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

October 27, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): It is indeed a privilege for me today to rise and honour our world champions, the Toronto Blue Jays.

[Applause]

I can see we have unanimous consent on this one.

Over the past 15 years, and particularly over the past month, the Toronto Blue Jays have given Canadians a reason to smile, a reason to cheer, a reason to feel good about themselves and a reason to feel pride in their country.

The members of my family are all avid Blue Jays fans, to the extent that my 14-year-old daughter and I travelled down to Atlanta this past weekend to be at game 6 of the World Series. We wanted to be there to cheer on our beloved Blue Jays and to be there as Canada's baseball team made history.

What a roller-coaster ride it was. Imagine being a little island, my daughter and myself, two Blue Jays fans among 52,000 Atlanta Braves fans, all doing that perfectly synchronized tomahawk chop and the chant that I was to remember in my dreams and my nightmares for days afterwards.

Some will say it is ironic that it took a group of American, Puerto Rican and Dominican ball players to unite Canada, but that sells Canada and Canadians short. The ownership, administration and fans are all Canadians, and we're the ones who helped build this superb team. From across this country, from Vancouver to Saint John's, the team was Canada's, on the field and in our hearts.

Congratulations, and go Blue Jays.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This week, people across Canada are sending their elected representatives white ribbons to show their concern that pornography is harmful to the individual, the family and the community.

Those of us who wear white ribbons are worried that some children are receiving their sex education from pornography. We are worried that there is no law against the possession of pornography, and we are worried that the degradation and violence of pornography hurts society, particularly women and children.

Last fall, I sponsored a private member's resolution which received the unanimous support of this Legislature. My resolution petitioned the federal government to replace the Criminal Code's ambiguous definition of obscenity. Since then, a Supreme Court of Canada decision has clarified what is obscene and has stated that the distribution of pornography is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

None the less, there is widespread concern that the Ontario Film Review Board still does not reflect community standards in releasing many adult sex videos. Moreover, adult video stores are increasing in many communities, including Mississauga. As X-rated videos become readily available, they fall into the hands of children. A study by Dr James Check of York University shows that children between the ages of 12 and 17 are the primary consumers of pornography in Canada.

I therefore ask all members to join me in wearing a white ribbon this week and fighting the spread of pornography.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Last week and last weekend there was a fever. We caught that fever. It was the Blue Jays fever. We won. We won the World Series. For the first time in history, Canadians have got something tangible we can celebrate, and we did celebrate, with a fever. Out on Yonge Street, people were dancing, people were singing, out on the streets, out in the parks. There was a fever. We caught that fever.

I want to thank the Blue Jays. I want to thank Cito Gaston. I want to thank everybody who was involved with that team for what they have done for this country. They have brought us together. We are united. This weekend was history, and I am proud, and I am telling them today from Yorkview, thank you, thank you very much. Thank you, Blue Jays, for everything you have done, not only for the city but the rest of the country. Thank you for uniting us.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I stand here once again on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole to congratulate the Toronto Blue Jays, the city of Toronto and Canada.

Late Saturday night, in the 11th inning, the Blue Jays made baseball history as they became the first team outside the United States, the first Canadian team, to win the World Series. Our excitement and our joy was overwhelming. Hundreds of thousands of fans poured on to Yonge Street Saturday night. People just wanted to cheer, to yell and have a good time. What a party.

Yesterday that same winning spirit and excellent behaviour was displayed once again as thousands of people turned out to congratulate their Jays. Inside SkyDome and along the parade route, people yelled and cheered for their baseball heroes.

The Blue Jays are number one in baseball. Toronto and all of Canada are proud of the Blue Jays. Our team brought us home the greatest achievement in baseball, the World Series trophy. Today I congratulate Toronto, Canada, and of course the very special Blue Jays. The Jays are number one, but so are their fans.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The Toronto Blue Jays have won the World Series and won the hearts of Torontonians, Ontarians and Canadians across the country. On Saturday night, 500,000 people in Toronto marched jubilantly down Yonge Street in celebration of Canada's first World Series win, and the celebrations continued over the weekend and into Monday during the welcome-home parade and festivities.

We should be proud of the Blue Jays' hard work and the wonderful accomplishment they've achieved. I'm certain I speak for all members of this House and for all Ontarians when I extend a big congratulations and thank you to the Blue Jays -- and Mr Speaker, I'm not going to sing this year.

Not only have the Blue Jays given Canadians a sense of pride and unity, but economically they have injected tens of millions of dollars into the Metro Toronto and Ontario economy. Tourists and reporters from around the continent and around the world congregated in this city last week to witness the World Series games at the SkyDome.

It's unfortunate that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation was not there to personally welcome media people from around the world and act as an advocate for the Tourism ministry in Metro and Ontario. This was a unique and maybe once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to promote the many tourist attractions of Ontario to the world. Unfortunately, I understand the minister was away on personal leave last week. Obviously the window of opportunity which the World Series presented in terms of tourism promotion was not a priority with him.

I'm looking forward to another World Series victory next year for the Jays. We're proud of you, Blue Jays. Keep up the good work.

GREEK CELEBRATIONS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Last Sunday, it was a real honour to be able to participate with members of Metro's Greek community in marking the 40th anniversary of OXI Day. That parade, which is the anniversary and looking back, marks a time in history when Greece was able to repel the dark forces and democracy reigned on that day on October 28, 1940. The Greeks rallied together and were able to come together to defend their country, and this parade marks that anniversary. It's important to have that place in history, because that shows an assembly of people coming together in democracy and unity for peace, stability and prosperity.

After the parade, we then marched over to Nathan Phillips Square and city hall, where we had many speeches from leaders of the Greek community. We had wonderful dances from the Greek community from the dance troupes, and it shows how wonderful the culture and community are, how proud they are of their traditions. It was good to see that cooperation coming within the community, and it's a good thing to remember that we have these people as part of our community, that they share the values and the principles of democracy, and that is the basis of stability and economic growth of any community.

NORTHERN ONTARIO BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to acknowledge and honour the Northern Ontario Business Awards, which I attended on Thursday last in Sault Ste Marie. Approximately 500 women and men from across the north came together to celebrate and honour the north's business people. All northerners thank Michael Atkins and his cohorts for again making this evening and day most memorable. I'd like to take a moment to share my congratulations, and those of the Liberal caucus, with those honoured.

Company of the year, one to 25 employees, went to Miller Technology of North Bay. Our congratulations to Ron Miller and his people.

Company of the year, 26 to 50 employees, went to Dingwell's Machinery and Supply of Thunder Bay. Our congratulations to Patrick Gilbride and partner Robert Bell and their dedicated employees.

Company of the year, 51-plus employees, went to Great Lakes Power of Sault Ste Marie, Don Watson, president. A tip of the hat to Don and friends at this dynamic electrical utility.

The entrepreneur of the year award went to the dynamic and versatile Vic Prokopchuk of Atikokan, whose community involvement and leadership talents were well documented.

Young entrepreneur of the year award went to Doug Nadorozny of the AMS Group (Sudbury). Our congratulations.

The executive of the year award went to Frank Dottori of Spruce Falls Paper.

On behalf of all members of this assembly, our best for the future, because the business people of Ontario, particularly northern Ontario, are our future.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health, and it concerns her government's treatment of Ontario's vulnerable seniors who are unable to care for themselves.

Since September 1990, 20 nursing homes in Ontario have closed. The 94-bed Bestview Health Care Centre in Orillia has never had any new beds allocated from the provincial government since it first opened its doors. Bestview alone has a waiting list of more than 100 vulnerable seniors waiting for beds.

It's been indicated to me that other nursing homes in Orillia, as well as those in Penetanguishene and Elmvale, also have lengthy waiting lists.

I would really like to know what I'm supposed to tell people like Nancy Crisp of Big Cedar Estates, who is in desperate need of a nursing home bed for her husband.

Minister, your treatment of vulnerable seniors is deplorable. You do not appear to be too concerned about sending out more health cards than there are people in Ontario, and you do not appear to be too concerned about wasting more than $39 million on a scheme to reduce medicare fraud when that scheme itself is open to abuse.

I would suggest that the time is long overdue for you to live up to your responsibilities. Get your spending priorities in order so that the vulnerable seniors in Ontario can have access to nursing home beds and receive the dignified care and treatment they so richly deserve.

NIPISSING COLLEGE

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): This afternoon I will be moving the first reading of a private bill -- note, not a private member's bill but a private bill -- regarding Nipissing College. Right now, degrees are conferred upon Nipissing graduates by the university in my riding, Laurentian University. This bill will allow Nipissing University College its own power to confer its own degrees upon its own students.

What is memorable about this bill is that, first, we in the north will have another university in the north to particularly service the Highway 11 north-south corridor, and, secondly, that all three parties in this House are waiving the five-day reporting period to allow the bill to come before the standing committee on regulations and private bills tomorrow morning. This is truly an example of how we all can work together.

Much if not all of the work was done by the president of Nipissing College, Dr David Marshall. He spent many hours working on the proposal in order to be granted this power, and he's contacted all parties to ensure that everyone at least is informed with full information. I look forward to introducing this bill tomorrow morning, and I want to welcome Dr David Marshall, who is sitting in the gallery.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I rise under standing order 21 to bring to your attention a serious problem. Because we are given particular information in this place about the manner in which certain activities are carried on by the ministers and the ministries, we now have proof that we don't get the full story, that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, for instance, is putting out a different story than it has provided here in this House and that is put out by some of the members of the government party.

Not only does this first edition of Mr Cooke's personal newsletter around the province contain some information which does not comply with what was given to us in the House, it comes with a full-size personal cutout of Mr Cooke. A three-colour production produced at this time when our budgets are all under terrible stress is wasteful. More than that, when another minister of the government is on record as opposing the building of the Palladium and in fact was going around telling her constituents in the Ottawa area that the government did not support it, we have the point of privilege of finding out that David Cooke and Dale Martin actually gave Ottawa the Palladium.

Mr Speaker, I wish that you would make an inquiry as to who is telling the truth. Is it the Ministry of Municipal Affairs first edition, a very expensive piece, or is it the member and the minister from Ottawa Centre?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Bruce certainly seems to have some good ammunition for a question in question period. I thought at first he was concerned that his picture wasn't in the publication. That as well, perhaps, will find its way to the floor of the House during the oral questions.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On the same point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to indicate also that the part which was referred to on the Palladium made many members of this Legislature ill when they read it.

The Speaker: We certainly want all members of the assembly to be in good health.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber, and indeed to our country, a special visitor who is seated at the table, Mr Oluyemi Ogunyomi, who is the chief legislative officer from the National Assembly of Nigeria. You're most welcome to our chamber.

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT / ENTENTE CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I wonder if I might have the unanimous consent of the House to make a brief statement with respect to the results of the referendum last night. I've discussed this with the opposition leaders, and I think we all agreed this morning it would be a good idea.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the House, if only briefly, in addition to the comments that I made publicly last night. I think the results are now in, and it's clear that while the referendum result was a positive one in a number of places and jurisdictions, including, I'm proud to say, our own province of Ontario, and I'm very proud of that fact, I think it's also clear that the rejection of the referendum in the province of Quebec and in the western provinces clearly means that the process of renewal that started several months ago, indeed a couple of years ago, and concluded in the accord at Charlottetown with the referendum has now been concluded.

As I've told the people in the province of Ontario, I accept that result. I accept it entirely as an expression of public opinion in the province of Ontario, accept it as an expression from Canada and see it very clearly as an indication not that the idea of federalism has been rejected and not that the idea of our making progress has been rejected but simply in the reality that this particular accord has not met with sufficient approval to proceed.

Obviously, I am disappointed in the result. I'm sure members, whatever their own views may be with respect to the issue at hand, will perhaps appreciate in a brief moment of non-partisanship that when you spend a great many working hours, days and nights, trying to achieve something and feel you've come very close and you've given it everything you've got to make it succeed and it doesn't happen -- I hope members will recognize there is naturally a sense of personal disappointment on my part.

Let me also make it clear, however, that there's no point in our looking back. We have to proceed as a country together. We have to take the time to reflect on and learn the meaning of this experience, of what has taken place. The issue of job creation, of making the country work better, of getting our province to work better, of making sure we're all working more effectively on behalf of the public of the province, that reality and that issue are very much ahead of us and ahead of this government.

I can report to the House today, as I've tried to do on a number of other occasions, that I've had a number of very candid conversations in the last couple of days. I can tell the House, for example, that I spoke today with Premier Bourassa. He was extremely constructive. He was determined to continue the fight for Canada in his own province and sees the task ahead, I think, very clearly in terms of the tasks we face together. I took heart from that conversation.

I can also reflect to members the conversations I had with Chief Mercredi as well as Chief Peters in the province of Ontario and say to the House that I conveyed to those two leaders my own sense that it was now incumbent upon all of us to work together and try in a practical way to achieve some of the things which we all felt, certainly I felt very strongly, would be achieved in the context of the constitutional discussion. That task remains ahead of us and I think it is critical for us to do so.

We live in a democracy in which people were offered a challenge and a choice, and they made it. It is now up to all of us to attempt to interpret and work with the choices the people have given to us. I do so without any regret and I do so without any sense of nostalgia for what might have been. I gave it my all. I think I was speaking on behalf of a consensus of the members of this Legislature when I did so.

C'est naturel peut-être de parler directement et franchement à mes concitoyens de la province de l'Ontario du fait que je suis fier que nous ayons réussi à convaincre une majorité d'Ontariens de l'avantage du Oui dans le vote référendaire. Mais, quand on voit le résultat à travers le pays, il est clair que l'appui pour le Oui n'a pas été suffisamment fort pour que nous puissions conclure ce rang de discussions constitutionnelles de façon positive.

Je regrette beaucoup cette décision de la part de mes concitoyens canadiens. Mais, naturellement, il y a des choses dans la vie qu'on regrette, et j'accepte tout à fait, clairement, la décision de l'électorat.

J'ai parlé ce matin avec M. Bourassa. C'était une discussion très positive. Nous avons réaffirmé encore, nous deux, le partenariat nécessaire et essentiel qui existe entre nos deux provinces. J'ai parlé aussi avec les chefs autochtones, le chef Mercredi et le chef Peters de notre province, pour les encourager de la réalité que nous allons continuer à travailler ensemble, et nous allons le faire d'une façon très positive et constructive.

Même si on est déçus des résultats, on doit les accepter et on doit travailler avec toutes nos forces et toute notre capacité pour l'avenir.

On a personal note, I would just express my gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the Conservative Party. First of all, I know that my absences from the House have been a source of some discussion and comment. They are a fact of life which stems from these obligations.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the third party that I have appreciated the non-partisan, constructive spirit in which they have consistently carried on with this debate and this discussion. I particularly appreciate the support that I've had from members of the Liberal Party caucus and from members of the Conservative caucus.

I think we've all recognized in a very positive way and a positive spirit the fact that however intense the partisan debates may be and however intense our partisan differences may be, we must, on this file, continue to work together. I can assure members of the House that I will continue to act in that way as we discuss these issues.

May I also, on behalf of the members of the Legislative Assembly, express my gratitude to the many members of the Ontario public service, at all levels, who have worked extraordinarily hard in this debate. We are remarkably served by the quality of the people who have served us and who have given us advice and who have worked very hard to achieve a successful result. I know that just as I am disappointed, so are they, but I want to convey to the deputy and to everyone working in the ministry and to people working in other ministries my sense of pride in the work they have done and my personal gratitude for their job.

May I also express my real thanks to the members of the Yes committee, to the people who worked very hard as volunteers across the province and who have done, I think, a remarkable job in conveying a positive message to the people of the province.

We have to recognize now the need to turn a page, not quite perhaps in the way that I had hoped, but nevertheless in a way that I think the people of the province will understand. We now must clearly address, together and constructively, the challenges of the future that face the 10 million citizens of this province as effectively and creatively as we can, obviously in close cooperation and partnership with our fellow Canadians and with our fellow provincial governments, and I will continue to provide that leadership to the best of my ability.

I want to say again to the House, thank you very, very much.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I do not believe that we need to spend a great deal of time today in analysis. The message from the people of Canada last night was very clear. The people have spoken, they've listened to all sides, they've considered all the facts, and they've told us that this constitutional package wasn't right for them.

It seems to me that the second message is equally clear: Governments must now set aside the constitutional debate and concentrate all their efforts on building a strong economy and on creating jobs.

Those of us who favoured the agreement, in all parties, sincerely believed that a Yes vote was a vote for Canada, but we recognize with equal and absolute conviction that those who voted against the agreement were not voting against Canada; they were voting against a series of constitutional amendments.

We do hear a great deal of talk these days about how angry people are, and they are angry. But they're angry because they're frustrated. They're frustrated because they feel the pain of recession. They come head to head with economic crisis every day. They have ideas about what has to be done to solve the problems, and they don't believe that government is listening to their concerns or to their ideas. They just don't believe that governments are dealing with the issues that matter most to them. When Ontarians talk about crisis, that's what they're talking about, and that's what they want their governments to deal with.

In attempting to amend the Constitution, the best efforts of governments have once again failed to meet success, and we cannot continue to devote our energies to the resolution of constitutional issues at a negotiating table. The Constitution is not the problem that is affecting people's lives every day. The economy is doing that, and the economy has to be our priority every day.

As one who supported the Yes side, I join in recognizing the verdict of the people. I congratulate, with the Premier, all who participated in this process on both sides of the issue. It was an important exercise in democracy. A great number of people were energized, people took time to become informed, people on both sides expressed a real commitment to Canada and its future, and now governments must hear what people have said.

The greatest contribution that Ontario can now make to national unity is the contribution that we have always made as the engine of economic growth. The most important thing we can do for national unity today is restore Ontario's prosperity. That is the best way to ensure the future of this province and of this country.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly about last night's referendum result. Let me clearly join with my two colleagues, the leader of the government and Premier, and the leader of the Liberal Party, in thanking not just those with whom we worked throughout this province and in our ridings, encouraging people to support the Charlottetown accord, but indeed all Canadians in how they conducted themselves in this referendum campaign.

Those who were working on the No side, as well as those who were working on the Yes side, if you look at virtually any other country and how they approach major decisions, I think acted maturely. I think it was a good campaign. I thank all those who took the time to analyse this referendum and to participate in one form or another in a very basic form of democracy that I think we're obviously going to need more of.

There are many messages, many meanings and many ways to interpret what happened. I don't want to rehash. I agree with much of what the Premier has said. I know academics will now debate and will write about this period in our history. I'm sure this week and next week and next month and for years to come, political strategists and tacticians will review the campaigns and the advertisements and the results from the top down and the bottom up. Pundits and media commentators will play Monday morning quarterback. That's as it should be; that's fine.

But I'm not an academic, I'm not a pollster and I'm not a political strategist. I'm not a pundit; I'm not a media commentator. I, like each of you in this chamber, am the representative of my community, and I want to share with you a fundamental result of yesterday's referendum that hasn't been expressed yet in this chamber and I think is a lesson all of us should have learned from yesterday, and if we do that, the referendum will have a positive contribution to make, not only in future constitutional discussions but in the economy as well.

I, like each of you, am a representative of my community. I'm a guy from North Bay with a mortgage and two children. I was sent here to Queen's Park to do a job. Our task is to lead, well reflecting the will of the people.

Last night was a signal to us that leadership and reflecting the will of the people must go hand in hand, cannot be separated. We, as elected representatives, must give form and substance to the decision-making process. We must make those decisions by reflecting the will of the people. Harry Truman said it rather simply. He said: "There go my people. I am their leader. Therefore I must follow them."

Nearly 14 million people went to the polls and marked a ballot yesterday, and one of the clear messages I heard was that this signals a change in the way we must conduct our politics. The brokered interests around the table came and represented their agenda very effectively. Whether it was western Senate seats or whether it was Supreme Court appointments or aboriginal self-government, the horse-trading and the negotiating and the accommodations took place. They took place in a typical Canadian, very generous, way, a positive way. By the old definition of politics, the brokered interests struck a deal. By the old definition of politics, that would have been enough, by those

definitions.

But that was not reflected in the will of the people yesterday. It was not enough. Politics is changing, and our attitudes and our method of operation must change with it. This doesn't simply apply to us in this chamber; it applies to union leadership, it applies to business leadership, it applies to all the power brokers in our society. The paternalism and the élitism of the past will not sell today.

That is one of the real messages I took from yesterday's referendum. We need more genuine reflection of the will of the people in our deliberations. We need more free votes in the Legislature. We need more recognition of the sophistication of the electorate. They knew what they were doing yesterday. They were not voting on Lyn McLeod, Mike Harris, Bob Rae, Brian Mulroney, economics, jobs; they were voting on the Charlottetown accord and they didn't like it.

I suggest to you, as something we should learn, that one of the very great lessons from yesterday is that it's not politics as usual. People are mad about certain things. The anger won't go away by ignoring it, and we need to be honest and we need to be open in our decisions.

I agree with my two colleagues. We need to get on with the fundamental economic change and job creation. This is not a new issue just discovered overnight, but there is another signal to the union élite, to the business élite, to the cultural élite, to the political élite, and it's a signal we cannot ignore. As we turn to the economy, we should, I believe, reflect on one of the real messages from yesterday and from last night. The paternalism and the élitism of the past did not sell on the Constitution and it will not sell on the economy. It won't sell in dealing with jobs.

It won't sell in dealing with labour legislation. It won't sell in any of the other significant structural changes we are going to have to address.

I wanted to express this viewpoint in a real, positive way, that if we learned that from yesterday, then we will one day find a Constitution acceptable to all Canadians, and if we learn from yesterday that the politics of the past has changed, we truly then will have an opportunity, if we apply those lessons, to find the economic solutions we are looking for as well.

I congratulate all those involved. I share a number of the comments and concerns the Premier has made and others have made, but I believe if we continue to ignore one of the very strong messages from the people in yesterday's referendum, then we will have greater difficulty in the future in finding those solutions we are looking for. I ask all 130 of us in this Legislature to reflect on that and what the people told us yesterday.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): There seems to be one continued point of unanimity, and that's in recognizing that the message we heard in yesterday's referendum was a message of getting back to the economy. Needless to say, that's where we want to turn our attention and the Premier's attention today.

In fact, it is hardly for the first time, since day after day, week after week, we have kept trying to remind this government of Ontario's reality: that in Ontario, every working day, 547 people lose their jobs, every three days a plant closes in this province and that there are 555,000 people out of work. We insist on having this government recognize that, in September, the jobless picture in every other province in this country improved except in Ontario.

Premier, it is obvious to everyone that your economic strategy is not working. You cannot meet even your very modest predictions of economic growth. I ask you today: Do you have any other policies to offer Ontarians, or is 11% unemployment the best your government can do?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The unemployment numbers are obviously not acceptable to anybody in the province or anybody in the country. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will recognize that what we are confronting, perhaps I can say to her, contrary to what she's been putting forward, is not a problem that is confined to Ontario. It's a problem and a challenge that is affecting the entire economy in the western world, in particular the economy of the North American world and in particular the economy of those parts of North America to which our exports are particularly tied and to which our job growth potential is particularly tied.

I say to the honourable member that the strategy of our encouraging investment, both public and private -- the Jobs Ontario Training fund, the Jobs Ontario Youth fund, the anti-recession fund, the decreased taxes on small business, manufacturing and resource processing, the manufacturing recovery program, our determined effort not to abandon an equity agenda but to sustain an agenda for fairness, the $3.9 billion on strategic infrastructure, the sectoral strategies that are in place as well as the $150-million sector partnership fund, the increased capital cost allowance and the $930 million that we are determined to place in training, which is a 25% increase in our training budget -- this is the general direction which we want to take.

I can say to the honourable member that we are doing whatever we can. We're going to be working closely with business and with labour, with community groups, with everyone, to address it and we are going to continue to make this issue the very top priority for the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier keeps refusing to understand that it truly is time to come home and deal with the kinds of things he can do to turn around Ontario's economy and to recognize that the list he was able to recite after having the page open in front of him doesn't offer any initiatives that are actually working. Nobody is getting back to work in this province.

The Premier publicly indicated yesterday that one of his first steps in looking at the condition of the economy, which we all agree has to be the priority, will be to go to countries in Asia to convince people that there is stability so that they can be encouraged to invest in our country.

I would say to the Premier in all sincerity that you can't reassure investors in Tokyo and in other Asian cities that Ontario is a safe place to invest their money when people here in Ontario are, day by day, losing confidence that it is in fact safe to invest here at home.

I would ask the Premier, will you not deal with the realities of this province? Will you not stay and talk to the people in Barrie and Kitchener and Thunder Bay and Toronto, and find out from them what you can do to turn Ontario's economy around, and to say to people here at home what you will do to restore their confidence that it makes sense to do business in this province again?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not surprised by the question. I in a sense anticipated it.

I would say to the honourable member, first of all, will I be sitting down with people in those communities? Yes, I will be. Have I been doing it? Yes, I have. Have we been responding? Yes, we have.

I'll be going to Sault Ste Marie on Thursday, and no doubt she'll be commenting on the fact that I won't be in the House at question period then. But I'm going to be sitting down with the chamber of commerce, I'm going to be sitting down with the labour movement, I'm going to be sitting down with members, and we're going to be discussing and also looking at some very practical things that we've done in terms of cogeneration, which will be creating jobs in the Sault Ste Marie community and responding to a very difficult economic situation.

I can say very directly to the member that if she's suggesting that somehow there is a conflict between our trying to improve exports, improve investment and take a broad-minded, open-minded view of the world and the responsibilities of the Premier of Ontario, I couldn't disagree with her more profoundly on that particular score. You're setting something in opposition to each other which shouldn't really exist.

Mrs McLeod: I would make it very clear to the Premier that my question was not one of questioning his presence or absence in the House. My question is directly to the Premier on what he needs to do to deal with what he recognizes as a goal; that is, to restore confidence that it makes sense to invest in this province. I'm saying to the Premier, start at home. Hear what people are telling us day after day after day about what your government is doing to destroy investor confidence in this province.

To take just one example, Mr Premier, this week, as you well know, your Labour Minister is going to bring in Bill 40 for its final reading. People across this province, Mr Premier, if we want to talk about investor confidence, are telling you very clearly that this bill is destroying confidence in Ontario as a place to invest. This bill is going to put more people out of work. Premier, if you are in fact serious about building investor confidence in this province, will you not stop this bill before it's too late?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer to the question is no, Mr Speaker. I'll just tell her why: because we don't see any conflict. It's interesting. I've talked with the people in the province of Quebec. I've spoken to business people throughout. There's a need to create a strong partnership, a sense of working together.

We gain nothing by pitting labour against management or management against labour, or by indulging in the kind of rhetoric which the Leader of the Opposition has surprisingly engaged in, which says that if we try to create a more stable labour environment in this province, somehow we're doing something that's contrary to business. What we are doing is modest, it is progressive and it is sensible, and we're going to continue on that path.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Premier. I think the Premier will agree with me that one of the foundation stones for the people's confidence in their government is that the ministers who are elected to form a government are abiding by the rules and the regulations and the standards of conduct that have been established to ensure that there is no conflict of interest in the activity of any minister. In fact, the Premier himself made reference to that in the first speech from the throne of this government when he stated as follows:

"Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever it exists. We will set clear standards of behaviour for the conduct of ministers."

Since that time, a number of ministers and members of the government have been in trouble: the minister of highways, the member for Welland-Thorold, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, the member for Scarborough West, the member for Sudbury East, the member for Cambridge, the member for Kitchener, and most recently, the Solicitor General when he was Minister of Correctional Services.

We have said time and again that one of the great defects in the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines is that the Premier sets himself up as the judge and jury of conduct. I want to ask the Premier quite directly, when the Premier violates the conflict-of-interest guidelines, who is to stand in judgement of the Premier?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Perhaps the honourable member could tell us what he's talking about.

Mr Sorbara: I'd be more than pleased to tell the Premier what I'm talking about, if I could have a page. I want to refer the Premier to

section 22 of his guidelines. The

section reads as follows:

"In any adjudicative or investigative process bya provincially appointed tribunalministers shall not communicate on behalf of a private party in any manner in which his or her position as minister could reasonably be perceived as influencing a decision."

I'm just going to send over a copy of a piece of correspondence dated September 16 for the Premier's consideration. This letter is on the letterhead of Bob Rae, MPP. It is addressed to Mr John P. Kruger, the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board. It relates to a massive development project in the Premier's own riding, the Black Creek-Eglinton development. I'm sure the Premier will be entirely familiar with it.

It reads in part as follows:

"Dear Mr Kruger:

"I am writing in support of the request by Drena Inc" -- that's the private party -- "and the city of York for an expedited hearing for early October in the abovenoted matter."

It continues as follows:

"As you can appreciate, all parties, including the provincial government with its interest in the development of a transportation mode, are concerned about the effects that any further delays may have on this development. Many of the partners involved share this concern and I hope they will be persuasive in any further discussions that you may have on this question. Your consideration of this request would be appreciated."

The letter is signed by Tony Romano, executive assistant to the Premier of Ontario. I ask the Premier once again, does this, in his mind, represent a violation of

section 22, which clearly states that no minister, and presumably minister's staff, ought to communicate with tribunals and try to persuade them in any decision which is before them? Could we have just a clear yes or no from the Premier on that matter?

Hon Mr Rae: The member has given me this letter which is over the signature of Mr Romano, who's my executive assistant. It's the first I've seen of the letter. Let me just say to the honourable member that it's no secret this is a project which the government of Ontario, the government of the city of York, the Ministry of Transportation and other ministries have been directly involved in negotiating. What Mr Romano is writing to ask is that the OMB deal with this issue in a way that's as soon as possible.

I am reliably informed that an inquiry of this kind is not unusual, but I would say to the honourable member that to suggest that somehow a conflict --

Interjections.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Inquiry.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. Mr Speaker, let me deal directly with this. To suggest somehow that there is any kind of conflict involving me, involving me as a minister or me as Premier, on the basis of this letter is, I think, most unfair. It casts an aspersion which is quite unjustified and quite unfair, and I regret very much that that's the kind of inference the member is seeking to draw with respect to me. I regret that he would choose to put his question in that particular light and to put his question in that particular manner. I regret very much that he's chosen to act in that way because I think he's really being most unfair in this regard.

Mr Sorbara: I have no comment to make on the proposal. I have no comment to make on whether or not it is a good idea to develop those lands. I have no comment on who the Premier chooses to speak on his behalf as his executive assistant and to write letters over his letterhead and to advocate in front of a tribunal.

I simply tell the Premier this: There is a set of guidelines the Premier himself proposed to govern the conduct of his ministers. One of the massive defects in those guidelines is that the Premier stands as judge and jury, apparently now even when he and his office are the perpetrators of the wrongdoing.

When it was the corrections minister, we got rid of a deputy minister for a while. When it was the former Solicitor General, who never saw the letter, who never signed the letter, it was some staff member who was dismissed. In other cases, it was just an unavoidable error.

It is not being unfair to ask the Premier who it is that is going to make a judgement as to whether or not this letter, interfering or advocating in front of the tribunal, in clear violation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines, will be determined in some closed quarters with Ross McClellan and a few other of the political spin doctors or whether he is going to put this matter as to whether or not a violation occurred and what should be done if a violation occurred to a committee of this Legislature or to the conflict-of-interest committee, or who is it that is going to stand in judgement? I say to you, Mr Premier --

The Speaker: Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Sorbara: I say to the Premier that on the face of it, clearly the guidelines have been violated. There couldn't be a clearer violation of the guidelines if the Premier had signed the letter himself, and I'm asking him, who is going to stand in judgement on this matter?

Hon Mr Rae: Look, this is a project which this government --

Mr Sorbara: It's a big project.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. Don't play around.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Don't play around, my friends.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: You're trying to turn this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I find it ironic, and maybe other members will understand this. The member's leader stands up and asks her first three questions, saying, "Why don't you do more about ensuring that we have job creation in the province of Ontario? Get things moving," she says, "Get things going." An executive assistant in my constituency office, when we understand -- let's read the letter:

"I understand that the application has met all the board's priorities for an expedited hearing date and that the appellant has also indicated their agreement to this request. The people who are" -- everyone --

Mr Sorbara: The appellant has not agreed to it.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Now the member's taking a stand. He's against the project.

The Speaker: Could the Premier take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: An expedited hearing request, quite bluntly, has nothing to do with the adjudication. It has nothing to do with requesting special treatment with respect to the outcome of the inquiry or anything of that kind.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's called jumping the list, Bob; it's called butting in.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: You have here a situation where people are agreed that a project needs to go ahead, a project which is supported by the government of Ontario. We're on record. I was at the signing ceremony. So were other ministers at the signing ceremony. There's no secret about that. There's absolutely no secret about that.

I want to say again to the honourable member: This is an issue about jobs. I find the questioning from the opposition totally contradictory. To try to turn this into some kind of a personal conflict on the part of the member, I think has really missed the mark, and I must say, even after knowing the member for as long as I have, I am really surprised by the kind of comments he's made.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Now we have the 8th or 9th or 10th example that we have absolutely no guidelines, that it's just "Do whatever you wish to do," and another confirmation again today that as long as Bob Rae is Premier and this party's in power, the guidelines mean nothing.

The Speaker: Is the question to the Premier?

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I would like to ask a question of the man who plans to stay on as Premier in spite of the guidelines. Last night we, as political leaders, realized we did not share the view of all Ontarians. Leadership obviously does not always reflect the views of membership. I suggested earlier today that we should learn a lesson from that experience.

Today, as we turn our attention to the economy, Premier, I suggest to you that by listening to the élite of the labour movement, not the union worker, you're in danger of making the same mistake on Bill 40. I would ask you if you have learned any lesson from yesterday, learned the lesson of Charlottetown. Will you scrap Bill 40, as the union membership and the public are asking you to do?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It's great to be back. I want to congratulate the member for, if nothing else, his ingenuity. He managed to turn what was a solemn day yesterday with respect to the Charlottetown accord and interpret its results as a referendum on Bill 40 in Ontario. That almost defies comment.

But let me say this to the honourable member: To seek to use the results of the referendum, which were, as I said, results where more than half the people in the province -- not by a wide margin; by a narrow margin -- supported the referendum, to try to draw from that any conclusion with respect to particular pieces of policy, New Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, I think is a major mistake. He himself said it in what I think was one of his finer moments when he spoke in the House a little earlier, that this is not about the economy, this is not about any other subject; this is about the Charlottetown accord.

I say to the honourable member, if you're opposed to Bill 40, that's fine, but don't try to use yesterday's referendum as a way of crowbarring your way into the debate on that particular subject. It's unworthy of you.

Mr Harris: I really regret that the Premier hasn't learned one of the lessons of yesterday. You've not learned one of the lessons about the élite, about the deal makers, about what the public thought of that. You have not learned that. If ever there was an example of deal making now as we deal with the economy, if ever there was an example of power brokers, it's Bill 40.

Premier, 89% of union members tell you they want a secret ballot vote. Bob White doesn't tell you that; it's not in the best interests of the union bosses. Pandering to what Bob White and Leo Gerard want rides roughshod over the rights of workers.

Premier, I suggest to you today that you are destroying Ontario for the sake of a payback to the big union bosses and nothing more. Last night, you accepted the will of the people on the Constitution. Will you do the same on this fundamental economic issue? Will you give union members the democratic right to a secret ballot vote, as 89% of them say they want?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the record will show that the process in terms of labour relations in this province has always been based on a set of discussions, a set of debates and a set of balances which every government tries to find.

I think the balance we've found and struck is a reasonable one. It's one to which the response, if I may say so, has been quite exaggerated and over the mark. I would say to the honourable member again that to try to turn the referendum process on the Constitution into a suggestion that what we are doing here is somehow against the interests of the province is quite unfair.

I must say that I'm not flummoxed by it, but I do find it strange that the member would be trying to interpret the results of the referendum as indicating support for any particular ideological position or party position or non-ideological position or pragmatic position with respect to any particular item.

Mr Harris: Apparently, the Premier can't quite understand what I'm telling him. Yesterday was a lesson in democracy for the élite: the political élite, the union élite, the business élite. It was a lesson in democracy; 89% of union members are asking you now for democracy, not a cooked-up deal between the Premier and the élite of the unions. Will you give them that democratic right that 89% of them want, not the cooked-up deal of Bill 40? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Rae: We've made a number of amendments to Bill 40 and to the proposals for labour relations in response to a number of requests that have come in, and we've tried to work as hard as we can to strike a reasonable balance.

Mr Harris: Premier, this is the opportunity here to listen to workers, to listen to card-carrying union members instead of Bob White, and you are blowing that.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well. I understand you'll be leaving for a 16-day tour of the Far East beginning on November 5. I can only assume, given your commitments of last evening to creating jobs and rebuilding the economy, that you believe spending 16 days out of province is the best way to do that. Premier, before you go abroad to sell Ontario, don't you think you'd better stay home and clean up your own economic backyard first?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): One of the realities of our time is that whenever a minister or a Premier either goes to Europe or goes to Asia -- which I've done a couple of times now, trips to Europe and trips to Asia -- the line is that this is somehow a luxury cruise on which public business is somehow less important than it is.

I happen to think that in terms of where we're at now, in terms of international reaction to the referendum, to which I would have thought the member would be sensitive, this trip has been planned for some time. It is very much part of the economic agenda of this government to be open to international markets, to be open to what's going on around the world, and I will continue to do that.

If the member sees any partisan advantage in bashing either dealing with the Europeans or dealing with Asians or dealing with Latin America or dealing with those international companies, I will say to the member that I disagree. This trip has been planned for some time. It comes at a sensitive time, in terms of a conclusion of the referendum debate. I think it's necessary to do and it's necessary to go, and I plan on proceeding.

I will also be meeting with a number of groups and people in the days and weeks ahead, and I will continue to do that. I don't think anything is gained by saying that somehow if you talk to businesses in Japan --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- companies that have very substantial investments here, Toyota and Honda, companies that are considering expansions here in many cases, companies that have a deep interest in what's going on in the North American economy. I just repeat, simply putting one's head in the sand and pretending that the rest of the world isn't there is not a realistic way for Ontario in 1992 to be proceeding. It just doesn't make any sense.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Why don't you just talk to Ed? He'll tell you --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, please come to order. The leader of the third party with his supplementary.

Mr Harris: Once again, Premier, I think you've missed the point of the question. I didn't say, "Don't go." I said, at this time, what is it that you plan to take with you? What are you going to tell other countries about what you've been doing for the past two years? Do you intend to tell them you've created a climate in Ontario where 500 jobs a day are lost? Do you intend to boast about your $12-billion deficit? Will you be carrying copies of your newly minted labour law?

What kind of investment pitch do you think you can make with the most repressive taxation, the most repressive legislation, the most repressive job- and investment-killing labour legislation in North America under your belt?

I'm telling you, you can sell Ontario better if they never see you, so you don't remind them of that. Let's stay home and clean up our own front yard and backyard first.

Hon Mr Rae: Again, it really is a joy to be back in this place.

The honourable member talks about taxes. Well, it's because of the kind of misinformation that the leader of the third party puts about. Let me tell him, I'm going to be telling them that in terms of taxes, on the effective combined federal-provincial/state manufacturing income tax rates, we are 38.3 in 1992, going down to 36.3 in 1993 and 35.3 in 1994. That compares with 40.3 in Massachusetts, 39.9 in New York, 39.9 in Ohio, 38 in Tennessee and 37 in Texas. So I'll tell the honourable member, somebody's got to go over there and tell them not to believe the kind of hooey and guff they're hearing from the opposition spokesman in this Legislature.

Mr Harris: There has been only one person over there speaking to them, and that is your Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Ed Philip. If they're getting any hooey, they're getting it from him.

Premier, I assume one of the reasons you're going to the Far East is because these are countries that have money to invest. They are well-managed economies.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Mr Harris: They place value in their education systems. They place value in their young people. They are advancing their training programs. They've built constructive relationships between business, government and labour. Premier, these are all things you've refused to do. How can you possibly believe that you will have credibility in these countries, that you will have any sense of credibility, until we get our own act together here in Ontario?

Would you not agree with me that if we could get business and labour truly together here in Ontario, if we could get on with training our young people, giving them the skills they're going to require, that would be more important than going over there now with your labour legislation sticking out of one breast pocket and your $12-billion deficit and very poorly managed economy sticking out of the other breast pocket?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm delighted, again, to answer the question very directly, because I really think the member has been providing the House and indeed the public with a very wrong impression about the advantages of doing business in the province of Ontario. I don't think it's a wise approach to do that; I don't think it's helpful or constructive. But if he chooses to be that way, that's fine.

Let's look at our health care tax rates. Our health care tax rates are at 1.95 in Ontario. They are at 8.3 in Illinois, 8.3 in Massachusetts and right across the board. Similarly, on social securities and pensions: 2.3 in Ontario, and 7.65.

In terms of the cost of health, it costs C$3,000 per employee less than American companies for comparable health coverage. If you want to talk about training, we're putting 25% more money into training in this province than ever before in the history of Ontario, nearly $1 billion.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Where is the legislation? I've been waiting a year for that legislation.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: The training legislation is coming under way, and so is OTAB. It's precisely to talk about these developments.

I can tell the honourable member that the business leaders I talk to in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan have a much more positive and realistic view about what's going in this country and in this province and what's happening in other places around the world than the kind of partisan bickering we hear from the leader of the third party when it comes to debates about the economy of Ontario. And that's precisely why these issues are so important.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a question for the Premier. It concerns another area that requires the government to pay attention and take some real and meaningful action in.

Premier, the question is to do with education. You will know that at the end of last week newspaper articles appeared about a 32-page confidential government document setting out a purported new curriculum for Ontario schools. The response to this document demonstrates both a widespread concern over its vagueness and the lack of a full and public debate of where we're going in Ontario's education.

The questions which parents in particular have and want your answer to are: How will you ensure that Ontario students are being taught a core curriculum that is relevant? How will you ensure that educational standards across the province are similar? Finally, how will you ensure that there is in place a method of evaluation, of assessment, that is meaningful and explicable to parents, students and teachers alike? They want your answer, Premier.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): In all fairness, I think I should give the Minister of Education a chance to reply to this question.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I would like to say first of all that the member opposite is correct when he refers to the leaked document, which I actually haven't seen but I gather was a very early version of a draft of the common core curriculum that would be sent out to all schools. He's quite correct when he says that it was vague, because in fact it was a very early draft. In the more recent drafts that I have been looking at, in fact we're trying to be, and we are going to be, much more specific than in the version that he may or may not have seen.

As he fully well knows, as part of this process of revamping the curriculum, we very much want to establish a curriculum that is much more relevant to young people, that has in place a form of evaluation that starts from establishing some very clear standards and then also provides some clear direction and assistance to our teachers in terms of how they're going to evaluate the kind of progress the students are making towards achieving.

These are all issues we are working on very hard. They're issues that in fact the member opposite should very well know, because indeed it was his government that began this process. But rather than continuing the process for another couple of years of discussion, we've chosen to try to begin to act and to try to get some of this information to the schools this year, and to begin the implementation process now.

Mr Beer: Again, I think the issue, particularly for parents but indeed for all of those who are involved in the educational system, is, what will be those standards and what specifically will be that core curriculum?

Your colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities, together with the community colleges, has taken from the Vision 2000 statement the decision that there can be standardized curriculum at the community college level. Are you saying today, in acknowledging that you weren't aware of this leaked document, that you have seen some further documents; that in effect what will emerge from all of this discussion will be a statement of a clear core curriculum based on well-articulated standards?

Will that have a full public debate, so we'll know that the educational system for our young people is one that will have those clear standards, that clear curriculum and clear evaluation? Is that what you're committing to, Minister?

Hon Mr Silipo: The member opposite has asked the question as if he's getting me to admit something that is going to be a surprise. That's exactly what I've been talking about for all these many months, and that's exactly the direction that we are pursuing.

We believe it's possible and necessary to establish for our school system some very clear sets of expectations of outcome and that we can set those in a very clear way; that we can over a period of time establish a set of clear criteria, a set of clear standards; that that's different from standardized testing and that, quite frankly, is different from telling teachers how to teach; that we can leave a lot of flexibility in the hands of the professionals around how they deliver, but we can do that within a very clear direction that says, "These are the things that students at various points in their education should be able to achieve," and that this can be done in a way that's understood by teachers as well as parents.

That's the direction we're pursuing, because we believe very much that this can be done and needs to be done.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Premier related to the concerns of the policemen and policewomen across this province and the new use-of-force regulations brought in by his government. Hopefully he will respond, because certainly the policemen and policewomen I've talked to feel that he is the only one in this government who can effectively deal with their concerns.

My leader and I met with representatives of the Metro association this morning. They strongly believe that their concerns are health and safety related and public safety related. They believe this, as do officers right across this province. I think that will be clearly indicated tomorrow.

I'm wondering if you and your government are prepared to review these regulations. I suggested to the Deputy Premier a couple of weeks ago perhaps through the justice committee, but it could be done through a select committee equally represented by members of the opposition and the government. If that's not acceptable to your government, perhaps you could look at some sort of blue ribbon citizens' committee where the police would have input into the selection of a chair and would be adequately represented.

The reality is that although a committee did look at these use-of-force regulations, it did not reflect the feelings and the views of policemen and policewomen who are out there on the beat every day and are very much concerned about the impact this is going to have not only on them and their safety but on public safety as well.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I thank the member for his question.

I don't know what he told the members of the police association about his own views with respect to the job action, and I would appreciate hearing that at some point, but I'd say to the honourable member that the offer I made directly to Mr Lymer on Sunday afternoon, where I told him that I would be quite happy, in company with the Solicitor General, who I think in the face of a very difficult set of issues has done extremely well in representing the interests of the public -- I would say to you, sir, and say to the members of the police force of the province, we support very strongly the police officers and the work they do.

We understand very clearly the situation they are facing.

I want to say, however, to the honourable member that I continue to be troubled by police unions indicating that there are some things that police officers should do and other things that they shouldn't do, some laws that they should enforce and other laws that they shouldn't enforce, on an issue in which the government has indicated it is certainly prepared, I indicated to Mr Lymer on Sunday, to have a discussion. We are certainly prepared to have a dialogue. We are prepared to have a very productive discussion.

The offer that I made is very clear: Suspend the job action for 48 hours. We will sit down and discuss in those terms. That offer is a reasonable offer. It remains in place. I do not think that what I'm asking, in the circumstances, is unreasonable. I think it's a fair offer, and I would hope that the honourable member would think about it as he reflects on his next question.

Mr Runciman: I regret that the Premier is continually, starting yesterday on television and now in this House today, referring to police unions. This is a police association. He's using that terminology for political purposes because of the public concern about the perception that he is kowtowing to big union bosses across this province.

This is an association of men and women right across this province. We're not talking just about the Metro association. You saw the response of the public in the SkyDome in respect to the police yesterday versus the response you got to your speech, Premier, and I want to say that they have legitimate concerns. They're not just in the Metro association; they're right across this province. They're average citizens right across this province who are concerned about their safety and the way in which you are dealing with policemen and women.

I asked you a question in respect to achieving a resolution of this by establishing a committee to take a look at police concerns, a committee that would have equal representation from the opposition and the government, or a citizens committee where the policemen and women, rank-and-file officers, would have input into the makeup of that committee. Why won't you do that?

Hon Mr Rae: I don't know whether the member is acting as a spokesman on behalf of the police association or if he's trying to bargain on its behalf. I would say to him very clearly that I've indicated to Mr Lymer: "I will sit down face to face with you for a period and discuss what it is that's on your mind, and I will tell you the concerns the government has, together with the Solicitor General. I am perfectly prepared to do that. I have no hesitation in doing that. We can discuss any of the proposals such as you have made and such as have been made by the honourable member, any suggestion coming forward." It will be a very frank and candid discussion on all sides, I'm sure.

All I'm asking in return is that police officers and the police association, the police union -- I don't use the word "union" in a pejorative sense, never have and don't intend to; a police union is what it is -- indicate that the job action is coming to an end, as a gesture of good faith and as a sign that we're working together.

I am troubled and I continue to be troubled, and I would hope the member -- he doesn't have to say it publicly but perhaps in his private moments -- would wonder whether it's really wise for police unions to be telling their members which laws they think they should enforce and which laws they think they shouldn't enforce because they're unhappy with one particular government action or another. That is a concern we have to have. It sets a very difficult precedent for the province.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, as you are well aware, community information centres are especially important during tough economic times. More and more people who are out of work, looking for work, looking for places --

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, as you are well aware, community information centres are especially important during tough economic times. More and more people who are out of work, looking for work, looking for places and seeking food, shelter and basic human services are turning to CICs for their answers.

Not all CICs are supported by government. In fact, the CIC in Cambridge gets no funding for its operations. Surely in times like these, CICs deserve government support. In fact, all CICs require government support, now more than ever. Do you plan to pull the plug on CICs this December?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): The member is correct; the government does support 56 out of the 75 CICs. The ministry is very aware of how hard the CIC people work and how important they are to the community. In turn, we have recognized their importance. We did a review recently called the review of public access to government human services information project. It told us how important the CICs are to the community. It told us how effective they are to the community. The review has been very helpful to us, and we hope to continue to look at CICs and their situations.

Mr Farnan: I'm not sure if the CICs want to be told how important they are to us. They want the funds.

The minister has not answered my question. Again, I ask the minister, will the CICs currently --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Don't be so tough.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Farnan: Will the CICs currently receiving government support continue to be funded in the new year, and will those CICs struggling without government support be included in the funding program for the new year?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I think every member in this House does know how important CICs are, but I think every member in this House also knows the fiscal realities we are facing and the situation regarding funding of all sorts of organizations within Ontario.

We are continuing to work on a solution of funding of these centres. We know it's not going to be very easy, but I would like to assure the member -- in fact, I would like to assure all the members -- that the staff at the ministry are working very hard, not only with fellow ministries but also with central agencies, to try to come to a long-term solution to this difficult option of funding to the CICs. We will continue to work on this solution until we find one.

REPORT ON VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): As it involves two or three of the ministers, my question is for the Premier. The actions of this government continue to astound us. On Thursday there was unanimous agreement in this chamber from all members of the House that the injustice done to the Grandview victims must be corrected. Yet your government has taken action in completely the opposite direction. You've obtained a court injunction which prevents the release, as ordered by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, of a crucial report from 1976.

When asked by my leader last Thursday why your government was suppressing the release of this report, the answers were less than appropriate and certainly not comforting. I would like to ask again why you are suppressing the release of this report.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer that question to the Attorney General.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Just on a couple of points that were in the question, we are not suppressing a report. As the member well knows, a number of events happened in the 1970s at the Grandview centre. Those events are under investigation by a joint investigation force of the Ontario Provincial Police and the Kitchener-Waterloo regional police services. The police forces that are conducting that investigation have very specifically asked that we not release part of the 1976 report because they believe that release of that information could jeopardize the ongoing criminal investigation and could also jeopardize any criminal procedures that might result from that investigation.

Let me be clear to the member: It is two police forces that have very specifically pointed out to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of the Attorney General that if we do release that information, it could jeopardize the ongoing criminal investigation and any criminal procedures that might result from that investigation.

Mrs O'Neill: The Information and Privacy Commissioner knows this case well, and he has assured the public that the release of this report, in its edited form particularly -- and it is much edited -- would not endanger the victims and certainly would not endanger the current investigation. You know those findings well, Mr Attorney General. The result of the 1976 report, however, will likely confirm many of the allegations of the victims.

May I remind the government that when the concern about the treatment of the Grandview victims first arose in 1968, the NDP claimed that:

"The program at Grandview was dehumanizing and inhumane and the girls were treated like rats in a maze. We all know that the Grandview survivors are real people with real needs. Their spirits and their sense of hope have been buried for a long, long time, their potential and their future seriously hindered." These are NDP words from 1969.

Mr Attorney General, why are you engaging in this coverup of this important, edited report? How can you claim credibility when you say that you really care about these survivors who have already been suffering for more than 20 years?

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, in the spirit of public debate, you'll excuse me if I take offence when words like "coverup" are thrown around loosely. I believe that everybody in this House is concerned about all of the issues that might impact on, involve or in any way affect the alleged victims who, at one time or another, may have been at the Grandview centre. I also believe that the Ontario Provincial Police and the Waterloo Regional Police services are concerned about any impacts there might be on those alleged victims.

I am just a little bit concerned when a member raises the issue of coverup. I know of no grounds why the OPP might want to engage in a coverup. I know of no grounds why the Waterloo Regional Police services might want to engage in a coverup.

If the member opposite is going to use the word "coverup," I think it behooves her to produce some information that indicates that there is a coverup. If she has some information, she should turn that over to Commissioner O'Grady of the Ontario Provincial Police, who, I believe, will be very interested in any information she has.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. Mr Premier, I'd like to read to you

section 22 of your conflict-of-interest guidelines. It states that ministers should not attempt to influence a decision "in any adjudicative or investigative process bya provincially appointed tribunal."

The Ontario Municipal Board is a quasi-judicial board appointed by the government. Development applications are made to the Ontario Municipal Board, and its hearing dates are of much negotiation and sought after by developers and so on.

My question to the Premier is: How is it that you can say that a letter directed to Mr John Kruger, chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board, asking that a development in your riding, supported by your government, should jump the queue, butt in line and get ahead of all those other developments that have waited patiently to be heard by the Ontario Municipal Board -- how can you tell this House that that letter is not in fact contrary to the guidelines you set down, in

section 22 specifically, where you didn't try to influence a provincially appointed tribunal?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the question, and I would say to the honourable member again: Let's look at the facts as I understand them. I hope you will appreciate that in the context of the debate in this House I get a letter which I've never seen before, it's put before me and I have to try to respond to it as best I can.

The response I'm giving you is that the response is over the signature of the executive assistant in my constituency office. This is a project which, as I said, has the full support of the Ministry of Transportation, has the full support of the GTA, has the full support of all the ministries and now has the full support of the city of York. It obviously is a project in which there's considerable public interest.

What my executive assistant is asking is whether or not it's possible for this process to proceed in a way that does not delay the impacts with respect to jobs and other issues.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): And you think that special request for special treatment is in compliance with your guidelines, is that it?

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

Hon Mr Rae: He's not attempting to affect the outcome of the proceeding. He's not saying, "Please approve this project."

Mrs Caplan: You have no standards.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: He's not saying, "The Premier told me to write to you to say, 'Approve this project.'" That's the implication of your question. That's the implication of the question opposite.

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

Hon Mr Rae: "The Premier stands to benefit personally by this." That's the implication of raising it under the aegis of conflict of interest.

Let's be fair about this. An executive assistant with respect to a public project --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- who has the full support of government is asking that a hearing date be set. That's what an executive assistant is doing. I don't regard that as any kind of interference --

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

Supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, my supplementary is to the Premier. Mr Premier, where was the benefit to Mike Farnan when his staff wrote the letter to the justice of the peace? There was no benefit.

Mr Premier, I didn't ask you who supported the project; I just asked you how you interpret

section 22 of your conflict-of-interest guidelines. I didn't write them; the Conservatives didn't write them; the Liberals didn't write them. Sir, you wrote them and you said that no minister can influence a decision in any adjudicative or investigative process.

Mr Premier, the OMB is a quasi-judicial board. I say to you, hearing dates at the OMB are much sought after. I ask you, what is the difference between what your executive assistant did and what the executive assistant to Mike Farnan did, whom you fired?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me answer very directly and say to the honourable member, that to suggest for example, that if members of the constituency office staff make inquiries to the WCB about a hearing date, is that now to be regarded as a conflict?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: No. no. I want to know. Or if there's correspondence from any of you --

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat for a moment, please.

Mr Stockwell: You wrote the guidelines; I didn't.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order.

Mr Stockwell: It represents millions of dollars when you are heard. It costs millions of dollars to wait for a hearing date. You know it.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West posed a question. If he would like a response, I would ask him to allow the Premier the opportunity to respond.

Hon Mr Rae: I think I've responded as best I can, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to bring to your attention subsection 45(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act and would ask that the Speaker reconsider what I understand is a ruling he has made which I believe he may have made in haste and without due consideration for the privileges of members of this House.

It has come to my attention that tomorrow, in the process of democracy in this province, we will be visited by several constituents who are police officers in this province. I have been led to believe, Mr Speaker, that you have ruled that a police officer who by circumstances of his daily activities may be wearing his uniform will be barred from this building under all circumstances.

Mr Speaker, I was further informed that you made that decision couched in a decision you made on October 17, 1991, a ruling which you are no doubt familiar with and which I have in front of me. You indicated at that time that this was the first time in Ontario that such a ruling had been made. Without quoting at length from that ruling, it speaks at length about where the privileges of a member may be disrupted by a police officer while on duty in the process of interrogating or investigating or executing a warrant.

Tomorrow is a normal day at Queen's Park. Tomorrow, constituents will be visiting this assembly to participate in a peaceful demonstration. As is the wont of many of our constituents, some may wish to enter the building in order to talk to their elected representatives.

There are many precedents where people in natural uniform, their vocational uniform, that manner of dress which they wear on a daily basis, have been allowed into this building. I suggest to you that the Liberals had the capacity to allow in doctors and nurses in this province when there was a demonstration regarding balanced billing; that the Premier, in his former capacity, was quick to run to the front door and say to injured workers, with their outward appearance, whether it be a prosthetic device or a crutch, that those injured workers had the right to be in this building.

Mr Speaker, I believe your decision was made in haste and is not consistent with the concerns you raised in your previous ruling. I ask not only on behalf of my constituents who are planning to attend tomorrow, but on behalf of all members of this House whose constituents wish to travel at great length to visit their elected representatives tomorrow. I believe, sir, your decision may have been rather harsh.

When we invite our constituents to enter this building, the issue is not whether they are dressed in a uniform, whether they be an ambulance worker, a doctor or a day care worker, but rather that we vouch for their conduct and can assure members of this House that our peace officers in this province are just that and that their business tomorrow is to talk to us and not to cause disruption for the chamber, which they respect. I ask you to review that ruling, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Burlington South --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On the same point --

The Speaker: On the same point of order?

Mr Elston: Yes, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Burlington South was kind enough to advise me that he was going to stand on this point, and I must in the strongest possible terms support his inquiry of you as to, perhaps, a change in your ruling.

It is my opinion that, in any event, as long as a person is to be visiting this place at the invitation of a member or even on his own account for peaceful purposes, whether it be to move from place to place in the building for the purpose of informing the members of this assembly of a public interest issue, you cannot prevent them from coming into this place without breaching our privileges. It seems to me that even more so attains if in fact there has been an invitation issued by the members for people to visit with them in their particular offices.

I know, Mr Speaker, that you would not have wanted to have that happen in the case of your own situation when you were a private member in this place. You probably would have spoken out very strongly indeed against a prohibition of individuals, either from your constituency or even people who had come from other constituencies, dropping in to tell you about their points of view on particular interests that they had in regard to public business.

Even in the days when I was a minister and was responsible for some issues of interest and of controversy, it was never intended nor was it ever extended through my offices that the people be prevented from coming and making their points to the opposition, on this side of the House in those days, or indeed even to our own members of the government caucus at that time, because I realized that only with a full and frank discussion among the various interested parties could we hope to come to some kind of a conclusion and a consensus with respect to public issues.

I agree with the member for Burlington South that it would be a very unhappy day when the Speaker took it upon himself to make a ruling that prevented people from peacefully visiting members in the assembly buildings, whether they were dressed in uniform or whether they were not dressed in the uniform of their undertakings.

Mr Speaker, I ask you again, in concert with the member for Burlington South, not to put an embargo upon the visit of police officers to this building just because there is an apparent day of demonstration outside about what is viewed to be a negative public decision by the Premier of the province. I ask you, Mr Speaker, please let them in.

The Speaker: On the same point, the government House leader.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): The point I was going to make is that I believe this matter has come up in the Legislature before and previous Speakers have had to deal with this matter before. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Speaker Edighoffer had to deal with it and Speaker Stokes had to deal with it. In terms of demonstrators, when there's a demonstration going on in front of the Legislature, there has been the question of who has access to the Legislature.

The only suggestion I have, as one member of the Legislature, is that whether they're ambulance workers, whether they're demonstrators who are injured workers or whoever the demonstrators are, the same rules should apply to those folks that apply to police officers, and any ruling you make tomorrow will have to be applied to all demonstrators in the future.

The Speaker: To the three members who have spoken: First, in particular to the member for Burlington South who originally made the point, what the member raises is a security issue. The member will know that we have guidelines with respect to security. I would be very pleased to meet with the member for Burlington South and the member for Bruce at their earliest convenience, which would be within the hour, in my office to discuss this further.

I must say that the ruling to which the member for Burlington South alludes is not at question here and never was. That particular ruling has to do with the privileges of members and the possibility of a surprise visit by police officers in discharging their duties. Of course, that ruling deals strictly with that and does not deal with demonstrations.

The matter which he brings to my attention is one that members on other occasions have brought to my attention with respect to demonstrations and what special accommodations can be made on a case-by-case basis. That's the way I've always attempted to deal with them and I'm more than happy to review the particular situation which we may or may not find tomorrow.

In that regard, as I mentioned, I extend an invitation to both the member for Bruce and the member for Burlington South. If they would like to see me in my office within the hour, I'd be more than delighted to try and handle their concerns so that no member feels that somehow the privileges of the members have been abused or, indeed, that the public expression of demonstration is hampered in any way, shape or form.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR70

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move that standing order 87 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the consideration of Bill Pr70 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday, October 28, 1992.

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

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition signed by over 3,000 people from York, Durham and Peel to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 proposed sites in the regions of York, Durham and Peel as possible candidates for landfill; and

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

section 5(3); and

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition and agree with it wholeheartedly.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'd like to again bring this petition to the House, representing nearly 100 residents from Unionville and Bowmanville and Lindsay, Ontario. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition signed by 146 people from North Bay and area which reads as follows:

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

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

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC history and science. The origin of life is a completed act. Therefore, neither evolutionism nor creationism can be proven or disproven empirically.

"In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking, such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions, can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view. These skills should be incorporated into all textbooks approved in Circular 14, dealing with the question of origins."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act reflect the fact that more women, more members of visible minorites and more part-time employees are in the workforce today than ever before; and

"Whereas these workers deserve the same access to the right to join together and bargain collectively as workers have had in the past under the existing act, which has tended to serve workers in large industrial centres; and

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act will bring about greater worker participation and reduce conflict and confrontation in labour-management relations,

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

"That the Ontario government and all the members of the Legislature effect speedy passage of changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act so as to promote better labour-management relations and to provide women, visible minorities and part-time workers with the same rights as other workers have under the act."

I have affixed my name thereto.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition here that's signed by 477 people.

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my name to that.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here signed by a number of farmers from rural Ontario, from the Tilbury area, people like Tom McKeon, Ernie McKeon, Eugene Marchand, Jim Peltier, and also Mike Schneider from the Chatham area.

What they're opposed to is that two thirds of the farmers in Ontario do not even belong to any of the farm organizations. They are asking that the proposal for stable funding that is being presented to the Minister of Agriculture and Food be stopped or allow a democratic vote of the farmers to choose whether to belong to the farm organization or not.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition. It reads:

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region; and

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

To which I also affix my signature.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

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

"Whereas on June 11, 1992, the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton, Mr Drainville, moved a resolution,

"'That in the opinion of this House, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly should be authorized to review and report to the House on recommended changes to the standing orders to allow independent members of the assembly the right to more fully participate in the work of the assembly;' and

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly on that day, June 11, 1992, did unanimously vote in favour of the revolution" -- that's right, Mr Speaker, that's what it would be;

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

"We request that the government allow the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to study and debate the said resolution."

It's signed by members from Victoria-Haliburton, and I affix my signature to it.

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition. It's been organized by a student in my riding, Richard Simson, indicating that young people are also supportive of our police forces and of law and order.

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

"Whereas the law-abiding citizens of Ontario are gravely concerned about crime in their communities; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario trust the judgement of police officers in the province to administer sufficient force in order to protect persons and property; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario would be endangering the lives of the men and women who serve in our police forces by restricting any further conditions under which officers of the law may draw their firearms;

"We, the undersigned, feel that it is not in the best interests of Ontarians to place further regulations or restrictions upon the actions of police officers."

I submit this petition and affix my signature to it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition signed by a number of citizens, again of rural Ontario, in the Wallaceburg and community area. It deals with the undersigned petitioning the Legislative Assembly with regard to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. What they are asking for is that the members of the Ontario Legislature pass quickly the changes to the OLRA, which will promote labour-management relationships and provide women, visible minorities and part-time workers with the same rights as other workers have under the act. I affix my signature to this piece.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario: A proposal to license a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula. It reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity. By my signature here attached, I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I agree with the sentiments of this petition, and I affix my signature to it to show my agreement.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a number of petitions signed by residents in the Blenheim area, the Leamington area, the Ridgetown area, the Windsor area -- the majority of southwestern Ontario. The emphasis behind the petition is the wide-open Sunday shopping. The undersigned are opposed to Bill 38 and ask that the government withdraw it and allow that Sunday shopping not be wide open. I affix my signature to it.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition here.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register opposition to wide-open Sunday business. 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 retailers, retail employees and their families."

They are obviously against Bill 38, and I affix my signature to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NIPISSING UNIVERSITY ACT, 1992

On motion by Ms Murdock, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr70,

an Act respecting Nipissing University.

OPPOSITION DAY

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Elston moved opposition day motion number 2:

That this House condemns the government of Ontario for its failure to recognize:

That northern Ontario has been a source of enormous wealth for the private sector;

That northern Ontario has been a source of enormous revenues for the provincial government;

That the provincial government puts very little revenue back into the north;

That the roads in northern Ontario are in terrible shape;

That the NDP government has not proceeded with serious four-laning of highways in the north;

That the delivery of health care services in the north is still inferior;

That northern municipalities have particular problems of boom and bust while the NDP government freezes unconditional grants;

That forestry jobs are threatened because of this government's failure to live up to its commitment to provide seedlings and because of the continuing practice of clear-cutting;

That almost no attempts have been made to diversify the economy to create jobs nor to work with the private sector and create meaningful jobs when serious layoffs occur;

That the Ontario government continues to treat northern Ontario citizens like second-class citizens.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'm pleased to speak to the resolution just read into the record by our House leader. I would note that the government may want to quarrel with some parts of this resolution or its wording. It may be that in the course of our debate this afternoon they might want to suggest, for example, that in fact revenues are being returned back to northern Ontario, or they may want to argue that in fact the roads in northern Ontario are not in terrible shape because significant progress has been made in dealing with the transportation issues of northern Ontario.

So I'd like to make it very clear at the beginning of the debate that this resolution was not prepared by me or by our House leader or by the Liberal critic for Northern Development. This is, word for word, a resolution that was presented by the then member for Nickel Belt, now the Treasurer of Ontario, on June 26, 1990.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): That's out of date.

Mrs McLeod: The names have been changed to reflect the realities of today and to acknowledge those who are responsible for the continuing situation in northern Ontario. While the member for Algoma suggests that perhaps it is out of date, our contention in the debate today is that the contentions in that resolution are equally applicable and that there is no excuse for this government not having taken action to deal with the concerns it presented then.

If this resolution was presented in good faith then, if the member for Nickel Belt at that time believed it was in fact an honest representation of the state of affairs in northern Ontario, if the opposition of that day was not just playing games, if it truly believed that the government of Ontario was treating northerners like second-class citizens, I would suggest to the member for Nickel Belt and to all of his colleagues that they look at their own record and at the record of their government. I suggest that they ask themselves honestly what they have done to correct one single aspect of the situation that was described in this resolution originally presented in June 1990.

Clearly, we placed this as an opposition motion before the results of last night's referendum were known. I've already suggested today that part of what we've seen -- the results of northern Ontario are a particular example of that -- in last night's vote was a reflection of the frustration people feel, and nowhere is that sense of frustration, anger and alienation felt more keenly than it is across northern Ontario. There is a feeling of alienation that the government simply refuses to understand the very unique needs of people in northern Ontario.

There is anger that the government doesn't deal with issues that really matter to northerners. And there is a tremendous frustration that in fact so many actions of this government have actually made matters worse.

It is a sad reality that as people in my community went to vote on the referendum question yesterday they were learning that a pulp and paper mill had closed its doors with finality and that a second pulp and paper mill was to either be sold or to close within the next 12 months. That's the reality of the frustration, the anger and the alienation that people in northern Ontario are feeling.

I would suggest that in our debate today, we begin to look at the reality of what has happened since this original motion was placed, since this government assumed the responsibility for dealing with the concerns of people across this province and with the concerns of people in northern Ontario.

The resource industries, which were a source of wealth and employment that northern communities relied on in the past, are now truly under siege. What has happened in Thunder Bay, with the announcement of another paper mill about to close, is just the most recent example of that.

In the mining sector, which is the largest non-government employer in northern Ontario, we've seen investment decline from $450 million in 1988 to $125 million in 1991, and the figures for 1992 are expected to be less than $100 million. This is an industry that used to employ 30,000 people and now employs less than 22,000 people.

The forest products industry is clearly facing similarly difficult times, and in this climate of uncertainty, this government seems bent on creating even greater uncertainty for workers, for communities and for companies across northern Ontario. The government refuses to understand that forestry companies in northern Ontario don't know whether it's safe to invest in their plants to meet the federal environmental regulations, for example, because they don't know what to expect from this government in provincial environmental regulations.

The government backed away from three years of work on MISA, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, and workers, management and municipal leaders are now worried and confused about what the final provincial regulations will be. In this atmosphere of concern and uncertainty, the Premier, it appears, has now refused to even meet with mayors of the communities that are affected.

I'll turn for just a few moments to the specifics of the resolution, and one in particular recognizing that the roads of northern Ontario are in terrible shape. The resolution says, "That the NDP government has not proceeded with serious four-laning of highways in the north."

We remember that during their opposition days the New Democrats promised to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway. In this year's estimates for the Ministry of Transportation, we've learned that by 1994 this government expects that only 22 kilometres of highway in northern Ontario will be four-laned. It's their promise, their commitment and their concern. I ask, is this a serious initiative in four-laning?

In the meantime, this government continues to pursue disentanglement as a solution to municipal and provincial budgetary woes, but what people in the north are afraid of is that this government doesn't understand that northern communities will not be able to manage road budgets on their own and the transportation problem, the serious condition of roads in northern Ontario, will just get worse and worse.

There is talk in this resolution of the importance of diversification. We recognized when the New Democrats originally presented the resolution that diversification is indeed important to the future of northern Ontario. But we see a government now that completely fails to understand how important tourism is to diversification in the north, how tourism in this province has been hit by the government's failure to proceed with the transportation initiatives that it committed itself to and how tourism has been further affected by increased gas prices.

Gas prices are one of those ironic issues, because we all remember the New Democrats raising again and again their concerns about gas prices and the effect high gas prices have, particularly in northern Ontario. Then we moved to the moment when the New Democrats themselves decided they would increase the gas tax.

I can't accuse them of completely forgetting that they were concerned about the impact of the gas tax on northern Ontario, because they went to offer northern Ontarians some sort of olive branch when they told northerners they would provide relief from the new burden of the increased gas tax by exempting them from the vehicle registration fee. Northerners were understandably not terribly appreciative, because there was very little saving to the northerners to compensate for the increased costs they would pay in gas tax.

But now we review the government's infamous list of 63 possible ways to solve Ontario's revenue problems and we find that this rather desperate government is even now considering reinstating that vehicle registration fee exemption in northern Ontario. No wonder people are frustrated and angry and feel alienated.

There's a resolution here that speaks about the delivery of health care services in the north still being inferior. I'm not going to take the time of the House this afternoon to give example after example of how in their approach to health care issues this government keeps using one-size, broad-brush approaches that fail to respond to the unique needs and realities of northern Ontario communities, but if you talk to anybody in the north, you know that they believe that what this government has done has made access to quality health care in northern Ontario less and less possible.

Amid all the examples of broken promises, there are two particularly critical failures of the government which I must comment on. The first of these failures has been in the area of forest management. This government is continuing to consider an old-growth policy, an initiative which was undertaken by a previous government and a policy which we continue to feel is important, yet on this very important issue with significant resource implications we find the government once again failing to consult those who would be most affected by the policy.

As the Minister of Natural Resources looks somewhat surprised, I would suggest to the minister that he look very carefully at the places where the consultation of his Old Growth Forests Policy Advisory Committee is to take place. I found no community in the north where there is actually significant old growth to be considered that is involved in the consultation process.

At the same time, we continue to see cutbacks in forest regeneration. In 1992-93 this government cut the number of tree seedlings to be planted by 45 million. Now we're hearing rumours that the ministry will not offer any contracts to private tree seedling growers to plant on crown land in the 1993-94 fiscal year. Whatever the policies this government is looking at, there is one absolute rule in forest management, and that is that you cannot save forests unless you renew them. The regeneration policies of this government violate that rule and threaten both the environmental and the economic sustainability of the forest industry in this province.

I would refer the government, and particularly the Minister of Natural Resources, to the statement in this resolution, which was once theirs: "That forestry jobs are threatened because of this government's failure to live up to its commitment to provide seedlings."

The second serious, fundamental failure that I want to touch on today is the government's complete inability to diversify the economy of northern Ontario and thereby help to create jobs.

I read again the resolution: "That almost no attempts have been made to diversify the economy to create jobs nor to work with the private sector and create meaningful jobs when serious layoffs occur." Again, an ironic resolution to have been presented originally by a New Democratic member, because we have seen with this New Democratic government a government that has been completely unable and unwilling to work with the private sector, a government that has absolutely refused to listen to any of the concerns of business or industry in the north or in any other part of this province.

In northern Ontario, as it has done right across this province, the New Democratic government has introduced one initiative after another, which has served to lessen confidence in investing in this province. They have created a sense that it is impossible to do business in Ontario. As a result, when layoffs occur, as they are occurring on a daily basis in my part of the province and indeed across the province, there are no jobs for workers to train for and there are no new businesses to provide jobs for them.

As my colleagues and I debate this motion today, we do so with sincere concern about the economic future of the northern part of this province and of the province as a whole. We debate this resolution with no confidence in the government's ability to achieve any of the goals it set out for itself in presenting this resolution in the spring of 1990.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Just as I rose in the spring of 1990 to support this resolution when proposed by the NDP, I rise today to support this motion as proposed by the Liberal Party.

We will vote in favour of this. We do not have confidence in this administration, in this government, for a number of reasons, I might add. A number of my colleagues will wish to put some things on the record, and I will put a few myself, rather than all of us talking about the same things.

I don't want to dwell on the particular motion. There are some aspects of it that I find passing strange.

"The NDP government has not proceeded with serious four-laning of highways in the north." For northeastern Ontario, for the corridor served by Highway 11, once you get north of Huntsville, through Parry Sound, Nipissing, Timiskaming, up into Timmins and Cochrane, that takes that whole route. The last four-laning of any kind along Highway 11 was proposed, planned, promised, funded and started by a Progressive Conservative government over seven years ago. It was finished by a Liberal government that promised to four-lane everything when it got elected, and not one new inch of four-laning has proceeded on Highway 11 for the last seven years.

We had an NDP government that was going to four-lane the Trans-Canada. What that meant to everybody was that wherever we have a Trans-Canada Highway, as Highway 11 is, as Highway 17 is, people would expect that if they voted NDP, there would be four-laning. On the contrary; there has been even less with the NDP government than there was with the Liberals, and with the Liberals there was even less than there was when there were Progressive Conservative governments, at a time, I might add, when we spent half as much money overall.

"Forestry jobs are threatened because of this government's failure to live up to its commitment to provide seedlings." The last government in administration, spending less than half the amount of money the Treasurer announced in his budget, had far more seedlings provided at a time when we should have been moving ahead. In 1985, when we were talking about significantly more dollars required now for tending of the forest, because we had massively increased the numbers in the planting of seedlings in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, we said that must not only continue, but now we need even more money. We had commitments for more money for northern Ontario through the Minist