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

December 9, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Sa réponse m'a beaucoup déçu et je me suis demandé si le ministre pouvait vraiment se permettre d'imposer sa volonté à ce conseil scolaire et de le garder en tutelle indéfiniment.

Comme ses collègues ont pris l'habitude de le faire, le ministre de l'Éducation s'est dépêché de faire porter le blâme sur les conseillers scolaires. Je ne suis pas convaincu que les conseillers scolaires sont la seule cause du problème. Même si c'était le cas, c'est encore la responsabilité du gouvernement d'apporter des solutions au problème. Vous avez toujours refusé de rencontrer les membres du conseil scolaire. Ces gens-là pourraient peut-être vous suggérer des solutions.

La tutelle dure depuis quatorze mois. C'est beaucoup trop long. Je ne pense pas que vous avez réussi à régler les problèmes financiers du conseil scolaire pendant ces quatorze mois. Je ne pense pas non plus que vous avez contribué à offrir un enseignement de qualité comparable aux élèves francophones de la région. Il y a au moins 2700 personnes qui vous l'ont dit hier.

Dites-nous comment vous allez régler le problème. Retirez-vous du dossier si vous n'êtes pas capable de faire quoi que ce soit.

Monsieur le ministre, la tutelle a duré trop longtemps et il est urgent de remettre aux élus la responsabilité d'administrer leur conseil.

MEMBER FOR BURLINGTON SOUTH

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I wish to acknowledge the recent honour that was bestowed on my colleague and good friend Cam Jackson, the member for Burlington South.

In recognition of his outstanding community service, Cam was invested in the Order of St John in October in a ceremony at Christ Church Cathedral in Ottawa by the Governor General of Canada. Also receiving honours were Richard Rohmer, QC, and former Liberal MPP James Breithaupt. The nomination of the member for Burlington South to the order was officially approved by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

The Order of St John was founded in the Middle Ages as the Knights of the White Cross, whose chief responsibility was to protect and defend orphans, widows and the poor. It has since evolved into a charitable organization honouring individuals who live in the spirit of its original ideals.

Cam is the divisional president of the St John Ambulance 406C cadet division in Burlington. He is the founding chair of Burlington Food Share, a coalition of food banks providing relief to the needy. He has organized the first-ever city-wide food drive and has raised funds to establish the first school-based children's breakfast program in his community. It is no surprise, then, that our leader, Mike Harris, appointed Cam as the party's social services and children's services advocate.

The people of Burlington have come to know Cam Jackson as a hardworking MPP who is always ready to come to their assistance. On their behalf and on behalf of all of us here, I congratulate my colleague the member for Burlington South and a serving brother of the Order of St John.

SECOND BASE YOUTH SHELTER

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): Second Base Youth Shelter is now under construction in my riding of Scarborough West thanks to $2.6 million in funding from my government's Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The shelter will provide crisis intervention, guidance and shelter for 40 homeless youth of both sexes. Second Base will help prevent the greater problems that can result when young people from Scarborough and surrounding areas are compelled to leave their home communities and go downtown for help.

In the members' gallery today are the chair of the board of directors, Brenda Ryan, and the vice-chair, Worrick Russell. These are two of Second Base's extremely dedicated and talented board members. They are now engaged in a very active fund-raising drive to raise $190,000 for furniture, equipment and startup funds.

Ms Ryan, Mr Russell and their board are requesting personal meetings with corporate boards of directors, employee charity groups, unions and community service clubs. One company has already assisted them with $2,500 in computer software. Centennial College will be placing co-op students with them next year. Operation Springboard is supplying numerous volunteers. Second Base has a student awareness and school fund-raising program appealing to students to help raise funds.

And Second Base is appealing to public figures like those of us here in this Legislature to help. I have contributed $300 for the purchase of one of the shelter's beds. I challenge the members of this Legislature and other public figures in and around Scarborough to match my pledge.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): The Minister of Transportation knows how important the speedy construction of Highway 416 is for the economy of eastern Ontario. The minister also knows that if his officials award a contract number, the project normally is ready to go.

I was recently told that sections of the 416 project from Century Road to the 401 were given a contract number in early fall. Normally, this means that tenders would be called shortly thereafter; however, for some totally unexplained reason, the contract numbers for the 416 were cancelled, thereby putting the much-needed construction on hold and throwing the whole highway completion

schedule into turmoil.

I'm calling on the minister to clear up the confusion. Why were the contract numbers cancelled? Are he and his government still committed to the completion of the 416 from Ottawa to the 401? If so -- and I see the Premier here -- when will the project south of Century Road go to tender, and what is the new time line of the NDP government for having the four-lane link finished between the nation's capital and the 401?

Today I've written the minister asking for an official response. This is an issue of vital importance, not just for the economic wellbeing of the Ottawa-Carleton area but for eastern Ontario at large. Hundreds of jobs are at stake. At a time when employment is sorely needed, the last thing we want is the provincial government holding up projects that have already been approved.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): North York Hydro recently announced that it would be boycotting Ontario's 8.2% rate increase. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly support the efforts of North York Hydro and to convey to the Minister of Energy the message that excessive rate increases will not be tolerated by the people of Ontario.

The public cannot afford the exorbitant tax increases this government continues to implement. As North York Mayor Mel Lastman has pointed out, Hydro rates have risen over 30% since 1991. To quote Mayor Lastman, "Our beleaguered taxpayers have had enough of never-ending price hikes, and something must be done."

The Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario recently commented that Ontario Hydro is helping drive industry out of the province with its whopping rate increases. The association further warned that Ontario Hydro would do permanent damage to the province if it did not clean up its financial act.

Every time Hydro rates increase, jobs are lost. The government must act now to protect employment in Ontario. The government should be implementing policies that encourage investment and create jobs. In these difficult financial times, the government must pursue avenues that ease the tax burden on the people of Ontario. The public cannot afford to pay any more taxes.

I urge the Minister of Energy to listen to North York Hydro and Mayor Mel Lastman and take immediate steps to cut the never-ending rate increases being imposed by Ontario Hydro.

EXTEND-A-FAMILY SCARBOROUGH

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I am pleased to rise today to give recognition to Extend-A-Family Scarborough.

Extend-A-Family was founded in 1981 by a group of parents with developmentally handicapped children who wanted their children to be part of community life. It is the only Metro Extend-A-Family to serve both adults and children.

Their mandate is to connect people with physical or developmental handicaps with other people in their communities through friendship. This gives the person an opportunity to develop a fulfilling and much-needed social network outside of paid staff and family, while at the same time giving parents and care givers some relief. Individuals are matched with volunteers, friendship and support circles, or are assisted in becoming part of existing community groups and clubs.

While preparing this statement, I read through Extend-A-Family's 10th-anniversary book, In Celebration of Friendship, in search of one story that would exemplify the valuable contribution Extend-A-Family has made to Scarborough. But it was difficult to find just one story; this book is full of stories of people who have been helped and have helped each other to form lifelong friendships.

I would encourage all members of this House to read this anniversary book of stories, verse, pictures and poems. I can assure you that it is heartfelt, touching and enjoyable.

The present staff at Extend-A-Family Scarborough are Helen Dionne, Alison Baxter, Jeannie Cooper, Linda Dawe and Cathy Bloomfield. Please join me in congratulating them on their commitment and dedication to this organization and to their community.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As General Motors workers in St Catharines and Windsor face the bleak news about temporary and permanent job losses and auto workers across Ontario become more apprehensive about the future of the auto industry in our province, the Ontario government would be wise to review the suggestions I offered several months ago to assist this vital part of the provincial economy.

I recommend that the provincial government establish a special division within the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to deal exclusively and on a priority basis with the problems confronting the auto industry, and that this new department develop a comprehensive strategy to retain all auto operations in Ontario at present and to encourage new investment in the automotive sector.

I call upon the Ontario government to abandon its ill-conceived and damaging so-called gas guzzler tax and suspend the provincial sales tax on motor vehicles temporarily to encourage consumers to replace their fuel-inefficient and polluting older vehicles with new, fuel-efficient vehicles with modern, effective pollution-control devices. Both the economy and the environment would be the winners, and employees in the auto sector would at last have some reason for encouragement.

Such action would be well received by the purple ribbon movement, the Fighting for our Working Future Niagara-Hamilton campaign, which will be involved in a demonstration in front of General Motors on Ontario Street, Saturday, at 12 noon.

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I will be tabling a petition today which calls on the government to begin supporting Ontario's police officers, to discontinue its effort to restrict the police from performing their duties to protect all law-abiding citizens.

Mrs Christine Edward of Barrie, who is anything but a political activist, felt very strongly about the NDP's negative and confrontational approach to policing and police in this province and gathered nearly 3,000 signatures on a petition. She did so in only four days.

In a letter to the Premier, which still hasn't received a response, Mrs Edward outlines that as mother of children aged 13 and 10, she is alarmed at the increase in violent crime in Ontario. She believes there have been too many incidents where innocent people have been abducted and murdered, and what happened to Kristen French is every parent's nightmare.

She says we need to enhance police enforcement, but the Rae government has moved in the opposite direction. She writes: "There has been irrefutable growing public support; still your government continues to ignore it."

She talks about the Premier's own personal security, the officers with the nine-millimetre guns, saying, "There should not be double standards when protecting you and your family with specially trained bodyguards and up-to-date arsenal while placing further restrictions on police officers."

"Instead of dictating to the police," Christine goes on to say that Mr Rae's "government should be consulting with experienced professional police officials to bring enforcement techniques into the 1990s."

Thank you, Christine, for getting involved and speaking out on behalf of your community.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Yesterday's announcement on market value assessment sent a shock wave throughout many communities in Metro which were expecting property tax reductions commencing January 1993.

While we all recognize that there are many flaws in Metro's plan, it is my understanding and it is our understanding that Metro will proceed to develop a new plan. It is my intention to work with Chairman Alan Tonks and to work with Metro councillors and to work with my many colleagues here today to ensure that a speedy, new plan --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Perruzza: -- is developed and comes back to us for implementation. We are looking to develop a plan that's manageable, acceptable, fair and addresses many of the concerns --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Perruzza: -- that were outlined yesterday by the minister responsible.

I've advised Metro Chairman Alan Tonks --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Bye, bye, Tony.

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

Mr Perruzza: -- through a letter which I sent to him today that it is my intention to work with them. I look forward to working with many of my colleagues in my party and in the other parties to ensure that the plan that does come back this time is a flawless plan that ensures there will be some fairness in our property tax system throughout Metro, because there are many communities which have been paying far too much for far too long, which are looking property tax relief that they deserve.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Frankly, I was somewhat appalled yesterday by your absolute refusal to answer any questions regarding the Carl Masters investigation. You refuse to give any explanation for Mr Masters's resignation or to discuss the investigations that have taken place or why they took place. You won't even disclose to the taxpayers of this province how much the episode is going to cost them. Frankly, that is completely unacceptable.

Perhaps today you would be willing to be more accountable to the people of Ontario. In March, your government brought in very specific procedures for the investigation of harassment complaints. We note again that you have already trained over 500 employees to investigate harassment complaints, yet in this situation you hired an outside law firm to investigate the allegations at public expense, and now you won't disclose what the investigation revealed.

Premier, surely it would not violate the privacy laws for you to simply reveal why you ordered a special investigation of the Carl Masters case when your government already had a team to investigate precisely these sorts of complaints. If you won't want to answer this basic question for us in the House, will you at least tell Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I really have nothing to add to the answer that I gave yesterday, and I believe I'm really acting on the best possible advice in giving that answer.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, it is clear, and has been clear from the beginning when we first raised our questions about this situation, that you are determined to use the freedom of information act to deny the public basic information about the case.

We are not asking you for confidential personal information. We've not asked you to disclose identities. You will not even tell us why you ordered a special investigation when you already had a process in place. Answering that question is surely not a violation of the freedom of information act. You will not tell us when the investigation concluded or when it presented its report. You won't tell us what the investigation cost. Premier, you won't even do us the courtesy of admitting that you're keeping silent because you have reached a legal agreement to do so. I can tell you that your continued total silence leaves us coming only to that conclusion.

Will you stop hiding behind the legislation and simply tell the people of this province what they have a right to know? When did your special investigators present their report? When you received the report, did you ask for Mr Masters's resignation and did you not reach a legal agreement that puts a gag order on all parties?

Hon Mr Rae: I simply repeat the answer I've given and say to the honourable member that this government has an obligation to protect the privacy rights of many individuals, and we have to live by that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The final supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, you will understand that given your silence, given your refusal to answer even the most basic questions, questions which do not in any way violate the freedom of information act through your answers, we cannot understand the standards you apply.

You have reportedly trained more than 500 employees to investigate sexual harassment complaints, yet when the Minister of Tourism and Recreation was accused, you sent in the Ontario Provincial Police. When your appointee as agent general, Carl Masters, stood accused, you hired an outside law firm to investigate. There is absolutely no consistency in your approach to investigating or reporting allegations of sexual harassment.

Premier, your silence and your stonewalling on this issue have invited rumours and speculation which, I repeat, is unfair to all concerned. I ask you, Premier, why are some people treated differently in Bob Rae's Ontario? Can you explain what it was about these cases that led you to deal with them so differently and outside your normal procedures? Premier, how can you expect the people of this province to have any faith in your judgement and how you handle these issues when you show no consistency?

Hon Mr Rae: I know the member disagrees with many things we do and I accept that, but I simply have to tell her that I really have nothing to add to the answers I gave her yesterday.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I did my very best to place questions which clearly the Premier could respond to without any violation of the freedom of information act and I continue to be appalled at this refusal to hear any of the questions or provide any of the answers.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will turn my attention again to the Premier and to a second issue, because we have today some questions about Ontario Hydro, as the committee has now moved to confirm Maurice Strong's appointment as the new chairman and chief executive officer of the Hydro board.

We all know very well that Mr Strong will become the second Ontario Hydro chair in two years, and what we have seen in that two-year period is that the planning processes in Hydro are in absolute chaos; Ontario Hydro's finances are in a complete state of disaster; this government has intervened in Hydro's affairs on a regular basis, and when we try to get to the bottom of things, such as the firing of former president Al Holt and the awarding of his $1.2-million settlement, the government intervenes once again and places a gag order on witnesses to the committee.

Before Mr Strong takes on his new role, I believe we have a right to know what has already happened and how this government has been involved in the fiasco that has led us to today. I would ask the Premier very directly: Will you now order your Minister of Energy to direct the members of that committee to remove the gag order placed on Mr Holt, on board members, on civil servants, and subpoena them as witnesses to the resources committee so that we can find out what happened once and for all?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister is not here to answer the member's questions in any considered detail, and I would simply say to her that the decisions that were made by the Hydro board with respect to Mr Holt and Mr Holt's decisions with respect to his future have been made and I don't intend to interfere with those decisions.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I hope that in your absence you were following what was happening on this issue and the responses of your Minister of Energy. Your Minister of Energy responded to earlier questions in this House about what happened with the Al Holt firing by first of all saying he had no responsibility for it and then by saying that any questions we had could be cleared in committee and that the committee would tell all.

He then moved to place gag orders on Mr Holt and on others who could have told all at that committee. The government members of that committee by majority refused to act to subpoena those people as witnesses, so the committee could hear no one but your Minister of Energy. Premier, it is your responsibility to direct the Minister of Energy and your members on that committee to subpoena those witnesses so we can get to the bottom of this.

I would suggest, Premier, that your government has already given itself powers to issue directives that Hydro must follow and that your Minister of Energy has directly involved himself in the firing of the president. Now he claims he wasn't involved. He puts a gag order on our attempts to find out what really happened. In the meantime, you've stacked the board of directors at Hydro to make sure Hydro carries out your government's wishes.

It seems to us that your government interferes in Hydro affairs when you want to and you distance yourself from Hydro when it is politically embarrassing for you to be seen to be responsible. So today, as Maurice Strong is confirmed as chairman and CEO of Ontario Hydro, I ask, given your track record, what assurances have you given Maurice Strong that he will be able to do what needs to be done at Hydro without your partisan ideological intervention?

Hon Mr Rae: I can say to the honourable member that I have a very high regard for Mr Strong. I hope she does too. I know there are many members of her political party who have very strong views about Mr Strong and his abilities, and I know there are many members of her own party who are appalled by the kinds of questions that have been posed by some of her colleagues with respect to Mr Strong's integrity and his ability.

I want to say directly to the honourable member that I hope very much that Mr Strong has her support, as well as the support of the leader of the third party. The one discussion I had with Mr Strong recently was where I encouraged him very much to meet with the Leader of the Opposition, as well as with the leader of the third party, to discuss the situation at Ontario Hydro and to discuss as clearly and as fully as possible the challenges Hydro faces.

Hydro does face enormous challenges. It is one of the central challenges of the province in the 1990s. It does face problems because of its accumulated debt of some $37 billion, much of which was accumulated in the last few years, and the fact that because of the recession, Ontario Hydro's revenues have been severely affected.

This is posing an enormous challenge for the corporation. We believe the corporation is equal to the task, and we also believe that the leadership of the corporation is equal to the task of affecting some major changes which are obviously now under way that are going to begin to get hydro rates under control and get a sense of greater openness to the business realities of Ontario in the 1990s from one of the largest corporations in Canada.

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

Hon Mr Rae: It's our obligation to do that. Mr Strong has the full support of the government in proceeding, and I know he will be wanting to talk to the Leader of the Opposition as well as the leader of the third party about the kinds of directions that can be taken.

Mrs McLeod: The question was not a question about the government's or our confidence in Mr Strong. The question was about the authority this government is actually going to give to Mr Strong, given its confidence in him, to do what needs to be done at Ontario Hydro.

I wonder, if the Premier has the kind of confidence which he has just expressed in Mr Strong, whether or not he has given any consideration to allowing Mr Strong to take on the role not only of chair and chief executive officer but of president of Hydro, undoing some of the chaos they created with their changes to the Power Corporation Act.

I would remind the Premier that Maurice Strong is to be chairman and chief executive officer at a salary of $425,000 and that he replaces Marc Eliesen, the former chair and chief executive officer, who was making a salary of some $260,000. There is a difference there of $165,000 in salary.

When Mr Eliesen departed after only 16 months in that office, this government hired an American consulting firm to search for a replacement and paid that firm $100,000. This government then fired the president of Ontario Hydro and gave him a settlement that we believe is $1.2 million, or in that order. The government is now apparently in the process of hiring a new president.

By our calculations the government has already spent $1.5 million beyond what it expected to pay for the senior executives of Ontario Hydro just 16 months ago. The situation is still one of absolute chaos, and we have reason to wonder what's coming next.

I ask the Premier, could Mr Strong, at his salary of $425,000, given your confidence in him, not do the president's job? If you are determined on hiring a new president of Ontario Hydro, are you going to go ahead and hire the same consulting firm at the same kind of cost? And what do you intend to pay the new president you seem determined to hire?

Hon Mr Rae: These are decisions that'll be made by the Hydro board, and the member knows that full well. Mr Strong and the members of the board, yes, it's true, are appointed on the recommendation of the government, but it's also important to stress that at that point the decisions are then made by the Hydro board, and are made obviously in conjunction with the decisions of the views of the chairman.

The member talks about what she describes as the chaos of the last year and a half. How could one describe the neglect that took place under her very nose when she was the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Energy? She knows full well the problems that were faced by the corporation. She knows full well the inheritance that she personally left to the people of Ontario in the form of increases in the double digits into the indefinite future in the 1990s.

That is the inheritance the member is trying to avoid, and those are the responsibilities she is trying to avoid. We are now having to clean up this mess that has been left to us by the Liberal government and by her leadership of Ontario Hydro. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it, and we're prepared to do it.

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

Interjections.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): It's been seven years of neglect in so many areas. However, my question is not to the Minister of Natural Resources. Most people in the resource industries have pretty well given up on him.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: He was speaking, Mr Speaker, so I thought I should at least comment to him.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Mr Premier, your appointment, Carl Masters, was paid by the Ontario taxpayers. Mr Masters was in a high-profile position of trust and authority. Serious allegations were made against him. By refusing to provide fundamental answers about this whole situation, you are doing Carl Masters an injustice.

But most significantly, Mr Premier, as I pointed out to you yesterday, you are doing the women who made the allegations an injustice. You are doing an injustice to all men and women in this province who are concerned about sexual harassment in the workplace. By not giving us answers you are once again sending out a signal to women who have been victims that your government doesn't take this issue seriously.

Premier, we want to know, we are entitled to know, why your appointment, Carl Masters, resigned.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Again, I honestly believe, in terms of all the advice I've been given, that the answers I've given to the House are the only answers I can properly give.

Mr Harris: Premier, I want this Legislature and the people of Ontario to be very clear: You cut a deal with Carl Masters to remain silent on the issue; you voluntarily made a choice, voluntarily cut a deal to remain silent on the issue. Now you're using the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as a front for this deal. This deal that your government voluntarily cut is the one that is preventing information from coming forward that those who are concerned about sexual harassment in this province are insisting on and certainly believe should come forward.

You are using legislation that is supposed to be a public safeguard, and you are using it to cover your government's political backside. I ask you this: Do you not understand the very dangerous precedent that you are setting as Premier in using the freedom of information act this way? Do you not understand that, aside from this issue? Do you not understand the very dangerous precedent that you are setting?

Hon Mr Rae: I simply say to the honourable member that all premiers have to take decisions and act on the basis of the best advice that we receive, and that's exactly what I'm doing.

Mr Harris: Premier, we're dealing with your appointment here. We're dealing with an issue that I thought you were concerned about and I thought your party and your government were concerned about. Apparently, all that was just rhetoric to get elected and rhetoric that you've come forward with.

Premier, I pointed out to you yesterday that clause 21(2)(

a) of the freedom of information act allows information to be disclosed when "the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the government of Ontario and its agencies to public scrutiny." This was put into the freedom of information act. This was agreed to; they felt it was important to put this

section into the act.

I'd like to ask you this, Premier: Why do you think that

section was put into the act? If sexual harassment of women in the offices of the Ontario government is not enough reason to deserve public scrutiny, can you tell me what possibly is more important than that and why this

section of the act would ever apply? Can you answer me what is more important than that, that perhaps the drafters of the act would have put this

section in to have public scrutiny of? What is more important than that?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it's important for the honourable member to look at the whole of the law and to look at the whole of the law with respect to the importance of the protection of privacy. When you put it in the context of that overall, I think the decision that we're making is one that probably other governments would make as well.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. I have a copy of a memo from the auditor, dated June 24, 1992, to Mr Dan Burns, Deputy Minister of Housing. I'd like to share with the Premier a number of items on non-profit housing programs that were in fact included in this memo that somehow did not make it to the final auditor's report that was tabled before this House.

One of the things the auditor spoke about in this draft that in fact was sent to the Ministry of Housing and somehow got omitted was that there was a row house project where the president of a cooperative housing group converted a three-bedroom, second-floor unit into an abnormally large master bedroom, complete with a bathroom en suite, and was in the process of installing a whirlpool tub. Two bedrooms were added to the basement. These modifications were noted by the ministry inspector only after construction was essentially completed.

At that late stage, the ministry's only option was to require the president to establish a trust fund to convert the unit back to its original condition when the unit is vacated.

At the time of this audit that the auditor speaks about, this trust fund had still not been established. My question is: How could this, in the draft copy sent to the ministry officials in June, have been omitted in the final copy of the auditor's report that we just received?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the Minister of Housing should be able to answer that question.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The auditor's report process is one in which the auditor outlines to each ministry, as I'm sure the member will know, what items he or she wishes to question in the review, and the ministry then responds. If the auditor is satisfied with the response, obviously the auditor will decide that it doesn't go into the final report. The ministry has no control over the auditor's final report.

Mr Stockwell: To the minister: I guess the question I'm asking is, one, process; and two, did this happen? If it did happen, I have some very serious concerns about your operation, the non-profit housing program.

Now, why this got dropped, you'll have to tell me. The auditor agreed to drop this. My question to you is, did this happen? If it did happen, why do you think it was not included and what do you think is the reason why this wasn't on the public documentation we have?

Let me quote you another example. In one case we noted that the project was approved in two phases, the first at 156% over MUP, maximum unit price, and the second at 165% of the approved MUP, because of the interest built up from a lengthy OMB process as well as site-specific building requirements imposed by the municipality. The additional costs amounted to $4.5 million. Get this: The result was -- I'm doing my best, Mr Speaker -- that 80 bachelor apartments in the second phase cost almost $16 million.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Stockwell: That's $200,000 per unit. While neighbourhood opposition occurred in only about 20% of our sample, it did add significantly to cost. The question I have for the minister is: Hey, this got omitted. I accept the fact it got omitted. Is this information accurate and, if so, how did this get omitted?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The process is the one I explained in which the auditor raises cases. There are, in the course of the administration of a program of the nature of the non-profit housing program since 1986, a number of cases that will raise problems. The member has raised two which the auditor has reviewed, and the auditor chose, having received an explanation from the ministry, not to put them in the final report. The member would have to ask the auditor why they were not in the final report.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): No. We are asking you.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I should point out that since 1986 there have been 40,000 units of non-profit housing built under this program, and the cases that the member cites which were raised by the auditors are ones which have created problems in the course of that program. I think the auditor probably felt that the way in which the Ministry of Housing had tried to handle these problems was a suitable way.

Mr Stockwell: This is 28 pages, this memo. Right through the entire memo there are entire sections totally omitted. Now my question to the minister was, did they happen? If they happened, this is nothing but an absolute and categorical ripoff of the taxpayers -- ripoff, case closed.

I know for a fact, through calls that I made today, that a few of these instances that were left out in fact took place. I'll read you one last one. The auditor headed this one up "Risky Land Purchases":

"In fact, in three of the 40 projects reviewed, the soil was subsequently found to be significantly contaminated after the land had already been purchased. The cost of removing the contaminated soil was $900,000, $600,000 and $100,000 respectively." The auditor went on to say, "We also noted one project which was opposed by the local municipality because the site was located on a 100-year-old floodplain but which the ministry approved." This ministry approved it without conducting a proper assessment, despite the risk of flood damage. So get this: They built it on a floodplain --

The Speaker: And your question, please.

Mr Stockwell: -- without the proper assessments, and in the spring of 1991 --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Stockwell: This is the question, Mr Speaker. In the spring of 1991, shortly after completion, about one third of the units were flooded for three months. That is unbelievably incompetent.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Stockwell: Absolutely incompetent. So I ask the minister, did this in fact take place, what was the cost to the taxpayers and what has your ministry done about ensuring this does not take place in the future?

Hon Ms Gigantes: If I could speak to the question of the project that was built on a 100-year floodplain, in fact it flooded not once but twice, and the auditor noted that in the initial information that he discussed with the ministry and the ministry pointed out, quite different from what the member is now saying, that all necessary approvals had been undertaken by the ministry in fact, including the conservation authority. There had been approvals for the type of building that was undertaken on that land.

There are many sites in Ontario which may cause problems, and that happens not only in the non-profit building program but in the private development program that is carried on by private developers in this province. It is frequently the case that soil tests, which are routinely undertaken by the Ministry of Housing, will not reveal, for example, that there is a buried oil tank nobody knew anything about on any records that has been leaking for many years. That happens to private developers and it happens to programs that are undertaken with public resources.

Out of 41,000 units that have been built since 1986, which the auditor has reviewed, he cited a few examples of some very significant problems. Some of them he didn't put in the final report because he understood that the explanations he received were satisfactory.

JOHN PIPER

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Premier on the Piper-Grandview scandal. On Monday, November 30, your Attorney General told this House the legal advice his office gave your principal secretary, Melody Morrison, was that Mr Piper did have the right to enter and recover only his personal property, that she should go into the office with him and, the important part, Premier, that the OPP was not aware in advance that Mr Piper was removing two boxes.

All objective observers acknowledge it was a gross error in judgement by the Attorney General in not having the OPP informed in advance about the removal of documents, since the OPP was asked to investigate two days earlier. The Attorney General also said that the OPP has an opportunity to further follow up on Melody Morrison's involvement in the removal of documents.

My question to the Premier is this. As a result of your lack of leadership on November 30, when this issue was breaking, your Attorney General had to stand in this House and report that your principal secretary was under a cloud of suspicion and being further questioned by the OPP about Piper's activities and your Attorney General had to admit facts disclosing his grievous error in not informing the OPP in advance about the removal of documents from John Piper's office. Will you tell the House what discussions you held on Friday, November 20, Saturday, November 21, and Sunday, November 22, with Melody Morrison on any matter touching on the Piper affair?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I've already indicated clearly to the member on a number of other occasions a couple of weeks ago that I would not comment further on this matter precisely because it's now under a police investigation.

Mr Chiarelli: That brings me to my supplementary. The Premier will hide behind the OPP; he refuses to hide behind the truth. Premier, I want to read a short passage to you:

"Many people have begun to question the fairness and independence of the justice system. This erosion of confidence must be stopped and public confidence restored. This can only be accomplished through the unwavering and visible application of the principles of absolute fairness and independence."

That is from the royal commission on the Donald Marshall prosecution.

Premier, my question is this: Given your office obtained Judi Harris's criminal record, given the smear campaign conducted by your office, given your office sending lawyers into the courthouse to get more confidential information, given the release of that information, given the court-ordered sealing of the file, given the Attorney General not notifying the OPP in advance about the removal of documents, given your principal secretary, Melody Morrison, being subjected to unusual OPP questioning, you must now apply the principle of absolute fairness and independence.

Will you either appoint an independent special prosecutor to instruct the police and receive their reports, or will you ask an Attorney General from another province to investigate and prosecute as was done in the Milgaard case?

You and the Ministry of the Attorney General are morally foreclosed from having anything to do with the investigation --

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

Mr Chiarelli: -- and prosecution of this issue. Premier, the credibility of the administration of justice in the province of Ontario --

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: It's precisely because of my conviction and belief with respect to the independence of the process that I won't have any further comment to make.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to ask a question of the Attorney General. The Ontario taxpayers paid for a report, an investigation, to be done in the whole Carl Masters affair. I'd like to ask you, Mr Attorney General, who in the Ontario government authorized and then received that report and I'd like to ask you, Mr Attorney General, where is that report today? Thirdly, could you tell me if that report has been turned over to the Ontario Provincial Police?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I understand the leader of the third party's interest in this issue. However, as I am sure the third party leader knows, this matter has been dealt with and I am not at liberty to comment further on the matter at this time.

Mr Harris: Mr Attorney General, I didn't ask you anything about any details. I asked you who authorized or commissioned the report and the paying of that money, I asked you where the report was and if it's been turned over to the Ontario Provincial Police. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the secret deal your Premier cut with Mr Masters to prevent you from answering that and there is nothing in the privacy of information legislation to prevent you from answering that.

While you contemplate that and answer those questions, I would like to ask you as well if you are aware of any charges in Ontario or any other jurisdiction that are to be laid against Mr Masters, or of any ongoing investigation in Ontario or another jurisdiction that may lead to charges being laid against Mr Masters. Could you tell us that too?

Hon Mr Hampton: I am not aware of any charges, and I can relay that information to the leader of the third party with confidence. As well, I am not aware in any way of a particular criminal allegation that would have happened in this province, and therefore I'd not aware that the OPP have been involved in any matter like this.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. Several weeks ago, the member for Cambridge asked about funding for the community information centre in his riding. York East too is served by the neighbourhood information centre. This centre is an integral part of the information and community services in our area. It is not a library, it does not provide the services of a library, it provides important human services, connections to unemployment, welfare, day care, food banks and shelter. Can the minister tell me why funding is being cut to CICs at the end of this year?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I'd like to thank the member for the question. I know how concerned he is about community information centres. I know how concerned many members are. Just before question period, the member for Grey hand-delivered a letter to me about community information centres and a binder for information, so I know it's on everybody's mind.

I do want to say that we are well aware of their importance, we're well aware of the statistics that show their use and we understand that they are especially important and that times are tough. But it was not this government that cut the spending; it was the previous government that cut spending. They capped the number of centres and they cut spending. It was this government under the previous minister that found one-time funding for community information centres. It was this ministry and this minister who continued that one-time funding solution for the community information centres.

But I want to tell you that one-time funding and interim funding is not the solution to the community information problem. I am actively working with the treasury board, I am actively working with the Management Board to find a long-term solution to the funding for community information centres.

Mr Malkowski: Minister, can you tell me what solutions you propose to replace these grass-roots organizations which know and articulate so well the needs of the communities they serve?

Hon Mrs Haslam: The Treasurer is looking at some scenarios along with my ministry and along with Management Board. We are trying to expedite a solution to the problem. As I mentioned, that would not be just an interim solution. We are diligently working towards that solution and as soon as that solution is announceable, I will be announcing it.

LANDFILL

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. About two and a half weeks ago the minister's Interim Waste Authority finally released its long-awaited short list of potential mega-landfill sites in the greater Toronto area.

They identified sites on prime farm land; they identified sites near thriving communities and people's homes; they identified sites in environmentally sensitive areas; they identified sites of natural and scientific interest; and indeed they identified a site within the very area that has been chosen as the Rouge provincial and national park in the Markham-Scarborough area. The park was identified by a citizens' committee set up by the minister's colleague the Minister of Natural Resources.

I want to tell the Minister of the Environment that the people throughout the greater Toronto area are angry, they are concerned, they are offended and they are extremely upset by the choice of sites the IWA has made and the lack of opportunity to discuss real alternatives to the agenda the minister has set for the IWA and waste disposal in the greater Toronto area.

I want to ask the minister simply this: Given that these sites all violate fundamental principles of sound environmental policy, have you had any second thoughts about the IWA process? Do you continue to be committed to that process and the sites they have identified for a new megadump in the greater Toronto area?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Let me try to address the variety of points the member has raised both in his question and in his

preamble, and let me start by saying that he has a lot of information about the specific sites. He characterizes them as "unsuitable" or "inappropriate." The hydrogeological testing on those sites has not been completed. The evaluation of those sites has not been completed. That is precisely the kind of process the Interim Waste Authority is undergoing.

If in fact a particular site has the characteristics the member identifies, that will of course be part of the consideration of the environmental assessment and will ultimately be decided by the Environmental Assessment Board, at which time all of the people who the member acknowledges -- and I agree with him are highly upset at the fact that a landfill might go in their immediate community -- will not only have the opportunity but will be facilitated by intervenor funding, by assistance and participatory funding even before that, to make their argument, not before the member opposite, not before me, but before a board established under the Environmental Assessment Act, an independent and an impartial review of the environmental assessment that is being done.

Mr Sorbara: I simply say to the minister, one does not need hydrogeological tests to identify prime farm land. One doesn't need hydrogeological tests to identify a site that's next to a community of 20,000. You don't need tests to identify a site that's right in the middle of the new Rouge Valley park.

Minister, I've been scouring the newspapers, and I can't find one commentator or editorialist who agrees with the process you've set up. I have listened to the people of my own community, who say you simply refuse to take into consideration principles of social equity that say, in the town of Vaughan, for example, that 20 million tonnes is enough.

Even the very environmental groups that you used to consider were on your side oppose the process you've undertaken. I have a press release here from some 39 environmental groups, and if I could just quote what the press release says, at least in part, it says: "The IWA should stop its current site selection process." It goes on to say that the search must stop, and the IWA must stop building megadumps in archaic ways, and that what it's doing flies in the face of sound environmental principles.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member place his question, please.

Mr Sorbara: I ask the minister again, in view of the fact that there's virtually no public support for your policy, not even among the very environmental groups that you used to look to for your support, will the minister now admit that the IWA process has failed and begin to look at new solutions to solve the garbage crisis that you have single-handedly created in the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member is, as so often happens, selective in his use of quotations. Let me point out to him that there's not an environmental group in this province that does not support the initiatives this government has taken to put waste reduction first in our waste management plan, and that there is not another government that has achieved the amount of diversion from landfill that this government has, in meeting our goal of a 25% diversion by the end of 1992.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me also remind the member that the environmental groups he is quoting praise and support this government, and continued, in the press release he is quoting, to say that incineration is not an option -- it is for the members opposite; that transportation to northern Ontario is not an option -- it is for the members opposite.

If the member wants editorials that support the process this government has initiated, let him read the newspapers in northern Ontario, in Marmora, in Halton, in Plympton, in Guelph and all around this province.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. This morning, I had the privilege of being part of the committee to interview your new chairman of Ontario Hydro, and I must say, he is an outstanding statesman, and he certainly has a wide variety of experience. But this morning, the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr Strong, had a great opportunity to come forward and instil some little bit of confidence in the industry and the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario and all users here in Ontario. He failed to do that.

We asked him straight out how long it would take under his chairmanship to bring Ontario Hydro rates into line with inflation. We were shocked by the answer. He said up to 10 years.

That is not acceptable to this province of Ontario, that is just not acceptable. I would ask you, Mr Minister, would you please issue a directive to the new chairman to reconsider that period of time?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The member has raised two issues in his question: One is how quickly Hydro can get its rates down to the inflation rate, and whether I will issue a directive. Unfortunately, I wasn't in the committee this morning, so I can't comment on the specific words that Mr Strong used. I have said publicly here in the House and I've said it outside the House to the media that our discussions with Hydro are ongoing. We intend to get the Hydro rate increase to the level of inflation within the next couple of years and to hold it there for the rest of the decade. We will accomplish that goal.

Mr Jordan: We've had several chairmen and presidents since this government took over. Already we're hearing a direct conflict between the minister and the chairman. The chairman perhaps is speaking what reality is, and the minister is looking to give direction of two years.

We met with the Ontario forest industries recently. They advised us that Detroit Edison in 1993 is giving major industry a 3% reduction in rates and in 1994 -- would you believe it? -- they're giving a 16% reduction in rates to major industry to try and keep them operating and keep the jobs.

Mr Minister, you do have a responsibility to inform the chairman that 10 years is not acceptable.

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, two issues have been raised. The first issue is that there is no conflict between the government, this minister, and the new chair. A number of members of the opposition have pointed out, on a fairly regular basis, that the Deputy Minister of Energy is now on the Hydro board. We have been working very closely with Hydro and with the chair, even before he officially takes his responsibilities today, to discuss the rates issue. We will get the rates of Hydro rate increases to the inflation rate in the very near future.

We're also, as I've said a number of times here in the House, working in a joint group with Hydro and industry to deal with the industrial rates question.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm happy to be able to ask this question, before the House breaks for Christmas, to the Minister of Transportation, because this is a matter that is of extreme importance to the folks down in Welland and further south, down in the city of Port Colborne.

The minister knows that on November 10, the clerk of city council sent to the Minister of Transportation a letter containing a resolution that city council had passed requesting a written status report regarding the construction of Highway 406 -- the extension, Woodlawn Road to Merritt Road -- together with an explanation of the lengthy completion dates expected. Of course, they sent me a copy of that.

Not only has Welland city council expressed concern but my good friend Mayor Bob Saracino from Port Colborne has joined with them in expressing concern about what's going on. Not only are they concerned about the delay, but they're concerned about the delay in the response to this letter. It's November 10 that letter was mailed; it was received -- what? -- a few days afterwards.

Can the minister please help us down in Welland and down in Port Colborne with an explanation about why the delay has taken place? This is important to those people.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): It's not a surprise to any member in the House that the fascinating world of sewers and water mains, at times the Ministry of Transportation, at other times MNR, would be subjects that light the passion and commitment of the member for Welland-Thorold.

It was planned for 1992. It didn't happen. Why not? Because of unexpected problems, problems dealing with wetlands, problems dealing with the environment.

So in the collective, the Ministry of Transportation, with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources, echoed by the goodwill and expertise from the Minister of the Environment, have decided that the money, yes, $8 million, which means 100 jobs -- the work will be awarded in 1993 and will be completed in 1994.

I wish, through you, Mr Speaker, and with respect, that the member for Welland-Thorold will alleviate the fears expressed by the representative of the city of Welland.

Mr Kormos: I'm sorely tempted but disinclined to make any further comment about sewage. I appreciate that the minister cannot be aware of all things at all times, I appreciate that the minister relies upon his briefing notes, but the sad thing is that the question posed by the folks in Welland -- because this is more than just a highway; this means jobs in an area of the province that is sadly in the course of being deindustrialized. Not only is the highway important to Welland and Port Colborne, but the jobs are important to Welland and Port Colborne. Appreciating that the minister -- I understand, Speaker, and I'm going as quickly as I can.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would appreciate it if the member would place his supplementary.

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir. I don't get to ask a whole lot of questions and I'm going as quickly as I can. That's why this is an important issue.

I'm wondering, in view of the fact that the minister is restricted as to the scope of his response here in the Legislature, will the minister today indicate that I can take back to the folks in Welland and Port Colborne a commitment that a senior staff person from the ministry will be available during the course of the next two weeks to meet with that council to explain in detail the reason for the delay and an explanation as to when this construction will take place? This is important and it has to be responded to.

Hon Mr Pouliot: A reasonable request from reasonable people. Consider it done.

BUDGET

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The question is to the Premier and it's on the 1993-94 budget. The reason I'm raising it is because the Premier will appreciate that much of the work on the budget will be done before we come back again. I think it's fair to say that the Premier has tipped his hand in terms of the budget, indicating that we are going to see some very substantial changes in the way capital expenditures are funded.

It's my understanding that there's almost a steady stream of people from Bay Street coming up to the treasury office and up to the Premier's office with some interesting proposals, whether it be selling the GO trains to foreign investors and leasing them back, whether it be the private sector building subways and leasing them back, or the private sector building roads and leasing them back.

The reason for this question, Premier, is this: If you put the budget together on that basis, before anyone here in the Legislature has had an opportunity to discuss how you're going to plan those capital corporations, I think the budget may have been prepared on a basis on which we've had no discussion. Will you undertake to send to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, when it's doing its pre-budget hearings, your proposals for these capital corporations, so they can form part of the pre-budget process and we can have some idea of whether they're workable or not and how they may in fact function?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member is raising an interesting point with respect to the work of the finance committee. I can't go quite as far as the honourable member would like today, because there's a decision-making process through the government that we have to go through prior to, obviously, any announcements being made, and prior to anything being referred to any committee. But I would want to say to the honourable member that any decisions of the government which have been taken would obviously be something the finance committee could consider.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raised it is the reason I indicated earlier, that is, that in many respects, by the time the Legislature comes back the concrete at least is hardening on the budget. One of the things we're most anxious to ensure is that the people of Ontario have a full and accurate accounting of the finances. Frankly, some of us on this side are suspicious that the purpose of the capital account is to hide the deficit and hide the debt. That is our suspicion.

As you recall, in your budget you said -- this sounds rather detailed, but at least you can give us this assurance that you will follow through on your words in the budget. You indicated there that:

"The reporting of the combined capital and operating funds in the Public Accounts of Ontario will allow users of financial information to see clearly the effect of the combined operations on the debt for provincial purposes and on the total deficit of the province for the fiscal year.

"The surplus or deficit positions of both the capital and operating funds will be clearly shown."

Will you today at least reassure us that you will do that, and will you undertake to get back to the opposition when we will have an opportunity to review how you plan to set up these capital accounts and on what basis you will set them up? Will you undertake to attempt to get that to the finance and economic affairs committee prior to the budget?

Hon Mr Rae: It's precisely because of the need to be fair in terms of -- the Treasurer's words in the budget, I think, are very clear, and that commitment is also very clear.

But since the honourable member is knowledgeable in these areas, I want to just remind him of some of the problems Ontario faces, as we look to the comparisons that are made daily, in the media and elsewhere, with our sister provinces, all of whom carry on their arrangements financially and fiscally in a way that is quite different from the way in which it has been done in Ontario. That's the first issue.

The second issue is that we believe, because of some of the approaches that have been taken to capital financing by previous governments, that there has been less investment in infrastructure than is necessary and than is required and than, as the auditor has stated, needs to be done, and as many others have said needed to be done.

For these two reasons, in order to ensure that our method of accounting compares with that carried on in all the other jurisdictions in North America, so that when we go to capital markets, that's clearly understood -- because, overall, we do not have a deficit, as it's been described, of $10 billion or $9.9 billion.

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

Hon Mr Rae: We have a capital budget of $3.9 billion, which is very substantial.

Also, with respect to other provinces, in the province of Quebec, municipalities are treated differently, universities and colleges are treated differently, all the transfer agencies are treated differently in terms of how they borrow and how they deal with their accounts. I think it's important for that to be transparent and for that to be obvious and for the comparisons to be very clear. It's also necessary for Ontario to be able to conduct the kind of investment in infrastructure --

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- which is going to be so crucial to the future of the province. So it's for those two reasons that we're making the kinds of changes I propose.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is also to the Premier. I might add, on the answer to that question, that he still pays the interest, whatever you call it, Mr Premier. But I'd like to go on to another subject.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I and my caucus met this morning with the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce, and I understand you're going to be meeting with them this afternoon. On two occasions in this Legislature, I've sent across to your Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology some resolutions from the chamber of commerce. They will give you or have given you some of the recommendations, such as this group here, and they are very specific. They go into details of what the problem is and then they put together, very clearly, recommendations that they would like to see happen. Very clearly, they would like to see some answers.

Would you be prepared to stand up and tell this Legislature what you're prepared to do specifically to help the chambers of commerce, like the people from northwestern Ontario, so they can survive and prosper in the province of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can assure the honourable member and assure the members of the northwest chamber how much I'm looking forward to the meeting this afternoon. It's a meeting I always look forward to. In fact, I think I was the first Premier to speak to the northwest chamber in northwestern Ontario, at one of their meetings about a year and a half ago.

The Attorney General has met with the northwestern chamber. We look forward very much to a positive and constructive dialogue with them, and we'll be giving answers that are as specific as possible in the circumstances in response to the concerns that have been raised.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Point of Privilege.

The Speaker: Point of privilege, the member for Brampton South.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: You may recall that yesterday during question period, my colleague the member for Scarborough North put a question to the member for Oshawa, the honourable Solicitor General. It dealt with a young man who had tragically bled to death. This was a result of having run into a window at York University which was not safety glass. I refer you to the question. It is recorded in Hansard.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): What is the point of privilege?

Mr Callahan: The point of privilege is -- and I will read for you in order to help you in your decision -- the member asked of the Solicitor General, after relating the tragic facts to him, the fact that the appeal tribunal was not --

The Speaker: If the member has a point of privilege, I would ask him --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. If he indeed has a point of privilege, I ask him to get to it quickly.

Mr Callahan: Well, Mr Speaker, I don't know how you can rule on a point of privilege unless you've heard the facts. In any event, the point of privilege is simply this: The minister undertook to provide this House with an answer today. I have yet to hear the answer. The family of this young lad has been denied its rights to appeal the verdict of the coroner not to hold an inquest to an appeal board which does not exist.

There has not been one step made by this government to appoint members other than one member to that board, and citizens of my riding and citizens of Ontario, in the tragic death of their son, are being denied their rights of full appeal under the Coroners Act because the minister and the --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I very much appreciate the member's concern on behalf of another member. The member will know that he does not have a point of privilege. Regardless of what undertaking there may have been by anyone in the House, there is nothing at the Speaker's disposal to compel responses. However, your concern, hopefully, has been duly noted by the Solicitor General and perhaps the matter will be attended to in due course.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, I know that circumstance. I think the honourable member did really have a point of privilege on this matter, because when I asked the minister, he said he wasn't aware of any problems and he assured me that he'd be back to report on this. I think the member has a point of privilege.

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough North was here and heard my response. I appreciate very much his concern, and now the concern has been stated twice. The Solicitor General's in the chamber and I'm sure all will unfold to the satisfaction of both sides of the House at some point.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition here signed by thousands of people from the Quinte area who are very concerned about the fluctuating gas prices within that particular area. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, have seen our gasoline prices fluctuate wildly with extreme differences in price in a small geographical area. Seldom, if ever, is any explanation offered for these increases.

"We insist the government regulate this industry and put an end to this intolerable situation now."

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

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it 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."

I agree with this petition and I have signed it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

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

"We, the undersigned, deplore the passing of Bill 75 into law. We ask that the arbitrator's report be set aside because:

"

(1) It does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings;

"

(2) It is not in the best interests of the area and its residents;

"

(3) It awards too extensive a territory to the city of London;

"

(4) It will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex; and

"

(5) It will allow for the progressive development of prime agricultural land."

I'm very honoured to affix my signature hereunto.

GUY PAUL MORIN

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas Guy Paul Morin was convicted of first degree murder on July 30, 1992, having been previously acquitted of the same offence on February 7, 1986;

"That the Ministry of the Solicitor General take an immediate review of the mishandling of evidence by the York region police, the Durham region police and the Centre for Forensic Sciences;

"That an immediate review be undertaken of the Attorney General's decision not to continue the prosecution of Sergeant Michalowsky; and

"That a full investigation be undertaken of the three youths who had been sexually involved with Christine Jessop and that such investigation be independent of the York and Durham region police forces."

A number of signatures are affixed to this.

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition from Barrie:

"Whereas we are concerned, as citizens of the province, that this government seems determined to impose further restrictions on police officers to make it increasingly hard and unsafe to do the already difficult and dangerous job;

"Whereas, many of these individuals are prepared" -- dealing with violent offenders -- "to use weapons in the commission of crimes and an increasing number are prepared to kill;

"Whereas we have serious concerns over the proposed use-of-force regulations under the Police Services Act;

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

"

(1) An officer cannot be restricted in his/her ability to draw a handgun before entering a potentially dangerous situation;

"

(2) An officer cannot be inhibited in drawing a handgun when necessary by the need to fill out yet another form;

"

(3) All officers in Ontario should be issued semiautomatic pistols and the proper expanding ammunition.

"

(4) We fully support the need for additional training in the use of force and particularly in the use of firearms.

"

(5) We feel a committee should be set up to recommend changes to the Police Services Act regarding use of force and this committee should be enlarged to more accurately represent the wishes of the majority of law-abiding citizens in the province of Ontario."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to members of provincial Parliament and it regards the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, the proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday, and it's signed by nearly 80 residents of my riding.

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

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my name to the petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have 6,400 petitions signed by tenants in this province, addressed to Mr Rae.

"Tenants refuse to pay three and a half times the taxes our home-owning neighbours pay. We demand that the province institute real tax reform to guarantee equal treatment of all residents regardless of whether they own or rent."

I will present these petitions on behalf of the tenants of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by residents of Middlesex county who ask that the arbitrator's, Mr John Brant's, report be set aside because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings. It is not in the best interests of the London and Middlesex residents. It awards far too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London. It will jeopardize agricultural land, the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life. I have signed my name to this petition.

MENINGOCOCCAL DISEASE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

"The guidelines for control of meningococcal disease developed by the advisory committee on epidemiology state that those individuals who have had 'close contact' with a case of meningococcal disease are to be notified and administered antibiotics. One of the defining characteristics of 'close contact' is exposure through sharing of food or beverages.

Since it is common practice for children in all grades at the elementary level to share food, drinks and chewing gum, we ask that the present guidelines be amended so that classroom contacts may be treated as 'close contacts' rather than 'casual contacts.' Parents of children who may have had close contact with an infected classmate have a right to be informed by their public health officials so that they can make the appropriate preventive measure."

This petition from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry was signed by 597 persons and I have affixed my signature.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition signed by in excess of 6,000 people from North York. All of these are tenants in buildings, and this is a petition which has been sponsored by both tenants and landlords. It reads:

"To Mr Rae: Tenants refuse to pay three and a half times the taxes our home-owning neighbours pay. We demand that the province institute real tax reform to guarantee equal treatment for all residents regardless of whether they own or rent."

As I've said, there are in excess of 6,000 names here, and I too affix my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I have a petition here signed by the Finnish community in Sudbury. It says:

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

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my name thereto.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "General Motors' announcement to close the foundry operations in St Catharines, with the resultant loss of 2,300 jobs, adds to the growing devastation of the vital manufacturing sector in the Canadian economy.

"The spinoff effects will result in four to six lost jobs in other sectors for every job lost in auto. The foundry closure also puts the remainder of the General Motors' St Catharines operations in serious jeopardy, which has a total combined employee population of 9,000 hourly and salaried workers.

"I strongly urge the Ontario government to intervene in all possible manners to stop the erosion of jobs and the economic base of our province, and in particular the Niagara region."

This is signed by individuals who are very interested in this, and I affix my signature in agreement.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition here signed by many hundreds of people. It reads:

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injuries and reducing costs, support graduated licensing for new drivers."

I have to affix my signature to this.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition from about 140 residents of Hastings-Peterborough and it reads as follows:

"To the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario:

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injuries and reducing costs, support graduated licensing for new drivers."

I have attached my signature.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "We, the undersigned, citizens of Ontario, have seen our gasoline prices fluctuate wildly."

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, on a point of order -- I'll wait until the clock stops. Go ahead. Sorry.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Allow your colleague the member for Timiskaming to place his petition. No? The member for Parkdale.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition, Mr Speaker, but I do have a point of order after this. In the meantime, Mr Speaker, let me read the petition to you. This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterparts,

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

Mr Speaker, I present this petition to you and I affix my name to it.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have another petition, similar to the last one.

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injuries and reducing costs, support graduated licensing for new drivers."

This is signed by several dozen people, and I too affix my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by 84 individuals who strongly protest the actions of the government allowing retail stores to open on Sundays without restriction and calling upon the government of Ontario to uphold the Retail Business Holidays Act and do everything possible to preserve a common pause day for as many people as possible, including retail workers.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I think I have recovered. I felt so badly beating my colleague to read the petition that I lost it. My petition reads:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, have seen our gasoline prices fluctuate wildly with extreme differences in price in a small geographic area. Seldom if ever is an explanation offered for these increases. We insist the government regulate this industry and put an end to this intolerable situation now."

I'll affix my name to this.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have been asked to present this petition from some people in my riding. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Commission in its September 1 ruling extended full family and bereavement benefits to same-sex arrangements; and

"Whereas this is believed by us Christians to be detrimental to the family and society,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of the province of Ontario, to appeal this ruling of the Human Rights Commission."

PETITIONS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Surely there has got to be a more efficient way to pick speakers for these petitions. I am wondering and I'm asking you, could you tell this House on what basis you're making decisions on who gets to speak first on these petitions?

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Height.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No. To the honourable member for Parkdale, I appreciate his interest in efficiency. Indeed, if there was an easy way to make a selection of those who would like to present petitions, I would be delighted to know what it is. We have but 15 minutes, and normally we have quite a number of members who have petitions to present. The best that I can offer is to go in rotation around the chamber and indeed to try to select members as I first spot them on their feet -- a long-held tradition in our parliamentary system. I appreciate the member's interest, and no doubt he'll be back tomorrow to present petitions.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to commend you, Mr Speaker. You get a lot of criticism in this House from time to time from people who have problems with the way the House proceeds. I'd like to compliment you on the manner in which you have selected the members to read petitions in the House this afternoon.

The Speaker: I think you got to put your petition in, is that right?

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr40,

An Act respecting the Ontario Building Officials Association

Bill Pr45,

An Act to incorporate the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation

Bill Pr58,

An Act respecting the Town of Lincoln.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr61,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr64,

An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies

Bill Pr75,

An Act respecting The Canadian Millers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Bill Pr78,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr79,

An Act to revive Duclos Point Property Owners Inc

Bill Pr83,

An Act to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr64,

An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr83,

An Act to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Grandmaître from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 19th report and moved its adoption.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? No.

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care/Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les soins de longue durée.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Our first item of business is a deferred vote on second reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care. There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1512 to 1517.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Ms Lankin moved second reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care.

Those in favour of Ms Lankin's motion should please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Beer, Boyd, Bradley, Buchanan, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cordiano, Curling, Dadamo, Daigeler, Duignan, Elston, Farnan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Kwinter, Lankin, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Mills, Morin, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Silipo, Sullivan, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Waters, Wessenger, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: Those who are opposed to Ms Lankin's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Harris, McLean, Murdoch (Grey), Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 84, the nays are 17.

The Speaker: The ayes being 84 and the nays 17, I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, we'd like to direct the bill to the standing committee on social development.

The Speaker: The committee on social development? Agreed.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I'd like to call the want of confidence notice of motion, number 3, and I believe that there is unanimous agreement that the vote will take place at 10 to 6 and that the time will be divided three ways.

The Speaker: Agreed?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We agree as long as the vote is the same as the one that just carried. We agree otherwise as well.

The Speaker: At 6, we'll find out.

We might, with the indulgence of the member, allow a few seconds for members to quietly leave the chamber, so that Mr Elston will have the proper opportunity to put his case.

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION

Mr Elston moved, pursuant to standing order 43(a), want of confidence motion number 3:

Whereas the NDP government has undertaken to make "integrity in government" and "conduct of ministers" the centrepiece of an NDP administration and made specific reference to that undertaking in its first speech from the throne;

And

whereas several ministers and parliamentary assistants of the government have, since the NDP government took office, violated the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the general standard of conduct applicable to elected officials and ministers of the crown, and the specific conflict-of-interest guidelines adopted by the Premier;

And

whereas last winter the Premier allowed the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, without penalty, to maliciously smear the reputation of a private citizen in order to advance the government's own policy;

And

whereas the Premier's own special communications adviser has now wilfully smeared a private citizen with deliberate disregard for the injury done to that private citizen;

And

whereas these actions on the part of the NDP government officials constitute personal vendettas against private citizens and a blatant victimization of those who are already victims of abuse at the Grandview reform school;

And

whereas the Premier has consistently applied ad hoc, politically expedient standards and sanctions to those who have violated his own guidelines and appropriate standards of conduct;

And

whereas the NDP government has abused the power and trust vested in it by the people of Ontario;

And

whereas these gross breaches of the public trust have destroyed public confidence in this government and in the integrity of the democratic process;

Therefore, pursuant to standing order 43, the House no longer has confidence in the government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I believe the honourable member would like to begin his comments.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Time is limited, as is the normal course in these places, to speak about what I have perceived as being a very deleterious development in this House with respect to standards of conflict. I named but a few of the incidents which are most highly prominent in the minds of the people of Ontario with respect to miscarriages of justice perpetrated by highly placed, entrusted members of this New Democratic Party government.

It is with a great deal of interest that we watch the transformation from the pure at heart, the people who were in opposition, so pure, so mistake-free, so holier than any other person. Now we see this group of people having fallen into almost every practice which is seen as despicable by reasonable and right-thinking people in the province of Ontario.

I have from time to time been concerned about the manner in which our province and the policies which have been developed have been brought forward by the people in this place and how little concern there appears to be on the benches of the New Democratic Party for the traditions of democracy and the right to speak out freely and openly in this place. But never have I been more concerned -- while I am interested in the rights of members to speak openly here -- than I am now for the free speech that is available to every man and woman and child in this province when I take a look at the types of activity which have been enumerated here in this motion of want of confidence.

A doctor in Sudbury was smeared maliciously and has now left our fair country for an area which he believes will provide him with more satisfaction in carrying out the practice of medicine. A woman who was victimized in earlier days when she was incarcerated at a provincial institution has again been victimized in the most malicious and dangerous way by a man who was not only the trusted friend and confidante of the Premier, but a person who received taxpayers' dollars, with which pay he spent his time undermining the credibility of a woman who was merely seeking the right of redress which in a democratic society is well available to all of us, or so we suspected.

The list can go on, corrupting, as it were, in every sense of the word, our noble democratic process to the extent that I fear, if this government continues, we are in danger of losing our most precious of heritages. That is the reason I have no confidence in this government. It is that reason alone and primarily that makes me move this motion today.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. Further debate? I see many people standing over there. The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The one with his mouth open.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, the member for Mississauga West.

I thank the Speaker for recognizing me during this debate. There is probably as much non-confidence right now in this government today as I would suggest there has been in any government in the history of this province at any time. Their record as opposition party was impeccable. They built themselves --

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Well, not quite.

Mr Stockwell: It was in their minds absolutely impeccable. They built themselves a pedestal that left the Conservatives and Liberals in anything but a subservient role. We could never, ever challenge this party on any of the issues they had taken to heart, predominantly the social issues: women's issues, seniors, disabled and those with less income.

As it turns out, we in the Conservative Party have in some instances stood by with mouths open at the breathtaking hypocrisy of the government. Their position today and in the past couple of years on a number of issues has left both the people of this province and at least this opposition party in a serious, serious dilemma.

The question being asked on the streets of this province is: When was this government not being forthright with the public? Was it when they were in opposition and they had these lofty ideals and goals, or is it simply now? My response to most of the public I speak to is simply this: This government is no different, this party is no different in most instances than this party or the Liberals. They're made up of humans and, yes, humans have certain frailties which, when put into the position of power, become a little more obvious.

But the difficulty this government has that's different from the Conservatives or Liberals is the pedestal they built for themselves in opposition and that they're finding themselves falling from today. The pedestal they're falling from is so high and so far that they haven't hit ground yet.

Every month and every week, generally we discover a new bit of information, a new undertaking this government has done that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not any different than any other political party in this province and in some cases significantly worse.

We have been dealing with some very substantive issues surrounding cabinet integrity in this government. The list is endless. You know, when you pick up the newspaper after the latest scandal, they generally give you a capsule remark about how many scandals the government's had to deal with. Every time you pick up the paper the scandals now seem to stretch a full page as people's pictures appear, from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and Mr Piper and Mr Ferguson, and all the scandals that have taken place from this government.

The thing about this that I find particularly interesting is that the response of the Premier to each individual scandal that takes place is no different than the last one he commented on, sometimes not more than a couple of weeks ago.

We all know about the Premier's government's throne speech:

"My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power."

You said that. That was your throne speech.

The very interesting part about this is that one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight members are capable of sitting here to hear this motion of non-confidence. Eight members are prepared to hear from the opposition about its concerns with respect to the integrity and confidence the people in this province have in your government -- eight members. The very important point that should be made is that they don't care. They fundamentally don't care.

If you want to go quickly through the backgrounds, we can start with the John Piper affair. This is how they encapsulate the John Piper affair, the Peter North affair.

Allan Pilkey lost his job as Minister of Correctional Services in the September 23 cabinet shuffle because of his mishandling --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe there isn't a quorum in the House. I think the government should be here to listen to these criticisms.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, I shall ask the table to ascertain if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Mrs Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Call in the members.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Mr Speaker.

Mr Stockwell: I'd just like to read through some of the comments made in the press around this province about some of the affairs that took place. I think they can sum it up the best. Obviously, standing here and listing my concerns, which I've outlined on very many occasions in the past, appears to have no impact on this government.

Mr Jim Coyle of the Ottawa Citizen on November 6, 1992:

"The only thing missing on Thursday as Premier Rae fled the country for 15 days in the Far East was footage of him being helicoptered from the Legislature roof seconds ahead of incoming rockets.

"Which is to say it was rather a desperate getaway the Premier made from rather a chaotic scene."

The editorial from the St Catharines Standard, November 24, 1992:

"As a result, Piper has added sleaziness to an image he was supposed to clean up and, at the same time, raised serious doubts about Bob Rae's judgement."

Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun, November 24, 1992:

"And yet Martel remains in cabinet, because by Rae's standards, it's apparently okay to try to smear someone you disagree with as long as you don't use confidential information.

"Well, that is precisely what Rae's pal and former communications adviser, John Piper, now says he did, and yet not only has he resigned to save, he says, the Premier further embarrassment, but Rae says he's appalled by what Piper did.

"Confused? Don't worry. My guess is that so is the NDP."

The editorial in the Toronto Sun, November 24, 1992:

"Let's stick to the real issues, not imaginary ones.

"Starting with Piper's good friend Premier Bob Rae, explaining, in light not only of this case but of the Shelley Martel affair, why citizens who find themselves in conflict with this NDP government should not in fact fear reprisals from the NDP.

"Now there's a question worth answering."

The editorial from the Toronto Star, November 25, 1992:

"Police will only determine whether criminal charges -- obstruction of justice or breach of trust and privacy -- should be laid. It's up to Rae to answer the political questions surrounding Piper's dirty tricks.

"Opposition MPPs want a legislative committee to probe the matter. That's a reasonable proposition, if Rae continues to hide behind the OPP investigation."

Robert Sheppard, the Globe and Mail, November 24, 1992:

"From Shelley Martel to John Piper it has been a straight line. The NDP has become a government of us against them. In recent months, perhaps even because of this perception, the list of those on the "them" side -- doctors, police, civil servants, small business owners, environmentalists, Ontario Hydro employees, educators -- has grown like topsy.

"For the government the cumulative effect of these resignations is bad in itself. If nothing else, it puts into question the competence of an administration that can't even organize a politically correct smear campaign. But the real problem, the real cancer will occur if the public starts to believe the government has a hit list, that it is prepared to lash back -- using a full range of public resources -- even at individuals."

Sally Barnes, Toronto Sun, November 30, 1992:

"The Even More Dumb Judgement Award goes to those senior government officials who let Piper engage in late Sunday night housecleaning duties in his office just hours before the police investigation began. Thanks to them, what began as a dirty tricks campaign has now become a coverup to boot. What a bunch of winners."

Jim Coyle, the Ottawa Citizen, November 28, 1992:

"No one would say the Premier is personally corrupt, but he's guilty of failure of leadership in not making clear what is acceptable conduct in his government.

"There's also a body of evidence he owns a large blind spot when it comes to the tawdrier elements of human nature. There's every sign he is being poorly served by his people.

"The Premier's assurances, therefore, that he's satisfied Piper acted alone is insufficient. A legislative inquiry is a fair request."

The editorial in the Hamilton Spectator, November 26, 1992; I read this because it isn't just this side of the House, it's everywhere:

"It is becoming frighteningly evident that choosing the New Democratic Party to run the Ontario government was the equivalent of giving an inexperienced teenager the keys to the family car and a bottle of whisky. Something was going to be wrecked and someone was going to be hurt.

"The John Piper affair is but the latest in a series of mistakes by either NDP staff or politicians who give the appearance of being drunk with power.

"Make no mistake, there are consequences for the people of Ontario when they have a government that has had five cabinet resignations alone in two years since the NDP came to power. This is a government that is forced to spend much of its time defending itself against the indefensible while the province's economy teeters on the edge and many of its people yearn for effective leadership."

The editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, November 24:

"Firing Piper is only part of Rae's responsibility. He's also got to do something about the increasingly cynical mindset in his office."

The Brantford Expositor, November 20, 1992:

"The succession of embarrassments may give some fleeting satisfaction to some of these opponents, but most citizens will feel no such inner glow. This, after all, is the government that is supposed to represent the people of Ontario. Its bumbles and stumbles reflects on the province itself."

The Windsor Star editorial, November 19:

"Rae's big mistake was taking new, raw talent and plunking it into powerful positions without the benefit of intensive training in the fine art of government etiquette. The fact so many cabinet ministers haven't been able to learn from the mistakes of their colleagues -- the fact that they can't seem to instinctively understand right from wrong -- speaks to a much more fundamental crisis of conscience. And that, of course, challenges Rae's judgement again and again."

Finally, Thomas Walkom, November 16, 1992:

"The common thread through all of this seems to have little to do with Rae's stated principles of fairness and ministerial propriety. It seems to have a lot to do with what appears in newspaper headlines, what gets on the television news."

That is but a sampling, just a sampling of the reporting that's taking place in this province. As a government, you constantly refer every responsibility, every action on to another level, somebody else. In my opinion, the fundamental flaw with this government that has caused this motion of non-confidence to come forward is its complete inability and lack of sensibility to accept responsibility. You are incapable of accepting responsibility. Your Premier is incapable of accepting responsibility. I look at the cabinet ministers. You're incapable of accepting responsibility.

The responsibility for the Martel affair, the Piper affair and all the other affairs that have taken place in the past rests squarely on this cabinet and this Premier's shoulders.

In closing, there were two very serious mistakes you made -- I'll itemize them for you -- two very serious flaws that have caused the rest to happen. The first flaw was kicking Mr Kormos out of cabinet because he had his picture in the newspaper. That was your first mistake, because you created a level of expectance of your ministers that cannot be graded.

I dare anyone across the floor to stand up and tell me that what Mr Kormos did by posing as a fully clothed Sunshine Boy was worse than what Shelley Martel did. I dare you to answer that. I dare you to say it was. That was your first mistake.

The second very serious flaw --

Mr David Winninger (London South): Is listening to you speak today.

Mr Stockwell: Well, that's a sad commentary from the member for London South. Listening to me speak today? I didn't speak; I read editorials about the people in this province. You're a sad commentary about this government. The best retort you have is listening to someone who's making very serious charges against your government and your inability to handle the public concerns.

Mr Winninger: It's not serious; it's tragicomedy.

Mr Stockwell: "It's not serious; it's tragicomedy." The member for London South sits in his place and accepts the fact that Mr Carl Masters and the concerns that took place with respect to sexual harassment are now being covered up by the Premier and his ministers. You accept that fact as a member of your party. You should be ashamed of yourself.

In closing, the second-most important issue this government faced down and squarely lost on was Shelley Martel, which you completely mishandled. If any member across there feels in his mind that Shelley Martel should be in cabinet, then he has a fundamental flaw in his ability to measure the way cabinet ministers and premiers are expected to act.

Finally, if it is your opinion that Shelley Martel should still be in cabinet after taking a lie detector test to prove she lied when she said she was telling the truth, then I think this sorry lot of you are in the hopeless category and will never recover from it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise to participate in this debate of the nonconfidence motion. I've read the actual motion. It makes reference to creating cynicism in the public. I want to say that this resolution creates cynicism. The people of Ontario want us to spend the time debating the real issues that are of concern to them, the economic issues.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that, yes, on some of these incidents I've had a couple of calls into my office, but I want to tell you, the people I talk to are concerned about the economy and want us to talk about economic issues.

Let me just say in relationship to the motion itself that the Premier has quite clearly said, "Yes, we admit; mistakes have been made." Everyone accepts that fact. Okay? We accept that. We have admitted that those mistakes have been made, and action has been taken, and it is time to go forward.

You know, the opposition has been trying to portray this government as not having its act together on all kinds of issues. Mr Speaker, I want to tell you quite clearly that on the issues of most importance to the people -- the economic issues, managing government expenditures, managing the changes in the economy to make this province stronger in the future -- this government does have its act together, and I want to elaborate on how that's happening.

Last week we had a debate in this House on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board was first proposed in the Premier's Council on skills development, set up by the previous government. I think most people endorsed the recommendations out of that.

Last week this critic for the opposition said: "No, we don't accept the OTAB model. We want to spend some more time trying to figure out some other model." It was their government that set up the system that developed it, that endorsed it.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, please, don't let him say that. That's a pack of untruths.

Mr Sutherland: So what are we doing? We're acting. We're actually implementing training and adjustment.

Mr Stockwell: That is so far from the truth. Why are you saying that?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Sutherland: We are the ones who are implementing a training and adjustment program in this province -- long, long overdue. The successful economies of the world have much more effective training and adjustment programs already in place, and they can respond much quicker to the types of changes that are going on in our economy right now -- leadership, looking after the economic issues, issues of concern.

This government has made a commitment in all kinds of areas to try to do job creation through our Jobs Ontario Capital program, Jobs Ontario Homes program, putting people back to work. That's what people are very concerned about.

We've also tried to show leadership in supporting those industries in new technologies, in green industries, the new industries that are going to create the jobs in the future. Those are the types of issues.

I also want to talk about management, because there seems to be some sense that somehow, as an NDP government, we can't manage issues. I want to say, the type of management this government has demonstrated in the last two years is the type of management that should have been going on for the last 20 years.

Did the opposition parties, when they were in power, know how to effectively manage spending? No. Which was the government, in the most difficult economic time, that has been able to control spending increases with a minimal amount of layoffs, and in which sector? The health sector. Under the leadership of the Minister of Health and the guidance her office has been able to provide, we have been able to get a handle on increases in health care expenditures with a minimum amount of layoffs. We never saw the opposition parties do that when they were in government.

That type of management and leadership going on in that ministry is going on in many other ministries, and what it will do are two things. It is going to make this province stronger. It is going to preserve the essential services the people of this province expect and want and are willing to pay for. It's going to mean they're going to be delivered in a more effective manner. It also means that in the long run this province is going to become more competitive once again.

Let's be quite clear. Everyone realizes we're in a very difficult situation. This is the worst recession since the 1930s. Okay? We've had to face challenges no other government has had to face. The free trade agreement, whether you support it or are against it, quite clearly has impacted this province more severely than any other province. It has caused a great deal of job losses and layoffs, no doubt about that. People said there'd be adjustment. Adjustment is going on, and I say it doesn't matter whether you support it or are against it; you can't ignore those realities.

You can't ignore the realities that in 1991 over 250,000 people in this province exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Bruce on a point of order.

Mr Elston: I would ask you to check for a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I recognize the honourable member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: As I was saying, this government came into power at a very difficult time. We've had to try to manage through the most difficult recession. The demand on services and the resources of this government has grown tremendously at a time when our revenues have declined. That is a difficult challenge. It takes a change in focus. It takes leadership. It takes a commitment to change. But it also takes a commitment to do that change in a fair manner, to try and do things as they haven't been done.

This government has made a commitment to ensure that all parties are involved in the decision-making of the restructuring that has to go on in the delivery of our public services and in the delivery of other types of services throughout this province. That's leadership. That's management. That's demonstrating that the government does have its act together and that it can provide the leadership to take this province into the future.

As I say, the people who come into my office on a consistent basis are concerned about economic issues. They're concerned. They're the people who have been working in a factory for 15 or 20 years and that plant has shut down and they need training and they need retraining programs. Yet we don't have a comprehensive system of training in this province. Why haven't we had that in the past? Have we had the effective management that the opposition claims was provided when they were in government? I don't think so.

This government is trying to provide the leadership to manage serious restructuring in the way our economy and the way our government have to operate going into the next five to 10 years.

As I have mentioned, in training, in health and in all kinds of other areas, we are providing that direction, that leadership and that guidance. This government has its act together. It is showing how to carry on a restructuring in an effective way that involves the people and that challenges people to use their creative talents, their resourcefulness and their innovative abilities and is inclusive and involves people. That's true leadership in managing government, and we are going to continue to do that in the next two years.

Let me be quite clear that when the next election comes around, the people of this province are going to judge us on our ability to manage the government and to prove to them that we have dealt with the issues that are of most concern to them: the economic issues and the restructuring. I believe we are going to be successful in convincing the people of Ontario that we have done a very good job in very difficult times.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to participate in the debate on the want of confidence motion put forward by my colleague the member for Bruce. It saddens me that we've got to move this lack of confidence in this government, a government that is founded in scandals, resignations and wanton disregard for conflict of interest. This has been demonstrated by cabinet minister after cabinet minister and indeed by the Premier.

The latest in what is becoming a long line of Rae government scandals, which involved Mr Piper of the Premier's office, was a particularly shattering blow to my confidence and the confidence of many Ontarians: a shattering blow to my confidence because the NDP has proven it has not got the ability to govern. This high-profile member of the Premier's inner circle wilfully and with unbelievable malice attempted to discredit a woman's reputation. His only motive in so doing, as incredible as that seems, was to try to rehabilitate the discredited reputation of one of the former members of the NDP cabinet.

The woman who was victimized by this vicious act is a private citizen of this province, a private citizen who dared to come forward with allegations against a former cabinet minister.

Every person's right in this province to disagree is called into question by the actions of this Premier and his government. How can someone who relies on this NDP government for funding, for licensing, for his or her paycheque, for legislation or whatever, stand up and blow the whistle against abuse when he or she knows that whenever people have done this in the past two years, the NDP retribution follows quickly and severely?

The victims of Grandview with whom I have communicated often over the past several months have become more and more frustrated as time goes by. They're experiencing systematic shutout and stonewalli