Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mrs Sullivan: Eight months ago, the people of Ontario elected a New Democratic government, in part because they were led to believe that the NDP was serious about its environmental promises. While in opposition, the now Minister of the Environment missed no opportunity to accuse the government of inaction and lack of commitment to clean water.

The minister's rhetoric was just that. The minister said that the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program, introduced by the Liberals, would not achieve zero discharge of toxic chemicals into our lakes and rivers. Now, in her role as minister, she refuses even to define what she means by "zero discharge."

During the election, the NDP leader, now the Premier, identified Petro-Canada as the worst polluter in Ontario's petroleum industry. He expressed outrage that the Liberal government was not moving fast enough in bringing forward the MISA regulations that would require Petro-Canada to clean up its act.

Under the Liberals, the MISA abatement regulation for the petroleum refining sector was on track to be promulgated before the end of 1990. We are now five months into 1991 and there is no regulation. The question becomes, has MISA been abandoned altogether?

The only environmental initiative mentioned in the recent budget pertains to waste management. This seems an opportune time to remind the minister that her mandate goes beyond garbage and includes all aspects of the environment, including clean water for Ontarians.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr B. Murdoch: Today I would like to express my strong opposition to the closing of the land registry office in the town of Durham. I am appalled at this action by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. She has shown a complete lack of understanding of the needs of rural Ontario. Does she not realize that an office such as this gives small towns an identity, and that by closing this office she has ensured that every lawyer, engineer, surveyor and municipal employee using these services will now have to travel an extra hour to Owen Sound and another hour back?

Who else will pay for this but the consumer, the person the minister purports to champion? As well, this senseless waste of driving time will result in increased gas consumption and pollution -- hardly a responsible move from a government which supposedly prides itself on being environmentally sensitive.

The minister advances the false theory of saving money. This is ironic coming from a group of people who think nothing of saddling us, our children and our grandchildren with an enormous $9.7-billion deficit for one year. In any event, she is not saving money. The office in Durham is owned and maintained by Grey county.

All in all, I find this plan outrageous and vow to do whatever I can to make the minister see reason before she throws the whole province into chaos. Further, I find this minister ill advised and with no control over her staff. She should resign if she continues this plan.

WORLD RED CROSS DAY

Mrs Haslam: Henri Dunant's name may not be a household word, but the movement he founded around 1864, the Red Cross, is recognized the world over.

The Red Cross Society covers all nationalities, races, religions, political or social systems and is united in its determination to protect the victims of conflict and disaster. Members are pledged to do so impartially and neutrally, regardless of the identity or beliefs of those they help.

Dunant, a 31-year-old Swiss citizen, happened to arrive in Solferino, Italy, one day after a grim battle that left 40,000 dead and wounded on the battlefield. He quickly organized the villagers and set up improvised hospitals to care for the wounded from both sides of the conflict. The experience changed his life and Dunant's business activities became secondary while he sought a way to prevent or at least alleviate the suffering of victims of future wars. He proposed a worldwide network of volunteers, trained during peacetime, to care for the wounded during conflicts.

Today is World Red Cross Day. It is the celebration of the birth of Mr Dunant, who was awarded the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901 for his contribution to humanity.

In most armed conflicts today, civilians account for 90% of the casualties. Of these victims, the great majority are women, children and old people.

Join the Red Cross today and remember the victims of war. So long as justice and peace have not replaced war, there is a responsibility to protect and assist its victims.

DRUG AWARDS WEEK

Mr Ruprecht: I would like to inform the members of this Legislature that the Focus Community On Drugs in Parkdale has kicked off a Drug Awards Week 5 May to 12 May. This community coalition has the responsibility to identify local needs and develop local solutions to the drug problem and its efforts should be congratulated. However, our fight against drugs cannot be won unless we get the co-operation of various ministries to create some sense of stability in that area.

The home ownership rate in south Parkdale is less than 8%. Our neighbourhood is filled with boarding and lodging houses, group homes, crisis care facilities and other housing of that type. I would only hope that the various ministers who are here today will listen to the people of Parkdale and not permit any more of this type of housing to go into our area.

We will not be able to win the fight against drugs unless it is co-ordinated with the support services that are necessary to help people. Let this government create the supportive network that is essential to help persons and then we will be in a position to win the fight against drugs. Let's build a drug-free community.

1340

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Arnott: I rise today to indicate my anger at the announcement yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that she intends to close the Arthur land registry office in my home town. For many years, the people of Wellington county have been able to rely upon the competent and efficient local government service from this registry office. The minister wishes to shut this office down and force my constituents to drive up to an hour to Guelph or Owen Sound, where they will receive less service than they do today.

This decision is unacceptable. We in rural Ontario are prepared to fight to keep these land registry offices open.

Yesterday's announcement by the minister is just one more example, if another one is needed, of how this government has little understanding of and no regard whatsoever for the problems and concerns of rural Ontario. That the provincial government in the past has opened local offices such as the Arthur land registry office is a tacit recognition that rural Ontarians are not second-class citizens. These offices indicated that rural Ontarians deserved a basic level of local provincial government service and that they were recognized as having legitimate needs. This minister's now closing the Arthur land registry office is sending a message to Wellington county residents that their needs are not legitimate and that their problems and concerns do not matter.

Taken together with last week's budget, which promised no new assistance to farmers, we can only conclude that in the NDP caucus and cabinet there are no effective advocates for rural Ontario.

I call upon the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to review her decision to close the land registry offices and immediately retract her announcement of yesterday, and I call upon this government to wake up to the needs of rural Ontario.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Drainville: I want to point out to the people of Ontario the misguided and undemocratic behaviour of the third party and its leader, the member for Nipissing, in continuing to obstruct the debate on the budget.

The member for Nipissing and his party pretend to be concerned about saving the taxpayers' money. Well, the foolish and wasteful antics of the third party in delaying the legitimate business of this democratically elected body are resulting in the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: While I appreciate that the member has caught the attention of some members of the House, I would appreciate the opportunity to hear the statement.

Mr Drainville: While members of the Legislature are obliged to listen to the leader of the third party pulling such stunts as spending the afternoon reading the names of bodies of water into the record, staff are paid by the taxpayers and this is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those who work on Hansard, provide security, do translation, the attendants and the Speaker's staff, scores of employees of the Legislature, are having their time wasted along with the taxpayers' dollars that their services cost.

Surely the members of the third party and their leader should have respect for democracy, and admit that this party was given a mandate to govern and that their refusal to allow a timely debate on the budget amounts to a disregard and disrespect for the people of this province as well as a huge waste of money. It is time that the third party and its leader come to grips with the fact that they lost the last election, that the people of Ontario have elected the New Democrats and that they should be given a chance to govern.

CAT SCANNER

Mr Bradley: Once again I rise in the Legislature to urge the Minister of Health to approve the installation and operation of a second computerized axial tomography scanner for the Niagara region, where residents face the longest wait -- four months -- for elective scans of any area in the province.

This is a cross-border shopping issue, as thousands of Canadian dollars are flowing across the border from the government of Ontario and Ontario patients to the states of New York and Michigan for essential diagnostic scans.

This is a health care accessibility issue, as thousands of anxious Niagara residents stand in line to use the only CAT scanner to serve 370,000 people or are forced to travel to the United States for this important service.

This is a health cost issue, since people unable to get early access to a CAT scanner may be compelled to undergo exploratory surgery and other invasive measures, ultrasound tests, nuclear medicine or myelograms, all costly procedures, because of the lack of availability of another CAT scanner. Patients have been kept in hospital at an average cost of $400 a day waiting for a scan, and the one scanner in the Niagara Peninsula requires costlier and more frequent maintenance as a result of the amount of use it receives and its age.

For the sake of the quality and cost of health care available to the people of Ontario, for the sake of beleaguered taxpayers who see their taxes heading south of the border while their own health care facilities go without, and for the sake of fiscal responsibility and the effective practice of medicine, the Minister of Health should give immediate approval for the operation of another CAT scanner in the Niagara Peninsula.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Villeneuve: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations must cancel plans to consolidate land registry offices in rural Ontario. The minister obviously has no idea of the effect her decision will have. She told the House yesterday that clients will benefit from more convenient locations. The minister obviously does not know how long it takes to drive from Alexandria to Cornwall or from Cornwall to Morrisburg and on through to Winchester and points north and west. Instead of a short drive down Highway 16 to Prescott, Kemptville clients and residents will have to keep on driving all the way to Brockville.

My riding will feel the effects of three closures. It is interesting to note that many of these closures are taking place right in eastern Ontario where economic times are difficult. Fully nine of the 14 closings are scheduled for eastern Ontario, and I do not think that is just a coincidence. Lawyers will be moving from towns where registry offices are being closed.

The minister, like most of her cabinet colleagues, feels that Ontario consists only of Toronto and that it is all right to ignore the needs of our rural communities outside Toronto. We should ask if the minister has ever been to the registry office in Alexandria, in Morrisburg or in Prescott to see first hand what the effect of these closures will do.

Regardless of claims made, no one in eastern Ontario can take seriously the government's claim to be looking after eastern Ontario's needs. It looks after the good of its union friends here in Toronto.

PLANT AGREEMENT IN HENSALL

Mr Klopp: Shortly after the 6 September election, the new Premier was asked when he was going to kick the powers that be off the ship, to which the Premier replied, "It's not a question of kicking anyone off the ship, but rather allowing all of us to be on the ship."

An example of this became very clear in my riding of Huron. Last fall in the town of Hensall, General Homes Manufacturing was under threat of closure, with 130 jobs to be lost. In late December, the union and laid-off management got together and realized they were not ready to let the plant die. They came to my office and asked what they could do. I informed them that they had already started doing, by getting together, recognizing their differences but realizing a common goal. Their co-operation made my job as a facilitator, providing information on how they could achieve their goal, a lot easier.

Their co-operative spirit expanded, and after many meetings and phone calls an agreement was struck. All of the players involved -- the union, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the bank, the purchaser and management -- worked together to realize their goal. To the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which went that extra mile and recognized that no one wins when a plant is shut down; to the purchaser, who waited patiently for the agreements and discussions to be signed; and to the union, which through its collective agreement was able to speak with one voice, lending strength and showing willingness to take control of its future through co-operation, I would like to say a public thank you on behalf of the community. This goes to all the players in this success story. This is truly an example of what can happen when government allows all of the players to be truly on the boat.

1350

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for Victoria-Haliburton has abused my privilege in this House. He has risen today in a statement and said that our party, and other reflections on our leader, is pretending to be concerned about the deficit budget and the irresponsible financial planning for the future of this province.

I would ask that you would suggest to this member, of all members, who is convicted of obstruction -- he served a term in jail because of his own obstruction to a process -- to withdraw his comments which affect my privilege, suggesting that I am pretending to be concerned. I am not pretending. Every one of our caucus is committed and sincerely concerned. We are not pretending anything, and for this member of all the members of the government party to be chosen to take this strong exception this afternoon is ludicrous.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga South, there is no doubt that there is a difference of a point of view with respect to certain items as they have been presented in this chamber. I do not regard any of the comments made, either by the member for Victoria-Haliburton or by yourself, to be unparliamentary or out of order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Ms Ziemba: Today I am acting as Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues. I would be very remiss if I did not thank my colleague for her hard work and dedication on these issues, and especially for the statement that I am providing today. I know that we would all want to wish my colleague a speedy recovery, and we will be seeing her back in the House very shortly.

Today I am proud to announce details of the largest funding increase to date to tackle the pressing reality of violence against women in our society: $20.3 million in new dollars.

A top priority of this government is social and economic equity for all women in Ontario. Every woman has the right to live with dignity, free of violence and as an equal participant in all aspects of our society.

Men do not have the right to control women through violence, yet even conservative estimates show that one in four women is sexually assaulted in her lifetime and almost one in five Canadian men living with a wife or partner admits to using violence against her. Clearly many women are not safe in their own homes or on the streets of our communities. The situation is urgent and demands consistent attention by all public policymakers.

By 1994, our government will combine our specific initiatives on wife assault and sexual assault prevention into a strong, comprehensive and ongoing program against all forms of violence against women. Building towards this, we are this year increasing the current wife assault prevention initiative with an additional $12 million and expanding the focus on sexual assault with $8.3 million in new dollars.

This new funding is in addition to the nearly $66 million currently spent government-wide on wife assault and sexual assault prevention strategies. As well as the $20.3 million in new dollars, the Ministry of Health will provide another $1.1 million in new dollars from within its own budget. In total, we are assigning $87 million to provide services, improve law enforcement and counteract the myths and perceptions which allow violence against women to continue.

Nearly 80% of the new funding is aimed at strengthening community-based services to the women who are victims of violence. For example, the previous core funding guideline of $80,000 for each rape crisis centre fell far short of their real costs. We are therefore increasing our allocations for rape crisis and sexual assault centres more than 250%. That means more than $5 million of the new sexual assault dollars will go directly to those centres which are often the first point of contact for assaulted women.

As many communities in the province do not currently have centres for women to turn to, a portion of these funds will be used to establish 10 new sexual assault centres.

In order to serve all the women in Ontario, battered women's shelters and counselling services must offer programs geared to the specific needs of disabled women, visible minority women, immigrant, native and francophone women. To this end we are providing $4.6 million to improve the accessibility of services to these communities.

Ontario's existing 81 assaulted women's shelters are frequently operating at maximum capacity and have long waiting lists. More spaces for assaulted women and their children are a pressing need. In the coming year, 42 new beds and several new shelters will be provided as part of the $2-million increase for these services. By March 1992, there will be 94 operating shelters in this province.

Provision of service alone will not, however, address the need for widespread public education and prevention work. The legacy of violence from one generation to the next must be broken. This critical aspect of our strategy involves an additional $4 million.

A pilot project in seven schools will take up the particular needs of children who witness violence in their homes. Training materials on sexual assault will be created for teachers to use in elementary and secondary schools. Professional development programs on wife assault for teachers and education professionals will be expanded.

Incentive funding will be available to universities and colleges for date rape and sexual assault prevention and awareness campaigns. New grants will be distributed to native organizations to improve community response to wife assault. Organizations addressing violence against women with disabilities will be supported with a new funding program.

While there are no easy solutions to violence against women, these are steps which will encourage all the institutions and members of our society to acknowledge their responsibility to work for an end to this problem.

We must thank the service providers, women's groups and individuals who have taken their time to help shape these initiatives over the past seven months. It is through their long-standing efforts that violence against women is now acknowledged as a social concern, and it is their persistence that has paved the way for these much-needed improvements.

I would also like to take a few moments to thank the 18 ministries that have been working very hard on these initiatives, and in particular the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Violence against women can no longer be excused as a private matter or one for which we blame the victims. The new funds we are announcing today are concrete evidence of this government's commitment to fair treatment to all Ontario citizens. The initiatives outlined illustrate our dedication to ending abuse in the lives of women. We are investing in the safety and integrity of more than half of our population. Social and economic equity for women is inconceivable without an end to violence.

This is our goal. We invite all sectors of Ontario society to work with us to achieve it.

1400

MINES ABANDONNÉES / ABANDONED MINES

L'hon. M. Pouliot : Je suis ravi d'avoir l'occasion de m'adresser à l'Assemblée législative au sujet de l'engagement du gouvernement à résoudre le problème des mines abandonnées en Ontario.

Aujourd'hui, notre province figure parmi les dix plus importants producteurs de minéraux au monde. La valeur des minéraux extraits en Ontario représente presque sept milliards de dollars. L'industrie emploie 80 000 personnes directement et indirectement et est essentielle à la prospérité de l'Ontario.

A basic objective for me as Minister of Mines is to promote mining in Ontario in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner. A clean and healthy environment is indeed essential to the standard of living we wish to preserve and enhance. We have learned that economic growth is ultimately unsustainable if it neglects the environment and the wise management of our resources.

We must protect the environment, both when mines start operation and when they close down.

Last week's provincial budget further demonstrated this government's commitment to protecting and improving our quality of life. The Treasurer announced a three-year, $10-million program to assess abandoned mine hazards and to undertake immediate remedial work on known high-risk sites.

I believe that environmental concerns are properly addressed in the regulations soon to be established under the new Mining Act. This will give us the authority to enforce stricter protection and rehabilitation standards now and in the future.

The new three-year, $10-million provincial abandoned mine hazards abatement program will indeed strive to correct problems associated with abandoned mine sites, which include mine openings, derelict buildings, open pits and underground workings. Additional threats to public health and the environment --

Mr Nixon: Doesn't matter how inane the statement if you like the minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: With high respect, may I continue? Additional threats to public health and the environment come from mine wastes, from acid discharge and heavy metal contamination. There are approximately 3,000 abandoned mine sites in the province, only 2% of which are considered high risk.

This new program will be administered by a committee comprised of representatives from the ministries of Environment, Natural Resources, Labour, Municipal Affairs, Northern Development and Mines.

Over half the funding of this program will be directed towards the rehabilitation of high-risk sites in communities such as Cobalt, Bruce Mines, Kirkland Lake and Timmins, with the rest going towards site investigations, research, public information and safety initiatives.

This year we are celebrating 100 years of partnership in mining. The Ontario Bureau of Mines, as members are well aware, was first established on 4 May 1891. Yes, it has been a century of progress for the province. Basic mining camps have grown into vibrant communities.

One characteristic has remained unchanged: the spirit of mining people who are committed to a strong mining industry for today and for the future.

La participation de notre province dans le secteur des ressources minérales a connu un long acheminement, à partir de la mise sur pied du Bureau des mines, en 1891, il y a 100 ans, jusqu'à aujourd'hui, avec l'établissement du ministère du Développement du Nord et des Mines. En tant que ministre des Mines, j'appuie une exploitation minière qui est sensible à l'environnement et aussi une installation minière dont nous pouvons tous, en tant qu'Ontariens, être fiers.

RESPONSES

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Caplan: On behalf of our caucus I would like to respond to the statement made by the acting minister today, and say that on behalf of our caucus we wish the minister well and hope for her speedy return and share the sentiments of the acting minister today.

The announcement that was made of $20.3 million in new dollars and an additional $1.1 million from the Ministry of Health which is being found from within its budget, I think is a very significant announcement. Certainly the people of this province would believe, as I do, that this is a significant amount of money and it builds on a very strong foundation of a program that was begun several years ago.

I think the statistics the minister referred to in her statement today speak for themselves. When you have statistics that say that one in four women in our society will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime and one in five Canadian men living with a wife or a partner admits to using violence against that partner, they suggest not only that there is a need for programs for after the fact, but that awareness, public education and education for the officers who are the first often to intervene are all part of the comprehensive program. Certainly the Ontario women's directorate has played a very important role in co-ordinating the many programs that are found scattered among a number of ministries of the government.

I want to point out, however, that this statement did not mention the salaries in the shelters, and the budget that was presented did not continue the agency compensation package. It is very important, if the program is going to have the kind of stability it needs, that we recognize the very low wages of the women working in those important community-based facilities. I would hope the government would address itself to that fact.

Ten new centres were mentioned. Five, in fact, were announced last summer. They were located in Waterloo, Peel, Brantford, Cornwall and Thunder Bay. I will be interested in the new locations that have been included in today's announcement. I hope those five centres that were announced last summer are included. There was one centre in Hamilton, Martha House, that was having a particular problem. I hope that not only is it included but that it is retroactive so that it will have the stability it needs.

I believe that in the paper this morning there was one concern, and that was that it mentioned a mobile service to deliver rural women to the cities. I have some concern about that as a public policy because it is our approach and we believe that women in rural communities should have access to those services and should not have to leave their rural community to access needed services. I did not notice that in the minister's statement and would appreciate some clarification.

I believe, as well, there is a need for counselling for batterers. Enforcement is of course extremely important, and I would hope and encourage every ministry to continue working with those grass-roots organizations because they need the support and community development opportunities that can be offered through the Ontario women's directorate and others.

This is a significant announcement, and I would say about violence against women in our society that our goal of having safe and secure communities is in fact going to be enhanced by this very significant $21-million announcement.

ABANDONED MINES

Mr Miclash: I must say that I appreciate today receiving some news from the Minister of Mines after seven months and nothing so far. I must go back to a quote that the minister repeated a good number of times during the estimates. He often said that the mining industry is a pillar in the economy of Ontario.

Today we have an announcement given to us about the closing up of abandoned mine sites. I was kind of hoping that today we would hear something about the opening up of mine sites, bringing forth something to the mining communities of the north: employment. The minister is well aware of a situation in my own riding where there has been nothing from his ministry.

Gold coins announcing the celebration of 100 years of mining are excellent. I agree that we must celebrate the past, but we must look to the future. We must look at the devastation of mining towns. What is the minister telling the abandoned miners, the abandoned mining towns in the north, about mining and the mining industry in this province?

We are being outpaced today by Quebec, and the minister knows that. He knows that we are being truly outpaced. I have heard no announcements to tell us how this industry is going to be competitive in this country.

1410

Mr McLean: I want to comment on the statement made today by the Minister of Mines. It is certainly interesting to note that the minister announced a three-year, $10-million program to assess abandoned mines. He did not include in his statement the $35 million per year that the Treasurer announced in his budget he is going to raise from the miners. Shame on the minister for not mentioning that.

I am curious to find out if the minister is confident that the changes he is planning on making to the Mining Act will prevent future incidents similar to that which occurred in Matachewan when approximately 10,000 dump truck loads of tailings were washed down the river. I hope it will include that.

We support the principle of an environmentally sound mining industry and we hope that these new initiatives are a beginning. However, we are concerned with the maintenance and expansion of the mining industry. We hope this government will soon develop policies which will encourage investment and have some mines opening up for a change and have some expansion in this sector so that closure of mines will not be a major issue.

We are told that there are approximately 3,000 abandoned mine sites in the province and we certainly do not want to see any increase in the numbers of these abandoned sites happening in the future.

The minister also referred to the land owners being taxed. The indication I have in the budget is that it is about $1 now that they are paying per acre. That is going to be increased to $4. The Treasurer is gouging the mining industry with revenues that he needs and it looks good when he has a $10-billion budget deficit. I cannot understand why he should have a deficit at all when he is spending $10 million and taking in $35 million per year. He is gouging the mining industry.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Jackson: I would like to respond to the statement by the member for High Park-Swansea on behalf of the member for Scarborough West. At the outset, let me simply say that we appreciate her conveying the message for the member, but I notice from today's Toronto Star that it had access to the confidential cabinet document. I would recommend the Star article to all members of the House because it gives more details about the allocation than does the minister's statement today.

I would also indicate that I am rather disappointed with the minister in her capacity as minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs. Nowhere in this announcement do I see a reference to seniors or elder abuse, a matter which we have raised with her because of the alarming increase in statistics on seniors who are affected by violence.

Having said that, let me come to a couple of very important points. What the minister does not say in this announcement is that her government refused to give a positive answer to the Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres of Ontario for a stabilized funding formula. Most provinces in Canada have this. Ontario does not. This government said no to these shelters and to the interval house, to those persons providing shelter and those providing rape crisis centre counselling and intervention. This government said no to them about a stabilized funding base.

What is in this announcement, however, is another $400,000 for more TV advertising. Although there are some who feel there is merit in that, the truth of the matter is that the telephones begin ringing and ringing with victim after victim when they see those ads on TV, and what do they find out? That there are not enough beds in this province, safe places for women to go to. The fact of the matter is, this is a most incomplete and inappropriate approach if all we are doing is encouraging people to report the crime of abuse but the police do not lay the charges, if the crown attorneys do not proceed to take them to court, and if they cannot find a safe place for themselves and their children to get away from an abusive situation.

This government is the only government in Canada which has refused to implement a victims' bill of rights. Those victims' bills of rights were put in place specifically for victims of domestic violence. The stories are long and continuous of women like Franca Capretta in Ottawa who spent more time in the intensive care unit from her husband having beaten her skull in than he spent in a prison or in a jail or in a courtroom. Those are the things we have to attack in this province.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d). On 22 November 1990 I tabled an Orders and Notices question which reads as follows:

"Inquiry of the ministry -- Would the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations provide the names of each of the consultants commissioned by the ministry in fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, the total expenditure on each report and the details of the tendering process for each report, or if applicable, the reason why the contract was not put up for tender."

Standing order 95(d) states:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost six months since I tabled this question. An interim answer was provided on 13 December. That answer predicted that the information would be available on 18 April. It has now been approximately three weeks since the date the information was to be made available.

The failure to answer order paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly, I feel that I have a right to the access of information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering this question. I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: To the member for Leeds-Grenville, you indeed have a valid point of order. No doubt the minister to whom your concerns have been directed will have heard the remarks and you should anticipate a response.

1420

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d). On 22 November 1990 I tabled order paper question 118, which read as follows:

"Would the Minister of Culture and Communications provide the following information for the fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and the year to date: (1) the number of speech writers employed full-time and on contract each year; (2) for each speaking engagement attended by the minister or deputy minister -- the topic of the speech or remarks, the name of the individual speech writer, the page length of the address, and the contract fee paid or anticipated to be paid."

Standing order 95(d) states:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost six months since I tabled this question. An interim answer was provided on 11 December 1990, but that answer predicted that the information would be available on 26 April 1991. It has now been 12 days since the date the information was to be made available -- 12 days on top of six months.

The failure to answer Orders and Notices questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly, I feel that I have a right to the access of information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering this question. I ask you to please take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga South, you indeed have a valid point of order. No doubt the minister to whom your concerns are directed has heard your remarks and you should anticipate a response.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d). On 22 November, I tabled Orders and Notices question 86 --

Hon Mr Rae: What year?

Mr Runciman: -- 1990 -- which reads as follows:

"Would the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations indicate the three travel agencies with which the ministry placed the greatest portion of its travel business for the fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and the year to date for 1990."

Standing order 95(d) states:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Orders and Notices questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost six months since I tabled this question. An interim answer predicted that the information would be available on 15 January. It has now been approximately four months since the date the information was to be made available.

The failure to answer order paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly, I feel that I have a right to the access of information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown blatant disrespect for standing orders by not answering this question. I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Hon Miss Martel: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: It is too bad the Tory research is so lousy, but that answer was tabled on 6 May 1991.

The Speaker: The member may be disappointed to know that he does not have a valid point of order on this particular occasion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If I could capture your attention for a moment, I would like to take this opportunity just to remind members that, although it appeared to me that not every member in the assembly had his or her attention riveted on the person raising an alleged point of order, I have a responsibility to be able to hear what is raised, each and every word that is spoken. I would appreciate it if members would allow me that opportunity.

Mr Carr: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d). On 22 November I tabled Orders and Notices question 106, which read as follows:

"Would the Minister of Corrections provide a current description of every program administered by the ministry, funding allocated to that program for the fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91, and expenditures to date."

Standing order 95(d) states:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost six months since I tabled this question.

The failure to answer an order paper question is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, section 45, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof.

As a member of this assembly, I feel that I have a right to the access of information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown a blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering this question. I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South indeed has a valid point of order. No doubt the minister to whom his concerns are directed has heard his remarks and he should anticipate a response.

1430

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Speaker: In response to the point of order raised on Monday 6 May by the member for Carleton -- and before reading the response, I would like to commend the member for Carleton for his very thoughtful presentation of his point of order -- the member for Carleton moved a motion, "That this House pass directly to oral questions immediately following the completion of members' statements today." At the time, I indicated that unanimous consent was required to permit the member to move such a motion. I asked the House if there was unanimous consent to permit the member for Carleton to move his motion. Unanimous consent was denied and as a consequence the motion was not put.

Subsequently, the member for Carleton rose on a point of order to ask that I give further consideration to the ability of members to place before the House this type of motion which the member had proposed to move.

The motion which the member for Carleton proposed to move is, I believe, without precedent in the Parliament of Ontario and that is why I agreed to thoroughly review the matter and report back to the House.

I have had reference to the three criteria established by Speaker Edighoffer in his ruling of Tuesday 17 April 1990 to determine if this motion is a legitimate motion and, if so, under what circumstances it may be moved. The three criteria established by Speaker Edighoffer are (1) whether there is an applicable standing order in the case; (2) whether this is a legitimate procedural motion in parliamentary tradition; and (3) if it is a legitimate procedural motion, whether it can be applied to our procedures at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The standing orders adopted by the House in 1989 do not specifically provide for the motion which the member for Carleton proposed to move on Monday. My research on the matter has not turned up any example of such a motion being used in our Legislature. Having said that, I have had reference to the usage and precedents and parliamentary tradition in other legislatures to assist in determining if this motion may be a legitimate motion and, if so, under what circumstances it may be moved.

A similar motion, one for the House to pass from tabling of documents to motions, has been moved and, in the particular circumstances, found to be in order in the House of Commons of Canada.

I therefore find that a motion providing that the House pass directly from one specific item of the routine proceedings to another item of the routine proceedings to be a legitimate motion which is capable of being applied subject to the restrictions attached to the moving of dilatory motions in the Parliament of Ontario.

Such a motion is, as the member for Carleton has stated, dilatory in nature; that is, the effect of the motion, if carried, would be to put off further consideration of the business at hand by superseding all intervening routine proceedings and it could only be moved after the oral question period.

The routine proceedings have developed as an essential part of the business of the House and if they are not protected the interests of the House and the public it serves are likely to suffer severely. The moving of dilatory motions during routine proceedings is a very recent practice in the Parliament of Ontario and a relatively recent practice in other jurisdictions. It is a practice which can result in delay in the presentation of petitions, reports by committees to the House and the introduction of bills.

Members on both sides of the House have spoken to the importance of protecting the fundamental privileges members have under routine proceedings. To ensure that these fundamental privileges are preserved, I think it essential that I clearly state the circumstances under which such a motion may be moved.

In his April 1990 ruling, Speaker Edighoffer enunciated the following characteristics which are:

1. The motion may be moved by any member on either side of the House who is legitimately in possession of the floor.

2. The motion may be moved only following the oral question period and before reaching the period for orders of the day, unless the House has unanimously agreed to permit the motion to be moved either before or during the oral question period.

3. The motion may be moved without notice.

4. The motion is not subject to amendment or debate and the Speaker is required to put the question to the House immediately it is moved by a member.

5. If a recorded division is requested, the division bell is limited to 30 minutes.

6. A division requested on any such motion shall not be deferred.

To this I would add that it would be irregular for such a motion to have any conditions attached. The motion should be pure and simple, like the motion for the immediate adjournment of the House or for the adjournment of the debate or that the House do pass to the orders of the day.

Motions such as the ones just cited and the motion proposed by the member for Carleton may not be moved until following the oral question period. I believe the reason for this is quite clear; it is to protect the very fundamental privilege of members to have a period where the government must submit on a daily basis its conduct of the affairs of the province to the scrutiny of the members, particularly those members in the opposition. Without such a provision, it would be open to a member to move and for the majority of the members in the House to agree to a motion the effect of which would be to preclude or supersede the oral question period. Such a situation would clearly not be in the best interests of the House, its members or the electorate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would appreciate it if the member for St George-St David would curb his enthusiasm.

I have had to make this decision in the absence of any clear direction in our standing orders. I want to say to all members that it is not my preference that I or other Speakers be repeatedly faced with situations where the Speaker must look to usage and precedents and parliamentary tradition in other jurisdictions in the absence of any clear or applicable rule in our Parliament. Clearly, it is in the best interests of all members that the House review such situations and, where possible, express itself so that the admissibility of a particular matter is clearly dealt with.

Again, in conclusion, I truly appreciate the very thoughtful presentation by the member for Carleton.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Treasurer, who may reappear. In his absence, perhaps I could direct it to the Premier. It has to do with the cost of our borrowing program.

The indication from the Treasurer is that he will require $10 billion in the interests of the province and an additional $5 billion in support of Ontario Hydro during this year. During the months the government has already been in office it has borrowed in excess of $6 billion. It has been interesting to look at the increasing cost by way of interest for each of these loans in spite of the fact that the province has so far retained its triple A credit rating.

It has now come to the point that even though the triple A rating is established, jurisdictions such as Alberta and British Columbia, neither of which actually has the triple A rating, are actually able to borrow money at lower interest rates.

I would hesitate to suggest that the syndicate that does this work for the province of Ontario is inadequate or inefficient in any way, and the only other conclusion one may reach that I bring to the Premier's attention is that the people who are lending money on an international basis have a level of confidence that is already lower than triple A in the ability of the province of Ontario under the ministrations of an NDP government to repay the loan.

In my own view, that is of course not in doubt, but that is the operative factor when interest rates go up. I wonder if the Premier can give an indication of this matter, and perhaps he knows of some other factor that might be leading to the increased cost of these borrowings.

Hon Mr Rae: The Treasurer would be in a better position than I am to answer that question in detail. I can only tell the Leader of the Opposition that, from my knowledge, the government, together with Ontario Hydro, has been in the capital markets. Indeed, we have been in the capital markets for some time now. We have had absolutely no difficulty in getting the necessary finances for the government and the bonds that have been offered have been taken up, from my understanding and all discussions that I have had with the Treasurer and others, very quickly.

With respect to details of the financing costs, I will have to refer that to the Treasurer. Perhaps the member could put that to him tomorrow.

1440

Mr Nixon: I will do that, but there are a couple of matters that flow from this that are of great importance to everybody here, certainly to the Premier and to all the taxpayers in the province.

The Financial Post reported on 2 May, "Ontario is now under Standard and Poor's credit watch with negative implications" -- the last time I saw that I was the Treasurer -- "and the indications are that the credit rating of the province is going to be reduced." I hope that will not happen, but I would say that it is practically inevitable since their procedure is clearly known.

I am interested also to know that the Treasurer is expecting to go to New York to plead his case. I am not sure of the efficacy of that. It may be that if it is useful, the Premier should accompany him, because there is no doubt at all that if that happens, with the huge amount of borrowing that is now concomitant in the budget that we should be debating and that in fact would include this discussion in its debate if that were possible, this additional cost could amount to as much as $40 million this year.

Since the Premier has the kind of interest in this as the head of the government must, but in general as any taxpayer would, can he indicate what efforts are being made to counteract the possibility of this downgrading? When I say it is inevitable, I hope I am wrong, but that is my projection and prediction. Is there any indication that my estimate of about $40 million is incorrect?

Hon Mr Rae: Obviously the question of what our costs will be for the following year for the overall financial needs of the government will depend on a number of factors. The level of interest rates generally will be one factor that will have an impact.

Mr Stockwell: They came down.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Etobicoke West points out quite rightly that they came down. He was in the House last week saying that one of the consequences of our budget would be higher interest rates. The following day, the Bank of Montreal reduced its prime rate. So much for his powers of prediction.

As the former Treasurer and Leader of the Opposition will know, in 1985, I believe, the province's credit rating was changed after the first budget was produced by the Liberal government. It went down from triple A to double A plus or whatever. This is not an unusual event.

Obviously in a recession we are running a deficit in the province and everyone knows that. The credit rating agencies are looking at governments across North America. They look at financial institutions across North America. I notice that yesterday the Toronto-Dominion Bank had its long-term credit rating reduced by one notch.

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

Hon Mr Rae: There is not an institution in the province that has not been affected by the recession and where Standard and Poor's and Moody's and those elsewhere have not made their assessments. I can only say we are making a strong case in terms of our medium-term plans, we are making a strong case in terms of the need for us to get out of the recession and we are making a strong case in terms of our responsibility to all the taxpayers of the province, indeed to all the people of the province who are so devastated by this recession and who need the leadership of the government to respond. We have to do that.

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

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps Moody's and Standard and Poor's do not have to do it; we as a government do have to do it.

Mr Nixon: Mr Speaker, I hope I will be able to follow your direction in asking this question in a way similar to the Premier in his rather political response to the question.

I think everyone will know that the interest rates are going down because of the recession and because of changes in policy. What we are talking about is the additional cost to Ontario, which appears to be a mystery, and which, I would put to you, Mr Speaker, and to the members opposite, is because of the insecurity of the lending community in the democratic socialist government of this province.

The Premier indicated that the Toronto-Dominion Bank lost its credit rating. The reasons given, which should give him concern as they do me, were as follows: "Toronto-Dominion's high concentration of assets in central Canada, particularly in Ontario, is a reason for this. In addition, Ontario's large forecasted budget deficit and other relevant factors are causing a structural shift in Ontario's economy which does not bode well for a financial institution dependent on it."

The Premier himself indicated that the Toronto-Dominion Bank had lost its credit rating, with the idea that the province of Ontario might be somewhat similar. I would suggest to him that is probably the case, that in fact the Toronto-Dominion Bank is suffering for doing most of its business in Ontario because of the policies of this government.

Would the Premier not agree that the effect on credit ratings, commercially and with this government, is going to cost the taxpayers significant additional amounts of money because of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of him and his colleagues?

Hon Mr Rae: The notion that our problems began with the election of our government on 6 September and after his stewardship of the province is preposterous and is as partisan a statement as I have ever heard made by the Leader of the Opposition. Surely he, as Treasurer for five years, would assume some degree of responsibility for the fiscal circumstances and the economic circumstances facing this province today. Surely just a little bit falls on his lap and on the lap of that party which was in government for five years.

I say this to the Leader of the Opposition because he knows full well that the structural problems which he describes are problems which did not suddenly, with the snap of a finger, begin on the day of the election. Let me tell him we are facing changes in this province. We are facing a structural change. So is the state of New York, so is the state of Pennsylvania, so is the state of Ohio, so is the state of Michigan, so is the province of Quebec and so is the province of Manitoba.

We are all affected by this. We are taking our steps. If the member says that the TD Bank is suffering, let me tell him there are a lot of people who are suffering more than the banks in this province.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I have stopped the clock. Before continuing, before I get another flood of notes, members may wish to welcome to our gallery today a former Premier from the province of Manitoba, Howard Pawley.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Nixon: I always know the Premier is concerned and his point is weak when he attacks the innocent former Treasurer and blames him for all of his problems. Whenever he pushes the applause button for his sycophantic background music, he always has an argument that is bothering him.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health, if I can have her attention for a moment. The minister would have read, as I did today, the reports in the media that there would be about 2,600 beds closed by the fall of this year. Can she give an indication of how her policy is going to respond to this indication of bed closures -- which we experienced over the last five years but not, I believe, as dramatically as this -- particularly since she has been able to find in support from the Treasurer an additional $484 million for the medical practitioners? Would she indicate her level of priorities in this regard, particularly since we have to have a balance between the services of the practitioners and the hospital facilities in which they do their work?

Hon Ms Lankin: In fact, I agree with the member that there needs to be a balance struck. We have indicated the amount of increase in the budget towards physicians' services for this year. I would point out, as the member talks about that figure of over $400 million, that a good portion of that, $140 million, is a one-time retroactive. In terms of the base increase for this year, it certainly is not that significant an increase.

If the member looks to the hospital sector, we have increased the funding in the hospital sector by 9.5%.

Interjections.

1450

Hon Ms Lankin: The members opposite are responding to the comment about "not significant." I meant, as the member opposite said, of the over $400 million.

The increase to the hospital sector was 9.5% in this year. That is an increase of more than $600 million over the budget of last year to hospitals. I think one of the things that is important for us to look at, at this time of year in particular, as hospitals are going through that difficult process of sorting out their budgets and trying to understand the implications of reaching a balanced budget by the end of the year, is the balance between the kind of bed closures that happen every year leading into the summer, the temporary bed closures, and those that are really a trend in hospitals, which the ministry supports and which I think members on the other side would support, of moving from inpatient care to a greater amount of ambulatory care, day service care. I think that is an important shift in service.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her remarks, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: I think it is an important shift in service which we will continue to support. Perhaps I can address it further in supplementary.

Mr Nixon: I think my problem in this regard is that while she is prepared to say that the settlement with the doctors is partly for makeups in previous years, when the increase per year for the doctors was only $200 million -- an increase which she herself describes as inefficient and leading to difficulties in the system, which I of course reject -- this year she is now saying that by spending $474 million she is achieving a position of efficiency and development which is the goal that all of us would achieve.

I would simply say that by allocating $474 million extra for medical practitioners this year and at the same time applying the kind of rules for the hospitals which mean that they will close more beds than ever before, her priorities are misaligned. How can she explain that apparent inadequacy in the establishment of her priorities, when the doctors, already the best paid in Canada, and whatever more they may need in order to perform properly, are in fact being allocated money by this minister that should be allocated to the hospitals so that their facilities can be maintained?

Hon Ms Lankin: I will try and explain that. I think that the settlement with the Ontario Medical Association is a complex one in terms of how it works, but again, I would urge the leader of the official opposition to look at his characterization of the over $400 million carefully. Of that, $140 million is retroactive money, a one-time lump sum, not folded into the base. True, it is being paid out in this particular year, but had it been paid out just before the end of the last fiscal year, before 31 March, it would have been in last year's budget.

In terms of the cost of medical services by physicians and the increase this year, we expect that we will be saving close to $180 million from what would have been spent had we had a continuation of the trend. I do think that is important. I do think we need to make sure that we do not allow those open-ended services to go so that we cannot address some of the other determinants of health.

With respect to the second part of the member's question, in terms of the balance of expenditures in hospitals, again I urge him to look at the numbers and to see that in this year, when we are being urged to look at constraint and when dollars are very precious, we have in fact increased spending in the hospital sector by 9.5%.

The other problem you have is that if you suggest that those closures of beds are problematic, just in the fact that they are closures, in fact the ministry has been working towards this over the past couple of years. This government supports this trend to shift services from inpatient to ambulatory care. That means shorter hospital stays, that means more day surgeries, that means more community support.

Mr Nixon: We all agree that this is an important subject. I am afraid the minister and I are not going to agree on this, because her additional payments to hospitals for the administration of the hospitals were only $420 million. The settlement with the nurses is going to cost an additional $173 million. She is aware of this in much more detail than I but would certainly understand the difficult position that they are experiencing; that is, an agreement with the nurses, which was established some months ago and is a particularly expensive one.

While she is prepared to allocate for all of those great reasons that she supports, to the medical practitioners, $484 million, the hospitals get only $420 million for their additional huge new costs in dealing with nurses and otherwise. Once again, there is a clear indication that the minister has made a mistake in her allocation and may in fact have to return to the well for several more bucketfuls to keep the hospitals functioning. Is she moving in that direction or does she feel that she can function with the money allocated?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the amounts that we are talking about with respect to the doctors' settlement -- while the Leader of the Opposition keeps focusing on it as an extraordinary amount, what he fails to focus on is the extraordinary saving of what that amount would have been had we not put an end to the open-ended, spiralling costs, had we not put in place a managed system for the first time in Ontario.

With respect to the moneys that are going to the hospitals, the increase is 9.5%. There is over $7 billion being spent in the hospital sector this year. The nurses' settlement has taken place and the ministry has asked all of the hospitals to please let us know what the impact of that settlement is with respect to the individual hospitals, and by mid-June the hospitals will have all submitted their budgets.

We will be working with the hospitals to look at what the impact is in various areas. In fact, we expect that hospitals will look to cut back in certain areas. The ministry has rules on areas that they cannot cut back in. We will be working along with them to look at the impact of these budgets.

But may I say that the shift from expensive inpatient treatment to ambulatory care, to day surgery care is the exact shift that we need to make in this province if we are to free up money for many other needed services in terms of the determinative health care. It is not all the traditional health care system that money needs to be spent on.

BUDGET

Mr Harris: My question is for the Premier. I would like to recall for him a time that I know is now a very fond memory, when the Liberals were ringing bells for days on end protesting the budget in 1982. Let me quote from the Toronto Star of 18 May 1982, "New Democratic Party leader Bob Rae told reporters the budget should be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings."

This is exactly what I have been asking for in this House for about a week. What has changed between then and now? Why is the Premier afraid of hearing from Ontario taxpayers and Ontarians who are concerned about losing their jobs? Why is he so opposed to sending this budget out for full public hearings?

Hon Mr Rae: In his budget, on page 16, the Treasurer talked very directly about how we are eager to have a more open budgetary process, how we are asking for the opinion of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to deal with it very directly. Of course we are determined to see that we have a process which is contemporary and works better for the 1990s. The Treasurer said that in his budget.

I would say to the leader of the third party that we are eager to discuss the budget. He is the one who is ringing bells and raising points of order. A point of order was raised today which went on for several minutes and then was answered by the House leader saying we had already answered the question.

I would say very directly to the leader of the third party that in the normal course of events there will be a House leaders' meeting, there will be a full discussion of this question as to how it can be resolved, but I really think that in the circumstances the normal course of events is a budget debate and then a chance to refer it to a committee. I would remind him that what was arrived at in 1982 was an agreement on all sides that the budget bills would in fact be referred to committee, and we have already indicated that we are quite happy to refer the matter of the budget bills to committee, that we are quite happy for them to go ahead to the committee --

The Speaker: Would the Premier complete his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and that is precisely what took place in 1982.

1500

Mr Harris: The Premier knows very well that under the standing orders of 1982, which were quite different from today, they had no choice but to allow the bills to go out to hearings. He will also know that to discuss individual bills for taxes that the Treasurer is already collecting, in a committee where the government holds the full majority, where the Premier as dictator, as he has demonstrated, has no intention of allowing the majority of his committee members to reverse taxes that are already collected, will in fact serve no purpose at all.

The Premier said in 1982 that the whole budget should be referred to a parliamentary committee for hearings. If it was good enough in 1982, why is it not good enough today for his budget?

Hon Mr Rae: What the leader of the third party seems to object to is the fact that we have a majority in this Legislature. That is what he objects to. What he is saying is, what is the point of referring it to a committee if we have a majority on the committee? Well, I am sorry. All I can say is there was an election on 6 September and the government was elected to govern.

We are quite happy to have all the budget bills referred to a committee, but if he is asking us to give up our majority on committees and he is asking us not to be able to proceed with legislation as the government of the province of Ontario, basically what he is asking is for us to say, "The election on 6 September didn't count and the only budget we're going to be able to introduce is a Brian Mulroney budget." He is not going to be satisfied until this House turns itself into a chamber for Brian Mulroney's politics, and I am not prepared to do that.

Mr Harris: Let me say this to the Premier. I am not saying things did not happen on 6 September. Disaster struck. I also know who has the majority. I also know --

Interjections.

Mr Harris: Not me. It did not strike me. Disaster struck the province. I also know this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: It is quite evident that the leader of the third party has engendered a certain amount --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the members on the government side just relax. I realize that your interest has been aroused in the issue of the day, but the leader of the third party deserves the right to place his question and I have a responsibility to listen to it. I would appreciate your assistance.

Mr Harris: The Premier says I do not understand a majority. I do. It is exactly why sending tax bills, where tax is already being collected, to a committee is a ridiculous exercise in futility.

On 27 May 1982 the present Minister of Housing, former House leader for the NDP, said, "In view of the massive shift in taxation in this regressive budget, will the Premier agree to refer the 1982 budget in its totality to a committee of this Legislature, to go out and have public hearings and to talk to the people of this province...and get public feedback?"

I could not have said it better myself. Will the Premier not agree with his former House leader that with the four years of $35 billion worth of debt, with four years of billions of dollars in tax increases, this is indeed a massive shift in taxation policy for this province, and according to his Minister of Housing, that then says the public should be heard on this massive shift and the whole budget should be sent out to hear from the taxpayers of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: The question in my mind is still this: Is the leader of the third party suggesting that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which meets in the normal course of events and which will continue to meet through this session and which has an agenda there before it, should not have a majority of New Democrats on it? Is he suggesting that the only committee that he would accept is a committee in which the New Democrats do not have a majority?

All I can say is that the Treasurer has already said in his budget that he is prepared to have a discussion with the members of the finance committee about what kind of a process people want with respect to future discussion. The question is there. It can be discussed. But I think the point has to be made again: What the leader of the third party appears to be objecting to really is whether or not this government has the right to present a budget, have it discussed, have it approved and have it dealt with in the ordinary way. That is what I have been hearing him say repeatedly for the last three days.

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

Hon Mr Rae: If he has now shifted the ground under his feet because he sees the ground does not make any sense, it is up to him.

Mr Harris: Let me try again with a few questions to the Premier. The Premier should not put words into my mouth that are not the truth. I clearly said I understand he has a majority. Unlike the Premier, I did not prevent a Treasurer from reading the budget. I am also accepting the reality that he has a majority on the committee and that simply referring the budget bills there is an exercise in futility. It is the whole budget that I want to hear from the public on.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Harris: My second question to the Premier is this: The taxpayers of this province are calling my office daily. They are furious. They are telling me they fear for their jobs as a direct result of this budget. They believe the only way to end this recession and to save jobs in Ontario is to cut taxes and reduce government spending. They believe that this government, quite similarly to the Liberals before it, is wasting hard-earned taxpayers' dollars.

We get into why he is bankrupting this province, what he is spending it on. I wonder if the Premier could justify this expenditure for me: the Premier's office spending $60 of the taxpayers' money in February to deliver one letter to a lady in Orillia, a letter, I might add, which replaced one that had been signed by the Premier's autopen. How can he justify 60 bucks for one letter out of his office?

Hon Mr Rae: I do not know exactly what the leader of the third party is referring to and I have no idea whether in fact that expenditure was made by the Premier's office or not. I can only say that he has made a number of allegations over the last few months and we will obviously have to look into this one, as into other ones.

Mr Harris: Clearly I think the Premier should know what I am talking about. I wonder how many other thousands have gone out like the one to the lady in Orillia for 60 bucks.

Let me ask the Premier to justify this waste of some of the $10 billion that is being wasted. This one is a release from the Ministry of Transportation and it says this: "March 28, 1991. Attention all road users. The provincial government wants your opinions on the bicycle's role in transportation." In fact, the Minister of Transportation says, "You can voice your opinions in person this summer at public meetings."

Can the premier tell us why he feels it is worth while spending $200,000 of taxpayers' money to hold public hearings on bicycles and their role in Ontario, but he refuses to hold public hearings on a budgetary policy calling for $35 billion in new debt, billions of dollars in new taxes over the next four years? Can he explain why $200,000 for hearings on bicycles make sense, and nothing for hearings from the public on his budgetary policy here in this province?

1510

Hon Mr Rae: I must say to the leader of the third party, talk about mixing apples and oranges. There is an ongoing process that goes on in government. If the leader of the third party is saying that there is no interest in the public with respect to a number of recreational subjects which are normally discussed with the public, that is pretty strange.

If I wanted to talk about wasting money, perhaps I could ask the leader of the third party, does he have any idea how much money it costs to keep this place running for a day while he is reading out in the House the names of Feist Lake, Felcite Lake, Feldman Lake, Feline Lake, Felix Lake, Fells Bay, Felsen Creek, Felsen Lake, Felst Lake, Felt Lake, Felto Lake? He wants to talk about wasting money? I will talk about wasting money.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's all a matter of priority, right, Mike?

Mr Harris: It is a matter of priorities. I want to say this to the Premier: We know his priorities, $200,000 for bicycles, nothing for $10 billion in debt. I make no apology --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I can appreciate that people are interested and excited, but curbing one's enthusiasm would make it a little easier to hear the question.

Mr Harris: I make no apology for standing in my place in this House, for fighting against $35 billion, for trying to slow down the billions of money that he is wasting. I think that is a good use of this Legislature's time. The Premier may think a better use is to go ahead and spend more, but I do not.

The taxpayers of this province cannot afford to foot the bill for government waste and mismanagement. Yesterday the member for Mississauga South informed the government TVOntario had spent $2 million to renovate a building it plans to vacate in three years. Let me give another example, since the Premier thinks bicycles are a good way to spend $200,000. Let me give him another one.

There was a release that I have here that the Minister of Colleges and Universities rushed out $127,000, just before year-end so they could use up the money, to Trent University and to Sir Sandford Fleming College for a study as to how they could share each other's facilities and staff.

Can the Premier explain to me why a simple phone call, or maybe even 25 bucks for lunch to get together to discuss how they could share each other's facilities and staff, would not do just as well as a $127,000 study?

Hon Mr Rae: I cannot think of a more necessary direction from this government than to argue, looking at those two institutions, for getting them to work better together and finding ways to make that happen. But I would repeat my point to the leader of the third party: The whole purpose of a budget debate in this House, the whole purpose of the process that has been established, is to allow these questions to be asked and answered and to allow for that kind of discussion to take place. We are ready to begin that budget debate. We were ready to begin that budget debate last week. The leader of the third party wanted to talk about Chickadee Lake and Chicken Lake and Chickenfish Lake. That is what he has been wanting to talk about for the last 10 days.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Offer: I have a question to the Attorney General. In his statement to this Legislature on 29 April, he indicated that Deputy Attorney General Hogan received a telephone call from a member of the judiciary on Friday 12 April 1991. This telephone call was to the effect that: "The justice of the peace had told the judge he had received information from another justice of the peace regarding a letter allegedly from the Solicitor General. The judge was told this letter regarded a matter before the courts."

My question to the Attorney General is whether he will confirm today if he is now aware or has been made aware whether his deputy minister or any ministry official contacted anyone in the Premier's office regarding this matter from 12 April to 22 April, that date being the day this matter was made public?

Hon Mr Hampton: I can confirm to the member that no one in my office contacted the Premier's office regarding this matter.

Mr Offer: My question was very specific as to whether the Attorney General is now aware or has been made aware of any communication that took place between the dates of 12 April to 22 April. I ask the Attorney General whether he can confirm that there was no communication made by his deputy minister or by any of his officials to anyone in the Premier's office or indeed anyone in the cabinet secretariat from that period, 12 April to 22 April.

Hon Mr Hampton: To my knowledge, there was no communication.

CONTRACT SERVICES

Mr Tilson: My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. As a result of information obtained through Orders and Notices questions, I would like to ask the Chairman of Management Board to comment on the appropriateness of contract speechwriting for ministers and their deputies.

I would like to ask her if she is aware of the apparent lack of guidelines under the former government, which led ministers to use consultants and contract out work for almost every public utterance. I have given three examples. The first one is a 16-page Premier's statement in 1990 at a cost of $7,735.29, which is approximately $483.45 a page.

The second one is for a one-page ditty costing $275 for the Minister of Tourism's opening of Ontario Place in 1988. That is like saying, "It's a lovely day and welcome to Ontario Place."

The third example is a $1,200 stump speech prepared for the former Minister of Housing to deliver to the annual meeting of the Leeds-Grenville Liberal Association. There was also a 1990 speech made for the former Minister of Education for a throne speech debate, which cost $1,120. Our information is that the minister did not even respond to the throne speech or made no comment with respect to the throne speech. The list continues. There are a number of examples that go on and on.

My question to the minister is, does she not agree that there is sufficient ministerial communication staff to take care of routine speeches and that these speeches ought to be prepared in-house? Does she plan to initiate measures within her own government to avoid this deplorable waste of taxpayers' dollars?

Hon Ms Lankin: I share the concern raised by the member opposite. I should say that one of the first questions I asked upon being sworn in as Chairman of Management Board and trying to look through all of the rules around tendering and contracting was, why do we contract out so much to consultants and others?

The member has touched one area which is a very big area in government, the use of consulting fees. He used the specific case of speechwriting. I could say to the member that it is used throughout governments at all levels and for all sorts of jobs, some of them perhaps appropriately because the expertise is not in government, others, I would argue, not appropriately because the expertise is there.

In some cases, policies of the past number of years of limiting wage dollars have meant that ministries have had more operating dollars to expend than wage dollars. They have used that as the way of responding to a need, to contract out.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her remarks, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: Because Mr Speaker is urging me to wrap up, I will just end by saying that I have asked for a review to be done of the use of consultants. When I get that and get an understanding of the breadth of it, we will put in place the kinds of procedures that would address those concerns. It will take us a bit of time, though.

Mrs Cunningham: My question is also to the same minister because, if she is going to do this work, I think it is important that she look into the work even of her own government.

In the Ministry of Skills Development, on 4 October 1990, there was a fee of $850 paid for a very short speech. On 10 October, a week later, a fee of $2,000 was paid outside to an open house meeting. The public should know about these things. It is my responsibility to bring it to the minister's attention. At Durham College on 15 November, this government paid a fee of $1,170; again on 22 November, as far as I could get, fee paid of $1,040. We expected things to change and they have not changed and we need them to change.

At this rate, $5,060 went on four speeches -- outrageous. I must say, right now at that rate they could have a full-time person for $40,000.

The Speaker: The interrogative part.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, my point is this: This ministry already has a full-time speechwriter. They have 18 full-time people. My question is this: I am saying right now, does the minister think it is appropriate, and on what date will she stop this total waste of hard-earned taxpayers' money?

1520

Hon Ms Lankin: I cannot say how it heartens me to hear members of the third party speak for the quality of civil service and for the fact that the work should be done inside the civil service and not contracted out. I appreciate their support on that matter, but I think the problem is a very --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I compliment them and they yell at me. I do not understand this. Shall I continue?

The Speaker: This seems to be a day where people get excited. If folks would just relax for a moment, I could hear the brief response from the minister.

Hon Ms Lankin: The issue the members raise is one that I am concerned about, not just in terms of the use of consultants but of the contracting out that goes on. I would like to be able to give the member a date. I cannot at this point in time. It is a very large bureaucracy. There is a lot of this going on and the data are not centralized. I have asked for that review to be done and pulled together.

I should say that this is something that has been going on under many governments, although that is not an excuse to continue it. I think we have to get hold of it, but I cannot promise that it can be done in the next month or two. We are working on it and working towards that very goal.

TRAILER PARK RESIDENTS

Mr Duignan: My question today is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Some members would have read here today a newspaper article this morning about a young constituent of mine, Alex Kavanaugh. Alex, along with about 20 other families, is facing eviction next week from the Willow Trailer Park. Since the Credit Valley Conservation Authority has shown little concern for the reality that these residents are facing, I was wondering whether the minister could tell us what he is doing in light of these situations.

Hon Mr Wildman: I want to thank the member for having raised this matter with me some time ago. As the member knows, conservation authorities are a partnership between the province and the municipalities. In response to the concerns raised by the member, I wrote to the Credit Valley Conservation Authority on 16 April and suggested it extend the deadline beyond 15 May at least to 31 August so that there is time to find an alternative location for the mobile homes at the mobile home park.

Unfortunately, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority wrote back to me on 1 May indicating it had considered my letter and decided to proceed. These residents are very vulnerable. I understand they are in a floodplain and that must be protected, but we must use compassion and I would urge the Credit Valley Conservation Authority to rethink its position.

Mr Duignan: I am sure the residents will appreciate the minister's answer. However, he has indicated that this matter is in the hands of the conservation authority. Is there anything further the minister can do to offer some hope to these people who are facing eviction next week?

Hon Mr Wildman: There are measures that might be taken, but I hope that will not be necessary. I hope the conservation authority will reconsider and consider the plight of these people who need a place to stay and who should not be evicted until there is another location for their homes. I have discussed this with the Minister of Housing and hopefully we can work something out, if the conservation authority will use compassion rather than Damocles's sword.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Scott: As the Premier has fled the chamber, I have to ask my question of the Attorney General.

In answer to a question posed by my colleague the member for Mississauga North, he indicated that his deputy minister had received this phone call from a judge some 10 days before the press, after a leak, released it publicly. He also confirmed that as far as he knew, the Deputy Attorney General's office and the minister's office had never communicated the matter to the Premier's office or to the cabinet office before it was leaked to the press.

I would like to ask the Attorney General to confirm what I understand to be the case, that some inquiry, external or internal, is being done as to how this might have occurred. Could he please confirm that this is the case and who or what agency is doing the inquiry?

Hon Mr Hampton: I am not exactly sure what the member is getting at, but let me relate back to him the facts as far as we know them.

The phone call that was received from a judge inquired of the Deputy Attorney General what the procedure would be and if he could get some advice if there was a situation there that should be of concern.

The deputy conferred with senior legal advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General, returned the call to the judge and was cautioned by the judge that he did not know if there was anything to the alleged letter. He did not know if there was anything in the content that would be worthy of concern. He stated that there may be nothing here.

From there, he was instructed that if he were able to locate such a letter, he should send it to the Deputy Attorney General. He indicated he would endeavour to do so. The only thing that happened after that was that the Deputy Attorney General returned another phone call to the judge in question, asking him if he had the letter yet, and if he had it, whether he would forward it. There were no communications with the Premier's office. There were no communications with any other office in the government.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Hampton: If the member has some allegation that he knows the facts to be otherwise, I am interested in hearing about it.

Mr Scott: The point that is beyond doubt now is that the Deputy Attorney General received a call from a judge -- not from anybody else -- alleging there might be in existence a letter that indicated tampering with the administration of justice through a letter written by the Solicitor General. That is admitted by everybody now. The question is, is the Attorney General's ministry doing any investigation as to how this could have happened without notification either to the Attorney General's office or to the Premier's office? I understood him to say earlier that an investigation was being done. I simply ask him to confirm that an investigation is being done and tell us who is doing it.

Hon Mr Hampton: To correct the member again -- and it seems like I must correct him every day, with his overactive imagination -- the judge in question indicated very specifically that he did not have a letter and that he had heard second hand that there might be a letter. He did not know what was in the letter. He did not know what the letter was about. In fact, he cautioned that there might be no substance whatsoever.

I have told the honourable member that the RCMP was asked to investigate any and all allegations concerning the letter. To my knowledge, the RCMP is conducting that investigation. Knowing the RCMP, I suspect it will conduct a very full investigation and will go wherever information leads it.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr McLean: I have a question for the Minister of Mines. Last week's historic budget announced that the three-year exemption from the Ontario mining tax would be limited to $10 million of profit per mine. According to the minister's projections, this initiative is expected to generate $35 million a year.

In its pre-budget submission, the Ontario Mining Association sent a very clear message: no new taxes. Rapidly falling prices on nickel, copper and zinc have left the mining industry facing a very disastrous year. In 1988, exploration for new reserves dropped, indicating a lack of confidence for investment in this industry. Would the minister please tell us why he plans to drain more money out of the Ontario mining industry at a time when it can least afford it?

1530

Hon Mr Pouliot: I wish to thank the member for a very relevant question, for he knows -- and I have been watching him rather carefully -- about the role that mining plays in Ontario. He is right; $7 billion worth of production; 80,000 people are employed.

Let me share with the member, by way of an answer, what the Northern Miner Magazine says regarding the budget, "Mining Escapes NDP Budget." It says, "A number of industry representatives interviewed by the Northern Miner" -- and this is what the captains of industry, the movers and shakers, are saying; they describe the budget impact as "minor irritants."

What we are saying to mining is: "The first $10 million is tax-free. You do not pay a nickel, a dime or a penny of income tax on the first $10 million, and we want to wish you well. Afterwards, you pay taxes like everyone else."

Mr McLean: The Minister of Northern Development proudly announced that 30% of the government's $700-million recession-fighting package would be directed to projects in northern Ontario. Has the economy in this region suddenly turned around whereby now the government is taking that money and more out of northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is quite accurate in the amount surpassing 30%, and we are talking in terms of $700 million-plus to quick-start the economy.

Let us go back to mines for a second. This is what we are doing: We are spending money promoting, asking prospectors -- fictitious name, Harry Smith. He leaves Timmins and goes in the bush with his hammer. We are putting $10,000 in his pocket to give him a chance to dream. If he has an interesting showing, we put some exploration money to the tune of 30%. On top of it, if he is in a designated area, we up the ante to 50%. That is what the government of Ontario -- the money is coming back, the member is quite right. We are very cognizant of the contribution of mining. We need mining. We know that in order to afford the social programs the people wish, factory wheels have to be turning full blast. We are going with our forte; we are resource-based.

SIGN LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Malkowski: My question is to the Minister of Education. Is the ministry planning to reintroduce Bill 112, which would require the use of American sign language and langue des signes québécois in the provincial schools for the deaf, as well as in any other school in Ontario where numbers warrant the use?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We have already announced our government's intention to designate American sign language and its francophone counterpart as a language of communication. I cannot say at the present time whether we will simply reintroduce Bill 112 that was introduced by our former colleague, Richard Johnston, or whether we will want to make a more thorough piece of legislation as a result of the consultation that is ongoing right now with both the anglophone and francophone advisory committees.

We have an action plan that covers five years in order to put these languages into place and to ensure that there are teachers who are trained to teach them. So the legislation may be more extensive than Mr Johnston's bill.

Mr Malkowski: Given that the government is ready to recognize ASL and LSQ as languages of instruction, what is the ministry prepared to do to make sure that we have qualified teachers so that such languages can be used in the classroom?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The Ministry of Education divested itself, effective this summer, of the teacher training and it will be going to York University where this training will take place in Ontario. In addition, we know that in order to get qualified people we will need to take action to try to attract back to Ontario qualified teachers who may have left our jurisdiction because we were not recognizing ASL as a language of instruction, and that is also our intention.

CAT SCANNER

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will recall that on a couple of previous occasions I have raised the issue of the need for a second CAT scanner for the Niagara region in this House.

The residents of the Niagara Peninsula now have to line up for some four months before they can have the elective use of a CAT scanner. Patients may be subjected to exploratory surgery, ultrasound tests, nuclear medicine or myelograms, and many of these procedures and some of the other procedures are uncomfortable and certainly give an uneasy feeling to people, although they are essential if they are not able to get a CAT scanner. There is inconvenience and additional personal costs to those in the Niagara region who must cross the border to get this particular service. Would the minister assure the House that she will give immediate approval to the installation and operation of a second CAT scanner in the Niagara region for the 370,000 people who must share the only one that is present at this time?

Hon Ms Lankin: I am sorry I am unable to answer the member's question. I am sure he will understand that with under two weeks in the portfolio at this point, although I am working very hard to get up to speed on a large number of issues, I do not know the response to that particular question. I do not know where funding stands for the delivery of those kinds of services across the province, and it would be improper for me at this point to answer with respect to a particular region. I will undertake to get a response to the member on that.

Mr Bradley: The district health council has, as a very high priority if not its top priority, the installation of such a machine in the Niagara Peninsula.

The minister, although I heard nothing about this during the election campaign, has said that she is interested now in controlling health care costs in Ontario. In fact, the contrary would have been the impression the people of this province would have gained, but she has stated, in fairness to her, that she is interested in controlling costs and making the delivery of medicine more efficient, although still useful, to the people of this province.

In view of that, and in view of the fact that each of the procedures I have mentioned -- I will not go over them -- and the additional stay in hospital, if you want to make sure that you get immediate access to a CAT scanner, means that the costs are increasing and the money is flowing south of the border --

The Speaker: The interrogative part?

Mr Bradley: -- would she give immediate consideration to the implementation of such a CAT scanner, a very much needed CAT scanner, for the people of the Niagara region?

Hon Ms Lankin: Once again, I understand the passion with which the member speaks on behalf of the residents of his area and which he shares with members on this side of the House, who have also raised the issue and are concerned. I do not have a response at this point. I just have not, in all of the briefings I have been going through, been able to learn about this issue yet. I ask the member to give me some time and I will respond to him.

ONTARIO HYDRO AGREEMENT

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I would like to ask the minister to report to the House on the agreement between Ontario Hydro and Smoky Falls. I understand the deadline has been moved ahead to 30 June, and I would like to ask the minister if she can tell us if her ministry, in conjunction with the Ministry of the Environment, is prepared to accept responsibility for the environmental assessment of the Smoky Falls power plant and the Mattagami River projects? If she would accept that responsibility, would she allow Ontario Hydro then to complete the deal and save 1,200 jobs?

Hon Ms Carter: I think the member knows that this whole question of Smoky Falls and the other linked Mattagami projects is coming before the demand/supply plan hearings which are now under way. That being the case, there is no way of which I am aware that these hearings can be speeded up. They will go through due process and ultimately we will know what the status of the Smoky Falls station is.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that the House proceed to orders of the day.

1611

The House divided on Miss Martel's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 57; nays 27.

Mr McGuinty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill on behalf of the member for Ottawa East.

Some hon members: No.

Mr McGuinty: I would ask the members of this House to recognize that my rights as a member are being abridged. I cannot introduce a petition, I cannot introduce a bill, and I would suggest that there is --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Sorry, but there is no unanimous consent.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comité plénier.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DES OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES ENVERS LA FAMILLE

Consideration of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

Étude du projet de Loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives à l'exécution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I know that the government House leader has called the third order, which is, if I look at Orders and Notices, committee of the whole to consider Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders, standing in the name of Mr Hampton.

I am the opposition critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General. I was advised as late as half an hour ago that the House, when it moved to orders of the day, would be following the order paper. If I look at the order paper for today, after routine proceedings I see order number 7, which calls for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

I did come to the House to participate in the vote, which was a motion to proceed to orders of the day. I had advised my own House leader, and I thought my House leader had advised the government, that we were not prepared to consider Bill 17 today.

Bill 17 was considered in the standing committee on administration of justice for many, many months, and I gave an undertaking at that time that when the bill came to committee of the whole, I would do everything in my power to ensure that the bill passed through committee of the whole as expeditiously as possible. But to call it on a day when I am not going to be here, I think, is unfair and my privileges as a member, I think, are compromised.

A number of us have spent a long time with this bill and I would just ask the government House leader if she would not consider calling the order that she had proposed to call on the order paper first and to allow that debate to proceed, and to set over consideration of Bill 17 in committee of the whole until a day in which I can be here to complete our deliberations on this matter.

I remind her once again that I undertook with my own House leader, with the chairman of the committee, with officials from the ministry -- and I see that they are probably here -- that when the bill came to committee of the whole we would do everything in our power to restrict our comments to allow the government motions to proceed and not to introduce any other motions. That is our intention.

It seems to me capricious in the extreme, then, to call the bill for consideration in committee of the whole on a day when I cannot be here. That is all the more troubling because half an hour ago I was advised by my own House leader that this bill would not be called in the committee of the whole because I was not able to be here. I am shocked that the government would now proceed to try to do that.

The government House leader is now shaking her head. If she did not know then, I ask her now to observe the traditions that we have had in this House for a very long time of not calling bills when --

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: I say to my friend from Ottawa Centre, the former Minister of Health, her House leader put on the orders for today an order calling for the resumption of the debate of Bill 30, not of Bill 17.

Someone changed his or her mind, and I am absolutely positive that my House leader did not undertake to have me in this House for this debate at this time. The fact is, the government House leader has done something that I think is unprecedented in this House, and that is to ignore the fact that a critic cannot be here and call a bill for consideration under those circumstances.

She knows of my interest in this bill, she knows I was at every single meeting of the committee on administration of justice for consideration of this bill, and I ask her once again to reconsider now. I tell her that I will make myself available and continue to offer my co-operation so that Bill 17 can pass expeditiously.

All the points that we have made on the bill have been made in committee, and the only reason we are in committee of the whole is for the government to pass a few other amendments and for our members to get a few short comments on the record.

I ask her to consider once again the traditions of committee of the whole, and that is not to call bills when members cannot be here. I ask her to consider once again what she has done and to now set this order over and to call the order that she proposed on the order paper, which is order 7.

1620

Mr Eves: On the same point of order, Mr Chairman: I might point out that I entirely agree with the comments of my colleague and I think indeed this is unprecedented.

It is not unprecedented for the government House leader to call another item on the business sheet that is printed every day for the House. If it was her intention to call an item other than the first item on the list, that has been done before, but I do not believe it has ever been done before in this place that a government House leader has called an item that is not printed on the business sheet for the day. I would say to you, Mr Chairman, with all due respect, the government is taking governance of this place to a new all-time low.

Hon Mr Laughren: You've got nerve to talk about the order of business. What do you care about the order of business? You have no credibility on this one.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr Eves: I would also say with respect to the same point of order made by my honourable friend that it was agreed in House leaders' --

Hon Miss Martel: It was agreed to do business.

Mr Eves: The very question was asked in House leaders' meeting by the House leader for the official opposition: What would happen if in fact we did not conclude Tuesday's business on Tuesday? Would we then move Tuesday's business to Wednesday, or would we deal with Wednesday's business? The reply we received was that we would deal with the item we had agreed on for that day, and the item we agreed on for that day is as printed on the orders of the day, which is to resume the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 30.

If the government House leader was going to change her mind about that, which is her prerogative, the very least she could have done was printed any item that she might want to have dealt with today. I do not care if there are 107 of them on the orders of the day. That has been done before, but what is being done today in this Legislature has never been done before in 124 years of this Parliament sitting.

Hon Miss Martel: There are a couple of comments to make. I find it passing strange that the House leader for the third party can get up and talk about how the business has been jacked around in this place, when we have gone through the last four days fooling around, not getting to the orders that have been called.

Mr Eves: That is not what I said. I said this has never been done before in 124 years of sitting. She is taking jackboot democracy to a new low.

The Chair: Order.

Hon Miss Martel: We had agreed to business at the House leaders' meeting last week. We have not gotten to any of that business in the last four days.

Mr Eves: You are a provincial member, Floyd.

The Chair: Order, please. The member for Parry Sound, you had your chance. The member for Sudbury East.

Hon Miss Martel: The fact of the matter is, nothing that was agreed to at the House leaders' meeting with respect to the business that was to be done has been done since last Thursday, so I find it passing strange to be the subject of criticism at this point in time with respect to my changing my mind, when in fact we have not done anything that had been agreed to for the last four days.

The second point I would like to make is with respect to whether or not the government House leader has the option to do that. I point out to members that the order is noted on the Orders and Notices paper. It is my responsibility to call that order and I have called the order that we would like to deal with because we believe that this matter of support and custody orders enforcement is extremely important and should be dealt with.

The third point I would like to make is the question of whether or not this has ever been done. I would remind the member for York Centre that it was his former House leader who carried my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold into a 17-hour debate because he in fact came in and called a different order. So to say that this is unprecedented, I think people should go back and take a look at what kicked off that 17-hour debate. It was a different order being called just before the House was to recess and then a second call to sit all night.

I want to say to the member that I called the House leader's office at 1:30 to point out that we would like to move to SCOE this afternoon. I was advised that the House leader for the Liberal Party was not here. I then asked who the acting House leader was and talked to him, at least, at 2 o'clock to say that we would like to move to that today. He was advised as of 2 o'clock this afternoon that I would like to move with that. I would like to deal with it. It is an important piece of legislation.

I should point out to the member, though, that I also find it a little bit strange that he would be upset so much here as he is today and talk to me about what commitment he made with respect to dealing with this in the House. It seems to me that this went on in committee for some nine weeks, on and on, in that particular committee, and a lot of the deliberation was on his part as he continued on and on and did not want to deal with it in the manner that it should have been dealt with, given that it is such an important piece of legislation.

I say to the members that I have called the order. We believe that this is an important piece of legislation. The member is here now. I would hope that he would be able to continue with this debate.

Mr Sorbara: On the same point, Mr Chairman: I really regret the comments of my friend the member for Sudbury East, the government House leader, for a number of reasons. First of all, she suggests that she talked to the opposition House leader's office at 2 o'clock, and that is right. I will confirm with her that I was contacted by people in the House leader's office and advised them that I could not be here today, that I was not aware that the bill was to be called. I did not advise them of the reasons and I will advise her of the reasons now. A very dear friend in our family has passed away and I had intended to attend at the funeral parlour this afternoon. That is why I could not be here.

I want to tell my friend as well that for several weeks we dealt with this bill in committee. We had some very lengthy debates and we put some very important motions forward on behalf of our party, and those were defeated. Some other amendments put forward by the government were passed, and we had a long and interesting and appropriate debate. If she is suggesting now that we should not deal with bills in that way, well, that is very interesting indeed.

I will also ask her to check with officials who are sitting behind the Speaker's chair right now and confirm that I did not say that when this matter went to committee of the whole we would deal with it very expeditiously. I tell her once again and ask her to reconsider once again. She printed the business for Wednesday 8 May, and under orders of the day is order 7, calling for a resumption of the debate for second reading on Bill 30.

Our Education critic, the member for York North, is here to proceed with that business. My understanding is that this is not to be a long debate. I tell the government House leader once again and I undertake once again that the committee of the whole consideration on behalf of our party will not be a long consideration, but I think it is unfair, I think it is callous and I think it is bad procedure for her to call this bill when she had no assurance whatever that I, as the justice critic for the Liberal Party, the official opposition, could not be here today. So I ask her once again to reconsider. This House and its ability to function are breaking down rather rapidly.

For our part, our party has tried to be as co-operative as possible. We have not supported motions to adjourn the House when they are put forward by the third party. We have tried to have the business of this House carry on, but if the government now is going to attack our ability to do that by surprise and without notice and, without consultation, call orders that we are not prepared to consider, then I say that it is now the government as well as the third party that is deteriorating the atmosphere in this House and our ability to carry on business.

Once again, I appeal to my friend the member for Durham West, I appeal to my friend from Hamilton who sat in that committee and the member for Sudbury if they will not confirm that I undertook in committee to have speedy passage and speedy consideration of this bill in the committee of the whole. But if, as I have to assume, the government House leader is bringing this bill forward on the basis that I will not be here, then Mr Chairman, I want to tell you and the other members of this committee that I am shocked that she would do such a thing. Her own officials in the Ministry of the Attorney General have said that they do not anticipate proclaiming this bill until 1 January 1992 and she cannot use the argument of urgency to bring this matter on today.

I want to tell my friend the House leader as well that if she persists in trying to poison the atmosphere of this committee and this House in this way, it is only the government and its own legislation that is going to suffer. So I ask her once again to rise and reconsider the orders for the day and call the order that was scheduled to be considered this afternoon.

Mr Harris: On the same point of order, Mr Chair: Some will suggest that I have been a little obstructionist in the past little while.

Hon Mr Hampton: Surely you jest.

Hon Mr Laughren: Not effectively.

1630

Mr Harris: Some suggest not effectively. I make no apology for being obstructionist and for doing what I am doing. However, what we are dealing with here is rather a dramatically different issue. It is an issue of having logical debate either in the House or in committees. I believe that it is incumbent upon having the critics present before we can proceed with this particular piece of legislation in any kind of logical, organized, systematic way.

As well, the reason we are in committee of the whole, as I understand it, is not because the opposition parties have amendments; it is because the government itself has a number of amendments that it wishes to deal with to improve this bill.

I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the arguments of the House leader for really doing something that I never recall, either in government or in opposition when I was House leader, and that is to try to call a piece of legislation when the key spokesman from either of the opposition parties, or indeed the minister himself, could not be there, really do not make much sense.

Clearly, we know this bill is not going to be completed today, because I do not think that the minister, I do not think that the House leader for the government and I do not think the members of the Liberal Party or the members of my party are going to want to shut out the justice critic for the Liberal Party from being able to participate in the important process of dealing clause by clause with this particular piece of legislation.

I say as well that it is unprecedented in my time that the government would try and proceed this way. The reason they have never done it before is because they know that they force all opposition parties into simply filibustering a section until their critic can come back and be here and proceed with it, and it really does not make much sense to tie up the business of the House that way. That may sound a little contradictory, given the position I have taken on the budget. However, I think we are dealing with a different matter here.

I say as well, and I repeat the concerns of the justice critic for the Liberal Party, that the House leader for the New Democratic Party rings very hollow on two accounts. Number one, she says this bill is very, very, very important to mothers and children, yet it was not so important as to put it on the notice paper at 9 o'clock today. It was not so important --

Hon Mr Wildman: It was on yesterday.

Mr Harris: Of course it was on yesterday. Today is yesterday; yesterday is today. It was not so important for mothers and children in this province that they would ask whether the critics would be here.

Hon Miss Martel: It was on yesterday. If you hadn't fooled around, we would have dealt with it.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr Harris: It was not so important to the mothers and children in this province as to make a simple courtesy phone call to the House leader for my party to find out whether our critic could be here today as well to be able to deal with it in a logical way, and since we know that we are looking at January 1992 for this to be implemented, we know --

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Please take your seat. The procedures permit you to debate if you so wish, but we must do it one at a time.

Mr Harris: We are all aware that the House leader for the New Democratic Party's arguments as to why she tried to pull a fast one, slip it in when the critics were not here, when the experts in the opposition were not going to be here, ring very hollow as to the importance of the timing of this bill and in fact the importance that the government attaches to this particular piece of legislation. I too ask that the House leader for the New Democratic Party reconsider calling an order when she knows that the justice critic for the Liberal Party has no way of altering the schedule, due to attending a funeral home today. This is not an unusual request. This is something that House leaders for government parties do all the time in trying to schedule business in a logical, organized fashion, and I too make that request on behalf of the member for York Centre.

The Chair: Order, please. Please take your seat. I have listened very attentively. Let me read to you what the orders say. Section 52 of the standing orders reads as follows, "Except as otherwise provided in these standing orders, government business will be taken up in the discretion of the government House leader or a minister acting in his or her place." Therefore, I have nothing else; it is not my decision, so I must continue with the procedures. We are at questions and comments.

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Chair: While I am not of course disputing your ruling, given, as has been said, that my colleague the member for York Centre had been very clear, certainly to those of us within our caucus, that there was a funeral of a close family friend this afternoon, and given that the Minister of Education is here and the Education critics are here, I would simply say -- and I do not know what point of procedure, order or whatever it would be -- that perhaps it would be appropriate that the government House leader might none the less consider calling the seventh order, which is the discussion on Bill 30, for which we were prepared to meet and discuss today. It seems to me that there are some elements here which go beyond procedural points and that this would be the appropriate decision to take at this time.

The Chair: There is nothing the table can do. I just explained that to you. But if the minister wishes to say something, you have the authorization. Please do so briefly.

Hon Miss Martel: Yes, I will, Mr Speaker. After having listened to the leader of the third party and heard of his concern with this matter and his concern with respect to the critic, let me tell you what I am prepared to offer. I would revert to the order that was listed in the orders of the day if the third party, which has sounded very concerned about this whole matter, will then undertake and agree here that it will not adjourn the debate or adjourn the House until second reading of Bill 30 is complete this afternoon. If the leader of the Tory party, who has just proclaimed how much he would like to deal with this, and how unfair he thinks I am being and how concerned he is that the critic have his say, will undertake here and now, in front of all the members of this House, that we will proceed through second reading of Bill 30 without any interruption and any problem and finish here this afternoon, I would be prepared to withdraw the order that is on and put the new one on.

Mr Harris: I am not sure the actual debate in the committee is the place for House leaders to negotiate the order of business, but let me accept the offer of the House leader for the New Democratic Party and say that as soon as the public will be given an opportunity to comment on the budget, I would be delighted to allow the government House leader to call any business that she wishes to. I am not the House leader for my party. However, I think if the House leaders wish to get --

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. I believe that we have debated long enough and will go on with the procedures.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, might I just rise on a different point of order?

The Chair: A different point of order? I will listen to it.

Mr Sorbara: I regret that the government House leader has attempted to negotiate my schedule with the leader of the third party, but under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to move under standing order 100 that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: You cannot rise on a point of order and ask for the committee to rise and report. You can legitimately do so when you are recognized in your seat.

1640

Mr Sorbara: Might I be recognized, then, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: No, it is the minister now. Would you please list your amendments.

Hon Mr Hampton: The amendments are as follows: an amendment to subsection 2(1) of the bill; an amendment to subsection 2(3) of the bill; an amendment to section 3 of the bill, subsection 2(1); an amendment to section 4 of the bill, subsection 3.3(4); an amendment to section 4 of the bill, subsections 3.3(30.1) and (30.2); section 4 of the bill, subsection 3.3(24); section 5 of the bill, subsection 4(2); section 11 of the bill, section 12.2; and section 12 of the bill, section 13.2. Those are the amendments.

The Chair: Are there any further amendments?

Mr Sorbara: I do not have any amendments. Our party will not be presenting any amendments to this committee, but I regretfully have to move that the committee rise and report.

1712

The committee divided on Mr Sorbara's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 23; nays 56.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions, comments or amendments to the bill?

Mr Harnick: I will be making certain motions to amend this bill.

I will be moving that section 3.3 of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended. This deals with notice to income source.

I will be moving that section 3.3 of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, also be amended. This deals with the director making a reasonable effort to contact an income source.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I do not recall the government House leader, the minister or anybody asking unanimous consent for staff to be present in the chamber.

The First Deputy Chair: That is under standing order 103. If it is under standing order 103, that is not a point of order. It says "may."

Mr Harnick: I will be moving that subsection 3.3(6) of the act, as set out in section 4, be amended. That will be changing the wording, striking out "fifth" and substituting in the fourth line the word "seventh."

I will be moving that section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(8), be amended by striking out "14" in the fourth line and substituting "30."

I will be moving that section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(25) of the act, be amended. That will be an amendment of section 4 of the bill, striking out "10" and substituting "21."

I will be moving that section 4 of the bill, proposed subsections 3.4(11.1) to 3.4(11.3) of the act, be amended and that section 3.4 of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections. I will then be adding a subsection dealing with the immediate suspension of the support order, subsection 3.4(11.1), which would state, "Despite any other provision of this section, a court that makes a support deduction order shall immediately suspend its operation if the payor requests the suspension and agrees to pay to the director the amounts owing under the support order to which it relates and the court is satisfied that the payor is likely to make the payments."

As well, I will be making an amendment dealing with the termination of suspension order, subsection 3.4(11.2), "A suspension order referred to in subsection (11.1) is terminated if the payor, without an explanation that is acceptable to the director, fails to make a payment under the support order when it is due."

1720

I will also be amending the section dealing with the effect of termination. That would be (11.3): "The support deduction order is reinstated when the suspension order is terminated under subsection (11.2)."

I will be amending section 4 of the bill, which is the proposed subsection 3.8(4), and I will be moving "that subsection 3.8(4) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by striking out 'fifth' in the third line and substituting 'seventh.' "

I will be proposing an amendment to section 4 of the bill, and that is the proposed subsection 3.8(10), where I will be moving "that section 3.8 of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:" -- and then it is "enforcement of old orders."

"Despite any other provision of this section, a payor who is not in arrears under a support order on the day this section comes into force and who is making the payments required under the support order shall not be required to make payments through a support deduction order described in subsection (5) unless at any time after this section comes into force he or she, without an explanation that is acceptable to the director, fails to make a payment under the support order when it is due."

I will be moving to amend section 19 of the bill, "that section 19 be amended by adding at the end 'which day shall be at least six months after the day on which this act receives royal assent.'"

Those are the amendments I propose to make, and I shall be tabling those amendments in due course. I would now move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Willowdale has moved that the committee rise and report.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Chairman, it was my impression that -- maybe you can help me -- that was what the motion was last time.

Mr Harnick: Mr Chair, I am withdrawing that motion.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Willowdale has withdrawn his motion. It would be most helpful if the honourable member for Willowdale would provide the table with a copy of his amendments to this bill so that we could circulate them.

Mr Harnick: Due to the lack of notice that this was going to be the order of the day, I am not prepared to do that now. That is the reason I read the substance --

Hon Miss Martel: We made a deal, and you didn't want to accept it.

Mr Harnick: Well, even though she was going to make a deal, I say to the House leader --

An hon member: The Queen's Park answer to Monty Hall.

Hon Miss Martel: We were prepared to refer to the other order and your leader turned us down.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: If I can just respond to the --

The Second Deputy Chair: It would be very much appreciated, when we get to the section within the act that your amendments would apply to, if the member could make sure the table is provided with those amendments as they come forth.

Mr Harnick: Yes, Mr Chair. I was trying to address you before I was interrupted. Even though the House leader did try to make a deal, if she had notified us some hours earlier that she was going to offer that deal or had notified us that this was on the order paper, I would have had that material for the Legislature --

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. The honourable member for Willowdale has the floor. There is an awful lot of chatting going on here and I have difficulty hearing.

Mr Harnick: I appreciate what the government House leader is saying. She is saying that we had the opportunity to make a deal, but even though we had the opportunity to make the deal, the hour at which that offer was made was already past the hour where this piece of legislation became the order of the day, without notice to any of the opposition parties.

Had she advised in advance that that would be the order of the day, I would have had the necessary copies and documentation for every party as well as for the Chair. In future, if the House leader could advise us in advance if we are going into committee of the whole, I would be delighted to come with the number of copies that would satisfy the Chair and that would satisfy the House leader. Unfortunately, she did not have the courtesy to do that.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. The honourable member for Willowdale has the floor.

Mr Harnick: These amendments are important amendments and we spent many weeks in committee debating these very amendments. They are important amendments.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: No, I --

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Willowdale, please address the Chair and ignore the interjections.

Mr Harnick: Yes, I will ignore the shouts that are coming from the government side. Management Board, I gather, wants to take over another ministry.

At any rate, had I been advised in advance --

Hon Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The member has attempted to introduce his amendments. He does not have them here. Other amendments have been presented. I think it is only proper that we now proceed with those amendments that have been presented and tabled in the House.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Willowdale outlined, I believe, what his plan of attack was.

Mr Harnick: I believe I was asked if we had any amendments, and I have now advised the Chair as best I could on short notice what the amendments are and the substance of what the amendments contain. Again, I could have done a better job if advised in advance by the House leader that we were going to be debating this bill in committee of the whole today.

I would have been delighted to attend with all of the information that she would have required and that she would have received, had this been properly put as one of the orders of the day and had the opposition parties been advised. That is why I am only able --

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Let's be clear. Recognizing that there was a problem, I made a specific offer to the member's leader, who said he was very concerned about dealing with this and having the opposition critics here. So I said very clearly to him that I would be most prepared to withdraw the order I had placed, revert back to the education bill and allow that debate to proceed this afternoon, and come on another day to deal with the matter of SCOE. The leader of the third party turned that down, my friend. That is the real problem here. An offer was put and he turned it down.

The Second Deputy Chair: It is not a point of order; it is a point of discussion at this point in time.

1730

Mr Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The House leader for the New Democratic Party has indicated that she made an offer to not proceed with this particular piece of legislation and to proceed with some other piece of legislation, and then she said I refused that offer.

If she will check the Hansard she will find that I accepted that offer, was happy to accept that offer and I think the record will show it. Quite frankly, I would ask that the House leader, if she does not wish to do it today, review the Hansard. I think she will find that my acceptance had far fewer conditions than her offer.

The Second Deputy Chair: This is degenerating into something that will not be resolved. I will now ask the honourable member for Willowdale to summarize quickly and then we will proceed.

Mr Harnick: I am prepared to provide you with that summary again. I am proposing amendments to subsection 3.3(4.l) of the act. I am proposing that subsection 3.3(5.1) of the act be amended. I am proposing that in section 4 of the bill the proposed subsection 3.3(6) of the act be amended.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. I believe this is to some degree repetitious. Will the member just summarize? Then we will proceed.

Mr Harnick: I thought the direction from the Chair was to summarize again, because I had no copies, exactly what it would be that I would be prepared to supply the Chair with.

The Second Deputy Chair: We have already got a list of the amendments as you have presented them. Possibly you could summarize and then we will proceed into section by section.

Mr Harnick: I have summarized and those are the amendments that I will be tabling.

The Second Deputy Chair: Ensure that the table has them as soon as it is convenient.

Hon Mr Wildman: Just to be helpful to all members of the assembly, I note that the member has listed the amendments that he wishes to put. He has one copy of each amendment. He may be unfamiliar with the procedures around here, but just to help out, he could give the copies to a page, the page could make copies immediately and they could be distributed.

The Second Deputy Chair: That was a point of information and it has been duly noted. Any further questions and/or comments on Bill 17 prior to going into a clause-by-clause debate?

Mr Harris: I really regret that the member for York Centre and the critic for the Liberal Party is not here as we actually proceed into the sections. Because of that, I would move under standing order 101(a) that the Chair of the committee leave the chair.

1805

The House divided on Mr Harris's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 1; nays 68.

On motion by Miss the committee reported progress.

À la suite d'une motion présentée par Mlle Martel, l'étude du projet de loi en comité pleniér de la Chambre est ajournée.

The House adjourned at 1808.