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

November 2, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The final report of the Clare Lewis Race Relations and Policing Task Force was to have been released on October 27. That date has come and gone and we are still waiting for the report.

My understanding is that the report is being held up until the French translation is completed, although the task force's two interim reports, as you recall, were released without waiting for the French text to be prepared.

Somehow it's suggested that the Premier's office asked or told the task force not to release the report at this time. Can the Premier tell us if he or someone from his staff called the task force to ask it not to release the report last week? It was due last week. If this is the case, is it appropriate for the Premier's office to intervene in the work of an independent task force? We have seen that happen before, anyhow. If the report has been completed, why should it not be released?

I also gather that the Solicitor General or anyone in his office somehow has seen the report in either a final or a draft form. I want to know if they have seen that.

Can the Solicitor General tell us when the report will be made public?

The Premier announced the re-establishment of the task force with much fanfare. Will he tell us what's going on now, because we don't know. Maybe this report can shed some light on what is happening with the situation with the police and the government at this time.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This morning the Coalition to Keep Ontario Working presented me with some bricks intended for presentation to the NDP cabinet. These bricks illustrate their frustration and anger at the government's refusal to recognize the devastating impact Bill 40 will have on our economy.

Each of these bricks was once part of a productive factory or commercial building which provided employees with jobs and housed equipment that produced income and goods for our province. It is ironic that the one industry benefiting from this government's policies is the demolition industry which, I am told, is the largest-growth industry in Ontario.

I should point out that unlike the early 1980s, when there was also much demolition, these demolitions today are not for the purposes of rebuilding; they are simply to get the buildings off the tax rolls. The buildings these represent have been torn down and the site is now a vacant lot. The companies have closed and the employees have lost their jobs.

I can assure you that when Bill 40 is passed, more bricks will go to the dump and thousands of people will lose their jobs. Although this government rejects the assertion that Bill 40 will kill jobs, it has never conducted an economic impact study of its own.

I urge this government to kill Bill 40 before it kills jobs and to remember that you have a responsibility to build Ontario's economy, not destroy it.

ALMOST HOME

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I rise to acknowledge a most welcome event in the Kingston area, the official opening of Almost Home, a home away from home for families with sick children.

Every month Kingston's two acute care hospitals, the General and Hotel Dieu, treat about 100 children with serious medical problems. Many of these children face long, hard and often frightening fights with illness and disability.

It is essential that these young patients receive support from their families. This becomes a major challenge when the child could be sick for weeks, months or even years. There are also new stresses on parents and brothers and sisters. Family life is disrupted, there is financial strain from extra expenses and continual tiredness from worry, travel -- since the children often live an average of 70 kilometres from Kingston -- and fitful sleep.

Almost Home will be a haven for these families. Situated within walking distance of both hospitals, it will provide families with accommodation in a homelike setting, an opportunity to prepare their own meals and a place where they can be close to their child yet get away from the hospital for a few hours. There will also be a variety of professional and volunteer services to help nurture the emotional health of all family members. Almost Home represents an important advance in caring for the whole child, a chance to combine the best in medical treatment with the long-term benefits of emotional health.

A service like this isn't cheap. It will cost almost $1 million just to set up and there will be operating costs as well. Perhaps most impressive of all is that the funding for Almost Home is entirely in the hands of volunteers, who have raised nearly 75% of their capital costs.

I encourage everyone in the large area served by Kingston's medical facilities to visit Almost Home at 118 William Street.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): At 11 am today on the front steps of the Legislature, the Coalition to Keep Ontario Working presented bricks, such as these, for all MPPs. With it went a letter, which reads in part:

"To all provincial ministers:

"Dear Minister:

"This brick was once part of a productive factory. It housed employees and equipment that produced income and goods for our province. It paid federal, provincial and municipal taxes. Today this brick is likely destined to become landfill.

"The company enclosed has been shut. The employees have lost their jobs. The building has been torn down and the site is a vacant lot. As you prepare to vote on Bill 40, please remember that if it passes, millions of bricks will be sent to the dump, and hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs and pay.

"The Coalition to Keep Ontario Working asks all MPPs to help prevent this. Kill Bill 40 before it kills jobs. Please keep this brick as a reminder of your responsibility to the public: to build the Ontario economy, not destroy it through legislation which drives out employment.

"Bricks should be building materials, not landfill."

Bill 40 is being pushed ahead by the government without any idea as to the effect it will have on the manufacturing, retail, agricultural and service sectors. I believe that for a government to do this, when so many people have lost their jobs and many others are worried whether the job they have today will be there tomorrow, is to the workers of this province an irresponsible action on behalf of the government.

It is time to stop this bill.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Last Thursday, her worship Mayor Hazel McCallion of Mississauga personally delivered 50,000 coupons to Premier Bob Rae from people who oppose Bill 40, yet the Premier did not come out of his office to accept the mayor's 150 pounds of mail.

Mayor McCallion's mail is typical of what I have heard from my constituents. Of the 400 people who have contacted me, only five supported the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act. I have heard from individuals, businesses, government agencies and social service providers, including the Peel Board of Education, the city of Mississauga, the Mississauga Board of Trade and the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

For a more accurate knowledge of my community's views, I distributed a survey, and 95% of respondents strongly disapproved of the NDP's labour law agenda, while 83% strongly agreed that the labour law reform package would make Ontario a much less attractive place to do business. An astonishing 48% of the businesses surveyed said they would consider moving to another jurisdiction if the plan becomes law.

To pass Bill 40 is to ignore the will of the people. Premier Rae, with one in 10 Ontarians out of work already, why are you trying to kill jobs, kill investment and kill our economy? Please listen to the people. While you still can, withdraw Bill 40.

LOCAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Last Thursday, I participated in a town hall meeting held in Flamborough which was organized by the Wentworth North NDP riding association. That evening's topic for discussion was local rural development.

The issue was indeed topical, as many of my constituents from Dundas and Flamborough have been experiencing problems with new developments that seem to be all too hastily encouraged by municipal governments. Antrim Glen Estates and the Pleasantview development came immediately to mind.

I have lived in Wentworth North all my life, and I was greatly encouraged by the discussion that took place at this meeting of concerned and informed citizens. It was a relief to hear that people felt the development of their community is not unconditionally a good thing. Many people are disheartened by the haphazard approach to local development with no vision for the future, and which seems to discourage community consultation and participation.

Development was considered positive only when it is sustainable, and sustainable was understood to mean not only respect for the environment, but also for the cultural and historical heritage of our community. The local meeting was enthusiastic about the proposed reforms to the Ontario Heritage Act, and expressed its interest in

an act with enough teeth in it to protect the integrity and beauty of its communities.

These people care about their community. The essence of any community lies with the expression of its people. It is that which keeps us together and, by providing insight into our past, leads us to understand our present and directs us towards our future.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the autumn of 1991, I warned Premier Rae and members of the government about the impending closure of General Motors' operations in St Catharines as part of the downsizing and restructuring plans of General Motors. During my questions, statements and speeches in the House, I expressed concerns specifically about the possible closure of the foundry and the engine plant in St Catharines, the area I represent, and urged the Premier and his ministers to avoid policies and rhetoric that might discourage GM from retaining its investment in Ontario and recommended that they do everything possible to encourage GM to keep all of its Ontario operations open.

Once again, I'm alerting the Premier to the potential further job losses at GM, as corporate headquarters slashes at least 60,000 jobs and possibly as many as 120,000 in total. GM workers in St Catharines, Oshawa, London and Windsor are worried that their jobs could be lost in the next GM blood-letting. This time, they will want the provincial government to devote all of its attention to their future.

Premier Rae, who seems to be intent upon embarking upon yet another foreign tour, this time to Asia, should recognize that the workers at GM plants in Ontario want him to remain here to fight for their jobs. The only trip Bob Rae should be taking is to Detroit, to make the case for GM workers and their jobs. I call upon the Premier to abandon his globe-trotting and to present to General Motors the best possible case to keep all of its Ontario operations open and the jobs intact.

TONY ROMAN

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Henry Van Dyke said there's only one way to get ready for immortality, and that is to love this life and live it as bravely and faithfully and cheerfully as we can.

So it was with Markham's mayor, Tony Roman. He fought bravely, faithfully and cheerfully, and now he is in the company of the saints, having passed away last Friday. He was our town's leading architect, leading Markham into growth with vision and balance. He was a man of Christian faith, living a life of service to the Almighty and all people. He was our community's best promoter, bringing in new business and prosperity. He was a friend to the great and the small and was able to walk and talk comfortably with all people. As mayor, regional chairman, MP, politician, athlete, businessman, family man, as a Christian, he served his community and his country with distinction.

To his wife, Elsie, and all his family we extend our sympathy. We have been blessed to have known him and to have been able to work with him. His contribution to our community is immortal. May all of us try to embody his dedication to principle.

COMMUNITY CARE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I want to use my 90 seconds to sing the praises on the occasion of the 15th anniversary for Community Care, located in Bowmanville in my riding of Durham East. In my riding, seniors are increasingly turning to Community Care programs to provide the support they need to stay independent in their homes.

In the first six months of this year, 241 people have benefited from a travelling foot care clinic, another 303 have been driven to medical and social appointments and dozens of others regularly receive a hot lunch through Meals on Wheels. By the end of the year, volunteers will likely have fielded more than a thousand inquiries, ranging from income tax to requests for health information. They have an annual budget of $140,000 from various government ministries, municipal grants and charitable donations. Limited funds means a reliance on volunteers. Bowmanville Community Care has a pool of 350 unpaid workers who this year have contributed 10,000 hours of volunteer work.

If you are watching this on television and you live in Durham East, please consider helping others, and help yourself as well. They need volunteers now. Volunteering is a great way to make connections and is ideal for building self-confidence. If you can help, please call 623-2261 and feel better for it.

NOTICE OF MOTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Wednesday, October 28, 1992, the member for Bruce indicated that he desired to give notice of a reasoned amendment. The member attempted to give that notice orally and was interrupted and told that the procedure for giving notice in this House is that it be laid on the table in writing. I draw the member's attention to standing order 53, which states, "All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table" -- or filed with the Clerk of the House -- "before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day."

I would point out that this standing order in no way distinguishes between various types of substantive motions. It applies equally to notice of reasoned amendments as it does to opposition day notice or notice of a government motion.

The practice in this House has been that notice is written. The reason for this long-standing practice is both practical and simple: Notice is to be printed on the Orders and Notices paper so that every member may be apprised of it the day following its tabling or filing. To ensure the accuracy of such a notice, it is necessary that it be provided in writing.

As to the question of whether or not the member is at liberty to give notice orally prior to providing it in written form, I would like to refer to a decision made by the Deputy Speaker on March 27, 1990, wherein he prevented a member from reading his notice of motion with respect to an opposition day by indicating that: "It is not the standard practice to read the resolution. You may table it if you want."

In addition to our practice in this regard, there is a more fundamental difficulty with providing notice orally; that is, we do not have a provision in our procedures that would allow a member the floor to give notice. We do not have a routine proceeding that is titled "Notice," nor do we have any other standing order that sets out a procedure for giving notice of a substantive motion orally. It could not, for example, be done on a point of order, as the member for Bruce attempted to do.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Also last Wednesday, the member for Ottawa West, Mr Chiarelli, informed the House that the Premier had responded to a question during oral question period on a matter currently before the Ontario Municipal Board, contrary to the sub judice rule contained in standing order 23(g). The member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara, rose in the House the next day to the same effect.

I have reviewed the Hansard for both days, the written submission of the member for Ottawa West, several parliamentary authorities and standing order 23(g).

Let me say at the outset that this standing order requires the Speaker to call a member to order "where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Speaker that further reference would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding."

I am not satisfied that the requirements of the standing order have been met in the case at hand, and accordingly I do not find anything out of order. However, had I ruled otherwise, members may have been prevented from continuing to place questions or to make responses in oral question period concerning certain aspects of the proceeding that is before the board. Members can appreciate, then, that the sub judice rule is invoked only in exceptional situations and that its invocation has consequences with respect to members' ability to speak.

I thank the member for Ottawa West and the member for York Centre for raising this matter in the House.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): While I'm on my feet, I would like to take this occasion to answer a few questions put to me last Thursday about the procedure followed by the House and in committee of the whole last Wednesday evening.

Let me first state the practical circumstances as they were then in committee of the whole. The Chair of that committee, Mr Villeneuve, was conducting business on Bill 40,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment, following the procedure as described in the allocation-of-time motion passed on July 14, 1992.

I will quote to you here, as I quoted to you on Wednesday evening, the pertinent sentence which dictated the conduct of the Chair:

"At 5:45 pm on that sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House."

It is my opinion that that sentence is an extremely clear one. There can be no doubt as to what day it was: It was the second sessional day in committee. There can be no doubt, as well, as to what time it was: It was 5:45 on the second sessional day. There can also be no doubt as to the imperative nature of that order in its use of the word "shall" to guide the manner in which the Chair must dispose of that particular stage of the bill.

During those proceedings, a point of order was raised, a ruling given, and that ruling appealed to the Speaker. I then took the chair for the express purpose of entertaining the appeal of the Chair's ruling, and the mace was put on the table, as is necessary when the Speaker is in the chair.

After considering and upholding the Chair's ruling, I had no alternative but to leave the chair in order for the House to revert to committee of the whole so that it could continue to abide by the order of July 14. There was no other possibility at that point, and I would have been disregarding the order of the House had I done otherwise.

I hope these few words will help explain the proceedings of Wednesday night.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I would like to announce that November is Wife Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. Today marks the beginning of the seventh annual wife assault public education campaign.

We have encouraging news about the effectiveness of the wife assault public education campaign. Market research conducted after last November's campaign shows that Ontarians' attitudes towards wife assault are changing.

The 1991 campaign sought to communicate two central ideas: that psychological abuse is part of wife assault, and that men are responsible for stopping the violence. Ontarians appear to have understood both these messages.

The majority of those surveyed, 72%, placed the responsibility for ending wife assault squarely with men. An even larger majority, 82%, now understand that emotional and psychological abuse are as damaging as physical abuse. And 85% of those surveyed see that discarding or destroying a woman's possessions or keeping her isolated from friends and family is abusive behaviour.

The inroads that have been made in expanding the public's definition of wife assault are particularly evident among men. Previously, men were less likely than women to consider psychological and verbal abuse to be part of wife assault. This difference in perceptions has virtually disappeared. In short, we are making progress.

Public education is perhaps our greatest hope for effecting change in this area over the long term. When all people come to see wife assault for the crime that it is, when our societal institutions cease to overlook it, then the women of the next generation will have a real chance at equality.

This government is working to ensure that our messages about wife assault reach all men and women in this province, especially those who may not have received them thus far. The various communities within Ontario will approach this issue in different ways, and our methods of communication must be sensitive to that diversity.

While the results of the post-campaign survey are welcome and encouraging in terms of the goal of eliminating wife assault, we have really just begun. We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent or to slow our pursuit of that goal.

Since our election, we have increased funding aimed at the prevention of wife assault and sexual assault by more than $25 million, bringing to $88 million the total funding for these initiatives.

In the next year, we will concentrate on reviewing violence prevention programs across all relevant ministries to ensure that every dollar of the $88 million is well spent.

In May 1991, we announced plans to integrate our wife assault and sexual assault prevention initiatives by 1994 into a combined strategy to prevent violence against women. Integration will not be an easy task. We are committed to ensuring that the communities representing survivors of violence, service providers and advocacy organizations have a role in framing the violence against women prevention initiative.

Other groups as well have valuable insights and expertise that should inform this process. Francophones, cultural, racial minority and immigrant women, and women with disabilities will be very important participants in our consultation process. We hope to begin the consultation early in the new year.

In April of this year I announced that aboriginal organizations and the Ontario government would be working as partners towards a strategy to address family violence in aboriginal communities. The aboriginal organizations have completed their consultations, and we will be considering their recommendations shortly.

We, as a government, have made it a priority to end violence against women, children and other vulnerable people. By "vulnerable," we mean those who are particularly susceptible to abuses of authority or physical advantage. People with physical disabilities, for example, experience a high rate of physical and sexual abuse because of the sheer number of care givers upon whom they are dependent, because of the private nature of much of that care giving -- hence, the opportunity for abuse -- and because of their physical inability to resist any attacks.

So while we have often spoken of issues around the abuse of women in this House, it is important that we consider all persons who are particularly vulnerable to violence and abuse.

The Minister of Health has announced that we will go forward with amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act in order to respond to the incidence of sexual assault of patients by health care professionals. Those seeking medical assistance are particularly vulnerable to those who offer treatment and care. As we move towards a new direction of long-term care, we are also paying special attention to the safety needs of the elderly and the physically disabled. To this end, we are developing new standards of care to ensure the security and safety of long-term care clients, both in institutionalized settings and in community-based care situations.

We are also working to put effective policies and procedures in place in all adult institutional settings to prevent violence and to intervene appropriately when it does occur.

With respect to abuse occurring in correctional facilities, we have created a special complaints unit within the Ministry of Correctional Services to investigate complaints of sexual harassment involving offenders and ministry staff. The Ministry of the Attorney General has taken the lead in ensuring that past abuse, such as that at St Joseph's, St John's and Grandview, is taken seriously, is dealt with appropriately and that survivors are provided with assistance to enable them to heal.

An example of our active involvement in implementing safeguards to maximize the protection from abuse of children in residential care can be seen in the special efforts undertaken by the Ministry of Education in the provincial schools. Indeed, protecting all children from all forms of abuse is crucial. We have established an interministerial initiative to develop a strategy to reduce violence against children and we have revised the guidelines on child abuse for use by all professionals who deal with children.

We anticipate and encourage the support and involvement of all our colleagues in this House for these initiatives because we take seriously their expressions of concern around violence against women, children and the vulnerable.

As we begin this Wife Assault Prevention Month, during which women's groups and other organizations all across Ontario will focus on the prevention of wife assault, this government is doing its part to help change attitudes and reduce the incidence of wife assault. But no government can do the job alone.

With respect to wife assault, we depend upon the whole community to ensure that our society refuses to condone or tolerate this crime. Research tells us that six out of 10 Ontarians know either a man who assaults or an assaulted woman. This is a disturbing statistic. What this statistic means is that across this province, hundreds of thousands of women -- our neighbours, our business colleagues, the mothers of our children's friends, our own mothers and sisters -- are routinely beaten, humiliated and threatened by the men with whom they live.

Some of these women end up in hospital emergency wards, some receive injuries that result in permanent disabilities, some of them are beaten to within an inch of their lives, others are literally beaten to death.

We, as a society, cannot allow this crime to continue. We, as a community, must take responsibility for ending the climate of acceptance that exists when people do and say nothing about this crime. We, as individuals, as members of provincial Parliament, as members of community organizations and businesses, can take it upon ourselves to bring discussion and condemnation of wife assault out into the open.

More men have to tell other men that their abusive behaviour is wrong. Women and men must stop believing that assaulted women are somehow responsible for their victimization. We all need to understand that assaulted women live in a state of siege. Like prisoners of war, they live by someone else's rules, isolated from family, friends and other sources of support. They are made to feel defenceless and powerless through frequent physical and psychological abuse.

These women do what they must to survive, things that may not make sense to those of us who stand on the other side of the barbed-wire fence. "Why does she stay with him?" we ask. Is this really so hard to understand? When someone tells you he will kill you or your children if you leave, and when you have every reason to believe he will follow through on that threat, you reach for the doorknob at incalculable risk.

Given the 120 women who were killed by their intimate partners in Canada in 1991, an increase of 33% over the previous year, the fear of death for abused women is real. We must not malign an abused woman's weakness for staying with her partner; we must admire her strength for getting through yet another day of terror.

We need to work together to lift the shroud of silence which surrounds and perpetuates wife abuse. For many women, the enemy is not just the man who abuses them; it is also the silence of the community and the silence of those who try to deny and minimize the violence.

Wife Assault Prevention Month focuses attention on the efforts to counter wife assault, which continue year-round. This crime has no place in a civilized, just or enlightened society.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses? Official opposition, the member for Eglinton.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As women's issues critic for the official opposition, I am pleased to add my support to the minister's efforts in declaring November Wife Assault Prevention Month.

Over the last seven years, there has been a concerted effort by government in two areas relating to wife assault and violence against women. The first is informing the public about the extent of it in our society, and the second is in changing attitudes.

The first is perhaps a little easier than the second, and the Ontario women's directorate certainly is to be commended for its work over the last seven years in trying to inform the public. I think we have all heard the statistics time and time again. At least one out of every 10 women in Canada is battered by her partner, and this translates to over 200,000 women per year in Ontario alone.

An even more frightening statistic is that 50% of all women murdered in Canada died as a result of domestic violence. When you hear statistics like this, it becomes increasingly obvious that we, as a society, have a responsibility to act in this matter. We cannot stand in silence and let it happen.

We have had a number of programs over the years to help change attitudes. If you remember, we had Break the Silence, we had Break the Cycle, we had Wife Assault Is a Crime. We had numerous different programs to try to make people understand how serious this problem was, and I think it is encouraging that people's attitudes are changing. People's awareness is much better than it ever has been.

We have successfully, I think, challenged the myth that wife assault occurs among certain groups of people. Well, that is not true. In fact, wife assault occurs in every ethnic, every racial, every economic, every social and every age group. But there is something else. Now that we are publicizing the fact that women need to break the silence, that they must come forward and receive help, we must also ensure that the resources are there to help them when they do come forward.

Recently I initiated a women's outreach tour across southern Ontario, which I hope to continue in parts of the north later on this year. I went to Waterloo, Kitchener, London, Windsor, Ottawa, Kingston and Oshawa, and there are a number of things I was told by women who are working in this area.

The first is that there is a dire need for more second-stage housing. Once a woman is ready to leave or has to leave the crisis intervention shelter, many times there's nowhere for her to go where she can have a period of stability while she puts her life back together. There are only 15 second-stage housing projects in all of Ontario; to serve all of southeastern Ontario there are only two. So obviously this is a real need.

The second thing I learned when I went and talked to women in many shelters, not only those who are administering but those residents of the shelter, is that there is a chronic need for more funding, for core funding, for funding for counselling. If there was anything I heard time and time again, it was that the resources are not there for counselling, and women are crying out for this. They cannot put their lives back together without this crucial counselling.

There's also one other thing I'd like to mention. When I asked about programs to help batterers, to try to help them deal with their anger so we could break this cycle and ensure that they would not be endangering the women and children again, I was consistently told that they didn't have them, that the government didn't encourage funding for them.

In fact, in one centre in Windsor where they did have funding for male batterers to try to help them alleviate this anger so that they could be in a family situation again, I was told that the Ontario women's directorate had called a moratorium on men's treatment program dollars from Correctional Services. So I think it's very important that we not only work with the victims, who have to be our first priority, but that we also try to break this cycle by working with the men to see that it doesn't happen again.

This button says "No Man Has the Right." I hope that our next button will say that no person has the right to perpetuate violence at any time, anywhere, and I think we, as a Legislature, must try to get that message out.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Each year at this time the minister responsible for women's issues hold a news conference, as was done today, outlining the number of wife assault brochures, newspaper ads, radio ads, television ads and posters that the government is funding to prevent wife assault and family violence.

Brochures alone will not help the women and children who have been and continue to be abused by spouses and fathers. It is the services and the improvements to our criminal justice system that will make the difference, and these are the areas where this government is not giving adequate support and priority.

The facts speak for themselves. A recent study found one in five Canadian men living with a woman admitted using violence against her; 45% of all women murdered in Ontario in 1990 were killed by a current or estranged male partner. Some studies indicate that between 40% and 60% of assaultive men witnessed wife assault during their childhood. Serious behavioural problems are 17 times higher for boys and 10 times higher for girls who have witnessed wife assault than they are for other children.

We now have a problem: Because of increased public awareness and the prevention campaign, more women than ever before are using community services. However, the government is not keeping in step with this increased utilization of community services. Despite the huge increase in the number of women using crisis shelters, and I'll refer to the one in Waterloo region, the shelters have received little or no new money. In fact, they only received one half of 1% this past year. In Anselma House, in my own community, calls to the crisis prevention line were up 62% from 1990 to 1991 for the first half of that year, and the number of immigrant women coming to the shelter increased by 80%.

The minister has admitted that existing funding does not meet the need for services for women and children who have been assaulted and abused. Why not? Why advertise and why try to prevent and then not provide the appropriate services for these individuals who come forward? It is time that this government reordered its priorities.

These are tough economic times, but the bottom line is that this government has managed to find almost $200 million to put private child care operators out of business. Victims of family violence would be far better off if they had access to services in their community, including child care subsidies. Availability of child care subsidies would enable women in abusive situations to find work and get out of abusive situations.

It's obvious that although this government talks about prevention, action is not a high priority, not action in this area nor action on behalf of children at risk. This year we've seen funding increased to children's aid societies by only one half of 1%. Children's aid societies are indicating to us that there is more sexual abuse than ever before, and yet there is inadequate funding to deal with these victims.

I also met today with the women's centres representatives. These centres provide important services to women ranging from counselling to crisis lines. They are an integral part of the network of services for women suffering from spousal abuse. As the minister knows, they are seeking $50,000 in core funding for each centre to ensure their long-term stability and vitality and to help them play a vital role in helping to prevent abuse through education and support programs for women. I encourage the government to seriously consider providing this funding.

I encourage this government to take another look at its priorities, to take a look at real action for children and women in this province. Money spent on prevention campaigns is important, but the government now needs to become involved in action, and that's what's lacking in this announcement.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAYOFFS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Again we note in Ontario that 555,000 people are without jobs, 547 people lose their jobs every working day and one plant closes every three days in Bob Rae's Ontario. But instead of talking to Ontario companies about how to get the economy going, the Premier is jetting off to Asia.

Last week my colleague the member for St Catharines raised the matter of recent newspaper reports that General Motors could close down a number of plants faster than people anticipated. Facilities in St Catharines and Oshawa are particularly vulnerable. That means that 20,000 Ontario jobs could be at risk. Premier, why are you going to Asia when you should be going to Detroit to talk to General Motors about how to save Ontario jobs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say to the honourable member that I've met and talked with the senior management at General Motors, and I will continue to do that. I don't think that a trip to the Far East precludes other contacts and other discussions taking place. The former Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Mr Armstrong, has been meeting very intensively with officials in the car industry about their investment plans, and we're looking at the worldwide industry.

I say to the honourable member that one of the things I'm going to be doing both in Japan and Korea is meeting with the senior executives from their car industries, which have an important and growing stake in the world industry and in North America. I will also be very glad to talk with Mr Armstrong and others about the further steps that we can take with respect to the companies that are now doing business in the province that are headquartered in the United States or headquartered anywhere, but there is a great deal of work to be done.

To say that a trip to Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong is somehow to be juxtaposed against what's happening in jobs here, I think really reflects an attitude on the part of the honourable member that frankly surprises me. She, of all people, should know perfectly well --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- that the decisions that are made in corporate headquarters all over the world are of significance. We're open for business in this province and are determined to do business with the whole world.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, let me say in turn, in all honesty, it's your attitude which continues to amaze me. It's the fact that, as we keep raising the issue of Ontarians who are out of work, of Ontario companies that keep closing, when you respond to the need to look at the economy, you keep talking about the fact that there's very little you can do about it; it's something to do with the world; it's something to do with federal policies and the best you can do in response is to go off to Asia and talk to overseas investors.

Premier, the point we're trying to make is that you are leaving the country when 20,000 Ontario jobs hang in the immediate balance. You're talking about overseas investment as a solution to the problem and you simply refuse to look at what can and must be done at home.

Premier, we're saying to you, it isn't good enough to tell us what Tim Armstrong is doing. We're saying it is time to turn your personal attention specifically to this question of what's going to happen to the General Motors plants in Ontario. I would ask you -- when you talk about having spoken to General Motors -- since we raised this issue in the House last Thursday, what have you personally done to encourage General Motors to keep its Ontario plants open?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the comments the member is raising and I'm quite happy that she's raising issues last week and this week with respect to General Motors and a number of other companies.

When Chrysler made its announcement with respect to expanding its investment in Bramalea, when Ford made its announcement with respect to expanding its investment, what was the comment from the opposition then? The comment from the opposition was that it had nothing to do with the government; it had nothing to do with the steps we were taking; it had nothing to do with anything at all. It had to do with events that had taken place five and six years ago.

We are going to continue to work closely with all the companies in this province to ensure a continuing investment. We all know the difficulties facing the auto industry. To suggest, somehow, that to go and talk to the industry in Japan and Korea is contrary to the interests of the workers in this province is a truly bizarre intervention by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Final supplementary.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We went through this procedure in December of last year before the last announcement of the closing of the foundry and part of the engine plant in St Catharines took place, and that's some 3,000 jobs, which has devastated my particular community and could devastate others.

You are apparently jetting off to Asia now at the very time -- if we can determine from all the news reports -- that General Motors is making its critical decisions on the closing of plants in North America. Time magazine in its November 9 edition apparently says it's not 74,000 jobs overall but some 120,000 jobs that will be lost at General Motors.

In view of the fact that our community of St Catharines has already been devastated by the notice of closures and that other communities that have General Motors operations, such as Windsor, Oshawa and London, are all concerned about this potential, will the Premier, upon reflection, upon all that he's seeing happening around General Motors, cancel his trip to Asia, make the trip to Detroit to put forward the case to General Motors officials in Detroit that we wish our operations to stay open and that we in Ontario are open for business?

Hon Mr Rae: I can't think of a more negative message to send to world markets than to cancel a trip to Asia that's been planned for several months. This is a hard reality. These things take some time here. The member has constantly put it this way. He did it when he was in opposition. There was only a brief five-year period of complete and total silence.

I don't recall him standing up and asking questions, objecting to Premier Peterson going to Italy. I don't recall him standing up and objecting to Premier Peterson going to Japan. I don't recall him objecting when he himself went overseas. I don't recall any of those objections being made, and I say to the honourable member --

Mr Bradley: When did I go overseas?

Hon Mr Rae: If the honourable member is saying he's never travelled overseas and he takes this as a sign that somehow it is an advantage for the province of Ontario that this has never been done, well then, I'm sorry. I say to the honourable member, if he has never travelled abroad on government business, then I apologize. But I don't recall him ever saying, in objection to Mr Peterson's travelling, that this was somehow a bad thing to do.

Mr Bradley: In the midst of an economic boom. This is in the midst of a recession. You are running away from the recession.

Hon Mr Rae: He says he did it in a boom. A recession is precisely the moment when we need to talk to those companies that are planning expansion, planning new investments and planning their futures in North America --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- that we establish a clear message that this province is open for business, that we want to talk to the world and that we're interested in encouraging investment from all over. That's the way it is.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Premier.

Premier, three weeks ago I stood in this House and I asked you and the Minister of Energy very directly what your involvement was in the forced departure of Al Holt, the president of Ontario Hydro. You refused on that occasion to answer the question.

Premier, you and Marc Eliesen were friends. In a political move, you elevated him to the chair of Hydro and you brazenly tripled his salary. I find it difficult to believe that your appointee, Marc Eliesen, would not have discussed with you the orchestration of Mr Holt's firing. I ask, Premier, what was the extent of your involvement in Mr Holt's firing?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I don't think the answer the member across the way is looking for has changed very much in the last month. First of all, and I repeat as firmly as I can, Mr Holt was not fired by Ontario Hydro or by the board of Ontario Hydro or by anyone else.

The member for Lanark-Renfrew himself got up in this House and admitted openly several weeks ago that the only motion that was ever passed by the Ontario Hydro board gave the chair authority to discuss retirement with the president. The president of Ontario Hydro retired.

Mrs McLeod: Although the Premier has chosen once again to defer the question, I say to the Premier and continue to say to him that his minister's testimony simply doesn't add up. I suggest to the Premier that he look very carefully at the record of what his minister has said. The minister has in the past denied any interference whatsoever. He claimed he had no knowledge of Mr Holt's so-called resignation until he saw a news release, yet the letter he wrote to the board of directors clearly directs them to fire Al Holt.

Reports in the weekend papers confirm what we have said all along: that the Minister of Energy was directly involved in firing Mr Holt, and his account flies in the face of the testimony that has been produced.

If the Premier was prepared to answer this question, I would ask him again very directly how he could possibly explain the contradiction between his minister's statements in the past and what he has clearly done. Minister, how do you explain that contradiction?

Hon Mr Charlton: There is absolutely no contradiction. The leader of the official opposition refers to reporting this weekend -- fairly shoddy reporting, I might add; reports which go through part but not even all of what happened on the public record here in the House.

As I said in the answer to my first question, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, who obviously talked to one member of the Hydro board, got up in this House and made it very clear, after several days of insisting that the president of Hydro had been fired, that all that Ontario Hydro's board had passed was a motion giving the chair of Hydro the authority to talk to the president about retirement.

The only involvement that I have is the letter which I released publicly a month ago, and the rest of the events that occurred occurred at the Ontario Hydro board.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): He wasn't even in the country when you fired him. How can you fire him when he wasn't even there?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Mrs McLeod: In light of the Premier's refusal to deal with this question, I ask him again to look at the facts. We have a minister who refuses to come clean on his own involvement in the Holt affair. We have a utility that is mired in financial management problems. People across this province are furious about hydro rates that have increased nearly 30% over two years. We have a newly appointed chair of Ontario Hydro making $425,000 at a time when Hydro is laying off 2,000 people.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: We have a newly appointed chair of Ontario Hydro who is making $425,000 at a time when Hydro is laying off 2,000 employees. If this is not enough, we have a deposed president who as a result of this government's actions, I understand, received a $1.2-million settlement from Hydro. I ask the minister, how much is Al Holt's firing going to cost?

Hon Mr Charlton: I don't know the amount of the exact settlement with Mr Holt. The reality is that the negotiation was done by Hydro at the direction of the Ontario Hydro board. I think it's very strange and I think the opposition should think about --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: I understand, for example, that they've tabled the 125 motion, that there will be a hearing on this matter in the resources committee in two weeks and I think that hearing will reveal all.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): If the Minister of Energy doesn't know these things, who does know? I don't understand. Out of the loop, are you?

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: Out of the loop.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, I have been given a box of bricks that were once part of a productive factory. I have here a brick for you, sir. I also have a box with a brick for each member of your cabinet, which I'm going to ask the legislative attendants today to deliver to each member of your cabinet.

I have been asked by the Coalition to Keep Ontario Working to send these bricks to you and your cabinet as a reminder of how your labour legislation will tear down this province, brick by brick, job by job.

Premier, by the time you leave for the Far East, your government may have rammed through the most regressive and job-killing legislation, easily the most regressive and most job-killing in all of North America; you may be able to find an example somewhere in the world but certainly not in North America.

Premier, it doesn't have to be that way and I would ask you today, before you leave for the Far East, will you take something on that trip with you that will give you something to sell? Will you repeal or kill or stop proceeding with Bill 40 today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member for his brick. I don't know how many bricks short of a load he is now as a result of the load he's handing over to us, but only time will tell.

The symbolism notwithstanding, I'd just say to the honourable member that if he wants to consider legislation or a policy that is led by any review of what has happened in this province in the last five years, he should look to the free trade policies of his federal friends which were so ardently supported by members of the Conservative Party.

I want to say to the honourable member that we've gone through a very tough recession, a very difficult recession in this province, a major industrial restructuring, and if he thinks it is going to be possible to have a strong recovery without the participation of working people and the organizations they participate in, then he has a very different view of how the modern economy will work than we do on this side. I would just say to him that we have every intention of proceeding with the legislation.

Mr Harris: The letters that are attached to each of these bricks read, "Please keep this brick as a reminder of your public responsibility as a minister to build the Ontario economy, not destroy it through legislation which drives out employment."

Premier, it's not too late. Bill 40 has not passed third reading. Before embarking upon this trip to potential investors, to those who may wish to do business in Ontario, as you indicated, would you not admit that we cannot afford to lose any more jobs and any more investment in the province of Ontario? Would you not admit that a very powerful sales tool you could take with you would be news that you've withdrawn Bill 40?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that it's our assessment of the international situation and with respect to investment in this province that our commitment to infrastructure, that our commitment to training -- I talked to Ford and Chrysler about the reason they chose to make their most substantive investments in North America in Ontario. You want to talk about building? Go and look at the plants and factories that are going up there and the kind of expansion that's taking place there.

They said it was the commitment of this province, the training -- it was the commitment of this province to making sure that workers had a chance, and it was the commitment of this province to decent health and social services whose costs were being kept carefully under control. Those are the factors that lead to people deciding to invest in this province.

I haven't heard very much about building from the Conservative Party recently, I must confess. What I've heard from the Conservative Party is a constant denigration of the conditions of life in this province in a way that can only discourage anyone looking to invest in this province. Somebody has to go out there and tell them the good news, and that's my job.

Mr Harris: That statement certainly confirms to me that you've not bothered to read New Directions 1 or New Directions 2, which point the way to hope and prosperity and opportunity for this province. So if you haven't heard good news, you haven't been listening, because we've been giving you lots of ways to rebuild this province, the way it was for 42 years.

The workers of the auto parts manufacturing companies in Ontario, and of grocery distributors, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, the Canadian Tooling Manufacturers' Association -- all of these businesses, all of these companies, all of the investors and all of the workers who work for them are pleading with you for their jobs; they're pleading with you for their livelihood.

These bricks represent more than just factories. They represent the men and women who want to work, and they represent the families of the men and women who want to work. Each brick: In their own words, Premier, they are all asking you to kill Bill 40 before it kills jobs.

I would ask you this, Premier: You said in response to an earlier question that you're going to the Far East to tell the investors and the companies and the governments there that Ontario is open for business, that we welcome their investment. I suggest to you, Premier, that you can't tell them these things. It's not words; it's actions, and every person you talk to will know exactly what is going on in this province --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the leader conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: -- from legislation, from taxation and regulation to Bill 40. I would ask you, Premier, one more time: Will you take them a little glimmer of hope, a little bit of good news, some chance that they might consider Ontario, by telling them that you're withdrawing Bill 40?

Hon Mr Rae: You mention taxation. We've reduced corporate taxation. We reduced business taxes in this province in the last budget to the point now where our taxes are going to be lower than New York's, they're going to be lower than Michigan's, they're going to be lower than Ohio's. We've done that. We didn't get any credit. I haven't seen that in any Conservative Party brochure.

Because of the action we've taken on the health care system, where we now have the lowest rate of increase in the health care budget since the introduction of medicare, the toughest action that's been taken in this province in the history of the last 20 years --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Again, we've had no particular congratulations from the Tories about this. Because we've taken that action, we're now able to say that we are saving employers who are looking to make a comparison between here and virtually any state of the United States thousands of dollars per employee in terms of health insurance costs. Those are facts. Those are the facts which have to be told to investors overseas and indeed anywhere, and those are the facts which I intend to take on my trip overseas.

Mr Harris: With all due great respect, Mr Premier, those are not facts; those are your opinions and they are not held by a single investor anywhere around the world and you know it. That is your opinion.

The Speaker: To whom is your second question directed?

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Speaker, my second question is to the Premier as well.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Association's job action is now entering its fifth week. Ontario's 115 police associations are now debating whether to join that action province-wide. Premier, there does not appear to be an end in sight. I say to you sincerely that this is not the time for an individual's pride; it's not the time for the pride of an office, the pride of a Premier; it's not the time to be digging in your heels. The police are asking for a meeting, and you know that as of this Thursday that meeting will not be possible if you decide to continue with your plans for your trip to the Far East. Will you sit down with the police, with no conditions, before you leave on this trip?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say to the honourable member that my offer to the Metro association still stands and that offer has been made publicly. I made it as well privately in a conversation with Mr Lymer that I had over a week ago. I indicated to him that provided there was a 48-hour suspension of the job action, as the members have been requested to do by their chief, as Chief McCormack has asked the police association, and as other chiefs have asked as well, of course I would be more than happy to meet under those circumstances.

The Solicitor General met last Friday with the Police Association of Ontario. There's another meeting scheduled for Wednesday. At the meeting that took place on Friday, it's interesting that the people came out of that meeting and it's my understanding they said that the person they wanted to meet with was the Solicitor General. I think that's the way it should be. I think it's entirely appropriate and I'm certainly hoping that we can solve this issue.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, through you to the Premier, we all hope that the situation will end. Certainly, no one is going to win if this stand-off continues. Ontario has a lot to lose. We have some of the finest police forces in the world and some of the finest men and women in the world on those forces.

Premier, since your offer to meet with conditions was not acceptable to the police association, since their request to you, you have found unacceptable, rather than have positions entrenched any further, would you agree to have a third-party mediator sit down with you and with the Metro association to see if we can collectively bring an end to this impasse?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, let me say on this occasion as I have on many, many others, that I don't think there's anybody in this House who doesn't share the view that's been expressed about the quality of policing in this province, about the dedication of the men and women who serve this province in every city, in every town, and throughout the province with the OPP.

It's precisely because of that feeling I have, and the respect I have for the profession of policing and the very profound feeling I have for the police forces in the province, that I think it's important for us to resolve this issue. I think it's important as well for the clear statements that have been made by several chiefs with respect to the importance of people getting back to work and of finding a way for us to establish a long-term dialogue.

I think it's very important for us to create a climate which is based on trust, one of mutual respect and a climate in which we can resolve not only any short-term issues there may be, but build a long-term relationship between the government and the police forces of the province that's based, as I say, on very firm and solid ground and on a sense of mutual respect. That's exactly what I want to do. That's what we intend to do.

With respect to the particular question which he's put forward, I want to say to him that I think the kind of meeting which the Solicitor General had with the Police Association of Ontario --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- and ideas are being exchanged effectively. There's no misunderstanding about what the various points of view are, and that's the direction which we want to continue to take in terms of this dialogue.

Mr Harris: The impasse is with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and with you and your government. This really shouldn't be about who has the greatest willpower. It shouldn't be about who's going to blink first. We know you have the power, and so do they, to break the union if you wish, to break the spirit of the men and women trying to provide police services to this great city of Toronto. They know you have that power. You know you have it.

Mr Premier, you were elected to lead this province, you were elected to act as a leader, and it's time for you to show some leadership. I would ask you today, since you haven't been able to find the wherewithal to simply go and meet with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and with its association, will you today agree to third-party mediation, to somebody acceptable to both sides? Obviously, the Solicitor General is not acceptable to both sides. Some days I wonder why he's acceptable to you. We know he's not acceptable to the police force.

Would you simply agree to third-party mediation to meet with both you and the police union, somebody acceptable to both sides, to resolve this impasse?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to assure the honourable member, because in his

preamble he made such a point of saying that he knew how much power and so on was on one side or the other, that I have no particular interest -- none at all, never have had; it's not my approach to life -- in breaking anyone or in doing anything of that kind. That's not how I do things and that's not how this government does things. We want to establish an effective relationship.

If the member disagrees with the leadership which this government is showing or with my own leadership, that's fine; he certainly has that right and that's what a democracy is all about. But I want him to know and I want this House to know that the Solicitor General has the full confidence of this government. He's carrying out his responsibilities in a most difficult time, a difficult moment, and he will be continuing to meet with all the parties involved in an effort to resolve this situation. That's exactly the mandate he's been given by me and by the cabinet.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is again to the Premier, and the Premier will find that this is a day in which we keep returning to issues we have raised over the past week.

Premier, on September 16, your office wrote to the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board requesting an expedited hearing on the York City Centre project. On October 8, the hearing dates were moved up. The Ontario Municipal Board has now confirmed that it changed the date as a result of the request to speed up the hearing.

Premier, the more we look into this, the more we find. We understand that the developer for this project approached your office to request assistance in achieving an expedited hearing because the project is located in your riding. Can you confirm that Drena Inc did in fact contact your office to ask for your intervention with the OMB and, in the face of all this evidence, will you now simply refer the matter of your intervention to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me state categorically that this development is a development which has had the approval and support of this government. This government and the city of York are partners in this development. Therefore, as a matter of public policy, it would be a little strange if this government would take the view that somehow we were going to oppose any decisions made by the OMB.

A number of representations were made to the municipal board with respect to the timing of the hearing, and any decisions made by the board with respect to the timing of the hearing or indeed the outcome of the hearing are entirely up to it. But there should be no mistaking the commitment of the government overall to the proposal which is before the municipal board.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier's response seems to go directly against the understanding that the Ontario Municipal Board was in fact influenced by the request to expedite the hearing. It clearly goes against the previously rendered opinion of Judge Gregory Evans that the weight of a minister's intervention is significant and that a minister cannot have that kind of intervention. Surely the weight of the Premier's office is even greater.

In his response today, I understand the Premier to be somehow saying that it's okay to have his office contact the Ontario Municipal Board, telling it to put a project which is in the Premier's riding to the top of the list. The Premier has already said, and he says it again today, that he supports the project. He clearly wants it approved.

Mr Premier, I would suggest that in addition to the violation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines, there is another issue here which you seem determined to ignore. The Ontario Municipal Board was created to protect private citizens, to allow them to voice their objections to governmental action free of political intervention. I ask you, do you not agree that you have violated your own conflict-of-interest guidelines, that you've violated the principle of non-interference with a quasi-judicial body, that you have made it impossible for the Ontario Municipal Board to carry out its work with independence?

In light of all of that, I ask you again, why not refer this matter to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?

Hon Mr Rae: It is my very firm view, first of all, that there is no conflict. Second, it's my very strong view that the municipal board has the full right and power to determine any issues with respect to either the timing or with respect to the substance of the proposal.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): In the absence of the Minister of Health, my question is for the Premier. Premier, when I asked your Health minister this question some two weeks ago, she simply shrugged it off and blamed the Liberals.

Earlier this year, the Provincial Auditor informed your government that the number of health cards issued outnumbered the number of people actually living in Ontario and that health care for these ineligible people could be costing Ontario taxpayers $700 million annually. This figure, Premier, is based upon the half a million extra cards in the system and does not include the 1.2 million cards whose numbers have been cancelled in the government's computer, yet these cards remain in circulation and can be used by anyone. Totalling the two numbers, the amount of taxpayers' dollars being drained potentially from the system is close to $2.6 billion annually.

On October 22, in order to bring some accountability into the system, I suggested that doctors be required to ask for two valid pieces of identification and that patients be required to sign for the health services they received. Premier, why are you allowing billions of dollars to be wasted by not implementing these measures?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think in fairness to the Minister of Health, who really has been taking several measures in this regard, I should simply take the question as notice -- not brushing it off at all, but because I take it seriously, and I know she would want to be able to have the opportunity to answer the question.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's sad that the Premier now shrugs off the question, after the minister doing the same some two weeks ago. It's a very, very serious question for the taxpayers.

Premier, I want to share with you a story told to me by a doctor in Toronto who is frustrated by the way in which health care resources are being bled from the system by the use of fraudulent health cards. The doctor told me that when she suspected a fraudulent card, she contacted OHIP and was told by a government official, "Thanks for calling, but we can't help you." In other words, Premier, there is no way for a doctor to verify fraudulent use of a health card.

Premier, you've been quick to cut 5,000 hospital beds, you've been quick to deny seniors drugs they desperately need and you've been quick to make cuts that have expanded waiting lists. Given your haste to cut health care services, how do you explain your paralysis when it comes to recovering billions of dollars that are being stolen from Ontario's taxpayers?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I am not brushing the member's question off. I take the member's question far too seriously and, if I may say so, I take the issue far too seriously to ever want to brush it off. If he has that impression and if he would like me to read briefing notes for him, I can do that, but it seems to me he's better off waiting for an answer from the Minister of Health, who can give him a very direct answer.

She does have answers with respect to steps that have been taken with respect to registration approvals, registration analysis, a policy unit and approval of the database in a real effort to deal with a problem which we all recognize as being one which needs to be dealt with. We take the member's question very seriously, and she'll be responding to it.

OFFTRACK BETTING

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Before I ask my question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, let me just say that if anyone in Ontario wants a reason to wear eye protection, they could have looked at my eye last week and this eye this week and they'll wear eye protection when they're playing any type of sport.

My question is for the minister. Minister, in our last budget there was an initiative announced concerning offtrack betting and a teletheatre concept. I know this has the support of the horsemen I've talked to in my riding of Brantford. I have an individual who's very interested in pursuing this, Mr Bob Markovich, a private businessman who wants to invest in fixing up his establishment to provide this service for the people of Brantford.

However, he is a little bit concerned or confused about what the process is to achieve an application for obtaining this licence. Does he have to go to the Ontario Jockey Club, the Ontario Racing Commission or your ministry? Perhaps you could clarify what the process is for my constituent Mr Bob Markovich.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, let me say that the Ontario Racing Commission is right now in the process of expanding the intertrack wagering network in western Ontario in order to fully utilize the existing capacity of racetracks.

When this intertrack expansion is completed, the commission will be consulting with all segments of the racing and breeding industry. That will begin the orderly implementation of teletheatres that we hope to see happening soon.

Mr Ward: The next question I have on behalf of my constituent Mr Bob Markovich is, when will this process be up and running? I know he has sent some letters. Do we know whether or not they are on file, for his benefit? when can we anticipate this exciting initiative being under way?

Hon Ms Churley: We hope this exciting initiative will be under way very soon.

What I can confirm today is that Mr Markovich has indeed been in contact with the Ontario Racing Commission, and he has been advised that his letter is on file. He will be contacted when the Brantford area is considered for teletheatres. We expect that to be happening in the very near future.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier. Premier, if there was one word used to describe your government, I think people would use the word "polarization." You've polarized the business community and labour. You've polarized, in the community, teachers and trustees, school boards and ministries, municipalities and your Ministry of Housing. It's just rampant in the province of Ontario.

And now, because of your refusal to a simple request to meet with the police, you've polarized the police and your government. I, unlike the leader of the third party, think the Solicitor General has done just about everything he can do. He's admitted he doesn't have a green light from the corner office. He's admitted he can't resolve the problem, and clearly this falls to you.

If you refuse to meet with them, if you want to fob it off to him, you can. The question is to you: Why will you, sir, not simply swallow your ego and your pride and meet with the police and discuss the issues they feel are of such serious concern? If you truly care about the safety of the public, which you've said you do, you'd think you'd be demanding a meeting with these people. Premier, I want to know why you continue to refuse to meet with the police on this issue.

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

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): We did in fact have meaningful consultations with all major police stakeholders during the development of this regulation. Since the job action has taken place, I have met with the Police Association of Ontario and the OPPA, the Ontario Provincial Police Association. We have another meeting scheduled Wednesday.

The most recent discussions we've had were very fruitful, very helpful, and I hope that through consultation rather than confrontation this matter can come to a close in the near future.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): To the Premier?

Mr Mahoney: Well, I would like it to be to the Premier, but obviously it has to go to the Solicitor General.

I heard you quoted on a radio program saying that you don't have the green light, that you can't resolve the problem. I appreciate the fact that it must be extremely frustrating, Solicitor General, for you to convene a meeting, when you know you have no possible way of resolving it. You'd almost want to turn in the limo. You'd almost wonder why you've got this big office and all of this staff and this huge responsibility, when this guy is getting on a plane and going off to the Orient and leaving you to resolve the problem.

What do you say, Solicitor General, when the police associations say to you: "Why won't Bob Rae meet us? Why is it that this government continues to show a dislike and a mistrust for the police associations, the men and women in this province?" What's your answer to them when they say, "Why won't your boss talk to us?"

Hon Mr Pilkey: First of all, the Police Association of Ontario is not saying that at all. The member opposite may be saying it, but that is not the position of those he alleges that kind of circumstance to. They are quite welcome to meet with the Premier of this province, and the Premier, I am sure, is quite willing to meet with them. They have been dealing with me, through the Ministry of the Solicitor General, where the regulation emanated from, and from where this matter will finally be closed.

The only difficulty with any meeting with the Premier is that with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, through Mr Lymer. I have no idea why he wouldn't make a small move of a 48-hour, or even less, stop in the job action to accept the very generous offer by the Premier. The Premier even extended it by way of phoning personally to Mr Lymer at his own personal residence.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you would be aware that for the last 10 days there has been a strike of Ontario Public Service Employees Union workers at Rotherglen Centre, which is a phase 1, closed-custody facility in Ajax for violent young offenders. You'd be aware that many of the residents are violent and have been moved, with your permission, to other facilities, including open-custody detention homes in communities in and around Toronto.

Aside from the obvious concerns of public safety and security, your Bill 40,

section 73, would designate this program as an essential service. So my question is, why have you shipped some 12 to 14 young offenders, many of whom are violent, some to less secure, less safe, open-custody detention homes, when, again, your own legislation, Bill 40 says -- where this is unnecessary to enable an employer to prevent danger to life, health or safety?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): Under the current legislation, obviously the provision for essential service is not there in the same way, so if that's the member's question, he is clearly talking about a situation that is an ongoing labour dispute between an employer, not the government, and its employees.

It is our responsibility as a ministry to ensure that the young people who are in the care of this ministry are looked after in an appropriate way when this kind of situation does occur. The responsibility we have to ensure that the kind of custody children are in is according to the orders they've received is one that we're intent to uphold and do uphold.

The children who remain at the centre are there with management staff, and they are limited to those who require that particular kind of care. The transfers that have occurred have been in line with the program planning for those youngsters. So at this point in time, it is our position that our charges have been cared for appropriately and that the employer and the employees must resolve this issue.

Mr Jackson: Minister, that doesn't appear to be actually the case. The fact is that many of these children, as I've said, have been transferred to open-custody facilities in communities in and around Toronto. We have been advised that violent young offenders have been moved to Cassatta in Rexdale, an open detention centre; to Oakwood and Millbrook near Peterborough, again an open detention centre; and one girl was sent to McKinnon House in Oshawa, again an open detention centre.

Last night that young lady threatened the life of another girl in that institution and threatened another young girl with bodily harm. The police were called at 1 am this morning and that young lady, that violent young offender, who you suggest is appropriately placed in an open-custody residential setting, has now been transferred to the York Detention Centre some time earlier today.

Minister, why do you insist that there is no potential risk involved? Why is it that your actions are unnecessary to transfer these young offenders and to put various communities at potential risk, when clearly there is now evidence that several may put those communities at risk? Why are you taking that course of action, based on the evidence I've shared with you today?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I was not aware of the incident that occurred last night and I will certainly look into the allegations the honourable member has made. I agree with him that in those circumstances it certainly does create some concern for members of communities and I can tell him that I will certainly look into that.

The responsibility of the director under the act is to ensure that alternate care is provided appropriately. It has certainly been our information that with the kind of work that has been going on with Brookside, with York Detention Centre, appropriate placements were made. I will certainly review the situation, and if in fact there are problems with that, we will ensure that we are doing everything we can to correct the matter.

GRAND RIVER

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you have received correspondence from the Grand River Conservation Authority and from a number of MPPs in the various political parties represented in this House. We're asking support for the GRCA's efforts to secure funding to complete the development of a management plan for the Grand River as a Canadian heritage river. The Ministry of Culture and Communications has responded and your ministry has certainly expressed some ideas. Minister, could you indicate to the House the steps taken to date by your ministry that will promote this initiative?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I appreciate the member's interest in this project. The Grand River was first nominated to be a Canadian heritage river in 1990. Since his representations, and prior to those, the Ministry of Natural Resources staff has had discussions with staff of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to determine what approaches could be taken by all the ministries and involving them in the development of a management plan which could be completed by the end of 1993 for consideration for designation in 1994.

Mr Farnan: The correspondence I have received from your ministry, while it provides me with some optimism, also provides me with some concerns. Such phrases as "will endeavour to arrange adequate funding and technical resources" and, again, "sources of funding will be explored," are indeed positive, may be indeed laudable. However, there is no sense of security for me in them. They do not provide me with total confidence that the funds will be forthcoming. They could almost be taken for bureaucratese.

Will you commit a guarantee from your ministry that you will not allow this unique opportunity to pass us by? Will you assure the GRCA and the people of Ontario that the necessary resources will be provided to complete the required management plan on schedule? We need a commitment, Minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate very much the member's commitment and the commitment of the Grand River Conservation Authority to this project. I want to assure him that we are making every representation with all the ministries I referred to to ensure that we can find funds and deploy funds so the management plan can be completed by the end of 1993. I assure the member that we are exploring as diligently as possible all sources of revenue for this project.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Of the several policies that the Rae government is pursuing, there is one that is of particular interest to the rank and file citizenry of my part of rural eastern Ontario, and I suspect it is going to be of growing interest to most members of this House. This is Bob Rae's new used-car policy.

Considering that the NDP has always prided itself on a commitment to working men and women, I want to put to the minister the following case that was put to me by a hardworking young fellow in my office the other day. This young man bought a 10-year-old truck and paid $50 for that vehicle, a value which was sustained by later evaluations. He paid $50 for the truck. When he went a few days later to get the ownership transferred, he was told that he would have to put up six times the purchase price in provincial sales tax payable and that in fact he could submit the evaluations, and two to three months down the road he would get his $300 provincial sales tax remitted.

The minister will know this policy is creating havoc for students and the working poor, certainly throughout my part of the province. I specifically ask the minister, does she believe that her policy and the policy of her government with respect to this new used-car policy is fair particularly to the working poor and students, who, on the basis of the anecdotal evidence which I'm seeing in my office, are the men and women who are paying disproportionately the price of this new policy?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): I thank my colleague opposite for the question. I am aware, as I believe most of my colleagues in this Legislature are, of the used vehicle information program, the package that went out, and some of the responses that we are getting from constituents. The case that you have recited is accurate. I don't know what the waiting time is before someone gets responded to on an appeal, but that is the process that people have to go through.

When the Treasurer went through this legislation, there were a few things we wanted to do in filling in the gaps. The first thing we wanted to do was give a transfer package to consumers to help them be able to identify what kind of vehicle they were purchasing. That package will come out and will be available to the public in February. They will know if there are liens against a vehicle, if a vehicle is really the vehicle they say it is, if there are any problems with the vehicle and what it was used for in the past.

I should also let you know that previous to this legislation there were over 20,000 curbsiders in the province of Ontario who were illegally collecting dollars for themselves. We expect that this initiative will bring $87 million back to the taxpayers of Ontario so that we can continue to support our programs.

Mr Conway: This young man who came to see me is left incredulous that this could happen in Bob Rae's Ontario. Let me repeat what he said. He understands how people who are in government limousines or business people who've got tax write-offs wouldn't understand, but the working poor in Renfrew county, believe me, are going to pay disproportionately the price of carrying this policy. The local member, the local minister, the local union executive or the local business person is not going to feel this nearly to the same extent as those people who came to see me in the last few days.

So my question to the minister remains, what do you have to say to the working poor and to students who say that unless there is this kind of aftermarket available to them, they will not and they cannot get access to transportation that will take them to school or take them to work?

We all agree that there are curbsiders and they have got to be dealt with.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Conway: My question remains, how can you tell these people who are being asked to pay six times the retail value in provincial taxes, taxes which will be remitted after two or three months, that this is a fair policy, when the bulk of that burden is going to be carried by ordinary people, most of whom are the working poor or young people trying to cooper together enough money and put together some kind of vehicle that will safely get them to school or work at low cost?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I do understand a lot of the information that is coming across. I do respond to constituents myself, personally, and I still do buy used vehicles, so I assume in the near future I'll be at the front of the line at MTO also, and have to deal with it.

These are very real concerns that people have, but we, as a government, have to protect the taxpayers of Ontario. When you think of 20,000 curbsiders and the money that they were making on the side illegally, we as a government have to show some leadership in getting rid of the curbsiders, and this was one of the ways that we in the government decided to do this.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, your education reform document, Everybody's Schools: A Common Curriculum, which you spoke about last week, does not specify a core curriculum with specific goals and objectives for each grade level.

Parents want to know what is being taught and how their children are doing with those skills, and you should have started some kind of process to develop this core curriculum.

Mr Minister, the first objection parents have on this document is that there's no core curriculum. You may be coming up with this, but the second problem is that you haven't asked the public for their opinion, and by the public I mean parents and ordinary, taxpaying citizens.

In your consultation process around what I think you called your formative years consultation process, there were only 30 parents and/or ratepayers who responded out of 900 responses.

My question is, Mr Minister, when will you be having a consultation process so that parents can respond on the core curriculum documents that you have promised to bring forward?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): First of all, let me say to the member opposite, as I did to the Liberal critic last week, I believe, when this same question was asked, that the document she's referring to is a very early draft and that substantive changes have taken place to that document since that time, keeping very much in mind that the kind of direction she was suggesting, and that I've been suggesting, needs to be there, which is that we need a common core curriculum that is much more specific.

With respect to the question that was asked around the public discussion, I would say two things. I am not sure that what we need is a continuing public discussion on the kinds of directions that we need to be moving in. I think that we're clear about those directions and what we need to do.

Having said that, I think we can proceed, and we will proceed, with setting out, in the common core curriculum and in the overall documents that we will be issuing, I hope soon, a direction that we want to pursue.

But that having been said, there will certainly be lots of discussion that will need to continue to happen, both provincially and at the local school level, around how these things are properly implemented and how these changes need to come about, and that, I can say to the member opposite, will happen as part of the process.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. On a point of privilege, the member for Mississauga West.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'd like to refer you to page 26 of the standing orders, subsection 34(a). If you'll bear with me, it says:

"The Speaker's rulings relating to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal. However, a member who is not satisfied with the response to an oral question, or who has been told that his or her question is not urgent or of public importance, may give notice orally at the end of the oral question period that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House and must give written notice to the Speaker not later than 4 pm the same day, and file reasons for dissatisfaction with the Clerk before 5 o'clock."

You may recall, Speaker, that last Wednesday I asked a question to the Premier, and stated at the end of question period, according to this rule, that I was dissatisfied with the answer and subsequently filed the appropriate documentation.

Section (

b) says, "Where notice has been given and reasons filed, as provided in clause (a), at 6 pm on any Tuesday or Thursday" -- this was Wednesday, so it was the following day -- "the Speaker may, notwithstanding standing order 9, deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made, whereupon the matter in question may be debated for not more than 10 minutes, five minutes to be allowed to the member raising the matter" -- myself -- "and five minutes to the minister or to his or her parliamentary assistant to reply if he or she so wishes. Where there are several such matters," etc "the Speaker shall deem the motion to adjourn to be carried." That's not the point.

The point that I raise, sir, is that there is a tradition in this House, and you have on a number of occasions made a ruling that was not necessarily based on the exact wording in this document. In fact, last week we had a great deal of discussion and people were upset. I think one member actually threw the standing orders to the ground, saying that if you were not going to rule based on what is here but rather based on tradition or what normally takes place, then these standing orders are not of much use.

The other side of the coin, and my reason for raising this as a point of privilege, is that neither the Premier nor his parliamentary assistant, who I believe is the member for Fort York, showed to respond to what we commonly refer to as a late show, which was my statement of dissatisfaction with the answer. No one else is allowed to respond other than the minister, the Premier in this case, or the parliamentary assistant. No one else is allowed to, so the fact that the rest of the government members left didn't particularly upset me.

They left one member, I believe it was the member for York East, in this place to listen and to be part of the debate, but he of course was not empowered to do so, so therefore he could not respond.

So I'm here raising under the standing orders properly what is a legitimate point of concern, of dissatisfaction. I filed the papers properly, did everything that I am supposed to do as a member of the opposition. It seems to me that when the Premier and/or his parliamentary assistant refuses to show, it shows disdain, not only for me as a member but, more importantly, for members of the opposition.

While you may wish to rule on the words that say that a minister or parliamentary assistant may reply "if he or she so wishes," then clearly I accept the fact that in a literal translation of this

section of our standing orders they didn't wish to reply, but the tradition in this House -- and that is what you have ruled points of privilege and points of order on -- is that someone responds to members of the opposition. I frankly feel it's not only a personal insult but clearly an insult to the opposition, many of whom stayed, by the way, on that particular Thursday to listen to the debate, anxious to hear the Premier or the parliamentary assistant respond to my concerns. They refused to do so, and I'd like your ruling.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's made his point. To the member for Mississauga West, indeed, first of all, he has in fact answered his own question. The rule is permissive. It allows the minister or the parliamentary assistant to respond if he or she wishes. Obviously there's nothing in that standing order that compels the attendance of a minister or parliamentary assistant.

I understand full well and have great sympathy with the member's contention that because it is part of the standing orders, because it's part of our tradition, that it is best if both the member who raised the matter originally and the minister to whom it's directed, or parliamentary assistant, are in attendance. The member will know that over time there have been numerous occasions on which ministers have, for whatever reason, decided not to be in the chamber.

All I can say to the member is, I understand fully and appreciate fully his concern about the tradition of that particular opportunity, and I can only encourage ministers to, if at all possible, appear in the chamber when a member has filed dissatisfaction.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I've read your ruling today with respect to the specific request to put in writing your decision of last Wednesday, I believe, with respect to moving the House from committee of the whole back into House and then back again into committee of the whole.

I've read this brief recount of the day and what took place. I haven't seen in this particular --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: It's a recount of what happened that specific day.

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

This is not a debatable matter. I have dealt with the issue in fact twice now. Motions?

Mr Stockwell: But the point of order, Mr Speaker, was not that.

The Speaker: You have a different point of order?

Mr Stockwell: No. Well, not really. The point of order was --

The Speaker: Then I ask --

Mr Stockwell: It is different.

The Speaker: No, the member must take his seat. The matter has been dealt with. I am not entertaining a point of order to deal with the matter which I have already dealt with.

Mr Stockwell: But I do have a different point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: A different point of order?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

The Speaker: All right, I will hear the honourable member.

Mr Stockwell: I requested, when I asked that you put this particular decision in writing, that you cite some precedents when you were bringing this forward. I've read your ruling and there are no precedents involved. It was a recounting of what took place.

The Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Stockwell: My point of order is that it wasn't done, and I guess I'm inquiring as to why that didn't take place.

The Speaker: I have dealt with the matter that was brought before me. There is nothing more to debate on. We are not debating the ruling. The order stands.

Petitions. The member for Eglinton.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Eglinton has the floor.

PETITIONS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metropolitan Toronto has passed an ill-conceived market value assessment plan; and

Whereas it is arbitrary and demonstrably unfair to use market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relationship to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas the implementation of such a measure would work undue hardship on the residents of north Toronto, on our long-term home owners, our senior citizens and our tenants; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by further increases,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto, and to consider another method of property tax reform for Metro Toronto."

This has been signed by concerned citizens, and I have affixed my signature since I wholeheartedly agree with it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition signed by 13 people regarding the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday. It's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act. We 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 many families. The amendment 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."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act was last updated in 1975; and

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act should reflect the needs of today's workplace and today's workforce,

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

"To pass Bill 40,

an Act to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act, without further delay."

This is signed by many residents of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I hope I can get this in, considering the arbitrary whims of the Speaker and how he rules, but I'll do my best.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are you asking for a point of order?

Mr Stockwell: No, sir, I'm asking to read a petition.

The Deputy Speaker: Petition? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: That was just an aside, a

preamble to my petition.

I've been requested from the Open Door Evangelical Church, which is in my riding, to submit this petition:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act. We 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 many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I will sign this and submit it.

NATIVE EDUCATION

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition of support for Nokee Kwe adult education centre in London:

"We the students of Nokee Kwe are concerned about our present funding situation, as this lack of funding jeopardizes our future and the future of our children. Not all of our students are able to continue with the program without some sort of guaranteed income to provide for our families' basic needs. Nokee Kwe gives each aboriginal student the opportunity to learn and flourish in a safe and supportive environment."

This petition has 239 signatures, and I've affixed my signature thereto.

I realize that the petition does not comply with the format required by the standing orders of this House. However, the signatories to this petition have asked that I submit it to the House based on the statement of political relationships signed between our government and the first nations. They submit that based on a government-to-government relationship, this petition be acceptable to this House.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is from several residents of the province of Ontario. It's to members of provincial parliament.

"Whereas the general level of unemployment in Ontario is extremely high and has caused severe hardship for individuals and families; and

"Whereas hundreds of firms in Ontario have filed for bankruptcy and have had their employees join the ranks of those on the unemployment roles; and

Whereas youth unemployment is higher in Ontario than in all other provinces; and

Whereas General Motors may announce several plant closings with resulting job losses this month and the presence of the Premier in the province is necessary to persuade General Motors to keep all of its Ontario operations open,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to cancel his impending trip to Asia and to remain in North America to present the Ontario GM workers' case to General Motors officials and to respond to important and urgent questions about the Ontario economy in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."

I agree with this petition and I affix my name to it.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession; and

"Whereas the placement of bilingual highway signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens; and

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding; and

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the direct discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act,

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

CAMPING FEES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition here with 139 signatures, concerning a decision to charge senior and disabled persons for weekday camping in provincial parks in Ontario.

"Whereas seniors worked for extremely low wages in their earlier years; and

"Whereas many are war veterans who defended our country under very difficult circumstances; and

"Whereas many seniors retired on extremely low incomes; and

"Whereas many retired on fixed incomes,

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, protest most vigorously the decision to charge seniors and disabled persons for weekday camping in provincial parks in Ontario."

I agree with this and I have attached my signature. It's going to be out of order.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

This has been signed by workers from Windsor, Harrow, Toronto, Cambridge and across the province. I have signed my name to this petition.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 787 signatures. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario re the proposed Ontario investment fund.

"We, the undersigned, are members of CUPE and employees of Metropolitan Toronto and we are totally opposed to your plan to use our hard-earned pension funds for government projects. Our pension fund, OMERS, is created with money which comes directly from our pockets as payroll deductions and indirectly from us in the form of a negotiated benefit matching payments from our employer.

"We do not see any reason for you to create an Ontario investment fund when most pension funds are already doing what you proposed with a great deal more expertise and a solid record of success. Your motives are suspect, particularly when we consider the size of the provincial budget deficit. OMERS consists of money which we are setting aside for our retirement so that we can expect a decent standard of living in our old age without having to be dependent on the government.

"In these difficult times, even the viability of the Canada pension plan is being questioned. We prefer our funds to remain in the hands of qualified people who are free of political obligations, and we want our money to be invested safely and without any reference to special interest groups or political patronage.

"We support the position taken by the OMERS coalition, which is that involvement in any such investments be on a purely voluntary basis."

I have signed this.

PINE GROVE FOREST

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition for the preservation of the Pine Grove Forest.

"Whereas the Pine Grove Forest is a significant wetland forest complex, a portion of which is designated an area of natural and scientific interest on the east bank of the Rouge Valley, a part of the Petticoat Creek watershed in Pickering; and

"Whereas the Pine Grove Forest is an essential gateway to the Rouge-Duffin corridor, thereby providing a crucial link to the Altona Forest, Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek as well as Lake Ontario waterfront and north to the Oak Ridges moraine; and

"Whereas the Rouge Park advisory committee has recommended to the province of Ontario to include all of the Pine Grove Forest within the future Rouge Park,

"We, the undersigned, urge the Premier of Ontario and the ministers of Natural Resources, of the Environment and Municipal Affairs to protect the Pine Grove Forest by ensuring that the province includes this significant area in a national-provincial Rouge Park. We strongly oppose any urbanization of this natural area."

I've signed my name, and we have names from Scarborough, from Pine Grove and from other parts of Pickering.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

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

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have signed that petition myself.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 72 names from my riding of Dufferin-Peel, specifically Orangeville and Grand Valley. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's with respect to the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

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

"We believe in the need for 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 hardships on 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."

I have affixed my signature to this document.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the members of provincial government handed to me by the minister Gilles Pouliot. It's an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

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

"We believe in the need for 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 the society in Ontario and cause increased hardships on many families.

"The amendment 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."

I affix my name to this petition also.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have the pleasure of introducing a petition on behalf of the members of St Andrew's Memorial Presbyterian Church, Stavebank Road North in Mississauga -- actually in the town of Port Credit.

The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Re the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as legal holiday:

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

"I believe in the need for 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'm happy to sign my name and lend support to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Laughren moved government notice of motion number 20:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing November 1, 1992, and ending December 31, 1992, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The members will know what this motion is for. It's to allow the government to pay its commitments, its bills, up until the end of December 1992.

The members will also know that last Thursday we had scheduled this debate so that the motion could be passed through before the end of October. Subsequent events in this chamber did not allow that to happen, which caused us some concern because of some bills the government will not have been to able to have paid on time.

I understand that while it's not going to affect the cheques for welfare recipients or cheques of the civil servants of the province, nevertheless, there were some contractual arrangements that were not able to be honoured by this government. I don't like to see that happen. I think government has an obligation to pay its bills on time. I think, however, that people do understand that it was the decision of the opposition parties not to allow the supply motion to pass before the end of October.

Having said that, I hope that since this is November 2, members opposite will understand that if the delay continues, every day the delay continues, the problem gets worse and fewer of our bills are paid on time. I trust the members of the opposition will appreciate that. It's not causing government itself any problem. It's the people expecting cheques and expecting contracts to be honoured who will be upset if the motion of supply is not passed.

Having said that, the members of the opposition have a democratic right to debate this item and I'm sure will carry out those responsibilities in a most responsible way. It is not my intention to make a long speech because, given the interest that members opposite have shown on this supply motion, I think they would not want me to cut into any time they might otherwise have to debate this motion.

I would say to members opposite that the times we are going through are unusually difficult. They are not restricted to Ontario. There are difficult times in other jurisdictions that have economies very similar to the economy of Ontario. There are other jurisdictions with our kinds of problems as well, and that's true whether you look at other provinces or whether you look at competing jurisdictions elsewhere in the world, or in North America, for that matter.

I'm sure that members opposite have their view as to what it is that is causing our problems in Ontario. I would simply say that in the province, we have put in place a number of programs that we believe are committed to addressing the cyclical problems of this recession, but even more importantly than that to addressing the long-term structural problems.

Let no one mistake: The recession we're going through is not a typical cyclical one. There are profound structural changes taking place, and we cannot respond to this recession the way governments of the past have responded to previous recessions. It is much different from that: It truly is structural in nature. It is our intention not to respond to every cry for assistance that we hear out there in the province, whether it's from opposition members or whether it's from a particular sector.

We simply can't do that if we're going to have any kind of plan that puts Ontario well placed to recover from this structural recession. We intend to do that. It's not going to be easy, but we believe we have an obligation to do so.

We know that the referendum caused a certain amount of instability and uncertainty, but that is behind us now. We must get on with making sure that the infrastructure of this province and this country is rebuilt not simply for the fact that the infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, but because of the jobs that will create and the fact that it will continue to make this province a good place to live, to work and to invest. We intend to continue to do that.

I wish I could be here for the entire debate but since I thought the debate was going to be held last Thursday, I made other arrangements for this afternoon and I won't be able to listen to the scintillating debate that will flow from this motion. I wish I could be, because I do enjoy the supply motion debates. But having said that, I do look forward to reading the comments that the members opposite make and, hopefully, that members on this side will make as well. I look forward to reading that.

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

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I was interested to listen to the Treasurer as he indicated