholic school system. There's a letter that's on record, that has been sent out to the public from the Catholic school board, and I quote: "If the Metropolitan Toronto School Board does not turn over moneys collected and negotiated through the province's social contract, it will be another example of one wealthy board deliberately failing to recognize the education funding equalization." Go talk to your trustees on the other school board.

Mr David Johnson: There has already been a precedent set in this regard. This government has permitted the utilities across the province of Ontario -- and rightfully so, I must say; I support the government in this -- to apply the social contract savings against their own hydro rates next year to keep those rates down. The Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the Ottawa school board are simply asking for the same consideration.

If you ask the taxpayers what they think about this, first of all, Metropolitan Toronto, about eight to one, supports that the money should go back to those who will pay for it. Secondly, the taxpayers are certainly telling us that there's not a revenue problem; there is a spending problem with this government. They're concerned that what we have here is simply another way for the government to raise taxes, in this way, an indirect way, through the municipal property assessment base.

My question to you, Mr Minister: Is this a signal that this government intends to introduce pooling for education taxes? Is this a signal that this government intends to infringe in the future on the municipal property assessment base?

Hon Mr Cooke: Again, I ask the member to go speak to the other school board in his community and understand that there is a very real issue in terms of making sure that the mill rates are comparable, and the impact that your suggestion would have on the Catholic school system in Metropolitan Toronto, which also has a fair number of your constituents attending that system as well. You might want to go hear the other side of the story.

In terms of province-wide pooling, we are looking at the question of education finance reform. You ask me what our position is. We haven't got a policy at this point. The issue is being reviewed. Maybe at some point you can tell us whether you still support Bette Stephenson's position when she was Minister of Education, where she did talk of proposed province-wide pooling many years ago. That used to be the position of the Tory party; I don't know what it is today.

HOUSING PROGRAMS

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is directed to the Minister of Housing. In my riding of London South there are a number of housing access programs such as the Partners in Housing program and the access to permanent housing program. These programs received funding from the Ministry of Housing in the past, but have been told they will no longer receive permanent funding. There is a concern about what can be seen as cuts to our home-sharing agencies.

Minister, could you explain what has happened to the grants program for community-based housing activities and what steps have been taken to ensure people receive the housing services they need?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'd be pleased to do that. Last year, we had about 11 small community-based programs that included everything from education for landlords to training for municipal officials and so on, and there was funding for community partners-type programming of the kind you mentioned. Home-sharing programs were part of that.

We have now consolidated all these programs, and with reduced funding, about $4 million less -- the funding is now just over $7 million -- we have asked the service groups that are providing education and direct assistance to people to find access to affordable housing in their communities, and that provide advocacy services on behalf of such people, to consolidate their efforts within communities.

We've managed through this and with the cooperation of the organizations at the community level to be able to provide a more consistent level of service at the community base across the province. Areas which hadn't had funding before now have services. In some cases, home-sharing programs have not received funding. In other cases, in eight out of 17 cases, in fact they have become the core of an expanded housing service at the community level.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 25.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the following standing committees: on the standing committee on estimates, Mr Hayes for Mr Jamison; on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mrs Haslam for Mr North; on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, Mr Dadamo for Mr Farnan and Mr Sutherland for Mr Owens; on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Mr Cooper for Mr Drainville and Mrs Haslam for Mr Morrow; on the standing committee on public accounts, Mr Bisson for Mr Farnan and Mr Owens for Mr Hayes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I find this a bit of a strange motion, which is why I want to speak to the motion. I understand fully why, for instance, on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mrs Haslam is replacing Mr North. Mr North has decided to leave the New Democratic Party because he no longer agrees with it and is now sitting as an independent, so that's certainly understandable. I understand why Mr Cooper is replacing Mr Drainville on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, because Mr Drainville has left the New Democratic Party to come to this side of the House and is now running as an independent in the federal election.

But I really cannot understand why Mrs Haslam is replacing Mr Morrow on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, because Mr Morrow, I believe, if my memory is correct, is the Chair of this committee, and the report I have from people who sit on the committee -- certainly the members of both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have indicated that he has been a fairminded Chairman, in their estimation, that he has conducted his responsibilities in an appropriate fashion, and it makes me wonder why the government would want to replace him as the Chair of that committee.

I was reading this book the other day -- my colleague the member for Renfrew North has the book and may be able to quote from it -- and I noted in this book I was reading by Mr Roberts and Mr Ehring that in fact dissent is not brooked within the New Democratic Party.

It seems to me that just as Mr Kormos was replaced because he happened to make statements which were not entirely with keeping with the New Democratic Party --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No, no, with Bob Rae.

Mr Bradley: -- and because he annoyed the Premier, and I recall my good colleague the member for Lincoln, wonderful gentleman that he is, voted against the government on the tobacco tax because he felt that it would be damaging to some of the rural people in Ontario, and he was turfed from that committee -- what do they make, $10,000 extra? He lost his $10,000 extra. He was in the penalty box for a little while and then he was allowed to come back in when he did his penance and he's now back in the good books of the government.

But here we are. The Premier obviously has dictated this, because this is how it works. The Premier has said that the member for Wentworth East is not prepared to simply be a puppy dog. He's prepared to buy his own lunch when they go to palatial places to meet. He buys his own lunch, pays for his own hotel room and doesn't always agree when the government breaks its commitments that it has made to the voters during an election campaign, because he's a long-time New Democrat who obviously believes very strongly in the policies of the New Democratic Party.

I know, on automobile insurance, he went from one end of Wentworth East to the other speaking in favour of the NDP position on government automobile insurance. There are a number of other issues. He voted against the social contract, I believe.

Despite the fact that members of the government, and particularly the Premier, talk about giving more power to the individual members of the Legislature, about making the elected people supreme to those who are simply the unelected advisers to the Premier and the unelected civil service, we now find that when a person is going to show some degree of dissent from the government, the guillotine is applied.

It seems to me that we are going back a few centuries, a couple of centuries at least, to France. I saw Les Miz here in the city and this reminds of it. The guillotine was eventually going, and we have the guillotine being applied once again to the member for Wentworth East.

Now the member for Wentworth --

Mr Elston: North.

Mr Bradley: North -- I've been reading the Hamilton Spectator and other publications, and the member for Wentworth North and the member for Hamilton East I think were disagreeing on something --

Mr Elston: Wentworth East.

Mr Bradley: -- Wentworth East and Wentworth North were disagreeing on something.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): No, no. The member for Wentworth North simply said that the member for Wentworth East wasn't pulling his weight.

Mr Bradley: The member for Wentworth North accused, it said in the Spectator --

Mr Conway: Highly accusatory.

Mr Bradley: -- accused the member for Wentworth East of not doing his job appropriately. I wish I had the paper here today; I had it at one time.

Mr Conway: You have another Spectator.

Mr Bradley: The only Spectator I have now is a Spectator that says: "NDP Collapse Shock: Poll Pegs Local Support for Party at 4%." I think the member for Wentworth East is trying to get that up from 4% and he's trying to bring the New Democratic Party back to its roots.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: I must say that though some of my colleagues are smiling and making me smile, I lament the fact that democracy appears to be again under assault, that openness of debate appears to be under assault in this House. I lament the fact that the Premier will tolerate no dissent and that he's now going to fire the member for Wentworth East simply because he's standing up for what he ran for and for NDP policy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Further debate?

Mr Conway: I just want to join my friend from St Catharines in an observation about this particular motion. I think the member is right in pointing out that a number of the substitutions are quite understandable.

It's hard to contemplate that Mr Drainville, actively campaigning as he is up in Victoria these days, could continue in his duties here, and Mr North, of course, has chosen to do other things as well within the context of this assembly.

But we are struck by the motion that the government House leader has put, essentially removing --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Pardon me?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm not talking to you.

Mr Conway: -- Mr Morrow from the standing --

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Must be the glasses.

Mr Conway: It is the glasses, actually. But there is an air of incredulity, I say very seriously to the member from Scarborough. I've stood here for 18 years and I've been lectured to by Stephen Lewis and Donald Macdonald and the most sainted of all, Bob Rae.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): How about Michael Cassidy?

Mr Conway: Bob Rae and Michael Cassidy -- well, Michael Cassidy was -- we've been lectured to repeatedly about the old-line parties and their altogether too rigid view of party discipline. Now we've got Mr Owens, one of the enforcers, looking angelic and incredulous at today's happenings.

As the member for St Catharines observes, this is not the first time we've seen this. I will congratulate the government House leader. He's got it right this time. He's wrong, but at least he's doing the wrong thing the proper way. Last time, do you remember the pathetic effort to dump Kormos from the standing committee on resources development? My constituents figure that a government that can't run a moose lottery, can't figure out that the Wolfe Island ferry is part of the integral transport system of eastern Ontario, can't figure out how to even properly dump its own, is not a gang that is likely going to effectively kick-start and manage the Ontario economy.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): You guys sat on that committee.

Mr Conway: Now we have the member for Huron speaking. I simply want to make the point that you did this last time to Kormos and you got caught because you didn't even know how to go about it properly. So I guess you deserve some credit in your third effort, at least your third effort, to discipline members of this caucus who have dared to dissent from the Bob Rae-Ross McClellan order of the day.

Mr Owens: Don't forget Steve Owens.

Mr Conway: Well, no, you're not in their category. Don't you put yourself so high in the pantheon of NDP power.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I don't know why anybody would want to climb that high.

Mr Conway: Well, it's not a question of climbing high. My friend from St Catharines pointed out that --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I know how to what?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Conway: Listen. I'll tell you, I've got my sins --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent is asked to come to order.

Mr Conway: You can say all you want. I am simply here to hold the NDP accountable for what it's doing relative to what it said it was about. You have, for the third time in as many years, with this motion --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): How would you know?

Mr Conway: How would I know? I have not only got --

Mr Huget: Don't give us lectures about our policy.

Mr Conway: At the end of the day I want to say to my friend from Sarnia that I am not now just making a comment based on the evidence that your government is providing, and at 6% of the vote I can understand how in Chatham and Sarnia my friends are feeling the heat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Sarnia. Would the member for Renfrew North --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Sarnia to come to order, the member for Chatham-Kent as well, and it might be helpful if the member for Renfrew North directed his comments to the Chair.

Mr Conway: I have in my hand, and I am therefore debating, a motion from the NDP government House leader, which motion dumps one of the NDP members from the membership of and the chairmanship of the standing committee on the Ombudsman. My colleagues in the Liberal Party tell me that the member for Wentworth East has apparently done a good job in that responsibility.

What the member for Wentworth East has done, clearly, is that he has publicly repudiated some of the more outrageous policies of his government, and for that independent posture the member for Wentworth East is today being dumped from his position on the committee on the Ombudsman.

If this were the first time this was happening from a party which said it believed in a greater and more independent role for the Legislature, I would, I say to my friends from Chatham and Sarnia, be quite prepared to grant a greater latitude and understanding. But we have this spectacle for the third time now. The member for Lincoln was dumped, and dumped summarily, for taking an independent position a few years ago around a budget initiative, the Tobacco Tax Act. A year ago, the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member from Welland, was improperly and unceremoniously dumped from the standing committee on resources. Today we have another example.

And this was the New Democratic Party. This is the party that was going to be different. By their own protest that I've heard for years, they were better and they were different. They seem to think it's just a bunch of Liberals castigating them on partisan grounds. Well, the member --

Interjections.

Mr Klopp: I don't have to think that; I know that.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Huron.

Mr Conway: The member for St Catharines is right. I did spend some time recently reading some books, one of which was the Ehring and Roberts book, Giving Away a Miracle. In this book by two prominent Ontario New Democrats, not Liberals, there is a

chapter in

part I about the 10 deadly sins of the New Democratic Party. One of the deadly sins, something to which the member for St Catharines referred, is dealt with in a subchapter entitled "The No Dissent Party: 'Democratic' Isn't the NDP's Middle Name."

Mr Huget: Read the Patti Starr book.

Mr Conway: That's not Conway speaking; that's not even Bradley speaking. That is the opinion of two long-time NDP members who have given the province and the country their insight into the inner workings of the New Democratic Party.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): That's stretching it a bit.

Mr Conway: Well, George Ehring; I know George. He worked here for a number of years serving Mr Richard Johnston, someone who, we all know, is a pillar in the New Democracy.

Mr Mammoliti: What does Patti say? I want to know what Patti says. What does Patti say?

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview, please come to order. Would the member for Renfrew North take his seat. I ask the member for Yorkview to come to order.

Mr Conway: I am not going to read

chapter and verse of this particular book, but it's something this motion and the previous situations involving the members for Lincoln and Welland-Thorold would now be able to add to. We have another example of how this Rae government is not prepared to tolerate any dissent within the government, and it is shameless and public about the way in which it intends to go about disciplining anyone who dares take a contrary view.

I simply want to say that I think it is a bad day for this Legislature when governments seek to do this to members of the assembly who, by all accounts, are doing a reasonably good job in the assignments to which they were sent. I can understand any government or any group of elected officials petitioning to rid themselves of an unsuccessful or a truculent or a very difficult Chair, perhaps even a Speaker. I can understand a Premier deciding at a certain point that he's had enough of a given minister.

But what we've got here is a situation today where once again the government is moving unilaterally to remove a Chair of one of the legislative committees where there is apparently no evidence that the member has done anything but a good job.

I just want to say to the assembly and to the public beyond that this is not an acceptable conduct today. It might have been years ago; it might have been some time ago. But we are in the midst now of a national election campaign where I think it is clear to all of us that a good bit of the old order is under a great deal of attack, and some, if not much, of the old order is washing away before our eyes.

I can't believe my friend the member for Oxford, who is a good fellow, a very hardworking member of the assembly, supports this. I can't believe he supports this. I'm simply here as a member of this Legislature, looking at the motion I have in front of me, and I want to hold the assembly accountable for what we are doing here today. I want to ask my friends in the NDP to very carefully consider what their government is doing to one of their own, one of our own, today.

This place has run for too long on the notion that the executive decides all. I have to be fair in saying that it's not just this government that has operated with this attitude, but I must say, I can't remember either the Davis or the Peterson governments moving as often to remove committee Chairs as this government has done in but three years, and that is a surprise and a disappointment, I think, to those of us who've been here a long time and who expected that the NDP would be at least as good as the Tories and Liberals, and probably better, if they were to be judged by their own rhetoric.

What has surprised me is the measure of intolerance in the current government of its own members who stand apart from certain government initiatives. Ron Hansen was dumped from his position within minutes of the vote.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I'm properly reprimanded: the member for Lincoln. As I remember, the member for Lincoln was dumped within minutes of that vote here a few years ago. I think he got to the door and was told he was no longer Chair of the economic and finance committee. I mean, it was bang.

What Bill Davis used to do in the old days was, when people did things like that, he put them into the cabinet. He did. You might laugh. Is there anybody here -- I guess I am the only one left who remembers how Larry Grossman got into the cabinet. Larry Grossman got into the cabinet by doing the sorts of things that the member for Lincoln and to some extent the members from Welland and Wentworth have done. There were a lot of very dutiful Tory backbenchers who in those years thought it was not a particularly good way to build a collegial team, but that's the way it used to happen.

My friend the member for Etobicoke-Humber's not here, but he's been a very interesting and I think fairly independent member of this Legislature. I remember the days when the member from Humber took a rather independent view of certain government initiatives that I know my friend from Bruce remembers better than I.

It was not easy, I can say for the member for Bruce and the former Premier, to always deal with the independent posture of the member for Etobicoke-Humber, but I don't remember the government of David Peterson moving so punitively -- or punitively at all -- against the member from Humber as the Rae government has moved on three successive occasions against three members of its own caucus.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Now we've got the member for Sarnia bursting at the seams to get into this debate, and he should, because a year ago when his government --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor.

Mr Conway: A year ago, when his government moved to improperly and unceremoniously dump the effective member from Welland from his job as Chair of the resources committee, the next step in that move was for the government to make the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy at the same time Chair of the standing committee on resources development; in my view, a laughable conflict of interest, one not yet to have dawned on most people over there, least of all the good member for Sarnia, who, despite my difference of opinion with him on this subject, is a person for whom I have the highest regard and a guy I can't still imagine is not yet in this cabinet.

I do not know why the member for Sarnia, differ with him as I might, is not in a cabinet that has had people in it like the honourable member from Peterborough and the honourable members from a variety of other places. But I say to him that a year ago, the member for Sarnia saw nothing wrong with, at one at the same time, the government moving to dump --

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just wondering whether it's all right for the member to stand there and insult other members of this House.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The Chair did not see that as an insult.

Mr Conway: I apologize profusely if any insult was read into those remarks. I thought I was saying positive things about the member for Sarnia, who is a very capable fellow.

What I want to say, though, when this last happened a year ago or less, when the government of Bob Rae sought -- they'd had enough of Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, and they were going to get him out of their way. So without a motion of this House, they sent some of their friends into the committee to do a laughable piece of business, and the result of that was that we got the parliamentary assistant for Environment and Energy nominated and elected as Chair of the standing committee on resources development, where half of the time is spent dealing with issues of the environment and energy. But that was no conflict; there was nothing improper in that.

I just simply make the point again that we all talk about the need for a more involved Legislature, the need to enhance the role of members, of all parties, who are not of the executive council and those who are not members of the front bench, for whatever that means, over here. I think that is an understandable and legitimate ambition for all honourable members to pursue, and quite frankly, it is what the public out there expects, that if the member for Oxford comes down here and is elected as Chair of a committee and does a good job, he's going to be able to keep that job even though he might differ with some of --

Mr Sutherland: Do you want to sit down and debate real issues like the Environmental Bill of Rights?

Mr Conway: Well, this, I want to say --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: I want to say, Mr Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind all members that you will all have the opportunity of participating. The member for Renfrew North is on a time allotment. He has some 11 minutes and 50 seconds left. Please allow him the opportunity.

Mr Conway: I know there are some people around who think this is not an issue at all. This is a very fundamental issue. It's a very important issue, and since most of this assembly won't be here in three years' time, most people now listening to these remarks won't be here in three years' time, I think five and 10 years from now some of us will want to reflect on the time and the stewardship we had here.

Interjection: That are here.

Mr Conway: Well, listen, I've got to tell you, and I'm not pointing my finger in any one direction, but the fact of the matter is, the average length of stay in this assembly now is 4.3 years.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Since you were in government.

Mr Conway: The member from High Park makes comments about since I was in government. Well, I've been here for 18 years, a long time, and I'll tell you, I don't think I've got enough fingers on my hands to count the members I have known from High Park-Swansea. I don't think there's another electoral district that makes my case. I'm trying to be direct, and I just simply want to make the point that this is a very important issue. I simply say to the government and to members of the opposition that the role of members of this assembly is important.

You know, that famous quip that Pierre Trudeau made, that MPs were nobodies 50 feet from Parliament, is in fact inaccurate in today's context. MPs are increasingly nobodies within the precinct of Parliament. That's the real irony of our situation today.

When the member for Wentworth East goes home, he's a somebody. People have elected him. They know something of the work he's doing on their behalf. They may not have voted for him, they may not intend to support him in another election, but he's a somebody at home and they expect him to be somebody here.

And part of being a somebody here, from the point of view of the honourable members, is an understanding on the part of first ministers and party leaders, whether they're Bob Rae, David Peterson, Frank Miller, Bill Davis, Jean Chrétien, Kim Campbell, you name them, that those first ministers and party leaders are going to be a little more understanding and a little more tolerant of an independent posture taken by those honourable members within the precincts of Parliament if, as and when those people decide, in their interest and in their consideration, as the member for Lincoln did when he voted against I think it was the tobacco act, that that in his judgement was not an initiative he wanted to support.

Why should he then be told 10 seconds later that he's going to be removed as a Chair of one of the standing committees where he's done a good job?

If all of us in this place and in the parties to which we belong do not understand that that is the kind of rigidity and top-down dictation that is really infuriating people and giving real steam to the Preston Mannings of the world, if we don't understand that we'd better quickly turn our ear to the wind because some very interesting things are happening out there and we ought to be careful about these kinds of motions because, I've got to tell you, if I were a Reform candidate out there in this election and, I don't care who it was, whether it was Premier Rae, Premier Peterson or Premier Davis, if they did these kinds of things in the absence of any other evidence other than an independent posture taken by the honourable member on occasion, then I would tell you as a candidate campaigning for a new way of doing business, I would feel that I had some very good ammunition.

I want to conclude my remarks by saying that this is important business for this Legislature. It is important that we all understand what's happening here. I hope that we all think carefully about the signal this sends, not just to honourable members in the chamber but to the community beyond. You either toe the line in this executive, first-minister-driven world or you will be penalized in a way that will affect your standing within the caucus and, in this case, in a way that will affect your pocketbook. I don't think that's a signal that we should be sending with the degree of frequency that this government has been sending it over the last number of years.

I just want to say to people here, irrespective of their political stripe, that I hope the day returns when as individual members, either in the government or in the opposition, we can feel comfortable about the hope and the reality of being a somebody again within the precincts of the legislative place.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Charlton's motion.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, I don't want to take a tremendous amount of time up on the motion before us. Particularly the members on the government side will see this as a housekeeping matter and a bit of work that should not take up any, if a very limited, amount of time.

Certainly you can understand the changes that many have gone through, and I understand the changes for Mr Farnan and so on, and of course Mr Drainville leaving necessitates the other changes.

Much has been made about the fact that any opposition that is verbal and public to this government by members of the government has been dealt with in a rather swift fashion. Much has been made of the fact that they've, in fact, handled those situations very badly. So badly, in fact, that there was the debacle, as was mentioned earlier, regarding Mr Kormos at the committee where they wanted to kick him off and they couldn't figure out exactly how. Then, of course, Mr Hansen's dumping as Chair after the tobacco bout, and today we see Mr Morrow being moved off as Chair of a committee that I can only assume he doesn't want to be moved off of.

So the laughter about the moose tag jokes and so on is probably a reasonable assessment because, as has been said, they can't even dump their own people properly. Maybe the comparison is that they can't even stab their own members in the back the right way; they keep hitting them in the chest.

We have now another example of a member before us --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Here they go, the gaggle -- as I understand it, away on their retreat a weepy and teary group got together and they got whipsawed and they got told what a wonderful life it is and they've got a job for two more years, which they should be thankful for. With that, I'm certain at that time the decision was made that if they were going to keep this crew in order and keep their ducks in a row, they were going to have to make examples of those who, God forbid, thought on their own, actually did their own thinking, voted against the social contract, which I can't believe to this date any of them voted for in the first place. Why --

Mr Klopp: You said you were going to vote for it.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry? The member for Huron had a pronouncement?

Mr Klopp: You got whipsawed. Don't tell me about whipsawing.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order, please. The member for Etobicoke West, please address the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: I'm doing my best, Mr Speaker. The member for Huron occasionally pipes up and I would like to respond. It would be even better if he could make a speech or a statement in this House and then we could really put it down on record and read it. But I have to deal with him as his party allows him to be dealt with, in appearance to be the same way that it's dealing with Mr Morrow, as the lot of you are being dealt with.

Why this runs deeper than just a simple announcement by the House leader is, previous to this government being formed, it was clear in the minds of New Democrats across this province and indeed this country that they were the fairest, most democratic, most reasonable, open-minded group around --

Mr David Winninger (London South): You're right so far.

Mr Stockwell: -- when it came to party policy -- and the member for London South tells us that I'm right so far. And you know what? Nobody could debate that, no one could make a debate about that, because in this House they had not sat as a government. But in the past three years, they're proving without a doubt, categorically, person by person -- Mr Hansen, Mr Kormos, Mr Morrow, Mr Drainville, Mr North, gone; and the crumbling continues -- that maybe they're not quite as fair and democratic and aboveboard and upfront as in fact they've suggested they were in the past 20, 30, 40 and 50 years.

Why this is important is this just isn't going to wash any more. This kind of treatment to a member of this Parliament who's been duly elected isn't going to wash with the constituents any more. I know a passing reference was made to Mr Manning of the Reform Party, but one of the major planks that he puts out there that the vast majority of people accept, the vast majority of people endorse, is the fact that a local member has the right to stand up to the government, of which they're one, and say, "No, I don't agree with you" --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): What's his platform?

Mr Stockwell: -- and not have any reprisal taken by the executive group that in fact runs that particular government. Excuse me?

Mr White: The non-platform platform.

Mr Stockwell: Again we have the cackling. I'd like you to enter into this debate. I think it's important that these backbenchers be allowed to enter into this debate because I'd like to see you go on the record saying: "Mr Morrow and Mr Kormos and Mr Drainville are all wrong. They're all wrong. This is the way you've got to treat these people. Any time someone votes against the government, you've got to get them right under your thumb and you grind them into the ground." Because that's what we're seeing here today.

Mr Morrow voted against some very important legislation that this government has, for what I believe to be fundamental principles and beliefs. What does he believe in? We know he doesn't believe in the social contract. You may directly link this motion today to the fact that Mr Morrow voted against the social contract; case closed. That's why this is happening and that's what the people in this province and indeed in this country will not accept.

What really is somewhat frustrating, I believe, is to see the backbenchers of this government party sit here and try to convince me and the people of this province that that's not the case. Who do you think you're kidding? Who do you think's going to believe you when you say, "Oh, no, this isn't the case. It's because" -- as the member for Wentworth North would say, he was leaving early.

We all know why this is taking place and we all know that this shouldn't take place and we all know that this won't take place for ever more, because the people will not allow this to continue to take place. The people from Wentworth won't allow it; the people from Welland won't allow it; the people from Etobicoke and Renfrew and Mississauga, right across this province, will not allow it.

This chair that was filled by the member from Hamilton -- and I would like to note it's a member from Hamilton who may not politically do too badly by this because the polls, as my friend from St Catharines noted, in Hamilton do not favour the government very well, simply being at 4%; that was shown earlier. He may well do well because of this.

In fact, if I were a government member, I may be looking for a reason, I may be looking for some rationale, to get turfed by my counterparts, my partners and my single-digit-popularity friends. So he may not do badly because of this particular endeavour that this government's taken, but I don't think that's what we should be debating today, whether or not he survives politically.

I think what we should be debating today is whether any government, because someone in its back benches chooses to think and chooses to disagree with the executive council, should then have to be punished in a very public and real sense because he has chosen to adopt the principles and beliefs he was supposedly elected here to represent, and also to adopt the principles and beliefs of those people who voted for him in his constituency.

Although it's a quick sentence from the House leader, and adopted by the backbenchers and agreed to by the cabinet, you know and I know and the people of this province know there's more to this than, "Mrs Haslam for Mr Morrow." There's more to this than just that. There's a very important message here for all the backbenchers in this government of two more years, and that important message is: "Step out of line and you're through. Step out of line and you're finished. Step out of line and not only will you be through with us; we will in fact cut your pay, cut your responsibilities and cut your action."

If the backbenchers can't see it, the people can, and the people in this province will not stand for this kind of government any more. They want action and they want input and if, every time a member they elect down here has input that's different than the government, he'll be punished, they will not accept that.

So much has been said in the last few years about this government suggesting other parties are dinosaurs. One thing is very interesting. I think the tables have turned. I think the pendulum has swung. In some cases in the 1970s and maybe the 1980s there were some prehistoric thoughts in other parties that these people thought they led the opinion polls on. No longer, my friends. If there are any dinosaurs in this House, if there are any old-line thinkers who aren't in tune with the people today, it's you and your single-digit popularity. It's you and your attitudes towards people who choose to think on their own and vote against what I consider to be flawed government legislation.

No longer will you be saying, "Where are the dinosaurs?" You're the dinosaurs, you're out of touch and you're not treating your people the way you said you'd treat them when you were on this side of the House.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): It's a great opportunity for me to stand in the House and speak today. It could possibly be one of the few times that I get an opportunity to speak in this House.

I wanted to address an issue that I think is important certainly to me, but that could be important to other members of this House as well, and that's the issue that my name personally has been deleted, but more so than this, that there are, to my knowledge, no names for independents on committees.

As I look at a plaque on my wall in my office, it says, "The same rights, privileges and responsibilities of the position," and I suggest to you that it's of great concern to me, and I know I spoke to another gentleman who is an independent in this House and it's I think of great importance to him as well, that we be viewed as equal members of the Legislature. It's certainly our impression that we were elected as equal members. It's certainly our impression that somehow we're not less members than other members because we're not sitting affiliated to a certain party.

I know that in representing my particular constituents I don't necessarily decide, because they're affiliated to a certain party, that I represent them more or I represent them less. In my view, as humble as it may be, I try to represent them as best I can all the same.

If I'm not able, I think, to sit on a committee or represent the people of Elgin county on a committee, I somehow feel that those particular constituents who are in my constituency will not be properly represented in this Legislature, and for that matter outside this Legislature, on the various committees that happen across the province. It's a very fundamental thing, I think, to have a discussion about participation by all members of the House.

I know that the member from Renfrew talked earlier about the direction parliaments are taking. I think he tried in his discussion to red-flag somewhat or signal concern perhaps that comes from the very people who live in our particular constituencies across this province, that either they're not being heard by their particular member or they're not able to get their points across either in the Legislature or in the various committees they're representing them on.

It's ironic, I think, that you could be a sitting member in this House perhaps for 20 years, and a member could come in in a by-election and be a member of a sitting party, and there is a perception that the member who has come in on that very day perhaps would have more power than the member who has sat here for 20 years. I think it's wrong to have that perception and I think it's wrong to give that perception.

I suggest to all members of the House today that there should be some consideration, perhaps not for myself personally, but for members of the Legislature who would choose to sit as an independent and perhaps in the future would be elected as an independent, because I think they have a valuable role to play. I don't see anywhere in my particular county that it says I have to belong to a party to represent the people of Elgin county, and I think that would be true for any particular constituency across this province.

I'm asking as clearly as I can that independent members be considered for committee, that independent members be considered for the opportunity to speak in the House, to ask questions in the House, to enjoy debate in the House, to have all of the rights and privileges that it says on that plaque I have on my wall in my office. That is what I believe I was elected for, that is what my constituents believe I was elected for, and I hope I'm afforded the opportunity to represent them to the best of my abilities, because that is what I intend to do. With that, I thank you very much for the time.

Mr Elston: I won't be long in speaking, but just in reply to the previous speaker, the member for Elgin will want to know that the Legislative Assembly committee is already deliberating even now, or at least over the course of the summer, on the very issues about which he spoke. I might just refer him to at least one of the presentations that I've read so far, that by M. Morin of our caucus, who was making presentations in relation to questions raised earlier by the former member for Victoria-Haliburton about the rights and privileges of independent or non-aligned members in this House.

It's an interesting concept, Mr Speaker, calling people who are not associated with caucuses "independent members." For some time, and in fact during the course of your first term here, having been elected I guess in 1982, you probably were able to witness some of the most independent voting patterns that were ever noted in this Legislative Assembly on the part of the then opposition Liberal Party.

We were often looked at and yelled at by Michael Cassidy and the group of people off to our left in those days, because sometimes some of our members voted one way on a bill and sometimes, during the same vote, others opposed the position supported by some of their caucus colleagues.

The derisive laughter that originated from the government benches was often a little bit hard to accept, because people would say: "Look at those Liberals over there. They're really not able to make up their minds." Basically, what was being contemplated by the members who were voting in our caucus on different sides of the issue was the fact that they were representing what their constituents wanted them to stand for in this Legislative Assembly. There was a degree of independence in that caucus.

The members of the Liberal caucus over the years have been noted as some of the most independent ever. The memory of Eddie Sargent in this House, for instance, would bring to new highs the meaning of the word "independent." Elmer Sopha, James Bullbrook, predecessor to the member for Sarnia -- a huge number of individuals have swept through this Legislative Assembly in a manner which is to be described, I think almost meekly, as independent when you look at some of the things they said and some of the things they did in the face of some of the positions taken by their leaders of the day.

It didn't just happen with respect to the Liberal caucus. I've noted, from very limited experience, some 12 1/2 years, that there was the odd New Democrat who caused problems for their leader of the day. Morty Shulman in some ways caused great consternation for the leadership in opposition days. The member for Hamilton Mountain knowingly nods his head in agreement, because he was in that caucus when the days of independent New Democrats was almost the way of the world.

Hon Mr Charlton: They're still here.

Mr Elston: The day of the independent New Democrat was just confirmed to be still here, according to the member for Hamilton Mountain, but he jokes, because of course what is happening today is that there is a removal of the independent voting habits of the New Democratic Party members of this Legislative Assembly.

I watch on occasion, when I'm home at a decent hour, a program on the Arts and Entertainment channel of the cable I have, and it's a program which I think probably should be best suited to describe the activity we here now contemplate. The name of the program is Brute Force. Brute Force is an examination in some degree of a thorough nature of the items used to conduct warfare: psychological, physical and otherwise. That type of program would be best used to analyse the activities that have been undertaken here today, and on at least two other occasions, by the New Democratic Party's Premier.

Now, some people, and I note the member for Renfrew North was one of them, have suggested that this particular piece of brute force has been initiated and has been done almost unilaterally by the Premier and by the executive council.

I know, from having read the

article in the Hamilton Spectator, which quoted extensively the member for Wentworth North, and from speaking to others and having heard from other people in the hallways after votes by independent-minded New Democrats, ie, those people voting against a government position, that this is not just an isolated Premier's motion, passed through his executive council and lowered on the unsuspecting backbencher.

This is a piece of brute force which is highly moved and seconded by the general membership of the New Democratic Party caucus, because those people who have toed the line of the Premier and the executive council cannot bear the thought that there were those people who stood strongly and stridently for the things about which they spoke during an election campaign.

On a number of occasions, I have publicly declared my position contrary to a number of the things that the NDP campaigned about during the course of the last election. I don't agree with a number of their positions, and in a number of situations I have applauded some of the reversals. But I really do admire somebody who, having made the pitch, having made the promise or commitment to those people to whom they campaigned that certain things would happen if they had their way -- I applaud them and I admire them. I support them.

But the real problem I see in this House is that there is a definite lack of courage on the part of the rest of the New Democratic Party caucus to allow somebody else to contradict their collective spirit.

In fact, it seems to me that there are people who stand for what the New Democratic Party campaigned on in 1990, and according to himself, the member for Welland-Thorold is one. I think the member from Wentworth East is also another, although he is much more quiet and much more modest about his position on items of policy deliberation than the member for Welland-Thorold.

But let it not be seen by anybody who is an observer of this place that this is just a capricious act by a single Premier acting on his own will. This is a collective scrubbing out of any sense of squeamishness about the position of all of those other people who have voted against the items which they campaigned so hard on.

I was just taking a look at the book. I haven't read Giving Away a Miracle. I think it has some interesting stuff in it. I know Wayne Roberts a little bit; I've been interviewed by him on a couple of occasions. I was just looking at the

chapter entitled "The No Dissent Party: 'Democratic' Isn't the NDP's Middle Name." They start off with a quote from George Orwell, the Road to Wigan Pier, "The whole socialist movement is no more than an exciting heresy hunt."

In a way, what is so ironic about the situation in this House today is the heretical position now being espoused as that of the majority of the New Democratic Party caucus according to the things that they campaigned upon.

If there should be anybody who is hunting down the heresy to take it out of that party, it should be the member for Welland-Thorold; the member for Wentworth East; perhaps, although I don't speak for the member for Elgin, he is here in person and could speak in that regard himself; and other members of the New Democratic Party who would not stand for some of the things this government has done -- the reversal of auto insurance, for example, something I'm happy they did, but there are New Democrats who are not happy about that and have never seen that as part of the New Democratic Party's essence.

There was on Monday of this week in the gallery a small demonstration where people described a number of the New Democratic Party members, those 66 individuals who voted in favour of the social contract legislation, Bill 48, as it was then known, as traitors. In some ways, the member for Wentworth East escaped that label. He escaped being called a traitor by those people because he was one of the few New Democrats who stood in his place and said, "I will have none of this betrayal of our past and of our commitments."

The member for Perth was another, and we all know what that has done for her career, perhaps just temporarily. I don't know how long the penalty box time is to be served, but we do know that from time to time people do escape the penalty boxes. The member for Lincoln has escaped, although maybe not fully without being on probation or some other form of serious scrutiny by perhaps the whip or the deputy whip, the member for Wentworth North.

Somehow, what is so infuriating about all this stuff is that in the name of discipline, members of the New Democratic caucus, in their large numbers, are trying to salve the wounds which they have inflicted upon their own sense of decency, for as long as the member for Wentworth East was to stay as Chair of the standing committee on the Ombudsman, as long as the member for Perth was allowed to stay in the cabinet, as long as the member for Welland-Thorold was able to stay as caucus Chair in the resources committee, they would be a stark contrast to those people of weaker conscience who would not stand and vote where their party came from.

So what do you do to make sure that your conscience is not twigged at every turn, a reminder every day that they are seen? You remove them from visibility, and you exact a price for their conscience having governed their day. The price that the member for Wentworth East pays today is the loss of the chairmanship of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

For those people shaking their head over there, in numbers of 66 and even more on some other issues, who have been described as traitors by people just this past Monday, they are the ones who have sold out the traditions of the New Democratic Party so they could progress into the higher elements of government and perhaps sit at the table with their esteemed Premier. That is exactly why we are coming to the point today where the brute force of motions delivered by the government House leader are being laid before this democratic chamber.

Lest anybody be concerned about what is happening here, there will be a vote. This is not a unilateral move. They have to bring it here, but it is only so that the huge numbers of the New Democratic Party caucus can have their way and have it somehow legitimized.

We're going to be voting against this resolution, not because we don't want the change for Mr North, which is a necessary one; not because we don't want the change for Mr Drainville, because Mr Drainville no longer sits here in this House; but because they have tried to obscure the vote on the removal of Mr Morrow, the member for Wentworth East, from his position as Chair of the Ombudsman committee from the view of the public, so that they could gloss over that movement and hide it, swallow it up in what they would call mere house cleaning.

Well, this is a House cleaning. This is getting rid of the conscience of their caucus by making sure that anybody who would tread against the big numbers of the New Democratic Party will be shown the door. Mark Morrow voted, and he's gone. Peter Kormos voted, and he's gone. The member for Perth, Karen Haslam, voted, and she's gone.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): She quit.

Mr Elston: The member for Wentworth North is correct. The member for Perth did resign her position in cabinet; she did it honourably and she did it in the highest traditions of this House. Were it that you knew about the traditions of this House to allow some independence of movement in your own caucus. I challenge you, member for Wentworth North, to vote against this resolution, and I challenge all of those others over there who sit and laugh to vote against this motion to remove Mr Morrow.

Mr Abel: I follow my conscience. I vote the way I think is right.

Mr Elston: In fact, I would, if I had the authority, like to sever this particular portion of the motion, the portion that says "that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the following standing committees...on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Mr Cooper for Mr Drainville and Mrs Haslam for Mr Morrow." I should like to sever the portion that deals with Mrs Haslam being subbed for Mr Morrow, because I would like each person over there -- and the member for Wentworth North says he votes his conscience on this. There is no conscience on this except to vote away the conscience you need so badly to heal after you bruised it by voting on Bill 48.

You're getting rid of Mr Morrow so you won't feel guilty. You are undoing the things he has stood for so you won't be reminded every day that somebody can stand in his place and vote his conscience on pieces of public policy. That is the issue.

Mr Speaker, through you, to the member for Wentworth North I apologize for pointing, but there is no obvious explanation except that they are removing Mr Morrow because of his position on those votes. It's clear. It's been talked about in these halls; not in this chamber so much, but in the halls. Everybody has been awaiting this. We've known about it.

And you know something, Mr Speaker? Had Mr Drainville not retired from this assembly to run federally, there were going to be movements made, I am sure, to take him out of his position as Chair in the committee of the whole. He would have been done. He was not going to leave his place. He was going to