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

October 5, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Market value assessment is not only an issue in Metropolitan Toronto; it's also a growing issue in the Ottawa-Carleton area, where residents are awaiting a decision by the regional council on the issue.

However, there is a growing concern in the Ottawa-Carleton area that the NDP government may not let the local municipal officials decide the issue. Rumours abound that the provincial NDP is actively considering forcing Ottawa-Carleton to adopt market value assessment whether the local municipalities want it or not. This would fly in the face of stated NDP policy in the rest of the province and would intrude on the municipalities' responsibilities for deciding this issue. Rumours of this provincial interference are threatening the regional council's vote on this issue. They know that the NDP are watching and may overturn this decision if they vote against MVA.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Revenue should make his or her decision clearly known as soon as possible, and definitely before the regional vote is held. If the rumours are correct, the NDP should clearly state their intention to force market value assessment. If the rumours are false, the NDP should clear the air with a direct promise that they will not force market value assessment on Ottawa-Carleton.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My statement today deals with the newest tax grab initiated by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a filing program for incorporated businesses and non-profit corporations. This is yet another example of how this NDP government chooses to do business in Ontario: It's underhanded, unfair, without accountability and without consultations.

The corporation filing program was started in July of this year and through regulation, not legislation so that it could be properly debated in the House, and began almost immediately sending out thinly veiled letters to corporations asking for the $50 filing fee, or else.

I would like to read an excerpt from one of those letters sent to all corporations throughout the province: "Failure to provide this information correctly and within the time allotted can have serious consequences that may affect your corporation status."

What kind of thinly veiled threat is that supposed to be? Why does the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations feel that it has to stoop to these kinds of threats? These are law-abiding, taxpaying job providers of our province. What possesses the NDP government to treat our corporate citizens like criminals with a bad record?

Businesses within Ontario are tired of dealing with a government that obviously views them with disdain and as a necessary evil. Your lack of consultation on this and many other programs, not the least of which is Bill 40, where you essentially ignored any business suggestions, proves over and over again your lack of respect towards the business community of Ontario.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Mr Speaker, I remember you were listening to the 1992 budget when this government created the Jobs Ontario Training fund, Capital fund and Housing fund, which are going to renew the economy and get people back to work.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Where is it now; what happened?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): What happened? Tell us.

Mr Fletcher: Let me tell you what happened. Guelph was the first Ontario community to access both the Jobs Ontario Capital and the Jobs Ontario Training funds for major projects that will get our friends and neighbours back to work and rejuvenate our local economy.

The Jobs Ontario Training fund will create more than 270 jobs at Linamar. This first agreement ever signed under the fund sets aside more than $2.6 million to train workers whose unemployment insurance has run out or who are on social assistance.

The Guelph Civic Centre was the first Jobs Ontario Capital fund agreement signed in this province. It will provide $2 million over the next three years to construct a dynamic Guelph civic and cultural centre. The centre will create over 200 jobs and revitalize our river front, enrich our artistic community and bring increased tourist trade to downtown Guelph.

The Jobs Ontario Capital fund will also provide $410,000 for renovations at Guelph public and separate schools.

In Guelph we've also been helping industry and jobs through other government initiatives. Glengarry Industries of Guelph has received a $2.5-million term loan under the Ontario Development Corp. This assistance will help this local manufacturer increase its production and expand its North American and global market.

This is how I spent my summer vacation: helping the people of Guelph.

OTTAWA SENATORS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I would like to bring to the attention of the House that the week of October 1 to October 8 has been proclaimed Ottawa Senators Week in Ottawa-Carleton. A number of events and activities are taking place throughout the region in celebration of the return of the Ottawa Senators and the National Hockey League to Ottawa.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): They should be playing in Hamilton. I hope they lose every game.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Chiarelli: Showing support for the community for which they are now very much a part, the Senators organization includes within its activities the hosting of fund-raising receptions for two charitable causes, the Ottawa Civic Hospital and the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

The week's events will culminate on Thursday night, when the Senators host the Montreal Canadiens for their first NHL season opener since 1933, with opening ceremonies including the unveiling of nine Stanley Cup banners. Yes, the old Senators won nine Stanley Cups.

To the owners, coaches, players and fans, I would like to wish the Senators the best of luck in their return to the NHL. I am confident that the day will not be too far off when they will bring the Stanley Cup back home to Ottawa.

And my friend Mr Morin says, "Vive les Sénateurs d'Ottawa."

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the masks that cover faces, cover feelings and cover up. The focus of the October 4th to 10th Mental Illness Awareness Week, which is jointly sponsored by the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, is on the masks of schizophrenia and Alzheimer disease, as well as anxiety and depression.

Look under the mask of schizophrenia and you'll find people of all ages, races and economic backgrounds. It is an illness that can often be treated with medication and social supports.

Look under the mask of anxiety and depression and you'll find a face you'll probably recognize because none of us gets through life without our share of both.

Psychotherapy, anti-depressant medications and training in methods of relaxation can all work together to lift the clouds of anxiety and depression.

Look under the mask of Alzheimer disease and you'll find the face of 300,000 Canadians. While medical science searches for a cause and a cure, support groups have been formed for those affected and their loved ones.

During Mental Illness Awareness Week we must all look under the mask of all mental illnesses to find the stressed, vulnerable human beings who deserve the chance to get well again. They deserve to be seen for who they really are.

GRAND RIVER

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): This past summer I approached the 20 MPPs from the Grand River area, asking them to support the designation of the Grand River as a Canadian heritage river. The Grand River Conservation Authority is working to have the Grand River be Canada's first heritage river in a settled area available for the use and enjoyment of thousands of Ontarians. It is also the first time an entire river system, not just a section, has been nominated. The authority's hard work in preserving our human past and our recreation areas will be appreciated not just by all of us but by future generations.

I would like to publicly commend the MPPs who wrote to the Ministry of Natural Resources asking for support for the Grand River designation, and I am gratified by the prompt and positive response by the minister, Bud Wildman, who has committed the ministry to working with the ministries of Tourism and Recreation, Culture and Communications and the federal government to ensure the completion of the management plan. Eventually, I hope this multilateral and non-partisan effort will result in the designation of the Grand River as a Canadian heritage river, the heritage river that the citizens of Cambridge already know it is.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On July 9 of this year I introduced a resolution into the Legislature that received unanimous consent and unanimous support. It stated the following:

"That, in the opinion of this House, since General Motors announced its intention on February 24 of this year to close its St Catharines foundry eliminating over 2,000 employment positions in addition to 750 women and men who were to be laid off indefinitely as of March 1 and over 100 people who will lose their jobs as a result of the decision to discontinue the 3.1-litre V-6 engine; and

"Since the St Catharines General Motors foundry is a cost-competitive, world-class, high-quality operation with a highly skilled and motivated workforce; and

"Since the loss of these jobs will mean the loss of $130 million in wages and salaries to the economy of the Niagara region and the province of Ontario; and

"Since the implications for businesses and industries that service and supply the auto sector are extremely negative and serious; and

"Since whenever a production line and a significant part of a plant shuts down, the fixed cost of maintaining the rest of the operation increases and the quality of components from elsewhere cannot be guaranteed;

"The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge General Motors to continue the operation of its foundry in St Catharines."

For the sake of our community, for the sake of our province and our country and the automotive industry, I urge members of the Legislature to continue to back Local 199 CAW Fight Back committee in its efforts to keep that foundry open.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I rise today to implore the provincial government to re-examine its policy on the Ontario investment fund. The Ontario investment fund is another example of an ill-conceived NDP initiative that will have a negative effect on the private sector.

This government must come to the realization that it does not have the expertise to invest in private sector growth. In light of the government's financial history, it is not surprising that the people of Ontario do not want the NDP managing their pension funds. Pension fund members do not want their retirement funds managed by a government that can't manage its own finances.

The people of Ontario are concerned with the voluntary aspect of the Ontario investment fund. There is concern that the government will coerce private funds into participation.

Unlike the provincial government, pension fund managers have fiduciary responsibility to invest in the best interests of the pension fund members. Furthering the political aims of the NDP is not the business of pension funds. The exclusive function of pension funds should be the production of the financial returns necessary to provide future income.

For most people, pension funds will be the foundation of their retirement incomes. The provincial government has no right to gamble with an individual's future income. On behalf of the people of Willowdale, I ask the provincial government to respect the independence of private pension funds.

EVENTS IN MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise today to tell you about two fantastic events that took place in my riding in September.

First, I'd like to thank Mr Barry Faulkner and the many volunteers for their time and efforts to bring to and host at Bracebridge the Kids of Steel World Junior Triathlon. It was indeed a great event.

Second, also in September, we had the opportunity to host the World Triathlon Championships in Huntsville at the Hidden Valley-Deerhurst area of Muskoka. Championships were held from September 10 to 12. This extremely successful event attracted over 1,800 athletes from more than 50 countries. Over 1,000 people from the Huntsville area volunteered their time, and many thousands more from Ontario, Canada and other countries came out to watch the competition.

Bringing the triathlon championships to Huntsville not only provided some great entertainment for the spectators and showcased the beautiful Muskokas to 1,800 people from 50 countries, but it also brought an estimated $8 million to the area.

I want to congratulate all the athletes who participated in the championships, especially the winners, most notably our own Canadian men's team, which not only had the largest team there but also won the men's élite division.

In closing, I would again like to commend the people from Huntsville, especially the volunteers, the local businesses, the resorts, the town leaders and athletes for making a spectacular event very possible.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING / SYSTÈME D'APPRENTISSAGE

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): Apprenticeship is Ontario's principal workplace training system, involving 53,000 apprentices and 25,000 employers. Apprenticeship training is the schoolroom of a highly skilled workforce. It teaches workers skills that are in demand, giving them greater flexibility to plan their careers. The impact of technological change and restructuring demands a revitalization of apprenticeship training.

Nos principaux partenaires dans ce processus sont les 21 comités consultatifs provinciaux qui représentent les intérêts de métiers spécialisés particuliers. Ils se composent de travailleurs et d'employeurs qui, en collaboration, me conseillent en matière de formation et de certificats de reconnaissance professionnelle.

At this very moment, 110 members of the provincial advisory committees, or PACs as they are called, which govern the essentials of the apprenticeship system, are meeting for the first time as a group for two days in Toronto to discuss priorities in training policy and programs, which will lead, among other things, to the revitalization of apprenticeship.

Two representatives of the provincial advisory committees are here today in the gallery: Esther Lee, an employer representative and former chair of the cook PAC, and Joe Fashion, a union representative and present chair of the construction and maintenance electrician PAC. I ask them to stand so the Legislature may greet them.

Ontario's industrial future depends on our ability to attract high value added jobs. A highly skilled workforce will help create those jobs in Ontario and strengthen economic renewal, so I am pleased today to announce that the government will invest $13.6 million in additional funds to revitalize apprenticeship training over the next three years.

Revitalization will involve three steps.

First, we will expand the school-workplace apprenticeship program. The program enables high school students to train as registered apprentices while completing their high school diplomas. It is a joint effort of my ministry, the Ministry of Education, workers, unions, employers and community groups and it has been praised by the Economic Council of Canada.

My ministry intends to work with training stakeholders to increase the number of school boards participating in the program from 35 to 95 over three years. We want to provide opportunities thereby for good careers with good wages and a future to the two thirds of high school students who do not go on to college or to university.

The second step in this revitalization is to make improvements in training in existing trades and develop training for new occupations. Through consultations with the provincial advisory committees that I've just referred to, existing training standards will be updated regularly, as they have not been in the past.

The ministry will also work with stakeholders to establish PACs and develop apprenticeship training standards for occupations that are in demand and for occupations in new and emerging technologies. Ongoing consultations with the provincial advisory committees, other ministries and training stakeholders will ensure that all training is relevant and consistently meets the needs of workers and employers alike.

The third step is increasing access to training.

Les femmes, les autochtones, les membres de minorités raciales, les personnes handicapées et les francophones auront plus facilement accès à l'apprentissage. En forgeant des partenariats au niveau communautaire, on éliminera les obstacles qui empêchent l'accès équitable aux programmes de formation.

Counselling, support and advice will be provided to equity groups through community outreach activities. Customized projects will be developed to meet the needs of these groups and to facilitate their entry into apprenticeship training.

This, of course, is simple fairness and supports the government's objective for greater equity in the workplace. It is also an issue of economics and demographics. These groups will comprise the majority of new workers by the year 2000, so it only makes sense to plan now for the needs of tomorrow's workforce. My ministry will accomplish this goal in collaboration, again, with the provincial advisory committees.

Through partnerships with workers, unions, employers, educators, trainers, community groups and provincial ministries, we will build a more vital apprenticeship system. This initiative creates a solid base that will ensure the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, once established, receives a strong, vital and relevant apprenticeship training system to operate.

CONSTITUTION DAY

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): As members know, we are in the midst of an historic time, one that will set a course for the future of this country. I'm referring, of course, to the October 26 referendum.

Educating young people for citizenship is an important aim of every school system. Students need to appreciate the benefits and recognize the responsibilities of community membership, to acquire knowledge about the structures and function of government and to develop the skills necessary to participate in resolving public issues.

While most students are not eligible to vote, they can have an influence in urging the adults in their families to become informed and to vote on October 26. Therefore, I am pleased to inform the House that I am asking our schools to set aside Monday, October 19, as Constitution Day in Ontario schools.

I encourage all schools to involve students in activities that will help them understand the issues in the referendum. Students will then be able to discuss these issues with their families. My ministry will be sending to schools guidelines with suggestions on how to incorporate referendum discussion within the curriculum. We will also send a special Constitution Day poster to the schools.

It is important to underline that school activities on Constitution Day will not be used as platforms for either the Yes or No side in the debate. They are intended to be a forum for informing students and, through them, their families about the issues.

I believe students can learn valuable lessons about how decisions are made in our democracy and how citizens can express their views through public debate and the electoral process.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to say to the minister that we welcome his statement today on apprenticeship training. I wish he had come out with this two years ago, instead of OTAB last year, because this is the type of program we do need.

I wish you well in that program. It's long overdue. We are falling way behind other jurisdictions, especially European jurisdictions, when it comes to apprenticeship training. I think they have long realized that training on the job has got to be the most solid way to get young people entered into the workforce, so we need to go on with this.

I have a concern, when we do get OTAB up and running, whenever that may happen, that you certainly don't scuttle this program if it is successful, as I wish it will be successful. This has to be a strong component of the eventual overall Ontario Training and Adjustment Board program.

I would say that you are a little behind some of the experience that's already happening in Ontario at some of the high schools. I have one in my riding, in Haileybury, that has had an apprenticeship training program for the last couple of years, and unfortunately it had to go to the federal government to get money for that. I would hope that the Ontario government now would start to fund these high school level entry apprenticeship programs, as you say in your announcement, so that high school students can also upgrade their academic standards while at the same time having on-the-job training.

The minister mentions access to people who have not normally had good access to the workplace. I think that's very important. I'd like to remind the minister that on this weekend the welfare rolls in Metro had increased by 2,000 people, primarily single mothers laid off from the retail and garment trade. So access is going to be important. Also, the child care supports should be there for these people.

I think again it's going to be important that as we move along with OTAB, there be proper integration. But I wish the minister well on this and I want to work with him to make sure this is a successful program.

CONSTITUTION DAY / JOURNÉE CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise to welcome the statement by the Minister of Education. Indeed, I think it is very, very important that this kind of day be set aside so that the students, not just those at the OAC level, many of whom will be able to vote for the first time, but indeed all students can have a sense of what the issues are and in a way which is not directed to a certain conclusion but is really directed to inform. It will be of great benefit.

I'm sure the minister has had the opportunity, as I have over the last several weeks, to join in a number of schools, both at the OAC level and at the elementary level, to talk with students about the referendum, about the whole constitutional debate. One of the things I felt particularly good about has been the level of interest. In fact, at one school last week, I walked in, it was an OAC class, and I said, "How many people are going to be voting for the first time?" I think everyone in the room -- there were some 30 -- except two students was going to be voting for the first time in this referendum.

They clearly are interested. They wanted to know the issues. They had done homework. They were troubled by different questions and different issues. Indeed, there aren't simple answers to a lot of the questions that are posed, but I think to the extent that we can involve them in this debate, and really involve them, then we're going to come out of this all the stronger.

Je pense qu'il est important de démontrer l'appui pour l'accord en général, mais ce serait aux étudiants eux-mêmes de prendre une décision sur cette question, après une discussion et un dialogue profonds dans les salles de classe.

I'd simply close by noting that during the course of the last week we've seen some very important things happening in this debate. Together with my colleague from Durham-York, from the New Democratic Party, and my federal colleague from the federal riding of York-Simcoe, who is a Progressive Conservative, we've launched our campaign on the Yes side in the federal riding of York-Simcoe. My colleague from Mississauga West, again together with representatives of the other political parties, has gotten involved in launching the Yes side.

While the focus here will be on a debate among students for them to make up their own minds, let's underline again the need for us to get involved and, as I think so many of us want, to really get out, talk to people, and let's get a Yes vote on that referendum.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'd like to take the opportunity first to speak to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Skills Development, to tell him how intrigued I am by his statement of the day and how we in this party feel we definitely know that apprenticeship training is a number one priority in the province of Ontario, and it's time that this government got on with it.

I suppose it's not news to know that there are a lot of needs in apprenticeship training and, to start with, the school-workplace apprenticeship program. I think it was a year ago that I spoke to the new Minister of Education and asked him what he was going to do about the SWAP program. At that time, we could only find some 55 students being trained in the programs in all of Metropolitan Toronto or the greater Toronto area. That is not acceptable.

To the minister, although he's talking about his expansion, we're going to wish him the very best of luck in moving from some 35 boards that have very few people in the SWAP programs to some 95 boards within three years. It's going to have to be a priority for his ministry, because it is a priority for our young students in this province who want to be trained while attending secondary schools and want to get jobs when they graduate. The best of luck in that regard.

Just looking at A Lot to Learn: Education and Training in Canada, A Statement by the Economic Council of Canada, we should know that here in Canada the total number of apprentices right now is 122,000. Do you know what the number is in West Germany? Some 1.8 million.

I have to tell you also that as a proportion of the labour force right now in Canada, 1% of our labour force is in apprenticeship training programs. In West Germany --

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): That's good.

Mrs Cunningham: No, it's not good. It's not good enough; it wouldn't be good enough three years from now. In West Germany, it's 6.1%.

You should know the average age of apprenticeship and the length of apprenticeship training programs in Canada. The average age of an apprentice is 26 years of age, with four to five years to complete the program. In West Germany, the average is 17 -- those are secondary school students -- and the number of years to train those young people is two to three years.

These are the objectives that we should be looking at. We don't have to talk any more. Since I've been in this House, for four years, we've had the information. We know where we should go. What we really need to have announced, Mr Minister, in January or as soon as you can get it on this plate, is what we're going to do and how we're going to do it to meet these objectives.

The cost of apprenticeship programs is $170,000 per apprentice in Canada and $51,000 in West Germany. Apprenticeship wages -- need I say more? You know we're way below the West Germans and what they're doing there.

The bottom line is, I hope the minister will accomplish his goals. We'll do everything we can to help. What can I say? This was the best information that we gave to the Liberal government. That was four years ago, when I first arrived at Queen's Park. It's the best information and the best support we can give to this government, but it's up to them to make it happen. We've been waiting a long time, more than a decade, and I can only say, "Good luck."

CONSTITUTION DAY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): With regard to the Minister of Education establishing a special day, October 19, I don't have the statement, Mr Minister, but I was aware that we were going to have a special day in our schools as an opportunity for young people and their teachers and families and the community to talk about this great country of ours and, yes, certainly in the context of the referendum.

I hope, as I know parents hope, that the young people and the adults of this province will take this opportunity to get themselves educated around (1) that we live in the best country in the world and (2) that in spite of my criticisms from time to time in this House, I still believe we do most things very well, including education, but we have to do better, because other countries are catching up and many have passed us by.

This opportunity, I think, will be for our young people to say that they can vote for this country and that they will be informed, and I hope that they will vote, in my opinion, Yes for Canada.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I rise on a point of privilege, Mr Speaker. In this regard, I refer to standing order 21(a), which reads:

"Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

In addition, 21(

b) states:

"Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately."

Accordingly, as a result of the wording of rule 21(b), which requires the matter to be immediately taken into consideration, I have submitted this issue to you in writing. My initial point of privilege is directed to that part of rule 21(

a) which reads "by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

As the member for the riding of Mississauga North and a member of the opposition, I have been particularly involved in Bill 40, proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Members of the Legislature and, in particular, members of the standing committee on resources development will know that I have actively participated in this bill and, in this case, my opposition to it through question periods, reading petitions, public hearings and currently in the clause-by-clause deliberation of the bill.

You will also be aware, Mr Speaker, that a motion was passed by the government on July 9, 1992, which among other things limits clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 40 to eight legislative days. I refer to that part of the motion:

"Further, that the committee be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill following routine proceedings on the first eight sessional days of the fall meeting period of the House."

The clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 40 started last Wednesday, September 30, proceeded through Thursday and is scheduled to continue today, tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday. It will not take place next Monday due to the Legislature not sitting as a result of Thanksgiving, and will then resume for the next two days, being brought to an end by the motion on Wednesday, October 14.

For religious purposes, I will not be able to take

part in the clause-by-clause deliberations tomorrow or Wednesday. It is for me and members of the Jewish faith our most solemn day. In this regard, I informed members of the resources development committee of this matter on August 31. As a result, a motion was unanimously passed September 1 requesting the House leaders to amend the July 9 motion to accommodate me as Labour critic.

I have been informed by my House leader, the member for Bruce, that the government House leader will not be making any such change, amendment or accommodation to myself. This of course means that I, as Labour critic for my party, will not be able to attend the clause-by-clause proceedings tomorrow or Wednesday, and when one follows the motion of July 9 which limited clause-by-clause to just eight days, the two days for which I cannot be present represent 25% of this stage of the bill.

Since first being elected in 1985, I have always taken it as a matter of practice and custom that if a critic cannot be present for a proceeding of a bill of which the critic has responsibility, accommodation is attempted, within limits and reason.

To me this is a matter which falls squarely within the parameters set forth in rule 21(a). This is a matter which was, firstly, anticipated; secondly, brought forward to the resources committee; thirdly, advance notice was given to the government House leader; fourthly, the motion to request accommodating myself was passed unanimously by the committee having carriage of the legislation, and lastly, the request was for a limited amount of time, in this case two days.

Today, this is a matter of my privilege, but tomorrow it may be for other members of the Legislature. I would ask the Premier to overrule his House leader.

The rules of the Legislature, rule 21, demand that I bring this to your attention for your consideration. I submit my privileges have been eroded, not only individually as set out by rule 21(a), but also in fact collectively for all members in this Legislature who sit in critic roles.

Today it is my privileges which have been affected, but in a true and very real sense, it is not only my privileges, but includes all members who will be affected. I ask, Mr Speaker, that you find the actions of the government in this matter to have breached my privileges as a member and critic through the practice and custom of the Legislature of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Mississauga North: May I say first at the outset that I very much appreciate the way in which he has approached this matter of privilege. He did indeed serve notice to the Speaker and provided the Speaker with a copy of the notes from which he spoke. It is a matter of importance and it's one which I wish to consider.

I must say, to be fair to the member, that on the surface it would not appear that there is a case of privilege in your favour. However, I would like to spend a bit of time to take a further look at this because I do think the member has raised for the House a matter to be considered seriously.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I would be more than happy, and it would be appropriate, to discuss this further with the opposition House leaders. There was nothing done here to try to be mean-spirited or anything else. When the three House leaders first discussed --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No, you're not mean-spirited. Trudeau is mean-spirited. Let's keep that straight.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: When the three House leaders discussed the date for return to the House, there was also a discussion in the House leaders' meetings about the Legislative Assembly committee needing very soon to look at the whole issue of religious holidays as it applies to the Ontario Legislature and the fact that the calendar and everything else we do in this place very much reflects Christian holidays and does not reflect other holidays as it should appropriately. We need to look at that in the Legislature because it's not just Christian and Jewish holidays; there is a whole other reality that this place needs to take into consideration in Ontario in 1992.

In the meantime, we're going to have to ad hoc it, and I would be glad to sit down with the opposition House leaders again to take a look at the very important and realistic concerns that were expressed with respect to Bill 40. I believe it can be sorted out and the member can be accommodated and should be accommodated.

The Speaker: I appreciate the comments of the government House leader. I trust all members realize that while discussions may occur among the three House leaders, your Speaker has to deal with the rules as they are presently constituted. I am pleased to reflect on the matter and trust that perhaps the three-way discussion will bring about a pleasant result as well.

Mr Offer: Mr Speaker, a matter of clarification: As the days I was referring to are going to commence tomorrow, I would hope, Mr Speaker, and indeed through you to the government House leader, that this matter is dealt with before that time period expires.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will be well aware of the action that has been taken by Metropolitan Toronto police officers. I would ask the Solicitor General if he can tell the people of this province what he is doing to ensure that public safety is protected.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I am in fact aware of the actions of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. I wish to respond --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There's a first.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I wish to respond to the Speaker that I am in fact troubled by these particular actions. These are matters that are within the responsibility and purview at this point in time of Chief McCormack and the chair of the police services board. I know they are dealing with the matter and I hope it is quickly and effectively resolved.

Mrs McLeod: I am reassured that the minister has at least been informed of the developments. I recognize that he is not accepting any responsibility for dealing with the possible consequences. I would remind the minister that he is the chief law enforcement officer in this province and that the police need his support in order to be able to do their job. Mr Minister, they're not getting it.

Instead of involving the police as partners in solving problems that may exist, your government seems intent on excluding them. I would give the minister just one most recent example of this: When the Clare Lewis commission on race relations and policing held its hearings in Thunder Bay last week, hearings which are not open to the public and which are by invitation only, it is unbelievable that the Thunder Bay Police Association was not invited to make a presentation to that task force.

Minister, I ask you: How can police officers in this province have confidence in a process that simply shuts them out?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I wish to take issue with the Leader of the Opposition's remarks in terms of the question she just asked. She indicated that the policemen and policewomen of this province were not getting my support. Of course, that is far, far from the truth of the reality. As a matter of fact, she will well remember announcements I have made in this House with respect to providing some $45 million to the OPP for the hiring of some 241 additional officers and more than $5 million for additional training in the use of force, to the benefit, and which will ultimately be to the credit, of our men and women serving us in these forces.

Mrs McLeod: It's unbelievable that the minister responded to my question about involving the police in the process of dealing with the problems of policing in this province by telling me about the increased resources to policing. Surely the minister is aware that cutbacks in the OPP budgets mean that many communities in this province don't even have 24-hour police coverage.

But that really was not the thrust of my question. The thrust of my question was that police forces feel shut out. The police across this province are becoming more and more frustrated, and quite frankly, it is my belief that people across this province are getting more and more frightened.

Your mismanagement of policing issues, Mr Minister, has created a growing fear across this province that when people need the police, the police won't be there, and there is no question that the police across this province are feeling alienated and that they are demoralized. They believe that this government does not value their work and does not trust them.

Minister, what have you to say to the hardworking police officers across this province who believe that you have already judged them and found them guilty?

Hon Mr Pilkey: What I have to say to those people is to not believe or get caught up in the kind of political rhetoric we have just heard from the benches opposite. What I would have them believe and have them understand, as I would all members opposite and all members of this province, is that this government has addressed, and is addressing right now, some of the fundamental changes in the framework, which is going to increase the benefit to all citizens in terms of the policing they've had in this province.

They're fundamental changes in terms of professional standards and in terms of training that will equip these men and women to protect the public even better. They are far more progressive than anything we saw emanating from those benches opposite in the last five years.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Premier for explanations on a different issue. Premier, as you know well, Alan Holt, the president of Ontario Hydro, left his position two weeks ago. At the time, we found it strange that he would do so while he was on holidays. I can tell you today that despite the statements that were made last week by the Minister of Energy saying that Mr Holt had retired, we have questions about the events surrounding Mr Holt's departure.

Premier, is it also your position that Alan Holt in fact resigned? Do you also say that Mr Holt was not fired and was not asked to leave by any member of your government?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer the question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): First of all, the information we got from a release that Ontario Hydro did last Thursday is that Mr Holt retired. Second, I think the Leader of the Opposition asked whether we had directed his leaving, and the answer to that question is no.

Mrs McLeod: I regret the fact that the Premier referred this question to the minister, because we were hoping the Premier would help us to reconcile the kinds of statements the minister made and is continuing to make with what we feel is some evidence to the contrary.

How do you explain, then, Minister, that at the board meeting on September 19 the members of the Hydro board were presented with a letter, signed by you, directing them to ensure that Mr Holt would leave Ontario Hydro? How do you explain that the Hydro board voted 7 to 5 to fire Mr Holt, if in fact Mr Holt resigned his position? Will you confirm that a letter was sent over your signature to the members of the Hydro board directing them to get rid of the president of Hydro?

Hon Mr Charlton: In response to the Leader of the Opposition's question, yes, I sent a letter to the chair of Ontario Hydro. The letter I sent, and which I'm prepared to release publicly, did not direct the dismissal of the president of Hydro. It will be released, and the member can view the letter for herself. As to why the board voted the way it voted, that's a question I think she'll have to put to the board of Ontario Hydro.

Mrs McLeod: I would be delighted if the minister would table the letter, as I understand that no board member was allowed to retain it so that it could be subsequently shown to anybody outside that boardroom. I think, however, that the minister missed the point of the question. I wondered why the Hydro board had to vote to fire Mr Holt if in fact Mr Holt had retired or offered his resignation. It is also my understanding that Marc Eliesen phoned certain insiders on the Hydro board the day before to discuss Mr Holt's firing and to tell them how they would have to vote.

I simply ask the minister, in face of all these things, do you still deny that Alan Holt was in fact fired, do you still claim that he resigned of his own free will, do you still maintain that you had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the departure of Alan Holt?

Hon Mr Charlton: The question which the Leader of the Opposition has asked deals with two completely different issues. What she's done in the first part of her question is to confirm what I said last week, which is that the president and the incumbent in that position at Hydro is a decision of the board of Ontario Hydro. Their discussions around that issue at their board meeting are theirs to discuss, to determine and to vote on in the way they see fit.

The letter which I sent to the chair of Ontario Hydro, having been informed that Ontario Hydro was considering a range of transition issues, was a letter which suggested --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- that any discussions around the question of the presidency should include the new chair of Hydro in consultation with the board.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, I would like to refer the Minister of Energy to my question of September 30: "My question to the minister is, did your ministry give any direction? Did you have any input into the board regarding Mr Holt leaving the corporation at this time?" The minister's answer was, "The answer to this question is, very simply, no."

The Speaker: What is the member's point of privilege?

Mr Jordan: My point of privilege is that the minister withheld information from the people of Ontario and from this House. He did know that day and he did not come clean with the information he had.

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

The member has quite clearly identified a difference of opinion with respect to certain events. The member does not have a point of --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member does not have a point of privilege. However, it is time for the third party's first of two questions; who wishes to take the questions?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like you to review the matter that has just been raised, both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the member for Lanark-Renfrew, with regard to this question. Obviously, the answer the minister has given was different to one person over another, so I officially request you to look into the matter.

The Speaker: To the member for London North: I'm always pleased to reread Hansard -- it's my favourite reading material -- so I will do that again on this occasion. But I now invite the third party to put forward a question.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'm going to attempt to direct this question to the Premier, in the expectation that he will refer it.

In relation to the work-to-rule campaign now being conducted by many officers in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, we in this party don't condone the actions of the Metro officers -- I want to make that clear -- but I think we understand very much their frustration. Police tensions across this province are growing. We saw that clearly indicated in the turn-down of the contract by the Ontario Provincial Police. We saw it in the Ontario Provincial Police Association non-confidence motion this summer in your government, an unprecedented initiative by police officers in this province.

In my view, never in the history of this province has a Premier been more insensitive to policemen and policewomen, and I'm asking the Premier, in response to this work-to-rule campaign, how his government intends to try and overcome this situation, the bad relations with police, and perhaps establish a new relationship on much better grounds with the police officers of this province.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I would refer that question again to the Solicitor General.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I think it's fair to first of all respond to the question with respect to the OPPA. The member opposite will recall that the OPPA had complained that it was not this government, or just this government, but the preceding two governments that, in their view, had heaped additional requirements on them without providing the resource to handle it.

I'm pleased to say that while they suggested it therefore had to be us, as the present-day government, at whose doorstep they had to lay this difficulty, I'd indicated to the executive of the OPPA that, given time, I would be able to address this situation for them. I was very pleased, as I had mentioned in a response earlier today, in announcements that I made earlier in this House, to be able to deliver on that promise; that promise was for additional money, considerable amounts of money, and additional resource so that they might better serve and protect the citizens of this province. That's what's been done to ensure better relations with the OPPA.

In terms of the other policing community, the regional, municipal and local police forces, we continue with consultations with the many police stakeholders and other community groups with respect to ensuring that we enhance the fundamental principles of policing and that we're able to have the kind of training and professional standards that will see us all better served well into the future.

Mr Runciman: This minister continues to have his head in the sand, even when you look at the fact he only has one ministry to be responsible for now. He still has his head in the sand and is unaware, or apparently is giving the public the impression that there's no problem with respect to relations between this government and police officers across the province.

The Premier again refuses to respond to questions like this, but at the same time he's quite prepared to stand up and defend the indefensible with respect to the comments his parliamentary assistant made about police officers in this province not too many months ago.

The Solicitor General is standing on his feet today in this House and saying that he has no problem with respect to relationships with police officers in this province, that they're outstanding relationships in terms of lines of communication, and that couldn't be further from the truth. We just have to look at the brief record of this government in office: the appointment of Susan Eng to chair of the Metropolitan Toronto police board and her contempt for the oath of office to the Queen, the deputy chiefs who retired from the Metro Toronto Police Force and complained about political interference --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Runciman: -- the Attorney General's efforts, in fact his involvement in the Brian Rapson case, where he launched a preferred indictment against Constable Brian Rapson.

We have problems, we have dramatic increases in crime in this province, and this government is portraying police officers in this province as the bad guys.

The Speaker: Would the member ask a question.

Mr Runciman: There are bad guys out there committing crimes and you're handcuffing police.

Will the minister acknowledge the deep antagonism that exists between his government and the police and tell us what he plans to do about it?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The reason I responded to the member opposite in the fashion I did -- and let's just do a very quick and brief review, because I know you'll only allow me a certain time to do it, Mr Speaker, in response.

There have been ongoing consultations with the police stakeholders and all associations relevant thereto. We have brought forward one of the most exciting training programs, I think, that this Legislature and this province have seen for decades, perhaps ever. We certainly have come forward with respect to the funding issue, which I've indicated twice in the House here this afternoon.

I will admit as well that during this period of change there will be, as there is in all periods of change, certain consternation or uncomfortableness develop in the minds of some, but I say with every confidence that I believe the changes we have been making and are making with respect to the training and professionalism of our men and women are going to stand the test of time and prove to be something that is well done in terms of public safety and officer safety alike.

Mr Runciman: The reality is that this government has given the police no support, and in fact has worked against the police from day one and will not listen to police concerns.

With respect to the regulatory changes, I want to quote a couple of officers briefly. Peel Regional Police Chief Robert Lunney called the regulation change "a careless disregard for public safety and for the ability of police to defend themselves. To expect police officers to make a distinction between what will cause loss of life or serious bodily harm in the midst of a critical incident with seconds to act is asking the impossible."

We've seen this Solicitor General simply act as a puppet for the anti-police forces in the Premier's office. We've seen the Premier of this province virtually label all Metro police officers as racist with respect to comments he made after a weekend meeting. We are all quite familiar with that.

Based on what's happening now and what may happen in the future -- there's a meeting coming up this Wednesday with other police associations in this province -- is the Solicitor General, hopefully along with the Premier, prepared to meet with this police association's initial move with respect to the Metro association's concerns, meet with the police officers first hand, the people who have to face those kinds of difficult decisions on a daily basis, and hear what they have to say?

The Speaker: Will the member complete his question, please.

Mr Runciman: Are you prepared to hear what they have to say?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Since taking office, this government has always been supportive of consultations and partnerships. We've been criticized roundly from time to time from the benches opposite for doing so or doing so ad nauseam.

As I indicated earlier, we have constant meetings between myself and officials of my ministry and staff with the Police Association of Ontario, with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the police services boards of Ontario. If any of these representative groups wish to meet with us, they are of course welcome to do so. That would represent no change from the kinds of discussions we've had on an ongoing basis already.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is again for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, in all fairness in giving information to another member, I asked you a straightforward question on September 30 and you gave me a very straight answer: No, you had not issued any directive, you had not done anything relative to directing the board on the relieving of Mr Holt of his position. Would you now please read the letter that you did in fact send to the board?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I don't have a copy of the letter with me this afternoon, but the question which the member asked me last week and the answer I gave to that question is an answer I stand by. The member asked me if I directed or influenced the leaving of Mr Holt, and the answer is still no.

Mr Jordan: I had the opportunity over the weekend to discuss the leaving of Mr Holt with a member of the board, and my information is that the decision of this government and the Minister of Energy was that Mr Holt must leave before the end of October and in fact before the appointment of a new chairman, and, therefore, the meeting was called to deal with the situation even though Mr Holt was out of the country. Was that something strictly between Mr Eliesen and the board, Mr Minister, without your being informed, or were you aware of this meeting and the purpose of it?

Hon Mr Charlton: As I said to the Leader of the Opposition in response to a question earlier, the question of succession at Hydro was brought to my attention. As a result of that knowledge, I wrote a letter to the chair. That is quite different from the member's contention that somehow this minister or this government started that discussion.

Mr Jordan: The minister earlier stated that he was informed by a press release; now he's telling us a different story. I think the people of Ontario deserve to know if you, the Minister of Energy, realize your responsibility and accountability to the people of Ontario under Bill 118. Did you really and truly not participate in even the lead-up to this decision that Mr Holt should be relieved of his duties?

I understand from his speech and presentation to the Quarter Century Club that you and others were very displeased with some of his remarks, especially a short story which he told in fun about a canoe club and why one club was leading the other one. The case was that there was a heavy weight in the nose of the Hydro canoe. I understand that weight in the nose of the Hydro canoe is leaving --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member complete his supplementary, please.

Mr Jordan: -- at the end of October and he's going to see, with your assistance, that the president goes with him. Is my assumption correct?

Hon Mr Charlton: That was a lengthy comment, and I'm not sure of all the assumptions he wanted me to respond to in that set of comments. I might say at the outset --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South, come to order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- some of the comments the member for Lanark-Renfrew and his leader have made over the course of the last 10 months since I've been in the ministry could have led people to believe they were dissatisfied with Mr Holt's performance as chief operational officer at Hydro as well, but I don't think that's precisely the issue here. I think the issue here is whether or not --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- as the member asked me originally, I directed or influenced Mr Holt's leaving. He's tried to tie that to a comment I made about a retirement last week. The whole point is that any decisions in that respect are the decisions of the Hydro board, not this minister.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I'm sure we'll have an opportunity later on today to review in Hansard the statements the minister has made and to reflect back on the statements he made in this House last week and attempt to reconcile what seem to be somewhat contradictory statements. We will certainly be interested in the minister's seeming to have a greater awareness of the situation than might have been conveyed to him solely through a press release.

But while we await the minister's public release of the letter, as he's indicated he will do -- and I acknowledge that I have not seen a copy of that letter because it was not left with Hydro board members; it was not tabled with them individually; it was read out -- I ask the minister whether it is his belief that there is anything in that letter which would reasonably lead Hydro board members to believe that with a letter over the signature of the minister there was, if not a recommendation for Mr Holt's retirement being sought, at the very least an instruction that Mr Holt was not to remain with Hydro.

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, as I said earlier in a response today and as I said to some of the media who spoke to me last week, my concern and the expressions that were set out in my letter were about the management of Ontario Hydro and a difficult period Ontario Hydro has to go through and that in the context that I understood succession matters were being discussed I thought it would be useful if the new chair of Ontario Hydro were a part of any decisions made.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps I could just ask the minister for one further word of explanation on something which seems to us quite inexplicable. The minister has suggested that he's aware that Ontario Hydro is going through what he calls a "range of transitions," which some of us might describe as sheer chaos. In light of the fact that Ontario Hydro is facing some very critical situations and has some very tough decisions to make, it seems a little unusual that Mr Holt would be leaving as quickly as he is now leaving; I believe the date is October 12. Mr Eliesen of course is leaving by the end of the month.

It would appear that there's a period of time in which there will be nobody in charge of Ontario Hydro. Can the minister explain how this situation could possibly have been allowed to occur and assure us again that he had nothing whatsoever to do with creating this chaos?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again I refer to questions that came from both of the opposition parties earlier this year which would have described some of what's going on at Hydro as chaos in any event. The decisions being made by the board of Hydro, whatever precisely they may be, are decisions that, under the act, are assigned to the board of Ontario Hydro, specifically the president's position. This minister, although he has expressed his concerns about Hydro rate increases, the need to cut operating expenses at Hydro and a number of other issues, has not directed the dismissal of anyone.

Mr Jordan: My question again is for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, did the fact that the policy that Mr Holt was pursuing to have approximately 2,000 personnel of Ontario Hydro leave on an early retirement plan and the fact that CUPE was against using over $62 million of the pension fund for that purpose -- do we have a case here where the union overruled the president?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite is, I guess, clearly indicating that he hasn't been following the issue of Ontario Hydro operations very closely at all.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: This minister issued a press release about two and a half weeks ago and spoke publicly to the media and this province about the need for Ontario Hydro to pursue cuts further than what were already accomplished, and this minister stands by those comments. The need to get Ontario Hydro costs of operation and capital programs under control is paramount in these difficult times.

Mr Jordan: Mr Minister, I can recall, when Mr Franklin was leaving, the Premier stating that they had given him a choice. The Premier stated he was given the opportunity to stay on if he so wished.

If you, Mr Minister, and your government had absolutely nothing to do with the leaving of Mr Holt and you heard about the resignation or the proposal for early retirement or the dismissal, whichever your letter stated -- we are looking forward to seeing it -- did you consider at that time a letter to Mr Holt, giving him the opportunity to reconsider and stay employed as president and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member is displaying his total confusion in this case. Mr Franklin was the president and chairman of Ontario Hydro. The chairman's position is a Premier's appointment. The Premier and the government had some direct role in that position. Under the legislation the member was a part of moving through this House, the president's position, which Mr Holt holds, is separate from the chairman's position, which is the Premier's appointment. The president's position, under

section 6 of the act, is clearly and exclusively the responsibility of the Ontario Hydro board.

NOTICES OF REGISTERED RENT

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Middlesex.

Mrs Mathyssen: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question in the House. My question is to the Minister of Housing. Madam Minister, I understand from a situation in my own riding that notices of information regarding legal rents have gone out from your ministry. Is this happening on a province-wide basis?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The answer is yes. Many members will have heard about this happening within their own ridings. The Ministry of Housing, under the previous residential rent act, was obliged through regulation to send out notices of registered rent, those rents which had been registered by landlords with the rent registry office. Those notices have been mailed out over the last several months to about 285,000 rental households in Ontario so that tenants can be made aware of what rent is registered officially as the rent, and therefore they're able to calculate what their rent should be if the legal increases have been followed.

What it has meant is that about 6,000 rental households have made an application for a rent rebate based on those notices. That's worth about $3 million, if they're all approved, for tenant households in Ontario.

VICTIM FINE SURCHARGE

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General regarding the victim fine surcharge. Last week I received a confidential phone call from an Ontario judge to express great concern on the misappropriation of the funds collected by this surcharge. In fact, this particular judge indicated to me that there was a wide consensus among the judges in Ontario that this was a misappropriation of trust funds.

Five other attorneys general in the country, five other provinces, established trust funds for the fine surcharges. They acknowledge that the moneys collected were collected in trust. This Attorney General deposited $800,000 into his general account and as a solicitor, as an attorney, he should well know his responsibilities for trust funds. It was sad and pathetic to see the minister on Focus Ontario indicate that judges were speaking out of turn on this issue in saying that there was a misappropriation of funds, that they ought not to be talking about this issue.

My question is this: In view of the fact that five attorneys general in this country, five provinces of this country, have acknowledged that these funds are trust moneys and these five provinces have set up trust funds, will the minister now acknowledge that it is proper and appropriate and moral for him to immediately segregate this $800,000 and put it into a trust fund, as most attorneys general acknowledge is proper?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Mr Speaker, allow me to try to cut through some of the rhetoric and the bombast which I assume is intended to substitute for the lack of any real focus to the question.

The fact of the matter is that in 1989 the federal government passed enabling legislation which would enable provinces to set up, if they wished, special funds using a victim fine surcharge scheme of operation. The fact of the matter is that five provinces have taken the federal government up on that; five have not. Some of those that have taken up the federal government on that have encountered some difficulty with the operation of their victim fine surcharge scheme. Some, like Ontario, have looked at the different schemes that can be operated and how those schemes might be operated.

That is all that there is to this. We have talked with other provinces, with victim advocacy groups around the province, to determine how this might be operated. As for the rest of the member's question, I am sorry; he can make as much bombast out of this as he wishes; there is nothing more to it.

Mr Chiarelli: The real focus of the question is the fact that this minister recently rejected a request for $78,000 for the victim services program of Hamilton-Wentworth, a project which that community gives high priority to because of circumstances in that community. Having collected $800,000 of what a consensus of judges and five provinces called trust funds, he lets that $800,000 go into the general revenues of the province, misleading the judges of this province, and yet he denies $78,000 to the community of Hamilton-Wentworth, which is in dire need of these funds for its victim services program.

Minister, are you prepared today to transfer that $800,000 to a special trust account and are you prepared to consider using $78,000 of that money for Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, to correct the wrong impressions that the member tries to create, this ministry already funds a victim-witness program in Hamilton. It's a very effective victim-witness assistance program. It is true that Hamilton has made a request for some other services. That request went to the Ministry of the Solicitor General, since that is a program that is administered by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and they were told there were not funds available. Frankly, in these difficult economic times, governments across the country, governments across the continent, receive requests from all kinds of organizations which we are simply not able to meet.

Let me point out to the member opposite that he says there is $822,000 that has been collected that hasn't gone towards victims. This is the amount of money that has gone towards victims: $9.8 million to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, despite the fact that the federal government has taken its contribution out; $70 million to the wife assault prevention initiative; $17 million to the sexual assault prevention initiative, and many millions of dollars to the victim-witness assistance program, over $100 million, far more than that party was ever able to contribute or willing to contribute to victims when it was the government.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, as we've been in the schools in the last couple of weeks, and I'm sure many members of this Legislative Assembly have been, I think there are many parents and teachers and certainly trustees, as well as members of this assembly, who are beginning to think your ministry is simply out of control.

We get so many questions with regard to: Where is the finance solution? When will the Fair Tax Commission's report be tabled? Where is your comprehensive document on destreaming? When will you announce the capital grants that should have been announced last spring? Why have you asked the school boards to remark on your Benchmarks on Mathematics documents, which are simply just benchmarks documents. They're drafts for grades 3, 6 and 9. We've heard that governance is being discussed, and we've actually had the rumour that school boards will be dismantled and parent groups will take over. There is such chaos.

The last one is, how do you expect these school boards to work together and coordinate when you don't give them the resources to do it?

My question, Mr Minister, is, with all of these issues, if you had to accomplish one thing between now and the end of this fall session, what will you specifically work on and get done before we break for Christmas?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): There were so many questions in that question that I'm not sure how to begin to address it, but if I can go from the actual question that was asked, I think what I can say to the member opposite, who I know is very interested not just as the critic but personally in all of these issues, is that it's my expectation that certainly during this session it will be possible for us to set out in a fairly clear fashion some of the directions we would like to explore or proceed with in all those areas.

I think some of the questions she's asked she already has the answers to. She knows, for example, with respect to the financing issue that we have two processes that are under way which are coming together later this fall. The Fair Tax Commission process, the property tax working group, whose report we are expecting shortly, will give us, we hope, some good options or some good ideas with respect to the issue of how moneys for education should be raised and funded.

We are working through the advisory council I have established, and it's been meeting now over the summer for some time, on looking at the general legislative grants and what other options we should put in place to improve the system we've got in place now.

I think the documents we've put out with respect to benchmarks are our ongoing way to consult with school boards around some of these changes, but as I say, I would think we should be in a position later this fall to be able to come forward with some of these issues that are put together in a more coherent fashion.

Mrs Cunningham: This is a traditional question that's been asked for the last four falls when we've gone back to school, since I've been in this House, first of all to the Liberal government, which was working on these same benchmarks, this same curriculum, this same finance, this same partnership, this same coordination, and all we get is, "We're going to discuss." The education community and the schools of this province need leadership, and it's totally missing.

My supplementary question to the minister is with regard to something that is extremely important, and that's accountability. I would like the minister to stand up in this House and tell me how a draft document, Benchmarks on Mathematics, for grades 3, 6 and 9, will prove, or what kind of good advice it will give to parents about how well the students in those elementary and secondary grades are doing across the province of Ontario? How will they be accountable? Marks, grades: How will they be accountable? Specifically tell me how.

Hon Mr Silipo: The accountability isn't resolved with one draft document. The point of the draft document is to set out some options and some ways in which we can get to a point in our school system where we can say very clearly to parents and others in the community and the system itself -- in which we can, first of all, delineate very clearly the kinds of expectations we have of the system, the kinds of skills our students should be able to master by various points in their education career, and then be able to have a framework that measures that progress in a way that's understandable not just to teachers but is also understandable to parents.

That is done, as all good teachers can tell us, by looking at a combination of factors: by looking at written tests, by looking at the kind of work students do on a day-to-day basis, by looking at assignments they are given. It's that combination of all of those things, that kind of examination by a teacher of the students' progress, using all of those tracking tools, that in fact will tell us how well students are doing.

That's the kind of process we believe we need to develop, that's the kind of process we are developing. At the heart of it is our strong belief that our system needs to be clearly accountable to the parents in the system.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act were first proposed, there was much speculation as to what effect they would have on the farm community. Recognizing that the needs of the farm workers are unique, the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations was developed.

My riding of Wentworth North consists of many farmers. In fact, Wentworth North is one of the largest producers of broccoli in the world. There have been many questions and legitimate concerns about what direction agricultural labour relations are going in. Could the minister explain to the farmers of Ontario exactly what the status of the task force is and how long it will be until agricultural labour relations are implemented?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The task force report on agriculture and labour was released on June 26 with several recommendations. On August 27, the Ministry of Labour announced, on behalf of the government, that we would accept all the recommendations contained in the task force report.

Included in the recommendations was one to have separate legislation to deal with agricultural workers; there was a recommendation not to have strikes in the agricultural sector, there was a recommendation to have an alternative dispute settlement mechanism, and there was also a recommendation to have education to educate farmers, farm workers, about rights under any legislation that might be introduced.

The Minister of Labour then asked the task force to go ahead and do some more work on how those recommendations would look and how they might be put in place. They were to report to him at the end of September.

It's been going very well. They've been cooperating very well with government and with organized labour. They've asked for an extension, in order to report, of a few more days, and they're coming back with their report.

Mr Abel: I'm sure the farmers not only of Wentworth North but also from all over the province are anxious to know when you expect to have the legislation brought before the House.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Assuming that the task force is able to work out all the minor glitches -- they have been doing very well in coming together and coming up with recommendations, as I understand it -- probably a week or two after we receive that report, legislation could be introduced in the House.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question, again to the Minister of Agriculture.

I was listening very closely to the last response because, Mr Minister, you will know that presently, under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, agricultural and horticultural workers are excluded. You will also know that under Bill 40, the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act, this exemption for the farm community has been eliminated.

I think you should recognize, and we want to hear from you, that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in our public hearings process has indicated that it wants that exclusion for farm workers to continue until separate legislation has been established.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture is, what is your position? Do you agree with the Minister of Labour that the exclusion for the agricultural community should be eliminated, or do you agree with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which demands that the exclusion be reinstated?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It's not a matter of agreeing with one or the other. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has worked with and supported the work of the task force, which suggests that there be separate legislation. Calling for exemptions under any regulation or any other legislation is not a moot point here. They are supporting separate legislation, which will be introduced, as I mentioned a few minutes ago. It's not an either/or circumstance by any means.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Agriculture just does not understand the ramifications of Bill 40. You are supposed to be an advocate for the farming community. You will know that under Bill 40 the exclusion that now exists for farm workers in this province has been eliminated and replaced by potential inclusion by regulation.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture -- and I am receiving many telephone calls and letters from the farm community across this province -- is very concerned. They want you to stand up and say you are against that portion of Bill 40 which may include them by way of regulation. They want you to stand up and tell them what your position is. Are you in favour of the position of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which wants that exclusion to continue until separate legislation is introduced, or are you in favour of that portion of Bill 40 by the Minister of Labour which may very well include the agricultural workers in this province by way of regulation? What is your position?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'll try and make this as clear for the member as possible. I said a few minutes ago that there will be separate legislation introduced which will deal with agriculture, that that will be introduced probably in the next two or three weeks; any period of time between when Bill 40 would be ratified in this House and the introduction and passing of a separate piece of legislation will probably be in the order of two to three weeks at most. It seems rather unreasonable to suggest that we extend the exclusion for a two- to three-week period. It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The farm community, including the OFA, is willing to work with this government cooperatively in developing the legislation, in developing the recommendations that came from the task force. They have been working with us as part of that group. They're not out there beating the government over the head, saying, "We want to be excluded for ever." They're willing to work with us, and I applaud the OFA and the other farm groups for the work they have done with this government on labour relations.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Minister, a woman by the name of Linda Peake, who is 42 years old, was involved in a car accident on January 27, 1991. In that car accident she was rendered a quadriplegic. There was no auto insurance whatsoever to pay her accident benefits. The only place she can go for accident benefits is to your motor vehicle accident claims fund.

Let me tell you a little bit about Ms Peake. She presently has no control over her legs. She has no control over her bowels or bladder. She has an indwelling catheter. Attendants have to help her with bowel movements. She needs a seatbelt to hold her into her wheelchair.

You're the claims manager of the motor vehicle accident claims fund. Why have you not paid her her accident benefits? There is no auto insurance.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions: I thank the member, first of all, for raising the case with me. Obviously I'm not familiar with this particular individual case. I don't have the statistics and I can't answer the question as to why she hasn't been paid yet. I'm certainly prepared to look into that and get the member an answer.

Mr Harnick: Minister, the other day you made a speech about your new auto policy, your new auto plan. It was more of an apology than a speech; it was an apology to the people of Ontario. But one of the things you said was, "The right to sue for economic loss is being replaced by a comprehensive system of automatic" -- and I stress the word "automatic" -- "no-fault accident benefits for economic loss."

Sir, you're the claims manager of the motor vehicle accident claims fund, you have full control of that fund right now, and I can tell you that Linda Peake's benefits, which you control, have been far from automatic. I will also tell you that there's not a person in this province who can trust the fact that you're bringing in a scheme where payments will be automatic, because that will not be the case.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Harnick: Why has this lady not been given her benefits by you?

Hon Mr Charlton: I think there are three parts to the member's question that need to be responded to, and responded to in a fairly measured way. Firstly, my comments last week were no apology about the best benefits package anywhere in Canada.

Mr Harnick: Automatic benefits.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly --

Mr Harnick: "Automatic"; address "automatic."

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale posed a question. Perhaps he would like to hear the response.

Mr Harnick: I would like an answer.

The Speaker: If the member for Willowdale will come to order, he will have an opportunity to hear a response.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly, the no-fault benefits in the insurance package obviously are tied to an assumption around compulsory auto insurance, and some difficulties have arisen in this case because there was no insurance. I'm prepared to find out why the fund hasn't paid and ensure, given that there aren't circumstances that haven't been relayed to me by the member, that they should be paid.

Thirdly, the member refers to automatic accident benefits versus the right to sue. Obviously, nothing is automatic in the context of those situations where there are extenuating circumstances.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Most people would remember that in the budget of 1992 the Treasurer had announced that we would be going to a different system --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Bisson: -- by which we pay taxes on used vehicles.

What I really would like to know --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: As I was saying, in the budget of 1992 the Treasurer had announced that we would be changing the system by which retail sales tax is collected on secondhand, used vehicles. As some people would know, October 1 was the deadline by which that system was put in place. I talked to a number of constituents over the weekend, at a number of different venues within the riding, about how it would work.

For example, if I go out and buy a used vehicle that the Red Book price says, let's say, is worth $3,000, but because the car has got maybe 150,000 or 200,000 kilometres on it, the doors are falling off -- it looks something like my car -- how would the tax be applied to that particular vehicle if the actual value of the car would be less than the Red Book value?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): The new system did come in and was implemented on October 1, and it's based upon the assumption that almost all taxable private sales occur at wholesale price or better. However, vehicles that have been subject to excessive use or damage, as the member's has been, in an accident, can be expected to have a reduced value. If you paid less than the Red Book wholesale value, and this is supported by an independent vehicle appraisal, you will be able to apply for a refund from the Ministry of Revenue for the amount of tax overpaid. These refund applications should be made available at your local MTO office.

Mr Bisson: I, along with a number of other people, would be happy to hear that.

The second

part is that there is a system that was also introduced at the same time, and it's already the situation that if you buy a wrecked vehicle from a scrapyard that you want to bring to your place to take parts out in order to rebuild, you have to register the vehicle in order to be able to transfer it. In regard to the retail sales tax on that particular issue, how would that be applied in the case of a wrecked vehicle? Obviously the Red Book value is nowhere near what it would be worth as far as the vehicle that you would find somewhere in a junkyard for parts. How would you apply the tax in that particular case?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Yes, purchasers have always been responsible for the registration and payment of retail sales tax on wrecked vehicles. A tax refund, again, may be obtained if you can provide an independent appraisal certificate to the Ministry of Revenue.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I want to indicate at the outset that in respect to the referendum question I am undecided at this point in time, but I have some concerns and I'm looking for answers from you, Mr Speaker, in respect to the fact that a number of members in the Legislature today -- and I'm not sure if members of the opposition are supporting them but certainly members of the government are, including members of cabinet -- wear large buttons taking a particular position in respect to the question of the referendum, and I have some concerns about that display and the fact that members are standing up, for example, asking questions or responding to questions, and this is televised across the province.

They're taking a particular position, and I think perhaps, based on the traditions of this House, that is an inappropriate display and I'm looking for your guidance in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Leeds-Grenville: I very much appreciate the point the member has raised. I would like to reserve on this one and give it a bit of thought.

I realize the House has not made a determination with respect to the referendum with respect to any particular activities of the assembly. The member will know -- and all members will know -- that we discourage members of the House from protesting in any way, shape or form in the House by way of buttons, badges or anything else. But I'd like to give some thought to this one and I will get back to the member later on. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Is it on the same point? Member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): If, during the period when you're giving this matter consideration, you'd like to take a close look at any of those buttons, Mr Speaker, I'd be glad to make mine available to you.

The Speaker: Always generous. The member for Oriole.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I'd ask for your guidance in directing me to the appropriate standing order as I make this point. It has come to my attention that once again the Premier, who left question period today after barely the first 20 minutes of a one-hour session, is not going to be available in this House for the rest of this week. Last week the Premier was here for just one day. I've placed notice that I have a question of the Premier. I had one of him today -- you saw me stand to ask that question. He left before I had a chance to place it. He was not here last week for me to place it.

Question period, Mr Speaker, as you know, is the time when the government and the leader of the government stand accountable for their policies, and members of the official opposition become very frustrated when the Premier and his ministers -- but the Premier in particular -- do not have the courtesy to stay through question period to answer those questions.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Oriole will know that there is nothing in the standing orders which compels the attendance of any member of the House, so your Speaker is unable to assist you in having certain ministers attend question period, or indeed any other activity of the chamber. Motions? Point of order?

Mrs Caplan: I would like to state a point of order --

The Speaker: I just ruled on it.

Mrs Caplan: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker, but there is a point of order which speaks to decorum in the House, and I believe the fact that the Premier is not available to answer questions in this House day after day for members of the opposition creates a problem that you should be aware of.

The Speaker: The member stretches things a bit. The member for Etobicoke West.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, my point of order is the previous point of order that was drawn to your attention by the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Speaker, we have a by-election coming up in the not-too-distant future and I'm certain all parties will want to wear buttons into this House with respect to that by-election. So I think a decision by you is necessary, and the proper decision in my mind is to ensure that buttons, demonstrations and political baggage not be brought forward into this House, as I think all --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I've obviously unsettled the government members.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I understand full well the member's point. It is indeed an issue which deserves some attention, and as I responded to the member for Leeds-Grenville, I will consider this matter and I will be back to you later on. Motions? Another point of order?

Mr Stockwell: I wasn't quite finished my point of order.

The Speaker: Could the member be brief, please.

Mr Stockwell: Sure. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wasn't referring, of course, to anyone in particular when I suggested political baggage, although I would suggest the backbenchers across the floor are in fact political baggage.

Mr Speaker, the question I'd like to point out to you clearly is that with respect to the by-election coming up, all parties could bring in buttons and paraphernalia and it would turn into a circus-like atmosphere. I ask that you rule quickly.

On the previous point of order, it is very frustrating to sit on the opposition side and have a Premier who will only show up now for one and a half of the previous seven days and the --

The Speaker: Would the honourable member take his seat. I have dealt with both points which he has raised.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

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

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

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

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

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

I've added my signature to the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition from St John's United Church, Elmvale, that has to do with the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of a legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship for many families. The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

That's signed by 42 people.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition signed by some 333 of my constituents and I have as well attached my name to it. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, request an answer to our desperate need of a long-term care facility. Separating our seniors 120 kilometres is intolerable."

Again, it's signed by 333 constituents of mine.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by concerned public-minded citizens from Oakville and the surrounding area, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the amateur sports teams and charitable organizations across Ontario derive their financial support from the proceeds of bingos and various Monte Carlo nights; and

"Whereas the NDP government has legalized casinos and is considering other forms of gambling;

"Whereas this action will render it increasingly more difficult for amateur sports teams and charitable organizations to raise funds to support their amateur sports and charities; and

"Whereas the volunteers who operate these facilities are not looking for handouts and seek only to raise funds to support their amateur sports teams and charitable organizations,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the government maintains the ability of these amateur sports teams and organizations to continue to raise the needed support money through bingos and various Monte Carlo nights."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 44 people from St Paul Street United Church who are in opposition to Bill 38, which legalizes wide-open Sunday shopping. The petition states:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have signed my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature to that and I am in agreement with it.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This petition is signed by over 500 people from the riding of Markham. It's properly made out, my name is affixed to it and it is on one of the subjects that is touching on the people of York, Durham and Peel.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 19 proposed sites in the region of York as possible candidates for landfill, two of which are in the riding of Markham;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act,

section 5(3); and

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environment assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario,

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for the greater Toronto area waste."

It is so presented and submitted to the Legislature and affixed with my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I have a petition signed by approximately 40 people, who cite a number of good reasons why they petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario "to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully, but with equity and equality."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and its plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented,

"Therefore, the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

That's signed by 15 names and I've attached my signature to it.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario: "Whereas we, the undersigned, are against market value assessment...." These signatures come from the whole Niagara area, and there are approximately 2,000 signatures.

GAMBLING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to table a petition signed by concerned constituents in my riding of Oakville South, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government intends to legalize casinos and is considering other forms of gambling in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas studies have been done which indicate, where casinos are found, they were inseparable from organized criminal activities; and

"Whereas most forms of gambling end up being a tax on those least able to pay; and

"Whereas gambling produces in many people a terrible addiction; and

"Whereas it would be more appropriate for the government to cut expenditures than attempt to increase revenue through expanded lotteries,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop looking to casinos as a quick-fix solution to pay down the deficit."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have a petition here signed by yet more residents in terms of school funding, and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two provincial education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I do affix my signature to this as well.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have three petitions, but I'm only going to read one of them into the record. It has to do with the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated 3 June 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

That petition was sent with 103 names from the Bethel Baptist Church of Orillia. I have one from the Salvation Army in Orillia with 34 names, and the other one is from the St John's United Church in Alliston with 42 names.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by about 480 London Home Builders' Association members, who respectfully request that Bill 40 be set aside. I have not signed my name to this petition because I do in fact support Bill 40.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated 3 June 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter" -- that's 51 per year -- "from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I will affix my signature to this petition, and it comes from the Westburne Alliance Church in St Catharines.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 54 residents of Middlesex, London, St Thomas, Lambeth and Scottsville who respectfully ask that the arbitrator's report of the greater London and Middlesex annexation be set aside because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings. It awards too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London and will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PINECREST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ACT, 1992

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

Bill Pr44,

An Act to revive Pinecrest Community Association

LAMBDA CHI ALPHA ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO (INCORPORATED) ACT, 1992

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

Bill Pr67,

An Act to revive Lambda Chi Alpha Alumni Association of Toronto (Incorporated)

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1992

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

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LES ASSURANCES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance matters / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to address the need for reform of the Ontario automobile insurance system. Few would question the need for insurance reform in Ontario. After all, there are many problems with the previous government's system. Just to name a few: It leaves too many accident victims grossly undercompensated, its unrealistic constraints limit prospects for rehabilitation of too many of those seriously injured and it shuts the door on too many accident victims' ability to sue for pain and suffering.

Last week, the member for Essex South, in his apologia for the Ontario motorist protection plan, talked about the NDP leadership failing to understand the need for profit. I would suggest that the former government clearly understood the need for profit and where to put it, and that was exactly in the pockets of the insurance companies -- in the first six quarters, $1 billion.

For those of you in televisionland, $1 billion in profit was reported in the first six quarters after the OMPP was established. This meant that premiums were often unjustifiably high for some drivers who were inappropriately classified, and the system that was instituted by the former government simply doesn't address safety issues adequately, if at all.

Our auto insurance reforms are vastly different. They will benefit more than six million drivers in Ontario, not the insurance companies, which pocketed a windfall profit as I described earlier. Specifically, our package offers real improvements: automatic and reasonable benefits to all injured persons, significantly enhanced and new compensation, greater recognition of pain and suffering losses and affordable reforms and stable rates.

Our compensation plan is an innovative breakthrough. It will provide accident victims with the most generous and equitable benefits anywhere in Canada while providing fairer recognition of the pain and suffering of innocent accident victims.

Under the Liberal plan, Ontario motorists are now paying for inadequate accident benefits that fall far short of the income replacement needs of many. The limited funds available for supporting injured persons with permanent disabilities simply don't keep pace with inflation, and they fail to recognize the loss of future earning potential of people in special circumstances: those not in the workforce at the time of the accident either because they are students and are not yet working or are care givers who have temporarily left the workforce to look after a child or an elderly parent.

As we designed the new compensation system, our goal was to guarantee that everyone who is injured in an auto accident has ready access to fair and reasonable compensation immediately. Everyone, regardless of fault, has economic needs and must be compensated for income losses and care and rehabilitation costs. That's why people buy insurance: to ensure that they are taken care of when injured in an accident.

These principles could only be accommodated through a system of structured accident benefits for economic losses. Structured benefits are immediately and automatically available. People can continue to pay mortgages and care for their families without having to wait years for a court settlement. Structured benefits offer speedy access to rehabilitation, which reduces the cost in the long term. Scheduled benefits provide assurances of reliable and reasonable compensation, assurances which are critical in dealing with economic losses, assurances which are not possible through the court system.

As we talked about last week, the third-party approach to accident benefits is a 649 approach, where some win big and some don't win at all. Compensation through the courts is random and uncertain; it is based on the concept of fault. But fault is often unclear, and anyone can make a human error. Roadway hazards, weather conditions and car failures, like a blown tire, just make the risk worse. Court claims can often take years to settle, and the chance of a person's recovery after waiting this long will diminish.

Tort awards for future losses are based on a one-time assessment of needs, using a number of difficult and complex assumptions about the future. This results in some people being overcompensated and others undercompensated.

An adversarial system is a costly and uncertain way of compensating even the limited few. There are other things we have to keep in mind as well. There may be no one to sue. Take the university student driving home for the holidays who hits a patch of black ice, hits no one and is permanently injured. The student has no one to sue and can't be compensated for future economic losses under the Liberal plan. The other person may have insufficient liability insurance to provide benefits or an injured person may be badly served within the judicial system.

The courts and liability shouldn't be used at the expense of adequate benefits for all injured people. When designing our accident benefit schedule, we did so keeping in mind that income benefits replace income during recovery and future earning capacity as a result of permanent impairment. We were also mindful of the cost of rehabilitation and care and the fact that the sooner people receive help, the quicker they can return to leading productive and full lives.

Let me discuss the balance we've tried to strike between enhanced benefits and achieving fair treatment of innocent accident victims. Under the Liberal plan, suing for pain and suffering is severely restricted to serious, permanent physical injury, disfigurement or death. Mr Speaker, I don't know about in your riding, but I've never seen a U-Haul travelling behind a hearse in Scarborough Centre.

Those suffering psychological injuries are ignored no matter how serious the psychological injuries might be. Translated into numbers, the previous government's restrictions allow access to courts for about 5,000 injured persons per year who are not totally at fault.

Our new system takes a new and different approach in defining who gets access to the courts for compensation for their pain and suffering. Anyone not totally at fault will be able to sue for these non-economic losses, subject to a $15,000 deductible. This deductible is roughly equivalent to a lower threshold. We estimate the use of the deductible will result in three times as many people, or about 15,000 people annually, having access to the courts for compensation for their pain and suffering, including that arising from psychological injuries. This change is significant.

Many people seriously injured can't sue under the Liberal plan, despite their very substantial pain and suffering. Their lives are disrupted, and yet they have no special recognition of their non-economic losses.

In addition, we will allow claims for loss of care, companionship and guidance under the Family Law Act, subject to a $5,000 deductible.

We recognize the courts are well equipped to determine fault and make judgements about harder-to-define laws such as pain and suffering or enjoyment of life. Simply put, pain and suffering is not suited to a fixed

schedule of benefits as economic losses are. Individual assessments are needed for these types of losses. We believe we have struck a balance enabling seriously injured people to sue for their pain and suffering while ensuring the right of all accident victims to have reasonable and automatic compensation for economic loss.

The previous government's system fails not only those involved in accidents, it fails consumers miserably. Let me give you a few examples. During the 1980s, premiums increased faster than inflation, and at one point they actually skyrocketed. In an attempt to control claims costs, insurers became more selective about whom they were willing to insure. As a result, large groups of drivers had great difficulty in getting insurance at regular market rates. Unfair rates and poor customer service became increasingly common.

Many drivers, even drivers with clear records, now pay extremely high rates and are unfairly put into the Facility Association. The Facility Association showed a profit in 1991 because many good drivers are still assigned to it. Consumers have little opportunity to challenge their insurance company successfully, whether on the rates they pay or on being placed unfairly in the Facility Association.

Premiums are inconsistent. Drivers with similar records, similar cars and driving patterns pay widely different rates, varying from region to region and from insurer to insurer. There is no uniform classification among the more than 150 companies that write auto insurance policies in this province. This limits competition and makes comparison shopping impossible. Drivers don't know how and aren't encouraged to improve their premium rating. Complex language and policies and other consumer materials further reduce opportunities to compare products and services.

Our legislation provides reforms that address the problems I have just outlined. It delivers reasonable compensation quickly and efficiently to all people hurt in auto accidents. It promotes safer and more responsible driving, which will ultimately reduce accidents and claims costs. It will fairly assess responsibility and will do so in a way which is both fair and affordable.

I have just outlined why there is such a great need to reform the system and why we chose the directions we did. This bill prescribes major and immediate improvements to the auto insurance system in Ontario. It also enables regulatory changes to support ongoing, comprehensive reform down the road. The result will be a fairer, more accessible system which provides assurances of reasonable accident compensation for all Ontarians, the kinds of assurances which must be provided in a compulsory auto insurance system.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions and comments?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): You know, I'm just getting sick of people standing up and telling me that every accident is caused by momentary inattention, that somebody just took his eye off the road for a second. Let me tell you that the statistics show that accidents are caused because people speed. They speed deliberately. They make improper left turns. They try to beat the car coming in the other direction; they do it deliberately. They drink when they drive; they do it deliberately. So don't tell me that accidents are caused by momentary inattention, because the bulk of them are not. They're caused by people deliberately doing the wrong thing. That's the first thing.

Second thing: This idea people have that you have to be in favour of accident benefits but you can't at the same time be in favour of a tort law scheme shows a basic misunderstanding of the whole principle behind auto insurance as we've had it in this province and as it has operated successfully for about 25 years. The fact of the matter is that everybody believes accident benefits should be available to people who are at fault and to people who are innocent, and those accident benefits should be at reasonable rates, but i