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

November 24, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Today my concerns are directed to the mismanagement which this government finds itself faced with on a daily basis. I'm not talking about the Piper affair, along with the many others; you know I could go on and on. What I'm talking about is the extension of sewer and water services in the town of Keewatin, a community in my riding.

Thus far, the Ministry of Northern Development has committed $600,000 to this project, the municipal board has okayed the financial structure, the certificate of approval is in place, the Ministry of Transportation has given permits for highway crossings, the tender has been let and the contractor is ready to go. As well, residents have agreed to put their share into the development and the town has agreed to pilot the project, but we have the Ministry of the Environment holding the entire thing up.

In speaking with the Minister of the Environment only yesterday, she too found it interesting that the Ministry of Northern Development would be playing a lead role in this, one which is normally taken by her ministry, as the project reflects directly on the environment. We must note that many of the properties that are involved are fronting on the Winnipeg River.

Every minister across the way has talked about the creation of jobs: jobs, jobs, jobs. We hear the word on a daily basis, but here we have a prime example where the words are not matching the actions.

I call upon the Minister of Northern Development, the Minister of the Environment and the Treasurer to come together on this most important development so that these jobs can be saved in northwestern Ontario. It could be a long winter of unemployment for those contractors involved, and I again ask the ministers involved to review their procedures involving this particular project in the town of Keewatin.

ONTARIO HYDRO SERVICE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last weekend, parts of Owen Sound and the Bruce Peninsula were without hydro power for long periods of time. Unfortunately, power outages of this sort are becoming a part of life for many local municipalities and businesses.

The regional office in Owen Sound has indicated that the problem is defective insulators on their 44,000-volt line servicing the area.

After several major outages last March which took both the AM and FM stations in Owen Sound off the air for many hours, Bayshore Broadcasting raised the matter with the then Hydro chair, Marc Eliesen. These stations have an agreement with Hydro to notify the public in the event of an emergency at the Bruce nuclear plant, but how can station managers fulfil this responsibility if there is no power?

Many businesses are being affected by these shortages. Last Saturday, Burger King was without power for over an hour and had to refuse business at the front door while throwing away food at the back. The Georgian Club and Carruthers Insurance have written just today about similar difficulties. The mayor of Port Elgin says his community cannot attract industry because it is accepted that hydro power is so unreliable.

In view of Hydro's poor record, the people in my area want to know whether or not there is a plan to deal with the problem of these insulators and whether funding has been committed to implement it.

Local Hydro managers and crews are doing their best to cope with these outages, but the solution does not lie with them. It lies with the minister and with the head office at Hydro. My constituents pay the same rates as everyone else in this province, yet they are receiving an inferior product. They deserve better.

DENNY PEDRI

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Today I bring to the Legislature the heroic efforts performed by an individual in Windsor on the weekend. Twenty-one-year-old University of Windsor student Denny Pedri acted out a part which many would not have accepted or embraced. First he called 911, then he went into action.

On early Sunday morning at 8:08, in cold weather and wearing only a bathrobe, Denny responded to the cries for help at a home in his neighbourhood, at 241 Oak Street. Six people screamed for help, four adults and two children: five people were on the roof of that house. Denny Pedri raced to the home. He dashed through thick smoke and choking fire. Not yet aware of the dangers ahead, Denny proceeded to seek out the cries, and among those he heard were those from an 11-year-old boy he found cowering in a corner, already experiencing breathing difficulties.

These scenes are those that seem to appear on national television programs that we think could never happen to us. Today, Denny's capturing much attention in Windsor for what he did. I'd like to add to that valour, so this afternoon I will call the chief of the fire department and urge them to give Denny a medal for bravery.

I know that the entire Legislature will want to salute a very brave and caring Denny Pedri for saving the life of a young man in Windsor on a cold and frosty Sunday morning.

NORTHERN ONTARIO FILM LIBRARY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to bring to the attention of the members of the House the grave concern I have in regard to the fate of the Northern Ontario Film Library. As members will know, over the years the Ministry of Education has comprised a collection of films, but because of financial restraints -- and this is especially so in northern Ontario -- two years ago had to give the maintenance of that up to the North Shore Board of Education in Blind River, and now it's housed in Elliot Lake.

This school board, because of a great decline in usage of these films, because of a $7 fee -- and I'm glad the Minister of Education is here today and I can talk to him about this -- has found an 85% decline in the usage of the Northern Ontario Film Library.

This board is now discussing whether it is going to have to disperse this film collection. I'd like to bring to the members' attention that this is a film collection of 14,000 films that is valued at $4 million. This would be a real tragedy to northern education because, more than any other region, we have less access to real-life situations, where we would rely upon a film library for educative needs for our children in northern Ontario.

I would certainly ask the Minister of Education to consider, whether it's in the general legislative grants for northern Ontario boards or whatever, to try to find the $42,000 -- and that's all it would take -- to maintain the collection and disperse the collection throughout northern Ontario schools each year so that our children would have access to a first-class film library.

GET READY FOR SNOWMOBILING WEEK

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate the first-ever Get Ready for Snowmobiling Week, which was launched yesterday in the province of Ontario. Get Ready for Snowmobiling Week offers Ontario residents the opportunity to heighten awareness of the benefits of snowmobiling as a recreational pursuit and economic stimulus.

Total snowmobiling revenues are expected to exceed $300 million in Ontario this winter, and it is anticipated that Mother Nature will a friendly ally in this financial/recreational endeavour. With the Farmers' Almanac predicting bountiful snow conditions, the winter of 1993 is expected to rewrite the record book for the number of Ontarians snowmobiling in one season and the dollars these riders will drive back into the provincial economy.

In my place of residence, Wasaga Beach, the Wasaga Snowmobiling Club had 575 members last year. The club, headed by Don Reese, is looking forward to another successful season, with many important events planned. These include participation in the Santa Claus Parade December 5, a family fun day on January 16 and a poker run on January 30.

In Wasaga Beach, the only obstacle in the way of another banner season for the Wasaga Snowmobiling Club is the Ministry of Natural Resources. The ministry has stubbornly refused to allow snowmobilers to ride on trails located on crown lands.

Snowmobiling provides family fun and is good for the economy. I urge all members of this Legislature to reflect this week and to ensure a safe and pleasurable winter season for the thousands of snowmobile enthusiasts across Ontario.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): "In America, a Rebirth of Hope" is the headline in this week's Manchester Guardian Weekly. In the United States, the new administration seems prepared to attack the problems produced by 12 years of free market dogma.

Whether you talk to Americans or read their media, it is clear that at the heart of the desire for change and reform is health care. As we have known here for years, universal medicare is the most popular program and the one which demonstrates the effectiveness of universality of benefits. You can go anywhere in this province, from University Avenue to remote northern areas, to see all people obtaining a broad range of essential services, undeterred by cost and bureaucratic restraints, at considerably less societal cost and without the terrible risks of being uninsured that we see to the south.

I was shocked and disappointed, though not entirely surprised, when my colleague Dr David Himelstein of Physicians for a National Health Plan drew to my attention a misleading and distorted

article in the US edition of Reader's Digest by an émigré Ontario surgeon, Ian Munro, who tries to discredit our system. The arguments are familiar and specious. To support them is to support illness and suffering.

I want to say to the American politicians and planners, to the employers struggling with high benefit costs, to unions and to unorganized workers, to the Physicians for a National Health Plan, to the American Association of Retired Persons, that we know that universal medicare, and nothing less, works. It's really regrettable that Canadian physicians outside this country choose to mislead and misunderstand the need for universality.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): To the Minister of Education: Minister, there is a crisis of confidence throughout the educational community regarding the leadership which you and your government are providing. Hardly a day goes by without a statement by a parent, teacher or trustee expressing their grave concern at how this minister is seeking to implement a wide variety of changes.

On November 13, the president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, Paula Dunning, stated, "The education of secondary-level students in Ontario will be in chaos if the Ministry of Education proceeds with its plan to force schools to implement destreaming without providing the necessary resources to do so."

The president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Liz Barkley, stated over the weekend, "The minister's proposed changes are ill advised and poorly researched." She then called for the minister's resignation.

The public school trustees called upon the minister to defer the mandatory implementation of destreaming "until an analysis of pilot destreaming projects is conducted and until the ministry provides adequate funding to cover the cost of retraining teachers." These are precisely the specific recommendations made by this Legislature's select committee on education four years ago.

Minister, the crisis in confidence among parents, teachers and trustees will soon lead to chaos. You must convene a special meeting of all the key educational stakeholders to ensure that the changes you are proposing can be implemented in a sane and effective way. The goal, Minister, should be excellence and the best education for our kids. Confidence must be restored.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I'm sure many members are aware that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is holding its annual meeting this week in Toronto. While I'm sure we all wish them the best in their meetings and elections, I also think we should review the farm situation from a financial and economic point of view here in Ontario.

Realized net farm income has been dropping in Ontario every year since 1987. In fact, farm income was higher in this province in 1983 than it was last year or the year before. This government's response has been to ignore agriculture, much the same as the previous Liberals had done: large announcements with nothing behind them.

In fact, if we look at the increases in farm-gate prices for farm products in Ontario, we see that return to farmers has gone up by 1.4% since 1986, six years ago. That 1.4% is a lot less than this government has handed out to its union friends in the public service.

In fact, Ontario's food producers have been forced to absorb a multitude of increased costs of production. For instance, property taxes for farmers have increased 32% since 1986; electricity, 37%; building repair costs, 26%; labour costs, 32%. Farm suppliers have kept seed and fertilizer prices to an 11% increase, while replacement cattle have gone up by 11%.

Agriculture's in trouble. This government must recognize it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A point of order?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Yes, sir. Mr Speaker, the honourable member for S-D-G & East Grenville forgot to mention that Brian Mulroney and his Conservative cronies in Ottawa have caused massive problems for agriculture.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his point of interest.

A point of order?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, on a point of order which is just as valid as the one expressed by the member: I want to say to the member I encourage this kind of dialogue and cross-fire from the opposition members.

The Speaker: I appreciate everyone's assistance.

CARVERS' QUILT OF ONTARIO

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I refuse to use my 90 seconds to spread doom and gloom. I have a positive statement.

On October 28, 1992, the Carvers' Quilt of Ontario was presented to the province of Ontario. This unique piece of art was created by woodcarvers from across Ontario to mark the 200th anniversary of representative government in Ontario and to mark Canada's 125th birthday. It's now on display in the Legislature, as you well know.

Today I want to recognize the Brooklin Woodcarvers' Club and the Bowmanville Woodchips Club, both clubs in my riding of Durham East. The Brooklin Woodcarvers' Club contributed two panels to the quilt: the Old Mill, Brooklin, and Parkwood, the R.S. McLaughlin residence in Oshawa. The Bowmanville Woodchips Club also contributed two panels to the quilt: Methodist Church, Bowmanville, 1870, and the Fish Hatchery, Newcastle, 1866.

I want to encourage all members to join with me in thanking the members of both clubs and their respective club presidents, George Austen and the Rev Doug Hall, for their contribution to keeping alive our heritage through the magnificent Carvers' Quilt of Ontario.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order under standing order 23(i), which says that a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.

Yesterday, in response to a question by the member for Renfrew North, the Premier characterized the member's stance as "synthetic indignation." In doing so, the Premier attempted to convey the impression that my colleague and those on this side of the House were simulating our disgust at the actions of his friend and key adviser, John Piper, who, it appears, attempted to convey information to a journalist with the sole purpose of smearing a woman who had come forward with allegations against a then member of the Premier's government.

The Premier then went on with his mea culpas on this issue as if he had a personal hold on morality and ethics in this place and those in opposition were only raising these issues for some lower purpose.

Mr Speaker, I'm asking that you require that the Premier withdraw those remarks and that characterization of my colleague, as required under the standing orders, and acknowledge that there is no play-acting here. We are angry. We have reason to be angry with the conduct of this government and the way it has breached the trust of the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Halton Centre, she will know that if there is anything which occurs during question period or indeed at any time during our proceedings which the member finds to not be in order, it's most appropriate to draw it to the Speaker's attention at that time.

I listened carefully to the dialogue, as I always do, and I did not find that there was anything out of order. I must add, of course, that when there are contentious issues, on both sides of the House occasionally the language is not always the most temperate.

But I must say finally that yesterday, despite the situation, members on both sides of the House made quite an effort to deal with the issue in a very calm and reasoned way. However, I do appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

POINTS OF ORDER

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I understand your rationale in reply to my colleague. However, I must raise something that does cause us problems in the opposition, and that is the fact that if, during question period, a matter is or appears to be out of order and we stand to interject about the point of order, you have taken the usual habit of penalizing the opposition by letting the clock continue to run, so that if we raise the issue and you even declare a remedy available to us, we have already taken ourselves out of use of some of the clock for the purposes of the point of order.

There were occasions yesterday, Mr Speaker, when, without standing in my place, I did point out to you that various members of the government were heckling my leader as she was putting her questions in a very serious and measured manner to expose the difficulties that the Premier has found himself and his government subject to. While you were unable to call anyone to order specifically, I notice that you did try to isolate the origin of the heckling, which from my vantage point really was the Treasurer.

My problem, sir, is this: If I am to do my job as the opposition House leader, I must interrupt perhaps my leader in her questions or another of my colleagues, perhaps the leader of the third party or some of his colleagues, or indeed even the backbench members of the government party in order to bring to your attention what I believe is out of order.

My concern, sir, is this: If we are to raise them at the moment that they arise -- that is, points of order -- how can we do it without penalty to our time to question the government? So far, in fact, I think you have not varied from your practice of listening to the points of order, but you are penalizing us by allowing the clock to run down. Can I, Mr Speaker, ask you for a ruling as to how these points are to be handled and whether or not we are to lose time to question the Premier or his ministers during the only short period of time during the day when we have a chance?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, I don't believe he would want me to break any of the standing orders. The standing orders and the practice are quite clear that points of order must be drawn to the attention of the Speaker at the time when they occur and that, of course, during question period the clock will continue to run.

It is in a sense a moot point in that, regardless of whether it's the Speaker or some other person who interrupts the proceedings, the clock will continue to run. Should I notice anything which is out of order, of course I will deal with it immediately. If I deal with it, then of course I am interrupting the proceedings, and the clock continues to run.

The best caution on this, of course, is if all members would do their utmost to restrain intemperate language and, indeed, I must say to the member for Bruce, my observation is that for the most part, such was the case yesterday. It allowed us to have quite a few questions directed and quite a few responses.

I'm sensitive to the point that the member raises. I know that those 60 minutes are a precious time for the opposition and it's one that should not be interrupted unless it's an extreme situation. It's one that I am very careful to try to protect for the opposition.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PREMIER'S VISIT TO ASIA / VISITE DU PREMIER MINISTRE EN ASIE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): In response to popular demand, I am making a statement with respect to my trip to Asia. I want to report to the House on my recent trip to east Asia. This was my second business trip to Asia in 1992. I visited five countries and jurisdictions, including 11 cities, and attended more than 50 events.

I had meetings with 10 ministers and heads of government, and with more than 50 CEOs and senior executives of some of Asia's largest corporations. These included Taiwan Aerospace, China Steel, Hutchison Whampoa, Wharf Group, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Hyundai Motors, Kia Motors, Sammi Group, Matsushita, Kubota, Kao, Sumitomo, Toyota, Honda and Suzuki.

I met with Asian investors who have this year committed more than $50 million to new Ontario investment: Jae-il Engineering, Daewang Corp, Kia Corp, Kao Corp, Kubota and Sumitomo.

I also had the opportunity to make specific representations to governments and ministers on behalf of Canadian companies and contractors.

Since 1986, more than $1 billion in new Asian investment, creating more than 7,000 jobs, has taken place in Ontario. I met with many of the companies involved to encourage new expansion in research and development and production. All of the advice that I have received, both from Canadian businesses in Asia and from our Canadian representatives in these countries, has convinced me that there is no substitute for steady, regular contact with these leading corporations and governments at every level.

I also had the opportunity to discuss new governmental and educational partnerships with Governor Chris Patten of Hong Kong -- and I know that many people were here when Governor Patten came to Toronto -- and Governor Nakagawa of Osaka, Japan. We shall need to consider together how best we can take advantage of the strong relationships we have already fostered with some of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

In the course of the two-week trip, I met with and spoke to over 1,500 Canadian and Asian business people in 10 addresses to business organizations and Ontario Clubs. Ontario Clubs are groups of Asians who have served our investors in Ontario and who are now returning to Asia and who have very strong feelings and very strong associations with this province.

We made a number of breakthroughs on this visit. I was the first Canadian Premier to visit Taiwan, the first Ontario Premier to visit both Kansai and Nagoya in Japan, as well as Guangzhou and Shenzhen in south China. These are going to be growing markets into the next century and are among the fastest-growing economies in the world.

I pressed market opening issues, contract bidding transparency and dispute settlement concerns of the Canadian government and of our government, and Canadian business in China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

NAFTA was raised at virtually every private event. It remains a serious concern for our existing investors and our prospective partners. I can't overemphasize this point. Some may just treat this as a partisan issue but, believe me, it is a genuine concern being expressed within the Asian business community. We discussed the determination of the Ontario government to defend the interests of our existing investors, as we did successfully in the case of Honda, and our conviction that the future interests of both Asian and Ontario business partners are best served by the early finalization of the GATT.

Support for the Ontario government's initiatives in training, research and development and expenditure control was offered on a number of occasions. Ontario's, and Canada's, reputation remains strong, but it is also clear that we have a lot of work to do, both here and abroad, to build on what we have achieved.

There is a sense in every jurisdiction I visited, both among governments and among Canadians living and working in Asia, that there are many more opportunities for export and investment in Asia than are currently being pursued. It is also clear that competition for direct Asian investment in North America will continue to be intense. There are advantages to investing in Ontario which have to be marketed in an aggressive way, and I can tell the House that this will be even more necessary in the unfortunate event, in our view, of the ratification of NAFTA.

All Ontarians have to embrace the simple reality that our common future depends on our ability to attract investment from home and abroad, to sell our goods on freer domestic and world markets, and on how we measure up against what others are doing in education, in training, in research and development, in investments in environmental improvements and in the quality of life in the province.

We are an international province living and working in a world that is getting smaller all the time. The success of our friends in the world is the product of neither a miracle nor a conspiracy. It follows from their commitment to the values that have brought us as well to this point: hard work, saving, cooperation, education, a determination to take the long, strategic view. We have to renew our commitment to these values as well, to recognize that international comparisons must be made and that the spirit of continual improvement is not just a cliche in a management textbook but a reality of our life as a people.

It's an exciting, challenging world. We should not shrink from it or see any part of it as alien to ourselves. We should embrace it and embrace the partnerships it implies.

Les économies infranationales et régionales joueront un rôle de plus en plus important au sein de ce monde interdépendant. Le territoire de Hong-Kong et la Chine du Sud, qui forment la région du delta de la rivière des Perles, et la région japonaise de Kansai, concentrée sur les villes d'Osaka, de Kyoto, de Kobe et de Nara, pour ne mentionner que deux de ces économies régionales, sont des partenaires naturels pour l'Ontario, tout comme le sont devenus les Quatre moteurs de l'Europe.

Il va sans dire que nous sommes fiers de notre identité canadienne et que nous voulons collaborer plus étroitement que jamais avec nos partenaires canadiens, mais il nous faut également envisager notre avenir économique de façon plus claire sur les plans de nos avantages et de nos propres réalisations, et en relation avec nos principaux partenaires économiques et sociaux à l'échelle mondiale.

Most of our trade is carried on within the Great Lakes region, and these of course will remain critical partnerships. But as an industrial region going through important changes, we need to compare ourselves to, and indeed learn from, those parts of the world that are among the most dynamic parts of the global economy.

This sense of our being part of a world economy in which local markets and regions are clearly linked needs to extend well beyond the business community. Our schools and universities can lead as well, as can local governments. I've been encouraged by the number of Ontario municipalities that have active twinning partnerships with cities and towns in Asia. Indeed, as an aside, I'd say to the member for Mississauga, who's listening so intently, that I had the pleasure of being in Hong Kong and Japan at almost the same time as my good friend the mayor of Mississauga.

We need to do more to make sure we are taking maximum advantage of these opportunities.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I wouldn't admit that if I were you, Bob.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You should have listened to her.

Hon Mr Rae: I didn't say I saw her there; I just said she was there at the same time.

Let me outline some future tasks and projects in Asia that I intend to have our government pursue and which I believe the economic future of the province requires.

First, we have to do more to help our key industrial sectors develop Asia strategies that enable them to develop marketing, product development, research and even packaging approaches to these vital markets. We're doing this, but we have to do more. The government will work through our Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to foster these efforts in sectors such as telecommunications, the automotive industry, information technology and plastics.

Second, we need to work with our existing centres of excellence, the seven that were set up by the previous government and whose funding has been confirmed by this government, to focus potential private sector investment from Asia on research and development. We need to introduce key Asian research imperative corporations to the finest talents of Ontario's university and private sector labs. There's considerable interest in doing this; we simply have to take advantage of it.

We need to look at how we might better foster the study of Asian languages from the elementary to the post-secondary level in the province's education system, along with the development of even more Asian business expertise among our business school students and faculty.

We need to build new links between our public sector institutions devoted to marketing Ontario internationally, such as Ontario International Corp, and those of our most aggressive municipal development bodies, and with the federal government. We can and must work better together.

We need to work with the leaders of our Asian Canadian business organizations to help make better use of Ontario's unbeatable human connections to Asia. Ontario is, for example, the favourite destination anywhere in the world for Chinese expatriates from Hong Kong and south China. We should make better use of this potential for our own province.

We need to advance the process of reorganization that's already been launched within our government to make our international marketing and promotion efforts the best in Canada. We need to bring together the expertise of our ministries of Education, Tourism, Agriculture and Food, Colleges and Universities and MITT to focus on delivering our province's message of opportunity to Asia and Europe and further sharpen the focus of our representation in Asia, especially in the booming new markets of the region, about which I'll have more to say later on.

This is a challenge that we all share.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): Today my colleague Energy minister Brian Charlton and I are pleased to announce a new energy retrofit program planned for Ontario's government-owned buildings. This is a joint program between my ministry and the Ministry of Energy which will save energy, reduce the province's energy bill and create jobs.

An estimated $100 million will be spent over the next five years to achieve energy efficiencies in our owned buildings. This investment will cut the government's $88-million annual energy bill by $20 million and make our buildings 20% more energy-efficient. Not only are we reducing the burden on taxpayers; we are also creating 2,200 jobs over the life of this program.

We are financing the project through methods that include leasing agreements and contracts with energy service companies. With these options, the cost of the program is actually funded by the private sector and is self-financing. For example, a private sector company will purchase new energy-efficient lighting and install it in our buildings. Under a lease-purchase agreement, we will completely pay for the lighting fixtures with energy savings over a three- to five-year period.

In a previous statement the ministers of Government Services and Energy, together with Ontario Hydro, announced an energy conservation program for buildings owned by this government. Since then, Ontario Hydro has completed more than 1,300 power saver audits in our buildings and recommended relamping, replacement of mechanical equipment and other measures to save money.

Six Ontario government buildings have already been retrofitted under pilot programs financed by the green workplace program and the Ministry of Energy. Electronic ballasts, a new T-8 lighting technology, has been installed in the Macdonald Block, realizing an energy savings there in excess of 20%.

Our challenge is to retrofit more than 2,000 buildings and we're doing it in a way that shows leadership and saves on our operating costs. With our new approach to financing, we have found a creative solution to getting the job done. We are setting an example in energy conservation which we hope will be followed by other major energy users.

We are calling on the private sector to join us in forming a partnership to invest in energy efficiency. For businesses and industries in Ontario, this retrofit program will help stimulate the development of a green market in the energy service sector, which will create more jobs.

An example can be seen at the Canadian General Electric plant in Oakville. This plant recently expanded to produce energy-efficient lighting. This means between 500 and 700 jobs will be created or maintained, resulting in substantial economic benefits for Ontario.

As the official landlord of Ontario government buildings, the Ministry of Government Services is moving quickly to implement these retrofits. The first building to be retrofitted under this program with energy-efficient lighting will be the Macdonald-Cartier building in Kingston. Approximately 50 other buildings across the province have also been selected for retrofitting within the first year of this program.

I'm pleased that my ministry and the Ministry of Energy can benefit Ontario taxpayers with this program by saving energy and money and by creating jobs.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO ASIA

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It is not an exciting day, it is a sad day when the Premier talks about his recent trip to Asia as a success.

More than 11% of Ontario's workforce are without jobs; more than 100 plants have closed in the first 10 months of this year; there are more than 1.2 million people on welfare and 20% of the young people of this province are out of work -- higher than the national average -- and the Premier's sole response to this economic crisis was to go to Asia for two weeks.

The Premier will remember that we said at the time: "Premier, you should stay home. You should talk to Ontario businesses. You should ask them what they need to be able to be competitive and then you should take your trip overseas, Premier, telling investors that Ontario is indeed a good place in which to invest your money." Instead, the Premier went overseas without talking to companies at home and proceeded to criticize them for being less than competitive.

Then the Premier announced that a Japanese company, Kubota, had decided to expand its Ontario plant. He must have been reading a calendar because Kubota immediately said that it had made that announcement two years ago.

In the meantime, we understand that Toyota has announced that it's going to double its production in North America. That expansion will be either in Mexico, Kentucky or Ontario. I wonder whether on his trip to Asia the Premier was successful in getting a commitment from Toyota that its expansion will be in Ontario, and if he was not successful, why not?

The extent of the Premier's Asian trip was a two-year-old announcement and criticism of Ontario business overseas. Premier, you should have stayed home to do what you could do here to restore confidence in doing business in the province of Ontario. Instead, as soon as you left, your government passed the labour legislation bill, which is already sending investment out of this province and is certain to discourage any new investment from coming in.

While you were away, Premier, another 19 plants in this province closed or were in the process of shutting their doors for good. Those are only the plant closings that we know of so far and the final closure numbers for that period of time that you were away are likely to be much higher.

We found while you were away that the provincial government was not doing much to help workers who will lose their jobs because of the closures, because we found that the Jobs Ontario Training program had turned out to be a complete failure. While the Premier was away there was a new government report that came out that said that, under the NDP, workers stay unemployed longer and when they do get jobs they earn less than they did before.

While you were away, Premier, another 1,000 workers in the province of Ontario lost their jobs. While you were away your government announced possible dump sites, which has upset residents and guarantees even more ill feeling on this issue. While you were away we endured the farce of the former president of Ontario Hydro trying to explain by letter why he could not come to a legislative committee to explain the circumstances of his $1.2-million severance package for his supposedly voluntary retirement because he had been placed under a gag order.

The Premier went overseas to show how strong Ontario is, and sadly, I doubt seriously whether Asian investors are any more reassured about putting their money in this province than they were before the Premier left.

There is no question that people want investment in this province, that people want to see an economic renewal, but there is also no question that people want the Premier of this province to understand what is happening here, to understand what he can and should do to start to turn the economic situation in Ontario around. People want to know that the Premier is prepared to address the concerns that clearly give the message that there is no confidence in doing business in the province of Ontario.

Premier, I would suggest that when you stay home long enough to get your own house in order, it will then be time to go overseas and tell people that Ontario truly is open for business.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I just have a few seconds to make my comments and therefore I will pose this question: How will the minister decide who gets a contract? Will he tender this or will he be issuing these contracts to card-carrying members of the governing party?

It seems to me that this is nothing more than good news used as camouflage to cover up the government embarrassment for the recent scandals that have evolved.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO ASIA

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to comment on the statement by the Premier concerning 16 or 15 days in Asia. The leader of the Liberal Party has referred to all the things that have run amok while you've been away, and I believe I would concur with that, along with the layoffs, along with the more unemployed, along with the loss of hope, along with the hungry. While you were away, in fact, absolutely no move was made on a two-year-old commitment to implement a nutrition program for children in our schools -- a sad disgrace, reinforced again today when four children came before and met with the Minister of Education.

You talk about what we should be doing, I guess, at the end of your comments, pages 4 and 5: "help our key industrial sectors develop Asia strategies"; "work with our existing centres of excellence"; "study how we might better foster the use" -- I'm not going to repeat them all, but I'm going to tell you that this is exactly what we have been doing. This is what Progressive Conservative governments did. This is what Liberal governments did. If it isn't going on now, you cancelled it. There's absolutely nothing here that isn't common sense, straightforward.

Of course, this is what the Ontario government should be doing in fostering a liaison with our Asian partners in there. Nobody had to go 15 days to Asia to tell you that this is what we should be doing. There's absolutely nothing here, nothing we could see out of this trip that common sense wouldn't tell you we should be doing, what we were already doing, and if we weren't it was because you cancelled it.

Secondly, "All Ontarians have to embrace the simple reality that our common future depends on our ability to attract investment from home and abroad." Of course; that's the problem. That's why Canadian and Ontario businesses told you to get your own act together here in the province of Ontario. That's why we are less competitive today than we were seven years ago. We are not "Yours To Discover," as we used to be, to Asian countries, to investment from Europe, to investment from all around the world. We are not as attractive as we once were, when we brought 99% of all this investment into the province of Ontario.

You did another thing while you were over there, Mr Premier, for which I soundly condemn you, as did the chamber of commerce. You went over to Asia and you ran down Canadian businesses. That is something we do not do. We put our best foot forward. We don't go over there and tell them everything that's wrong with Canada or everything that's wrong with Ontario --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You're doing it. You run down the province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Algoma. Order.

Mr Harris: We do that right here; that's what this vehicle is for.

Even Canadian businesses, when Canadian businesses go abroad, when they're in Asia, they pretend they don't know you. They don't tell them about the disastrous government. They don't tell them, "Don't come to us." If they knew you were Premier, they'd try to forget that you're Premier. They don't want potential investors to know the disastrous direction that you have for potential investors in this province.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Would the real Mike Harris please stand up?

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

Mr Harris: They follow that time-honoured rule that all governments follow, that all businesses follow, that we all follow: When you are in Asia you put your best foot forward. You don't run down Canadian businesses. You attacked them for not being competitive. You attacked them for not seeking out the opportunities in the markets. They say: "Shame on you. Get your act together here at home. Allow us to compete in our domestic markets and we will then be able to compete with North America and with the rest of the world."

Finally, in your statement you talk about NAFTA and concerns about the North American free trade agreement. Let me share with the Premier that in discussions I have with those in the business community, particularly foreign investors from Asia and from Europe, they too express concerns with NAFTA. Their number one fear is that the NDP will get elected and cancel all access to markets completely.

Their number one concern, when they want to locate a plant in North America, is that there will be a free trade agreement, that there will be access to the complete North American market, not just Ontario and not just Canada. In fact, as companies are looking for global mandating and at global marketing of their products, that's their number one concern.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mel Hurtig can fight that battle.

Mr Harris: That's right. Now that Mel Hurtig is out there espousing that position a little more clearly than the NDP, perhaps they will understand some of the differences as well.

Yes, they have concerns, but their first concern is that they want an agreement, they want free trade, they want access to these markets, otherwise that investment is going somewhere other than Ontario.

This report to us today I don't believe represents the Asian business viewpoint, and Mr Premier, I think you hurt us by going there for 15 --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is time for oral questions; the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOHN PIPER

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. We now have two cases in which a private citizen has been deliberately smeared, one by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the other by your friend and your close adviser, John Piper.

Premier, we've looked very carefully through the record, and it is true that throughout these situations with Mr Piper and with the Minister of Northern Development you have never actually said that it is wrong to smear a private citizen. You have never actually said that you consider this to be a fundamental breach of trust, a fundamental abuse of power. You have said, Premier, that you do not condone the behaviour, but will you stand in your place today and tell us and the people of this province that you believe that this behaviour is fundamentally, morally wrong?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member can express her characterization of various issues and situations as she will. Let me make it very clear that with respect to what Mr Piper did, I made very clear my views on that. I made very clear, with respect to the actions that have been taken. I indicated very clearly to the province, as soon as I heard of it, the depth of my own feeling on the issue. I think any attempt to discredit a private citizen is wrong, and in this particular instance the results were as we've seen them. I don't think there's any member in this chamber who doesn't feel the same way about that incident.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I'd like to direct your attention and your responses to the very human dimension of the kind of behaviour we've seen from your closest adviser, and I want to ask you about the victims of Grandview, who continue to suffer because of the actions of your government. I'm sure you're aware that as a result of the dirty tricks of your closest adviser, 14 Grandview victims have either withdrawn from their support group or they've expressed reluctance to participate because of the fear that they too will be smeared in public by your government.

Premier, will you admit that Mr Piper's dirty tricks campaign, run out of your office, has worked, and that it has further victimized the victims?

Hon Mr Rae: I'd say to the honourable member that the investigation of the incidents taking place at the Grandview institution, about which complaints were made and about which there is now a police investigation, has to be, in every way, shape and form, independent of the political process entirely. That is absolutely essential. It's therefore difficult for me to comment on the particular allegation that's been made by the honourable member.

But I would say to the honourable member that I sincerely hope that nothing that has happened would in any way, shape or form discourage anyone from coming forward, and say that we obviously have a responsibility to ensure that people can come forward without fear of any kind of response from anyone. I want to make that very clear.

I hope the member will appreciate that, given the fact that there is an investigation going on, it is difficult for me to make any further comment except to say that of course we want to ensure that people are coming forward and make sure that that's in fact what's taking place.

Mrs McLeod: Difficult for you to comment? It's difficult for you to comment on the people who are involved in the Grandview investigation, but it wasn't difficult for John Piper to call a reporter into his office and offer information, confidential or otherwise, that could be used to smear one of those victims, simply because she had involved one the members of your government in her allegations.

Premier, I want to take a moment to tell you of what transpired in this House while you were away so that you will no longer do a disservice to the victims of Grandview by trying to explain away the inability of your government to respond by saying it's under OPP investigation.

There is a report, a detailed report, from the Information and Privacy Commissioner which addresses the concern that you and the Attorney General keep offering as your reason for suppressing that report. I use the word "suppressing" deliberately, because the Information and Privacy Commissioner very clearly says that the investigation will be in no way jeopardized by the release of the 1976 report. Stop using that as an excuse, Premier, and deal with what has been done to the victims at Grandview.

Premier, even Michele Landsberg has criticized your government today for the way in which the Grandview victims have been treated. She's condemned the efforts to smear the victims, and she's demanded the release of the 1976 report. Premier, the 1976 report is the one piece of information which can legitimately be put into the public arena which may give those victims some support for their allegations.

I ask you if you will tell us what you will now do to help the victims of Grandview, who have now been further victimized by John Piper's actions. Will you at least respond to their wishes? Will you order the Attorney General to release the 1976 report?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want to say with respect to the preliminary comments of the member -- and I say this quite sincerely -- I have very high regard for the Leader of the Opposition, and I would hope very sincerely that the Leader of the Opposition would not misconstrue my comments, the way I believe she did in her opening remarks. I would say to her most sincerely and without any sense of partisanship on my part that there's absolutely no interest on my part or on anyone else's

part in withholding any information from anyone.

But I would say to the honourable member, the idea that the Premier of the province would order the Attorney General to do or not to do something, with respect to his judgement and the judgement of the Ministry of the Attorney General, with respect to a report -- it is just very difficult to see the circumstances in which that would be possible.

I will say to the honourable member, however, that of course I will look carefully at the record of the questions that she has asked, I will look carefully at the record of the answers that have been given, and I will seek to determine if there's anything more that can be done. But I honestly believe that when one's dealing with a situation of this kind -- particularly in light of what's taken place, which I regret most profoundly -- I would say to the honourable member that I can't simply make an instant response to her in the House with respect to something.

Of course there are going to be strong opinions on all sides, but I also have to consider what it is that went into the judgement of those who said that they don't believe this is the moment at which that information can be released.

But of course whatever we do has to be done with sensitivity to those people who are complaining about what took place at the Grandview investigation, and also to ensure the integrity of any police investigation with respect to what took place. That has to remain the overall judgement that's exercised by this government in very difficult circumstances, and of course in circumstances that are further charged by what took place last week.

Mrs McLeod: I ask you then to personally read the freedom of information commissioner's report, which has been in the public arena for some time, and, having done that, to just once drop the defence and respond to the human concern that's there.

Premier, I would ask you as a second question whether you're aware that your friend and your top adviser, John Piper, spearheaded the creation of a new office called the central communications secretariat. Are you aware that this office was to be used for more centralized, more politicized communications processes, designed solely to make you, the Premier, look good, and that it was to be operated directly under John Piper's control?

Hon Mr Rae: Of course I'm aware that this government has decided to cut the overall communications budget of the entire operation, and that we've tried to seek some greater coordination of our overall approach to communications. I think that's been well known, and I think it makes good sense.

If I may say so, I seem to recall, during the honourable member's bid for election as leader, her saying that there needed to be more coordination and that perhaps some communications and other work could be combined.

Let's not turn what took place last week, which we all deplore and which I certainly deplore, into some attempt to find a nefarious purpose behind everything that's done. We're trying to cut some budgets, we're trying to bring them together and consolidate them, and that's the beginning and the end of it.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, it seems to me that it's a rather unfortunate moment in time for you to try and defend the central fund as being a way of coordinating and providing more effective communication.

It's our understanding that under John Piper's direction between 3% and 4% of each ministry's communications budget was not to be cut. All of us would applaud your efforts to control budgetary spending if that was your goal. But this wasn't to be cut, this was to be drawn off the ministry budgets and transferred to a new central communications secretariat for a total budget under John Piper's direction of between $5 million and $7 million.

We understand that the role of that secretariat was to fund more polling, not to coordinate communications across the ministries, and to have greater control over government advertising. I would ask, Premier, for you to indicate to us exactly what the office is for, why it was to report directly to John Piper and to the Premier's office, what the money has been spent on so far, and could you explain why you decided to allow your friend and adviser, John Piper, to establish his own political communications fund, drawing for that fund from all the other ministries?

Hon Mr Rae: Look, what we have been doing is an attempt to create a net saving for the government in terms of its communication. That's what we've been trying to do. That is the beginning of it and that is the end of it.

As I say to the honourable member, she can fish as long and as hard as she likes and she can try to draw all the comparisons she wants to draw, but that is the beginning and the end of it. It wasn't some kind of personal decision by Mr Piper. It was a considered decision by the cabinet that, frankly, previous Liberal governments had got into the habit of falling all over themselves, of ministries falling all over themselves, spending money, polling, doing all this stuff under the Peterson administration. We were trying to bring about some kinds of efficiencies in the sort of mess we'd been left by the previous administration.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, may I remind you that we're dealing with the situation of a man whom you hired, whom you brought into your office to be your closest adviser with the one goal, and that was the goal of making you and your government look good. We are dealing with a man who has now resigned because he was prepared to use any tactic he needed to use to achieve his goal of making your government look good and that, Premier, is why we have questions about Mr Piper's budget and the uses to which he was going to put it.

Quite frankly, as we look more and more into the past activities of John Piper and his work in your office, we have more and more questions. He has resigned in disgrace. He was able to skim millions of dollars from all ministries for his own political targets under a new office reporting to him and we have to ask: What else was John Piper up to?

Premier, I suggest to you that all of this speaks to the need for a legislative inquiry, an all-party committee to review John Piper's special political projects and the operations of your office. I would ask if you do not agree that we need to get to the bottom of Mr Piper's activities and all that it means for the operation of your office, and will you immediately agree to establishing a committee review for that purpose?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer is, no, of course not. I would say to the honourable member -- you know, it's interesting. Everyone has agreed that what took place last week was wrong and represented something which all of us can agree on. What we have is an effort, then, to sort of move on from there, because we've all agreed on that. I agreed instantly with that on Friday and that was my immediate response. Then we have the effort on the part of the opposition to look at every single incident, everything that's taken place over the last two years, and try to concoct some kind of a campaign on their part.

I want to say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, I think if you look at the budgeting policies of the previous Liberal administration, we had no budget codes for any of the communication budgets in any of the ministries, we had them staffed with very partisan people, we had budgets totally buried within ministries.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: That was what was acceptable under the Liberals, that was acceptable under the previous administration and we said, no, we're going to cut those budgets. We're going to try to produce some coordination. The deputy minister in charge of the Management Board secretariat has been given the explicit responsibility of trying to make some kind of sense out of the partisan Liberal and Tory mess that existed on the communication side.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I refuse to allow the events of last week -- I refuse to allow the Liberal Party to somehow erase the memory in the minds of the people of the province --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please.

New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I would suggest to the Premier that Mr Piper is helping to erase a lot of those memories.

My question is to the Premier regarding a report this morning in the Toronto Star. In the wake of the latest scandal to hit your government, several former residents of Grandview school are now afraid to get involved in the police investigation into the alleged sexual abuse. They have seen what your government tried to do to one of their fellow survivors and they're afraid that they too will be smeared by your government.

Premier, what assurance can you give the survivors, the victims of Grandview, that there are not others involved in your office, that there are not others involved in your government in this type of smearing campaign? Have you conducted your own investigation into that to determine whether Mr Piper was acting alone, and can you give us unequivocally the assurance today that there is no one else that was involved or had knowledge of what was going on with Mr Piper's actions in this regard?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm certainly satisfied that what Mr Piper did was

an act of his judgement alone in terms of there having been no consultation or discussion with anybody else in my office. I obviously wanted to be sure of that on Friday. That would be the first question I would ask: "How could something like this have happened? Who would have authorized something like this?" The answer is, it wasn't; it wasn't discussed.

I would say to the honourable member I hope there's still sufficient trust in our public life for people to understand that, regardless of our partisan feelings and partisan intensity, that's the sort of thing that any Premier would ask in an office situation.

The second thing I want to say to the honourable member is, of course, if there are people who are reluctant to come forward -- you say, "What further assurances can I give?" -- I can only state categorically and unequivocally that people should be encouraged to come forward without fear of recrimination and without fear of any attempt by anybody to hurt anyone.

That has to be clearly understood -- granted of course that other people have their legal rights as well, and of course that's the case. But certainly no one involved in the administration of this government should be saying or doing anything to discourage people from coming forward and expressing themselves clearly with respect to events that took place some 15 or 20 years ago.

Mr Harris: Premier, there is absolutely no question -- I too want to be clear about this -- that we want to have that trust. The alleged victims in the Grandview case want to have that trust. But you must appreciate that we have had smearing before, some of which has been condoned by you, by one of your cabinet ministers. The record of your government is not good. It makes in many cases a mockery of this so-called commitment.

During the scandal involving sexual improprieties in the corrections ministry, female guards were afraid to come forward to tell their side of the story for fear of reprisal. You will recall that John Piper was one of those who was in charge of controlling the damage from that scandal. Now the victims of the Grandview school are backing down as a result of the attempted smear campaign by Mr Piper. So, Premier, they've seen a pattern here. This isn't an isolated incident.

I'd like to know if you personally can assure all women in this province, including the alleged victims at Grandview, that no one in your office and no one in your administration or your government or ministries, no one, is going to be involved in any reprisals should they come forward. Will you give your personal guarantee to that as Premier of this province and head of this government?

Hon Mr Rae: Of course I will state categorically that it is my policy and it is a policy of this government that people should be able to come forward without fear of reprisal. However, the one thing I have to say, because I don't want to be misunderstood, is that if there are allegations made against a specific person or against a specific individual, obviously that person has certain legal rights as well. That's a fact of life too.

But there certainly should be no impediment or any sense among anyone involved in the Grandview matter or any other matter who would fear coming forward because of any kind of action being taken by the government; of course not.

Mr Harris: One thing we do know, that in a number of areas, female victims for whatever reason -- the Premier will say, "They have nothing to fear in me," and I believe the Premier means that -- are afraid of your government. They're afraid to come forward and they have been now in more than just one case. They're afraid that they will be victimized a second time by the government of this province. This scandal is just the latest in a series of dirty tricks campaigns, if you like, or smear campaigns to silence your political opponents. This time it wasn't a highly paid doctor, it wasn't a large business lobby, but it was a woman who is an alleged victim.

Mr Premier, let me ask you this. I realize there's an ongoing investigation. There are no charges that have been laid, and I personally and my caucus have wanted to await that before we raise any questions surrounding the former Minister of Energy who resigned. But there were allegations made; the minister resigned, as we think is appropriate; you accepted his resignation as appropriate.

Before the Grandview investigation was even completed, you then recently promoted the member for Kitchener to parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, and I would ask you, Premier, what signal that sends to Miss Harris, what signal that sends to the women of this province, what signal that sends about how seriously you treat the allegation that is now being investigated.

Hon Mr Rae: You've raised the question of when people came forward. In fact these incidents date back some 15 or 20 years. It wasn't until the election of this government or recent changes that people came forward.

I would say to the honourable member that the member for Kitchener has attempted to carry on his public responsibilities in a very difficult circumstance and I would say to the honourable member that I don't think any of us should prejudge in any way, shape or form what's taking place.

Mr Harris: I'm not prejudging. You're prejudging. I don't quite understand the lack of consistency in the Premier's logic here.

My second question is to the Attorney General. Mr Attorney General, would you confirm for this House that you were considering obtaining a court warrant to seal John Piper's office as of last Saturday?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): The answer, to my knowledge, to the member's question is no.

Mr Harris: Some of the information I have received, and I confess I can't confirm it, is that in fact you or your ministry was considering. My supplementary would be, why would you not be considering? Why would you not have been considering sealing Mr Piper's office to make sure that any information that may have a bearing on the OPP investigation was there? Why would you not have done that?

Hon Mr Hampton: I think it's very important at this juncture to emphasize again to the members opposite and to the public that the Ontario Provincial Police has been asked to investigate the incidents that occurred last Thursday and Friday which allegedly involved Mr Piper. The Ontario Provincial Police has full control over this investigation. They will make the decisions as to what information they need, how they require it, how they will get it and what kinds of court orders they may have. I have no intention of interfering in any way in an Ontario Provincial Police investigation.

Mr Harris: Could you tell me if you directed your deputy minister to suggest that Mr Piper be allowed into his office with Melody Morrison without any OPP present, without any forensic audit on the type of material that was being removed? Did you direct your deputy minister to do that?

Since your position here today is, "It's in the hands of the OPP; far be it from me or my ministry or my deputy to have any involvement in this," if you did not direct your deputy minister to do that, are you not then concerned that your deputy minister gave the authority for somebody on the Premier's staff, who should be under investigation in this whole matter -- every one of the Premier's staff should be under investigation. Who gave the authority to the deputy minister? If it was not you, does it not concern you that authority was given without any OPP present to see what was removed from Mr Piper's office?

Hon Mr Hampton: It is true that Ms Morrison requested legal advice as to whether or not it would be appropriate in the circumstances to allow Mr Piper to remove his personal effects from his office. I am informed that that advice was given.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Two minutes ago you said your office wouldn't have anything to do with it. You are talking on both sides of your yap. Two minutes ago you said you couldn't do it.

The Speaker: Order, member for Parry Sound.

Hon Mr Hampton: The advice was that Mr Piper should be accompanied to the office, that anything he sought to remove from the office should be inspected and that it should only be personal effects.

If I might add, the Ontario Provincial Police will decide how to conduct the course of its investigation. It is neither for the leader of the third party nor for me to tell the Ontario Provincial Police how to conduct its investigation.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Premier. I want to return to what, for me, is the essential issue in this disgraceful misconduct; that is, what Mr Piper did. It may be true that Ontario may not long remember what we say here, but it will be a long time before Ontario forgets what John Piper did here.

The Premier has said in recent days, and as recently as yesterday, that while he does not condone what Mr Piper did, it is not unusual and it is not unique for this kind of activity to occur. That's what the Premier said, and I want to focus this question on that point.

What we have here is a high official and close friend and appointee of the Premier who has gone out and somehow accessed sensitive information from the justice system, a system that is supposed to be apart from government. That high government official has then taken that sensitive information and, with the full power of the state and government, applied that information to the detriment of a defenceless person in this province. That surely is what Watergate was all about.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Conway: One of the Premier's own colleagues says it was Nixonian.

Does the Premier not understand that the real issue here is that abuse of power; the premeditated, preconceived willingness by a high government official to take sensitive government information accessed from the justice system to attack a defenceless citizen who dared stand up against the government itself?

Hon Mr Rae: I've served in the House with the member for many years, in fact from the time I was elected to this place, and I say to the honourable member, with great respect, that I think he diminishes his argument by the excessive language that he uses and by the comparisons that he makes.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Not at all, not at all.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I really do. I think that what took place last week was very wrong. I have indicated that; this government has indicated that. We have responded, and you will proceed to make all the comparisons that you will, and you can proceed to use all the language that you want.

I will say to you that it's deplorable, that there's now a police investigation taking place into what happened and that it is not something which I in any way, shape or form condone or approve of. For the member to suggest anything otherwise is completely inaccurate and not a reflection at all of how I feel or how I have responded to the situation as we have faced it in the last while.

Mr Conway: Yesterday in this place the Premier said that while he didn't condone what Mr Piper did, there was nothing unique, nothing unusual in these kinds of problems, and that is where I differ. This is a breach of trust. This is an abuse of power that is qualitatively different from anything that has ever happened in the political history of this province.

Fifteen years ago, John Dean wrote in Blind Ambition: "In the Nixon White House, upward and downward paths diverged yet joined, like prongs of a tuning-fork pitched to a note of expediency. Slowly, slowly, steadily, I, John Dean, would climb towards the moral abyss of the president's inner circle until I finally fell into it, thinking that I had made it to the top just as I began to realize I had actually touched bottom."

Does the Premier of Ontario not understand that with the abominable conduct of John Piper, we now know there is a moral abyss within the Premier's inner circle? Does he not understand that in Pipergate, not only in this government but in the political history of this province, we have reached a Nixonian bottom? Does he not understand that this is a very serious matter for this Legislature as well as for Judi Harris, and will he not undertake a more serious and a more comprehensive response to the gravity of this problem than we have seen to date?

Hon Mr Rae: It's precisely because I take the issue seriously that I find it very difficult to take the honourable member seriously -- very difficult.

The honourable member can draw all the parallels that he wants, he can make all the comparisons that he wants and he can make all the political attacks that he wants, but it doesn't take away from the fundamental issue which is here. A very, very serious mistake took place last week. It was something which I abhor, something which I deplore, something which in no way, shape or form corresponds with my own view of what should happen.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): That was no mistake. That was a deliberate plan. It was your government and your office.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Rae: There is now a police investigation --

Mr Harnick: Your government.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: There is now a police investigation under way.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I have to say, for the benefit of those who are listening, it's very difficult to talk because of the heckling. I will try to keep on talking and say to the honourable member that it's precisely because we take it so seriously that there is this police investigation under way. I can assure you and I can assure the honourable member that I take this matter very seriously. I take what's taken place very seriously indeed. As I said to the member, it's precisely because I take this matter so seriously that I find his effort to turn this into some kind of partisan windmill a little hard to take.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier as well. It's difficult, in some respects, to take his protestations seriously. He says he has been taking this whole matter seriously, but some of the activities since he landed on these shores would put that into serious question. The fact that he landed in British Columbia and heard about this matter and was very concerned but at that point did not take any initiatives to secure his office certainly raises serious questions about how seriously indeed the Premier takes this whole matter.

The Ontario Provincial Police was notified on Friday afternoon, but because of the weekend it was not able to assign an officer for an investigation until Monday morning. So there was a window of opportunity, if you will, if you want to look at it that way, in respect of Mr Piper coming into his office with the Premier's chief of staff late Sunday night to remove files from this building.

We on this side have to wonder why it was so important for Mr Piper to come in a few hours before the official police investigation was launched to remove materials from his office. Did he leave his keys to the house in the office? We all have to wonder why he had to come into the office a few hours before the official investigation was launched.

It's difficult to believe that since the Premier returned to Toronto he has had no contact with anyone in his office. I want to ask him directly, was he contacted by anyone in respect to Mr Piper's visit? Was the question posed to him and then he perhaps directed that, "We have to cover our political tails by involving a civil servant"? Was he completely ignorant of Mr Piper's plans or wish to visit his office on Sunday evening to remove files? Did you know nothing about this?

Hon Bob Rae: I did not, and I would say to the honourable member that, again, you can make all the accusations and allegations against me and against everybody else that you want, and no doubt some will be made. I would just simply say directly to the honourable member, the request by Mr Piper to take his personal effects from the office was received. A phone call was made to the Deputy Attorney General with respect to what should be done to deal with this. Was it necessary for a police officer to be present?

The response came back, after inquiries by the Deputy Attorney General, that as long as all that was being removed was his personal effects and as long as his visit was supervised, that was fine. That's the response that took place.

Nothing was removed; no government documents were removed from the office by Mr Piper. It's our understanding that this is precisely what took place; no more, no less. It's my understanding that this process is one that was certainly understood to be sufficient and adequate and fair and reasonable in the circumstances by the people who were consulted in this regard.

Mr Runciman: I don't think I'm being cynical to suggest that I have great difficulty with the Premier seeing nothing wrong with a chief adviser to himself coming into the office only a few hours before an official police investigation is launched, in the dead of night on a Sunday night, to remove files. He's saying he sees nothing wrong with that.

I think the question is raised in many minds that his chief of staff was not there to ensure that the right things stay but instead that the right things are removed. It raises a whole area of questions which I believe are important.

I like to think that if my executive assistant, for example, was accused of criminal activity, I would secure my office. I wouldn't allow my executive assistant to go in and rifle the files a few hours before the police launch their official investigation. But the Premier again, like he's done on so many occasions, is defending that sort of activity. It's indefensible, again.

I want to say there are so many questions raised about this in respect to compromising the justice system, a whole host of questions, this should be referred to a committee of the Legislature, and I'm asking the Premier today, if he has no concerns, he's not covering up anything on the part of activities of anyone within his government, will he refer this matter immediately to the standing committee on justice for a complete and thorough investigation?

Hon Mr Rae: I saw the headline in one of the newspapers saying, "No Inquiry, Says Rae," or whatever.

The member opposite knows full well, from his experience in this House and his experience in these whole areas, that the Supreme Court of Canada has now made it very clear with respect to the conduct of inquiries in parliamentary committees that are parallel --

Mr Runciman: I'm only talking about a committee of this House.

Hon Mr Rae: The member says he's only talking about a committee of this House. I would say to him that exactly the same thing would take place, and that is the difficulty that we have. It's precisely because I believe profoundly in the integrity of the justice system that I think we have to allow the police investigation to take place without any form of political comment or interference of any kind whatsoever. Once that has taken place, we can then see what else needs to be done and has to be done in order to ensure and maintain full public confidence.

I want to say to the honourable member that it is important for all of us to do that and to maintain it, and that's precisely what it is my firm intention to do.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health is aware that the proposed Morgentaler clinic is just outside the riding of York East. Many constituents, both business and residential, are concerned about the safety of the neighbourhood. My question is: What is the Minister of Health doing to ensure the safety of the area residents?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): The member will know that under the independent health facilities legislation, which has been in place for a number of years now and which licenses the clinics -- of which the Morgentaler clinic that he's referring to is one -- there are provisions through the capital funding, under the funding of the global budgets, for security provisions.

In addition to that, after the bombing of the Morgentaler clinic we provided specific funding assistance to clinics to try to address this issue of additional security measures. Those measures are available to the individual clinics and to the buildings in which they reside, and that stands.

The other thing that has been ongoing: The Morgentaler clinic itself sought an injunction against picketers because, I remind you, it's not the activity itself that presents any danger; it's the attraction of individuals who come there to protest or to take specific actions that may present a danger.

So there's the ability of those injunctions against picketing which is in place, and there's always the consideration of taking the broader step of an Attorney General's injunction if the circumstances warrant that.

Mr Malkowski: Could the minister tell me why these services are being offered in a clinic and not in a hospital, and how is this clinic funded?

Hon Ms Lankin: The funding is done through a negotiated global budget; it's an approved budget that goes through the Ministry of Health. It covers a number of things: the facility costs and the actual services that are provided, salaries for the staff. Those are negotiated. As this clinic was moved, we renegotiated a new budget that took into account the rent and those sorts of things.

The question of why these are being provided in a clinic and not a hospital: We have a piece of legislation; the Independent Health Facilities Act was brought in to establish freestanding clinics. It's an opportunity for us to deliver community-based health services.

The reason why the legislation was required was because abortion, as a surgical procedure, was only allowed to be done within a hospital without the framework of legislation that would allow certain things that had only previously been done in hospitals to be done in a community-based clinic. So in that sense there's a special piece of legislation that ensures quality control through the College of Physicians and Surgeons and other sorts of things.

As you know as well, it has long been the wish of many people in the women's movements and others that these services should be available in community settings.

JOHN PIPER

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Premier. Premier, you certainly are aware of the fact that we have many questions about John Piper's efforts to smear and discredit a person who provided information which led to the resignation of one of your ministers.

As you know, John Piper was at the deputy minister level in your office. He was earning over $100,000 a year. He was responsible for the government's and the Premier's communication strategy. You must have had a working relationship with Mr Piper, one of some kind of personal reporting, some kind of staff meetings, some kind of briefing mechanism.

Premier, my question is this, and it's not pre-empted by any OPP investigation: On the issue of any communication strategy -- and I'm not only referring to the issue of the criminal record -- on the Grandview-Ferguson affair, were you ever present when John Piper discussed this matter, or did you ever personally discuss the matter with him, or did you see any briefing notes on this issue generated on Piper's instructions? If so, what did you see or hear, and who was present?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No.

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Premier, your refusal to answer any questions is not going to stop us from asking the questions that have to be asked. It is essential that we find out the exact nature of the involvement that you, your office and your friend John Piper had in this disgraceful episode. This is why we are demanding a legislative inquiry into your office's dirty tricks campaign.

As you know, both crown attorneys in Owen Sound have denied providing the information to Mr Piper as he has claimed. I ask you, Premier, did you or your staff know who gave the Judi Harris record to John Piper? Was it through Will Ferguson or his lawyer or was it through the Ministry of the Attorney General? What actions will you take if it is revealed that the person who supplied the information is part of your government?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer to the question is, very directly to the honourable member, that it's precisely to determine answers to those kinds of questions that one has a police investigation. That's exactly why it's there. I would say to the honourable member that for me to comment or to say anything of any kind at this point would fly in the face of that investigation. All the facts will come out as they should come out, and they must come out, and there's a process by which they come out.

I would say again to the honourable member, and he's done it just as his colleague the member for Renfrew North has done it: He says I refuse to answer questions. I never refused to answer a question. I gave him a very clear response, and then he said I refused to answer the question. It's precisely that kind of partisan approach which makes it so appropriate for us to say this issue has to get right out of the political process, because it's very clear that the best way in which the facts will all come out is by an independent process, and that's precisely why we have a police investigation.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I suggest to the Premier that we're disappointed a committee is not being set up. We're disappointed, quite frankly, that the police are not reporting to a legislative committee of this Legislature. That's where the findings really ought to be reported so that we can give assurance that there's nobody else who is involved.

However, in the absence of the committee, there are a couple of other things I'd like to get straight here, Mr Premier. You say you are certain that Mr Piper removed nothing that had to do with any potential investigation that will be carried out by the OPP in this matter. I would ask you this, Mr Premier: Did Miss Morrison provide you with a log of every item and every piece of paper that was removed by Mr Piper, and will you table that log with the Legislature today so that we can determine if everything and every piece of paper was in fact examined by Miss Morrison? If so, we would presume there would be a log to that effect.

Hon Mr Rae: I have no such log. What I do have is the assurance from Miss Morrison that she acted entirely on the advice and within the context of advice given her by the Ministry of the Attorney General and that she was completely satisfied herself that there were no government documents whatsoever removed by Mr Piper.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, I thought the Attorney General wasn't going to have anything to do with this.

When Mr Ashworth was under investigation, you said, June 23, 1989 -- and he would have been about the same status as Mr Piper is in your office: not the big banana but a very key and senior person -- "The rot has extended to the heart of Mr Peterson's own office." So you would understand why we and the public and certainly the potential victims at Grandview feel that the rot has extended to the very heart of your office. You would then understand why we find it unacceptable that it is somebody in your office who may, or ought to, at least be under investigation as to what he knew or he didn't know.

There is a second thing, since we can't have a committee to investigate this, a committee perhaps to give advice to the OPP on some of the things we should do there. However, I would like to ask you this, Premier: Can you assure the Legislature and the people of Ontario today that there were no provisions in Mr Piper's contract for any severance, that Mr Piper in fact is not being paid five cents beyond noon on Friday for his services with the government of Ontario? Can you give us that assurance?

Hon Mr Rae: It is clearly my understanding and I think everyone's understanding that Mr Piper resigned as of Friday and that he's receiving no severance pay, no severance package and no additional payments beyond that point.

GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Many people in Niagara Falls have expressed to me how very pleased and proud they are that it has been selected to be the site of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. People are very interested in both the jobs and also the design of this building, which is going to be a landmark in our downtown area. People also want this investment to be very wisely spent. I need to know: Will local people be involved and have input on the design of the building in order to maximize its impact on the city as a whole and also on the downtown core?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): I am pleased to respond to the member's question. As the minister responsible for the Ontario government relocation program, I am of course supportive of its aims. Two of those aims, job creation and urban renewal, can only be done in complete cooperation with the communities involved. That is why we first develop a set of urban design guidelines for each location, as we have done for Niagara Falls.

Earlier this month we held a public open house at city hall, Niagara Falls to share these urban design guidelines with the community and solicit input. We intend to make these consultations with the people of Niagara Falls through a further open house and through amendments to those guidelines, and I assure the member that there will be much public input into that process.

Ms Harrington: Will there be local people who will be involved in the design team for the building, and secondly, will local people be used in construction also?

Hon Mr Wilson: From our past experience with these projects, we do find that there is much local interest, much local input, much local spinoff and job creation etc. The normal procedure for this is to let construction and design be awarded as a result of a public proposal call. We intend to make sure we encourage local participation in that project.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you've made many statements in the past about the importance of integrity and standards in government, and I cite back to you just one of those statements, a statement of June 1989 in which you said:

"There are those who say, 'Haven't you got anything better to do than deal every day with this question of scandals?' But the question of integrity is the first question in politics; it is the first question in government; it is the foundation of everything else a government does. If a government can't pass that test, it can't pass any other test."

Premier, integrity in government demands a consistency of standards. We do not see consistency, so we have some very real questions about your standards. I ask if you can tell us today what standards you apply in judging the conduct of your ministers.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I don't think there's any question that this quotation that the member has read and the statements that it contains -- the leader of the third party raised the issue, for example, in his last question yesterday with respect to the statements in the speech from the throne -- have been quoted on many other occasions.

This government's standards are clear. I hope my own standards are clear. I regret very much what has taken place and we've taken steps to deal with it. The clearest indication has been given by me and will continue to be given by me with respect to what has happened.

Her colleague says that what I stated yesterday was that while I didn't condone it, I said there was nothing unique or unusual. I never said any such thing. What I said was that human frailty is a fact of life. People talk about the heart of the matter. That is the heart of the matter. There are mistakes made and then there are judgements exercised and this House holds us accountable. This is a forum in which I am held accountable and I understand that.

I say to the honourable member, I hope very much --

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

Hon Mr Rae: I know it's implausible, but I want to say to the honourable member, she can criticize me for what I have done or failed to do in the past, I understand that, and she will continue to do that in a way that reflects her beliefs and her views and I will do the same with respect to decisions and judgements that she has made. But I haven't heard anyone on this debate suggest that the judgement that I exercised on Friday and the statements that I made on Friday or the statements that I made yesterday --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- or the statements that I'm making today are incorrect. I hope I'm right in that assumption.

So I say to the honourable member, I regret profoundly what has taken place. Steps must be taken to deal with it and we are taking those steps in a methodical way. The first step, of course, has to be that of a police investigation and I would say to the honourable member that I regard this as an issue that has to be dealt with by the government. We are dealing with it as we must and shall deal with other issues as well.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, nobody but you believes that this is an issue which began and ended on Friday. This question is about your standards and the way in which you choose to apply them. It's about the fact that we don't see a consistency and therefore it is unclear to us, and I believe it's unclear to the people of this province, what your standards are and how you apply them.

I remind you of that inconsistency and take you back to the Minister of Northern Development, who clearly smeared a private citizen in public, an action which you now say is clearly wrong, but the minister was not fired. I take you back to the former Minister of Energy, who was fired as soon as he became involved in a police investigation into the Grandview affair. The Minister of Tourism, Premier, was not fired as soon as you referred allegations about his conduct to the OPP, but only after the allegations became public.

Premier, again we're talking about your standards and how you choose to apply them, and I ask you one very simple question as a measure of those standards: Why did you not ask your former Minister of Tourism to resign as soon as you referred allegations about his conduct to the Ontario Provincial Police? Why did you ask him to resign only after the second allegation became public?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say if the member is asking the question, and I know she is, in order to get a very clear response -- and it's the first time I've had a chance to respond in the House on this matter and I'll respond as clearly as I can -- again I acted on the basis of what I thought was advice professionally given and it was also my sense -- and again this is something which a first minister has to deal with -- all there was to refer to anyone was a rumour, which in my view required further investigation, a rumour which, I might add, was completely and utterly denied by the individual in question.

I then had to ask myself the question, if there is a rumour which is denied completely, I have no complainant, I have no evidence, I have nothing, all I have is a rumour, and it's denied completely by the individual involved, we have to ask ourselves the question, how do we respond? I think I responded fairly.

What if the rumour proves to be completely unfounded? What if it proves to be without any factual basis whatsoever? What if there is in fact not indeed a complainant? What if there is no basis at all for the complaint? I would say to the honourable member that in that circumstance we're dealing with the reputation of individuals, we're dealing with their careers, we're dealing with their ability to perform in public office, and I have to deal with these issues in a way that I think is fair.

You ask me how I exercise my judgement. I'll say to the honourable member, that's how I exercise my judgement. I exercise it in a way that's as fair and reasonable in the circumstances as it can possibly be, and I think the way I exercised my judgement in that instance was respected: the need to get at the bottom of the matter, but the need as well for us to be able to deal with it in a way that's fair to everyone involved. That's the way I chose to deal with it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. During the question period, the nature of the questions being asked prompted lengthy responses not of the type that is probably best suited for response to the order paper. Keeping in mind the balance we always try to achieve in here in allowing the ministers full opportunity, especially under difficult circumstances, to respond, I think it's only fair, although the time has expired, that we allow a question from the third party. I will recognize the member for Leeds-Grenville.

JOHN PIPER

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'll try to make this brief. This is to the Premier. I think there's an important element in this whole matter that he's trying to avoid, and that's in respect to his failure to secure Mr Piper's office when he arrived in Canada on Friday from his trip to the Orient. He's also indicated that he did not request, or no one in his staff requested, that a log be kept. He has expressed no concern over this occurring on a Sunday night hours before a police investigation is launched.

When I've asked for a referral to the justice committee, he's said that this is under police investigation. Well, this is one element that will not be touched upon by any police investigation, and I think it is one of grave concern to all of us in this Legislature in respect to the involvement of the Deputy Attorney General, the involvement of the Premier and other important players in the Premier's office. I ask him again to explain why he's refusing to refer this to the standing committee on administration of justice, especially as it involves himself, his own office, members of his office staff and the Deputy Attorney General.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I've answered that question completely. The only thing I would say to the honourable member -- and it gives me an opportunity to clarify an answer I gave earlier to the leader of the third party as well as to the member from Brockville -- is to say that Miss Morrison of course put a memo to file, which will be available to anyone, from the police investigating, with respect to the removal of material from Mr Piper's office.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. Point of order, the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Premier to my question on his briefings by John Piper. The reason for my dissatisfaction is that it is inconceivable that the Premier had no information on the communications strategy for the Grandview issue.

The Speaker: I trust the honourable member will file the necessary document at the table.

PETITIONS

ENERGY FROM WASTE

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a petition that calls upon the Minister of the Environment to reconsider her regulations with respect to energy from waste in the province of Ontario.

It's signed by 525 people from eastern Ontario, particularly from the Cornwall area, who were encouraged to sign the petition through the offices of the Cornwall Environmental Resource Centre. I have affixed my signature to this petition and submit it to you.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London; and

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregard the public input expressed during the public hearings; and

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable,

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It's signed by 12 residents of the county, and I've affixed my signature.

LIQUOR LICENSING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Today I am presenting a petition signed by 1,220 constituents from my riding of St Catharines-Brock. The petition states:

"The undersigned oppose the operation of adult entertainment parlours employing exotic dancers in or adjacent to residential communities."

I affix my signature.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by over 1,000 people in the city of St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"The undersigned oppose the operation of adult entertainment parlours employing exotic dancers in or adjacent to residential communities.

"We, the people, are concerned that Seductions will have a detrimental effect on the quality of community life in this part of the city. This type of establishment is inappropriate in a community where children and young people are living.

"We, the people, are concerned that the city of St Catharines currently has no bylaws which regulate the establishment and operation of adult entertainment parlours. This issues is now being addressed by St Catharines's city council. On November 9, 1992, council passed a motion that will begin the process of creating relevant regulations.

"We, the people, are concerned that provincial licensing procedures are inadequate to control the establishment of adult entertainment parlours in residential areas. As we understand, an application review process is conducted when a new application to license a premise is made. At that time residents have the opportunity to object to the application, thus having some say in the nature of their community. The original licence for 123 Geneva Street was granted for a family restaurant. This restaurant and its operation were compatible with a family community.

"We, the people, are concerned, however, that in the case of Seductions, the licence was transferred to a new operator with no opportunity for community reaction. The purpose of the establishment is changed drastically. The new operation is in no way compatible with a family community.

"The LLBO licensing procedures assume that area residents should have some input to licensing decisions. This opportunity is removed when a licence is transferred and/or the use of licensed premises is changed. This, we believe, points out a serious inadequacy in the procedures under which the LLBO operates.

"So we, the undersigned, request that our elected representatives make inquiries to the LLBO to determine if any actions can be taken to eliminate adult entertainment parlours at 123 Geneva Street and that they initiate actions that would allow residents an opportunity to object to changes to the use of existing licensed premises."

They thank us for our attention to this matter. I affix my signature to this particular petition in agreement with the petitioners.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I see the mayor of the city of Toronto is here, and she would like this petition. I have attached my name to this petition, and it reads:

"We, the undersigned residents of the city of Toronto, strongly urge that Metropolitan Toronto's market value assessment proposal should be referred to the Fair Tax Commission in order to create a property tax system that is fair and equitable."

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have approximately 3,250 petitions from citizens of Ontario which read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, in support of the mother of Debra Pauline Williams Ellul, draw to the attention of the House the following:

"That the right to appeal the decision made in the Debra Williams Ellul murder acquitting Guy Ellul of all charges be granted based on the fact that the decision not to allow the appeal does not accurately reflect the public's abhorrence and unacceptability of the outcome of this trial."

I affix my signature to these petitions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Petitions? Reports by committees? Introduction of bills.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES VICTIMES

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

Bill 97,

An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime / Loi portant déclaration des droits des victimes d'actes criminels.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any brief comments?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I believe most members of this House are familiar with this bill. It is now a third attempt to codify in Ontario law the principle and acknowledgement that victims of crime have rights in this province. It seeks to correct a situation where Ontarians find themselves as one of the last provinces in Canada to codify these rights for their victims.

I will not discuss at length the elements of the bill, because it will occur in my private member's time in two weeks. I beg the indulgence of the House at that time to give it its full consideration in the names of those victims of crime who have not received the supports and the services that other victims of crime have been able to receive across Canada.

CONSUMER AND BUSINESS PRACTICES CODE, 1992 / CODE DE 1992 DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DES PRATIQUES DE COMMERCE

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

Bill 98,

An Act to provide a Consumer and Business Practices Code for Ontario / Loi prévoyant un Code de la consommation et des pratiques de commerce pour l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any brief comments to make?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Very briefly, this consumer protection and business practices code is intended to bring about a new era of protection for consumers. I look forward to its debate some time in December, I believe December 10, in private members' hour, and I hope all members from all sides of the House will support this initiative in the form of this piece of legislation.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before I proceed with the orders of the day, I'd like to read the following:

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Ottawa West has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Premier concerning the briefing of the Premier by John Piper on the Grandview issue. This matter will be debated today at 6 o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr Cooke moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 94,

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

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'll be very brief. Today I'm moving, on behalf of the government, the legislation that will give Metropolitan Toronto council the same power to proceed with its interim tax plan as any other municipal council would have in the entire province. In fact, all of the other municipal councils already have that power. Metropolitan council is the one exception to that rule across the province.

I don't want to underestimate the difficulty this bill presents and the concerns that have been expressed by people in the Legislature, some members of the Legislature, and some people in Metropolitan Toronto and, in particular, cities like Toronto and East York. Whenever you're dealing with this issue -- we went through it a number of years ago in my home community, where there was not legislation needed to implement it -- it becomes a very difficult issue because some people experience tax decreases, other people experience sizeable tax increases.

The compromise plan that Metropolitan council has come up with is not full market value assessment, and I think that is important to understand. It is a small step towards market value assessment. The mayor of the city of Toronto, who's here today in the gallery, has certainly expressed some of the concerns they have in the city of Toronto about the move towards market value assessment. I think it's fair to say that the concerns they have are, even more, concerns about what happens if they move to full market value assessment and what the long-term effect might be on the city of Toronto, on downtown, if there were a move to full market value assessment.

That's why in this legislation we have not given permission to Metropolitan Toronto to go the next step. This legislation only authorizes Metropolitan council to proceed with the interim tax plan, which is a small step towards market value assessment.

What we have committed ourselves to do over the next few years, before this five-year period is completed, is to work with Metropolitan council and try to develop a fair taxation system. I think it's fair to say that the current tax system in Metropolitan Toronto is unfair and that the proposed tax system only in a very small way alleviates some of the unfairness. It's certainly an unfair tax system as well that's being proposed by Metropolitan council.

We need to work with the regional councillors, we need to work with the regional government, to develop a fair tax plan for this community. That's why we've said, "Yes, you can go the first step, but we're not going to give you the power to go the next step."

That's also why we have put certain provisions in this legislation that will make it necessary for Metropolitan council to pass certain bylaws to implement its interim tax measures. We believe it's very important that certain parts of this plan be re-examined by Metropolitan council because of the concerns that have been expressed by the business community, by people who live in the residential communities in the city of Toronto and in communities like East York.

I think there are some real questions about what the long-term impact would be on the city of Toronto if we went to full market value assessment. This is a great community in which to live, and one of the reasons it's a good community to live in is because we have people of all income levels living in downtown Toronto, we have communities and residential neighbourhoods in the city of Toronto.

Mr Speaker, you will know that I live across the border, about five minutes from the city of Detroit, and I know what happens to a community when its downtown core loses its residential communities: The community then dies and the impact on the suburbs is very substantial as well.

That's why over the next five years we've committed ourselves to working with Metro council to do the social and economic impact studies of what would happen if there was going to be full market value assessment and to work with Metro council to look at all of the options to develop a fair tax system.

This has been a very controversial and emotional issue in Metropolitan Toronto. I don't remember, in the 15 years that I've been a member here, that there has been an issue that has faced Metro council that has been as controversial as it is. I think it's fair to say that the profile of Metropolitan council and of the regional chair has increased considerably in the last number of weeks.

I don't know whether they would think that was good or whether they think that is bad, but I do believe that everyone, or most everyone, has come to the conclusion that the current tax system in Metro Toronto doesn't work; it's unfair. And I think there's a general recognition that, while the plan that Metro council has put forward is a little bit fairer than the current system, it's not fair either and that we've got to take a look at the property tax system in this community. We've got to take a look at the property tax system across the province, and that's why the Fair Tax Commission is looking at this issue.

I hope we'll be able to develop some recommendations and that over time we will be able to reform the property tax system, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but right across the province.

One other issue has been raised which I think has credibility, and that is that while most of the rest of the province has market value assessment, there is a uniqueness to Metropolitan Toronto that doesn't exist anywhere else in the province. I don't need to be convinced of that; I think that is absolutely true. There's no place in Ontario where the differences in the market vary so significantly as is the case in Metropolitan Toronto. Of course, that adds to the distortion of the property tax system and is one of the reasons why we have to come up with a better system.

But as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I also believe very much that local governments have to take some responsibility for decisions they make, and that the provincial government can't make all the decisions for local government. That's why we are proceeding with legislation that will enable Metropolitan Toronto to proceed with its interim tax plan but put it on notice very clearly that we have to work together to find a fair tax system so that when reassessment occurs again, we do not move to full market value assessment.

I want to make it very clear that we on this side of the House do not believe that full market value assessment would be in the interests of the people of this community, not just because taxes in downtown Toronto would go up even more, but because that would have a substantial impact on the development of this community and, I think, would have a negative impact on the core of this community. While some people in the suburbs might not be concerned about that, we do have to look at what that would mean to the taxpayers and to the social and economic life of this community.

If downtown Toronto were to deteriorate, then there would be additional cost to Metropolitan council. There's no doubt about that, whether it's police cost, whether it's other social cost, infrastructure cost -- all of those items would have a substantial impact if the city of Toronto and communities like East York were allowed to deteriorate as communities in the United States have. That would surely have a substantial impact on the taxes of people living in the suburbs in Metropolitan Toronto.

So while we're moving forward with this interim plan with the power to allow Metropolitan Toronto to move forward, bylaws will have to be passed at Metro council. That will give the opportunity for the level of government that is responsible to have a second look at certain aspects of this bill.

I want to single out one part of the interim tax plan that I have great difficulty with and I believe the government does too; that is, the condition that, on sale, residential properties will move to full market value assessment. I have great concerns with that because I believe it could put the writing on the wall for what the next step would be. I ask Metropolitan council to take another look at that particular part of its plan. I don't think we should do anything that prejudges where we're going to go in year six, after this plan has expired and after we're into a reassessment and looking at a new tax plan.

All we're doing here is giving Metropolitan Toronto the same powers that other municipalities have. We're allowing them to go ahead with an interim tax plan which is a very small step towards market value assessment.

We're putting Metro on notice that we will not go to full market value assessment in this community, and we're telling Metro, "We want to work with you to develop a fair taxation system so that when this plan expires and there is a reassessment, we can then implement a fair tax plan in this community," and we're saying to Metro council, "Please look at certain aspects of your plan because we think they will have a negative effect and might prejudge decisions that have to be made down the road."

I think that's a reasonable and responsible approach by the provincial government, and I look forward to going on with second reading, having public hearings at the Legislature on the legislation, and then this whole matter will go back to Metro council, where it will have to be debated once again.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Yes, Mr Speaker. I don't think I've ever heard a minister who could talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time like this minister --

Hon Mr Cooke: In the history of the Legislature?

Ms Poole: -- in the history of the Legislature; certainly the time I've been here, and that's really saying something.

On the one hand, this minister has said he doesn't believe that full market value would be in the interests of the community. He says it would be detrimental to the city of Toronto, and yet this same minister is the one who's planning to rush through this plan, to rubber-stamp it and not even have the guts to change the provision which says that, on point of sale residents in the city of Toronto will go to full market value. He doesn't have the guts to do it. Instead, he passes the buck back to Metro.

Mr Minister, if you did your homework, you'd know that Metro council has voted on that provision three times; that three times Metro council has passed it, over the objections of the city of Toronto and over the objections of the Metro councillors who represent the city of Toronto on Metro council.

When you talk about being sensitive to the city of Toronto, it's all a bunch of poppycock. You are determined to pass this with a minimum of participation. You want it through by the end of this year. It is very clear that your government has changed the rules, and your government has the mandate and the majority to do that. Don't give us this nonsense about protecting the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto is not being protected by what you're doing.

What you should be doing is putting a provision in there which prohibits Metro council from bringing those properties to full market value at the point of sal