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

April 22, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker: I would ask all members to join me in welcoming the third group of pages to serve in the First Session of the 35th Parliament:

Christopher Bardon, Mississauga North; Njeri Campbell, Etobicoke-Rexdale; Thomas Castaldo, Oshawa; Ryan Christie, Simcoe Centre; Andrea Dadamo, Windsor-Sandwich; Joseph de los Reyes, Scarborough-Agincourt; James Evans, Beaches-Woodbine; Virginia Greer, Timiskaming; David Guest, Leeds-Grenville; David Han, York Centre; Naomi Johnson, Simcoe West; Sarah Lambert, Kingston and The Islands; Larry Leung, Wilson Heights; Keith MacDonald, Perth; Monte McNaughton, Middlesex; Nikisha Reyes-Grange, Durham West; Michelle Roche, Lincoln; Andrea Sackaney, Niagara Falls; Erica Sanderson, Brampton South; Peter Smiechowski, Parkdale; Eric Tam, York Mills; Janet Taylor, Parry Sound; Katherine Telford, York South; Sandra Wilson, Ottawa West.

Would you welcome them to our chamber.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JAMES HAMMOND SR

Mr Offer: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the 1991 Mississauga Citizen of the Year recipient, James Hammond, Sr.

Mr Hammond received the Gordon S. Shipp Memorial Award in recognition of his extensive work spanning four decades. A father of five, this year's recipient has volunteered his time and talents on behalf of many local organizations, including the Streetsville Lions Club, St Joseph's school and church, Streetsville Musicorps and Royal Canadian Legion. James Hammond Sr, a Streets-ville resident, also served for many years as a volunteer firefighter for the Streetsville fire department.

I think all members of the House are well aware of the great contribution made by volunteers in our communities. These individuals give tirelessly of themselves, contributing in no small measure to the betterment of the areas we represent.

James Hammond Sr is one such individual receiving a very prestigious award in the city of Mississauga, but he is by no means the only one. Each community has individuals who share in the commitment of a James Hammond Sr. Indeed, as well as with Mr Hammond, awards were presented to three additional outstanding volunteers: Sherry Lee was recognized for her contribution in a variety of organizations, and Ethel and Harold Taylor were also recognized.

It is individuals such as these who make this province an example for others to follow.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Stockwell: I rise today to bring to the attention of the Minister of Education a very serious situation in my riding. St Gregory's separate school in Etobicoke is in need of immediate renovation and expansion to meet the demands of increasing enrolment.

I would like to welcome some of the representatives from St Gregory's school to the Ontario Legislature today who join us in the members' gallery. They have been petitioning the Metropolitan Separate School Board for funding for these much-needed renovations since 1982 and had felt that their hard work and patience had finally paid off when they achieved the number two position on the priority list for funds in 1992. However, under new government guidelines, lists have been combined and have bumped St Gregory's to number six.

I personally visited St Gregory's school and saw at first hand the lack of facilities and overcrowded conditions of the school. For example: Two small sets of washrooms have to serve the entire student body. The undersized gymnasium, which doubles as an assembly room, barely holds one gym class, let alone the entire student body. Change rooms have to be used for storage, which leaves little or no room for their intended use. A storage closet has been converted to the French teacher's office.

The parents and staff at St Gregory's feel that the lack of adequate space is seriously jeopardizing the quality of education of the children. The students have suffered long enough and the parents and staff have been more than patient. However, their patience has now turned to frustration. They feel cheated, and rightly so.

I strongly urge the Minister of Education to take immediate action on their behalf to remedy this inequitable situation and to put St Gregory's school back to its rightful position for funding on the priority list.

WATERFRONT TRAIL

Mr White: It gives me great pleasure to rise and offer comment upon the initiation of a Lakeshore Greenway, a waterfront trail from Burlington to Bowmanville.

On Saturday, a meeting was held at Ontario Place which was truly in the spirit of Earth Day. It was entitled How to Achieve the Greening of the Waterfront and was introduced by David Crombie, commissioner, Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, and the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

A Waterfront Trail Membership Association, made up of citizens' groups, outdoors associations and volunteers, was established at this meeting to help implement the Ontario government-endorsed Watershed report recommendation of a continuous waterfront trail linking the GTA along its entire waterfront. The trail will be consistent with the Watershed principles of clean, green, usable, diverse, open, accessible, connected, affordable and attractive lands.

As a former presenter on these very issues before the royal commission, I find the establishment of the waterfront trail to be very exciting. It will encourage the formation of trails and greenways linking a province-wide network.

ERINDALE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

Mr Mahoney: The Erindale campus of the University of Toronto is located in my riding of Mississauga West.

Since its founding in 1967, Erindale has made a significant impact on the community of Mississauga. Not only does it provide educational opportunities for our citizens of Mississauga and its environs, but the economic and cultural benefits to the community are considerable.

Erindale has an operating budget in excess of $35 million and employs more than 600 full- and part-time staff. As well, more than 300 part-time positions are available within the college to students. Five hundred of these employees are Mississauga residents and they generate over $18 million in direct spending in our community. Students of course spend another $7 million annually. Major construction and maintenance projects together with the purchase of supplies amount to an additional $2.2 million a year.

The former Liberal government recognized the valuable contributions of Erindale College educationally, culturally and economically and subsequently supported the college through its programs.

I am asking for assurance and I hope that this NDP government will continue to support this very important institution in Mississauga at the same generous levels as did the former Liberal government.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Jordan: The government of Ontario has long ignored the needs of eastern Ontario. Like the Liberal government before it, the NDP government has done nothing for the eastern part of this province.

With the resignation of the Ottawa-Centre MPP last Thursday, eastern Ontario has only one cabinet minister, the member for Frontenac-Addington, whom I sincerely congratulate.

Lanark-Renfrew, the riding I represent, along with ridings in the east, needs to attract this government's attention. We need special assistance to get our message into cabinet.

While other parts of the province, like northern Ontario and the greater Toronto area, have ministers representing special interests, eastern Ontario has nothing.

This government should know that the town of Renfrew has lost 1,200 jobs in the past six years. It should realize that Smiths Falls, Carleton Place, Perth and Almonte have been devastated by factory closures. Who will help us provide much-needed industrial incentives to eastern Ontario?

The government should appoint a deputy minister for eastern Ontario, set up a cabinet committee to discover the province does not end at Belleville and treat eastern Ontario with the care and respect now given the greater Toronto area.

EARTH DAY

Mr Hayes: Yesterday, I had the opportunity to participate, with two of my sons, Michael and James, in Earth Day activities at the home of Greta and Keith Thompson, residents of the Essex-Kent riding.

Mr and Mrs Thompson have a beautiful piece of property with hundreds of trees, plants and flowers. They have donated many years to not only the survival but also the propagation of more than 30 species of rare Carolinian trees.

To celebrate Earth Day, they opened up their home to local residents, giving away hundreds of seedling trees to the young people in the area. The day's activities also included pottery demonstrations using the clay found throughout Kent county.

The Thompsons not only gave me a 12-foot silver maple, which is now planted on my lawn; they also asked that I present the Minister of the Environment with an 8-foot silver oak to thank her for her dedication towards a cleaner environment. The white oak is a symbol of strength. You can cut it down, but the roots will not let go.

Although the rules of the House would not allow me to bring the tree in, I ask the minister, on behalf of the Thompsons, to accept the silver oak for planting in her residence, Queen's Park or a place of her preference.

DONATION OF MEDICATION

Mr Henderson: Many honourable members will share my sense of the tragedy of suffering and poverty in Third World nations. Two Ontario-based, Canadian-owned pharmaceutical manufacturers have made a significant contribution to the alleviation of shortage and suffering in Third World Latin America through a donation of medications with a value of about $20,000.

Members will know that Latin American nations are reaching very actively to develop stronger economic, trade, cultural and other ties with Ontario and Canada. Besides satisfying our altruistic wish to help disadvantaged peoples, expanded ties can benefit Ontario as well. Since the United States is pursuing a trade deal with Mexico that many feel will disadvantage some important Canadian industries, there is a real opportunity for Ontarians to seize the initiative in broadening our interchange with Latin America.

The generosity of these two Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers helps strengthen the climate of trust which must underlie such expanded commerce. Especially, I want to applaud and salute the generosity of Leslie Dan of NovoPharm Ltd and Bernard Sherman of Apotex Pharmaceuticals. These two outstanding Ontario companies have demonstrated compassion, sensitivity and excellent corporate citizenship. We appreciate it.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Jackson: I call the attention of the House to the current funding crisis being faced by Ontario children's aid societies. Fully one half of the province's children's aid societies are experiencing budget deficits at a time when many are also reporting unprecedented increases in their child care case loads.

Metro area societies, including Halton, Peel, York, Durham and Simcoe, have seen their resources strained to the very limit, largely as a result of huge population growth throughout their regions. The Halton Children's Aid Society has experienced an 11% increase in its case load over that in 1989 in terms of monthly days of care. It also has 12.5% more children under its care than it had two years ago.

As my colleague the member for Markham said in this House on 27 March, the children's aid society has undergone review after review and each time the consensus has been that its base budget fails to reflect the reality of its needs. We are talking about children who are incest survivors, victims of abuse, who resort in record numbers to suicide. It is hard to believe that the Premier could say "no more funding" to these children and yet say yes to civil service employees, who receive a 6.1% increase.

I call on the NDP government to stop victimizing the children of Ontario, who are more vulnerable today than they have ever been. It is a time for this NDP Minister of Community and Social Services to deal openly and fairly with the children's aid societies of this province to address the needs of children, the modern victims of the NDP government's misplaced priorities.

HAMILTON REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Abel: Today being Earth Day, it seems appropriate to use this time to congratulate the Hamilton Regional Conservation Authority, which is this year celebrating its 25th anniversary.

Since its establishment in 1966 as the successor to the Spencer Creek Conservation Authority, the HRCA has assumed the responsibility for conserving, restoring, developing and managing the natural resources of its 479-square-kilometre watershed.

Conservation education programs are provided for children from kindergarten through grade 13 throughout the school year. In the summer, popular conservation camps continue the educational process. These programs, centred mainly in the picturesque 1,000-hectare Dundas Valley Conservation Area, teach the importance of conservation to approximately 12,000 children each year.

The lands managed by the HRCA range from quiet, passive, environmentally sensitive areas to the more intensively developed areas such as Christies, Valens, Fifty Point and Confederation Park. Each year an estimated one million people visit these areas to swim, fish, picnic, cross-country-ski, hike and simply enjoy nature. We thank the HRCA and extend our congratulations for 25 years of successful conservation.

VISITOR

Mr Malkowski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce Dr Dave Mason, who is visiting here from the University of Alberta and sitting in the members' gallery today.

He is the first deaf person to graduate from a school for the deaf and he eventually earned his PhD from the University of Alberta. He is presently working at the Alberta School for the Deaf; he has been there for 25 years and is now a professor at the University of Alberta. We would like to thank him for being with us here in the House. I would like to present Dr Mason.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to make a statement concerning Earth Day.

Agreed to.

EARTH DAY

Hon Mrs Grier: Today is Earth Day and the start of Earth Week in Ontario. Earth Day is a time for us to reflect on the state of our natural surroundings. It is a time for us to renew our commitment to the restoration and protection of the environment for the generations to follow. Special activities to celebrate the Earth have been planned for communities all across Ontario.

The activities in the Metropolitan Toronto area alone are a litany of commitment and creativity and are representative of what is happening everywhere. They include tree planting along the Don River. There is also to be a tree planting at the Humber Arboretum, followed by a nature walk. The Toronto Recycling Action Committee is collecting fine papers at Nathan Phillips Square for recycling. A giant globe was carried from city hall to Queen's Park as part of the walk with the Earth, and a native festival, Project Indigenous Restoration, begins with teachings and ceremonial dancing and concludes with a concert at the Royal Alexandra Theatre.

I have had an opportunity this past week to see at first hand some of the excellent work people are doing. Last Thursday I was on hand for the Recycling Council of Ontario's waste minimization awards. These awards honour the efforts of individuals, businesses, governments, schools and other institutions.

I would like to give special mention to the winners in the individual categories. B. J. Frid won the junior category for singlehandedly starting a recycling program in his grandparents' 10-storey apartment complex. Jeanette Anbinder was honoured for her lifelong commitment to the environment, beginning in the 1960s when she helped found the Unionville recycling depot. In fact, her station wagon was the town's first depot.

Last Friday I spoke to the students at West Humber Collegiate for their symposium on the environment. The students have shown a keen interest in the environment and, following their initiative, an action report has been sent to the Etobicoke Board of Education proposing to make West Humber Collegiate an environmentally focused school. The school's report recognizes the close relationship between the environment and all other disciplines and proposes to make environment an integral part of its entire curriculum. The board has appointed a full-time environmental co-ordinator for the school.

On Saturday 200 people joined the Citizens for a Lakeshore Trail, and David Crombie and I announced the proposed route for the waterfront trail along the shore of Lake Ontario from Hamilton to Port Hope. These and many other events and activities on Earth Day represent simple, hands-on approaches to environmental restoration and protection.

On a more fundamental level, though, many people have begun to address the root of environmental problems. Just this morning I met with more than 300 executives, academics, private citizens, native representatives and others at a meeting of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. The purpose of the round table is to develop strategies to make environmental considerations a key component to all economic planning.

This approach echoes one of the four principles upon which this government is basing its environmental strategy: We are firmly committed to making environmental concerns part of all our policies and programs throughout all ministries and government bodies; we believe that everyone has a stake in the environment, including both the right to share in it and the responsibility for its protection; we recognize that to create an environment which can sustain our economic activities, we must transform ourselves from a consumer society to a conserver society, and we will implement action programs to clean up existing problems in our environment and develop stronger prevention strategies to head off further damage.

We are moving from the traditional approach of "react and cure" to, instead, "anticipate and prevent."

This government has acted on its conviction that Ontario must become a conserver society. We have taken a strong stand by making the 3Rs, reduction, reuse and recycling, the cornerstone of our waste management strategy and efficiency in conservation the foundation of our energy policy.

I invite all the members to join me in honouring the considerable effort that has gone into today's public events. I hope as many of us as possible can take

part in the continuing celebration of our planet throughout the balance of Earth Week.

Mr Ramsay: Today, Earth Day is an event being observed worldwide, and it is the global nature of Earth Day's concept that is its most important attribute. It forces us to recognize that environmental problems are in all nations and can and will affect all residents of this planet. But one seldom thinks of the effects of environmental impacts in this manner. It is most sobering to remember that this is the only planet in the universe that supports life. It is not likely we can just use this planet and move on to the next, so let's treat the Earth like we want to stay.

It is easy to point fingers and speak despairingly about high-profile environmental issues such as clear-cutting of the Amazon rain forest, the colossal damage which has occurred in eastern Europe as a result of the industrial discharges into the water, air and on to the land, the oil spills in the Mediterranean and to decry the practices in these nations. But Canada's track record on this issue is far from stellar and it has been said more than once that really enormous problems have been avoided here more by good luck than good management. We must be very careful and examine the impacts of our own lifestyles and, more important, change those activities where we can make some improvements.

There is a fundamental and important message in the phrase "think globally and act locally," which all of us in this House should constantly reflect upon. Public concern about the environment remains high. The fact that the environment remains so high on the public agenda as we are surrounded by these very tough economic times attests to the very real concern individual people have about this issue.

Once a year, Earth Day puts a focus on the environmentally friendly activities carried out daily across this province. The organizers and participants and all of the Earth Week and Earth Day events deserve our thanks and applause. However, we must not forget all of the people who work so hard to protect our environment and try to make Ontario a better and healthier place to live. The people who work the environment-related programs of ministries such as Natural Resources, Environment, Health and Energy do not get the credit they deserve, nor do the researchers in the private sector, trying to invent the processes or projects which will leave a lighter footprint upon the earth.

We must also recognize the contributions of citizen groups, whether it is a neighbourhood committee in a small town in Ontario helping to clean up and rehabilitate a river valley or a large organization asking the very hard questions about the effect of a project on the environment.

There are literally thousands of individual citizens in this province, young and old, volunteering their time and skills to help protect the environment. It is to these people, whether they sit on a local committee, march in a parade, fill a bag with trash from a ravine or plant a tree, that we all owe our greatest debt, and I am very pleased that we in the Legislature are recognizing Earth Day today and, more important, the people who not only care about but are actively trying to protect our environment.

Mr Cousens: On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus, I am pleased to stand in support of Earth Day and, along with pretty well every other politician who wants to get elected municipally and again in the future, to understand the value of Earth Day and what it means to the future.

It has been a great weekend, and in Markham we even handed out a few shirts to a few people: "Keeping the Country in our Town."

I would like to quote Oscar Wilde, who once said, "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." Given the state of Ontario's environment, this province must be very experienced indeed. Stop and think for a moment just what restraints our environmental carelessness has put on all our lives. Would any of us be so foolish as to attempt to swim in Lake Ontario? Of course not. It has been a very long time since anyone swam in that lake without fear of toxins and raw sewage.

What about the rivers that flow into that poor lake? The hapless Don River starts in the increasingly threatened Oak Ridges moraine. It flows over Lord knows how many garbage dumps, including Keele Valley, the largest, and then it goes down the Don Valley and dumps its contents into the lake. All the rivers in the Metro Toronto area are sick. It is really something when we must warn our children to stay away from the rivers and lakes because they are harmful.

One can only wonder what insidious effects this has on the minds of our young, how they are literally taught to fear the natural landscape that my own children and the member for Durham East's and other generations' would have taken for granted.

I know that criticism comes easier than craftsmanship, but I cannot help but be stirred by the Minister of the Environment's promises. She has promised us a great deal, no less than an environment reborn, and I, more than anyone else, expect to see this promise kept. So far the minister has poked and prodded at the mess of the environment, but I am afraid to say that I have seen little of substance really done. She has pirouetted and backtracked on the philosophical position of where a given community's garbage is to be disposed of, for the benefit of a few groups who support her.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have to come to terms with living on more garbage because we were not among the favoured to be allowed to ship it elsewhere.

What is missing is an all-encompassing plan, a roadmap we can all agree on and follow. For a party which once brought a bill into this House called the environmental Magna Carta, such a sweeping gesture should be second nature. Whatever she cares to call it -- an environmental budget, or perhaps her party's five-year plan -- it should address all the environmental concerns in this province and give us a comprehensive plan to solve them. This was long promised to us while the member was in opposition, yet as of late all we have seen from the minister are piecemeal and even contradictory solutions. The minister should do this, and do this soon.

Two generations have grown up in fear of their environment, and indeed nature itself. The Minister of the Environment should make a pledge to all of us that before the next Earth Day arrives, she will have a comprehensive plan for the environment for us to judge and support. To quote Oscar Wilde again: "Children begin by loving their parents; as they grow older, they judge them; sometimes they are forgiven." We have been judged and found wanting. Now let us work to be forgiven.

The Speaker: I appreciate members sending me notes from time to time inquiring about procedures in the House. Regrettably, I must inform the member for Durham Centre that I am not able to comply with his request to announce that the member for Frontenac-Addington is now a grandfather for the first time, as of Saturday 20 April, his first grandchild being Morgan Elizabeth Harwood. I cannot make that announcement.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ASSISTANCE TO KURDS

Hon Ms Ziemba: In the aftermath of the war in the Gulf, we have witnessed the human misery that results from war. I am sure all members will share my concern with the plight of the victims of war, of which the most recent example is the tragic situation of the Iraqi refugees, including Kurds and Shiites.

As members will know, the International League of Red Cross Societies has launched a worldwide appeal for monetary assistance, and its Ontario division has been sending the Ontario government status reports on its activities in the Gulf region.

In keeping with the province's practice of providing relief assistance in emergency situations like this, I would like to inform the House that the government of Ontario will provide a cash donation of $200,000 to the Ontario division of the Canadian Red Cross Society. The Canadian Red Cross has already sent help to Iraqi refugees, and we know that this donation from the government will help the Red Cross in its relief activities.

We should also acknowledge the efforts being made by other community organizations. It is very heartening and encouraging that individuals and groups have seized this initiative. Canadians wanting to make a contribution towards the Red Cross relief efforts should make a donation at any office of the Canadian Red Cross, earmarked "Persian Gulf Crisis." For more information they can call the Red Cross at 890-1000, or write to 5700 Cancross Court, Mississauga, Ontario.

ANGELINE DEL COL

Hon Ms Akande: For the past five years, my ministry, with the assistance of Volunteer Ontario, has been honouring volunteers, the backbone of our social service agencies in the province, with Community Service Awards.

Each year one person is selected from the list of 40 Community Service Award recipients to receive the minister's award as Volunteer of the Year. I am delighted to be able to introduce the Volunteer of the Year for 1990, Angeline Del Col of Windsor.

Today, Angeline -- or Angie, as she prefers to be called -- is seated in the east gallery along with her daughter-in-law Carol. Angie represents all the wonderful volunteers, young and old, from all sectors in the community, who are committed to improving the quality of life for someone in their community. She represents thousands of senior citizens who were volunteers while they were raising their own families and continue to be active volunteers in their retirement.

Angie has never said, "I've done enough; let the young people do their share." That is not her way. It is not her nature to rationalize that she has done her share of giving, especially when she can see the need of the children who come into the care of the Essex County Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society. These are the children who are the victims of neglect, deprivation and abuse, children who have become "unmanageable" because of their mental or emotional disabilities. Angie will step in and calm the child whom others have refused to transport or care for because of the child's behavioural problems.

Twice a month she provides respite care for the foster mother of a physically disabled, non-verbal child. Regardless of the weather conditions, Angie has driven this child for special treatment in London, Kitchener and even Brampton, over 350 kilometres from Windsor. There have been times when she has volunteered to drive seven days a week and sometimes 12 hours a day.

Angie is particularly sensitive to the children who have been sexually abused. Some of the abused teenagers came into the agency's care at age four or five. Over the years, while driving them to treatment programs, a positive, trusting relationship has evolved between Angie and these children.

In one instance the CAS professionals believe that this special relationship between Angie and a frightened, despondent teenaged girl may have prevented the child from taking her own life. On that day the Windsor region was in the grip of a winter storm that kept many people indoors. While driving this teenager back from treatment, Angie could see that she was terribly depressed. Instead of driving straight home, they stopped at a doughnut shop and they talked. That simple act was enough to convince the youngster that she was lovable and valued, especially by Angie.

This caring woman has worked with the children's aid society for nine years, and I am told that a number of her suggestions for the improvement of programming within the agency have been put into practice. But to listen to Angie tell her story, you would think that she was the recipient of special privileges at the agency.

Since 1981, every infant adopted through the agency has been picked up at the hospital by Angie and delivered to the adoptive parents. Up to now, nine years later, parents remember how Angie wept with happiness along with them as she delivered their new family member.

She is truly a remarkable person. A widow for 15 years, Angie is devoted to the families of her three sons, their seven children, and to her own mother, who is 94. Every day she visits the nursing home to assist her mother at mealtimes. However, last August Angie had to take time off for major surgery. Six weeks later, between her own therapy appointments, Angie was back helping at the agency, as well as caring for her mother.

Angie, you are a marvellous inspiration to all of us. I am deeply honoured to have this opportunity to say how proud we are of you and of the volunteers that you represent this day. On behalf of the people of Ontario, thank you.

RESPONSES

ASSISTANCE TO KURDS

Mr Offer: It is my pleasure to respond to the statement by the Minister of Citizenship. First, I think it is important to underline our full support of this announcement. I think it is also important to recognize, and all members of this House should recognize, that it was the member for Parkdale who first brought this issue to the Legislature last week. In his statement, he asked the government and the Premier and the Minister of Citizenship to make a statement to this effect, helping the Kurdish people who are in such a terrible plight at this time.

I do not think that anyone in this Legislature is not moved by the news reports and indeed the pictures of the plight of the Kurdish people, especially the children, and the trials and tribulations that they are going through. Although, as I indicated earlier, we fully support this announcement, we also believe that there is another opportunity for this government -- indeed, if not an opportunity then an obligation, an obligation to do more.

In previous disaster situations, and I think back to the Jamaican and the Armenian ones, previous governments provided not just dollars, but where appropriate supplies. I believe it is fitting in this case for this government to take a look at whether there is that opportunity to provide not just dollars but supplies such as beds, tents and sheets. So many of those things which we take for granted are indeed things that are badly needed at this point in time.

I support this announcement. We harken back to the statement by the member for Parkdale and we ask this government not only to look at the forwarding of dollars to those who are so badly in need, but also to seriously consider the forwarding of supplies, tents, sheeting and transportation to those people, to those children, who are so badly in need.

ANGELINE DEL COL

Mr Beer: I want to rise and on behalf the official opposition thank Angeline Del Col for all of the work that she has done, and through her to thank the so many thousands of volunteers who work not only with the Ministry of Community and Social Services or through the various transfer payment agencies, but indeed the volunteers who work in programs throughout the province.

It was my pleasure a year ago to have the opportunity to meet the Volunteer of the Year and indeed to go around the province and meet with many volunteers who worked within the community and social service area. I think one of the greatest things for us as legislators is when we get out and we have that opportunity to meet the hundreds and thousands of people who work, like Angie does, with all the different community-based groups and organizations.

We realize that there is simply no way in which government would be able to provide all of those services. It is always very difficult to say thank you because it is a phrase which we use so often. But I think through honouring the Volunteer of the Year and indeed through honouring all of the volunteers who will be present at the four or five regional dinners at which the ministry thanks all those who help, that Angie would understand that in paying tribute to her and to all of her good works, we are also paying tribute to all of those other countless volunteers without whom this province would not be the kind of province that it is.

Again, on behalf of our party, I want to thank Angie for all her work and to thank all of the volunteers who have given so much of their time and effort.

ASSISTANCE TO KURDS

Mr Cousens: On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus, I would like to compliment the minister for the efforts that she is taking behalf of the government, for the concern that they are showing to the Iraqi refugees.

I think there are times in our society when we think we are hard done by, but when we see on TV the anguish and the suffering, the pain, the sorrow, the death that is going on among the Kurds, we just cannot stand by and not do something. I congratulate her.

I also commend the government for choosing the Red Cross as the distributor of the fund. The Red Cross was there first after the war to pick up some of the pieces, and so often we just take the Red Cross for granted. The fact that the government is allowing its money to flow through the Red Cross is again a good statement of how government and a community agency can work together to achieve their objectives without government trying to do it all by itself.

I hope that the people of Ontario who have the resources, as they have done with the food banks and other things, will help people who cannot help themselves. I hope that all of us who are in a position to do something to help the people who are suffering in Iraq and Iran and on the Turkish border, the Kurds, are doing what they can personally and sending their contribution to the Red Cross.

I was delighted that in her announcement the minister indicated the Red Cross phone number and I will repeat it. If someone wants to know how to give to this worthy cause, the Red Cross is at 416-890-1000. I thank the government and I compliment it. I am proud that both our provincial and federal governments are doing something to heed to the need of these people.

ANGELINE DEL COL

Mr Jackson: I am pleased, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, to acknowledge the welcome presence of Angeline Del Col in the Legislature today and to congratulate her for receiving Ontario's Volunteer of the Year award.

We recognize from having met her and reading the résumé provided by the minister that we are dealing with a woman of great compassion and understanding for the needs of many of the vulnerable citizens in our society, and particularly those most vulnerable, who are our children. We agree that no more worthy recipient has been chosen.

However, it is important to note that Angie is here also representing the Essex County Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society as the fortunate association which benefits from her extensive commitment and her volunteering experience. It is worthy of note that there is a current crisis in this province with respect to the funding of children's aid societies.

With the increased demand of children who, as the minister has stated in her announcement, are victims of neglect, deprivation and abuse, children who have become unmanageable because of their mental or emotional disabilities, today in Ontario there are over 10,000 children on waiting lists for mental health services. We know that the deficits being experienced in our children's aid societies were projected last February at around $36 million, and some suggest it may be as high as $50 million as of this very moment.

What that means is that thousands of children who are victims of sexual abuse and other emotional distresses are resorting to record numbers of suicides in this province, and that is a matter which has been raised.

If there is anything I have ever learned about human nature, if there is anything I know about the volunteer sector as embodied by the most worthy recipient today, it is that these people would willingly trade all of the wonderful acknowledgements and awards and all that recognition if we could finally get through to government that government has laws to ensure the protection of individuals, especially those most vulnerable, especially our children in need. The volunteer sector would willingly trade those accolades for the necessary funding to ensure that we remain a compassionate province and that we are there to help serve the needs of those children who are in such dire straits.

Although I cannot speak for the worthy recipient, I am quite convinced that, given her commitment to those children in the Windsor area, she very much represents the hope and desire that this government, like all governments, will put the appropriate priority on the needs of children in our society.

CABINET MEMBERS

Mr Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before the next order of business, would you not agree with mc that it would be appropriate if the head of the government, on rearranging his cabinet just a couple of hours ago, might in fact make some reasonable statement to the House about those new arrangements? We could perhaps use time of question period to ask him about the usefulness of doubling up the responsibility of the Minister of Health with the Chairman of Management Board, but of course any difficulties in that regard remain to be seen.

He has even arranged it so that we do not have an opportunity to express our congratulations and wish them well if that sort of a feeling were to surge to the surface.

It just occurs to me that while this is the second time this has occurred, and I am not looking forward to it happening again, it is useful if the head of the government, even though he has announced these things to the press and even though it is on something called e-mail, might very well indicate to the House what these changes are and what the justifications are for them.

Far be it from me to tell him how to do his job. I have never done it and never will. But it suggests to me, Mr Speaker, as a point of order, that it would be useful if all of the House were given the advantage of a formal announcement of the head of the government.

The Speaker: I appreciate the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He may know that this is not really a procedural matter. It is at the discretion of the Premier to make announcements, indeed to make a statement in the House. That is at his choice.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Nixon: If I may direct a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who was in her place a moment ago or will be back in a moment -- perhaps as she is not in her place at this moment I will direct it to the Premier.

Since the best efforts of the Minister of Labour and the Treasurer have resulted now in about 569,000 people in the province being unemployed, and just as important and perhaps even more tragic, 909,000 people in Ontario in receipt of social assistance of some form or another, can the Premier indicate what further efforts are going to be undertaken so that the money that is made available from the Treasury is going to be directed towards those communities where the impact of this recession, which seems to be going longer and deeper than expected, can be more effectively mitigated?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me answer very directly to the Leader of the Opposition by saying that, first of all, one of the things that has become clear to us is that our own welfare system has become a kind of secondary form of unemployment insurance for thousands of people in the province. This is not what was intended.

It is because of two things: first of all, the severity of the recession, which is the most serious recession we have experienced in its impact since the Second World War; and second the changes not to say cuts in programs at the federal level in terms of unemployment insurance, which have in fact -- and I can show this objectively to the people of the province -- substantially increased the expenditures we have to make.

We are making those expenditures, first of all, in the form of income support -- that is the first fundamental thing that needs to be done, and that commitment on our

part is very clear; second, in ensuring that the system is working better. We appointed a committee as soon as we were elected to get the SARC reforms back on track, and that is something which we are looking at very closely as I speak.

Finally, it is important to stress that it is not widely known, but the ministry which spends more money on retraining than any other ministry within the government is the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which right now is spending $300 million-plus on training and retraining in order to give people the skills that they need in order to get back into the workforce.

Mr Nixon: If I may just reiterate my comments that the unemployment levels at over 500,000 and the welfare rolls at something less than 900,000 are matters that we would all agree, and certainly the Premier has indicated this, are matters of most serious proportions. I think the concern that I would like to put to the Premier in a supplementary question is, how can he explain why communities like Cambridge, where the welfare case load has increased by 80% and over 500 jobs have been lost in the last six months, received less than 0.5% of the special allocation of the Treasurer's funds that were designed to assist those most directly hit by the recession?

I cannot make that point any clearer than that, other than to say that the Minister of Community and Social Services was not involved, it appears, in any way in advising the Treasurer and the Minister of Labour in directing the money to where it was needed. I simply reiterate that all the statistics available from the government would indicate that the money is not sent to where it is needed but to where the press releases would have perhaps the most political impact.

The question is: Why did they really not give the money to the Minister of Community and Social Services so that the money would be directed to where her case load is growing most rapidly and is having the most immediate effect on the community?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that unemployment insurance rates and indeed welfare rates were two of the criteria which were very explicitly dealt with and very explicitly the criteria that the Treasurer and the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Chairman of Management Board and all those who were involved in making the decisions as to where and how the $700 million would be spent, dealt with. Those criteria were very explicit parts of the agenda, very explicitly dealt with, so when the Leader of the Opposition says they could not have been taken into account, he is simply wrong.

Mr Nixon: I certainly accept the advice offered by the Premier as correct and at face value, but the numbers simply do not support his contention that I am wrong. As a matter of fact, the taxpayers have provided us with a very capable research component and those fine young men and women have spent a good deal of time relating the very things that the Premier says have been carried out effectively by his ministers.

Our statistics show there is no relationship whatsoever with the allocation of the $700 million with the need in the community. As a matter of fact, if a person were perverse in his or her observation of these matters, you would think that the Minister of Community and Social Services had no part to play whatsoever and that the Treasurer somehow simply drew numbers out of a hat and sent the money around the province on that basis.

So I would say that Cambridge is not an isolated case. In Dufferin-Peel the welfare case load has increased 120%. In Brant county, God save us, the welfare case load has increased 71%. In Peel it has increased 91%, and in York region the increase is over 100%. In each instance the allocation from the Treasury has been in the order of 1% or less of the $700 million.

I would simply ask the Premier again to see that those statistics are reviewed and to indicate to the House why there is no appropriate relationship.

Hon Mr Rae: We think there is. For example, the Leader of the Opposition talks about the rate of the increase. I can tell him that despite the fact that the rate of the increase, for example in York region, is high, the absolute numbers in terms of the relationship between the number of unemployed and the overall workforce still is much lower in York region than it is in many parts of northern Ontario. Northern Ontario receives 30% of the allocation of the funds that were there. The Windsor area has been particularly hard hit, where there was not only a very substantial increase in the number but the absolute number is very large. We have tried to respond to need as effectively as we can.

I find it ironic that the Leader of the Opposition spent the first few months saying we were not doing anything, and now that he realizes we have done something, he says we have done the wrong thing. Well, there you are. We cannot please everybody.

Mr Nixon: The Premier obviously pleases some people but he does not please me, because his $700 million is going to create only enough jobs to compensate for the jobs lost in two weeks of the economic management that he has provided, and of course we are not pleased with that.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Nixon: I have an interest in another matter that is of special interest when we know what is going to happen to us or when we, let's say, look forward to what is going to happen to us a week from today at 4 o'clock in the afternoon if the Treasurer is permitted to present his budget.

He is aware that the constituency of Brant-Haldimand has a large number of tobacco growers. He is aware also of other associations with the tobacco-marketing business that are associated with my constituency.

I was interested in reading about the projected results of the large increase in the tobacco tax from the federal level, particularly since there is a possibility that there might be even further adjustments next week, although it is very difficult to imagine that that could happen. It now appears that there is a tremendous loss of revenue because of the sale of untaxed cigarettes and smuggled cigarettes. As a matter of fact, there is some indication at the federal level that the loss of revenue across Canada, federally and provincially, is something like $900 million.

If this were to be prorated into this province, it is possible that that loss would be $300 million, but of course there is no way of the people knowing.

I would like to put a question to the Minister of Revenue and ask her if she has any information as to what the effects not just of the federal budget but the cumulative effects of the increase in taxation and the reduction of sales would have on our revenues, particularly as we see evidence, and it is reported day by day, of cigarettes without taxes paid being on the market very readily.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I am very much aware of the impact of a tobacco tax and also the impact of tobacco smuggling. I am very concerned about this problem and the impact it is having on our lost revenues right now in the province. As the member is aware, these revenues are essential for funding for health care programs, as an example.

To combat this problem of tobacco smuggling, the Ministry of Revenue recently has begun a retail inspection program and the sanctions provided by the Tobacco Tax Act will be enforced. As well, the ministry is working with federal law enforcement agencies to investigate the larger-scale evasion schemes.

Mr Nixon: Since there is some indication that the loss may be $300 million during this coming year, which is much more than significant since if applied to many of these programs that are referred to day by day in question period it would be very useful indeed, and since the province of Ontario has introduced a rather expensive tobacco package marketing scheme, would the minister explain why there has been no inspection and no enforcement that is perceived in the community in any way?

Can she explain why her revenue officials have not taken any action in this regard, and if it is possible, perhaps she might indicate if there have been any charges laid on the basis of the new marking procedure.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: My staff are made aware of smuggling that has happened only when somebody has informed them or when they know about it. They are out there doing inspections, but they can find out about particular ones only when they are reported. When it became obvious and apparent in the newspapers that there was smuggling going on, my staff were on it right away and are investigating some of those instances now.

Mr Nixon: I am aware the Ministry of Revenue has spent advertising funds encouraging people to report on any retailers who may be selling tax-free or unnaturally low-priced cigarettes. I know all smoking members of this Legislature would be quick to report if they found a place where they could buy them at reduced cost.

But it may be that the minister and her officials are somewhat naïve in this respect, and for her to have a campaign asking people to rat on their retailer -- I think that is the slogan or something like it -- in my view is a waste of money and probably accounts for the reason the amount of money the honourable minister is losing is mounting up very rapidly. Can she assure the House that we are going to have an enforcement and inspection program that is going to reduce this possible $300 million in loss for the benefit of the Treasurer, who is in such dire need these days.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Like the Leader of the Opposition, we are very concerned about our revenues and we will do what we can to make sure we do not lose revenues, particularly through the tobacco tax.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Harris: My question is to the Attorney General. I was shocked this weekend to learn that a manslaughter case had been stayed as a result of last October's Askov decision. I was also shocked that there was no statement from the Attorney General today expressing his viewpoint on this case or explaining to us why this was allowed to happen, either the time it took to get the case there or the lack of action on his part.

I know an appeal has been launched, but quite frankly that response is just is not good enough. A man has died. His family deserves to see justice done and quite frankly the integrity of the justice system, as the minister knows, is deteriorating daily when the threat of deterrence is diminished. Will the Attorney General tell this House why he failed to instruct the crown attorney to bring forward a motion to preserve this charge?

Hon Mr Hampton: I do not know in what context the leader of the third party has concocted a motion to preserve the charge. The fact of the matter is that crown attorneys around the province are scheduling trials as soon as they may be tried. They are scheduling the most serious cases as soon as they can be. The fact of the matter is also that the charge in question was a very complicated charge. It required at least nine days of hearings: it required some 80 witnesses and trying to find time to

schedule such a complex matter is somewhat difficult.

The crown attorney who is responsible for the prosecution of this charge in Ottawa has placed all of that information on the public record and that is where the matter stands at this time.

Mr Harris: We are not talking here about a minor offence, we are talking about a brutal beating. The Attorney General's own crown attorney says that it is just this type of case which really affects the public's confidence in the justice system.

Over five months ago, the Attorney General promised that the more serious charges would be advanced to earlier hearing dates. Clearly, he is to blame for the fact that this did not occur in this particular case. He is the one who made the commitment, he is the one who made the statement; he is the one who made the promise and he told us this would happen.

Quite simply, I would ask the Attorney General, did he have any knowledge of this case prior to last Friday and if he did not, why did he not?

Hon Mr Hampton: To point out to the leader of the third party again, all charges in the province were reviewed to move as many serious charges forward as could possibly be moved. However, even in the Askov judgement, and I invite the leader of the third party to read it, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledges there will be complex cases which may require greater than eight months to bring to trial. I would suggest to the leader of the third party that a charge which involves some 80 witnesses and which requires at least nine days to hear is such a complex case.

In fact, we will look at appealing this charge on exactly the basis that it is a complex case within the criteria set down in the Askov judgement.

Mr Harris: Clearly, as I asked the Attorney General in the first question, if he felt time was becoming a problem, he could bring a motion before the judge asking to move this case up. I asked him in the first question why he did not do that. He did not appear to understand he even had the power to do that, but it is the Attorney General who made this promise and it is his department that is to carry out this promise.

The Speaker: Is this the second question?

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary, it is the Attorney General's responsibility to make sure the serious cases are being heard. The quote from the defence lawyer himself in Saturday's Globe and Mail says it all. He says, "If there's blame to be attached, it's squarely at the feet of the Attorney General's office."

The Attorney General's promises of last November are clearly not worth the paper they are written on. Victims and their families certainly do not take much comfort in them. The Attorney General is responsible for the justice system in this province. Since assurances of five months ago are obviously out the window, what assurances can he give us that we can have any faith in that system, because quite frankly we have seen nothing so far to give us any kind of encouragement?

Hon Mr Hampton: The leader of the third party seems to place a lot of faith in the comments and opinions of the defence counsel in this case. To set the record straight, and I recognize the third party might not want to hear this information, on the date that the Askov judgement came down, there were some 212,000 charges outstanding in the system. Some of those charges were over two years old. In fact, the Askov judgement itself relates to a date when there was a Conservative government in this province. That is how old the backlog is.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am quite confident all of us remember our quest from last week that we want to get a lot of questions and responses in and keep them succinct.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I intend to be able to hear both the questions and the replies. Would the Attorney General respond?

Hon Mr Hampton: As I was saying, on the date that the Askov judgement came down on 12 October, there was a backlog of some 212,000 charges. Since that date, the court system in Ontario has been able to deal with 117,000 charges in six months.

The leader of the third party asks what confidence people can have in the justice system in the province. I want to point this out to him. Since the Askov judgement came down, which is approximately the time that we became the government, 98.8% of all charges that have been laid are scheduled for trial within eight months. That is better than his government ever did and better than the previous Liberal government ever could have done.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Cousens: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. There is some degree of disappointment today on this side of the House. Today we in this province join hands with people around the world in commemoration of Earth Day. The Minister of the Environment, while obviously sincere in her remarks earlier, has missed an excellent opportunity to bring forth substantive initiatives by her ministry.

It has become very clear to us that the range of issues she has wanted to tackle has been reduced dramatically. Therefore, will the minister tell this House which of the following projects are today, at this very moment, currently under consideration by cabinet: the environmental bill of rights, amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act, regulations on pesticide use, a Safe Drinking Water Act, amendments to the clean air program and regulations on waste reduction?

Does the minister not think she owes it to the people of Ontario at least to let them know what her priorities are? Does she have at least one piece of legislation that is before cabinet today, yes or no?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure the member realizes I am not able to tell him what issues are before cabinet or on the cabinet agenda, but let me assure the member that all of the issues he has enumerated are very much on the agenda of this government and of my ministry.

Mr Cousens: When teachers mark tests, if you say, "Yes or no, is any one of those initiatives before cabinet today?" -- the minister did not answer it. They are all on the government's agenda somewhere, but they are not before cabinet and that is the problem.

I would like to refer to the minister's announcements regarding waste reduction and the whole issue of waste disposal. This minister has flip-flopped on which community can transport its garbage outside its boundaries, this minister has ruled out incineration as an option for dealing with solid municipal waste and this minister has told us she will meet diversion targets by 25% in 1992 and 50% by the year 2000. And yet this same minister still has not introduced one measure that indicates how her ministry plans on dealing with the waste crisis.

During estimates I asked a number of questions, along with the member for Renfrew North, which were supposed to be answered by 12 March. That is over a month ago. Most of those questions were answered. However, one in particular was not answered at all. My staff has called numerous times to get an answer from the minister's department regarding this question.

Today I will ask her the same question in the House that I asked her in estimates well over a month ago. Which communities, most notably in the greater Toronto area, will run out of landfill capacity in the next year, the next three years and the next five years? If you cannot answer me this specific question, how in the world can we believe that you have a credible strategy on waste reduction?

Hon Mrs Grier: I have a very credible strategy on waste reduction and, in fact, I am disappointed in the tone of the member's question.

He has stood in this House and called upon the government, whether it be that government or this government, to get serious about waste reduction, waste reuse and waste recycling. I think he does know that we are more serious and we have taken more action and we have made more progress on waste reduction, waste reuse and waste recycling than any other government before us.

Mrs Marland: We had really hoped that at least on Earth Day we might have had an answer from the Minister of the Environment, and it is a big disappointment that we do not have that.

When this minister talks about an agenda and when she talks about a credible strategy, she had better start looking at her cabinet ministers and the rest of her government members because we have a situation in this province which is no longer just a garbage crisis; it is emerging into a number of other areas.

An example I will give her is the land freeze around the region of Peel Britannia landfill site. That land freeze is now causing at least one million labour hours lost, so we are talking about a labour crisis as a result of this minister's inaction. The more they delay the development of land adjacent to that site, the longer it will be before we have approximately 5,000 units for housing being built in that proximity.

My question is that this minister has one policy and it seems to be inconsistency. Will she explain to this House her policy on shipping municipal waste outside of the municipality in question? Is the GTA no-shipping decision her policy? Is the Kingston ship-to-Ottawa decision her policy? For that matter, does she have a consistent policy, or does she plan to compound the confusion by deciding each case on an ad hoc basis?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me try once again to make very clear the waste management policy of this government.

It starts with the 3Rs, and I have enumerated on countless occasions what we have done and how we are moving and how effective that policy is being and how very popular that policy is and how very environmentally sound that policy is.

We recognize, no matter how much we reduce, reuse and recycle, there will be a residue, and for that disposal sites are required. Instead of taking easy, out of sight out of mind solutions, we are looking for long-term answers. We have said in the case of the GTA that the long-term disposal site will be within the boundaries of the GTA.

The crisis did not start on 1 October; it was there when we took office, and we are indeed, as the member says, having to look at each particular crisis and make the best environmentally sound decision to deal with each particular situation in the short term. That is what we have done; that is what we will continue to do.

TERMINATION AGREEMENT

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Premier of the province. It concerns a copyright

article in the Kingston Whig-Standard entitled "Secret Bonus Muzzled Fired NDP Staffer," written by Michael Woloschuk and Bill Hutchinson, and it deals with an issue surrounding the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, who was quoted as saying that he has an issue which "Bob Rae is going to find quite a concern."

Mr Speaker, can you get the Premier back -- oh, there he is. "Peekaboo Bob" is doing his stuff.

I am sure the Premier will know that the Premier's chief assistant, David Reville, has negotiated on behalf of the Premier and the NDP caucus a secret legal agreement to silence a disaffected constituency worker in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. When asked about the agreement, Mr Reville is quoted as saying, "It's a mystery that you'll have to live with."

Will the Premier release the contents of the agreement so that the taxpaying public can find out what they are paying for?

Hon Mr Rae: No. The member, I am sure, would recognize that there are situations which everyone is involved in from time to time in which there are employment disputes and in which people, after negotiations and after a period of discussion, agree that employment will be terminated, and there are certain discussions which take place and a settlement was arrived in this situation.

I can say to the member that it happens with his members, it happens with Conservative Party members and it happens with our members. There are situations, I am sure, where people have left his employ and there has been an agreement that a settlement will be arrived at and that the terms of the settlement will not be discussed by the parties. That is not an unusual situation. It is a very common situation in public life and in private life, and it is not the least bit unusual.

Mr Elston: I thank the Premier for his answer. It is what we are beginning to expect from him and this group of people when it comes to dealing with taxpayers' money. The Premier's secret agreement carries a hefty price for the taxpayer, and this is a price that the MPP for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings described as being exorbitant. One finds that if you are fired from the NDP caucus after working for only three months plus a few days, you can make between $10,000 and $15,000 in severance and vacation pay. According to a labour management specialist at Queen's University, most workers in Ontario would have to work for 15 years to get that much severance.

Given the desperate financial situation that many people find themselves in in the province of Ontario, can the Premier tell us that he finds the size of the payment and the reasons for the payment acceptable to him?

Hon Mr Rae: I am not going to get into the details of every employment agreement that is reached by members, any more than I would dream of doing so in his case. I find it ironic: The Leader of the Opposition says that he is more worried about the state of the economy and about what is happening about the big picture than anyone else. Perhaps it might be reflected in some of the questions coming from members opposite with regard to this.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The rules of the House clearly preclude members like the Premier, although he slips day by day, from imputing motives and doing things like he has just done with us there. His small-mindedness is becoming very difficult to accept when we all have bigger issues to deal with, but when he wants to cover up taxpayers' money being spent on hush deals, that is a big problem.

The Speaker: I listened very closely, and the language was not tempered. The member will also realize that that is not a point of order.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Premier. On page 1 of the NDP report entitled Highway Robbery, which he co-authored and presented to the Osborne commission in 1987, he stated, "We also believe just as strongly that people must retain their right to sue."

On page 17 of the same document, the Premier wrote that, "New Democrats are opposed to the loss of individual legal rights" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I suppose when we have the weekend off we come back well-rested, keen and eager, ready to jump into the fray, but the honourable member for Willowdale is patiently waiting to place his question.

Mr Harnick: On page 1 of the Premier's report entitled Highway Robbery, he stated, "We also believe just as strongly that people must retain their right to sue."

On page 17 of the same document, the Premier wrote that, "New Democrats are opposed to the loss of individual legal rights entailed by such thresholds, just as we are opposed to the wholesale elimination by so-called pure no-fault arrangements."

It is now clear, as indicated by statements made by the Treasurer at a no-fault symposium a week ago Friday in Sudbury and by the Minister of Financial Institutions when he met with a group by the name of Physicians Against the Insurance Nightmare, that the NDP is preparing to turn its back on its own policy. It is now clear that the government will break its promise and implement a pure no-fault system, complete with a tribunal and a meat chart, in which innocent accident victims are reduced to the status of supplicants who must take what the tribunal offers with no chance for individualized compensation.

My question for the Premier is this: Taking into account his total hedging on this issue in recent weeks, can he confirm that legislation to this effect has already been drafted and is simply awaiting cabinet approval?

Hon Mr Rae: I will be glad to answer that quite emphatically and clearly. I can tell him that no legislation to that effect has been drafted at all. I can tell him that he is jumping to conclusions which are quite unwarranted.

I want to give him that assurance on my part, and I want to tell him, as I have said before in answer to previous questions from him and from the member for Leeds-Grenville, that this matter is under very active consideration, in terms of ensuring that we have a plan which ensures safety on the highways, which ensures access to compensation, which ensures a driver-owned plan which will be the most efficient plan available, and which ensures that innocent accident victims have access to the best possible system of compensation.

That is the determination on the part of the government, and that determination still remains.

Mr Harnick: I am dismayed because the Premier talks about "access to the best possible." Well, before he was Premier, "access" was access to the courts, and one group that may be angered by the pending betrayal is the Ontario Teachers' Federation. In their submission to the standing committee on general government on 17 January of last year, the federation stated: "The right to sue is a fundamental right and is the appropriate method of seeking compensation in motor vehicle accident cases. It should be preserved for the citizens of Ontario."

On 8 February of last year, the St Catharines and District Labour Council stated that, "We also believe just as strongly that people must retain their right to sue."

In November 1990, after he was the Premier, he stated, "There will be fair access to the courts."

My question to the Premier is this, and he has been asked this question numerous times before, will he keep that promise? Not the best possible access to whatever tribunal: Will there be access to the courts for all individuals injured in motor vehicle accidents, as he promised before he was the Premier and as he has promised since becoming the Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I am going to have to ask the member for Willowdale to show a little patience in this regard. He has a commitment from this government that legislation will be discussed fully in the House and that there will be ample opportunity for debate and discussion in the province. I will say to him again and repeat in answer to the question which he asked previously when he said, "Has legislation been drafted?" that the answer to that is emphatically no.

EDUCATION POLICY

Ms Haeck: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Education. I have been meeting with groups in my area and they are very concerned about the issue of destreaming. For these groups destreaming appears to be the one way of eliminating the inequity in educational outcomes experienced by disadvantaged children in the community. My question is, how will the minister address the issue of streaming in the Ontario school system?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I thank the member for the question. This is a matter of great concern to all stakeholders in the education system. We have been in consultation on the transition years for some time and have received many responses that indicate concern. They range from those who would like us to examine the whole issue of streaming right from the very first years, right through school, to those who are very concerned about the effects on class size and on curriculum material and teaching methodology if the target set by the previous government of September 1992 is adhered to too strongly by the ministry.

Because we are in the course of those consultations and because there has been so much interest raised, we are basically telling our stakeholders that we too are committed to the notion of destreaming as one way of ensuring equity of outcomes, but that until we can be sure that we have a system that is going to operate effectively and that we are assured of successful destreaming in a way that will not be sabotaged by too large a class size or too little training in terms of teaching in that situation, we may well consider extending that deadline at the advice of our consultants.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Treasurer, and it relates to election promises. I think everybody in the province recognizes that his party's leader, during the election campaign, promised the moon. I have to agree that the government did deliver on that promise.

Hon Mr Rae: How long have you been waiting to tell that?

Mr Bradley: I have been waiting all weekend. I have a different question for the Treasurer that is near and dear to his heart, and I have a couple of quotes to go with it that I know will make the Treasurer happy. The first is from the Minister of Northern Development, who wrote a letter to the Minister of Mines in 1990 and said, "Your decision to allow Falconbridge to refine their ore offshore for the next 10 years is totally reprehensible."

The Treasurer himself said this in 1981: "To this day, every pound of ore taken out of the ground by Falconbridge is shipped to Norway for refining, for almost 50 years. That is simply outrageous."

I want to ask the Treasurer this question, which was asked by the Premier on 19 December 1985, the exact question. Why will the Treasurer "not change

section 104 of the Mining Act, refuse Falconbridge any further exemptions and insist that if it has the money to buy a mine in Timmins and not add a single new job to the economy, it ought to be adding jobs to the economy by refining enough and upgrading the ore it produces here?"

Hon Mr Laughren: I am glad to see that the member for St Catharines has figured out a way to allow his leader to get him on the question period list.

I would say to the member for St Catharines that for many years I thought Falconbridge should be refining its ores, at least in Canada and preferably in Ontario, and preferably in the Sudbury basin, because it still ships those ores to Norway for refining. I was disappointed when the former government -- and members know that I am not wont to put blame on the former government for anything. However, the former government did pass an order in council that, for 10 years, gave Falconbridge the right to continue to ship its ores unrefined to Norway.

I can recall thinking at the time, "Gee whiz, I hope that order in council isn't binding." Having investigated the matter fully, I find out now that it is.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer would want me to use yet another quote, and it is the Treasurer then asking a question of another Treasurer. This was 7 December 1987. He says: "All you have to do is stop the exemptions. You do not even have to amend the act, Treasurer. You do not even have to amend the Mining Act. Just enforce it and stop giving exemptions."

But that is not the question I am going to ask. The question I am going to ask on the mining industry is the following: At the 1988 NDP convention, there was a resolution that came forward that is near and dear to the heart of the Treasurer and many other members of the Legislature with an NDP background. It says, "Be it resolved that the NDP of Ontario support the immediate nationalization of Inco in Ontario; and be it further resolved that an NDP government will bring the Ontario resource corporations of Inco, Falconbridge, Rio Algom and Denison Mines into public ownership as part of the industrial strategy."

Could the Treasurer inform us when he intends to implement this NDP policy?

Hon Mr Laughren: I should tell the member he has to be patient on matters like this. I can recall very well that debate, that convention and that particular resolution.

Mr Bradley: And he supported it.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, and I can tell the member that just as I feel about the processing, I have always felt that the resources that are in the ground actually do belong to all the people and --

Mr Bradley: Now that he is in government --

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member would let me answer the question, that the maximum return should be returned to the people, particularly for those non-renewable resources. I still believe that as strongly as I ever have believed that. I would simply put to the member that we have --

Mr Sorbara: They are for sale now.

Hon Mr Laughren: In the free market, I would assume that they are for sale. I would just say to the member that as we try and cope with the very serious problems in this province, for the moment that is not one of our priorities.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. As the minister is well aware, the Ontario trucking industry is experiencing severe financial difficulties. As we speak, truckers are once again feeling forced to blockade border points with the United States, because of provincial government inaction.

In recent months there has been a 156% increase in bankruptcies in the trucking industry in Ontario. Each month approximately 15 trucking companies close their doors in this province. Nine per cent of these companies are relocating to the United States. Hundreds of jobs are being lost every time a trucking company shuts down or moves to the United States.

As NDP opposition critic, the minister always expressed grave concern over the plight of Ontario's trucking industry. I ask the Minister of Transportation, is he still so concerned about the plight of Ontario truckers in this province, and if so, why has he in the past eight months since he has been in office done nothing to assist Ontario truckers?

Hon Mr Philip: It is incorrect that we have done nothing since we have taken office and I will be happy to spell out to the member exactly what we have taken.

But the transporter blockade this morning was taken by the truckers, according to their statements, for the following reasons: They said they were protesting the deregulation by the federal government, that they were protesting free trade by the federal government, that they were protesting high interest by the federal government and that they were protesting the exchange rate by the federal government.

It is no accident that the blockade is at the border. It is a transborder problem. I have indicated to the truckers that I would be happy to meet with them if they can elect some representatives to meet with me and I have said that I would be happy to speak to the Honourable Jean Corbeil, who is the new federal Minister of Transport and has some jurisdiction over this.

Mr Arnott: The minister continues to blame everyone but himself for his own failure to act. There are things that he can do. This government has been in office for eight months. How long is it going to take before the minister sheds his opposition mentality and starts to act as a responsible minister of the crown?

Hon Mr Philip: This government has acted. For example, we have recently arranged for quarterly payments of licence fees, which are helping with the cash flow of the trucking industry. We have stepped up enforcement, and indeed since I have been the minister there have been some 2,000 new charges laid against truckers who are breaking the Ministry of Revenue and fuel tax problems. We have hosted forums to deal with the transportation programs, which is exactly what the trucking industry asked for. We have accelerated programs of enforcement.

For a Conservative to cry over the state of the trucking industry is the equivalent, after what they have done, to a murderer crying at the funeral of a victim. That is what it is.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Morrow: My question is of the Solicitor General. Police in my riding of Wentworth East have been frustrated by federal legislation which requires the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime to the federal government rather than being distributed to the police force that retrieved the proceeds. Given that the police forces across the province are experiencing fiscal constraints, what is the Solicitor General going to do to enable police services to retain money and goods confiscated?

Hon Mr Farnan: This issue is of significant concern to municipal police forces across the province, and at the bottom of this issue is a basic unfairness. Proceeds from most other forms of crime are under the jurisdiction of the provincial Attorney General. However, Bill C-61 requires that the proceeds of crime related to drug offences be forfeited and disposed of by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

The significant contribution of our excellent policing service in the province of Ontario has not been recognized by the federal government. The work that they put into this area of drug enforcement has not been recognized by the federal government. If we want effective drug enforcement, then the federal government better recognize this and supply some of the funding to our municipal police forces.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr Mahoney: My question is of the minister responsible for -- bear with me, it takes time to read this title -- citizenship, race relations, human rights, the disabled and senior citizens' affairs. While I call her the mother of all cabinet ministers -- I think it is appropriate with all that work -- let me try once again to get the minister's attention on behalf of senior citizens in this province.

As she is aware, the senior citizens are being discriminated against in Ontario, and frankly it is legal. The Ontario Human Rights Code does not protect them from mandatory retirement. Mandatory retirement is discriminatory to all seniors and it especially disadvantages women seniors, because in many cases they have not been able to build up the financial resources to which most men have access. The majority of women have not held jobs which entitle them to private pensions. They have earned in the past only 60% of what their male counterparts earn. Also, they receive only a fraction of CPP benefits as compared to men.

Furthermore, women's work history has often been sporadic because of the demands of childbearing and childrearing. Surely the injustice of forcing seniors into unemployment simply because they have reached their 65th birthday is obvious. My question is whether the minister will end this shameful force of age discrimination which affects all seniors in this province and is particularly devastating for older women.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Thank you very much for the question. I share the member's concerns about women, especially women who have come to retirement and have not been able to accumulate the pensions that men have.

I think what we have to look at is that we want to make sure that all people -- and our government is committed -- can retire in comfort and dignity with independence. One of the things that we must do and we have started to do is to make sure that pay equity is in force so that women are not earning 60% of the income that men earn. We also are making sure that we have employment equity so that all people, whether it is visible minorities, women or persons with disabilities, are able to again have income that is suitable for retirement in the long run.

We are also making sure that we do have opportunities for all, in the form of making sure that pensions are looked at, and we are looking at pension security and income security as well.

The issue is very broad and very concerning and I do share with the member those concerns of the people who are now, unfortunately, reaching retirement. It is very unfortunate that no other government considered those problems of women and immigrant women and people of disadvantaged groups. We are trying to make sure that that does not happen in the future. I thank the member for sharing those concerns with me.

Mr Sorbara: Bring us the bills.

Mr Mahoney: I did not hear an answer. As my colleague says, bring in some legislation. It is fine that the minister shares the concern, but I would like to take her back to our delightful time in estimates when I asked her about this issue. I asked her if she was prepared indeed to attempt with her government, convince her colleagues, to amend the Human Rights Code to prohibit the mandatory retirement that is there now as it particularly affects seniors and female seniors.

I just would quote to her where she said in answer to my question: "Yes, I am interested in amending the Human Rights Code. The code does not reflect today's society in many cases and in many areas." She went on to say, "Perhaps my advocacy role is working if I am able to bend the ears and to have people look at different arguments for mandatory retirement." Is the minister in fact acting as an advocate at the cabinet table for this? Is she prepared to bring in legislation that will indeed amend the code, and when will she do it?

Mr Sorbara: Not just nice words.

Hon Ms Ziemba: The member does not want nice words. I will try to answer the question very succinctly with some nice words, though. We are concerned, yes. As I said before and previously, yes, I am an advocate at the table and I am prepared to do that. We are concerned and it is a big issue. We are looking at redefining the code because it has not been addressed in a very, very long time. That review is coming up and we will be continuing to look at when we will be reviewing the code.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last week the federal government responded by providing funding for the net income stabilization account program. The Premier has told our farmers that he does not intend to implement the NISA program. Now that the federal government has reduced the premium to both the province and the farmers, will he change his mind and look at this in a positive light?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think the question probably has two parts to it. The member talked about reducing the premium for the province. The federal government offered to reduce the provincial share for next year; it did not offer any reductions for this year, so in terms of what moneys we have available at this time, the answer is still the same as it was before.

Mr Villeneuve: I am sure the minister knows our farmers are very disappointed. They are facing another year of reduced commodity prices, and the federal government -- and he has attacked it many times -- has reduced the premium. They have reduced the cost to both the farmer and the province. Will the minister not reconsider when times are as tough as they have ever been in farming? Will he not reconsider and at least give them a little break?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like to draw the member's attention to the fact that immediately upon becoming the government we did a review across the province and we talked to farmers about what their needs were. We had a financial review team put together that brought back recommendations. I would remind the member that the first thing the farmers wanted was some short-term relief in terms of interest rates. The second thing they were looking for was some long-term interest-rate relief. We have delivered $50 million of provincial money -- short-term immediate relief for farmers.

If we had looked at funding the NISA program, that would have been significantly less than $50 million. We have given the farmers their number one priority and we think we have really gone a long way to helping farmers in this province.

CHILD CARE

Mrs McLeod: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I think the members of the Legislature are well aware that the Metropolitan regional council is considering an increase in child care fees in order to meet the rising costs of child care.

I wonder if the minister would give an indication of whether or not she is concerned that any proposal to increase parental fees for child care in Metropolitan Toronto will in fact render child care in Toronto unaffordable and, if so, how she would respond to this?

Hon Ms Akande: Actually, the member is quite right. We are in fact very concerned about even the possibility that Metro would implement an increase in fees, and we have conveyed that message to Metro as well as to several of the child care centres. We are continuing to work with Metro towards looking at some solutions which might make it possible for it to solve its situation and at the same time not increase fees to parents, which would make child care very difficult for some of them to access.

Mrs McLeod: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to share with the members of the House what her definition of "affordability" in child care might be. If we were looking at housing and affordability in housing, there is a definition by which we establish what is considered to be affordable.

Would the minister share with us her definition for affordability in child care and indicate to us whether or not, if that definition of affordability cannot be met, we are likely to face a crisis of access and affordability in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Ms Akande: The member knows, of course, that affordability is relative to income and we recognize that as the member did in the previous government. We have looked at affordability in a general sense as being available to people who make an income so that they are not discomforted in any way, or have to go without child care in order to pay for it, or do without other things. That, of course, makes it necessary for us to discuss with Metro how, in effect, that relationship and that funding relationship might be better effective, so that the services to parents are affordable and accessible.

In order to do that we have focused on a redesign of the way we provide child care within this province.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that notwithstanding standing order 94(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 16.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

POLICE SERVICES

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition signed by 408 citizens of the town of Parkhill who respectfully request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any proposals to close the OPP detachment in the town of Parkhill, abandon the plan for community policing, approve an increase of the complement of officers from four to five to ensure a 24-hour police presence, and that a sergeant in charge be appointed to the Parkhill detachment. I have signed my name to this petition.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Brown: I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas economic diversification efforts require time before results can be experienced, and without a strong anchor industry in Elliot Lake, any diversification effort becomes tremendously difficult; and

"Whereas Ontario Hydro, which is ultimately responsible to this government, made commitments to Elliot Lake and its mining companies which resulted in the community's rapid and widespread expansion in the early 1980s; and

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To fulfil that promise to the people of Elliot Lake by instructing Ontario Hydro to purchase all of its uranium requirements from within the province of Ontario, namely Elliot Lake, until economic diversification efforts in the community are successful."

I have a number of constituents who have signed this petition and I have affixed my signature.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Stockwell: I have a petition signed by approximately 900 residents of the city of Etobicoke which reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas the St Gregory separate school in Etobicoke has been petitioning the Metropolitan Separate School Board for funding for much-needed renovations and expansion since 1982; and

"Whereas under new government guidelines, the list of new schools to be built and schools to be renovated were combined; and

"Whereas the combining of these lists has resulted in St Gregory being bumped from the number two position for funding in 1992 to the number six position; and

"Whereas our children are being denied equal opportunity for modern education because of a building that cannot support the size and needs of the students;

"Therefore, as concerned parents from the St Gregory area, we respectfully request that further consideration be given to St Gregory separate school in Etobicoke for immediate funding to rectify this inequitable situation."

NURSING HOMES

Mr Brown: I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it addresses the underfunding of provincial nursing homes, and again I have affixed my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Resuming consideration of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act,

Section 9:

The Chair: Pursuant to the special orders of the House, call in the members for the deferred divisions on Bill 4. I would remind members that this is a five-minute bell.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsections 100b(1) and (2), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes-33 Nays-67

The committee divided on Mr Tilson's amendment to subsections 100b(1), (2), (3), and (4), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr Tilson's amendment to subsection 100e(1), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to add clause 100e(2)(f), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr Tilson's amendment to add clauses 100e(2)(

f) and (g), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add clause 100e(2)(g), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add clause 100e(2)(h), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to add clause 100e(2)(h), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to add clause 100e(2)(i), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add subsections 100e(8a), (8b) and (8c), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to add subsection 100e(8a), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add

section 100ga, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to add

section 100ia, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to

section 100n, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to

section 100n, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add

section 100ta, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add

section 100tb, which was negatived on the same vote.

The Chair: Shall

section 9 carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 9 agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Mr Cooke moved third reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Hon Miss Martel: I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to split the time for third reading among the three parties.

Agreed to.

Hon Mr Cooke: Since there is agreement that the time will be split, rather than making extensive opening comments, I think I have the opportunity to sum up at the end of third reading and I will make my comments then.

Ms Poole: I am pleased to participate in the debate on behalf of the Liberal caucus. When the minister introduced this legislation he said that this legislation had the purpose of protecting tenants. Today, in this Legislature, we have to ask whether this bill has accomplished that goal, and I will say unequivocally that I do not think that Bill 4 protects tenants.

The minister may say that tenants are pleased right now because of the rent freeze, and initially he is right. Of course tenants are going to be pleased by the fact that their rents will be frozen for the next year or two, but there will be a price paid by tenants down the line because what this government has failed to realize and failed to understand is that tenants care for more than just their rent increases.

Of course rents are important to tenants, but of equal priority is the fact that tenants want a decent place in which to live. We are talking about tenants' homes here. They do not want to live in a building that is in a sad state of disrepair and they do not want to live in a slum, yet Bill 4 totally fails to address concerns about declining maintenance and ongoing neglect of our buildings.

The NDP has made absolutely no provision for major capital repairs even if the structural soundness of the building is in jeopardy, even if the health or safety of the tenants is in jeopardy and even if large numbers of the tenants agree. This is a myopic viewpoint which will not serve tenants or our aging housing stock well.

Bill 4 totally ignores the state of our aging rental housing stock. We have heard in this House before that 80% of our buildings in Ontario today are over 15 years old, and when we take it to the 20-year mark then almost two thirds of our buildings are 20 years old. When they get to that age, boilers start to give way, roofs need to be replaced, plumbing has to be redone, underground parking garages are deteriorating, balconies are corroding and electrical wiring needs to be replaced, and yet Bill 4 has made no provisions to continue these major repairs.

The Liberal Party put forward reasonable, sensible amendments which would protect tenants in the important areas of repairs and maintenance, even during the period of the rent freeze, but they have been rejected by the minister, who has said that he does not want to "gut" his bill. That is a quotation. Now I will tell members about our amendments regarding repairs and maintenance and leave it to them to decide where his bill would be gutted.

First of all, we said that there would be a provision for major repairs if they were necessary, necessary to the structural integrity of the building or to the health and safety of the tenants, or if two thirds of the tenants in the building agreed that the work should be done. On top of that, we capped it so that there could only be a 5% increase above the guideline. At the same time, we said that if they were neglecting the building the rent increase could be reduced, or in fact eliminated altogether, and we followed this up with a provision that the quality of the repair had to be considered. Surely the minister cannot report that this would gut his bill.

Or look at our amendment on maintenance. We wanted to enforce maintenance by broadening the powers of the standards board so that when landlords ignored work orders tenants can automatically deduct the guideline amount without having to go through the cumbersome rent review process. I cannot see how this government can claim to be pro-tenant and yet vote against these amendments which protect tenants.

Another pro-tenant amendment rejected by the government related to costs no longer borne, and to explain costs no longer borne I will give an example. Under our amendment, if the cost of a new fridge or stove was included in a rent increase, when those appliances were finally paid off then the amount of the rent increase would be deducted from the tenant's rent, again a very strong tenant-protection measure. I cannot comprehend how this minister and this government can claim they want to protect tenants and vote against this amendment, and yet they just did.

I feel that one of the saddest things about Bill 4 is that the NDP's heavy-handed approach has alienated major sectors of the housing industry -- not only landlords but workers in the trades, suppliers, renovators, investors and financial institutions. Hostility between landlords and tenants has deepened to such an extent that I have never seen the like before. This does not bode well for tenants in this province. Already some landlords are threatening to withdraw services and maintenance because of their extreme bitterness over Bill 4. Trust in government has never been lower. The retroactivity of Bill 4 has put yet another nail in the coffin of trust in government and individual rights.

I am going to quote from a famous democrat who happened to be a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, and I hope that the minister will pay heed to this. Abraham Lincoln said:

"If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

What this minister and this government have done with their very controversial Bill 4 is jeopardize their credibility on the long-term legislation. In my own riding we had a meeting recently where the police had to be called in to prevent a riot, a riot because landlords and tenants could not even communicate in the same room without their bitterness overcoming their common sense.

I feel that Bill 4 is symptomatic of what is wrong with this NDP government. The first thing is that, being socialist, they will not be content until they have completely destroyed the private sector. We will start with housing. When the Premier was Leader of the Opposition, he said publicly that the private sector had no place in the housing arena. When asked how he was going to get the one million units out of private hands, he said: "Well, we'll tighten up the restrictions. We'll make it so tight that the landlords will squawk and get out."

That is exactly what they are attempting with Bill 4. 1 think that it is shown that the Premier still feels that way today. This Premier exempted his ministers who own rental property from the conflict-of-interest guidelines because he did not feel that apartment buildings constituted a business interest. I think that tells members where the Premier is coming from.

But they are not going to stop at trying to force the private sector out of housing. They are also now trying to force out the private day care operators, in spite of the fact that they make up 34% of this province's day care units. They are trying to force them out and leave us in even more devastating straits with our child care system. Take auto insurance, another policy where this government's intent is to get it fully into the hands of the public sector, one more attack on the private sector.

It is not going to stop there. They will be after the nursing home industry. What is next? The financial institutions? Where is this government going to stop? Will it be able to stop? Will it be willing to stop before it has destroyed the private sector in this province? I sincerely doubt it.

The second reason that Bill 4 is symptomatic of what is wrong with this NDP government is that socialists do not consult. They do not need to consult, because they have all the answers and they are always right. In Bill 4 they said they would have public hearings, but what a mockery, what a sham. There was no consultation. They did not listen, they cut off the lists, they turned away groups. They did not want to hear from the people of Ontario, because this is the NDP's, the socialists' version of consultation: "We tell you we're consulting, therefore it is so."

But they did not listen and they did not open their minds, and they are not going to stop here, because the consultation for the long-term legislation is just as much a mockery: six weeks for the consultation period with the public before they went ahead, sending out a million questionnaires across the province, and yet at the same time well into the draft legislation, even before the consultation period had ended.

I will tell members their attitude on consultation is not limited to Bill 4 and the long-term legislation. We have seen how they consult just recently, when they abolished the oath of allegiance for police officers. No consultation, no debate, sneaky, backhanded, behind the scenes, with no regard for tradition. It is utter hypocrisy to approach it in this way.

The final hypocrisy was when the news carried a story of the Premier on Friday night at a citizenship court, reading out the same oath of allegiance to the Queen that he had disbanded this very week for police officers. How he could do that and retain any integrity, I do not know.

Mr Mahoney: He's got principles. If you don't like them, he's got others.

Ms Poole: That is right. The Premier has principles. If you do not like them, he will find some others.

A second example of the hypocrisy is when the Premier announced his conflict-of-interest guidelines with much fanfare, with much media attention. However --

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I can recall a speech made on this side of the House a few months back, where the word "hypocrisy" was used and where the member for Bruce got up and raised a long point of order, on the use of the word "hypocrisy" and having accused people of hypocrisy and that this word was considered to be unacceptable in this House at that time. I would hope that consistency would reign and that this word would not be allowed in the House at this time.

The Deputy Speaker: Just for your information, the word "hypocrisy" is not a word which is taboo in the House; the word "hypocrite" is.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, would you please have one minute restored to the clock because of their intervention?

To go on with the hypocrisy of the Premier, who announced with much fanfare his plans for conflict of interest and yet on 12 February sent a quiet little memo to the NDP members saying, "Don't worry about that statement I made publicly. You really don't have to do what I said you had to do," he changed the rules, but that is what Bill 4 has done, changed the rules in midstream without notice, without fairness, without decency.

The third way in which the socialists have problems is that they feel they are acting for the common good. Now I hasten to add that it is their definition of the common good. In their charge to act for the common good, under their terms, of course, they are quite willing to ignore the rights of the minority. They are quite willing to trample on the rights of the individual, because they do not count. They are acting for the common good.

It is interesting to compare how acting for the common good by the unions has resulted in massive layoffs in this province. The unions, with Stelco, with Algoma Steel, with others, they went to the wall for their people. They got the best deal possible. They got a wonderful deal for the union, but once the negotiations were over, were settled, lo and behold, hundreds of workers were laid off because the company could no longer afford to pay these wonderful benefits. That is the NDP acting for the common good. Unfortunately, when acting for the common good they also tend --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would you stop the clock for a minute. I just want to clarify something so that abusive words are not used too frequently.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, with respect --

The Deputy Speaker: Let me finish, please. So that words are not used to raise the ire of the members, one has to be very careful. Let me explain. I said the word "hypocrisy" was acceptable; "hypocrite" was not. But if you say, "Hypocrisy on the part of the Premier," in my opinion this is offensive. If you say, "That is hypocrisy against the member for Yorkview," this, in my opinion, is offensive. I hope that is clear. What I want you to recall, or to keep in mind, is that whenever you use a word which is offensive, the Chair has the prerogative to say, "I don't like it," as simple as that. Please do refrain from using these words.

Ms Poole: Do the members know the most bitter irony? It is the fact that they call themselves the New Democratic Party. It should be the non-democratic party, because socialism has never borne any relationship to democracy. I will tell members, this government is proving that it still does not bear any relationship to democracy.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms Poole: I will give members an example of how this government treats democracy. The Minister of the Environment for this government said that even if Metropolitan Toronto has a deal with a northern Ontario municipality, even though both parties are willing, even though the deal will be beneficial to both parties, Metro may not ship our garbage to Kirkland Lake. It did not invoke this same provision for any other municipality, but just to Metro. Metro must do what this government dictates, no matter what the democratic situation is.

But then socialists have never tried to look for fairness and balance. In fact, this very minister, in this very House, was very upset with me back when we gave our initial speeches on Bill 4. He said, "You're arguing points on both sides, points for the landlords and points for the tenants." He said, "Get off the fence." I said to him, "I will make no apologies for being balanced, for looking at the holistic picture, for saying we can protect tenants and at the same time protect the stability of the housing industry." I do not see those two points as being mutually exclusive.

But then again, the socialists never let respect for the law and respect for tradition get in their way. Those are just things that are out there. They have no meaning to people as far as this government is concerned. With their retroactivity they have said to people: "We don't care what the law was. We don't care that you were acting within the law at the time that you spent money on the capital repairs and were assured of being reimbursed. We are now going to bankrupt you. We are going to put the small landlords out of business, because we have decided that the law will change and that the law will change retroactively."

As one of our presenters, the clearing house, the Housing Help Centre for Hamilton-Wentworth, said, "Retroactivity is always dangerous and rarely justified." Yet this government has tried to justify it by saying: "Well, it helps a large group of people. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we have trampled on the rights of the minority."

I do believe it matters. I believe that in this House we have a right to protect the rights of the individual and the rights of the minority. I believe that we have a right to be fair, that we have a right to be balanced. I believe that even though this is interim legislation, there should be justice in this legislation, and there is not.

I wind up my comments with a quote from Winston Churchill, another great democrat. He wrote: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." This government will not be satisfied until this whole province is steeped in misery.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was asked by the government House leader to indicate and remind the Chair that there will be no questions after this, we have divided the time equally.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes. Just for the benefit of the member for Oriole, no questions or comments after the member has spoken.

Mr Turnbull: We have indeed spent a lot of time debating this issue, but relative to many important pieces of legislation that have come before this House, historically it has not been a great amount of time.

When this legislation was referred to the standing committee on general government, it was agreed that we would have five weeks of public hearings. This was successively cut back to three weeks of public hearings, even though we had 150 delegations wanting to make presentations with their views. These were both tenants and property owners.

We found that during the committee stage, I made a motion to have a representative of the Trust Companies Association of Canada come forward and speak to this legislation and explain the kind of impact this would have on values of properties and the impact on mortgaging. We have indeed seen the ravages of the collapse of the savings and loans in the United States and we are beginning to see some of the cracks that are occurring in our financial system.

This piece of legislation has wiped off 25% to 30% of the value of property, but the issue is not just whether values have been reduced. The issue, the core issue that indeed I think the New Democratic Party thought it was addressing when it brought forward this bill, was the issue of the need for affordable housing, and I think we must all be fair to the party inasmuch as it honestly had put this forward as its platform in the last election. The thing that we must strenuously disagree with their party on is its solutions and the implications for what this will do in the province for affordable housing.

We recognize that 30% of all of the tenants in Ontario cannot afford the rent they are paying now, and there is nothing in this bill which does anything whatsoever to address that issue. I see in my own constituency office people coming in who are in dire straits, and yet every day we read in the newspapers about abuses of the welfare system.

There seems to be a strange contrast between these two issues, but the reality is we are not addressing the core issue of housing, which affects everybody. It affects the question of people going to food banks. The solution will certainly not be this approach to affordable housing.

We have seen time allocation put on this bill, which means that we are denied the chance to fully debate the various amendments the Conservative Party put forward and the Liberals put forward, and we have seen that at all turns all of these amendments have been voted down by the governing party.

This is a party which ran in the last election on a platform of open government, of consultation. Well, we have seen the kind of consultation there has been. There have been meetings set up where our party has been allowed to come but not participate in the meeting; they could not speak at the meeting. This is consultation. That is not the kind of thing that I understood under consultation.

We know that the housing stock in this province needs approximately $10 billion worth of renovations, and at least $7 billion of that should be spent by the year 2000, but we are not getting this renovation done because the landlords have stopped doing any renovations because they cannot afford to do this. Clearly there are some property owners who can afford to do renovations, but there are a great deal of them cannot.

In the depositions from the Ministry of Housing officials, it was very clearly put forward to us that indeed the legislation, right back to the time that the Conservatives brought the first rent control legislation in, never contemplated that major capital costs would be included in the basic rent. It would always be an amount that would be assessed after the fact and added on.

Many landlords had been encouraged by the existing legislation, Bill 51, to go forward with major and much-needed renovations, and they had expended literally hundreds of millions of dollars, and the only way that they could get that money back was by first substantially completing the work and then making an application.

I would suggest that this is a fraud that has been perpetrated against the property owners. They had been promised that they could get this money back if they did the work, and now we see retroactive legislation.

The existing legislation was indeed flawed. We know that. But I do not believe in just totally ignoring the benefits of the legislation. You try to improve it. This party, the NDP, has done nothing to improve it. They have just tried to gut the legislation.

Yet the total contradiction of what they are doing is that they are saying landlords who have spent money under Bill 51 will not be able to get their money back that they expended, and yet we are being told at the same time that under the permanent legislation they will be able to reapply. So the tenants who thought that in some way the NDP was protecting them indeed see they are not. All they are doing is they are playing political games, and the political games are going to cost the life savings of many small investors.

We heard during the committee hearings that many of the landlords in this province had put their life savings into small apartments, where typically there were only four or six units, and indeed these people have their life savings, all of their pension fund, tied up in it, and they are now being told: "Forget the money you've spent. You will lose it." We have seen the Premier go on record as saying that there will be a huge squawk, that they will reduce the housing values, and that if they do not like it, the NDP will buy them out. Yet when they have been asked to buy the landlords out, at substantially reduced prices, the government refuses to do that.

We have seen defaults on mortgages on a massive scale, and indeed this province has never seen the number of power of sale transactions on apartment buildings as we are seeing today.

There has been no move by the government to eliminate the backlo