The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: The NDP advocates a public auto insurance plan. The Treasurer claimed several weeks ago that this should bring down insurance premiums. Unfortunately, the recent NDP budget actually taxed premiums payable on private automobile policies. This means that every auto insurance company in Ontario is now required to pay a tax of 3% on all insurance premiums.

By imposing this pass-through tax the NDP government has effectively increased the insurance premiums which will be paid by consumers. While many insurance companies had applied to the Ontario Insurance Commission for premium cuts under the current legislation, these companies will now reconsider their plans to reduce rates. Two companies have already announced that they are reconsidering.

This tax breaks the NDP's election promise to reduce insurance rates and leads the people of Ontario to question the credibility of the NDP's concern for the ordinary driver.

This premium tax has been imposed in a total policy vacuum. Just last week, NDP backbenchers and the Premier himself appeared on TV saying no decisions had been taken and acknowledging that caucus and cabinet are still split on major aspects of this legislation.

This really is the gang that cannot shoot straight.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr McLean: My statement today is for the members of this Legislature and the people of the province of Ontario and is directed to the Minister of the Environment.

It is my understanding that 400 Ontario municipal water treatment plants produce about 1.6 billion gallons of sewage sludge each year and most of these plants are working at capacity. Only 277.5 million gallons are applied to farm land as fertilizer, and that amount is certain to decrease because there are more farms going out of production.

Sewage disposal companies need to store this waste in lagoons during the winter months and her ministry is making it increasingly difficult for these companies to use existing lagoons or to have new ones built to meet the growing demand.

Many of our municipal waste treatment plants are located on shorelines. The minister is inviting the municipalities and disposal companies to turn on the taps and empty waste into our water systems, which are used for drinking, swimming and recreation. This could easily occur because of the bureaucracy she has created and the lengthy delays for approving new storage lagoons.

I urge the people of Ontario to pause and reflect on the problem they are adding to every time they flush the toilets, and I urge the minister to cut the bureaucratic red tape and speed up the approval process to permit sewage disposal companies to build the lagoons they so badly require.

She subsidizes the municipalities; why does she not help the private companies?

BREAST-FEEDING

Mr Frankford: Without breast-feeding, the human species would not have survived over the millennia. Only within recent decades has commercially developed artificial feeding become widespread.

Unfortunately, this is an advance of uncertain benefit. Studies demonstrate increased risk of disease, including infections and allergies, with artificial feeding. Not only does this produce greater costs for health care systems, but the cost of purchasing formula is a substantial one for families, and of course the packaging adds to the solid waste problem.

Ten years ago, in May 1981, the World Health Organization passed a code of marketing of breast milk substitutes recognizing the commercial pressures that have led to a decline in breast-feeding. With the exception of the United States, all member countries, including Canada, voted in favour. The need for the code exists in all countries -- industrialized and less developed.

It is unfortunate that the Canadian federal government has chosen not to fully implement the code. I hope that our government and the ministries representing health, child welfare and the environment will ask the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare to proceed to full implementation with no further delay.

At the same time breast-feeding must be encouraged. I am pleased to inform the House that this afternoon health professionals in Toronto will be meeting to discuss the breast-feeding protocol, a project funded by the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation. The protocol will improve and develop the breast-feeding knowledge of health professionals, policies and practices of health agencies that affect breast-feeding and the information given to breast feeding mothers by health professionals.

I am sure members of this House would like to congratulate the health professionals, hospitals and non-government organizations involved in this.

VISITORS

Mr Miclash: Today I rise in my place to welcome a very special group of people to the House. The students with us today are from one of the intermediate schools in the province farthest from Queen's Park. They are from Lakewood Intermediate School in Kenora. As a matter of fact, as I have often said, they are from a point in the province farther away than Miami, Florida, some 1,855 kilometres from Toronto.

In this group are my former colleagues, teachers with whom I taught, the children of many friends and even another Miclash. The group, known as the Lakewood Travel Club, has worked very hard at fund-raising to make this trip possible. As well, they have had to contribute a good number of dollars on their own. As a matter of fact, a return ticket from Kenora is now selling for approximately $850. With accommodations and meals, one can well imagine the expense incurred by this group.

During their visit to the area, the group has made visits to the Ontario Science Centre, the CN Tower, Niagara Falls, the Sky Dome -- they actually saw a game between the Chicago White Sox and the Toronto Blue Jays -- the Phantom of the Opera, the zoo and McMaster University in Hamilton.

Leaving here today at 2 pm, they will fly from Pearson International Airport to return home, and of course it is back to school tomorrow morning.

I would like the members of the House to welcome the students from Kenora to Toronto today.

1340

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Sterling: I rise today on a very serious matter, that being the beating to death of Terry Dale of Ottawa. This is a manslaughter case which was stayed by an Ottawa judge in April, based on the Askov decision, because it took 10 months and 18 days to come to court.

By way of this statement today, I am asking the Attorney General to help reinstate Ontarians, faith in our justice system and appeal the Murdock decision.

I would like to deliver to the Attorney General approximately 160 letters I have received from constituents, which express their dismay with this judgement. These letters, which are addressed to the Attorney General, contend that the decision to stay is completely unacceptable because a human life was taken. The Attorney General will know that since the Supreme Court of Canada gave judges new guidelines on court delay last fall, 35,000 cases have either been stayed or withdrawn. This is the most serious charge to be stayed. In fact, I believe it is the only homicide case.

There are currently very serious concerns among Ontarians, valid concerns about their personal safety and the feeling that our justice system is being eroded. I believe it is incumbent upon this Attorney General to call for an appeal in the Murdock case and, in so doing, help reinstate public confidence in law and order and our justice system.

CLASS PROJECT

Mr Hope: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to congratulate the grade 3 class from the Dresden Area Central School on its fine work on this quilt. This quilt is a project for their Education Week.

It is indeed refreshing to see young people of Kent county express their points of view on the environment and how we must preserve it in order to preserve this planet.

Special thanks go to Mrs Erny and also to Mrs Lamouré, the grade 3 teacher, for the fine tax dollars that our education system has been putting forward in making sure the emphasis behind the environment is one of the keys to the future of the young people of Chatham-Kent. I congratulate the students for the fine work they have done.

PETROLEUM ADDITIVES

Mr Elston: I would like to remind the Minister of the Environment about an issue I raised with her on 13 December by way of a question. I brought up with her the issue of Ethyl Canada and its proposed plant expansion to produce lead-based, anti-knock gasoline additives because of the issue of expanding in an area of product development and production which we no longer use in large amounts here in the province. This product is destined for overseas markets with weaker environmental laws, where the product is still legal, unlike in this jurisdiction.

At that time, the Minister of the Environment stated that she was unaware of the issue because she was unable to find the material on it. Later she thanked me for bringing it to her attention. She also assured me that she would exercise her authority within the limits of the law.

On 19 February, the Globe and Mail indicated that Ethyl Canada had submitted plans to the ministry for approval and hoped to begin construction this year for completion in April 1992. On 28 February, I wrote to the minister and to this date there has been no reply.

In late April, Greenpeace Canada stated that, "Any government that permits increased production and exports of a substance that has been banned at home for human health reasons is guilty of moral and environmental crimes."

I want to remind the Minister of the Environment that as of the middle of May I still have had no answer to my question initially put or a response to my letter. I ask her to respond.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Jackson: For the first time in Ontario's modern history, a Treasurer has read a budget which did not mention the word "seniors" even once during the 45 minutes it took to read it.

The budget was absolutely silent on the critical issue of long-term care and gave no indication whatsoever about this government's intentions with respect to long-term care reform. During the budget lockup, Treasury officials spoke briefly of $102 million for long-term care. If this was a real funding commitment, why was this sum not mentioned in the budget statement? Is this money a new allocation to seniors or is it a carryover from previous funding programs? Again, silence.

The budget's silence on community-based care for the elderly is also a matter of great concern. There are still no provincial standards or long-range support programs in place for community-based nursing care, nor are there accountable mechanisms for the establishment of fairer staffing and wages for workers involved in more complex in-house seniors' care procedures.

There was silence on the issue of elder abuse and its impact on the lives of those seniors who are its victims. There was silence on the closing of psycho geriatric wards in Ontario hospitals, furthering the tragedy of those seniors afflicted with Alzheimer's disease.

This socialist government's silence on seniors' needs speaks loudly about the fact that it is deliberately ignoring the medical and social needs of Ontario's elderly. On their behalf, I call on the Premier to recognize the fundamental dignity and rights of Ontario's seniors and to move quickly to address their needs. If he does not, he will learn the political lesson that when it comes to the issues of justice for seniors, silence can indeed be fatal.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mrs Haslam: As members know, I am fortunate to have access to some of the best theatrical talents in Canada. I speak of course about the Stratford Shakespearan Festival. Last weekend I also attended an amateur production of Music Man presented by the St Marys Community Players. But the acting and grandstanding I have seen here in this House for the past week far surpasses any performance I have ever seen at home.

They say that theatre mirrors life and that there are no small parts, just small actors. Perhaps members would like to join me as I try to figure out some of the players here in the House by examining some of Shakespeare's more famous characters and their talents.

There is the buffoonery of a Falstaff, the confusion of a Hamlet, the desire to be king of a Macbeth, the half-truths and innuendoes of a Richard III and even the giggling tricks of a Puck from A Midsummer Night's Dream. How much longer must we be subjected to this comedy of errors?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I trust that the Speaker escaped that.

Mr Sorbara: How can you allow an attack on the Speaker of the kind we've just heard?

The Speaker: Far be it from me to be a theatre critic.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon two members from the Quebec assembly: Ghislain Maltais, the member for Saguenay and Denis Lazure, the member for La Prairie.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH SERVICES

Hon Ms Lankin: Along with my colleague the Treasurer, I am pleased to present to the House today a document outlining the government's steps to better manage health care, a management undertaking we intend to accomplish while improving standards of care and upholding the principles of medicare. Further, we are committed to this mission in partnership with health care providers and health care consumers.

The document is a supplementary paper to the 1991 Ontario budget and represents a collaborative effort between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. It contains a more detailed discussion of the health management measures announced in the budget and sets out the government's strategy to guide the health care system more prudently and effectively over the medium term.

Our budget included a multi-year fiscal plan which had as an essential ingredient a new management system in health care. It will draw together government, providers and consumers to form a new partnership.

Health care expenditures in Ontario have been increasing at 12% a year over the past decade. It is clear we must act to ensure that the resources we dedicate to health care are spent more effectively, efficiently and with greater economy, all the while increasing the quality of the system.

The paper provides a profile of health care expenditures over the past decade. It is, as we all know, a record of steadily increasing growth. This is a matter of great concern because, if left unchecked, the costs of our health care system threaten to overwhelm all other government expenditures.

1350

On 29 April, in his budget statement, my colleague the Treasurer announced the government's intention to address three major areas in health: a new accord ensuring an era of joint management between the government and Ontario's physicians; payments for out-of-country health services; and measures to manage the Ontario drug benefit plan more efficiently and effectively.

Measures introduced in these areas will save approximately $260 million in 1991-92 and $570 million in 1993-94. At the same time, the government will work towards continuous improvements in our health care system.

The paper spells out more clearly how government will manage these areas, detailing each in turn and providing our scenario for management. Both the Ministry of the Health and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics will have copies available for distribution.

In the past two weeks I have been pleased to share with the members announcements of major importance concerning two of three areas the Treasurer has mentioned: details of the agreement with the Ontario Medical Association and our new out-of-country payments policies.

Today I am pleased to announce several new measures that will help the Ministry of Health provide better management of its Ontario drug benefit plan. I want to stress that these are but the first of a series of initiatives that we plan to introduce around Ontario drug benefits.

The government wants to ensure that there is optimum value obtained for the money spent on this program. It is a program in which cost increases have outrun increases in the number of people who have benefited.

The Ontario drug benefit program was established in the mid-1970s to fill the very real need of seniors and those on social assistance to obtain essential drug therapy. Since then, the ODB program has grown enormously. Despite having been expanded to include all seniors and not just those with low incomes, the program serves barely twice as many people as it did 15 years ago, but it costs nearly 21 times as much.

Some of the growth in the program represents the addition to the program of drugs that meet a real therapeutic need. Other growth is accounted for by increases in drug costs as well as increases in the number of prescriptions per person. But unfortunately some of the growth in the program has come because of insufficient management of expenditures by government. We have been paying for courses of drug therapy that are not of the greatest benefit to the consumer and we have not always ensured that we got the best prices for drugs available under the plan.

The government believes it is possible to achieve savings of as much as $35 million this year and ultimately $100 million a year by these and other measures that we are planning. These savings will be achieved while maintaining the quality of patient care.

We are proposing changes that will enable all of us, lay people and health professionals, to work in partnership for better health and assurance that we receive the most appropriate drug therapy.

Briefly, our program is as follows:

We will tighten up on allowable price increases for drugs already listed as benefits under the program and actively negotiate prices of products with manufacturers. This will help limit drug costs for ODB and the public.

The ministry will apply more stringent cost-benefit criteria in reviewing for ODB coverage drugs that are available from only one manufacturer. Higher-priced products will be covered only when they represent clinical advances or advantages in treatment.

Over-the-counter medications will be reviewed by an expert panel of doctors and pharmacists to ensure their therapeutic value and cost-effectiveness. Ontario is the only province paying for such a broad range of over-the-counter products under its provincial drug plan.

As well, our program will be guided by a better management plan for the provision of oxygen and nutritional supplements. Medical criteria will be put in place for the use of physicians when prescribing these products for their patients.

The ministry will also start negotiating with oxygen vendors on service, price and equipment. Vendors will have to sign a contract outlining the services to be provided and the price to be paid by the ministry for ODB clients.

Also, the ministry will work with physicians and pharmacists to enforce larger-quantity prescribing and dispensing for people requiring long-term medication for a chronic condition. This will be less expensive for the government and more convenient for patients and physicians.

All of these changes will be made in close consultation with the groups that are most affected. Equitable access to needed health care services is something we in Ontario all agree we owe not only to ourselves but to each other. Effective management of these resources is a task at which we can all work together, knowing it is for the good of all. With the measures announced in the budget and this supplementary paper, we are making that happen.

RESPONSES

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to respond to the statement by the minister today. I would like to start by saying that I suggest her announcements in some respects have come backwards. I believe she should be starting with the community-based care and the long-term care. I think virtually anyone who looks at how we are going to contain the costs in our future health care system suggests it is by strengthening our community-based care and by the implementation of our long-term care reform. That is why I say the minister has it backwards.

I think the health community is extremely worried that the minister will be trying to restrict her costs in the traditional areas but will not be providing the necessary community support systems. I cannot say that strongly enough. The Premier is shaking his head, but there has been no announcement so far. I am just saying we need that announcement.

Hon Mr Rae: It's coming.

Mr Phillips: It is coming. I asked a question in November, I asked it in December, I asked it in March and I will say again that we need that now. Certainly the people who went through the challenges when we deinstitutionalized psychiatric patients would say they are afraid they have seen this before. That is my first comment to the Premier and the Minister of Health. We must see that quickly in order to have some confidence that these restrictions and these attempts to restrain health costs will work.

If I might turn to the second element, the OMA agreement is one that the government is very proud of. We are very happy that an agreement has been reached with the OMA, albeit still needing to be ratified by all of the physicians, I gather. None the less, it appears to be heading down that road.

I would just say to the minister, though, that I would not necessarily count on that agreement as one that will realize the numbers she is talking about in here. I think the members should all be aware that the amount of money that will be set aside for physicians will be determined by an independent arbitrator. It will go to an independent arbitrator, not this year but in all future years, and some third party will be setting the size of the physicians' pot.

When we remind ourselves, that probably is $4.5 billion, and that fundamental decision of the size of the physicians' pot will be set by an independent arbitrator. That is an immense responsibility the government is turning over to a third party. I realize that in her document the minister has some language around how that arbitrator might be fettered, as they say. But one of the key criteria is what has happened in previous increases in fees.

I would just suggest to the government that this will he an area one will have to be watching carefully, because the minister essentially has turned over to an independent third party a major part of what she calls trying to restrain the health care costs.

I have already expressed my other apprehensions on the agreement, and one is that with the joint management committee I think we all have to watch that we do not take some of the major health policy issues out of the public domain and put them into the private domain. I would not necessarily count on the agreement to save money. In fact, I believe the agreement calls for any time where physicians billing over $400,000 are able to bill only two thirds of the cost or one third of the cost, that money is put back into the pot that doctors' fees will come out of That will not be a saving; that will be redistributed to other doctors.

The minister also mentions hospital funding here. I would suggest that in the very near future, within the next few weeks, the minister, working with the hospitals, will face the challenge of how she will manage the existing financial problems. It used to be a 9.5% increase for hospitals; I see it now as an 8.7% increase for hospitals. The problem the hospitals are facing now, as the minister acknowledged the other day, is that in some of their salary negotiations they already are faced with a fairly important settlement they must fund that is about 12% on their budget, and she has given 6% to the average hospital.

I will be looking forward to how the Ministry of Health will work with the hospitals. Will it be bed closings that the minister will fund or other things? I worry that there will be bed closings.

The final point is on the Ontario drug benefit plan. The minister has indicated in her statement that she will be responding more fully over the next little while to the Lowy report, and we will look forward to that. She has a partial response in here, but there are many recommendations in the Lowy report that we were expecting today in terms of education for pharmacists and physicians, in terms of ensuring that quality drug products are available on a timely basis to people.

We are pleased to respond to the statement today and to suggest that there is much work to be done here.

1400

Mr Harris: I too want to comment briefly on the discussion paper and the statement by the Minister of Health today. In a quick review of the supplementary paper and of the statement by the minister, I see nothing new in the statement. I, like the critic for the Liberal Party, want to express my concern that there is so little to the alternatives of very expensive emergency treatment, doctors' treatment, hospital treatment, and so little on health promotion and disease prevention.

I think back to the Podborski report, somewhere around 1984 or 1985, where very solid recommendations were released, that have still in essence to be acted upon by any government of any party, so that we are not always dealing with the most expensive part, crisis intervention, in the health care system, but are concentrating more on lower-cost prevention, on lower-cost health promotion. I believe in the budget that was just presented by the Treasurer, again, somewhere around 1% of the total budget, 1% to 1.5%, is allocated for this area, the bulk for the expensive area after disease has already taken place or emergency services required.

On page 4 it states that oxygen vendors will negotiate on service, price and equipment. I have written more letters to more ministers of Health on the abuse of high-cost, expensive oxygen that is being made available to patients without patients knowing how much it costs, without any signature required, and I have yet to receive a response. I wrote the former minister from the Liberal Party probably three or four letters. From the Lung Association of North Bay -- this is not to be confused with the Sudbury one that refuses to give us service in North Bay; this is our own local service -- patients themselves have come forward to form their own association and said, "This is terrible, all this money that is being wasted." This, however, says there will be a study. I hope there will be more than that.

The final statement the minister makes is that with the measures announced in the budget and this supplementary paper, "We are making it happen." That is not true. The minister, like other ministers before her, is making another grand pronouncement that she is going to make it happen. We have not seen anything in a substantial way to control health care expenditures in this province for the last 10 years. I agree with the documentation that she has outlined, that health care costs are out of control to the extent that if it carries on this way over the next decade as over the last decade, we will get longer lineups than we are getting, we will be able to afford less and less service, and I fear we will end up with a two-tiered health care system.

As well, and I cannot understand this, I think $50 million was spent on a new computer and plastic health care cards. I do not know what the difference is between having your number on a piece of plastic and a piece of paper. I can never understand that $50-million expenditure, unless we are going to start to have those who are accessing the system know how much it costs every time they access it, run that card through a machine, as does everybody else who bills, whether it is Chargex, Visa, gas companies, Eaton's, run that through and they have to sign and nobody gets reimbursed one cent from the government, doctors, chiropractors, any practitioner or hospital, nobody gets a cent unless they submit a signed chit by those who are using the system. Nowhere else in any other service do you automatically pay up without any knowledge of whether the service is used or not.

It is time we put integrity into the system. It is time we put controls into the system. None of that is mentioned in this paper. It is time we took some of the abuses out. It is time the public also knew how much it costs every time they use the system for every service. These are some of the things that are not in this report today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE TO DE HAVILLAND

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Premier having to do with the de Havilland situation. We recall his statement made previously that if worse came to the worst, he would be prepared to nationalize that industry in order to maintain the employment. But I was interested to read a statement from the Premier that he was looking for a Canadian partner and the only way he would recommend that Ontario participate in any sort of additional funding would be if there were a Canadian partner. I wonder if he might report to the House what steps he is taking to assist in that and what the status of the situation is at this time?

Hon Mr Rae: Last week I attended a meeting with the presidents of the two companies, the French company and the Italian company, which have signed a provisional contract with Boeing, which contract is going to be submitted to Investment Canada.

At that meeting, I made it clear to the consortium that it was the very strong view of the government, based on the work that has been done by the task force which I established, that it would be in the interests of the people of Canada and the interests of the people of this province that a Canadian partner be part of any future for de Havilland and for the de Havilland company.

I can tell members that the consortium indicated it was open to that suggestion, and I can only tell the Leader of the Opposition that we are working very energetically with the federal government and with others to try to create a climate for a deal which will be beneficial to everyone concerned. That is where matters stand at the moment.

Mr Nixon: My concern goes back quite a way, because I can recall that the taxpayers of Canada have invested over $1 billion in de Havilland, and the government of Canada in its wisdom paid Boeing to take over the management and ownership of it. Boeing could not make a profitable enterprise of it and in fact has now sold it to a European consortium. Now that consortium comes to Canada and says that unless there is an additional $500 million, it cannot guarantee research or the jobs. It sounds like blackmail to me and concerns me deeply, since as a cabinet minister myself I participated in the funding of Varity Corp predecessor Massey-Ferguson, of which most money simply has disappeared, as far as we can see.

I simply put it to the Premier this way: Since he is the safety net underlying the whole thing in saying the jobs will not be lost and he is prepared to go to any extreme to ensure that, is there really a Canadian partner out there or is he just dreaming?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I do dream from time to time, but not in this instance. My concern is with the future of jobs and with high technology. My concern is with the fact that this is the largest private sector employer in Metropolitan Toronto, but it is also an extremely important employer from the perspective of our future in high technology, from the point of view of other suppliers all over southern Ontario. It is not something to which we can afford as a government to take a cavalier approach, and that is why we have been as systematic as we have been. We have set up the task force; we have discussed with people in the aerospace industry how we can put together the best possible alternative. We also have the fact that there is a process through which the federal government ultimately, through Investment Canada, has to give its approval to this particular deal.

All I can say is that we are working energetically and I hope effectively to see that there is a good deal from the point of view of the Canadian public, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. I am not pretending that it is easy, but I do think it is important for us to do what we can, being very cognizant, I can assure members, of the experience that previous governments have had, both Liberal and Conservative, with respect to matters such as this.

1410

Mr Nixon: My questions have endeavoured to more or less delineate the box in which the Premier finds himself, in that he has taken the primary responsibility. If he is depending on Investment Canada to have any control over this, of course that is unlikely to occur since it has not stopped any takeover at all. The government of Canada has really indicated that it is counting on the government of Ontario to fulfil its commitments and maintain the jobs.

In this connection, since the Premier appears to be just sort of twisting around looking for an alternative that does not exist, and his alternative is a Canadian partner that will bring in some money and will relieve him at least of a bit of the $250 million to $300 million he is facing, can he tell me specifically with whom he has met, including the unions -- are they involved in this -- and what his conditions are for the involvement of a Canadian partner that would make it attractive for any of those groups? I should just indicate that the president of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada has said: "I'm not aware of any interest being expressed.... I would be surprised if any of [the companies] decided to get involved." I do not think it is going to happen.

Hon Mr Rae: I suppose if I were in the position of the Leader of the Opposition, I might think I had the luxury of just throwing up my hands and saying, "It's not going to happen." I do not have that luxury as Premier, we do not have that luxury as a government, and the people of Ontario do not have that luxury. There are thousands of jobs at stake here. You cannot just throw up your hands and say, "It isn't going to happen." What kind of position is that for a political party to take?

Just the other day in the Globe and Mail, the member said, "If Mr Rae can find a Canadian investor, then that's the answer." That is what he said on Saturday.

Mr Nixon: It is, and I don't believe you can.

Hon Mr Rae: He does not believe we can. All I can tell him is we are going to do the best we can to protect those jobs and to make sure that Canadian jobs are protected. That is what we are elected to do.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Scott: I understand that there is a certain risk that today, instead of answering questions, the Premier is going to hurl insults back at everybody else. Notwithstanding that, I would like to take a try.

Last autumn the Premier announced his guidelines on conflict of interest with a big press conference and made a big deal out of it and said he was going to have certain clear guidelines. On 2 April, after he had to extend the divestment deadline once, he issued a statement to the effect that everybody was in compliance except for three parliamentary assistants. Only two weeks later, we were able to point out, after an examination of the records, that the Premier was clearly wrong about there being compliance. He admitted that the statement was in error and he attempted to explain that to the Legislature.

On 12 February, in an effort to solve the matter, he issued a secret guideline to the caucus which he did not make available to the press and which disclosed that certain persons would not be obliged to comply with the guidelines. He did not advise the press of that. On 18 April, at my request, the Premier undertook to release a list of those who had divested, those who had not divested, and the reasons why in each case. I have written to the Premier twice about that. He has now told me that he has hired a hotshot lawyer from downtown to go over the whole thing again and to interview everybody again, to see if they cannot get the thing right.

As far as the public knows, and this is my question, the Premier's original statement that there was compliance is incorrect. There are nine cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants who are in contravention of the guidelines. A hotshot lawyer is working on it. Can the Premier tell us when we are going to know what is going on and get this report from the hotshot lawyer as to divestiture?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to point out to the member for St George-St David that not every lawyer downtown is a hotshot and I want to say to him that I have already written -- since the member for St George-St David has said that he had written to me twice, he might perhaps have indicated that I have written in reply. I wrote a letter and I indicated clearly who the lawyer was, Eldon Bennett, a lawyer to Aird and Berlis, who was acting as counsel to John Aird when John Aird was giving advice to the previous government. I do not think anybody can say that Mr Bennett is not somebody whose credibility in this area is well known.

Without accepting for a moment any of the statements the member for St George-St David has made in a totally inaccurate and irresponsible fashion in terms of what he has said, my answer to his question is, quite soon.

Mr Scott: That answer rings a bell, as a matter of fact. We have now been six or eight months at this and there is chaos. Nobody knows where they are. We had to point out to the Premier that the Minister of Citizenship had not complied with the guidelines and she knew that before the Premier did. We had to advise that the Minister of Community and Social Services had not complied with the evidence guidelines and with the statute. We knew that before the Premier did and apparently before she did. We are still dealing with the Solicitor General, who claims he is not responsible for anything that goes on in his office if he is not standing over everybody's shoulder watching them minute by minute.

Just last week the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue, appearing before a parliamentary committee, told us that no one from the Premier's office had ever told him that he had to divest his assets or obtain a specific exemption. No one had ever spoken to him about that.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Scott: He also testified under oath that David Agnew, whoever David Agnew is -- I am advised he is a secretary in the office -- had reassured the parliamentary assistant that his ownership of land in Simcoe county was "not a problem."

The Speaker: And your question?

Mr Scott: Now that is where we are at. The wheels have fallen off this exercise.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Scott: Will the Premier please give consideration to withdrawing these unenforceable guidelines and beginning the exercise over again? We will wish him the best will in the world in that exercise. It is time it happened.

Hon Mr Rae: Again, the preambles are so long.

First of all, I do not accept for a moment the premise of the question. I am waiting for the report from Mr Bennett and, when I have that report, I will certainly respond to the member's earlier question, as I have already undertaken to do in the House and in writing, as would happen.

The second thing I would say to the member is, I am waiting to hear from the report of the parliamentary committee on this matter. I would much prefer it if we had clearer legislation and that is what I am waiting for from the committee. When we have that from the committee, there will be no problem.

Mr Scott: The Premier has not dealt with my main point in the supplementary, which is that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue came before the committee the Premier is talking about the other day and said no one from the Premier's office had expressed any interest in what he owned, that no one knew what was going on and that he had never been given any advice. When he asked for it, Mr Agnew told him not to worry, it was not a problem.

What are we going to do about the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue? Would the Premier give consideration, notwithstanding the long preamble, to two things: putting the specific case in the parliamentary committee's hands or, alternatively, asking Chief Justice Evans to run the whole shooting match? He can run it effectively; the Premier clearly cannot.

Hon Mr Rae: I have a real difficulty. The member for St George-St David makes an accusation with regard to certain things and he says here, "When did you receive a copy of the Premier's guidelines?" Answer: "I guess I received them along with every other member, parliamentary assistant or minister that received them.... They are dated December. I probably received them around that time." So it seems to me that issue has been settled.

1420

The issue of compliance, which in the issue the member for St George-St David has raised, is an issue that -- because of what happened I decided, after an exchange in question period, that the fairest possible thing for me to do would be to say to Mr Bennett, "Look, you go in, ask all the questions, get all the answers, and that will be the basis for my report to the House." That is the commitment I have made to the member for St George-St David. Before the member jumps to any conclusions with respect to any individual members who have been named, many of whom have been named inaccurately and unfairly in this House, I think it is appropriate for us to wait for that.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier. When I pointed out to the Treasurer last week that he was not listening to the taxpayers, I assumed that he had at least taken the advice of Bob White, the backroom Premier. The 10 May edition of the St Catharines Standard says that Bob White, like the rest of the taxpayers of this province, is unhappy. The auto workers he represents are afraid for their jobs as a direct result of the Premier's budget.

I wonder if the Premier could share with us today what he plans to discuss and what he plans to tell the automotive industry or his Treasurer, who, I understand, is meeting with them on Thursday of this week, about the impact his budget is going to have on the automotive industry.

Hon Mr Rae: The fact of the matter is that the Treasurer is meeting with representatives of the auto industry, including Mr White. That is to be expected. There is nothing unusual in that with respect to matters. As the leader of the third party well knows, under the current budgetary rules, we are not allowed to discuss tax proposals or tax ideas in any detail before the budget, so it would be entirely natural for there to be that discussion afterwards. I am sure there will be a lively and healthy exchange with the Treasurer at that meeting.

Mr Harris: I would like to quote from another unhappy auto worker, John Clout, Local 199, GM's plant chairman. He says, "I cannot remain silent when the tax policies of any government, even one I support, are so regressive and asinine that they threaten the jobs of an industry I have worked in for 26 years." He goes on to say that for workers, the end result is "unemployment, with all the miseries that go with it."

Does the Premier have any idea, and if he does, could he share with us, exactly how many jobs will be lost in the auto industry? How many CAW jobs will be lost as a direct result of the Premier's budget?

Hon Mr Rae: From my reading of Hansard, the member for St Catharines should be demanding payment as a research assistant to the leader of the third party, since these are the questions he asked yesterday. I think the answers will be as direct as to those that were asked by the member for St Catharines yesterday.

The United States government -- the Bush administration, an administration with which I would have thought the leader of the third party would have some ideological affinity -- introduced a gas guzzler measure in its last budget, which was approved by the American Congress. That measure is in fact at the upper limits, higher, adds more to the tax rates, than has been proposed by the Treasurer in his statement at the end of April.

I want to say to the leader of the third party that it is a little absurd to say that this measure, which is simply an extension of a measure brought forward by the previous government which has been in place, is somehow going to create what I think he described as massive unemployment. It is our view, on the information that we have -- and we are happy to listen to the auto industry and to those working in it to see what evidence they can produce. We are happy to listen to that evidence and to listen to what they have to say. We are not averse to listening to what they have to say at all --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- with facts and figures, and we have some of ours. We do not think this is a measure that is going to add to unemployment. We do not believe that.

Mr Harris: I do not know why the Premier tries to allege that I somehow or other have some influence on American policy or Canadian policy. If he wants to fight George Bush, he can move to the United States and fight him. If he wants to fight Mulroney, he can move to Ottawa and fight him. It is not me saying there are layoffs; it is the United Auto Workers. In spite of the fact that they donate to the NDP -- they do not donate to me -- it is a sad day when I am the only one standing --

An hon member: What do you know about auto workers?

An hon member: It is the CAW.

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the member for Durham-York and the member for Yorkview and a number of other members, it would certainly assist the Chair if they would allow the leader of the third party to complete his question uninterrupted.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I was saying by way of final supplementary, it is the UAW that is going to benefit and the CAW in Canada that is losing the jobs.

Even Bob White, the one person outside the Premier's caucus we would have expected to support this government budget, and he initially did until he saw the details, is speaking out against it. He realizes the budget will cost Ontario jobs, not save them. Bob White realizes this budget does not just contain a gas guzzler tax, it is a job guzzler tax; and that is what he is fighting.

I cannot find one person who believes the Premier's budget will in any way help to end this recession and save jobs in Ontario. Upon reflection, would the Premier not admit, as Bob White now admits on reflection two weeks after the budget, that this budget is costing Ontario jobs and it is time to rethink his $53-billion mistake?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer is no. But I would just say to the member, in addition to that no in explaining it, if he wanted to be fair he would recognize that it is possible for people to have a factual difference of opinion about how one tax or other that is part of the budget is going to work or is going to have an effect, without challenging for a moment the overall integrity of the budget process.

If the leader of the third party really wanted to deal with this, two weeks ago we could have talked about referring budget bills to committee to have a serious discussion on these measures and getting on with it, instead of reading off the name of every lake and river in the province, which is what the leader of the third party has been doing.

Mr Harris: I have another question for the Premier. In 1979 the Premier had a fundamental disagreement with the federal government of the day over the direction of its budget. In fact, he felt so strongly about that budget and the lack of a mandate to proceed in a different direction, as he said at the time, that he helped defeat the government.

Because the Premier has a majority, I cannot defeat him in a vote in the same way that he defeated the former government when it changed direction with its budget. Because I recognize those realities, all I am asking for is a chance for the people to have a say on the direction of his budget. Clearly, he would appreciate that in four years' time it will be too late; we will be over $70 billion in debt.

Can the Premier give the workers of Ontario who are losing their jobs, can he give the taxpayers of Ontario, can he give the public of Ontario one good reason why they should not be entitled to voice their opinion on this budget direction before he inflicts an additional $35 billion of debt on this province?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: Not only do I expect the public to respond and to participate in a discussion of the budget, it is already happening. It is happening in the most natural way. The only place it is not happening is in this Legislative Assembly because the members opposite are not letting it happen.

Mr Harris: I guess the Premier does not have to worry about losing his job for the next three or four years. Most Ontarians are not that lucky. I do not believe the Premier has a mandate for this budget direction. The people who are calling my office do not believe he has a mandate for this. In fact, they are begging for a chance to tell him exactly how they feel.

Earlier this afternoon I sent the Premier and the Treasurer an invitation requesting they join me over the next two days as I listen to what some members of the public have to say about this budget. I would like to ask the Premier today in the chamber, will he and the Treasurer agree to attend these meetings to hear from the public tomorrow and Thursday?

Hon Mr Rae: The leader of the third party, after what has happened over the last two weeks, has now decided that his party is going to hold hearings on the budget in which it will hear from John Crispo and various other people.

When I was in opposition we did that. That is fine; that is a perfectly natural thing to do. I notice they are taking a break for the constituency week and then they are going to come back hard at it at the end of May. They are fully entitled to do that. That is a partisan exercise on the part of his party, which is part of what --

Mr Stockwell: No.

Hon Mr Rae: Yes. That is a very natural thing to happen. Then we would ask that the budget bills be referred. The only thing I would ask the leader of the third party is, if he has decided that now, after this period of time, he is in fact going to have his own hearings, which is fine, is he going to let the House get down to its work and its business since he has decided to do it that way?

Mr Harris: Four years from now I would be happy to stand over there and answer all the questions the Premier has.

The Premier is right, we are going to attempt to do whatever we can to hear from people. Yes, John Crispo is one. Yes, the cobbler who repaired the Treasurer's shoes and now has second thoughts wants to come and tell him what he thinks about the budget on Thursday as well, along with other ordinary citizens.

In 1979, the Premier said this about a new government that came in in Ottawa. This is the Commons debate about a new government just elected. It brought in a budget, and he said, "You do not have a mandate from the Canadian people for such a reversal." That is what he said of the budget it brought in. At that time he exercised his power to force an election.

Does the Premier not agree that he is heading off in a direction that the public certainly did not expect -- never did I hear him promise a $10-billion deficit; never did I hear him promise billions and billions of dollars of tax increases -- that the public is at least entitled to come and express their viewpoint before he embarks in that direction?

Hon Mr Rae: I want the leader of the third party to know that I fought against Tory economics 12 years ago and we are fighting against Tory economics today.

Mr Bradley: My question is for the Minister of Labour.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I knew we were all just about to become relaxed so that the member for St Catharines could place his question.

Mr Bradley: My question is for the Minister of labour. As I tried yesterday at 5:30 to enlist the support of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in convincing the Treasurer to withdraw his tax on auto workers in this province, I want to enlist the support of the Minister of Labour to do the same in light of some other comments that a well-known trade unionist, the chairman of the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 199 bargaining unit, had to say, in addition to those that were quoted yesterday and today. He says:

"Imposing this tax at this time on an industry that represents the industrial base of our community and province and which is reeling already from the free trade agreement is mind-boggling, to say the least, and this from a government that draws its support from workers' wages and votes. One can only assume that our policy-makers are a bunch of incompetent so-called intellectuals who haven't got a clue of what goes on in the real world of industrial labour.

"While I still hope for some good things from this government, its stupidity and incompetence is quickly leading me to lose faith, as I know it is many of our members. This government, and in particular our local MPPs, had better understand we are workers and unionists first and NDP members or supporters second. So they better get their act together and rescind this tax."

Can I get the support of the Minister of Labour, who himself has a long and distinguished career in the labour union movement, to persuade the Treasurer of the lack of wisdom of this tax, which will hit the auto industry badly and ultimately the steel industry in his own community?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I simply want to tell the member for St Catharines that this is one of the few times I have been called an intellectual. I want to tell him also that I think the budget brought in by the Treasurer is an excellent one for the province of Ontario, and we have never told workers how or what they should say or what their opinions should be.

Mr Bradley: I cannot help but believe that the member for Hamilton East and the Minister of Labour, who fought so hard for labour issues over the years, both as a member on this side of the House and in the trade union movement, would not have sympathy for the workers in our area, particularly the bargaining unit itself, which says:

"Auto workers, as individuals or through their unions, played a major role in the election of the government and contributed tens of thousands of dollars from their wages to that end. We don't expect special treatment, but we do expect fair treatment and not to find our jobs threatened by ludicrous tax policies."

Would the Minister of Labour not agree with me that the Treasurer, who says he has certain goals to accomplish which are non-monetary or non-fiscal, could accomplish the same thing by providing incentives for people to purchase new automobiles which would have better emission controls on them and better efficiency in terms of fuel? I recognize it would not get for him the tax grab he wants, but would he not agree with me that labour people in this province are being hurt by this tax, and would he not use all of his persuasive powers to persuade the Treasurer to change his mind and rescind that unwise tax?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would simply like to tell the member for St Catharines that there are many ways to help workers. Giving them the protection they need, trying to provide the jobs that are needed and the retraining that is needed are all ways to deal with that. You do not have one single road you have to go down. We are still trying to work to make things better for workers in the province of Ontario. That is our goal and that is exactly what we are doing.

1440

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Witmer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister has recently received two reports from the labour law reform committee for his consideration. One of the reports was drafted from the labour point of view and the other from the management point of view.

The report that was drafted by the three representatives of the labour point of view, as the minister knows, has greatly alarmed the business community in this province. They are particularly concerned about a recommendation that would prevent management from continuing the operation of a plant during a strike. Management would not even be able to fill orders with previously manufactured goods. This would eliminate the ability to maintain customer goodwill and it would threaten the long-term viability of the enterprise.

This recommendation shifts the long-standing interpretation of a picket line from a vehicle for communication to an economic blockade. Does the minister endorse this shift in a picket line? How is this going to create more jobs in Ontario?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: One of the things we want to achieve is an equal and fair relationship. We have an excellent workforce in this province, very productive, very well trained. One of the ways to do that is to work towards a partnership between business and labour that allows us to maximize our efforts in the workplace.

Mrs Witmer: I question whether this is going to enhance the relationship or the partnership. The report from the labour representatives goes on to recommend that the labour board automatically certify where a majority of employees have signed a union card. This does away with the practice of petitions.

In contrast, our consumers are protected from high pressure, door-to-door salesmen by a three-day cooling off period, yet an employee who signs a union card would not have the option of a sober second thought. This is particularly perplexing since a petition always leads to a free and democratic vote on the issue of unionization.

This report appears to be a solution for which there is no problem. Ontario already has the most comprehensive labour legislation in North America. The management representatives indicated that radical change will merely add to existing pressures which threaten the maintenance of jobs in Ontario. Where is the demonstrated need for fundamental change to the Labour Relations Act at this time in the history of this province, when we are going through a recession?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It may surprise the member to know that basically the history of the labour movement and labour relations in the province of Ontario has been one that has been built on confrontation. We are trying to change that to one of co-operation. That is exactly what our goal is and exactly what we are trying to do.

TVONTARIO

Mr Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I would like to ask the minister if there is not something he could do to clarify the communication and improve the culture in this House, but I will not. In fact, my question concerns TVOntario. A number of articles have appeared in the media over the past week regarding TVOntario and its expenditures. In addition, questions have been asked of the minister in the House pertaining to TVO's spending. In light of allegations made pertaining to how TVO is spending public funds, what is the minister doing to get a final answer on whether these allegations are true or not?

Hon Mr Marchese: I want to say to the member and to the House that I have taken these allegations very seriously. I have referred the whole matter to the secretary of cabinet, and he has instructed the Provincial Auditor to do a review of the expenditures at TVO. This was communicated to the chairman of TVO last Friday. The review has begun, and as soon as we have the results of that review I will let the House know of those results.

UNITED CO-OPERATIVES OF ONTARIO

Mr Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Some time ago I asked him about what was happening with the assistance that the United Co-operatives of Ontario had asked his ministry for. Could he update the House on what he is going to do for UCO?

Hon Mr Buchanan: There is a formal request from UCO for assistance now on my desk. I am reviewing that request and will make an announcement some time in the future. No decision has been made at this point. We are looking at the application and the request, though, and will look at the request very seriously, but have no announcement to make at this time.

Mr Villeneuve: I find that difficult to accept, because it has been at his ministry for quite some time. As the minister knows, many independent farm suppliers across Ontario are clearly worried that a provincial bailout of UCO will occur. They are convinced that such a bailout will simply undercut their ability to compete.

The minister has had this now since February. Could he give this House some indication as to what his thoughts are? Will he be bailing them out?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes. I repeat what I said. Negotiations and discussions are ongoing between staff and UCO. Some of the requests have been modified and changed. We look at them very seriously. We are not in a position to make a statement or an answer to the request at this time.

WOMEN IN BUSINESS

Mr Huget: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Federal Business Development Bank have recently launched a program called Step Up, which is a business training program for women entrepreneurs. Could the minister tell this House exactly how women who own businesses in this province will benefit from participation in this program?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The Step Up program is rather a unique program in Canada which is designed to break down some of the barriers women entrepreneurs face in expanding their particular businesses. The Step Up program will benefit women entrepreneurs basically in three ways:

First, all participants will be matched on a one-on-one basis with a mentor. The mentors are experienced businesswomen owners who will provide advice to participants on business expansion.

Second, Step Up has seven training workshops for participants to learn about financing, marketing and other aspects of business.

Finally, networking is a very important part of the program which will help women entrepreneurs forge ties with other businesswomen.

My ministry support for this program represents the government's continuing commitment to small-business growth and expansion in entrepreneurship in this province.

Mr Huget: Can the minister tell us what financial contributions MITT will make to this project and how many participants are involved in this program?

Hon Mr Pilkey: There are 26 participants involved in the program and MITT and the Federal Business Development Bank are contributing some $20,000 each to effect this program.

IDENTIFICATION DES FRANCOPHONES

M. Grandmaître : Ma question s'adresse au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Monsieur le ministre se souviendra du fameux recensement de 1988 qui était cousu de l'air. Il se souviendra aussi qu'en 1989 le ministère des Affaires municipales, le ministre de l'Éducation ainsi que le ministre du Revenu s'étaient rencontrés pour rectifier les erreurs qui avaient été commises lors du recensement.

Je dois avouer au ministre que depuis 1989 je ne sais pas combien de fois son bureau ou les ministères faisant partie de ce recensement se sont rencontrés pour rectifier les erreurs de 1988 qui empêchent les clients du ministre, les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, de s'identifier de façon à ne pas être trompés avec une autre catégorie. La section D, et le ministre la connaît très bien, exige qu'un francophone soit identifié correctement. Sans ça, cette personne-là est identifiée comme anglophone.

Quel était le rôle du ministre depuis les six ou sept derniers mois concernant le recensement ?

L'hon. M. Pouliot : J'aimerais tout d'abord remercier le plus sincèrement l'intérêt de mon collègue l'ancien ministre. Il a voulu s'appuyer sur le recensement de 1988 et aujourd'hui j'aimerais lui répondre, avec respect bien sûr, à propos du recensement, mais celui de 1991.

Le role du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, avec son mandat horizontal, appelle le ministre à faciliter les rencontres avec, dans ce cas-ci, le ministère du Revenu et aussi le ministère concerné, celui de l'Éducation. Et bien, on l'a fait; nous sommes descendus dans la rue. Nous avons formulé, à travers les organismes francophones représentant les 543 000 Franco-Ontariens de la province, le recensement municipal de 1991. En plus, nous avons mis en place un numéro sans frais, un numéro 1-800. On a dit aux Franco-Ontariens : «On va faire ça ensemble. Vous ne serez pas oubliés.» On a multiplié les rencontres, les organismes se sont joints à nous et enfin on a remplacé ou amendé le formulaire pour permettre aux gens de s'identifier.

M. Grandmaître : Si le ministre a multiplié les rencontres avec tout le monde, s'ils sont descend us dans la rue, s'ils se sont abaissés dans les trottoirs, comment se fait-il que personne ne l'ait écouté et qu'ils aient répété les mêmes erreurs ?

L'hon. M. Pouliot : Monsieur le Président, face à une telle provocation, laissez-moi vous dire que c'est lui qui était ministre avant. Si on a vécu à travers la francophonie les péchés d'omission, c'est lui le coupable. Moi, j'ai rectifié les amendements et les péchés d'omission de mon prédécesseur. C'est tout. Ce n'est pas plus que ça, mais ce n'est pas moins que ça non plus.

1450

CASE OF BRIAN RAPSON

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Attorney General. I read in today's Toronto Star that Police Constable Rapson's lawyer said that the decision to prefer an indictment against the police constable appears to be a political one. The Attorney General stated that his decision was based absolutely entirely -- not just entirely but absolutely entirely -- on legal principles, and I stress the words "legal principles."

Can the Attorney General please advise us what those legal principles are? Please do not tell us that it is before the courts and it is going to prejudice the courts, because legal principles stated to a court have never, ever prejudiced a court in making a decision. Why does he not come clean and tell us what the legal principles are so that he can disprove the fact that he preferred this indictment for purely political reasons?

Hon Mr Hampton: I have answered the member's question on this issue before. I will refer him again to rule 23(g) of this House. Under the rules of the House, in a debate, "A member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she...refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding that is pending in court or before a judge for judicial determination."

I realize that the member for the Conservative Party would very much like to make a political issue out of the trial of a very serious criminal charge. I realize that. It is quite inappropriate and, as I say, I think it is out of order to even ask the question in this House.

Mr Harnick: My supplementary should be to ask the Attorney General if he is really a lawyer, but I am not that crass.

Interjections.

The Speaker: From time to time there are accusations across the House. One of them is not that we are too quiet. Now that we are calm, perhaps the member for Willowdale can pose his supplementary.

Mr Harnick: My supplementary is to point out to the Attorney General that the former Attorney General preferred an indictment against a gentleman by the name of Prete. Mr Prete was discharged after a preliminary inquiry. He then stood trial and he was acquitted.

The member for York South, as he then was, stood in this House and asked the then Attorney General for a commitment that the government would pay damages to compensate Mr Prete for the fact that he was charged improperly.

Will the Attorney General stand in this Legislature today and undertake to Police Constable Rapson that he will do what his Premier advocated doing, and that is that he will pay his damages and his costs when he has to defend an attempted murder charge of which he will be acquitted? Will he undertake to do this and stand by what the Premier said?

Hon Mr Hampton: I consider it quite inappropriate that a member would stand in this Legislature and attempt to prejudge a situation such as this. I also want to point out --

Mr Harnick: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I have been accused of prejudging a case. I am not prejudging a case at all. This man has been tried at a preliminary inquiry and this man has been discharged at a preliminary on an attempted murder charge. I am not prejudging him. I am merely stating what a court has already decided. For him to make that allegation --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. It is not a point of privilege. Would the Attorney General complete his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Hampton: I think there is something else very serious happening here. I read the member's remarks that were made outside the Legislature, where he insinuates that where indictments have been preferred in the past the Attorney General has stood in the House and given an explanation as to why an indictment was preferred. I want to point out that we have searched the Hansards. We can find no such record of that in the situation that was referred to.

Mr Harnick: You're wrong again. Here is, Howard: Hansard, 10 November 1988, page 5759.

The Speaker: Will the member for Willowdale take his seat, please.

Mr Harnick: You don't know what you're talking about, Howard. You couldn't research a law book because you wouldn't know which end to open it at. You're pathetic and you're affecting a man's life. You don't know what you're doing.

Hon Mr Hampton: I want to point out to the member --

The Speaker: New question, the member for Niagara Falls.

SPEECH THERAPY

Ms Harrington: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services in regard to service I am sure members would be interested in, speech therapy service for children with Down's syndrome. I know the member for Burlington South was most interested in this particular issue.

This is an issue which came up during the election campaign in my riding last summer. A woman in my riding has spent years of work writing letters, petitions and reports trying to get this service for her preschool son. I promised that this issue would be addressed not just for her son but for every child in this province who needed this service.

Would the minister tell us what has been done to ensure access to this service, which cannot be postponed when it is needed for these preschoolers? It makes all the difference in the development of these young people's lives.

Hon Ms Akande: This is a question of long standing, and the member is quite right. It has been a problem that has existed not only in the Niagara area but in several areas of this province for quite some time and has not been addressed. The area office around Niagara has now provided funding for speech pathology within that particular area. In a more general context, we are also designing and negotiating between education and health towards providing funding for speech problems all around the province.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mrs Y. O'Neill: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. In the 1991 budget, the Treasurer of Ontario announced a total increase of 3.4 cents per litre in the gas tax over the next fiscal year. This new tax is being introduced at the same time as gas prices are reportedly decreasing by an average of two cents a litre in the United States. This means there will be an additional five-cent differential in the price of gasoline between Ontario and the United States, encouraging more people in border communities to shop on a daily basis in the United States.

Has the minister a plan to respond to the effect of this tax increase on border communities, and will she please share such a plan with this House at this moment?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to assure this House that this government takes cross-border shopping and out-shopping very seriously. We have recognized the need to work together with the federal government, with municipal governments and with business, labour and retailers to resolve this issue. This is a very sensitive issue and we are not going to find a quick fix to deal with it. My colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is actively working on the issue, as I am. We are scheduled to meet on Thursday of this week with the Minister of Revenue for the Canadian government to discuss this item further.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I tried with every bit of hearing I have and did not detect even the sign of a plan. This budget will create a few jobs but many of them will be in Buffalo and Detroit. The Minister of Revenue hopes to raise $500 million through the new gas taxes. Are these projections accurate, when so many Ontarians are continuing and even encouraged to buy their gas in the United States?

NDP ministers, and this minister in particular, today continue to stand in this House and time and time again say only that the federal government is to blame for cross-border shopping and that it is a complex problem. We are beginning to see there is a real denial of any provincial responsibility. But this increase in gas prices at this time in this budget belongs solely to the Ontario NDP government and to no one else.

Was an impact study taken on the results of this excessive new fuel tax on Ontario's border communities? I ask that question. Will the minister please share her plans for cushioning the effect of these invasive taxes on these struggling communities which need consideration from this government today?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I thank the member on the other side of the House for the question and ask that she talk with some of her colleagues in her own party who were at the standing committee on finance and economic affairs I was at and who said that this is a very difficult issue and that it is not going to be solved by one government; it is one that is going to take a lot of co-operation, which is something our government believes in and something our government will do.

We are not scared to face those challenges. The Liberal member's government did studies on cross-border shopping when it was in power and decided to do nothing about it. We are going to do something about it. We will work together with all levels of government, with all leaders in retail and labour and business, and we will resolve this issue. It will take time and commitment. I am also looking forward to the member's commitment in solving this problem.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday we had an extensive written brief presented to you by the government House leader. We have been working at the issue fairly diligently over the evening last night and this morning. I had hoped to have a preliminary written report for you from our point of view. It is not yet ready. Bearing in mind that there is a necessity for speed on this issue, I would ask that you grant me some more hours to prepare a written submission before you make a decision on the request by the House leader.

The Speaker: The diligence and hard work of the member for Bruce is well known. Indeed, as I mentioned yesterday, I would be pleased to receive written submissions today and tomorrow. Your earliest convenience within that time frame would be appreciated.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Miss Martel moved that Ms Gigantes be substituted for Mr F. Wilson on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition quite a number of pages long signed by 316 people. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, hereby respectfully request that the Legislature rescind the Ontario motorist protection plan, and further respectfully request that a plan be devised in accordance with the results of the independent studies undertaken by the previous government that will ensure fair and reasonable compensation for innocent motor vehicle accident victims."

This petition is signed by residents of London, Middle-sex, Brockville, Chatham, Cambridge, Rexdale, and the list goes on. I have affixed my signature to this petition.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Dadamo: I also have a petition from my riding, which contains some 3,000 signatures. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, believe that acupuncture treatments which are administered by an acupuncturist who has been qualified by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario should be covered by OHIP. Chiropractors are presently covered under this plan and we feel that it is unfair that acupuncture treatments do not have any coverage under the same plan."

I would like to attach my name to this petition.

1510

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

Mr Offer: I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas economic diversification efforts require time before results can be experienced and, without a strong anchor industry in Elliot Lake, any diversification effort becomes tremendously difficult;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro, which is ultimately responsible to this government, made commitments to Elliot Lake and its mining companies which resulted in the community's rapid and widespread expansion in the early 1980s;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To fulfil that promise to the people of Elliot Lake by instructing Ontario Hydro to purchase all of its uranium requirements from within the province of Ontario, namely Elliot Lake, until economic diversification efforts in the community are successful."

I have affixed my name thereto.

DAY CARE

Mr Cousens: This petition is in the colour of the government, pink.

"We, the undersigned, request that the minister take immediate action to rectify the further salary inequity announced 31 January for early childhood educators, believing that freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination are the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select a day care of their choice."

It is signed by a host of people from Thornhill, Bradford, Newmarket and Keswick. Thank goodness they have someone like me to present it for them.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Hansen: To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Wednesday 8 May was the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Day; and

"Whereas hundreds of thousands of people are currently suffering because of war and its aftermath;

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

"We appeal to the governments, leaders and people of the world to respect the fundamental human rights of individuals at all times in all places and all circumstances; and

"We appeal to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to live up to its international undertakings and responsibilities to enable all necessary humanitarian aid to be made available to the victims of conflict and to ensure that they can seek and receive such aid."

I affix my signature to this petition, as do many other members of this House.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

"That the assembly shall demand that the government of Ontario rescind its decision to eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen of Canada for police officers, who must uphold laws that are proclaimed in the name of Elizabeth II."

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

TAX INCREASES

Mr McLean: My petition says:

"Whereas the tax increases imposed by the 1991 budget of the province of Ontario will have a negative effect on firms and businesses in border communities and in particular those engaged in the retail and tourism trades;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct one of its committees to hold public hearings in Ontario border communities on the proposed tax increases."

I affix my name to that.

ABORTION

Mr Johnson: I have three petitions I would like to present to the Legislature today. The first, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Knights of Columbus of Picton, Ontario, is a petition that opposes the government's abortion policy of publicly funding clinics.

PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

Mr Johnson: The second petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by 55 people concerned about private member's Bills 7 and 8. Their concern is that there is not going to be enough time for them to present briefs and submissions to the committee with regard to these bills.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Johnson: The third petition, with 114 signatures, is from people in and around Belleville, Ontario, who are concerned that the Belleville General Hospital board of governors has decided to divide nursing between the Victorian Order of Nurses and two profit-making nursing agencies, and they are not happy with this.

DAY CARE

Mr J. Wilson: I have a petition on behalf of Unicorns Day Care Centre. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request that the minister take action immediately to rectify the further salary inequity announced 31 January 1991 for early childhood educators.

"We believe that freedom of choice, pay equity and nondiscrimination are the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select the day care of their choice."

It is signed by a number of concerned citizens near my riding of Simcoe West.

Mr Turnbull: I have a petition. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request that the minister take action immediately to rectify the further salary inequity announced 31 January 1991 for early childhood educators.

"We believe that freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination are the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select the day care of their choice."

Mr Jackson: I have a petition on behalf of Greendale Day Nursery.

"We, the undersigned, request that the Minister of Community and Social Services take action immediately to rectify the further salary inequity announced 31 January 1991 for early childhood educators.

"We believe that freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination are the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select the day care of their choice."

TAIT'S BRIDGE

Mrs Mathyssen: Today I am presenting a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of 322 citizens of Middlesex and Elgin counties. These citizens represent two communities on the north and south sides of the Thames River.

Since 1915, these communities have maintained close social ties, access to nearby towns and conducted business because they were connected by Tait's Bridge. These citizens are petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take the necessary steps to either replace or repair the now closed Tait's Bridge. They respectfully ask help to restore this important link between two communities. I have signed my name to this petition.

DAY CARE

Mr Arnott: I have a petition I would like to present to the Legislature today and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Minister of Community and Social Services take action immediately to rectify the further salary inequity announced 31 January 1991 for early childhood educators.

"We believe that freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination are the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select the day care of their choice."

It is signed by a number of people including constituents of mine.

Mr Ferguson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: With the flurry of activity concerning the day care petitions that are being presented in the House today by the members of the Conservative Party, I would hope they would also send a copy of those petitions to their federal counterparts who ripped off the day care workers in this province to the tune of $2,000 each by not living up to the --

The Speaker: Would the member for Kitchener take his seat. It is perhaps a point of difference.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Villeneuve: I too have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of the province of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the tax increases imposed by the 1991 budget of the province of Ontario will have a negative effect on firms and businesses in border communities and in particular those engaged in the retail and tourism trades;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct one of its committees to hold public hearings in Ontario border communities on the proposed tax increases."

And I fully agree with this petition.

Mr Arnott: I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the tax increases imposed by the 1991 budget of the province of Ontario will have a negative effect on firms and businesses in border communities and in particular those engaged in the retail and tourism trades;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct one of its committees to hold public hearings in Ontario border communities on the proposed tax increases."

1520

Mr Turnbull: I have a petition to present. It reads:

"Whereas the tax increases imposed by the 1991 budget of the province of Ontario will have a negative effect on firms and businesses in border communities and in particular those engaged in the retail and tourism trades;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct one of its committees to hold public hearings in Ontario border communities on the proposed tax increases."

I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr Stockwell: I have a petition as well. I also have a point of interest for the member for Kitchener. If he wanted to bone up on some of his child care statistics, maybe if he went to the Agenda for People he could find out exactly how many promises were broken.

The Speaker: And your petition?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, my petition, strangely enough, is right here.

"Whereas the tax increases imposed by the 1991 budget of the province of Ontario will have a negative impact on firms and businesses in border communities and in particular those engaged in the retail and tourism trades," -- hopefully, for profit; with this government, I doubt it.

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct one of its committees to hold public hearings" -- they will remember those words from when they were in opposition; remember that -- "in Ontario border communities on the proposed tax increases."

I have also signed this petition.

Mr J. Wilson: I am particularly pleased to present this petition as the Ontario PC critic for Tourism and Recreation. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the tax increases imposed by the 1991 budget of the province of Ontario will have a negative effect on firms and businesses in border communities and in particular those engaged in the retail and tourism trades;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct one of its committees to hold public hearings in Ontario border communities on the proposed tax increases."

Mr Jordan: I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the tax increases imposed by the 1991 budget of the province of Ontario will have a negative effect on firms and businesses in border communities and in particular those engaged in the retail and tourism trades;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct one of its committees to hold public hearings in Ontario border communities on the proposed tax increases."

DAY CARE

Mr Jackson: I have a petition signed by the parents and the child care workers at Woodland Children's Centre in Burlington:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Minister of Community and Social Services take action immediately to rectify the further salary inequity as announced by her government on 31 January 1991 for early childhood educators.

"We believe that freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination are the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select the day care of their choice in Ontario."

It has been signed and it has my full support.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to present a petition today to the Minister of Community and Social Services. It has been signed by people in the city of Waterloo and in the city of Kitchener.

"We, the undersigned, request that the minister take action immediately to rectify the further salary inequity announced 31 January 1991 for early childhood educators.

"We believe that freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination form the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select the day care of their choice."

I am pleased to affix my signature here.

The Speaker: The time for presentation of petitions has expired.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SOUTH OTTAWA SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC ACT, 1991

Hon Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting South Ottawa Services Foundation, Inc.

Motion agreed to.

LONDON FOUNDATION ACT 1991

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of Bill Pr71, An Act respecting the London Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

BIG SISTERS OF SUDBURY ACT, 1990

Ms S. Murdock moved first reading of Bill Pr11, an Act to revive the Big Sisters Organization of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF BROCKVILLE ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA VILLE DE BROCKVILLE

Mr Runciman moved first reading of Bill 96, An Act to protect the Economy of the Border Community of the City of Brockville.

M. Runciman propose la première lecture du projet de loi 96, Loi sur la protection économique de la communauté frontière de la ville de Brockville.

1533

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

La motion de M. Runciman, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour-83

Abel, Arnott, Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Buchanan, Caplan, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Cordiano, Cunningham, Dadamo, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Haslam, Hayes, Henderson, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, McGuinty, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Ramsay, Runciman, Silipo, Sola, Sorbara, Stockwell, Sutherland, Turnbull, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays/Contre-0

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I am allowed some brief comments in respect of explanation of the bill, am I not? I want to thank the members of the assembly, especially the members of the socialist government, for supporting this legislation. I have trouble with those words "socialist government," but in any event I hope it translates into concrete action.

The purpose of this bill is to protect the economy of the border community of the city of the Thousand Islands --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Runciman: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I certainly appreciate your intervention and your efforts to maintain calm within this assembly. I guess I will have to start that all over again, since I was so rudely interrupted.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the other members to remain silent until the member has made his point.

Mr Runciman: I was attempting to give a brief explanation, but the members of the socialist party are giving me a difficult time indeed.

The purpose of this bill is to protect the economy of the border community of the city of the Thousand Islands, the city of Brockville, by ensuring that government-imposed costs do not undermine the competitiveness of firms in the said community.

CITY OF WINDSOR ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA VILLE DE WINDSOR

Mr Harris moved first reading of Bill 97, An Act to protect the Economy of the Border Community of the City of Windsor.

M. Harris propose la première lecture du projet de loi 97, Loi sur la protection économique de la communauté frontière de la ville de Windsor.

1547

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

La motion de M. Harris, mise aux voix, est adoptée:

Ayes/Pour-70

Abel, Arnott, Bisson, Brown, Buchanan, Caplan, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Haslam, Hayes, Huget, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, McGuinty, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Poirier, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Stockwell, Sutherland, Turnbull, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

Nays/Contre-0

Mr Harris: Just as today I had to fight for the Canadian Auto Workers, many of them located in Windsor, the purpose of this bill is to protect the economy of the border community of the city of Windsor by ensuring that government-imposed costs do not undermine the competitiveness of firms in the said community of Windsor.

TOWN OF FORT FRANCES ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA VILLE DE FORT FRANCES

Mr Harris moved first reading of Bill 98, An Act to protect the Economy of the Border Community of the Town of Fort Frances.

M. Harris propose la première lecture du projet de loi 98, Loi sur la protection économique de la communauté frontière de la ville de Fort Frances.

1558

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

La motion de M. Harris, mise aux voix, est adoptée:

Ayes/Pour-62

Arnott, Bisson, Bradley, Caplan, Carter, Christopher-son, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Dadamo, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mills, O'Connor, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Poirier, Pouliot, Runciman, Sola, Stockwell, Sutherland, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Winninger, Wiseman.

Nays/Contre-0

Mr Harris: Just as today it was left to me to fight for the Canadian Auto Workers throughout this province and then again for the workers --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Nipissing.

Mr Harris: -- and then, as in the previous bill, for the workers in the border community of the city of Windsor, the purpose of this bill likewise, An Act to protect the Economy of the Border Community of the Town of Fort Frances, is to protect the economy of this border community, the town of Fort Frances, by ensuring that government-imposed costs do not undermine the competitiveness of firms in the community of Fort Frances. I thank all members for supporting this initiative.

TOWN OF GANANOQUE ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA VILLE DE GANANOQUE

Mr Runciman moved first reading of Bill 99, An Act to protect the Economy of the Border Community of the Town of Gananoque.

M. Runciman propose la première lecture du projet de loi 99, Loi sur la protection économique de la communauté frontière de la ville de Gananoque.

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have been receiving these bills, and under --

The Deputy Speaker: I will listen to your point of order after the vote.

Mr Wiseman: No, it is pertinent to this before we vote.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, I cannot hear you.

Mr Wiseman: Under standing order 37, page 32 of the standing orders, it says, "No bill may be introduced in blank or imperfect form." How can I ascertain whether this is in perfect form if I do not have a copy of this bill to peruse? I think, at the very least, courtesy would dictate that we should have copies of these bills for the members on this side to be able to peruse and to see if they conform to the standing orders.

My rights as a parliamentarian are being abused by the fact that I do not have a copy of these bills prior to their being introduced in the House. I cannot do my job as a parliamentarian, a duly elected member of this House, without seeing these bills.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that can derogate to that. The bill has been introduced, and once it is printed, it is up to the Speaker to decide if the bill is in order or not. Thank you very much.

Where are we now? Mr Runciman has moved An Act to protect the Economy of the Border Community of the Town of Gananoque.

1612

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

La motion de M. Runciman, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour-52

Arnott, Beer, Bisson, Bradley, Buchanan, Caplan Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Dadamo, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harrington, Hayes, Huget, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Kormos, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, O'Neill, Y., Poirier, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Wiseman, Wood.

Nays/Contre-0

Mr Runciman: This has been a wonderful afternoon indeed. I have introduced two pieces of legislation and both have been supported by the socialist government. Amazing indeed. I want to express special consideration to the member for Durham West who supported this legislation without a copy of the bill in front of him. I very much appreciate it.

As a brief explanatory note, the purpose of this bill is to protect the economy of the border community of the town of Gananoque.

Mr Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The members of the third party are confused. They say nay and then they vote in favour of the bill. I do not understand this. I thought maybe the people of Ontario might like to know this.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Runciman: It is regrettable that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has intervened to delay the proceedings of this House, very regrettable indeed.

The purpose of this bill, as I was trying to explain before I was interrupted by the socialist member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings -- that is pretty difficult to comprehend, a socialist member for Prince Edward-Lennox -- is to protect the economy of the border community of the town of Gananoque.

Mr Jackson: That's where my father was born.

Mr Runciman: The town of Gananoque is where the father of the member for Burlington South was born. He still has relatives there.

The purpose of the bill is to protect the economy of the border community of the town of Gananoque by ensuring that government-imposed costs do not undermine the competitiveness of firms in the community.

TOWN OF AMHERSTBURG ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA VILLE DE AMHERSTBURG

Mr Eves moved first reading of Bill 100, An Act to protect the Economy of the Border Community of the Town of Amherstburg.

M. Eves propose la première lecture du projet de loi 100, Loi sur la protection économique de la communauté frontière de la ville de Amherstburg.

1623

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

La motion de M. Eves, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour-38

Arnott, Beer, Bisson, Buchanan, Caplan, Carter, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Daigeler, Drainville, Eves, Fletcher, Grandmaître, Harnick, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Jordan, Klopp, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Neill, Y., Poirier, Runciman, Stockwell, Ward, B., Waters, Wessenger, Wilson, J., Wiseman, Wood.

Nays/Contre-0

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Does Mr Eves have a short explanation of his bill?

Mr Eves: Very short. The purpose of this bill is to protect the economy of the border community of the town of Amherstburg by ensuring that government-imposed costs do not undermine the competitiveness of firms in the said community.

Mr Mills: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I stand here this afternoon because I tend to think that people judge people by the company they keep. If they smoke marijuana, whether you smoke marijuana or not, people assume you smoke marijuana.

The Acting Speaker: What is your point of personal privilege?

Mr Mills: I am coming to that, Mr Speaker. My point of personal privilege is that the behaviour in the House reflects on me. The people who sent me to Queen's Park must think I am as silly as the other people, and I take exception to that because I am here to do business and I do not want to be associated with such stupidity. That is why I stand here. It is my privilege to say that.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That is very much a matter of opinion and not personal privilege.

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

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

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

The Second Deputy Chair: At the last sitting on this bill, we had the following government motions: subsection 2(1) of the bill; subsection 2(3) of the bill; proposed subsection 2(1) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(4) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(24) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(30.1) and (30.2) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.4(2.1) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsections 3.4(5) and (6) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsections 3.9(2) and (3) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.9(10) and (11) of the act.

Further government amendments: section 5 of the bill, proposed subsection 4(2) of the act; section 11 of the bill, proposed section 12.2 of the act; section 12 of the bill, proposed section 13.2 of the act. Those are the government amendments.

The following are amendments by the Progressive Conservative Party, all under the name of the member for Willowdale: section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(4.1) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(5.1) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(6) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(8) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(25) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsections 3.4(11.1) to (11.3) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.8(4) of the act; section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.8(10) of the act; section 19 of the bill. Do we have further amendments?

Hon Mr Hampton: I have one further amendment and I would be pleased to provide copies of the amendment to members of the opposition.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following as a section of the act:

"3.13. Where a support deduction order has been made in respect of a support order that has not been filed in or that has been withdrawn from the director's office, the person entitled to receive support shall inform the director in writing of,

"(a) the amount of money received on account of the support order other than through the support deduction order; and

"(b) any changes in the amount to be paid under the support order."

Mr Sorbara: On a rather minor point of order, I see, in looking across the House, both the Attorney General and the member for -- I do not know his riding. Is it Simcoe Centre?

The Second Deputy Chair: Simcoe Centre.

Mr Sorbara: The very capable parliamentary assistant of the Attorney General is sitting at the front of the House, I guess prepared to carry Bill 17 through this committee of the whole. Mr Chairman, perhaps you could help me out on this, but if I recall procedure correctly, the tradition or perhaps even the rule is that either the minister or the parliamentary assistant carries the bill through committee of the whole, but it is either inappropriate or indeed out of order that both the Attorney General and the parliamentary assistant carry the bill.

I do not mind that both of them want to be here, but as a matter of order I think it is, first of all, important for you to identify which of these two capable members is going to be carrying the bill. Refresh my memory and help me on this point, whether it is appropriate for both government members, the minister and the parliamentary assistant, to be carrying the bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: I believe the minister, the Attorney General, is here and I would presume it is his bill and he will be carrying the bill. The parliamentary assistant is at his side and I believe the standing orders say that he may occupy a seat adjacent to the Attorney General.

Mr Harnick: Mr Chair, I noticed when you were reading out the numbers of the various amendments you were using the word "dash," as opposed to the decimal point.

I bring to your attention that this is the first bill that has been prepared by legislative counsel that has used the new numbering system. I am pleased to report to the House that I was part of the cause of that because I had extreme difficulty, as we were debating this bill in committee, following the numbers because there was so much repetition and I never knew what part of the bill we were on.

You will note, Mr Chair, that the bill as it is now drafted uses the decimal point system. I know you were referring to it as a dash, but it is significant that the present numbering system has been changed. That is a very significant difference, certainly one of the significant things about this bill.

That is not really what my prime concern is regarding this bill. I have grave concern whether there will be any persons left in this province who will be able to afford to make the payments because of the budget that now is before the public.

Accordingly, I would move that the Chair report progress and ask for leave to meet again.

Hon Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Was the member speaking on a point of order? I believe there is an order of speaking with respect to this legislation.

The Second Deputy Chair: He was speaking on a point of order regarding my references to the way the bills were drafted, and it was a point of order. It was not the normal rotation. I believe the honourable member brought a very valid point of observation. We appreciate his having mentioned that I had used "hyphen" instead of "period." We do not have hyphenated bills here; they are all period and brackets and I think that was a very valid observation of the member for Willowdale.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Was the member for Willowdale recognized on a point of order or was he in fact recognized and given the floor? Because if he was recognized and given the floor, with all due respect, Mr Chairman, his motion is a valid one, it is not debatable and it is not amendable, and I think you should call the question.

Mr Harnick: I never mouthed or mentioned the words "point of order" when I stood.

The Second Deputy Chair: You were addressing the method in which I had read out the bill, I believe.

Mr Sorbara: He was making some opening comments, but he really did make a motion, and you are pretty well bound to --

The Second Deputy Chair: I recognized the member because he was the first to rise. I did not notice --

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Whether the member for Willowdale mentioned point of order or not, I assumed it was a point of order because he was referring to the method in which the bill was presented.

Mr Harnick: I wanted to point out to the Legislature that this was a new innovation. I certainly was not making any point of order and it was one of the very significant aspects of this bill. It is probably the clearest aspect of this bill. I rose to tell the Chair that very fact. I never stood on a point of order or any other point, for that matter.

1640

The Second Deputy Chair: I personally have ruled it and considered it to be a point of order, because you were referring to the method in which the amendments were presented. The normal rotation was not being followed.

Hon Mr Hampton: I am very pleased to be here to discuss Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related --

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: If you are ruling here today that a dilatory motion can only be put when a person obtains the floor -- once a Speaker or a Chairperson, with all due respect, recognizes an individual who has not risen on a point of order, and you recognize that individual, they have the floor. Once they have the floor, a dilatory motion is more than in order -- your own Speaker has ruled that -- at any time.

The member for Willowdale had the floor. He had not raised a point of order. You chose, rightly or wrongly, to recognize him. Having done that, his motion is fully in order and we should not --

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Chairman, if I might jump into this, it seems to me that you stated very clearly to all and sundry in this place that you thought he was up on a point of order. Therefore, under the rules of this House, a member cannot move a dilatory motion on a point of order. I would suggest that the rotation should start here, as it normally should under any debate, and that my colleague the Attorney General should be allowed to begin.

Mr Sorbara: I just want to try and be helpful on this. I think we all agree that it would be inappropriate and out of order for a motion that the committee rise and report progress and beg leave to sit again if indeed the member had been speaking to the committee of the whole on a point of order. There is some doubt about that. I understand your view that perhaps that was the case.

As I sat and listened to these proceedings, I personally did not hear him rise on a point of order. My own understanding of his comments was that he stood up to make some introductory comments about the bill and, for some unknown reason, started talking about the numbering system, then said a word or two about the substance of the bill, said a word or two about the state of the economy, another word or two about the budget and then moved the motion.

I think this matter could probably be settled most easily if there was a reference to Hansard to determine whether, in your recognition of the member for Willowdale, you recognized him based on an understanding that he was rising on a point of order or that he was rising to speak on the bill, because the whole matter turns on that. We could probably make a determination if you could refer to Hansard and find some way of figuring out exactly what happened. For my part I am anxious to get down to the substantive consideration of the bill and the amendments.

The Second Deputy Chair: So, I believe, is everyone else. Normally, the rotation would have been the minister. I was looking to the minister and I assumed that he was going to take the floor. The honourable member for Willowdale got up and referred to the way I had read and presented the amendments by both the government and the Progressive Conservative Party. I assumed and have ruled -- I am sorry; it has been ruled and that is the way it stands -- he was on a point of order. He was referring to the way it was presented. We will proceed with the normal sequence.

Section/article 1:

Hon Mr Hampton: I am pleased to be here to discuss Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders. Since Bill 17 received first reading on 5 December 1990, we have had the benefit of hearing from many individuals and organizations. There were three days of public hearings during which many people made presentations to the committee. They told us what they liked about the bill as well as what parts could be improved. I would like to thank all those who took the time to write or call us or to appear before the standing committee. We have listened carefully to all of the comments --

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: This is not the first time this bill has appeared before the committee of the whole House. We have heard the minister, and the minister has completed his speech of introduction regarding the bill. My understanding is that once that is complete we begin to discuss the sections that are to be amended. I do not know why the minister is making another speech, and I would suggest as my point of order that we go to the first section that the government wishes to amend. He has already made his speech.

The Second Deputy Chair: It is a valid point of order. We are in second reading, clause-by-clause. Would the Attorney General please address section 1 of the bill, section by section?

Hon Mr Hampton: I intend to, but I believe I am entitled to give a bit of a history of this bill since it has already been in committee.

The Second Deputy Chair: This is second reading.

Hon Mr Hampton: Third reading. Committee of the whole, I am sorry.

The Second Deputy Chair: And I have called section 1, with all due respect to the honourable Attorney General. Please proceed.

Mr Sorbara: Introductory remarks are appropriate to section 1.

Hon Mr Hampton: Those are the remarks I was making.

Many of the groups came before the committee and made suggestions. Those suggestions have been incorporated and have resulted in an improved Bill 17.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. The Attorney General is dealing with section 1, I hope. I have some difficulty hearing him.

Hon Mr Hampton: I would also like to thank each of the members of the standing committee on administration of justice for their work. During the clause-by-clause review of the bill, which took some nine weeks, there were many amendments put forward by members of the committee, including a significant number of technical amendments introduced by the government. I appreciate the detailed attention paid to each of the amendments by the members of the committee. In several cases amendments proposed by the government were improved by suggestions made by members of the opposition parties. As well, the opposition parties introduced a significant number of their own amendments. These amendments were discussed and debated at some length and some of them were passed.

I want to point out that there were a number of other amendments which were made to the bill which went beyond clarification. For example, the name of the act has been changed to the Family Support Plan Act. This change will ensure that this act is not confused with the Child and Family Services Act. This concern was brought to our attention by lawyers, by members of the judiciary and by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

We heard from members of the public, as well as opposition members of the standing committee, that the use of the term "debtor" to refer to the person paying support was not appropriate for this legislation. We changed all references to the term "debtor" to "payor" to reflect the fact that the support deduction plan applies to all payors, not just those in default of their obligations.

I have highlighted just some of the amendments to Bill 17. I am very pleased with the improvements which have been made to the bill throughout this process. As I said, I am grateful to the committee for its very thorough and thoughtful analysis. We have a few additional amendments, and I have already presented those to members.

I want to say, though, that this legislation is of great importance to a number of people in the province. Under the existing legislation only some 30% of the existing support orders are in fact being enforced. We anticipate that this legislation, when it is passed, will improve our capacity to enforce orders so that at least 60% of the orders will be enforced.

I did want to correct one statement that was made earlier. The member for York Centre stated that he had been told that it will take the government until the new year to implement this legislation. We have searched the record very carefully, and we can find no reference to anyone saying this before the committee; no reference whatsoever to this being said before the committee. ln fact, it is our view that if we are able to deal with these amendments speedily we should be able to commence the implementation of this legislation by the end of the summer and will have it fully implemented shortly thereafter.

1650

The first amendment is to subsection 2(1) of the bill. Subsection 2(1), as I have already noted --

The Second Deputy chair: Just a moment, please. I asked for comments on section 1. I believe the honourable Attorney General has, I guess, indirectly referred to the fact that there are no amendments to section 1. I believe that we should also have the honourable critics from the opposition to comment on section 1 and then we will proceed with passing section 1 and moving on to the amendments.

Hon Mr Hampton: I will merely point out, Mr Chair, that --

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I have three points of order. I really do hate to interrupt the Attorney General in the midst of his speech, but I want to make three points to you.

The first is this: My understanding is that this committee has already met to hear opening remarks by the Attorney General on committee of the whole consideration of the bill. He made those introductory remarks after he set the amendments before this committee. After those remarks, my friend the member for Willowdale had the floor and was making his introductory remarks and then the committee adjourned. It rose and reported or something like that. So it seems to me that the Attorney General is repeating what he has already done in committee of the whole, and that is inappropriate for him to be doing that. In effect, he is making another set of opening remarks and I think that is probably out of order.

My second point of order is this: If I might direct you to rule 103 in the standing orders -- it really is the same point that I had made earlier on -- the rule reads as follows:

"When the House is meeting in committee of the whole House to consider bills, the minister or parliamentary assistant in charge of the bill being considered by the committee of the whole House may occupy a seat in the front row of the House and may have up to three staff members seated in front of him or her to supply information to the minister or parliamentary assistant as required."

I recall that when Bill 162 was being considered in the previous Parliament of this House, I and my parliamentary assistant, during one session of committee of the whole, objected to the fact that I, as Minister of Labour, was joined by my parliamentary assistant at that time for consideration. I simply point out that section 103 says, "the minister or parliamentary assistant." It does not say, "and/or the parliamentary assistant." Although I look forward to hearing from the member for Simcoe Centre on the bill, I think if he wants to speak on the bill he should return to his seat and not be charged with carrying the bill.

Obviously, when the Attorney General leaves the House, leaves the committee, then of course we would anticipate that the member would come down and occupy the seat and carry the bill. But it just seems to me, although a technical matter, to be a violation of the rule that the member is there, if I am reading section 103 correctly and if it was correctly interpreted in the last Parliament when we were considering this matter.

My final point is this: I noted that just before he began to speak my friend the Attorney General did table yet another amendment to the bill and he provided copies. I just point out to the Attorney General and to the member for Simcoe Centre, who is not yet sitting in his correct seat, and to the government House leader, who is sitting in her correct seat, that section 73 of the standing orders reads as follows:

"When time permits, amendments proposed to be moved to bills in any committee shall be filed with the Clerk of the House at least two hours before the bill is to be considered, and copies of such proposed amendments shall be distributed to all parties."

I simply submit to you, Mr Chair, that this matter has been before the House and before the committee for quite some time and that, although again it is a technical matter, we have yet another amendment submitted to us. It would have been a simple matter for the Attorney General and/or his parliamentary assistant to table this amendment to the Clerk and distribute it to both opposition parties two hours before. Or, I simply say to my friends in the committee, the Attorney General, when he tabled the bill when he did, could have given a brief explanation to you, sir, who are charged with upholding the rules of this committee, as to why, in this case, time did not permit.

If it is of any interest to anyone, I forgive the fact that rule was not adhered to and I think we should get along with considering the amendment. I just want to point out that under normal circumstances it would be inappropriate and in fact a breach of the rules for the Attorney General to table this amendment when he did without some sort of explanation as to why he could not have come within the time constraints presented in standing order 73.

I ask for your ruling on those three matters: first, whether or not it is appropriate for the parliamentary assistant to speak to the bill out of his place; second, whether or not rule 103 has been complied with, and third, whether or not my friend breached standing order 73 in not giving an explanation or not complying with the orders.

The Second Deputy Chair: You certainly have one valid point of order and two technical points that we are looking at right now.

The honourable member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: I am standing to speak to section 1, which I thought you had invited us to do.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are on points of order. The normal rotation has been broken. The House leader for the government on the point of order.

Hon Miss Martel: Briefly, I would like to speak to the first point of order. There is nothing in our standing orders that does not permit the Attorney General or indeed any other member presenting a bill to make comments with respect to the various sections. I submit to you that is exactly what he did in referring to section 1.

On the second point of order, with respect to standing order 103, the past practice in this Legislature -- and I was here for the last three years. On many occasions during the last Parliament in fact the parliamentary assistant and the minister sat together. In terms of the practice of this place, that has been permitted without a problem.

Third, if I might with respect to standing order 73, clearly the operating phrase there is "when time permits," and I would submit to you that the Attorney General no doubt has a good reason as to why these were not tabled two hours before.

Those are the comments I would like to make with respect to the points of order raised.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: On the same point of order, Mr Chairman: I think the precedent in the House is a common courtesy that the minister and the parliamentary assistant request permission to sit outside their own seats for such discussion in committee of the whole.

The Second Deputy Chair: It is my understanding that the Attorney General will be carrying the bill. His parliamentary assistant has chosen to sit beside him but will not be allowed to participate in the debate.

If the parliamentary assistant has to take over, if the Attorney General has to leave, then he will move to the Attorney General's seat and would then be in charge. If the parliamentary assistant is to participate in the debate, he must return to his seat.

On the first point of order, on the last sitting day -- and there has been some strain in the Legislature -- we did list the amendments, and then the Chair was asked to leave the chair and there was a vote. Basically, the amendments were listed.

I do not believe we can limit and I would not be prepared to limit the comments of the Attorney General. They may be repetitious, and we do have some repetition from time to time in this Legislature, but I would not be the one to impede the Attorney General when he wants to address, in a general nature, the thrust of the bill. I believe that is what was done, and I will allow the two opposition parties to also address and reply to the Attorney General prior to getting into passing of the first section of this bill.

Standing order 73, which was the final point of order, regarding the two-hour limit requirement: Apparently there is some flexibility here. It certainly would be appropriate, if indeed time was not of essence, to provide the opposition at least two hours for any further amendments, which was the case. I gather the amendments were presented immediately when the bill was being presented, and there was no time for the opposition to study the one final amendment as brought in by the government.

Mr Sorbara: Just to conclude that point, obviously I accept your ruling on that. I just thought it might have been a common courtesy on the part of the Attorney General to point out to the members of the House that unfortunately, for whatever reason, he was not able to comply with rule 73 and to give a brief explanation. I recall again that when I was carrying a bill of some controversy through this House, I had a staff member who inadvertently failed to present the amendments to the table and to the opposite parties two hours before committee of the whole consideration, and he was insisting on --

Hon Miss Martel: Point of order --

Mr Sorbara: I think I do have the floor, sir.

The Second Deputy Chair: You do have the floor.

Mr Sorbara: The final point is again the first point that I brought up. My understanding was that the Attorney General had the floor when the committee last rose and reported.

Now, the member for Willowdale suggested he had the floor. I think the best thing to do would be for us to just commence consideration of the bill with the person who last had the floor -- and my understanding was that was the Attorney General, or indeed it might have been myself; I recall moving that we rise and report -- and that we get on with it.

I do hope, sir, that you are prepared to entertain some general comments from each of the critics -- the Attorney General apparently has already given his general comments -- on the bill before we go clause by clause.

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes, I thought I had made that clear, that indeed we will be allowing the two opposition parties the opportunity of addressing the thrust of the bill and that is the way we proceed.

The last day that we discussed this bill, the member for Willowdale had the floor and there was a vote, there was a 30-minute bell, and I believe that is when we rose and reported, immediately after that particular vote. Indeed the committee was asked to rise and report when the vote was taken, and the member for Willowdale was at that point presenting his amendments to the bill.

Back to section 1, the honourable member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I now propose to make some general comments on the bill. I do not intend to take too long. We have had extensive consideration of this bill in committee. I want to begin by referring very briefly to a point that my friend the Attorney General raised in his opening comments. It was yet another little knife thrown across the House, directed I think in my direction.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: The government House leader, who has lost complete control of this place, now is trying to disrupt the conduct of this committee with her interjections, but I am going to try my best to ignore her, as the rest of the province and certainly northern Ontario is doing.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: I will just wait for the member for Sudbury East to stop shouting in this committee.

The Attorney General suggested he had searched Hansard to find the location where there was testimony before the committee about when this bill, Bill 17, was going to be put into place. I want to confess to the Attorney General that it is not in Hansard. There is no official record of anyone in his ministry suggesting that 1 January 1992 was the earliest practical date that SCOE could be implemented.

Now I want to ask him in this committee whether he would like to stand up and say when he does plan to implement it. The reason that is important is that there have been accusations on the part of the Attorney General directed at me that somehow we have been holding up payments that are to be made to spouses who are not getting support. Even now the Attorney General is nodding his head in agreement, suggesting that somehow we are doing it.

I point not to Hansard, because not everything happens in Hansard. Some things happen in just realistic conversation between two people. We were in that committee a long time and I got to know the minister's staff. They are very competent. They serve him very well. One of his staff members, Brian Harrison, who is now sitting behind the Speaker's chair, is the minister's manager of client services. He is the one who is actually going to implement this. During committee consideration, I said to him, not on the record, "When do you think you're actually going to be able to have this thing proclaimed and put into force?" He said to me, "Probably about 1 January of next year."

If the Attorney General wants to call for a bowl of water and wash his hands of the views of his manager of client services, let him do that; or if the Attorney General wants to stand up in this House -- if he wants to stand up right now, I will cede the floor -- and say that he is prepared to implement this bill upon the date that it gets royal assent, that would be fine. We are looking for early implementation.

The terrible thing about the Attorney General's first seven months in office is that he has quickly turned a bill and a project that has great merit to it into a political football. We are now of course getting letters in our constituency offices -- I know where these letters come from; they are urged on by the political staff of ministers -- accusing us of holding up SCOE.

I have not been able to get anyone from the Ministry of the Attorney General to actually tell us when SCOE is going to be implemented. For example, if we were to complete third reading today and ask His Honour to come in here and give royal assent, I would like to know when the bill is going to be proclaimed and when women, men and children in this province are going to be able to take advantage.

I am just going to cede the floor for a moment and, in committee of the whole consideration, put that question directly to the Attorney General. I want him to tell us right now when he plans on proclaiming and implementing Bill 17.

Hon Mr Hampton: As I have indicated earlier, as soon as this legislation is passed and receives third reading. We have already received the okay from Management Board of Cabinet to proceed with the implementation. The funds are ready and we are ready to implement this legislation, as soon as the opposition sees fit to pass the amendments and as soon as the Conservative opposition in particular stops holding up all the procedures of the House.

Mr Sorbara: Before I continue with my remarks, I would like the Attorney General to answer the question directly. The bill says that it will come into force on a date set by proclamation. In layman's terms, that means when the cabinet decides. If we complete consideration of this bill in the month of May, by 31 May, when will the Attorney General arrange for proclamation of the bill and putting its provisions into force?

When will the minister do that? Will it be one week after proclamation, one month after proclamation, three months after proclamation or 1 January 1992? When does the minister propose to proclaim it? That is a simple question and we deserve a simple answer. The people of the province who are going to-rely on this deserve an answer.

Hon Mr Hampton: I find this interesting coming from the member who singlehandedly held up this legislation in nine weeks of committee hearings. I have already indicated that we intend to proceed with the implementation of this bill forthwith. I indicated before, on the record, that we thought we could have the bill fully implemented and proclaimed by the fall.

1710

Mr Sorbara: My apologies. I think that is good news. I think the Attorney General has just made a commitment that he is going to have it proclaimed by the fall. The fall is a period of some three months. It runs from 21 September to 21 December generally, give or take a few hours on either end of that. I would expect that the Attorney General be true to his word because, believe it or not, I tell my friend the Attorney General, we support this measure. In fact, if he would just once be truthful and honest about this measure, it is a bill that there is --

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Madam Chair:I just heard the member for York Centre say if the Attorney General was to be truthful. I really think that is questioning his integrity and should be withdrawn.

The First Deputy Chair: I am sure the member for York Centre will take that under advisement.

Mr Sorbara: I would never question the integrity of the Attorney General of Ontario, even this one. I simply say --

Hon Miss Martel: You would have questioned Ian, would you? Is that what you're saying?

Mr Sorbara: More interjections.

What I was in the midst of saying is that if the Attorney General were to be truthful and honest about this bill, he would advise this committee that this bill is devoid of politics. This is in fact a bill that the previous Attorney General of the province had been preparing in the Ministry of the Attorney General. There had been cabinet submissions on it, there had been cabinet approvals on it, and an election intervened.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. I have recognized the member for York Centre. The member for York Centre now has the opportunity to question and comment on this particular legislation.

Mr Sorbara: No, not questions and comments; opening comments.

The First Deputy Chair: Opening remarks.

Mr Sorbara: If even this Attorney General were to be truthful and honest about this bill, he would acknowledge that when he came into the ministry this was a project that was in a full stage of development under a previous administration. Yes, an election intervened and yes, we lost the election. Yes, the member for Rainy River was appointed the Attorney General and yes, it is the Attorney General's responsibility to take up projects that are at a full stage of development and determine whether or not he wants to proceed. Yes, the Attorney General determined to proceed and yes, in fact when he did introduce the bill he made some acknowledgement that this had been something that was already in the final stages of development.

That is good. That was an honest comment. Indeed the Attorney General, who now leaves the chamber unfortunately and cedes --

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I do not think that the member from across should allude to that. If you look, the Attorney General is actually sitting there. He turned to pick up some papers out of his briefcase.

The First Deputy Chair: That is a point of information, thank you.

Mr Sorbara: I inadvertently misled the House and whoever cares to watch. The Attorney General indeed did not leave the House. He has now taken to signing his correspondence. I do not blame him for that. He may not want to pay attention to these opening remarks or committee consideration.

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: That is right. The Solicitor General does not have that problem. He has others do that for him.

Yes, the Attorney General did make some amendments to this project which was in fact full-blown. Some of them we supported in committee and others we rejected. It was not our policy; we would not have framed the bill exactly in the way that he did. But he is the Attorney General and he is the one who is responsible for the presentation and the carriage of the bill. We accept that.

We did take a long time to consider this bill in committee. One of the reasons we did --

Mrs Cunningham: We considered it; they didn't consider it. There's a difference.

Mr Sorbara: Of course, the government members did what they were told; but we considered it a long time.

I suggest we did that for two reasons. First, there was no prospect of early implementation of this bill. Second, and surprisingly, notwithstanding that a new government had been elected, there was virtually nothing else for the committee to do. Notwithstanding that we have our first socialist government in the province's history, in the first eight months there was virtually no legislation given to the standing committee on administration of justice to consider, other than this project which I describe as a non-partisan, sort of liberal, good policy kind of project.

Overall it is a good bill. We think we presented some proposals that could have made it better. In fact, after much consideration and much deliberation about this bill, not only in committee but around the province on the editorial pages of a variety of newspapers, one major newspaper in Metropolitan Toronto actually agreed with us on this bill. They agreed with us in what we said about the bill, and that is simply this: that it is important to have this kind of tool within the branch, which is called, until the bill passes, the support and custody orders enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General. It is a very sharp tool. It cuts right into the private life of many individuals in this province, and it does so with a tool that is without precedent in this sort of activity in Ontario and, I believe, in all of Canada.

What is that tool? The tool is an automatic deduction from a pay cheque of a debtor spouse who is the subject of a court order to pay support on a periodic basis to a so-called creditor spouse.

My friends over there in the NDP might not think that is significant. Perhaps they think that because they have not been sitting in this Parliament very long. But the authority of the state to, without appeal and without further consideration, automatically remove up to 50% of your pay cheque before you get it is a substantial intervention in the private lives of individuals and in the private relationship between an individual and his or her employer.

Mr Elston: Particularly when there has been no default.

Mr Sorbara: That is particularly the case -- as my friend the member for Bruce, who participated in many of the considerations of this committee, points out -- when there has been no default. There is nothing inappropriate that the individual debtor spouse did; he is just the subject of the order.

Under this bill every person who is subject to an order to make periodic payments to a creditor spouse, or a spouse entitled to support, will have, after this bill is passed, a support deduction order issued by the court which is then, under the law that we are about to pass, sent to an employer who is then under a legal obligation at that point to begin taking off payments and sending those payments to the government so that the government can send on those payments to the spouse that is entitled to support, automatically. It is so automatic that even if the two spouses do not want this to happen, the law requires that it does happen. That is where we disagree.

In our bill, if the two spouses agree that the government does not need to intervene in this way, and if the judge thinks it is okay, they can get out of the system. The Toronto Star, having considered the matter as well, agreed with us that it would be more appropriate to allow two spouses who did not want the assistance of the government in collecting these periodic payments to avoid the intervention of the government.

What is going to happen under the bill as presented by the Attorney General is that many, many cases involving husbands and wives who are willing and able and committed to paying support regularly will nevertheless have to have these payments deducted by the employer, have to have these payments sent to the government, and have to have these payments made, through the government, to the spouse entitled to support.

That is why we have a $10-billion deficit, by the way. That is one of the reasons. It is one of the added burdens. We said in committee, through some nine weeks, that we could relieve the government of a small part of its responsibility. We could change this bill to allow spouses who did not want the government to intervene to be relieved of that.

1720

In fact, if members look at the bill they will find a little section in there that does allow some spouses to avoid the impact of this bill. Do they know who? The people who are rich, because the act says, as the government proposes to pass it -- and I invite members to read it -- that if you have to pay support and you can put up four months' worth of support in the bank, called the Ministry of the Attorney General, then we will consider letting you out of the system.

Most of the people who run into these situations are people, average men and women, who do not have a lot of money in their bank account, who do not have the financial capacity to put up four months' worth of support on deposit to ensure their obligations. What are we saying through this bill? We are saying that there shall be a law for the rich and there shall be a law for the rest of the people. The law for the rich allows you to avoid the intervention of the socialists, but for the poor or the ordinary man and woman on the street going through a separation and a divorce, no such luck. The government is going to be there. The government automatically will inform your employer that you are now separated and subject to a support deduction order and you are going to be paying from now on with an automatic deduction off your pay cheque.

Okay, that is the way they want it. That is the way they are going to get it. But I want to say that through nine weeks of committee hearings there was absolutely no interest in even listening to our arguments. Sure, they sat there, but there was no call from the Attorney General to me as critic, or to the member for Willowdale as critic, to say, "Would you like to sit down and discuss this?" Not once. I mentioned over and over again in Hansard that perhaps we could discuss this, but did the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General make some overtures at the end of the committee, before the committee held its hearings on a day, to say, "Look, we hear what you're saying, but maybe we could discuss it; maybe there is some sort of middle ground"? Absolutely nothing in that regard.

We think we could have made it a better bill. We think we need the bill. We think this intervention is appropriate.

We think it is a dangerous tool, inappropriately used, and there were some amendments that we presented that would have made it a finer tool. Those amendments were not accepted. We accept that; they are the government. But the worst part of my experience in consideration of this bill was the duplicity in the general way in which the government carried this project. If members look at the press announcements and the various statements by the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General himself, who is now busy signing his mail, very much into it -- I do not know why he is here if he wants to sign his mail. If he wants to sign his mail, I suggest that he go to his office and sign his mail.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Bruce does not have the floor. The member for York Centre has the floor.

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Etobicoke West will refrain from -- thank you.

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Willowdale does not have the floor either.

Mr Sorbara: The Attorney General, as he goes through his bill, interjects that he has not heard anything yet, and I submit that is exactly the problem we had through nine weeks of committee consideration of this bill. He says, "I haven't heard a thing yet," so let him go on and sign his mail, but the problem we had, the duplicity we saw in the committee, was that he went around and gave speeches, and indeed the Premier went around suggesting that this was going to be the great government initiative to deal with child poverty in the province of Ontario.

Nothing could be further from the case. That is an insult on top of the agony that those people suffering poverty are confronting. The government insults them by saying that a bill that gives the ministry a tool that, frankly, it already has -- because it could do all of this without this bill, or almost all of it. They could register garnishees against every person -- without even a default, they could do that -- so they do not really need this tool. It just makes it a little bit sharper.

But the Attorney General never acknowledged that his ministry and this branch are grossly underfunded, that the poor workers who are trying to deal with all the demands for better service from SCOE are going nuts because they cannot keep up with the case load.

We looked at this region by region and city by city. It is absolutely outrageous. Those folks over there in the government know about this and my friend the member for Sudbury East knows about this because she knows the backlog. Her friend the member for Sudbury, her former constituency assistant, admitted as much in committee, that there is a terrible backlog. My friend the member for Sudbury East will examine the budget of the Ministry of the Attorney General and find there is no additional money to deal with this problem.

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member for Sudbury East would be reminded that it is not a debate across the floor. Would you please direct your comments through the Chair.

Mr Sorbara: Let me remind you, Madam Chair, that the member for Sudbury East is also the government House leader, and she should know the rules that apply to this committee. Her going on and on is simply inappropriate.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I would love to continue, but --

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Bruce says it is an insult to the committee that the Attorney General sits there and goes through his mail during these debates. I am not surprised that the Attorney General is doing that.

In any event, Madam Chair --

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: Well, another interjection from that big, fancy property owner the member for Downsview, who did not even get a call from the Premier advising him that he had a statutory responsibility under the guidelines either to sell his property or get an exemption.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Madam Chair: In regard to the debate that is going on here, this is a bill that I think all members of the House are interested in. We want to see it move on because it is very important to the people of this province. The debate is not between the member for York Centre and the member up in the other end of the gallery over there. The debate is over here, and I would like to see it stay here.

The First Deputy Chair: It is not a point of order, but it is a point of interest.

Mr Sorbara: I stand chastised by my good friend the member for Cochrane South.

The good thing about the Attorney General is that he has a very competent ministry, which is covering for him at just about each base.

Madam Chair, I was trying to explain to you the reason this bill does not really deal with child poverty. I was trying to explain to you how insulted I felt with suggestions that it was a direct attack on child poverty and how insulted I think are the men and women of this province who rely on government intervention of this sort to receive what they justly deserve -- the support that a court orders is what they justly deserve -- and why this will not do the trick.

1730

The first point is obvious. Let's pretend we are the subjects of a court order to pay support and this bill is in force and we are the subjects of a support deduction order. When that support deduction order goes to the members' employer, that means a deduction of up to 50% must be made from our pay cheques to satisfy that order.

What happens if we do not have jobs? What happens is that we cannot meet our obligations. We have a province where we have 10% unemployment and a socialist government that has not taken one substantive step to get this economy back on its feet again. Through all that, they have said they are going to deal with child poverty. That is nonsense.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Just a point of information --

Mr Sorbara: There are no points of information.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: The whole tenor of the debate in the committee on behalf of the Attorney General, his representative the parliamentary assistant and the government members was that this bill was really finally going to deal with poverty. If you are an unemployed man or woman somewhere who is the subject of a support order --

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Would the member for Downsview please refrain from joining in the debate when you have not been recognized.

Mr Sorbara: The member for Downsview is going to try to get in on this one way or another. I would just remind him that when we left office, we were coming to the end of a five-year period in Ontario of --

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Willowdale is not part of the debate at this time.

Mr Sorbara: As I was saying, before the member for Downsview shouted out something or other -- the interesting thing about the member for Downsview is that he did not once come to the committee. He is so concerned about this that he did not once come to the committee and put on the record his views on this bill. But he is here today and that is good to see, because he might learn something, although I doubt it.

I submit to the members of this committee that the very best way to deal with child poverty and poverty in general is to take steps to ensure that we have an economic environment that allows commercial activity, business activity and activity of all sorts to flourish and that individuals have an opportunity to get jobs.

My riding is the largest riding in the province by population and I admit it is one of the really affluent areas of the province. Historically, it does not have a high rate of unemployment. It is peopled by working men and women, not by high-income earners, but just hardworking people. Almost 180,000 people live in my riding.

Over the past nine months, the great sadness of my life has been the steady procession of constituents coming to my riding from York Centre, the city of Vaughan and the town of Richmond Hill, affluent areas. People are coming to my riding pleading for assistance to try to find a job.

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member for Willowdale, the debate is not between you and the member for Downsview. We are here to hear the member for York Centre, who has time in our day to make his comments.

Mr Sorbara: I admit that York Centre is not like Elliot Lake. We are not about to face 85% unemployment -- absolutely unthinkable. Think of the people, think of the separated spouses, a man or a woman living in Elliot Lake who has an obligation to pay support. What does this bill mean to him or her? Those people would be saying: "Big deal. They are going to deduct from my paycheque. Hallelujah. If you just give me a paycheque, I'll invite you to deduct whatever you want from it." They do not have pay cheques. They do not have work. They do not have hope. They feel like they do not have a future. The great tragedy of this government, I say particularly to the Minister of Northern Development, is that nothing of any substance has been done to give those people hope. To celebrate a bill --

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: Madam Chair, I simply invite you to invite the government House leader to stop her interjections. She of all people should know better.

To say to those people and to members of this House that we have a bill dealing with child poverty is the height of callousness and the height of cynicism. Under the current law, this department, the support and custody orders enforcement branch, can if it wishes go to a court and say, "I want to garnishee the pay of that individual, that man who owes support." They do that in hundreds of cases.

The only difference is that under this bill it will happen automatically. It is like taking a car that has a manual transmission to the shop and putting in an automatic transmission. We support that; we think that is good. We think this branch needs an automatic transmission. We think it needs a good oil change and a good lube in the form of more money to do the job that it is charged with doing.

There was nothing in the budget to provide more money, and I predict that a year from now we will be in the very same circumstances in terms of delay and confusion in this branch as we are right now. Yes, they are changing the name of the branch; they are calling it the child and family support office now. Yes, they are putting a few new decorations on the car, but really what they are doing is taking a clunker and not trading it in, but just putting an automatic transmission in.

If you think an automatic transmission is going to solve the problems of SCOE, well, Madam Chair, I hope you have time enough to spend a lot of time in your constituency office because those people who think the government has dealt with child poverty are going to come to your constituency office and complain in terms that would shock most of us.

The bill does not deal with child poverty. The bill gives the government the authority to automatically start making deduction payments from the debtor spouse, or the payor, the spouse that is required to support --

Mr Sterling: Is this a filibuster?

Mr Sorbara: No, it is not. I am making my comments on SCOE and then we are going to get on and consider it section by section.

I just have a couple of more points to make on the bill; specifically, the inability of the government to recognize that it could have made the system work even more effectively than it wants to in this bill by providing an opportunity for the good people who honour their obligations to avoid the effects of this bill.

1740

We are going to get into that in more detail, but just to give members a taste of it, I would direct their attention to subsection 3d(3). This is the section that directs the court on what to think about when they are considering whether it would be unconscionable to require someone to be the subject of this bill.

Mr Harnick: What section is this, Greg?

Mr Sorbara: To my friend the member for Willowdale, it is subsections (2) and (3) of section 3d.

Let me set the scene for the members. There are two circumstances under which a payor -- let's say a husband who owes support to a wife -- can avoid the grip of SCOE and the grip of Bill 17.

One I talked about; that is, putting up four months' worth of payments and banking that -- I think without interest, but I might be wrong on that -- with the folks who run this branch. They are very competent people, but they are not running a bank. Pretty soon they are going to be running a bank because they are making so many orders to automatically deduct and collecting that and sending it out.

The other way of getting out of SCOE and Bill 17 is if the court thinks it is unconscionable that the individual has to be the subject of a support deduction order. The court can determine whether or not it is unconscionable. The bill does not tell us what the court should think about when it considers an argument about unconscionability, but it says what the judge is not allowed to think about. That is the subject of subsection 3.4(3), and I just want to read out paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.

The first point says the court is not allowed to think about the payor's "payment history in respect of his or her debts, including support obligations." Do members know what that means? That means that the court is not able to take into consideration the fact that this individual might have a history of always paying his or her obligations.

The second point the court is not allowed to consider is, "The fact that the payor has had no opportunity to demonstrate voluntary compliance in respect of support obligations." What does that mean? It is pretty simple and straightforward. It means that the court is not allowed to consider a submission from a husband or a wife who has to pay support to the effect that, "I want to be able to prove to all the world that I'm going to do this freely and voluntarily and I'm not going to be a defaulter and I believe in supporting my wife and my children." It cannot consider that sort of submission.

The third point is "the fact that the parties have agreed to the suspension of the support deduction order." Even if husband and wife honestly agree, go before the judge and say: "Look, we've worked this thing out, we've talked about it and I don't want my husband's paycheque to have a deduction order. I don't want that. I believe that he's going to pay me directly and I don't need your support. I don't need the government to intervene." It is the old saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

This says that if you say, "Please leave us alone. Thanks very much, we'll do this privately. We'll try and get along. We'll try and manage it ourselves. The judge has ordered me to pay so much and I'm going to do that," the judge is not allowed to consider that. That is where the Toronto Star and I and our party agree, because we said there ought to be provisions in a modern, democratic state -- but apparently not in a modern socialist state -- for people to get beyond the grip of the government. Not when you need the support of the government -- my God, we are doing this because so many women need the government to have such a sharp tool. That is why we are going to be voting for it and that is why we support it, but the fact is some people do not need the government to collect the support payment for them. Some people want to do it because they honour their obligations, they believe that it is just to continue supporting wife and child after separation and they want to be able to prove that they can do that. Under this bill, they are not allowed to do that.

We say that is what the socialists believe. They believe that the state knows better, even better than consenting adults, two adults who say to a judge: "Look, we can look after this. We don't have a problem. I'm separating from my husband and we're divorcing but we're still friends. We respect one another. Our lives together are over. He loves the children. I love the children. We've worked out custody. They're going to stay with me during the school year and during the summer they're going to go with him. We treat our children well. We honour the time we had together."

Perhaps the wife says: "I don't have a high-paying job. There's not pay equity yet in the province. I haven't made enough yet to fully support myself, so he's going to help out. We ask the judge to put that in the form of a simple order saying that $200 or $300 per month will be paid and we want to look after that ourselves. We don't need the state. We don't need the socialists to intervene and collect this money with a support deduction order that's going to his employer. Please save us from this."

The Attorney General's bill says: "We will have none of that. You two separated, and I want to be able to say to my constituencies and my lobby groups that I rammed it through. To hell with what the Toronto Star says and with what so many people said to us during the committee hearings. We're going to ram this through."

Just wait, I say to the members on the government side until this bill is enforced and the muckups start to happen as the support deduction order comes before the branch.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: Madam Chair, the government House leader continues to have a debate with the member for Willowdale across the House, and I simply invite you to acknowledge that fact.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for York Centre has the floor.

Mr Sorbara: I think probably this debate and this consideration of Bill 17 is the first substantive thing that has happened in this House for two or three weeks. Even given that, even when we finally got to a point where we can have a debate, the government House leader does not have the courtesy or the respect for this House to allow the debate to go on. I invite you, Madam Chair, simply to acknowledge that fact on the record.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for York Centre has the floor.

Hon Miss Martel: In committee, Greg, tell all, make our day.

Mr Sorbara: The government House leader says, "Make our day." I do not know if she thinks she is some sort of Rambo cop in this place, but yesterday she tried to hijack the whole place with a point of order that was an insult to anyone who has any respect for parliamentary traditions not only in Ontario but anywhere in the free democratic world.

Hon Miss Martel: The House of Commons, Westminster. You have to get your facts straight, Greg. You would be much better off.

Mr Sorbara: She says, "The House of Commons, Westminster." I say they may have rules in their standing orders that we do not, but they play by the rules and the government House leader does not play by the rules. She tries to make them up by herself, and she tries to get, in a partisan way, the Speaker of this chamber --

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Would the member take his seat, please. I would remind you that we are commenting on and looking at Bill 17. I would ask that we allow the member for York Centre to complete his time.

Mr Sorbara: By the way, just to inform the members, I intend to speak on this bill for just a few more minutes, and that will probably take the balance of the day.

I hope that when we reconvene after the comments of my friend the member for Willowdale we can rapidly move through the amendments that the government is proposing. Most of them are not terribly significant, a few name changes and that sort of thing.

There was another point that was made during --

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: Madam Chair, I do want to complete my remarks today, but it is going to become increasingly difficult if the government House leader just continues this kind of banter on and on and on. I recall --

Hon Miss Martel: Poor Greg, I feel really bad for you.

Mr Sorbara: The last thing I need is the sympathy of the member for Sudbury East.

Hon Mr Hampton: Greg for leader of the Liberal Party. Greg, we are going to raise money for you.

Mr Elston: Raise money? You guys spend it.

Hon Mr Hampton: That is what I say. We are prepared to sacrifice. We want Greg to be the leader.

Mr Sorbara: It appears to me that we have finally caught the attention of the Attorney General. He has set aside the mail, doing some signing perhaps on behalf of the Solicitor General and himself as well.

Hon Miss Martel: We are going to buy buttons.

Mr Sorbara: The member for Sudbury East chuckles away and suggests that I would make a great leader of my party. I say to my friend the member for Sudbury East it is neither here nor there, because the power that the people have in a free and democratic society is far louder than her voice or the voice of anyone else.

1750

Hon Mr Hampton: That's why we're going to vote for you for leader, Greg.

Mr Sorbara: I invite the Attorney General to vote for me for leader. I invite him to cross the floor and join this party. That is going to be a precondition. He is not going to make a reputation for himself as the Attorney General, so why not come over here? Others have done that and have made successful careers. Actually, one of them may become a leader of this party. We invite the Attorney General to do that as well. I do not think that under an administration any of us would run he would be the Attorney General, but he would probably be with a party that has a better sense of integrity, at least if Bill 17 --

Hon Mr Hampton: With you as leader, Greg, there's no worry. You'll never be the administration.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. We have a little bit of time left. I am sure the member for York Centre would like to sum up. I would like to hear what he has to say in his summing-up time and I would ask that the government members refrain from engaging in debate across the floor. The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Madam Chair. You are doing a marvellous job in substitution here.

I want to sum up with some comments that were really the subject of, I think, impassioned and important arguments made by my colleague the member for Bruce during the course of the committee hearings. They had to do with the fact that under this bill, tragically, the real beneficiaries are the Treasurer of Ontario and the consolidated revenue fund, because in so many instances the money that is going to be automatically deducted from the paycheques of supporting spouses will go to the Treasurer of Ontario rather than the women and children who so desperately need the support.

Why is that? It is quite simple. Many of these women and children are the beneficiaries of family benefits, and the state, particularly the socialist state represented by the Attorney General, intervenes and deducts the money, takes it and gives it to the Treasurer because these children and these women are living off family benefits. The member for Bruce proposed a very simple amendment.

He said: "Give it to the woman and give it to her children, so that she can have a little more. Have the Treasurer only take the money when the women and children have gotten just a hair above the poverty line. Because if you really want to deal with poverty, then provide them with the money to give them the ability to buy the clothes and the food and to buy the little things that make life a joy."

Would they entertain that? No. They would not hear of it. We said, "Just let them get that amount of money that brings them to the poverty line." The member for Bruce had an amendment there. He spoke to it. He explained to the committee how it would work. It would not cost billions. They want to deal with poverty. When the Attorney General stood up in this House and announced his bill, he said, "We are going to deal with child poverty and the poverty that too many women in this province are subject to because of defaulting spouses."

So many of these women live from month to month with a welfare cheque or a family benefits cheque that is still inadequate. My God, the food banks. They get the welfare payment and then the food banks. They talk about child poverty and they are going to automatically deduct -- remember the sharp tool, automatic deduction -- take the money. Who gets it? In many, many cases it is the Treasurer of Ontario, because the person who should get it is on family benefits and, my God, we could not have these people actually getting above the poverty line. That is what the member for Bruce proposed.

Just give them the amount that would take them above the poverty line. The government talked about child poverty. They believe in it. They have got an opportunity to do something. The Attorney General has done sweet nothing in his eight months as Attorney General. He had an opportunity to make a difference and what does he do?

Hon Miss Martel: A million dollars to deal with the backlog that you guys left for three years.

Mr Sorbara: Do you hear an interjection, Madam Chair? I hear an interjection, once again from the member for Sudbury East, the government House leader, who is supposed to uphold the rules about interjections.

Hon Miss Martel: You ought to be ashamed, Greg. All those women, that horrible backlog, and you guys did nothing.

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

Mr Sorbara: I just wonder out loud how much respect we should have. I expect interjections from people like -- oh, the member for Downsview has left again. The member for Cochrane North always interjected, but the government House leader? She virtually has not stopped talking since I got on my feet. I do not know what her problem is. I invite her to come and speak on the bill.

Hon Mr Hampton: We are trying to help you out, Greg.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please.

Mr Sorbara: And now it is the Attorney General you have to call to order.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for York Centre is summing up, I believe.

Mr Sorbara: If we really wanted in this province to do something about the poverty that too many men and women have to live in and too many children have to live in, we would do perhaps three things.

First, we would take dramatic steps to get the economy going again: not by raising civil service salaries by some 6% to 10% during a depression; not by cutting a deal with doctors that gives them the largest pay increase they have ever had; but something that will give those people who are out of work and who have no prospect of work an opportunity once again, hope once again that they can start supporting themselves and their former spouse, if they have a former spouse to whom they owe an obligation of support. We would do that.

Second, we would get on with some reforms in our system of social support for those who realistically are not going to be able to support themselves.

Third, when we come down to this little project, Bill 17, which has taken so much of our time over the last while, we would make it not only a sharp instrument that intervenes, but an effective instrument.

Madam Chair, I say to you, to the members of the committee with whom I enjoyed consideration of this bill and the civil servants who are charged with the responsibility of dealing with it after the bill passes, that we could have made it more effective. We could have used the resources of government to better effect, in the name of all the people of the province, not only those who unfortunately now live in poverty but all the rest of the people who must provide the resources to support these activities of government.

I will be commenting on the sections of the bill as we proceed clause by clause during committee of the whole. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for listening to my comments, and the other members of the House who are here and, in particular, the members of the committee both from the government and the third party who participated in considering this very important project.

Given that it is about a minute before 6 o'clock, I would move that the committee now rise and report.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I understand that we agreed today that we would do this by way of rotation. I have not had an opportunity to make my opening remarks and I would like to clarify that when the committee of the whole sits again I will have the opportunity to make my opening remarks.

The First Deputy Chair: In committee of the whole, the member for York Centre still has the floor and will finish up, I believe. In rotation, the member for Willowdale will have an opportunity under general comments to make his comments.

On motion by Mr Sorbara, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

A la suite d'une motion présentée par M. Sorbara, l'étude du projet de loi en comité plénier de la Chambre eat ajournee.

The House adjourned at 1800.