Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Mrs Caplan: On Friday, Toronto city council is expected to make an important decision regarding the future land use of the Maple Leaf Quay south of the SkyDome. The city is negotiating an agreement with the federal government and Harbourfront that will address a number of concerns.

Harbourfront currently uses the area as a nautical centre, with boat rentals and low-cost sailing lessons, as well as for many other recreational and educational programs. Harbourfront wants to have the right to offer to all its people people-oriented programs on the adjacent sites. The city is looking at the option of designating Maple Leaf Quay as a park. That would allow Harbourfront to continue its programs on a permanent basis to the people of the greater Toronto area and to the people of Ontario.

This is really about maintaining the recreational programming and the greening of Harbourfront. This is an initiative which the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area is on record as praising. Although she has no direct involvement in these negotiations, if the minister is so keen on green space and if she believes, as I do, that the waterfront belongs to the people of Ontario, she must lift the provincial zoning order on Maple Leaf Quay as soon as an agreement is reached. She must declare a provincial interest in all the waterfront properties.

We need to see decisive provincial action, and I expect to see that action next week.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr B. Murdoch: As most members know, a five-year review of the Niagara Escarpment plan is presently being conducted by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. A report will be written and submitted to the Minister of the Environment along with a report from her hearing officers.

The minister must weigh both reports and make a final decision regarding the development policies in the area. In my view, this entire process is a farce, because the minister responsible for planning on the Niagara Escarpment is in direct conflict of interest. The minister owns property on the escarpment in Nottawasaga township.

How can the minister be impartial when her privacy and her property value could easily be affected by her decision? Although the minister has said she has no position on the review presently being conducted, I find it odd that she met with the NEC members at a critical point in the review process and congratulated them on their work. This certainly does not give the appearance of having no opinion. It seems quite clear that by having dinner with these people when she did, the minister was signalling to the NEC that she was in full agreement with its views.

This minister should not be in a position to pass judgement on this matter. She should either declare a conflict of interest and allow a truly unbiased person to review both reports or move the Niagara Escarpment back under the Planning Act, where I believe it belongs.

BALLS FALLS THANKSGIVING EVENTS

Mr Hansen: I rise today to inform the House of a four-day event in my riding that begins this Friday, October 11, and runs until Monday, October 14. The event is the annual Thanksgiving craft show and sale at Balls Falls Historical Park and Conservation Area in Jordan.

The event is hosted by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and will feature 115 talented exhibitors who will display and sell fine handcrafted items. Besides the exhibits, visitors can enjoy strolling through one of the most beautiful parks in the Niagara Peninsula and take in the autumn colours. At this time of year, Balls Falls is at its finest and attracts nature lovers from far and near.

This is the 16th year for the festival, which started as a two-day event and has grown into a four-day event because of its popularity. Some of the exhibits this year will include musical entertainment, heritage displays and demonstrations, natural resource management displays, children's craft tents, apple cider, Thanksgiving hymn-singing in a historical church and more. It is an event the whole family can enjoy.

This year the Ministry of Natural Resources is participating and will feature a display with the theme "Education in Resource Management," one of the main goals of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

I am inviting all members of the House to join me this weekend at Balls Falls and to encourage their families, friends and constituents to come and enjoy this festival weekend of crafts, history and nature. There is plenty of parking, food and fun for all.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Miclash: I rise today to inform this House of recent budgetary changes to the Ministry of Mines. Two million dollars from the Ontario mineral incentive program will be sent back to Treasury this year for non-use. In addition, $1 million set aside for the refurbishment of abandoned mines, an announcement we all remember the former minister proudly made in this House, will also be sent back.

These changes are doubly offensive. First of all, the Minister of Mines neglected to inform this House of the changes, nor was a news release issued. This minister has violated the right of members to review government policy development and changes.

More important, though, is the slap in the face these changes deliver to the mining industry. Kathleen O'Hara, spokesperson for the ministry, said the money was not being used so they were asked to return it. Is this the best the minister can do? Does she not realize it is her responsibility to come up with ways to use the money? With a little foresight she could have redirected this money to ensure that it was used to help the beleaguered prospectors of this province in other ways. Instead she threw up her hands in defeat. "Use it or lose it." Is this as creative as she can be?

This is one of her first acts as Minister of Mines. She must be ashamed that she could do little more than watch as this money was reeled in from this program. She has violated the spirit of OMIP. It is an incentive program. The money is there to attract investors. If the money is not there, the incentive does not work.

1340

NEGOTIATIONS WITH ONTARIO PHARMACISTS' ASSOCIATION

Mr J. Wilson: My remarks are directed to a government that says one thing and does something totally opposite. Last week the Minister of Health wrote to the Ontario Pharmacists' Association to inform its members that the government was breaking off negotiations and imposing a retroactive freeze on professional fees paid to pharmacists. In doing so, this government has made a mockery of the negotiation process it so adamantly defended while in opposition and, more recently, in this Legislature. The OPA informed me it was willing to negotiate down from the mediated figure, but the government is more interested in dictatorship than dialogue and refused to bargain with the OPA.

The Premier stated in the Ontario Medical Review of September 1990:

"We also urged the government to create a system of fair and binding arbitration that was acceptable to doctors and other health professionals. There is no fairness in a system that allows the government to dictate unilaterally your level of pay."

I also have a quote from last week from the Chairman of Management Board, who said in this Legislature:

"I think that concomitant with that goes our commitment to the collective bargaining process. We are not going to shut down the collective bargaining process because we are in tough economic times."

With the Minister of Health's decision to impose a settlement on pharmacists, this government has shown that its notion of collective bargaining is a lot like its election promises: empty, expedient and catering only to big unions at the expense of other Ontarians.

GREATER NIAGARA GENERAL HOSPITAL

Ms Harrington: I wish to tell members what is happening in Niagara Falls. This past Saturday, Niagara Falls Taxi Co offered free cab rides from 10 am to 3 pm. There was a free car wash all day, and even I got to scrub bumpers. The local merchants donated hot dogs and hamburgers for a free barbecue. In return, all donations were accepted for a computerized axial tomography scanner.

Before approval has even been given by the ministry, before any fund-raising campaign has even begun, over $100,000 has been raised. A consultant's study has just been released: "The issue of a CAT scan is priority and the community demand is absolute."

Our community hospital has a very sound reputation for innovation, careful planning and execution. It leads all comparable Ontario hospitals with the most emergency outpatient visits, more than 70,000 this year. It has developed and marketed a Workers' Compensation Board software program with sales commitments of over $100,000 yearly. The quick response team, a provincial pilot project, has been a success, saving many patient admissions and bed days, the only program of its kind in Ontario.

Our hospital has one of the highest day surgery rates in all Ontario. It has been among the first to implement the Roy nursing model of patient needs assessment and has been asked to participate in filming a US health series about nursing excellence. I salute Greater Niagara General Hospital staff and the people of Niagara Falls who have raised funds.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr Curling: Last April the government released a statement of principles on HIV infection and AIDS in the workplace. In the spirit of the guidelines announced by the Minister of Health, I am asking the Solicitor General today to commit to an immediate review of the HIV policy which has been adopted by his ministry's Centre for Forensic Sciences.

Under this policy, where it is suspected that an individual may belong to a high-risk category for HIV infection, the centre will place evidence in quarantine for 30 days before it is examined. In at least one highly publicized case, police officials were quoted as expressing concerns that their investigation into a murder case, where one of the victims was suspected of being a homosexual, might have been slowed down because of this policy.

Obviously the health of workers at the centre cannot be taken lightly. It is important that employees be provided with appropriate protection from infection. But given that officials at the agency have acknowledged that the 30-day guideline is an arbitrary one and not based on any specific research or assessment of risk, certainly an examination of the current policy would seem to be in order.

GRAND VALLEY LIONS CLUB

Mr Tilson: Today I take great pleasure in offering congratulations to the Grand Valley Lions Club on its 40th anniversary, which it will be celebrating on October 19.

The Lions Club of Grand Valley has played and continues to play a very important role inside and outside of the Grand Valley community. The current 35 members of this group work very hard in support of local and regional charitable organizations. In Grand Valley alone, the Lions Club contributed to the construction of the new arena. They maintain and care for the local ballpark and tennis courts. They support the local minor hockey, baseball and soccer leagues and they also support an annual youth exchange program. Many Grand Valley residents have benefited from Grand Valley Lions Club fund-raising activities. Wheelchairs have been donated to those within the community who have not been able to afford the expense.

The Grand Valley Lions Club is also very active outside of the Grand Valley community. They fund-raise regularly for groups such as Canine Vision, a program established to train seeing-eye dogs; Concern, an emergency relief organization; Lake Joseph, a support camp for kidney dialysis patients, and Participation Lodge, a retreat for those with special needs.

I applaud the efforts of the members of the Grand Valley Lions and their families on this 40th anniversary. Their hard work and generosity have added to the quality of life in their own community and other communities throughout Ontario. I extend best wishes for their celebration on October 19 and look forward to 40 more years of commendable service in Grand Valley.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Fletcher: I believe the women of Ontario should receive an apology for the remarks made by a member of this Legislature yesterday. I am referring to the remarks made by the Conservative member for Wellington. The member's feeble attempt to criticize the government by comparing it to the virtue of Elizabeth Taylor is an embarrassment and an insult to women.

The member's comment followed an exchange between the opposition member for Renfrew North and the Treasurer, during which the member for Renfrew North used the phrase "Liz Taylor romance" when describing the Premier's relationship to small business. The Conservative member for Wellington then commented, "I would compare this government's virtue to that of Elizabeth Taylor any time."

Relating a woman's virtue to her choice in relationships is a dangerous misconception which only perpetuates prejudice, injustice and even violence towards women. The member for Wellington's poorly chosen analogy, aimed at the provincial government, has succeeded only in denigrating the women of this province, including those who arc members of this Legislature. The disrespectful attitude unwittingly displayed by the member perhaps comes as little surprise, considering the failure of his federal colleagues to protect women by quickly reinstating a rape law for women.

Mr Arnott: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for Guelph knows full well that I meant no offence to anyone with that statement. In fact, the member for Renfrew North raised the concept, the Treasurer continued the analogy and I simply continued the analogy. I meant no offence to anyone. Second, I would respond to the member for Guelph by making the suggestion that he is simply trying to divert attention away from the fact that he is the parliamentary assistant to the minister who is closing the registry offices, and that, simply, is the reason he wants to do this: to divert attention away from the real issue of my questions yesterday.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We are certainly all awake.

1350

SABRINA PANETTA

The Speaker: Before continuing with routine proceedings, on Monday last the honourable member for Brampton North, Mr McClelland, and the honourable member for Mississauga West, Mr Mahoney, raised points of order arising out of question period. I undertook at the time to review Hansard and report back to the House.

In regard to the point raised by the honourable member for Brampton North, I have examined Hansard and I must find that what took place on Monday was an expression of a difference of opinion between the honourable member and the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services. As to the use of the word "misrepresents," which was complained about by the honourable member, I did not hear it during the exchange and Hansard reports it in a most indefinite way. Therefore, as has been ruled many times before in this chamber, while there was obviously disagreement as to the facts involved, unparliamentary language was not used.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker: As for the point raised by the honourable member for Mississauga West that the question period is not one that should be used by members in order to make statements in the House, I am in full agreement. Statements by ministers should be made to the House in that period of our routine proceedings that is dedicated for that activity.

However, that is not to say that the Speaker is in a position to make judgements on the contents of answers in order to determine whether or not they constitute announcements of public policy. Therefore, I will repeat that as much as possible, ministers should refrain from using question period to make statements that should be made during the procedure called "statements by the ministry," especially in response to questions asked by members sitting on the government benches.

In closing, I would like to thank both honourable members for having raised this and express the wish that members will continue to use question period for what it was meant for -- that is, to elicit information -- and that the ministers in response will, as briefly as possible, come for yard with the requested information.

CORRECTION

Mr Mahoney: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for a correction of the record in a question I asked yesterday to the minister responsible for the caucus services for the New Democratic Party vith regard to the frivolous waste of taxpayers' money in the decorating of their caucus room. The response from the minister in Hansard said that this issue went before the Board of Internal Economy, and she also suggested that I was a member of the Board of Internal Economy.

For the record, I would like to say that I never have been a member of that board and I am not a member of that board and I did not deal with that particular issue. I further understand that the specific issue to which I referred, which was the waste of the taxpayers' dollars in decorating that room, was not specifically put before the board. The caucus budget was before the board, but I want it dear on the record that I am not a member of that Board of Internal Economy and did not deal with this. I would appreciate it if the minister would correct her statement.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West will know that members rise to correct their record, not someone else's.

It is time for statements by ministers.

Mrs Caplan: Again no statements.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: It is not a correct statement. Would she correct the record?

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the members have come to order, we can continue with our routine proceedings.

Mr Mahoney: I was not a member of the board. Correct it.

Hon Ms Martel: They didn't spend $100,000. Correct it.

The Speaker: The chief government whip.

Hon Mrs Coppen: I have only been at Queen's Park for one year and I have always been so thrilled about being in a committee room with the member for Mississauga West. It was my mistake. I was always so impressed -- we sat together in House leaders' meetings -- that I forgot. It was the same room. I stand corrected, I say to the member for Mississauga West, but I still enjoyed his company at every meeting we were at.

The Speaker: Terrific. Now that we are happy with being in the room with each other, perhaps we can have question period.

Mrs Caplan: Aren't we going to have ministers' statements today?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I will wait until we have resumed a bit of calm and then we can begin question period.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have been dealing in this House for the last two weeks with an issue that all of us know has been very important, about how this government handles difficult issues, and this has been a difficult issue. We know the Minister of Community and Social Services has made a decision with respect to the family in Brampton. She has communicated that. She has made a statement to those people and she refuses to tell us here in this House after we have talked about this as an issue for several days.

Hon Mr Rae: Ask a question.

Mr Elston: They say, "Ask a question." I will tell you, Mr Speaker, the minister has to have the courage to come in here and tell us what they are doing. They cannot always be asking us to ask questions. We are asking for a little bit of assistance with doing the public business. We are not here to be beggars, to ask for bits and shreds of information that they allow themselves to drop during questions. They must come clean with this House. They must come clean with all the opposition members if they want our co-operation in doing the public business. When are they going to do the right thing and become public administrators instead of public menaces?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I refuse to be played with in the way these people are playing with the democratic process. "Ask us a question," indeed. Where do you have the nerve to demand everybody to beg information from you?

Interjections.

Mr Elston: Every day this week there have been releases, and every day this week they have not been --

The Speaker: Would the honourable Leader of the Opposition come to order, please. Before we continue, the member will --

Mr Elston: If this is the way we do public business, then it is not business done at all.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would appreciate the members' attention. Order. I ask the members to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If members will not come to order, we cannot conduct business. I am asking the members to come to order.

Mr Sorbara: They have changed the standing orders.

The Speaker: I am asking the member for York Centre to come to order.

Mr Elston: We have a right to know and we don't pretend to be beggars.

The Speaker: I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to come to order.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I really do wish to apologize for my behaviour, but every day this week there has been an announcement outside this House that could have been done here in the House so that we could reply to it. We have been told by the Premier of the province, when I raised this issue, that I should ask a question, "Please, sir, more information." That is not what opposition is about. We have to be informed and we can reasonably be expected to address problems in a better way if we are informed, but we refuse to be begging here for little shreds and pieces of information that are necessary for us to carry on our business.

The Minister of Community and Social Services has made a decision on the Panetta case. All we are asking is that she have the courage and the generosity of spirit to come here and tell us. What they want us to do is use up one of our leader's questions when the decision has already been made. It is the worst type of manipulation.

Mr Speaker, I apologize to you for my behaviour, but you must ask those people to start doing business in the public spirit.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will address this matter when I have order in the House. The member will know that the standing orders prescribe a period of time for the government ministers to make statements on public policy. There is nothing in the standing orders which allows me, as your Speaker, to compel ministers to make statements. I certainly appreciate the parliamentary practice that statements of public business should rightfully and properly be made in the House. There is nothing I can do to compel that to happen.

1400

Mr Elston: I will not beg for democracy. I will fight for it. I will not beg you guys for democracy. We have a right to it.

The Speaker: Before continuing on this, the government House leader indicated he wished to address this point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, I think that it is an appropriate process --

Mr Scott: It is not a point of order and I wonder if he would mind using the time to --

Hon Mr Cooke: Can I respond? I think the point that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition is unfair in that the question --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: A couple of minutes ago the members opposite were fighting for democracy. Now they will not even let us talk.

The matter that was raised by the leader of the official opposition --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the government House leader take his seat for a moment. This is a very serious matter, and I believe that it will best be dealt with in a serious way, which means that I need to hear what is said, and I would ask the members' co-operation in listening as well.

Hon Mr Cooke: On the matter that was originally raised by a member in question period there has been, to my knowledge, no public statement made. If the member wants to raise the matter again in question period, I would see it as the most appropriate way to handle the issue.

I find it very curious that today, nearly at the end of the third week the Legislature has been in session, the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about this place working and democracy when the opposition members have not let us pass one piece of legislation and we have been back here for three weeks.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I will entertain a comment from the member for St George-St David and then the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, I have another point of order and I would like to deal with it quickly and as coolly and dispassionately as I can, because I think there is an important issue inherent here.

In the last couple of days the minister responsible for native affairs and Minister of Natural Resources has issued to parties and participants across the province an interim agreement between the government and the Algonquins of Golden Lake which calls for significant changes in the rights of native people -- many of which are highly desirable -- as of October 15, which I think is less than a week away.

This is an extremely important matter. I have had the portfolio the honourable minister has and I respect the importance of this issue. But no statement about this was made to the House, notwithstanding that a policy, many components of which I heartily applaud, was not announced in the House, so that no member could make any comment about it.

The problem with that is not simply that we are deprived of our voice to deal with these matters of important public policy; the problem with it is that opposition members are placed in an invidious position that my friends the new ministers simply would not have permitted a year and a half ago, namely, that we hear about a major initiative in native affairs because representatives of the aboriginal community phone us and say, "What do you think of it?" Hunters and fishermen phone us and say, "What do you think of it?" and we say, "Well, it hasn't been announced yet." They say, "Oh well, the minister has told us."

Surely that illustrates the importance of this point. I do not say that everything has to be announced in the House. There is not time. But certainly important questions of public policy that have been debated here or important questions in which new directions are taken by the government of the province should be announced, not simply so that there will be the advantage of an announcement, but so that the public may hear about them over television -- that was one of the points of televising these processes -- and so that the other parties can either applaud them, as I have done from time to time, or criticize them, as I am entitled to do on the part of my constituents.

I do not think it is simply a trivial matter. I agree with statements that were made regularly over the last five years in the House, on occasions when this occurred, by the present Premier, by the present Treasurer, by the Minister of Natural Resources, by the House leader, all of whom made the point I am emphasizing. It apparently has now escaped their minds, and I ask if we cannot have a return to that practice.

I have a similar point to make about the Attorney General, but as he is absent I will defer it.

The Speaker: To the member for St George-St David, my comments made earlier to the leader of the official opposition are in the same category of response to your point of order.

Hon Mr Wildman: I understand the sincerity and concern of the member in his comments in his point of order, but I should clarify one thing in response. What was issued yesterday was a draft for discussion and study and consultation. It was not a final document. The fact is, as the member knows, members of the Legislature were briefed on this yesterday afternoon, including the member himself He did not --

Mr Sorbara: What about us?

Hon Mr Wildman: All members are welcome to be briefed, and the fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member for Simcoe East and the member who just spoke were both briefed yesterday, as were other members. They did not hear about this from someone outside. They heard it from the Ministry of Natural Resources staff. The fact is, provincial organizations were briefed yesterday afternoon and the members of the ad hoc committee in the Huntsville area were briefed last night. The groups east of Algonquin Park will be briefed tonight.

When we have finalized the document after the consultation, then we intend to make a statement in the House. I am happy to answer any questions that might be raised today about this process.

Mr Eves: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker, I think the government should really take stock of its practice over the last few weeks and months. In this House just recently -- or not in this House just recently is a better way of putting it -- there have been statements made by the Minister of the Environment this morning, by the Attorney General about courthouses, by the Minister of Community and Social Services about the welfare of a young girl, by the Minister of Natural Resources about Algonquin Park and the arrangement with the natives and their rights, by the Minister of Health about AIDS and by the Minister of Health about nursing homes, to name a few within the last few days.

There is a long-established democratic practice in this province whose roots go back long before the NDP in this province. It is called democracy and they are not practising it.

The Speaker: Just a minute. Will members take their seats, please.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: In a moment, if it is something new. What we are slipping into here is a debate rather than raising a specific point of order. I would prefer that we get on with the business.

The Speaker, who also has homework to do, checked indeed that this very matter that you raise today was one that was raised last spring in Westminster, to which the Speaker there, Speaker Wetherill, gave much the same response as I have given today. There is nothing in the standing orders which compels ministers to make statements, nor is there anything in the standing orders which directs the Speaker to compel ministers to make statements. If members wish to change the standing orders, of course, there is a procedure for doing that.

If there is a different point of order to be raised by the honourable members from Parkdale, Oriole and York Centre, I will recognize them, and first is the member for Parkdale.

1410

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, I really appreciate your remarks and I think most of us would realize that you are almost powerless to do something about this issue. But I remind you that in the last three weeks I stood in this House asking you a similar point of order, and finally we had no one to ask but the government whip about what happened to the moneys that were allocated to Expo 98, simply because the minister would not make a statement in the House but chose instead to make a statement to the press. Consequently, that obviously is not in the tradition of this House, and we really adamantly object to this kind of behaviour.

Mrs Caplan: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker: Over the course of the last few weeks you have had the opportunity to see at first hand some of the frustrations that members of the official opposition and members of the opposition party have had during question period and during debate, and you have commented on that. As one whom you have named on occasion, I thought this is the opportunity I would like on this point of order to explain to you the frustration we feel when democracy is not being well served.

Having experienced from this very government being shut out of a public meeting and told I could not attend a public meeting in my own riding, having had that experience, I am very frustrated when I find ministers like the Minister of the Environment this very morning make a statement outside of this House on waste reduction issues. She released draft regulations. We have yet to hear a statement in this House. We have had nothing from her today on the area of the issues of the waterfront, which is of real importance to the people in my riding of Oriole.

I feel, as a member, that my privileges to represent my constituents are being abrogated and that I am not able to fully represent them in this House because these ministers and this government shut us out of meetings, they do not give us the information we need and they will not even make their statements in the House.

Mr Sorbara: On a different but related point of order, Mr Speaker: It arises from the matter I directed to your attention yesterday. I just want to make the point in a slightly different context and ask you, rather than simply rule on it today, to take the matter under advisement and reflect on it and not just refer to the precedents in Westminster, but indeed be able to find perhaps a source within our own standing orders that might offer you direction.

I just want to point out that standing order 1(b) reads as follows:

"In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, and in making the ruling the Speaker or Chair shall base the decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition."

I want to point out to you, sir, that there is nothing in the standing orders that requires ministers to attend during question period and answer questions, but I am sure that if repeatedly, as a course of conduct day after day, ministers all just remained absent from the Legislature, were not here to answer questions, some question would arise as to whether the ministers by their conduct were not amending the standing orders.

I want to suggest that a course of conduct has now developed. Day after day, important government announcements have been made on courthouses, on assistance for AIDS, on a new draft treaty with aboriginal people, and there have been a number of others. The course of conduct the government has exhibited is to make those announcements outside of the House.

I concede to you that the standing orders say that ministers "may" make statements in the House, but I refer you to the traditions that have been established not in Westminster but in this very Parliament. In fact, that tradition was reconfirmed when a few years ago we changed the standing orders to give opposition members -- and we as government members supported those changes -- the opportunity, right here in our Parliament, to comment on the announcements the government was making. We have done that and we have organized our staff and our caucus and the way in which we approach public policy to be prepared to respond in this House.

The course of conduct has now suggested to me and others that the government by its conduct is amending the standing orders. You will know, Mr Speaker, that we have a mechanism for amending the standing orders. We have an opportunity to debate changes in the standing orders of this significance in the Legislature, and those debates are not easy.

I ask you once again, Mr Speaker, rather than just ruling, to examine dearly whether the traditions of this place are now violated to the extent --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. As always, as your Speaker, I am more than pleased to review matters that are brought before me. Indeed, I will do some homework. If there are any members of the assembly who wish to provide written advice to my office, I would be most pleased to receive any written advice on this matter. I am a little reluctant to recognize more members. We should be getting on with question period. If it new in formation or a new point of order, fine.

Hon Mr Cooke: In addition to any work you might be doing, Mr Speaker, might I also suggest that an approach we might take is that tomorrow, when we have the House leaders' meeting, the three of us should talk about this.

Obviously the opposition parties are not happy with the process.

Mrs Caplan: You know better than this, Cooke. You would never have put up with this kind of crap. Don't give us that garbage.

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

Hon Mr Cooke: I would be more than willing to try to work this matter out with the opposition House leaders so that we can all be happy.

Mr Scott: I have a new point, but it is a similar point, Mr Speaker. I will state it very briefly. I am trying to do this dispassionately so that the backbenchers opposite who want to shout us down will understand where we are.

The other day the Minister of Health made a very important announcement about financial support for people who are sick with AIDS or who are HIV-positive. I represent the constituency in Canada that has probably the largest population of people suffering from AIDS or who have HIV-positive diagnoses. I was and am prepared to applaud the announcement the minister has made. I have dealt with the minister on the subject and with her predecessor and the Attorney General on AIDS-related issues. If this announcement had been made in the House, I think I would have said it was a good announcement. Opposition members often say it does not go far enough, but I would have said it was a great start.

The problem here is that the only way I heard about this -- there was no briefing, nothing -- was because my constituents came to me and told me what the minister had said she was going to do. She had not said it publicly. The message in this is that the member for St George-St David does not count. Members opposite may think this does not matter, but the corollary message is, "If you want to have input into government decision-making, if you want to really know what is going on, opposition constituencies, you had better elect NDP members." This, in my respectful submission --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I have taken this matter under advisement.

Mr Harnick: Point of order.

The Speaker Is this a new point of order, the member for Willowdale?

Mr Harnick: Yes, Mr Speaker. Perhaps we could get out of this conundrum if we asked the Premier to tell his ministers to start making these statements in the Legislature. Maybe he will listen to us. Why do we not just ask? Rather than take it under advisement, why do you not just ask the Premier if he is going to continue with this policy, Mr Speaker? If he is, we can continue to argue. Maybe he will avoid the dilemma and say he will instruct his ministers to start dealing with us in the Legislature as they should be.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. We have spent a considerable amount of time on this important matter. I have listened carefully to each and every presentation. I have made an undertaking to review the matter and indeed have invited member to make any contributions.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order.

The Speaker: Do you have a new point of order?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, it is new, Mr Speaker. Maybe this is time-consuming and frustrating, but it is that way because we have been put in this position and it is very important that we bring forward our concerns.

Let alone the announcement this morning on waste separation, last night in my city, Etobicoke, there was apparently a development deal cut by this government on the motel strip, the waterfront. The last group I would have expected to see a development deal cut by is this government. They have in fact cut a development deal on the motel strip and done two very important things. First, they have agreed to densities and approvals that have not been, in my opinion, properly canvassed before this House. Second, they have withdrawn any need for any environmental assessment hearings on these properties. It seems to me that an announcement is properly due before this House by the minister who is effecting these changes, so that the people in my city have an opportunity of hearing exactly what the deal is from the minister in this House, not just from the Toronto Star.

Mr Sorbara: Can we just have a straw vote to see how many people think the government should make announcements in the House? Come on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Should I conduct a vote on how many people would like to have question period? Would members like to have question period?

Interjections.

The Speaker: If members are not prepared to come to order for question period, then we will have to take a recess. Are members prepared to come to order?

Interjections.

The Speaker: This House stands recessed for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1422.

1432

The Speaker: It is time for oral questions.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Premier has been here. He has heard this. He should make a statement that they are not trying to manipulate us out of our rights as members.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr Elston: He has heard us.

The Speaker: It is time for oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. It is time for oral questions. The member for Brampton North.

Mr Scott: We want to hear from the Premier.

The Speaker: Will the member for St George-St David come to order so that his colleague the member for Brampton North may ask his question.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SABRINA PANETTA

Mr McClelland: I find it interesting in light of the comments of my leader earlier that in fact it seems this is a government from which we have to beg for information. I make no apology for begging on behalf of a child. I do not apologize for that, and I guess that is what it took. I have heard recently, and I hope the minister will confirm this, that after some time on the phone with the mother of the child, the mother finally had to ask, "Well, tell me, minister, is it a yes or a no?" I do not know whether it is the minister's arrogance or lack of compassion, or what it is, that forces people to crawl and beg. In this case, I do not mind doing that.

I was very interested to read in this morning's press comments attributed to the Premier regarding his proposed social charter. Yesterday, in what was described as an impassioned speech, the Premier said that without his social charter, "We will become a meaner and less civilized country and the signs of that are all around us."

I want the minister to explain to me -- to the people of this province primarily -- the apparent contradiction in terms of the Premier's statement about his social charter and how she has played games and bargained with a child's life. Would the minister please explain that contradiction to me now?

Mr Scott: Why don't you make fun of it first?

The Speaker: Will the member for St George-St David come to order, please.

Hon Ms Akande: This is a child we are talking about, a dying child, and this is the family of a child we are talking about. I spoke to that family today at about 1:30 and I said to them, "You know, I don't want to and I don't feel comfortable bringing this child and your name again and again into the House and having to respond to this," because I am determined not to use a child and a family's suffering for some political advantage.

Mr Scott: Let the child go home.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: We were told to ask the question. We asked the question. Why don't you answer it?

The Speaker: Order. I ask all the members to come to order. This is a very sensitive and delicate issue.

Mr Elston: Why doesn't she answer the question? Don't try to bail her out.

The Speaker: I am asking members to come to order.

Mr Elston: The question was asked. Answer it.

Mr Drainville: How could she?

The Speaker: I remind members that the Speaker has a responsibility to be able to hear both the question and the response. I cannot do so when there is a lot of noise. If members will come to order, the minister could try to conclude her remarks for us.

Hon Ms Akande: The opposition says that the information should come to this House first because that is democracy. I chose first to speak to the mother of the child because that is courtesy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. Would the minister conclude her remarks.

Hon Ms Akande: We had a very meaningful and good meeting with the doctor, the parents and those concerned and involved around being secure that we could send the child home without putting her at greater risk. I informed the mother after 1:30 --

Mr Elston: Why didn't you have the courage to tell the people about it?

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister conclude her remarks, please.

Hon Ms Akande: I informed the mother at 1:30 that we would continue to work --

Mrs Caplan: What qualifications do you have to make a medical decision?

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

Hon Ms Akande: -- to put the supports in place very quickly to bring the child to their home.

Mr McClelland: I say simply that it is beyond any-thing I have ever had in my four short years of experience here for a minister to stand and say she did not want to make it political, when after trying every avenue possible, the parents, who are absolutely frustrated with her refusal to talk to the physician, to deal directly with it, with heartbreak had to go public and ask me to do that. The minister should not for one minute stand in her place and say we made it political or the family did. She forced this to become a political issue. It should never, ever have been here.

1440

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr McClelland: The minister said at one time it was not a matter of risk and all the while she knew that. She said it was not a matter of cost and all the while she was talking about cost. What I want to know is, will she try to explain to the family why it is that we had to go through all this to get to a point to get the child home? Why did she put them in a position where it required the political will of many people across this province who phoned and put her feet to the fire? That is what made it happen. I want to know what her government is going to do in terms of setting up some policy or protocol so that she can deal with circumstances and not force this to happen again.

Hon Ms Akande: It is a matter of great concern that it has taken us months to work with this family. We have and are currently providing supports to this family out of our concern for them.

When the member raised the question a few days ago, I brought him to a meeting and shared vith him our concerns and he said to us, "Well, you know, that's politics." Another member was there and my staff was there, "That's politics." No. I have a responsibility to address the needs of children and families in this province. That is not politics, that is concern. What took so long? We have the order-in-council policy. The order in council allows us, after looking at every avenue, to make very difficult decisions about providing exceptional supports for children. We have no program, in either the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Community and Social Services, to provide health services that parallel health facilities.

Mr McClelland: The minister can look over here to me with all the disdain she can muster, and she is doing that very well, but what I said very clearly was that it was a political issue inasmuch as it was my job to advocate and her job to make the decision. That is the responsibility she is charged with. That is her responsibility politically, sitting in the minister's chair, to make decisions to help people. The fact of the matter is that despite all her rhetoric and all her grandstanding, and that of her Premier, her government is putting precedent ahead of people, and that is her concern. She has no policy to deal with people in need in similar circumstances, and this case is only one piece of evidence in terms of her lack of compassion and concern.

The Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mr McClelland: All the rhetoric and sending one of her colleague's daughters to the meeting to tell them what a fine person she was is all well and good. The reality is that she has the power and the authority to deal with this sort of circumstance in the future.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary?

Mr McClelland: I want to know how she is going to square it with the Premier's rhetoric and her rhetoric and do the right thing. I thank her and I thank most of all the people of Ontario who have helped in this case, that finally, after all this time, not just in the last few days but after beginning to work on this matter for months, she has come to the right decision.

Hon Ms Akande: It is interesting to me and it is a fact that when we arrived at that position there was no policy. Children have not "begun" to die. Families have not "begun" to feel this pain. This is an old problem. As I look in the records, I see it. We are beginning to recognize that there must be something that we put in place to deal with this more quickly.

The other thing I want to mention is that the member raises the fact that he brought it to this House only to bring us to a decision. The decision is made. Let's give the family some privacy. Let them have the solace of their privacy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Halton Centre. Would the member for Brampton North take his seat.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Elston: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: During the question that was being asked by my colleague, this first question, the adviser to the Premier, Chuck Rachlis, was heckling from under your area back there telling the member to get back to the sewer. It was clearly heard. I demand that the Premier request that the fellow leave the room and stop heckling and withdraw himself from intervening and trying to enforce his will on our members. We will not stand for those types of shenanigans.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would members come to order, please. If the Leader of the Opposition will come to order, I will respond to his point of privilege.

I did not hear the remark to which he refers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the members come to order. The member for Oriole.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask members to come to order. The standing orders are quite clear that there are not supposed to be interventions, but when interventions are made, they are by members of the House. They are not by any strangers. If indeed there are strangers on the floor of the House who have made comments, they should not do so. If comments are made, then those individuals are asked to leave.

Mr McClelland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Indeed those comments were not heard by yourself, and they were said. May I simply say, even if you cannot confirm whether they were stated or not, I do not take particular exception to the fact that they were stated to me if that is what it takes to get something done here. I might add that I would prefer that the minister save her impassioned speeches for the cabinet table, where she ought to be doing her job and not forcing this kind of thing to happen.

ROYAL VISIT

Mr H. O'Neil: Can the Premier, who is also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, tell the members of the Legislature why his government has rejected historical protocol and refuses to officially welcome the Prince and Princess of Wales at Queen's Park, Ontario's seat of government? Can the Premier tell us his reasons for changing the tradition in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I am glad the member has asked the question because it gives me an opportunity to say some things to the House with respect to a newspaper report this morning. There were things contained in that article that are completely false and complete fabrication.

The article states in its headline, for example, that there will be no official welcome for Charles. That is totally and completely false.

Mr Scott: Prince Charles to you.

1450

Hon Mr Rae: For Prince Charles. I am quoting from the headline. I recognize that there are some days I cannot win. I say to the former Attorney General, who should know, that I try to choose my words carefully. I was quoting from the headline.

I say to the honourable member, whose concerns in this regard I thoroughly respect, that not only will there be an official welcome by me as well as by the Lieutenant Governor when the royal couple arrive, there will also be a Lieutenant Governor's reception here at Queen's Park the evening they arrive. There will also be the next day, which I think is an important expression and one that was desired by the royal couple as much as by anyone else, the opportunity to allow them to see other parts of the province where they will be welcomed as well.

The royal couple are paying an outstanding tribute to the people of Canada and the people of this province by spending as much time here as they are. The visit is one in which they will be meeting with people from all walks of life, they will be meeting with people from all parts of the province, and it is truly going to be a marvellous occasion for everyone.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks.

Hon Mr Rae: It is a visit of which all Ontarians can be proud and I can assure the member that we are pulling out all the stops in terms of hospitality in welcoming Prince Charles and Princess Diana to our province.

Mr H. O'Neil: I guess I would have to ask, how do we get to the state that we have this feeling within this province, that we have headlines such as those that appeared in today's papers and such stories on the TV?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

Interjections.

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just have a suggestion. If they make a lot of noise, why do you not call order, say "the member for St George-St David," and then they will shut up.

The Speaker: I appreciate your help. Now if the member for Quinte could continue with his supplementary.

Mr H. O'Neil: I have two supplementary questions. I guess we would not have these stories appearing in the newspaper and on TV if it had not been for the previous attitude of the Premier and some of this cabinet. I might also say to the Premier that we have made several calls to the ministry office and to protocol: again, secrecy. I had to call the Tories in Ottawa to get the schedule today. That is where I got it.

The Speaker: Is there a question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Is there a question?

Mr H. O'Neil: I thank the Tories for that information.

I say to the Premier that as far as I understand, it has always been proper protocol to invite royalty to come into this chamber and receive the official welcome here. I would have thought the Premier, given his government's experience over the banning of the oath to the Queen and his failure to attend Victoria Day celebrations, would have realized that a significant number of Ontarians will be concerned over his government's further snub by not inviting the royal couple into this chamber.

Given the fact that his government is seen by many Ontarians as anti-monarchist, will the Premier, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, intervene to ensure that the historic protocol is revived and that the Prince and Princess of Wales receive their official welcome here at Queen's Park in this chamber?

Hon Mr Rae: With respect to the itinerary, this has been a matter -- talk about protocol -- about which we are not allowed to say anything. I have not been allowed to say anything to anybody until it has been released by Buckingham Palace and until it has been released in Ottawa. If the member wants to talk about protocol, the protocol is that we are not allowed to say anything. If the member for Quinte is expressing concern about the secrecy, I can only tell him our hands have been tied with respect to releasing the details of the itinerary until such time as it was released by Buckingham Palace and until such time as it has been released by the government of Canada, which is also obviously very intimately involved in the visit.

The itinerary that has been developed is one that has been developed not only in consultation with the royal couple but at their request. It was their desire. For example, Her Royal Highness is going to be visiting Casey House at her request. Her Royal Highness is going to be visiting with members of the Ontario Coalition of Visible Minority Women at her request. Her Royal Highness is going to be visiting the youth clinic of the Addiction Research Foundation at her request.

His Royal Highness is going to be visiting with a number of groups. He is going to be inaugurating the pollution abatement program at Inco at his request. They are going to be visiting Cambrian College at his request.

This is a visit which allows the royal couple of see Canada and to see Ontario as it really is, in all its diversity, in all its majesty, and to meet the people. That has been done at their request. It is going to be a terrific royal visit, and I know the honourable member will feel the same way as he gets the chance to participate in it, as thousands of Ontarians are going to be allowed to do. We think it is a great idea.

Mr H. O'Neil: After I have had a chance to look at the agenda that their royal highnesses will have, I am very pleased also, but I guess I worry about the Premier's attitude and that of some of his ministers -- not all of his members.

I wonder how many requests the Premier put in. Did he ask the protocol people not to break royal tradition, that they be invited in here? We will also go as far as to say we will help to untie the Premier's hands on this thing. Why does the Premier not invite them here, into the chamber, and why does he not reinstate the oath?

Hon Mr Rae: I must confess that in my more reflective moments I thought, the way it was evolving -- again, in terms of the requests that were being expressed coming out of the palace -- that this would be a visit that all members of the House could see as an opportunity for them to visit with people who ordinarily would never get a chance to see the royal couple.

Protocol runs these visits, so the honourable member should not suggest for a moment that anything would be done outside protocol. Everything that is done is done with respect to protocol and tradition. But I want to say to the honourable member that I am very proud we are having a welcome of an official kind for the royal couple in the good city of Sudbury. I am very proud of that as Premier. I think we should all be proud of that, because I think Sudbury deserves to welcome the royal couple as much as Toronto does and as much as any other part of Ontario does. I think that is something they feel very strongly about as well.

I am very proud of the itinerary the royal couple have asked for and participated in. I think it is going to be a tremendous success, and I know the honourable member will agree with me when he sees how it is all going to unfold.

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

Mr Harris: I appreciate the welcome back. Mr Romanow says hello. He says, "Please stay home."

I also come back with some advice for the Premier. A simple statement today during ministers' statements could have cleared up everything with the royal visit, but the Premier does not want to announce things to us in the House.

1500

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Harris: My question is to the Treasurer. Last week when he announced a 5% trim of ministry operating budgets, the Treasurer failed to provide any sort of guidelines, except to say it would not come from the pay cheques of the civil servants. Those costs went up 15% last year, but the Treasurer set out that guideline.

The next day, staff of the Ministry of Government Services real estate branch walked down the street from their Bay Street offices, bypassing all the meeting rooms in the Macdonald Block and the hundreds of others that one would think the Ministry of Government Services would know about here in Toronto, to the Royal York Hotel. They held a meeting in the Ontario Room and sent the bill for $895 to the taxpayers.

How does the Treasurer expect the public, how does he expect the other 100,000 civil servants, how does he expect the rest of the ministers to treat his announcement seriously when the day after he makes the announcement, the Minister of Government Services -- obviously there is no communication with his department or the deputy minister -- is still acting as though no announcement took place? It is business as usual, "Let's head on down to the Royal York."

Hon Mr Laughren: I welcome back the member for Nipissing. First of all, I did not know that what the member has described has occurred, but I can tell him that every minister of this government and every ministry of this government takes seriously what we did last week. We have asked them to save and told them that, with their compliance, $100 million will be saved in the operating budgets of the various ministries.

I recognize the fact that the previous government was not able to do that in five years in office. We have decided we are going to do it. It will save $100 million this fiscal year and $300 million over the next 18 months. We are serious about it and every minister in this government is serious about that.

Mr Harris: Surely the Treasurer would agree with me that these civil servants -- it would have been a shorter walk too, by the way -- could have easily held their meeting over at the Macdonald Block. They could have ordered soup and sandwiches if it is our duty as taxpayers to pay for their lunch while they meet. But they ordered the cannelloni lunch at the Royal York at a cost of $17 per person for some 175 people meeting down at the Royal York.

We have hundreds of government boardrooms, many of them recently redecorated, as we have heard, for some deputy ministers, even with fine china for 50. They sit empty while civil servants are off running up these hotel bills. The day after the Treasurer made the announcement, obviously the Ministry of Government Services had not got the message. Can the Treasurer give me any assurance that this is not going to happen again in the future?

Hon Mr Laughren: I have learned just in the last year even that making these iron-clad guarantees and assurances can get one into trouble, but I would say to the leader of the third party that every ministry takes seriously the need to constrain our expenditures this year.

Mr Harris: Oh yes?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite does not think they do. I think they do believe that. We are obviously going to have to monitor the expenditures of the various ministries, just as any government does. I can tell the member that every minister in this government takes the constraint exercise seriously, because we are determined that we are going to manage our expenses better than any other government ever has.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer does not like to go on the hook. That was a pretty good statement. It is not an isolated incident. I have raised example after example of this before. Before we adjourned last June, I raised the example of the Ministry of Community and Social Services living it up at the SkyDome. At the time I thought it was only one ball game; it turns out it was two, the way they had it.

Since I came back I have been going through the blue book. This book was released while I was away. These are the expenditures in public accounts. I identified just this morning $2.7 million as a partial list of this type of function that went on at the Royal York; not regular travel, not a civil servant staying in a hotel room while visiting other parts of the province, but special functions, meetings, many of them at luxury five-star hotels. That is a partial list. That is only those who bill us $42,000 a year or more and over and above the other expenditures.

Other than changing the bookkeeping procedures, which governments are very good at, can the Treasurer give me any kind of assurance that when I pick up this book next year, I will not find again, virtually on every page, millions of dollars of money wasted on facilities and food that are available either free or at a fraction of the cost?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I look forward to hearing from the leader of the third party where the free lunch is that he refers to. We do not think there is any free lunch in this province. I can tell the member opposite that he does not do his cause well when he engages in exaggeration, that there are millions of dollars on every page dealing with free lunches. That is simply not the case.

I would simply assure the leader of the third party that it is our intention to manage our expenditures much better than the previous government did and much, much better than the federal government in Ottawa does.

Mr Harris: I guess that is why we have a $10-billion deficit and the lowest credit rating in the history of the province.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Attorney General. Nearly one month ago, he announced -- not in this House, I might add -- two pilot projects designed to speed up the Ontario court system. Under one of these projects, offenders charged with breaking and entering in North York will have the option of not going to court and merely apologizing to the victim. Instead of trying to run the court system more efficiently, the minister's approach to saving money seems to be to deny that a criminal is a criminal. This is going to be his approach to keep them out of the court system.

Does the Attorn General not realize that the signal he is sending out to criminals and potential criminals is "No big deal"? Vandalism, break and enter, shoplifting, it is no big deal. In effect, it is removing, in these pilot projects, what tiny, teensy little bit of deterrent is left in the criminal system in this province.

Hon Mr Hampton: I think it is only proper that I try to correct the impression that has been left by the leader of the Conservative Party.

As we all know and I think everyone in the law enforcement field knows, there are a number of offences that come before the courts where many people in the field -- and I am talking about corrections officials, I am talking about people who work outside of government in the corrections field, I am talking about people from the retail community for example -- have said it would be far better to use alternative measures. If the accused person is prepared or if he is willing, it is far better to take him to a face-to-face meeting with the individual who has been aggrieved and to provide for restitution, to provide for an apology and so on.

What I can say to the House is that we are looking at some pilot projects on diversion and alternative measures. I can say, though, to the member that while we have a project about to start up in Peel region, his comments about a proposed project in North York are quite a way off the mark.

1510

Mr Harris: The Attorney General will appreciate that when he makes his announcement outside the House, I have to rely on the reports I get. If he is saying the Globe and Mail of September 13 quoted him incorrectly, he should say so.

We have seen an astonishing rise in crime over the past year: in 1990, 111,500 offences of breaking and entering. This past week, more Metro area businesses have been the victims of swarming attacks. Yet the Attorney General is treating breaking and entering like chewing gum in school. "You broke into my house, you invaded my privacy, you vandalized my property, but gee, you are really sorry." That is not good enough.

There is another way to decrease the cost of the court system, which seems to be the Attorney General's objective, and to reduce crime at the same time. Increasing deterrents instead of decreasing them would do this. Does he understand that his proposal is going to increase the incidence of these very criminal activities that we are trying to avoid getting into the court system or even happening anywhere in this province?

Hon Mr Hampton: I also happen to have a copy of the newspaper coverage of the non-announcement I made when I was talking to a group of judges. The newspaper coverage speaks only about our diversion project in Peel region, and it talks about the diversion of people who have been accused of shoplifting out of the court system. When the honourable leader of the Conservative Party refers to a defined plan to divert break and enter, I am sorry, he is off base.

The project we are working at most specifically is a project in Peel region to deal with shoplifters. Let me say that is a project which has the support of the retail community.

Mr Harris: And the criminal community, I can tell the minister.

The article says, "Mr Hampton said the North York Project would likely involve such relatively minor crimes" -- his definition -- "as shoplifting, breaking and entering and vandalism." That is the article. That is the Globe and Mail. That is what was there. If he agrees with it, so do I.

This project in Peel and in North York places public safety in jeopardy. It removes almost any deterrent now from breaking and entering, from shoplifting, from vandalism. I know the Treasurer told the Attorney General to make cuts in his budget -- and he is just talking to him again right now -- I understand that, but is it worth putting the public safety at risk? Is it worth it to make these cuts in the budget?

Given that there is another way to save the money by increasing the deterrents so that these crimes do not take place in the first place, will the Attorney General now stand up in this House, apologize for not telling us about it first, and also apologize and say: "I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Maybe there is a better way to save money other than by jeopardizing our people in the streets, not just the shop owners, but indeed to reduce the incidence of crime in our city streets in this province"?

Hon Mr Hampton: Perhaps it would be best to answer the leader of the Conservative Party's scare tactics by addressing them head on.

The project we are working on most intensely is, as I have said, the project in Peel. It is a diversion of shoplifting. This is a letter from the Retail Council of Canada and I would ask the member to let me quote from it. It says:

"The Retail Council of Canada is delighted and grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute. We have developed a consensus with officials on the type of shoplifting case most suitable for diversion through alternative measures. We anticipate similar involvement in the design of the alternate program. At the conclusion of this work, we would be happy to commend the program to our members, to work with the government in the public launch and to co-operate in the evaluation of the private project.

"The diversion project represents an opportunity to make another aspect of the administration of justice more effective in serving both the victim and the offender. We look forward to helping you with the expeditious implementation of the project."

What we are talking about is a system of justice which will bring the offender and the victim closer together, which will provide for restitution, which will provide a more meaningful way of solving some of these social disputes. It is very clear that the Conservative Party is only interested in jail, jail, jail and spending more and more tax money.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask members to come to order. When members have come to order, we can continue. The clock, of course, continues.

ETOBICOKE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Caplan: I rise today to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment, responsible for the greater Toronto area. We read this morning in a local newspaper that the province has ruled out any future environmental assessment on the Etobicoke motel strip waterfront development.

I have here a letter that the now Minister of the Environment wrote in 1988. The bottom line of that letter said, "A hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act is the only forum in which they" -- her constituents -- "can be assured that environmental issues will be given full consideration."

I want the minister to stand in her place today and confirm that the newspaper article was wrong, that it was incorrect, and confirm in this House that she will follow through on her commitment to her constituents and to the people, not only of the greater Toronto area but of the province, that she will continue to demand a full environmental assessment for the Etobicoke waterfront development.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I am referring the question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If members refuse to come to order, then I will simply wait until the time allotted on the clock for question period has expired.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Just wait. I have heard that before. I read Hansard.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All members will recall that while interventions are out of order, they are even more out of order when made from someone else's chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I shall ponder that in a more reflective moment. If members would like a response, then the Minister of Municipal Affairs has the floor.

1520

Hon Mr Cooke: The member will be very much aware of the history of this piece of land. She will remember that the previous government declared a provincial interest under the Planning Act in this province, the result of which is that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The results of the discussions that have taken place between my ministry, this government, the agencies of this government and the city of Etobicoke have resulted in a consensus around the development of that piece of land that will serve this community and this province well and that will serve the environment for this community well. This government looks at this partnership with the city of Etobicoke and the people involved as something that is very important, that will create jobs and that will create an asset for all the people of this community.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre should not make remarks when she is not sitting in her rightful place.

Mrs Caplan: First of all, I am very upset with the Minister of the Environment, in whose constituency this is. Because of her record, the people of this province have come to expect the environmental assessments she called for in opposition to happen, now that she is the Minister of the Environment.

As the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, as well as the Minister of the Environment, and in whose constituency the waterfront development in Etobicoke is taking place, she invited people to join her and Mr Crombie to take a hike. Some 200 people were out there walking with her on a lovely Saturday afternoon. She now refuses to answer a question. She refuses to ensure that there will be the environmental assessment she called for when she had that opportunity.

The Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mrs Caplan: The Minister of Municipal Affairs has cut a backroom deal. He has closed the door, There have been no public consultations. When is the minister going to say to the people of this province why he sold out his principles, why he sold out his commitment to public consultation and why the Minister of the Environment sold out her constituents as well as the environment on this issue?

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: You are not going to get away with this; no credibility.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I must advise the member for Halton Centre in very strong terms that she should not persist in making comments from a seat that does not belong to her. The member for Oriole asked a question and I take it she would like to hear the response. A modicum of restraint would be appreciated. Your enthusiasm is appreciated.

Hon Mr Cooke: It is very difficult to accept the statement from the member for Oriole that this Minister of the Environment and this government sold out the people of Etobicoke. This area of this community has been under discussion for years and years. We decided in our ministry and our government to get on with the good plan for the people in that community.

The member for Oriole knows very well that the plan that was before the previous government is quite different from the plan that is now going to the Ontario Municipal Board. The old plan was not acceptable to people in the community, but they were going to exempt it under the Environmental Assessment Act. This government decided to look at the concerns of people in the community, to work out a plan that respects the environment and get on with it.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister has just said that they plan to exempt this from the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Waterloo North.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Witmer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday, as the minister probably knows, the House of Commons consumer and corporate affairs committee released a report. That report recommends that the federal government not proceed with its proposal to set up a wage claim fund financed by a payroll tax. Instead, that committee is suggesting that a better idea would be to protect employee wages by making them a superpriority over the claims of all other creditors. Priority for workers would cover up to $3,000 in unpaid wages or sales commissions per employee.

As the minister knows, this has long been the preferred option for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The concept of superpriority would eliminate the need for a wage protection fund which, as we know, if created is going to be a burden for the already hard-pressed public purse or the small business owner who may be faced with a future payroll tax.

Would the minister please comment on this recommendation of the federal consumer and corporate affairs committee, and would he comment specifically on the issue of making these unpaid wages, which we all agree the workers deserve, a superpriority claim?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I had not heard the details of the federal decision. Among other things, I would like to know whether they are going to proceed with this now. We had some serious question as to whether they would have proceeded with the previous recommendation. I would like to know also whether they have put a $3,000 limit on it and whether severance and termination are covered. If those areas are not covered, then obviously I am not that interested in it. But I will get the information as soon as I can on the proposal the feds have made.

Mrs Witmer: Last week the Treasurer reported $85 million in savings because Bill 70 had not yet received royal assent. I know he was very relieved to find those savings, but he did admit to us that the $175-million pricetag is simply going to be deferred to next year. If the federal government proceeds with making these unpaid wages a superpriority claim under the Bankruptcy Act, then there would be substantial savings for the bankrupt Ontario Treasury.

I hope to introduce today an amendment to section 17 of Bill 70 that would allow the provincial government to dissolve the employee wage protection program when the federal changes come into effect, and ensure that workers who have been affected by the recession would be compensated for their unpaid wages until such time as the federal program is in place.

Given the fact that wage protection is a federal responsibility and that the Ontario government is looking at program expenditure restraints for 1992-93, would the Minister of Labour indicate whether he is prepared to support my amendment?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As the member will know, the word we have had in the past is that the federal government was interested in co-ordinating its activities with us if it proceeded with the legislation it had announced previously, which, if the member is correct, it is now not proceeding with.

As to whether or not we would accept the member's amendment, I think the answer at this point in time would be no. We do not know what they are going to end up with there and we do not know whether or not it covers severance and termination. There is also a limit on it that is less than we are willing to pay workers for money that they have actually earned.

1530

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Mills: I am going to ask a question in a kinder, gentler manner to the Minister of the Environment. I share the concerns of my constituents and the Durham region's waste management committee that the costs for a temporary transfer station at Brock West for Durham's garbage have escalated from $10 million to $50 million. Taxpayers in Durham East cannot afford to shoulder this additional burden. Can the minister tell me what action she is taking in response to this urn expectedly high estimate?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to get an opportunity to comment on this issue, because I certainly share the member's concern at the escalation in costs for this facility.

Mrs Caplan: Breaking promises to her own constituents, that's what she's doing. There is no environmental assessment.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mrs Grier: The landfill site at Brock West, as members will know, is due to close in 1992, so if the waste from Durham is to be taken to Keele Valley, a transfer station is required. It could well be a temporary transfer station. The original estimates that the region of Durham obtained were that it would cost $10 million. It then jumped, as the member has said, to $50 million.

When I look at the breakdown of costs, I find that we are looking at almost $7 million that the region has put in for contingencies and $5 million in fees for design and studies, which I guess are administrative costs the region would get. Their estimates seem to ignore the fact that if it is built at Brock West, there are already roads, weigh scales, administrative buildings, electrical service and sanitary sewers.

The action we have taken has been to meet with the representatives of the region of Durham to go over these costs and to see what we can do to make sure they are pared down to a Chevy rather than a Cadillac, even though it is General Motors country.

Mr Mills: The minister's answer prompts me to ask two questions. Will she reconsider the need for a transfer station, and would her ministry and the region be looking at cheaper options for that facility?

Hon Mrs Grier: We in this party are certainly always prepared to look at cheaper options. As members will recall, the need for this transfer station was identified to the region of York in a minister's report that I issued under section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act. This called for the provision of a transfer station, but it also asked the region to do some technical studies so it could get approved under part V of the Environmental Protection Act.

They were also asked to put in place a community involvement liaison program so that the people of Durham could have an opportunity to comment on what the best solution to the problem was for the people of Durham. It is very possible, and in fact I have requested, that Durham also investigate the contingencies to managing its waste in the interim until a long-term site can be found.

This is entirely an issue that we are going to face throughout the GTA.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: If in fact we can find the long-term sites for which the Interim Waste Authority is searching -- and I am glad to tell the House the search is proceeding very well -- the faster we can find those interim sites --

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Ramsay: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I have several concerns on his draft agreement that he released yesterday in regard to establishing a new set of rules for hunting in eastern Ontario.

First, he has allowed the hunting of moose now in provincial parks, not just Algonquin but other protected areas in eastern Ontario that come under the Algonquins of Golden Lake land claim. When you look at this agreement, which prescribes the hunting of 100 moose and 175 deer, it is open-ended in that other people of the community can apply to the band for authorization for increased harvesting in that area. If the minister looks at his agreement, he will see that is true.

I am also troubled about the wording in the agreement that really allows the hunting of other species. This is a grave concern as other species would include anything that is in the park, specifically wolves, which are already an endangered species in the park. As the minister probably knows, two thirds of the radio-tagged wolves in that area were killed last year because they strayed outside of the park and found themselves being hunted. Now in his agreement he is allowing hunting within that park of those wolves.

I would like to ask the minister if he would agree that this is open-ended, it allows for increased hunting of moose and deer and also includes the hunting of other species in Algonquin Park.

Hon Mr Wildman: I am glad the member has raised these questions. As he knows, the draft document that was released yesterday for consultation was released so that in the short time between now and Thanksgiving we can have the kinds of questions he is raising dealt with. But I do reject emphatically his suggestion that this is open-ended and that it is particularly new for hunting in eastern Ontario.

I do not think I should have to remind the former Minister of Natural Resources that in 1989 his government entered into an agreement with the Algonquins for the hunting of deer in eastern Ontario which had exactly the same limit on the hunt as this agreement does, which is 175. He will know that in that agreement in 1990 the Algonquins only took 60 deer. So for him to suggest that somehow this is new and a change with regard to deer is completely unfounded.

The member has also pointed out that there is a limit of 100 moose to be taken in a restricted area of the park. He did not point out, but perhaps should have, that there are restrictions on the use of motorized vehicles to gain access to that part of the park, on all-terrain vehicles and snow machines.

The member has raised a serious question with regard to the hunting of other species. That is an issue that has been raised in consultation with the various groups we have been meeting over the last day and a half, and we have made a commitment to those groups that we will take this issue back to the Algonquins and try to resolve that prior to the finalization of the agreement.

The Speaker: No doubt you will be disappointed to learn that this is the end of question period.

SABRINA PANETTA

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I have a point of order that I would like to refer to you for your report back to the House if you would consider it. It comes out of the acrimony that we saw in the House this afternoon, in particular to the member for Brampton North's question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I have waited until now to raise it because I wanted to have an opportunity to research the standing orders to give you something to actually refer to rather than many of the points of order that simply float in the air.

I refer to page 8 of the standing orders, sections 23(h) and (i), where (h) says that a member should not make allegations against another member and (i) that a member should not impute false or unavowed motives to another member.

It is my respectful submission to you, sir, that in her answer, the minister impugned the motives of the member for Brampton North in the sense that she either directly or indirectly, depending on how you interpret the words in Hansard, accused the member of raising the issue of this unfortunate situation with regard to the young lady, who is now I understand being allowed to go home as her last wish. The minister suggested that the member was doing it for reasons that I would suggest would be considered less than honourable in the public. I know that is not the case, and I am sure you would know and all members, including the minister, would not wish to leave that kind of suggestion on the floor.

I would respectfully ask that you review the transcripts of Hansard today and report back to this House, and if you do indeed find that the minister has created some cloud or has impugned in some way the integrity or the motives of the member for Brampton North, that you would ask the minister to withdraw and to apologize to the member.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Mississauga West, I appreciate the point of order which he has drawn to my attention. Indeed I shall review Hansard and take into account the standing order which he referred to, as well as a number of other background materials. Thank you.

1540

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier in the day I raised a point of privilege which spoke about interjections coming from under the gallery seat. Mr Chuck Rachlis had intervened by shouting certain things, or at least speaking certain things towards one of my colleagues, one of the caucus members here. I would ask, Mr Speaker, on the point of order, that you look into the possibility of having him excluded from this House, because he is here by special permission and his duties do not allow him to be making statements that impugn the motives or suggest that a member do certain things that are not in the public interest.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that if you were unable to hear, we do know that members of the Premier's staff who were there sitting under the gallery would have known full well what Mr Rachlis said. Upon my raising the issue, Mr Rachlis removed himself at least for the day from the House. But I would ask, if you are unable to investigate, that we require the Premier to come in here and indicate what his investigation of the behaviour of his staff has resulted in, and if it is confirmed that Mr Rachlis indeed was heckling members of my party or in fact any party from under there, and attempting to dissuade us from doing our obligatory, democratic job, that he be removed fully, at all times, from this chamber. This chamber, Mr Speaker, is under your control on behalf of all of the members. There is no room for some member of the Premier's staff, whether he thinks he is privileged or not, to be shouting at our members.

I think, Mr Speaker, if you could investigate, first, whether or not you can determine that these events occurred, that would be of assistance. If you are unable to do so, you should require the Premier to come before this House and explain what his investigation has told him. I know by name at least two or three of the people who were sitting beside Mr Rachlis, and I am prepared to give those names to you so that you can seek out whether in fact he made the interventions. My view is that he did, and it seems to me, Mr Speaker, that you therefore have the authority to rule that he not be allowed to return to this place and do anything close to trying to influence the course of debate and the manner in which we do our job as opposition members.

The Speaker: To the honourable Leader of the Opposition, first, you should know that at the moment you raised this matter with me, in consultation with the Sergeant at Arms, we attended to it immediately. Further, I would be most pleased to take a look at the circumstances, at Hansard if it can be of any assistance, and speak to others. I will, as much as is within my power and scope to do so, deal with this matter.

The standing orders are in fact quite clear with respect to non-members who are by invitation present within the chambers, so I will deal with this matter and am quite pleased to do so.

PETITIONS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am privileged to present a petition to the House today that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

That is signed by a number of good residents in my riding of Simcoe West, from the village of Tottenham and the township of Tecumseh, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 14th report.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11) the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comité plénier.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION PROGRAM), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (PROGRAMME DE PROTECTION DES SALAIRES DES EMPLOYÉS)

Resuming consideration of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.

Suite du débat ajourné sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par création d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employés et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

Section/article 16:

The First Deputy Chair: Further consideration of a motion by Mr Offer that clause 65(1)(b) of the act, as set out in section 16 of the bill, as reprinted, be struck out. Continuing debate, further comments?

Mr Offer: I have some further comments on this particular amendment. I think all members of the Legislature should be well aware that what this amendment does is say that if there is to be any change in this legislation in terms of the monetary amount, it should be made by legislation, coming through the legislative process, as opposed to regulation.

As we went through some of the debate yesterday, it surprised me to see two things happening.

The first is that no member of the government side saw fit to talk about the need for rejecting this amendment. No member of the government stood in his or her place to say why this amendment could not be accepted. All we heard from the other side of the House was a deafening silence. "Let them speak, let this amendment run its course and then we will vote it down."

The second area which concerns me is why the government is so afraid of having any further change to this bill coming back to this Legislature. We all recognize that one of the most important aspects of the bill is the monetary amount. We can talk about all the technicalities of the bill. We can talk about some of the interpretations of the bill. We can talk about some of its applications and implications. But the fact of the matter is that when people look at this bill, they say, "What is the entitlement to, and of, an employee?" They see the $5,000 and that is what we talk about. That is what the government talks about in its press releases. They talk about a fund which is designed to provide dollars to employees, the victims of recession, for their wages, vacation pay, termination and severance, for which they will receive, after proven, a sum, a figure of up to $5,000.

This amendment says that if there is to be any change to that $5,000 it must come before this Legislature, be debated in this Legislature and, in terms of our rules of procedure, go to committee hearings. As a result, the members of that committee may, as they have every right to do, order public hearings on such changes so that those members, duly elected and appointed to a standing committee of this Legislature, will go out and travel to different areas of the province to listen to those people who want to share their opinion on any change.

1550

Let's remember that the way the legislation is worded is that the only change that could be made to the $5,000 is upwards. The legislation does not read that any change to the $5,000 is through regulation. It reads, "Any change increasing the $5,000 is through regulation."

The question we have to ask ourselves is, what type of message are we sending out? We on this side know of the government's right to prepare and introduce legislation. They know of our right to oppose it, agree with it or maybe do something like say that parts of the bill are fine but other parts cause us concern. We have that right. The members opposite also have that right, but when they do it by regulation, what they are doing is taking away that right.

I see the time now is 3:50. It was but two hours ago that a great many points of order were brought forward which spoke about our rights as members in this Legislature. We spoke about ministerial statements being made outside this Legislature. That is an important area. What does it do to us? We have been elected not only to represent the interests of our constituents but also, indeed, to comment on bills of a public nature. When decisions and statements are made outside the Legislature, it takes that right away from us. It takes away that ability of ours to talk about and respond to initiatives of the government.

Backbench members of the government might not think that is terribly important, but let me tell them something: It is important because it whittles away a little bit at what we were elected to do, it chips away a little bit at what some of our responsibilities are, it erodes a little bit some of the things we said we wanted to do when we were knocking on doors asking for people's support.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: The government member for Oxford: I think it is important that we recognize, and certainly I know, that there are many hundreds of thousands of people who watch the parliamentary channel. They receive a great deal of information about some of the goings-on in the Legislature, and it is interesting that as we are talking about a bill which really is keyed and zeroed in on the victims of the recession, which talks about the principle of helping those who maybe for the first time in their lives are without a job, the member for Oxford has seen fit to interject.

It would be interesting to see if that same member -- and I will be very frank, I did not catch the interjection; I just recognized there was one -- will stand in his place when he has the opportunity to speak to this Legislature and his constituents as to whether he feels that changes to this bill should be made by regulation as opposed to legislation. It will be interesting to see if that member will send out a message to his constituents that doing it by regulation is all right with him, so those business groups and associations, the chambers of commerce, boards of trade, the people who have lost jobs, the people who are looking for some type of input into any change in legislation will be able to come to his constituency office.

I am looking forward to hearing the concerns of the member, because he has seen fit that it was certainly all right to make certain interjections. When the floor is his, when he can say something which is part of Hansard and can be used by him in his own constituency, when he can send out a message to his constituents that it is important for him, as the member for Oxford, to vote in favour of this amendment because it permits him and gives him the opportunity to make certain his constituents will be heard prior to any change being made, that, I think, is a very important message.

But if that member does not stand in his place and say that, then another message goes out to his constituents, and that message is that it just is not that important; if there is to be any change, if there is to be any amendment or alteration to the $5,000 limit, he does not really have to listen or worry about the impact it has on his riding.

I know there is not a member in this Legislature -- there is probably not a member in any provincial Legislature or throughout the House of Commons -- whose constituency has not been severely hit by the recession. I do not believe there is an elected politician in this country, at whatever level, who has not heard, day in and day out, very tough, heart-rending stories about people who had jobs for many years, who worked, who provided, and for the first time in their lives are out of a job, and not only out of a job but without any real opportunity to acquire a new job because we all know that the recession has hit particularly hard in this province.

We know in this province that the number of bankruptcies is up dramatically and there does not seem to be any levelling off. If people say the recession is over, I do not think they can convince those who are still suffering bankruptcies, those who are out of work as of yesterday, those families which for the first time are in real need. For many people this recession is not over. The facts and figures may say something, but in real terms there is something much different. What we are saying is that if this bill has as its principle an attempt to try to help those, then maybe the members of the government should not be concerned about having any change to this bill come to this legislative process.

What is the problem with debate? I have spoken on this matter at some length. I think we all recognize that, but I feel very strongly about this. I do not like it when matters of real importance to a piece of legislation are able to be amended by regulation. I recognize that in every piece of legislation there is the need for some aspect to be done and changed through regulation. I understand that. I know that. But when we are talking about changing the $5,000 limit, we are talking about something which is much more fundamental than an ongoing technical requirement to be able to change legislation on a periodic basis.

We are talking about a change which will have a direct impact on the cost of doing business. We are talking about changes which, when done by regulation, we will not know and be able to appreciate the impact of. We are talking about what we do here. We have the right to debate these things. We have the right to vote for or against. By doing these things by regulation, they are taking away our right to debate. They are taking away our right to stand up and vote in favour or against. They are taking away our right to show to our constituents what our position is on a matter fundamental to a piece of legislation.

1600

When members of the government feel those types of rights are not important or are insignificant, when members of the government feel it is really of no concern that a person be able to debate and stand up and vote and be counted, then we have a major problem in terms of what we do here and in terms of how we are able to tell our constituents we are able and ready to listen to their concerns. When it is done by regulation, they will be suspicious of our real ability to do that. They will be right -- let members make no mistake about it -- they will be right when they come into our constituency offices and say, "I don't think what I am saying to you will have any real impact on this change to the legislation." They will be right, because that decision and that discussion will take place only around the cabinet table.

There are many more people in this province than the 20 or so who sit around the cabinet table. There are an awful lot more people who want to share, either in this Legislature or through committee, what any change means in their constituency in terms of jobs, maintaining those jobs and maybe expanding those jobs. We are taking away that right through this legislation. The amendment brings that back. The amendment says:

"We know that if there is going to be a change, there will be an impact. First, we on the government side are ready to defend it. Second, and probably of more importance, we are ready to respond, to listen, to be aware, to be sensitive to the impact of that change. We on the government side feel comfortable in being able to defend that change to constituents, in the Legislature and in committee." When one takes away that right, then the message being sent out, no matter what their speeches within their ridings and elsewhere say, is that it takes away the right to be heard. It takes away the right for members opposite to listen to the impact of change. That is a very important aspect of what we do here. I hope the members on the government side will recognize that one of the things they have been elected to do is to listen to what the impact of change may be. One of their responsibilities is to make certain that where it is possible, it will be necessary to open up in terms of any impact of change.

We have here, as I said earlier, an opportunity to quell some of the concerns that have been raised by many people over this legislation. I do not think the government members should think for a moment that the general public thinks everything in this bill is perfect. They do not believe that for a moment.

Mr Fletcher: They love us.

Mr Offer: The member for Guelph, when I was talking about some of the difficulties in the bill, some of the concerns with the bill, said, again through interjection, "The people love us." That is what he said. I think he said that twice. The member of the government party said, "The people love us." Now, that exactly makes the point. I was ready to just move on to another area. The parliamentary assistant chuckles.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. I ask the member to return to the focus of the motion that he himself has presented to the House. I would appreciate that.

Mr Offer: It was as if you were reading my mind, Mr Chair, because that is exactly what I am going to do. This amendment has two lines. That is all this amendment is. This amendment has two lines in it, but it means that any change to the bill must go through the legislative process. It means that those people who have concerns with some aspects of this bill now, and potentially in the future, will know and feel secure that if there is to be any change, it will go through the legislative process.

The member for Guelph said, "The people love us." That is exactly the concern raised by the people of this province. That is exactly what they are concerned about. Let me make it clear: Not everything in this bill is right. Not everything and every word and every intention in this bill is proper. There are improvements that can and should be made to this bill. For a member of the government side to think that because in his opinion everybody loves them, this bill is now perfect is exactly the concern that has been heard throughout the province. There are improvements that can be made.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: I see there was another interjection made by a member The parliamentary assistant quickly turned her head to make certain the member making the interjection would no longer make the interjection. Those government members feel it is so important to interject when a point is being made, but when their turn comes to stand in their place to be counted and recorded in Hansard in this Legislature, and their committee members, they are Velcroed to their seat. There are belts on the seats so that those members just cannot rise. The only time those members can rise is when the little nod comes from the parliamentary assistant.

I almost said the "Minister of Labour," but I did say the "parliamentary assistant." The parliamentary assistant has done the real work for her government in this bill. The Minister of Labour, as I believe attendance records will show, has not been there as long as the parliamentary assistant.

1610

Mr Mammoliti: What is wrong with the parliamentary assistant doing some work? Is there something wrong with that?

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member for Yorkview will be silent. The member for Yorkview is doing this House no service by this kind of interjection. The kinds of interjections that are taking place are infringing on the debate that is taking place and doing the House no service. Can we have the member continue with his remarks. I ask the member to focus on the issue and not to stray and have these interjections.

Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, but I did think it was timely and appropriate to truly compliment the member for Sudbury on the work she has done in her role as a parliamentary assistant. I appreciated working with the parliamentary assistant and with the Ministry of Labour officials. They were helpful on any questions we had.

I still have many concerns with the piece of legislation. I recognize that the parliamentary assistant is telling her members not to make comments. I do not believe she is saying this, but the members are making interjections while I am trying to make my points of concern. I am quite convinced that the parliamentary assistant is using the full range of her powers to muzzle members making comments on this piece of legislation which is going to affect their constituents. It will affect those constituents who are the victims of the recession and it will affect those constituents who are not the victims of the recession. It will affect all the constituents.

Hon Mr North: Your recession.

Mr Offer: I think it is important to note that when I spoke about the recession, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation interjected. I was talking about the concern we had about the recession. I laid no ownership on the recession. I was talking about the concerns that we, the opposition party, had over the 300,000 jobs that have been lost in this province. Over 50% of those jobs have disappeared. For many people it is the first time in their lives that they are out of work. We have concerns about some aspects of this bill, and I was doing that without any degree of partisanship or ownership. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the Treasurer himself, in his budget statement to this Legislature, said this recession was the worst since the 1930s. I think members might be able to find that in the budgetary notes.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation saw fit to interject by saying it was my recession. That does nobody who is out of a job any good. The minister's bantering about who owns or does not own a recession is not productive. It does not help anybody who is out of a job in his riding, as it does not help anyone in my riding. I see the Chair is looking at me. I would like to get back to the amendment. Oh, that is a point of order.

Mr Hope: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I am not trying to show you the way of your job, but I think it is important that the member is not even making reference to the bill as he carries on about the recession and refers to people who are suffering under the recession. As he becomes repetitive in his speeches, I think it is important to note that during this time frame there are people waiting for this bill who are suffering. I make reference that he refer back to the bill, instead of talking about other members.

The First Deputy Chair: I point out to the member for Chatham-Kent that the last comment the member for Mississauga North made was to recognize the fact that the Chair was giving unspoken signals to return to the focus of the issue. Indeed, that was the intent of the member. Let's see where we go from here.

Mr Offer: I hope the member for Chatham-Kent, having been able to stand on a point of order, will also find it proper to stand on this amendment -- I now have mentioned that word -- and let us know and his constituents know what he thinks about changes being made to a bill without its going through the legislative process.

The challenge is made to him. The question will be whether he is ready, able and willing to respond to that challenge. We will listen and wait to see if he has an opinion on whether he thinks he should have the opportunity to speak to changes to a particular piece of legislation.

We will also hope that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation finds that it is in the interests of himself and his constituents to again let us know what his position is on whether he should be able to speak to any changes to any particular aspect of the legislation.

But as I was speaking about this amendment, what we are talking about are our roles, rights and responsibilities as members of the Legislature. What we are talking about is much more than this particular piece of legislation. It is absolutely applicable in an amendment to the legislation, but it moves much further. It moves to the fundamental basis upon which we were elected.

It moves further than any one act can ever imagine. It speaks to all of the thousands of doors which we knocked on. We knocked on doors and said, "We hope that you'll be able to support us and we will represent your interests."

Interjection.

Mr Offer: Now we have another interjection by the member for Guelph, who sees fit only to interject, secure in the knowledge that those interjections will not be recorded in Hansard but insecure in terms of whether he should in fact send a message to his constituents. Is he ready --

The First Deputy Chair: Order. I have to congratulate the member for being able to overcome points of interjection and stick to the issue and the focus of the debate. I would encourage the member to remain focused and to hopefully ignore some interjections that are taking place.

Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I try to do that. I have only commented on a few of the interjections. I just do not have that ability when I am in the middle of speaking to an amendment which is so important in the particular piece of legislation -- when members of the government are moved to interject, it somewhat knocks me off my pace. But I will try to ignore the interjections by the members of the government, just as we try to ignore them.

The other aspect that we are talking about in this amendment is accountability. At the end of the day, people are going to be able to check up on the way in which we voted, on what we said when we said it, how we said it and what it meant to us, what was important to us. That is one aspect of accountability. It is not just financial. It is not a balance sheet. It is not dollars on one side, assets on one side, debts on the other.

It is really a listing of what they have done here in their places while they have had the privilege and honour of representing particular constituencies. All their constituents will have that opportunity to check up -- and I do not say that in any critical sense -- but to observe what it is they have done, what it is they have spoken about, what issues moved them, how they voted and why they voted.

When they move things from legislation to regulation, they take away the debate. They take away the vote. They take away the accountability. They take away the right that their constituents have to see what it is they did here while they gave them the privilege of being here.

1620

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Maybe once in a while the member could make some reference to the amendment that we are addressing. That would be very helpful.

Mr Offer: This is what the amendment is all about. I know some of the government backbench members say, "Well, is it?" The fact of the matter is that when things are done by regulation, they are done around a cabinet table. You only hear about them through a media report. You do not hear about them anywhere else. When things are done by legislation, it comes here. We are able to do this right now, and that is accountability. That is exactly what this amendment is all about. Yes, it applies to this particular piece of legislation, but fundamentally it applies to a much broader degree. It applies to what it is that we do as members.

I would hope that members of the government side who made interjections will now have the opportunity to stand in their place and to say for Hansard and for their constituents that they support this amendment. Because to support this amendment is to support consultation. It is to support debate. It is to support people being part of a process.

Not to support it is to shut the door on debate. It is to shut the door on consultation. It is to shut the door on people wanting to be part of the process. They have found it quite easy to make interjections while I am making this point. Now will be their opportunity to make their point, recorded in Hansard for them, for their constituents and for the whole area of accountability. Let us be very watchful as to whether in fact they do stand and speak on this amendment. If they do not, they send out the message that it just does not matter; that accountability, that debate, that consultation is insignificant in their opinion.

That is what I say to them. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation is looking at me now, and as I sit down after making this speech, then it will be his opportunity to stand up and make his views known, as it will the member for Guelph and the member for Chatham-Kent. Now is their opportunity to put in Hansard the interjections that they were so freely able to make while in silence and in anonymity.

Mr Hope: The invitation was there and I kindly accept it. I will try to stay with the amendment as long as the interjections stay low.

We talk about this piece of legislation that we are dealing with, and the amendments and the prolonged speeches we have just listened to, running out of words, having used members who are making interjections, and we made sure Hansard was getting it in there. But I think it is very important for the people who are listening to this debate and those individuals who are out there waiting to receive this cheque, there is a very important number they must be calling in order to make sure that they can get this cheque. The number is 416-826-7200.

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Looking at the clock, I presume that the member who is presently standing has entered into the debate. You had called for questions and comments. I had risen on that point and not been recognized. If in fact that is the case, I submit that I should have had an opportunity to make comment.

The First Deputy Chair: I would have to point out to the member that we are in committee of the whole House and we are asking for comments. The member for Chatham-Kent may resume the floor.

Mr Hope: Just to reiterate the very important number that goes along with this amendment, 416-826-7200, which is the critic's phone number, so that these people will be able to receive their cheques come this fall. As we have listened to the presentation put before us, it is amazing that the opposition has referred to this amendment. I refer to a number of pieces of legislation dealing with Bill 162, which was introduced by the Liberal government, which affected workers and did not give them the right to debate regulations. There is also another bill, Bill 208, which dealt with the health and safety of individuals.

The very important objection to the amendment that is being put forward is, we were talking about financial difficulties that people are being faced with today because of the recession caused by whoever. I think it is important that the amendment we are dealing with says that we have to come back into this House and debate that issue again every time. We are witnessing the prolonging of debate using a member's objections as part of his speech. Do we want to get back into that or do we want to try to assist those people who need help during this recession?

Due to no fault of their own, I must add, the people we are referring to in this piece of legislation, these people who have been waiting for a long time -- this amendment just prolongs that as we see the tactics that are being performed here in the amendment that says it must go back into the House to be debated again.

These are the kind of tactics we are using, and at the same time with two tongues we are talking about protecting those individuals, those workers in our community, with it. But it is amazing. When the official opposition used to be in government, it had a different view and perspective of workers and protection for their other counterparts. Today they talk about protection with a way of twisting the protection to make it look like the worker is the victim of all this.

The invitation was there for us to speak against this amendment and I am doing that. I feel it is very important that we address the needs of those individuals who have been affected through no fault of their own by this recession, made in Canada, and I think it is very important that we move on with the debate to make sure we do not keep using the objections that people are putting forward to make part of a speech. There are a lot of words. It is important that we get back.

But talking about the ability for freedom of speech, I believe through this government and some of the comments made around the amendment, that we as individual members of our communities will not have a say. I think it is very important to understand that through this government we do have accessibility. Accessibility is through those ministers who are responsible for making sure that changes can happen to help those who need help. It is very important when we are talking about a specific piece of legislation -- dealing with this one -- that the power reside in the hands of the minister of listening to the concerns of those individuals on a day-to-day process.

If we were to wait and introduce changes in this House -- we introduced this bill last session and we are still at this bill while families are still waiting for their earned income to come from this bill that guarantees it. Do we want to get back into the process of waiting and waiting and seeing opposition tactics, or do we want to try to address those people, those families, those children who are part of those families, being affected by political opposition --

Hon Miss Martel: Opportunism.

1630

Mr Hope: Yes, opportunism as my colleague has said. It is just pure opportunism. That is all it is. What we have to do is make sure that when we are talking about the ability to service the people in our communities, the ability to service the people of Ontario --

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The last comment made by the member for Chatham-Kent, I believe, imputed motive on my part, and one of the aspects that member spoke about was opportunism. I hope the member takes some time to think about what he has just said because this was a bill which was first made public, not as a bill but as a principle, last year, about 12 months ago. This bill was not introduced by the member's government in the month of October, November or December. It was not introduced until the following session. There was no opportunity because of the rules of this parliamentary process.

Mr Hope: What is the point of order?

Mr Offer: This is right on the topic because he has imputed motive. He has stated that our discussion is something bad on opportunism. That is not the case. In fact, his government did not see fit to introduce this bill until last spring. The first opportunity we as legislators had to discuss this bill in committee with the people of the province was this summer. This is the first opportunity since this bill is in committee of the whole. We are taking, my goodness, a whole two days to discuss a bill which is such incredible importance to the people of this province.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member will take his seat. I think we have heard the point of order. It is a fact that a member cannot impute false or unavowed motives to another member. While I did not hear the member for Chatham-Kent do so, I will give the member the opportunity, if it is his considered opinion on reflection that such was the case, to withdraw such remark.

Mr Hope: I must reiterate the number is 416-826-7200, which is a very important number in order to make sure that we get these cheques to the individuals who require and are owed this money. As I reflect on understanding -- and they talk about consultation -- there are a number of people in my riding who are anticipating and waiting for redress.

I remember during the presentations, as we reflected, an individual from my riding who made a presentation to the committee and I believe -- I stand to be corrected -- his comment was that $5,000 was not enough money because people were owed more money.

I think it is very important. This is where we have to reflect on the needs of the people in our communities. Consultation does not always take place in the committees. It takes place in our constituency offices. I have heard reference to closing the doors of the constituency offices. The doors of our constituency offices are not closed to the people.

As we introduced the wage protection program in the throne speech, I have been talking to a number of my friends and neighbours who have been affected by it. It is very important to note when we talk about this amendment the opposition critic has put forward that it is talking about prolonging pain and suffering that is occurring for a lot of people in our community, making it hazardous to those individuals, as we hear the cry about the increasing welfare costs for those people in a lot of our municipalities.

By introducing this amendment we reintroduce these amendments back into the House and we are into prolonged debates of non-substance. I think it is very important when we talk about the amendments that I as a member and any member of this Legislature may go to the honourable minister, who, I must add, is very open to a lot of dialogue around people both from business and labour, and anybody who is out there in the community has access to dialogue with such a fine minister.

I think it is very important if I need to prolong dialogue, if I need to bring dialogue to the minister to emphasize to him that the amount that is there or some piece of the legislation that is there may hurt the individual, the worker or the company, for instance. There are a lot of companies I have dialogue with, and there may be some areas we may need to amend as we discover areas of confrontation or areas that are not servicing the people of our community properly.

I feel very comfortable walking up to the minister, talking to the minister and hearing a number of other concerns, having the ability to do that. We are not back in here prolonging it, saying, "Oh, you made a whole bunch of errors and this piece of legislation is garbage," and we are back into the whole rhetoric.

I think it is important that we restore the ability, especially in this piece of legislation. Do not get me wrong. If there were some other pieces of legislation, I would probably stand and say -- I know our government would not do it -- where there needs to be more open dialogue around it. I know the minister would bring that out and make sure that it had to be a part of it. We are talking about day-to-day victims in our communities. The people being affected by this are men and women who may never have lost their jobs before, who may have worked in the workplace for 20 or 25 years or more. They may owe a lot more money to them.

When the bank says you owe $10,000, I am sure it will call the note and say, "You have to pay." This is what these workers are asking for, money that is owed to them. It is not a gift.

There was some heckling. I have to read this. There has been a special announcement here, because I hear the heckling from the other side that says I have been told to sit down and be quiet. I must say that the minister himself never stops us from talking. He feels it is very important to have open dialogue, but what he wanted me to add to this dialogue was a new number. It is area code 416-325-7151.

It is very important that people put the message across to the opposition member that it is very important to make sure that the understanding of this piece of legislation -- which we have been locked up with for so long, I must add, but I want to keep referring to the amendment because there have been a whole lot of ideas sent out to the general public who are watching, probably drawing more attention than opposition members are.

I think it is very important, when we are talking about financial strains that are happening to the people of our communities, to give the minister the ability to make changes where he feels they are appropriate and where the colleagues and the members opposite will have that opportunity to put into that piece of legislation.

I think it is very important that there were other pieces of legislation the former government had introduced that affected workers and we never had the right -- when we talk about health and safety, workers' compensation, they never gave us the right -- to talk about the rights of those individuals.

I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Chairman, as I tried to keep on topic, and I know that I will support the minister in defeating the amendment that is being put forward by the opposition member.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

Mr Hope: Mississauga: I'm going home.

Mr Mahoney: This is a Mississauga day. No, the honourable member can stay. I suffered through his nonsense, so he can stay.

I just want to point out one thing to the previous speaker before I launch into my very well researched and well-thought-out comments on the amendments by the good member for Mississauga North, and really the entire legislation.

I guess it is only because he was not here, Mr Chairman, you were here and the minister responsible for native affairs was certainly here. For the member to say there was no opportunity to talk on Bills 162 and 208 --

Mr Hope: Ask who made the presentations.

Mr Mahoney: The member should ask the minister, the member for Sudbury East. I can remember her in the back row up here, screaming -- I wondered if she was going apoplectic and was going to hurt her vocal cords -- at the Minister of Labour over Bill 162 for weeks.

I remember attending meetings in my own riding in the basement of St Francis of Assisi church with this orchestrated, whipped-up group of people set up by the honourable minister, the then Labour critic for the NDP, who filled the church basement with all these people to attack my colleague the member for -- wherever he is from -- York Centre. He is out there doing other things. To suggest and to reiterate again that there was not an opportunity to speak -- what were we being subjected to?

1640

I would like to go back in time and get the Hansard records that would show how much time the member for Sudbury East wasted in this place. Oh, her comments. If you want to hear repetitive discussion -- I understand she learned her skills on her daddy's knee. I understand that.

Ms S. Murdock: Cheap, cheap.

Mr Mahoney: That is not cheap. I learned mine on my daddy's knee. It is a good thing that our daddies taught us something.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member for Chatham-Kent will be seated.

I want to bring the committee to order. Certainly what is happening in this House at this time does the proceedings of this committee no justice at all. It would help a great deal if the member who had the floor were to focus his comments on the issue. It would also help if members of the government benches allowed the member to get his points across.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, I wonder if you could help me. I have a number of points I want to raise with regard to the amendments.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I would like to get on with it, but you can appreciate that when the member for Chatham-Kent stands up and says there was no opportunity to speak --

Mr Hope: There was not.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, you were here. Maybe you could correct the record for me. Do you recall the debates on Bill 162 and Bill 208? He is trying to perpetrate a fraud upon the public in the province of Ontario.

Ms S. Murdock: You are imputing motives now.

Mr Mahoney: No. I think he is. He is trying to suggest something, Mr Chairman, and I would like you to correct the record.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. I would appreciate the member reflecting on his remarks. I do not think you can impute false and unavowed motives to another member. I would ask you to reflect and withdraw those remarks.

Mr Mahoney: I withdraw those remarks, but I ask again for some guidance from you, Mr Chairman, because if we are going to allow members, who then leave, to stand up in this Legislature and impute motives to my colleague and suggest that our government, when we were in government, did not allow an opportunity for dialogue on bills, when I know in fact we did because I sat through the dialogue, I sat through the debate hour upon hour, you can understand my concern when these kinds of statements are made.

Mrs Sullivan: We travelled throughout the province, and the Minister of Labour was there.

Mr Mahoney: And the Minister of Labour was very vitriolic in exercising his democratic rights and priorities in this Legislature.

Hon Miss Martel: That's how much he cared. In six weeks of travel, he never showed up once.

Mr Mahoney: The minister, let it be known for Hansard, said there were six weeks of travel on Bill 162. The member for Mississauga North has informed me that the government actually voted against travelling on this particular bill in a recorded vote.

I suggest that I could indeed rest my case. The nonsense being put across by speakers opposite suggesting that we refused to listen, that we refused to allow dialogue, is totally contrary to the facts. The facts here would indicate that this government on this bill, Bill 70, refused to travel around the province.

Ms S. Murdock: We and the Conservatives decided not to travel.

Mr Mahoney: The Tories decided they did not want to travel either?

Ms S. Murdock: That is right.

Mr Mahoney: What an unlikely pair of bedmates that would make; the Conservatives in bed with the Minister of Labour. Totally amazing.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. Interesting as this backdrop may be, I would certainly appreciate it if the member could again focus on the amendment before us and speak to the substance of that amendment.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, I would like to do that. I think it is important. I would just leave that part of my remarks by saying that it is absolute nonsense for any member over there to stand up and say that we were not prepared to allow dialogue, after six weeks of hearings, followed by substantive filibustering in this place by the now Minister of Northern Development and Mines on Bill 162.

Let me also mention Bill 208, if I might, as it does relate to Bill 70 in the same sense of process, because ultimately that is what we are talking about here. The member has put some amendments forward on Bill 70. Members will recall the first one, which I believe was rejected. It was that directors of small business, 50 employees or less, are exempt from this legislation. What do we get? We get negative reaction. It is all set down. They have their seals all lined up. The decisions have been made. They are going to ignore that amendment.

I think the minister's comment was that he does not care about the size of the business. It is obvious we could extrapolate from that and suggest he does not care, nor does his government care, about the effects of any piece of legislation, notably Bill 70, on small business. I do not know what other conclusion to draw from that. That has been rejected.

Then there was another amendment that said --

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please.

Mr Mahoney: I am coming to the amendment.

The First Deputy Chair: I would remind the member for Mississauga West that the comments he is making are not relevant to this particular amendment. I think if you could look at the amendment and speak to this amendment, we would all be better served.

Mr Mahoney: The third amendment put by my colleague is the amendment we are dealing with. I was on the second amendment just to show members the pattern that the minister and the government have established. I was simply trying to build an argument and a case that would suggest that this minister, this parliamentary assistant, this group of trained seals, are not prepared to listen to any of the amendments put forward. They have already made that decision before we put them forward.

To satisfy your needs, Mr Chairman, I will go through the amendments in reverse order and deal with the amendment here, which is that any change to compensation levels should be dictated by legislation and not by regulation. It seems to me if that is dealt with in the same sense as the amendment I referred to on small business and the second amendment about company directors, they should be personally liable for lost wages only if they failed to exercise reasonable diligence in their position. They have ignored the first amendment, they have ignored the second amendment. They can understand perhaps why we go on at some length over these issues because we understand they have already made their decision.

Ms S. Murdock: In committee.

Mr Mahoney: What is this Legislature for then? Perhaps we should not even bring bills. Maybe the new way of doing business under the Premier's socialist government would be to eliminate debate in the Legislature and simply allow the decisions to be made in committee.

Mr Chairman, would you think that is appropriate? I ask you for your learned opinion, in trying to address my questions through you.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Those last comments about the procedure in the House have nothing to do with the amendments we are speaking about. Please rule on it. I would appreciate it.

The First Deputy Chair: I thank the member for his advice and I shall continue to rule on precisely that, as I deem fit. The member may continue.

Mr Mahoney: I believe that actually makes my point, because what I believe we are talking about here is due process, democracy and the legislative process when we bring amendments into the Legislature. The member from Bowmanville thinks it is not appropriate for me to speak --

The First Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Yorkview.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, his riding is wrong. He lives in Bowmanville but he is the member for Yorkview. I am sorry. I stand corrected.

The point of the matter is that it is not only our right, it is clearly our responsibility to address all the amendments on the floor of this Legislature, yet we have members opposite standing up imputing motives of members in the opposition, imputing motives of the former government on good legislation, rising on points of order suggesting that I do not have a right to speak in this manner.

1650

The First Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Mississauga West will be seated.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Let's straighten this out once and for all, because I am sick and tired of this Bowmanville stuff. I moved back into my area recently. I am sick and tired of people saying I live in Bowmanville. I do not live in Bowmanville.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. I have listened. I inform the member that this is not a point of order. I will ask the member to continue his comments.

Mr Mahoney: I am sure the member's constituents are delighted to know that he finally lives in their riding. I congratulate him for that.

Mr Stockwell: So are the people of Bowmanville.

Mr Mahoney: Particularly the people of Bowmanville. They are delighted. The value of the neighbourhood just went up.

The interesting thing about this bill and the level of comprehension of members opposite about it is that one member tried to suggest that without this bill we were going to be driving up welfare costs. What the member does not understand is that all the policies of this government, in relation to the labour community, in relation to small business particularly and in relationship to the taxpayer, are adding to the burden.

They are not causing it all, I have to admit. Mr Mulroney, a colleague of my friends over here, clearly has created the recession in many ways. But the government has created a sense of fear in the business community with bills like this and with other pieces of legislation, like the secret document revealing the NDP plans to give unions more power.

They leak these things out. They walk in and leave a bill on a desk, and then they walk away and pretend not to know they left it, so somebody can pick it up. It is called flying a trial balloon. They do this all the time. They create a great cacophony in the community of people who get upset.

An hon member: Sanctimony?

Mr Mahoney: Cacophony. Did they like that one? I do not know where that came from.

They create an uproar in the community just as they are doing with Bill 70, to come back to the legislation we are dealing with here.

An hon member: I don't know if there is such a word.

Mr Mahoney: There is such a word, absolutely. If the members opposite knew what it meant, we would be all right.

The point is that they create terrible upset in the community. What really bothers us here is that they do not understand it.

Mr Hope: You're sitting on that side of the floor and we're sitting on this side of the floor.

Mr Mahoney: It does bother me that I am sitting over here because of the damage the government is doing to this province. It has three and a half more years to do it. That scares the hell out of me and it scares everybody in the business community. The member is right. Finally he has made some sense.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. We were doing so well there for a few moments. I ask the member for Mississauga West to continue his remarks. I ask for the co-operation of all the members of the House so that we can continue this debate in a manner that serves the people of Ontario.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, you have put very succinctly what our job is here. That is what I suggest when we deal with amendments like this, which members opposite do not understand because they have been given their marching orders. Let's deal with the --

Mr Hope: We know about the Peterson government. Talk about marching orders.

Mr Mahoney: The Peterson government is no longer; it is now the Rae government. We now live in the socialist republic of Ontario and we understand that, so it is our job to question them. What really upsets us is that they do not like that. They should appreciate that we are striving to make amendments that would make this legislation better because in essence while they hand out phone numbers for people to call to get their cheques, first, they know that is not appropriate, and second, by refusing to accept even one amendment that we are putting forward in a very proper, democratic, legislative way, they make it extremely difficult for us to support a principle we believe in. We have said that from the start.

Our critic for the Labour ministry has said from the start -- last August the member for Mississauga North said: "The Liberal caucus supports the principle of providing compensation to employees when the companies they work for close down. These amendments" -- the ones we have before the government, which are being disregarded in a cavalier fashion -- "will ensure that employees are treated fairly and that the legislation receives a broader level of public support." They understand that we think legislation in this regard is critical, particularly so in light of the recession and the damage those people are doing to the economy. We think it is critical because we see, as they have seen, 300,000 people out of work, 50,000 bankruptcies.

Mr Abel: That's right. It's all our fault.

Mr Mahoney: No, it is not. I have said it is not all their fault. I want to give some credit where credit is due. As a matter of fact, I say to the Minister of Labour that I have been quite impressed with the change in demean-our he has shown since he went from this side of the House to that side. I have actually seen him crack a smile a couple of times, so obviously he enjoys and relishes the role of being Minister of Labour. I would not lay all the problems of the province at their feet.

If they refuse to accept amendments that will balance legislation, I say to the member for Durham East that if they would accept some amendments that would allow the Liberal caucus to come on board and support what is a very important principle, then they could have the legislation passed in a timely fashion. Then they could say to the people of Ontario that democracy truly worked. But that is not what they do. They go into committee, the member submits his amendment, which he has done in this case dealing with a change in compensation levels, and they refuse to discuss it. I do not understand why.

It makes me wonder if there is possibly a hidden agenda. By nature I do not trust a socialist government. I am sure members understand that and would not expect me to be any other way. But the public out there, is everybody who works at Algoma Steel, as long as they are going to be allowed to continue working, a socialist? Is everybody who works at Stelco in Hamilton a socialist? Is everybody who works at Dofasco a socialist? Is everybody who works in the mines in Sudbury, at Inco, a socialist?

I suggest they are not. Electorally all they have to do is to look at the history books to prove my case, that for years the city of Sault Ste Marie, my home town, sent Tories to Queen's Park. I do not understand why. It is strange. Why would they do that?

The reason they do that is because they have problems the same as everybody. They have kids in school and mortgages to pay and car payments to make. They understand that the socialist mentality will not put food on their table or create a better life for their children and for their children's children.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I say to the member for Sault Ste Marie that they understand that this kind of myopic thinking is rooted in the past, that this kind of legislation is destructive and that this inability and this refusal --

Hon Miss Martel: Remember when Peterson said that in Sudbury. Where did he end up with that kind of nonsense about children starving? That's a crock. You know better than that.

Mr Mahoney: I say to the member for Sudbury East, who is creating quite a ruckus, that not everyone in her community is a socialist and she had better recognize it, notwithstanding the fact that she is herself an extremely hard-working member.

1700

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member will take his seat.

Mr Mahoney: That was on the amendment, Mr Chairman.

The First Deputy Chair: The member will take his seat. The member does very well when he speaks to the topic. The House gets on with the business that we are meant to be doing when you speak to the topic. When you incense the House with your remarks, the business is lost. I would only encourage the member to remain focused and I encourage all the members of the House to simply listen to the member's comments. The member has the floor.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, I appreciate your attempts to get the opposition members to get a grip on themselves. I think your comments are very appropriate.

The change that the honourable member for Mississauga North is putting forward, I would suggest, in relation to compensation levels, is something I will address quite specifically.

Hon Mr MacKenzie: It's not compensation levels.

Mr Mahoney: I am sorry. I did not hear the interjection by the minister. Would it be helpful if I heard it? Probably not.

The concern that I think the public would want us to raise and the concern has been expressed to me in phone calls and letters I have received is that they do not trust the government. That may not be, in all fairness, just this government. I do not think people generally trust government out there. That is why they can trust us, because we are no longer with the government. But clearly the people out there --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it is a short-time aberration. We will be back.

Why would the minister not agree to put a formula right in the legislation? I could speak for caucus and suggest that we would accept a predetermined formula that would find some way to address inflationary trends in the future, that perhaps would raise the limit on the per-claim basis. That sounds fair to me.

I do not think it should be stuck at the 1991 figure 10 years from now, Mr Chairman. Do you? I do not think that would be appropriate. But what they are doing is saying they will simply change the level of compensation in the back room.

We have seen today in this very Legislature a perfect example of why people should be concerned about that, when we had such an uproar and such acrimony between the opposition parties and the government because of the refusal of the government to tell the public what it is doing in the form of ministers' statements.

If we take my example, which says that this government is not prepared to announce its agenda in public, how can we trust it not to simply double or triple the level of compensation through regulations that are simply done by some bureaucrat somewhere? Boom, it pops out of nowhere, and all of a sudden the government has to find a way to pay for it.

That is the real concern that brings about this amendment, because we suspect that the way they will pay for it is simply by additional taxation, be it in the form of some kind of tax on the business community or in the form of some kind of tax that would increase the general level of taxation to put it into general revenue, the black hole, or in the form -- who knows? They might increase the sales tax. They might do anything to generate the extra dollars to satisfy the demands of people like Bob White, Leo Gerard and Shirley Carr.

If I thought for a minute that this minister or this government truly was dealing with this legislation in an attempt to resolve the difficulties of the people -- they in fact could prove to me that they were doing that if they were prepared to entertain, with just the slightest bit of seriousness instead of all the nonsense that we hear, some of our amendments.

Why would they reject them all? I do not understand that. Why would they reject them all? The public does not understand that. The amendments are very reasonable. They do not destroy the integrity of the bill. The member for Mississauga North has said that the Liberal caucus supports the principle of providing compensation to employees when their companies close. We do not want to see people going without duly earned wages. The government does not have some sanctimonious right to be the only party in the province or the country that represents the interests and the concerns of the working man and woman. The facts would prove that the working man and woman support Liberals, support Tories sometimes, do not support anybody sometimes.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. I am sure the working man and woman would also like to know what the member has to say about this amendment, and I would ask you to focus your comments on the amendment.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, I appreciate the fact that you have some difficulty in keeping members in order, but I really think it does focus on the amendment. I am sorry that I take a little bit of a roundabout to get there the odd time, but my point is that the working man and woman out there, whom these people think are all going to vote for the socialists, are frightened.

Not just the small business community, who are terrified, not just the municipal people, who are extremely concerned, but the average man or woman working on the shop floor is concerned when any government tries to leave itself in a position where it can amend legislation without bringing it back into the legislative process. That is the issue, and I do not know how I can speak any more directly than that, because that clearly is what our amendment would attempt to change.

Our amendment would say that the minister would not do this. He would not change the levels of compensation on a weekly, a monthly or perhaps even a yearly basis. He might want to do it yearly. If he wants to do it yearly, let's put in a formula.

There are all kinds of ways of doing that, whether he uses the consumer price index or the industrial wage. I do not know. I am not the minister. Maybe there are ways in which we could tie a formula into this legislation that would satisfy the minister's concerns and that would give us some comfort that we are not simply giving him a blank cheque.

The minister should imagine himself at the point where in reality he was on this side of the House and we were there. If we were attempting to do it, I strongly suspect that the Minister of Labour would be on his feet giving a speech very similar to mine, although perhaps without the reference to the support of the business community because, as I have already noted, they do not care about the business community. Without any doubt in my mind, he would be standing here saying, "We can't trust the Liberal government to have a blank cheque." I can hear him saying it.

I find it difficult to understand why, with such a balanced, fair, clearly understandable amendment, the government will not accept it. I suggest to the members that one of the reasons is that governments tend to entrench themselves. The bureaucrats in the Ministry of Labour -- there was reference earlier to Bill 208, and it happened there -- tend to entrench themselves and say: "This is the way we are going to do it. In Bill 208 we're going to give the unilateral authority for the health and safety worker rep to shut down the entire company if he or she decides there is an unsafe or unhealthy condition occurring in the plant." Unilateral -- that was the gist of the legislation. The bureaucrats, just as they have done in Bill 70 and just as they are doing in their refusal to accept the amendments of the member for Mississauga North, said: "Just entrench yourself and dig your heels in. Don't listen to the opposition, because they are just going to go on and on without any justification."

1710

What is so fundamentally wrong with that is that it takes away the democratic rights of the people I represent -- it truly does. It takes away the democratic rights of the people from all my colleagues in this House and it even takes away the democratic rights of the backbench of the NDP, because they have been told, "The can you're going to carry is this. Here it is, put it over your shoulder, get out there and fight the good fight and don't let anybody bother you, even if they start talking about giving us a blank cheque," which is exactly what this does. They should explain to their constituents back home why they should have confidence in this minister or this government, when we see them refusing to put their business forward in ministers' statement time.

To the member for Durham East, how does he explain it? Why should the public have confidence in this government to change the level of compensation in pretty well otherwise worthwhile legislation, with the exception of the other amendments we have put forward? Why should they have that confidence? Why should they trust the government -- because it got 37% of the vote? That is what it got, 37% of the people of Ontario, which I would suggest, if the government analyses its position politically, is only about 12%, I say to the member for Yorkview.

Mr Mammoliti: Stop crying.

Mr Mahoney: I am not crying at all.

About 12%, maybe 14%, of its normal support level voted for it in a form of frustration and protest against the government of the day, the government in Ottawa, the Meech Lake issue, Brian Mulroney, Robert Bourassa, etc. They voted in the form of a protest. So when legislation comes in, as this does, that clearly says the government should have a blank cheque, why would it even expect that we should lie down and roll over? Why would it even think it is fair that we should do that? We happen to represent, between us, 63% of the province.

Mr White: You don't.

Mr Mahoney: I am sorry; in popular vote terms, we absolutely do. Excuse me, Mr Chairman, the old vocal cords are getting tested today. If we are representing 63% of the average working men and women, should we not have something to say about this legislation? Since the process says that even though the government got only 37% of the popular vote, it does indeed have the majority of the seats in the House, maybe we should allow -- Mr Chairman, you have a member on his feet in some mode of anxiety.

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I find it really difficult to sit here and listen to the discussion go on and on. It has been pointed out to me that these discussions have been going on for months now on this piece of legislation. There are approximately 18,000 people out there in the province who are waiting for this legislation so that they might get paid for work they have already done. The folks who elected me in Sault Ste Marie, the thousands of people who voted for me in Sault Ste Marie, see that --

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member will take his seat. I have listened. This is not a point of order. I am going to allow the debate to continue. The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Mahoney: West.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mammoliti: The further west the better.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you. Mississauga West, although I am very proud of Mississauga, north, south and east as well, I can assure members.

Once again, the member rises on a point that simply proves my case. My case is that we do not understand why the minister refuses to accept an extremely reasonable, balanced amendment from an extremely reasonable, balanced member whose job it is, as the critic, to put forward amendments.

Mr Chairman, you have been in the cabinet. When you deal with legislation, do you suspect that when the legislation goes to cabinet the minister's critic is simply going to sit there like a bump on a log, that the critic for the Liberals, the official opposition, is not going to put forward amendments? Does that seem reasonable? It certainly does not to me, particularly when we recognize, as I said, that between the two opposition parties we indeed have a legitimate claim to say that we represent 63% of the population in the province.

What we have such difficulty with and the reason we debate the amendment is partly the legislative process, but I think a lot of people felt -- we have a new Chairman; welcome sir, nice to see you here today -- when they accidentally voted for the NDP, that they were voting for change. I encourage the government in fact to effect some change. But what has it done? It has ignored the amendments by this party. I do not know whether the Conservatives have been successful. I do not believe they have had any of their amendments accepted.

This government has said to the people of Ontario: "We're in the government and we're going to do this any damned way we please. To hell with the opposition and to hell with 63% of the population. We don't really care what they think."

As the member for St George-St David pointed out earlier, it is sending a message out to the public that says -- and this is part of their socialist strategy -- "If you really want changes, you had better not elect anybody other than an NDP." That is so undemocratic and so unfair, especially when you take a look at how reasonable the amendments are, Mr Chairman. Considering you are joining us for the first time this afternoon, let me just briefly share with you a very major concern with regard to how compensation levels get changed in this legislation.

This government wishes to change it by regulation instead of by legislation. I will not go over all that again, but the real fear, as I said earlier, of the men and women and of the future generations in this province is that in essence this is giving this socialist government a blank cheque and an opportunity to do whatever it wants. I happen to think that is wrong. I have suggested that they look at a formula.

I am perhaps speaking a little bit out of turn, but I would be prepared to talk to my colleague the critic so that maybe we would look at establishing a formula with the minister, if the minister were to agree to putting some kind of formula in the legislation. If the minister would stand up and undertake here to sit down and draft a formula and tie it to some form of public index, we could even withdraw this particular amendment with the minister's undertaking that he would be prepared to work up an amendment to the legislation that would put some sense of security in the minds and hearts of people in the province.

I do not know how much more reasonable, as an opposition party, we could be. We could simply stand here and shout and say that this bill is totally wrong-headed and that the thinking is bad. We could go on and on, but the reality is -- our critic has said it publicly and I am prepared to say it, as someone who really does not like the basic, fundamental foundation that the minister refuses to accept the amendments -- that we are concerned as a party about addressing the problems that occur, particularly in facing the devastating economic times we live in.

I would be prepared to endorse the principle of wage protection for people who have earned wages in corporations that go out of business. God knows that is happening on a regular basis. But as I said before, the bureaucracy has got hold of the minister, the minister has got hold of the cabinet, the cabinet has got hold of the entire caucus and we wind up with an entire group of 75 men and women saying: "Yes, sir. No, sir. Three bags full, sir."

I thought those people were supposed to be different, yet all they can do is hurl insults at the David Peterson government, as the now-departed minister responsible for native affairs and the member for Chatham-Kent did at some length. All they can do is hurl insults, instead of recognizing what they ask us to recognize, that it is over a year since the government members took the mantle of power. We understand that. Reluctantly and unhappily, we are resigned to the fact that we are stuck with this government for probably another three to three and a half years.

1720

An hon member: Four.

Mr Mahoney: Well, four. I do not expect the Premier will call an early election. He probably did learn a history lesson, although you never know. If he decides, through some miracle of miracles, that this government is high in the polls, believe me, he is not above being somewhat political.

An hon member: Is that what happened to you?

Mr Mahoney: It was probably part of it, no question of that. The reality is that we are stuck with this government for another three and a half years.

Mr Klopp: You set the message.

Mr Mahoney: Look, if you would like to go back and rerun that election, I would be delighted to do that.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. The honourable member should be addressing the Chair. He is being somewhat provocative. Please let's get back to the amendments.

Mr Mahoney: I am sorry, Mr Chairman. It is very much unlike me to do that. Every once in a while I just lose it.

Anyway, in wrapping up --

[Applause]

Mr Mahoney: This might take a while, I say to the Minister of Energy. In wrapping up, I really take some exception to members on the back bench. Instead of talking to this very worthwhile amendment, they stand up and stroke the minister, as the member for Chatham-Kent did, about what a wonderful minister he is and how he is listening. Well, he is not listening to us. I guess he thinks he is listening to them. As I pointed out to the member for Chatham-Kent, stroking this minister is not going to get the member into cabinet, as the honourable member knows full well, having been here for a while. I see he has left. Maybe he is out stroking the Premier. That is the guy who runs everything around here. That may, depending on how many scandals the honourable member has, get him into cabinet.

Mr Hope: Look to your right.

Mr Mahoney: What am I seeing to my right? The honourable member is a long way to my left. That just proves my point as well. The government members do not know their right from their left, they are so confused.

If the members opposite, instead of standing up and simply stroking the minister, would really take a serious look at our amendments -- I have put forward a very positive suggestion of establishing a formula -- I would be delighted. I promise the members opposite that I will be quiet if the minister gives me a signal -- one of those non-verbal signals we were talking about earlier -- that he is prepared to look at such an amendment. I can see he is not prepared. I am disappointed, although not surprised.

Other members stand up, and instead of talking to this very worthwhile, moderate amendment start talking about welfare costs, start using words like "non-substance," start referring to Bills 162 and 208, suggesting that our government did not allow an opportunity for the democratic process to take place. That is absolute and utter nonsense.

Then we get the surprise of surprises. We get a minister of the crown actually sending a note over with the phone number of the Labour critic's office -- talk about silliness -- instead of addressing this very worthwhile issue.

I will be extremely interested to hear how the members, when they go back to their ridings, can justify a request for a blank cheque, how they can justify that they should give over to the authority of the bureaucrats are they not the ones who always said government was too big? Are they not the ones who said they were going to change the way we do things in government? Are they not the ones who said the bureaucracy was out of control? I heard it all from the guy who ran against me for the NDP. I heard it all. Then what do I see? I see the government members come in, and just like little puppy dogs, get in line. Bureaucrats draft legislation and tell the government members:

"This is the way it should be. Don't worry about the heat from the opposition. Do not even listen to them. It does not matter how reasonable, it does not matter how well-thought-out, it does not matter how fair their amendments are. They are simply their amendments and they are not to be your amendments. Like good little soldiers, off you go into the trenches, into the wars at Queen's Park and do what you're told."

Then the cabinet, as I said before, instructs the caucus. We hear lots of stuff, as my colleague has pointed out, in the form of shots across the House. I would like to hear the member for Durham East speak on this. I have had a tremendous amount of respect for the member for Durham East, ever since he unpacked the moving van and told his wife he was elected and said: "This was an accident. I have to stay home." In all seriousness, I do have a lot of respect for the member.

Mr Morrow: Durham Centre.

Mr Mahoney: The member for Durham Centre is not a bad guy. He is not in the same league as the member for Durham East, but then he has not had the experience. I would like to hear his thoughts. Perhaps some of the other cabinet ministers who have joined us in the House would like to stand up and tell us how they feel about it.

No, they do not want to. They have been told not to. They have been told that under no circumstances should they stand up to the minister, for whom I have tremendous respect. There is the member for Elgin, which is the home of Marietta Roberts. How I miss her. What a wonderful member she was. Why does not the Minister of Tourism and Recreation stand up and tell us if he thinks this legislation is good? Does he think these amendments are unreasonable? He does not. I agree. He does not think they are unreasonable.

I recognize it is not his portfolio, but why will the Minister of Agriculture and Food not stand and share with us his views on these amendments? Does he think it would be fair for him to walk into this House and ask for a blank cheque? That is what this amendment does. This amendment to Bill 70, which I know the Chairman wants me to address, does exactly that. It issues a blank cheque with no recourse for the public and no opportunity for the public representatives in this Legislature, other than the ones who represent the ridings of all the trained seals on the other side of the House, to have a say on the amendment.

The members look puzzled. They do not understand. Let me explain it to them. I will explain it very simply. The amendment says that any change to compensation levels should be dictated by the legislation and not by regulation. What that really means is that we want it in the document.

The government will make us surprisingly happy campers if it simply amends the document to include a formula to allow for the public to have some insurance. I am sorry to use that word. I did not mean to get the members excited. I do not mean to be provocative. Perhaps "comfort level" is better. The government has already demonstrated in the budget with a $9.7-billion deficit how reckless and outrageous it can be, with no caring for the public purse. They waste money on wallpaper and carpet and drapes instead of dealing with issues that matter to people. How can they expect us or the public at large to give them a blank cheque?

I note the puzzled looks. Maybe I have struck a chord or two over there. Maybe some of them are saying, "This guy might have a point."

Mr Mammoliti: You're disgusting, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: I ask the minister if he will consider a formula. That is all I am asking for.

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I heard the member for Yorkview use the word "disgusting" with reference to an honourable member of this Legislature. That is clearly contrary to the standing orders. I ask that you review the record, or perhaps the member has enough confidence to stand up and agree that he said that.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Mississauga West, through the Chair, may proceed with the debate on this amendment.

1730

Mr Mahoney: I did not hear those remarks. As I said, I have been called worse by better. I am not too concerned if the best response the member can come up with is terminology like that. Being the type of person I am, I forgive him and hope he sleeps well this evening.

I really would like the minister to give some serious consideration to making it possible for me at least, if not other members of my caucus, to support this legislation. That is truly my wish. I would like, on the day that we vote on third reading, to be able to have it in the record that the member for Mississauga West clearly supports the principle of providing compensation to workers who lose their wages due to no fault of their own, due to the closing of their business through whatever problem. I think it is reasonable and fair and makes sense.

By refusing to accept the amendments that have been put forward, the minister makes it impossible for me to do that. It should be on the record that if he does not accept the amendments I will find it impossible to support the legislation, even though I support the principle.

I think the key argument that should be put out to anybody who finds himself or herself in that conundrum is that if you have principles, you cannot put them aside just to support the basic premise of the legislation when the actual details of the legislation destroy the principles that you stand for.

There is nothing that says we cannot support people in need in this particular case, in the case of failing businesses, of lost wages, and yet at the same time we must not ignore our responsibility to the taxpayer. There is no justification, because the people that lose the wages that we are seemingly trying to protect are taxpayers also. As a result, while they want help, they do not want us to run amok with their tax dollars. They do not want us to totally throw out any sense of fiscal responsibility when it comes to the many other problems that we face in this province.

They recognize that although it is extremely important for them to receive compensation in the form of lost wages through some form of government wage protection plan, unless this government finds a cash cow to fund this program, it is in one sense going to pay into the fund in one way while it simply turns around and takes out in another.

There is a principle there that says, "We are prepared to pay into these kinds of things as taxpayers, but no blank cheques." No wide-open authority that allows any government, particularly one that I do not trust or that my colleagues do not trust or that 63% of the people in this province do not trust, particularly a socialist government that is bent on dogma and ideology, that is rooted in the past instead of looking towards the future, instead of looking for ways to create new business, to create new jobs, to create an economy that is vibrant, that can generate the economic revenue that will allow the social programs that we all believe in so strongly to be afforded, particularly for a government that refuses to come into the Legislature -- and I cannot even remember the last time a minister stood up in this House and made a statement outlining something of concern. I cannot remember the last time they did. Has it happened in this particular -- maybe it has, but I cannot remember it and my memory is not bad.

Mr Hope: Maybe the member was not here.

Mr Mahoney: Maybe I was not.

The public, through members of the opposition representing 63%, would like to say to these gentlemen and ladies: "We do not trust you. We think" --

Mr Mammoliti: The public did not trust you.

Mr Mahoney: The public does not trust government. There is no question about that. But what this government is doing is exacerbating that feeling, making it worse, making it impossible.

I say to the Minister of Labour, he has a golden opportunity to show the public he can be trusted by simply accepting what should be some relatively innocuous amendments to him, but which would be extremely important amendments to the public process, to the confidence of the public, to the public we represent, and which would suggest to us that indeed they have listened.

But it is quite clear to me that they are not prepared to do that. I have asked the minister. I have given him opportunity upon opportunity in these five or 10 minutes that I have been speaking to give me some kind of a non-verbal signal that he would accept an amendment different than the one we have before us, that would allow for a fixed formula to be put in. Maybe the minister would be so kind as to rise in his place and explain to me and to this House and to the public of Ontario why he needs a blank cheque, why he refuses to put a formula in the legislation that clearly requires any change to the compensation levels to go through that formula, why he refuses to create a sense of confidence, perhaps for the first time -- how long have those guys been in government? Too long, 14 months, whatever it is -- since they got into government that we actually made some sense out of some of the legislation.

The minister would be delighted, I am sure, to find that on the day this particular bill ascends to the mighty altar of third reading that standing beside him would be the Liberal caucus. As difficult as that would be for me, if the minister would agree to these amendments, I would be prepared to support such legislation. I fear he will not.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for your attention and your patience and the time to say something that I consider to be of extreme magnitude, extreme importance to the people I represent and to the 63% of the population of this province who did not vote for this government.

Mr Mammoliti: I am sorry. I am compelled to stand here and respond to some of the comments that the member for Mississauga West has made.

First of all, I respect him very much. I sit on committee with him and I have certainly learned a lot from him in the past. Certainly his attire, his dress, is something I have learned. He has made comment on my tie today -- this from the Herb Tarlek of this Legislature. I will take his note and I may change my tie tomorrow. I do not know. But what this has to do with the amendment I do not know. Why he chooses to stand up in this Legislature and criticize somebody's tie --

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Perhaps you could help me. I know that I was accused of not speaking to the bill but I really did not speak in relationship to personalities.

The Second Deputy Chair: That is not really a point of order.

Mr Mahoney: Will you direct the member to speak to the bill?

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes. I want to remind the member who is addressing the bill that the member --

Mr Mammoliti: I will endeavour to stick to the topic. There are 18,000 workers out there waiting for this bill to go through. I am not going to take a lot of time because they are waiting, and they are still waiting. Even though the people who sit across from us are saying that they agree in principle, I think there is an ulterior motive, frankly, and these amendments are certainly taking up a lot of time. By saying to the public, to the people out there, that they are concerned and that they care about wage protection -- I do not know; I would tell the people out there to look exactly at what they are doing here: amendment after amendment after amendment.

Some 18,000 workers are waiting for this bill to be passed, and it is just not being passed. I understood we had an agreement today to at least vote on this. It is not happening. Why? Because of amendment after amendment. I cannot understand that.

1740

I would like to note as well that I have great respect for Bob White and great respect for all the union leaders out there. For them to keep bringing this up in this debate is something I cannot understand. Herb Tarlek brought it up a number of times, and I certainly cannot understand why. Perhaps he does not like the way Bob White dresses. I do not know. Maybe it is his tie that he does not like.

With respect to 63%, they represent 63%? My foot. Where he got the figure, I do not know. A lot of people did not vote last election. Did they not vote because they like the Liberals or they like the Conservatives? That argument, frankly, does not wash with me. To sit here and say that he is concerned about the 63% does not wash with me. They were not concerned about anybody when they were the government. They were concerned only about themselves. This ulterior motive to stall has me upset. I do not like the fact that amendment after amendment is up.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The member is once again imputing motives, by indicating not only by the contents surrounding the words, but by the words themselves, that the members on this side of the House have an ulterior motive. That is imputing motives and ought to be withdrawn.

Mr Mammoliti: I would like to apologize to all the people out in Ontario and say to them that we are going to do our best to get this bill through. Some 18,000 people are waiting for this bill to go through, and on this side of the House we will do whatever we can to try to expedite things.

Mr Callahan: I am perhaps going to confine my comments to a narrow issue. I think it goes without saying that members of the Liberal Party, as have, I am sure, the Conservatives and also the government, have a real concern that workers who find themselves without a job because of a whole myriad of circumstances, particularly during this time of high recession -- I prefer to call it depression -- have to be protected. I think any member of this Legislature who did not have an empathy and a caring concern for the workers of this province would be a person who does not deserve to sit in this Legislature.

My concern, and the narrow issue I want to address, is the question of how you go about it. That issue really revolves around the whole issue of how our Legislature functions. Each one of us is elected by our own particular electors in our ridings. We are charged with the responsibility of seeing that their views are put forward in this Legislature, that their views are protected in this Legislature, that whether we are in a majority or minority government, their views will be heard.

I suggest that is the reason why it is so important, and that is the reason my colleagues who have spoken on this matter have addressed that issue. When you do things by regulation, the words "can be changed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council" conjure up in the minds of the public the fact that our very able Lieutenant Governor, whom I am sure they have great acclaim for -- he has been an excellent man who has served this province well -- is actually protecting their interest.

I have to tell the people of this province -- I have said it before and I will say it again -- that by doing it by regulation, by Lieutenant Governor's order in council, they have to understand that is really the cabinet, the government of the day.

Very often, and probably down through history -- it does not necessarily start with this government or start with the Conservative government or even our government -- it means a few people who make these decisions down in the back office or the side office or the second-floor office, some of whom may be elected and others unelected, are actually calling the shots for the health, economically, environmentally, fiscally -- you name it -- of this province, when each and every person in this Legislature was elected by the people in his riding to determine what should happen in here. That is democracy.

By this clause of allowing regulation to determine what the amount will be, I have to ask two questions. The first one that I would ask of the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary assistant is, if in fact it gives the power to increase the $5,000 figure, does it also give power to a future government, be it NDP or any other, to decrease it? That is what the regulation, as I understand it, says. If in fact it gives the power to decrease it, the government has not created a comfort for anybody in this province, because it will fluctuate as the Treasurer's budget fluctuates.

Just to go to a very interesting piece of material which I think every member of the Legislature should read, it was created by a committee that was chaired by David Fleet, who was the member for High Park-Swansea, I believe, when he chaired the standing committee on regulations and private bills. I give the former member for High Park-Swansea, David Fleet, great congratulations for the intellectualism and integrity to enter into this entire issue, because it is one that should be discussed openly. It is one that should be looked into by this government.

It is the fact that regulations never see the light of day. Regulations can be passed that members will never see, that will never be on the floor of this Legislature, that will never have an opportunity to be seen and debated. In fact, it is passed by the four, five or six -- depending on what numbers there are -- people who are the shakers of this province, and more often than not those shakers are the Premier, the Treasurer, the people who are on the policy and priorities board of cabinet and the major civil servants, who in their best efforts -- the civil service has served this province well -- attempt to put before their masters, the people who are elected to this House, the best possible legislation they can. But from time to time, there are ministers and governments that try to direct them to follow a particular bent, and when you put things in by way of regulation, you deny people democracy.

It flies in the face of the fact that the present government is the New Democratic Party. I suppose that people thinking about the New Democratic Party would say, "Democracy. Their name has 'Democratic' in it. Everything for democracy," and here what they are trying to do is actually go around the corner of democracy. They are trying to do an end run on the people. They are trying to say to the people, "Hey, we're going to do this, but we're going to do it by regulation, by order in council." The average person out on the street who has put his trust in each and every one of the people who is elected in this House really believes that this is how it is going to be done.

I am going to tell them again that it is not democracy, that in fact it is an effort by the executive of this government to use its powers in such a way that it can change it by various means. They can have a poll and discover that the economy is in such a state that they have to retrench, or they can say they will increase it and, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, they can in fact increase it to the detriment of the rest of the taxpayers of this province, because they have to foot the bill.

I see some of the government members over there actually listening, so I have to assume they were not told this in caucus. I can just picture it. Here is this giant caucus, 63 strong. They are meeting on Wednesday morning. They are in there and suddenly the minister stands up and says, "I'm going to introduce in the House this afternoon a bill that is going to do this."

The government members raise their hands and they might get recognized maybe once every three or four days and get to speak. It does not really matter what they say. They have no input whatsoever. I really urge them -- and I think I speak with authority because I guess I have been somewhat of a disturber, but I really feel passionately about the Legislature. I really feel passionately about the democracy of this place.

1750

Each and every one of the government members have to go back to their ridings and justify what has been done without very much of their input at all, with simply a vote that is called, and they are numbers. They stand there and clap like seals to vote for it, more often than not, not even knowing.

I would like to take a poll in this House as to how many of the government members have read through this bill from cover to end, understand the bill fully and the impact it will have on the people of this province. I am sure they understand it is to help the workers. We all understand that. That is a principle I started with. I said no member of this Legislature could possibly fault that.

There are people out there who have to put bread on their table. There are people out there who have to pay their rent. There are people who are being disadvantaged because of jobs leaving this province. They are being disadvantaged because of unscrupulous people who fold their companies and leave these people without the ability to look after their family. No question about that.

The government should please do one of two things: Either not do it by regulation, because that is the back door -- that takes the empowerment out of their hands as legislators, as members representing their ridings totally -- or put a cap on it, as I suggested. Then at least if they want to come back and change it up or down, they have to come back to the floor of this Legislature where we as elected representatives can debate this issue. They should not try to hide it under a shell or play a shell game with it. That serves nobody's interests.

If they go and vote for it as it is, that it can be done by regulation, if they are led to the slaughter as helpless lambs because they feel by not doing so they are being disloyal to their government, then I suggest they are going to have real difficulty. They are going to wake up one morning and they might just decide: "Maybe I should read this bill. Maybe I should look at the Hansard and determine what I've really done." They are going to say, "Oh my gosh, I didn't represent the people in my riding."

They are then going to have to go out on the election trail at some point and explain to these people, "It didn't work, Mr So-and-so or Miss So-and-so." "Why didn't it work?" "It didn't work because they did it in the back room, they did it through regulation. It never got on the floor of the Legislature." The electorate is going to say to them, quite rightly, and they have said it in many elections in this province when they have just turfed governments out and turfed members out because these members did not listen, "They did not care enough to look at the issue and determine it themselves."

The government members are not just one liquid blob over there. They represent 63 ridings, or whatever numbers, with individual people in every riding. They represent people from all walks of life, people who have sent them down here with a sacred trust, put their trust in them by voting for them and asked them to exercise the grey matter they each have, to exercise the experiences each of them have.

By simply folding into a liquid blob when the time comes for the vote and voting the way they have been told by the people who perhaps are in the forefront of this whole thing, they are putting a trust in them. What it means is that the electorate who voted for them are now putting their trust in them and they are giving their sacred trust to this group of four, five, six, seven people, half of whom are probably not even elected. To me, and I think to many members, the government does not want to take the trust that was given to it on September 6 and simply put it over here on the counter and tell those four, five or six people, "Use it as you wish." That is not a fair representation of the electorate.

I think if they could spend one term here, they could spend two terms, they could spend three, four, five. Whether or not people believe it, the people who have served in this Legislature have served it well. They have worked hard, they have given up their families to be here, they spend great concern in their constituency offices with their people to help the individuals in their ridings.

If they can go away from this place feeling, "I did something I can be proud of, rather than something I will look at afterwards and regret," the time they spend in this Legislature, be it short or long, is worth while. If they cannot go away feeling that way, then all they have done is occupy a seat. They have wasted their own time and their families' time. They have given that to the public, but it has been nothing more than a sham.

I do not think that is the history of this Legislature. One would hope there are individuals among the government ranks who are going to say: "Hey, I don't care what you might be able to do for me or against me. Here's the way I feel. Here's what I believe. I want anything as important as this issue to be debated in the Legislature because that is where democracy reigns."

If they allow the government to do it through the back door or the back corridors or the corridors of power in this province, they have failed their constituents, they have failed themselves, and I suggest that when they leave this place, they cannot honestly say they served the trust that was put in them by the people who elected them.

Having said all that, I want them to take a look at the bill and understand that orders in council and regulations are called the silent laws of this province. They are made by the stroke of a pen in the cabinet or the Premier's office or with a group of people in the policy and priorities board of cabinet. They are never scrutinized by anyone.

The standing committee on regulations and private bills has a limited mandate. It is entitled to see whether or not that regulation meets the terms of reference of that committee. The terms of reference of that committee do not allow it to interfere with policy. So if the government members do not open their mouths now and raise one small cry for democracy, they will look back on it on a later occasion and say, "I failed my electorate."

I urge the government members, because I know they are all good men and women and want to serve their public, to look at it and think about it and think about the fact that this chamber was not just erected so we could all stand up here and talk.

An hon member: Blab.

Mr Callahan: One member says "Blab." He is right, but that is what democracy is all about. I would rather have the opportunity to blab and to put forward the points of the people who elected me than to simply applaud what has been made by a select group of people. If that is democracy, then maybe it is time we should look into the question of what they did in history with the Magna Carta by telling the King that the King's powers were not ultimate, that they had the right to certain basic freedoms.

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

À la suite d'une motion présentée par M. Mackenzie, l'étude du projet de loi en comité plénier de la Chambre est ajournée.

The House adjourned at 1800.