Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLÈGES DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Plus de 350 étudiants, éducateurs et politiciens se sont rencontrés à North Bay les 28 et 29 mars pour promouvoir la création d'un collège de langue française dans le nord de l'Ontario. Malheureusement, le gouvernement néo-démocrate n'a pas profité de cette occasion pour annoncer d'importants progrès dans ce dossier.

Encore tout dernièrement, on a pu lire dans la presse que le premier ministre a renouvelé son appui de la promotion de la langue française et au développement culturel des francophones hors Québec. Alors, la communauté francophone de l'Ontario s'attend à ce que le gouvernement tient promesse concernant la création d'un collège francophone dans le nord.

Si le gouvernement néo-démocrate n'est pas prêt à préciser son engagement envers le collége du nord, il doit au moins respecter l'accord de 1989 entre le gouvernement fédéral et notre province. Cet accord prévoyait des dépenses de 2,3 millions de dollars pour l'éducation en français dans les collèges du nord en 1991 et 4,3 millions de dollars en 1992.

Je demande que le gouvernement rende justice aux francophones du nord et verse sans délai les sommes à leur éducation postsecondaire qu'on leur avait promis dans l'accord de 1989.

DONALD BUTT

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It gives me great pleasure to announce that Dr Donald Butt, who practises family medicine in my constituency, has been recognized as the 1992 Family Physician of the Year by the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

Dr Butt celebrates his silver anniversary in practice this year, having served Mississauga families for 25 years. In fact, there are some families with four generations under his care. He works six days and two nights per week in his Clarkson office, makes house calls and tends to patients in nursing homes.

Dr Butt also has a long history of service at the Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital, where he has been an active staff member for 25 years and rose to become the chief of medical staff in 1979.

An associate professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, Dr Butt is a preceptor for family medicine residents. He is past president of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, for which he presently chairs the committee of annual scientific assemblies.

His talents are not limited to medicine, however; Dr Butt is also an accomplished symphony flautist and a former tenor with the Toronto Mendelssohn Choir.

Dr Butt will be presented with his award during the Worldwide Conference on Family Medicine in Vancouver on May 10.

On behalf of my community, I am happy to extend to Dr Butt our appreciation for his outstanding service and our congratulations upon receiving this well-deserved recognition as Canada's Family Physician of the Year.

SCIENCE FAIR

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I want to tell you the story of Elaine Gladu from St David's school, 12 years old. She has done a science poster, as you can see, on the importance of science in our society. Sean Robillard, 13 years old, and Justine Mansourian, 12, also from St David's, are students of Olga Bradley.

Sudbury is very proud to be celebrating the Canada-wide Science Fair 1992. Four hundred and seventy-five students and 150 adults are participating. Taiwan, Sweden, Australia and Japan participating as well. There are several venues throughout my city and, as usual, Sudbury will show everyone a good time with our wonderful hospitality.

The other thing I would like to tell everyone is that this event has been going on for a number of years, and Sudbury has been lucky enough this year that all 10 provinces and the two territories are involved. It's an annual event where all of the students put their scientific minds to work and get things looking to the future.

Last, the corporate sponsors in our town have been wonderful with all the money they have provided. On behalf of Sudbury and the Canada-wide Science Fair, I would like to present you all with a pencil which will remind you to be there between May 10 and May 17.

1340

CHILD CARE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): This morning the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario held a press conference here at Queen's Park. The association had some very important points as it presented the results of its recent public opinion survey, that "84% of Ontarians believe parents should be entitled to choose between the two types of child care settings for their children": independent and tax-supported.

I regret to report that the $100 million directed towards the child care envelope in this province in 1992 does not help one more parent get back to work, does not create one more subsidized child care space, does not create one new job and in fact puts the jobs of the 6,500 women now employed in independent child care centres in jeopardy. Small business operators are in jeopardy, as are their staff. Parents in communities right across this province will have fewer and fewer choices. Thousands and thousands of children who meet all the qualifications for fee-assisted spaces will remain on the waiting lists.

Can Ontarians afford a tax expenditure of this magnitude, $100 million, in 1992 with no results, no real returns?

YORK TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today I am very pleased to share with members of our Legislature and with the province of Ontario another success story that is taking place in northeast Metro, in the south York region. For the 10th year, the York Technology Association, which has been in existence that long, will place before the public its own annual directory of services and membership so people can know what is being done and can be done within a community by the private sector.

The York Technology Association is one of the largest high-tech associations in the country, and through our activities we hope to involve all kinds of companies that are involved in high technology in helping one another by helping resolve issues that are of concern to the industry.

This publication was put together by our communications committee, which includes Gary Bryson of Sun Microsystems, Veronica Cluett, Dan Legault of A.V. International, Janice Murray of Burson Marsteller and Donald Pounsett of Fraser and Beatty.

The association is there to serve our industry, and it's really impressive when you start realizing what people can do for themselves. This is an example of that. I happen to be the honorary chairman of the association, and we happen to have two very strong chairmen. From what we have seen with Chris Stait-Gardner -- and here I've forgotten the co-chairman -- they are doing a job for our community.

I say we all have to work together to help industry to survive.

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate the first class of graduates from the local employment assistance program. LEAP is sponsored by the YWCA, the Scarborough Board of Education and Employment and Immigration Canada. The program is specifically designed to address the educational and social needs of women who are over 40 and have been on social assistance for one year.

It is through innovative partnerships and programs such as this that people will be assisted in developing the independence necessary to control their personal and financial destiny. It is also an opportunity for these students to develop new relationships that will give peer support as each new milestone is reached over the coming years.

On March 13, 1992, I had the pleasure of watching the following women graduate from LEAP after attending the program for 28 weeks: Rosemary Arch, Etula Butler, Lucja Hoffman, Vidalyn James, Norma Kasparian, Lynn Keeley, Janice Kirk, Cheryl Machinter, Dulcie Morgan, Norma Salmon and Iona Samuels. I salute the courage, strength and dignity so demonstrated by these women in their desire to better themselves. It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the House the graduates and students of the LEAP program of Scarborough.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): As members are aware, a tentative agreement was reached last Thursday evening by the Ottawa Board of Education and striking school teachers. This agreement was ratified yesterday and will bring a five-week-long strike to an end. While we are all happy and relieved to see students return to the classroom, we are at the same time concerned about their ability to make up for 23 lost school days.

The Education Relations Commission had ruled that the students' school year was not in jeopardy. While that may be the case, we must also recognize that it is exceptionally difficult for borderline students to make up for five weeks of lost instruction. The minister owes it to all students and their parents to ensure that whatever additional academic support is required is in fact provided.

The second point that needs to be made is, what have we learned from the Ottawa experience? What does it tell us about how well the collective bargaining process is working? Are students' rights being adequately protected? Do the role of the Education Relations Commission and the whole question of jeopardy need to be reviewed? Does the government now not recognize the painful dilemma in which it has placed school boards by its 1% transfer payment? Would the minister now agree it's time to bring together school boards and teachers' federations to work out a fair solution to salary and benefit negotiations during these difficult economic times?

Surely what we have all learned from the recent Ottawa school board strike is that the process must be made to work better. What is important for the future is that the students have a chance to learn. Now, Minister, let's make sure the Carleton strike is quickly resolved.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I also would like to talk a little bit about the Ottawa Board of Education settlement. I'd like to say shame on the board of trustees at the Ottawa Board of Education, shame on the teachers for having excessive demands and shame on the NDP government for not showing any leadership in terms of holding restraint within the public sector referring to teachers.

Where on earth is there social justice in this province? Last fall the Minister of Community and Social Services announced an increase of some $627 to a single mother and two children in this province. This excessive settlement which was given by the Ottawa Board of Education -- they caved to the demands of the teachers -- gave teachers an increase of some $2,400 for this year, four times what a single mother trying to operate on $17,000 a year is going to receive from the government, while the teachers are trying to operate on a salary of some $60,000 a year. Where is the social justice? Is it any wonder that the people of Ontario have no faith in government and no faith in our institutions?

EXPO 98

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It is with much regret that I bring to the attention of this Parliament and to our communities at large that Italy will be supporting Lisbon's bid for Expo 98 and not Metro Toronto's. I would also like to bring to the attention of the House that from 1988 to the year 2000, Europe has and will continue to host all significant world fairs while North America, and Canada in particular, will have none.

As you are already aware, Canada is home to one of the largest Italian communities outside of Italy; over 300,000 Italians reside in Metro Toronto alone. Metro is within one day's drive of more than 130 million people. With that in mind, let me also point out that Metro Toronto does have the infrastructure in place to be able to deliver a very successful event like Expo 98.

In addition, an event of this magnitude would bring the province hundreds of millions of dollars in direct investment and would create many needed jobs. I'm in the process of writing to officials of the Italian government to lobby the members of Parliament to support Metro Toronto's bid. I call on my colleagues in government to do the same.

[Remarks in Italian]

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing with proceedings, I would invite all members to welcome a special guest to our assembly this afternoon. Seated in the Speaker's gallery is Mr Indulis Berzins, a member of Parliament, leader of the Popular Front Faction and the chair of the foreign relations committee, from the Parliament of Latvia. Welcome.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BREWING INDUSTRY

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would like to inform the House of the outcome of Canada's negotiations with the United States on the GATT panel report on provincial beer policies.

On Saturday, April 25, 1992, Canada and the United States reached an agreement in principle on how Canada will implement the panel's report. This agreement will allow the two countries to pursue talks within a set of agreed principles. There will be further consultation about the technical details of implementation over the next few weeks and months.

I am very pleased we have been able to resolve this issue quickly and to the benefit of both countries. It has been a very difficult process for all and both sides have made concessions to arrive at a mutually acceptable understanding. I am very glad that the situation did not, in the end, result in retaliation and counterretaliation.

Ontario, with the invaluable support and cooperation of industry and labour, has worked closely with the federal government during the course of negotiations with the US. Ontario's efforts were instrumental in helping the federal government achieve a satisfactory agreement. The US has accepted the continuation of minimum pricing and the other policy changes Ontario is planning to make. It has also agreed to a transition period of 18 months for the Canadian beer industry to adjust to more open competition in the global market. The brewing industry has accepted the transition period in the interests of reaching a settlement.

This summer, Ontario and the other provinces will be dismantling their interprovincial barriers to trade in beer. During the transition period, we will be introducing the legislative and administrative changes required to bring Ontario policies into conformity with the GATT panel report. The panel report on Canada's complaint against US beer practices will be tabled on Thursday at the GATT council meeting in Geneva. I hope that the US will agree to the adoption of this report and will move equally quickly to implement it.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those involved, specifically representatives of both the beer industry and brewery workers, for their dedicated hard work and constructive advice. This has been a positive example of successful partnership between government, industry and labour in Ontario.

RESPONSES

BREWING INDUSTRY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd like to respond to the statement by the minister. You can perhaps excuse our chagrin and our astonishment that this government has managed to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States. Having heard many of the comments from the heckling Premier in the past, perhaps the Premier should have read the statement. Perhaps it's the Premier who actually negotiated this free trade agreement with the United States.

The minister says she wishes to thank all the parties involved, and she says the beer industry. I understand that. I've requested information about meetings between Labatt's and this government in Orders and Notices and I've been told that it's too costly to provide me with that information. I wonder when this government decided to abandon the workers in the beer industry. I wonder when this government decided --

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Saved thousands of jobs.

Mr Mahoney: Are there not going to be job layoffs, Mr Premier, who seems to be in a rather antsy mood today? I can understand that, considering that he is one of the proponents of the first free trade agreement since he's been elected to office. I can understand why he would be somewhat excited and nervous about this agreement. I'm not even sure he understands it.

This government has agreed to a transition period being changed from 36 months to 18 months. What a transition period is for in this issue is to allow for complete restructuring of the industries so that the workers who are going to be laid off as a result of this government and this policy have an opportunity to find additional work and alternative means of employment.

The Premier doesn't seem to be concerned about that any more. We now have the new free trade socialist government in office, which was prepared to abrogate every other attempt at free trade in dealing in the global market but which now, curiously, seems to be leading the way.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Unaccustomed as I am to speaking on these matters, I would like to say a couple of things about what we have seen coming out of the legislative maze at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. There has been a real change in the way this government is now doing business. These people used to make some interesting speeches about what they would do when it came to cooperating with what is really in essence, as my colleague said, a free trade arrangement with the United States. They used to have interesting things to say about gambling, casino gambling in particular. They used to have interesting things to say about a whole lot of things, but what has gone unsaid is much more remarkable.

Where is the consumer protection legislation that had been talked about by my colleague the member for York Centre for some substantial period of time? Where is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations when it comes to protecting consumers? Where is this minister when she is talking about protecting the consumer dollar from the ravages of a Treasurer so hungry that he virtually leaps at any penny he sees falling to the streets in Ontario? Where is this minister as she is supposed to guard against the full-scale retreat of protections for the consumers of this province? She is busy constituting panels to help her and then congratulating them for helping her do free trade arrangements between Canada and the United States.

Does anybody remember when the Premier used to talk in different terms about what he would do about free trade in Ontario? Do we remember what this man used to say about casinos in Ontario? Do we remember what this man used to say about protecting consumers? When we talk about protecting consumers, I remember this man at the beginning of the 1990 election indicating he couldn't believe anybody in the Liberal administration because it had raised so many taxes.

It appears the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations forgot to tell us in this little statement of hers about beer that she had a lot of work to do to protect the consumers' disposable income from the Premier who loves to raise taxes, from the Treasurer who is loath to do anything else but raise taxes and spin these magic tales.

There should be a consumer protection bill from this minister to protect us from the information coming in the budget. The budget will be cast in terms that will mislead almost everybody about the real state of affairs in the treasury. It seems to me we will be hearing this minister protecting the consumers against the Treasurer's spins when he starts talking about only operating deficits. We should be reminded that there are both operating and capital budgets to be dealt with in this next budget. Where is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on those?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the Canada-United States agreement on beer. What an utter waste of time to listen to a statement about an initiative that's been taken by the federal government for a problem that's been solved by the federal government. This government has had absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of this problem, and it has the gall to read the newspapers, indicating how this problem is being dealt with by the federal government. They feel they can stand in this House and tell us how they're solving the problem.

In fact, when you look at the final statement the minister has made as to what she has done, it has nothing to do with Consumer and Commercial Relations; it has to do with labour. She says, "This has been a positive example of successful partnership between government, industry and labour." Labour, of all things; this is to be in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, not a matter involving labour. I would say it's political opportunism at its worst for the minister to stand up and make a non-statement, and I will say nothing further in response.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Maybe I'm missing a point here in this announcement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I thought she represented the consumer, the person who bought a beer at the local pub or bought a beer at Brewers' Retail. Her announcement today and her actions of yesterday or last week are about protecting the beer industry, which made substantial profits last year. They are about protecting brewery workers, but they have nothing to do with the poor worker who wants to go in and buy a beer, and I thought she represented the consumer. The sooner we can lower beer prices in this province and in this country, the better it will be for the consumer, and therefore that is where we stand.

1400

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I think it is a perfect opportunity to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to review, come Thursday, the budget the Treasurer is going to bring down, for just these kinds of reasons. There is going to be a lot of spin-doctoring and interesting phraseology the Treasurer is going to use, and I think it is incumbent on this minister, in protecting the consumer and the taxpayer, to take the language the Treasurer uses and translate it so the average taxpayer will understand. The point that was made by the member for Bruce I think is very important. I think you as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations should explain to the public when your Treasurer tries to tell them he is separating the capital debt from the operating debt and re-explain to them that debt is debt is debt, and quit trying to kid the troops.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing with our routine proceedings, I would invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a long-standing former member of the House, and indeed the author of our daily prayer, the former member for Yorkview, Mr Fred Young, seated in the gallery.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. The Premier continues to exercise a personal judgement that denies people in communities like Windsor the right to open their stores on Sunday. The Premier has decided that Sunday shopping is wrong because it would be damaging to our sense of community and family, even though the people of Windsor and other communities say they desperately need Sunday shopping to stave off their economic catastrophe.

It seems the Premier is prepared to respond to municipal calls for casinos, but he continues to ignore their calls for other alternatives, like Sunday shopping, to assist them. It is quite obvious the Premier believes there is something to fear from Sunday shopping but nothing to fear from casinos, and quite obviously the logic of this decision seems to escape more than just the members on this side of the House, so I would again ask the Premier why it is he responds so readily to the call for casinos but refuses to listen to the pleas for Sunday shopping.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I would say that generally speaking we are listening to people, but with respect to the specific example she has raised, she'll realize that I am at something of a disadvantage, as is she, since as of this afternoon this matter of the proposed bylaw from Windsor is now before the Ontario Municipal Board. I am sure that given the comments that have been made by the former Attorney General and others, it would be inappropriate for me to say anything which could affect the outcome of that hearing.

Mrs McLeod: I was of course quite well aware of the presentation being made to the Ontario Municipal Board and it is very much the focus of our supplementary question, but before asking the supplementary question, I would like to present our understanding of why the government has responded in such a differential way to the calls from communities for a response to what they believe would help their situation, because it seems to us quite evident that the decision to consider introducing casino gambling was made with greater haste because of the government's desperation to get new sources of what it is now calling non-tax revenue. It is quite clear this government is prepared to listen and to respond to people in communities only when it serves its very most immediate purposes.

In light of the fact that some 70% of Ontarians have indicated they want Sunday shopping, will this government now stop imposing its judgements on municipalities and stop making necessary the resort to the Ontario Municipal Board to defend a decision made by a municipality? Will the Premier agree to introduce legislation allowing municipalities simply to decide for themselves whether or not they want Sunday shopping?

Hon Mr Rae: I know the urge to ask certain questions on certain days, but since she herself started her entire question focusing on the Windsor subject, all I can say to her is that the matter is now before the OMB.

Mrs McLeod: Obviously the thrust of the supplementary question was to propose that there are ways to respond to municipalities without putting them through the process of having to respond on an appeal to the OMB. It might also tie into some of the government's other stated initiatives, like streamlining the processes at the Ontario Municipal Board. But perhaps I can take the Premier to another aspect of the question, since he's not going to deal with this particular one on this particular day.

I suggest that most people understand the economic benefits that would come from Sunday shopping, in terms of its impact both on cross-border shopping and also on the maintenance of retail sales in the province. It seems that the main difference between casinos and Sunday shopping is that with Sunday shopping the government can't quite readily identify its own take as easily as it could with casino revenues. That's the difference and that's why this decision is being considered.

We wonder whether the government has really analysed what its take is going to be and what the actual benefits to the province will be. Last week the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was asked about impact studies on horse racing and charitable organizations. In response she indicated that she was certainly going to talk to those people. There is a considerable difference between talking to people and carrying out detailed impact studies. I ask the Premier whether his government in fact has carried out impact studies on the possible costs and benefits of casino gambling, and if so, will he share the results of those impact studies with the Ontario public?

Hon Mr Rae: I can assure the honourable member that when a decision is made with respect to the question of gaming generally, obviously the impacts that various proposals may or may not have with respect to other elements of the gaming industry are among the factors that will be considered.

Mrs McLeod: I am truly surprised that a Premier and a government that talk about openness and consultation would not want to have any information the government is using as a basis for making its decision shared with the public before the decision is in fact made, so there could be greater understanding and acceptance of the ultimate decision. But that is not the subject of my second question, which I will also direct to the Premier.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): With this question I want to raise matters of statements that have been made recently by the Minister of Education that are causing considerable concern and confusion across the province. On a Focus Ontario program a little better than a week ago, the minister suggested that the boards would have to stop behaving and spending as they have been. When pressed the minister went on to acknowledge that of course he had always felt the boards were underfunded, yet in the absence of the necessary funding he would not approve of boards that were cutting either staff or programs. Anyone listening to that discussion would have understood that there was clearly only one other resource for school boards, and that was salary contracts, yet the minister has been very unclear as to what his government's role will be in direct intervention in salary negotiating processes.

Last Wednesday the Minister of Education made his announcement about transition funds and indicated that transition dollars would support the "establishment of balanced and affordable contracts" that are to be achieved through "lower wage settlements in return for enhanced employment security and other negotiated benefits." Does the Premier understand what his minister meant by the term "balanced and affordable agreements"? Can he tell us how his government is going to decide which boards will be rewarded for following the government's bargaining strategy? Does the Premier himself not consider this to be direct intervention in the collective bargaining process?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Given his depth of knowledge in these areas, I think I'll refer the question to the Minister of Education.

1410

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The answers to the two parts of the question from the Leader of the Opposition are as follows: With respect to what we mean by effective agreements, we mean collective or other agreements that can be reached between school boards and their employee groups which balance what I think all in this House understand to be more reasonable wage packages with a number of other benefits and protections that are important to employees. That's the kind of thing we want to encourage and I think all members in this House would agree with that.

In terms of the process, we have been meeting and will continue to meet with representatives from the school boards, the teachers' federation and the support staff unions to come up with a system for requests and approval of the transition funds, because we also believe that's the best way to deal with that issue in terms of having them involved with us in setting up a process we think makes sense to everyone as far as the distribution of those funds is concerned.

Mrs McLeod: I am not at all surprised that the Premier would have referred this question rather than accept any responsibility for statements the Minister of Education has been making. It seems quite amazing to me that the responses we're hearing from the Minister of Education would be made by somebody who has the knowledge of a former chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, who fully realizes how completely unworkable, at least based on any information we've been given, these transition fund guidelines are going to be.

It would seem to us that the transfer payments to school boards, when they were announced, essentially left the school boards with de facto wage controls, although the Minister of Education will use every possible kind of wording to refuse to acknowledge that fact. Again, I recognize that in the statement made by the minister last Wednesday, he said he wanted boards to offer enhanced employment security as a tradeoff for lower wages. Surely the minister and even the Premier realize this is direct intervention in the collective bargaining process without any clear guidelines for that intervention.

I would ask the minister, can he be very specific today about the kind of tradeoffs he expects boards to make with teachers and how those tradeoffs are going to be managed through a selective application of his transition funds?

Hon Mr Silipo: I have to say I'm a little bit puzzled by the question, because again we seem to be getting this "we want to have it both ways" approach, with all due respect. We are being accused now of interfering in the collective bargaining process when some time last week or the week before we were getting calls from both opposition parties to bring in wage controls and to legislate solutions.

What we are doing is recognizing there is a collective bargaining responsibility and relationship at the local level between school boards and their employee groups. What we have done is to set out some criteria which we believe will help in that process and fulfil our responsibility at the ministry level and as a government to oversee the functioning of our school system. It's exactly because I know what it's like to be a school trustee, to be at the local level, responsible for dealing with these kinds of issues, that I believe this responsibility needs to be supported. We need to do that in the way we have been doing, by working with school boards.

We have examples of these kinds of things beginning to happen even on their own. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would know very well the situation in the Lambton County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, where the teachers at both levels have come together with the board of their own accord and repackaged an agreement they had into something that is more sensible for them, and we think for everyone.

Mrs McLeod: We know well what is being achieved with voluntary, cooperative efforts at a local level. It's the minister's own announcement of his intent to intervene directly in school board contracts that we're questioning today. This isn't something mythical; this is something the minister announced in a written statement last week. We're simply asking him to tell us and to tell boards across this province what his government intends to do, what the strategy is. I don't believe he can answer the question because I don't believe the government has a strategy.

I think the government has created chaos from the time it went from an 8% transfer payment a year ago to a 1% transfer payment this year. I believe the government is now trying to redeem the situation by presenting something it terms to be guidelines, which is really direct intervention without any kind of plan at all. This threatens to leave the education system in as much chaos in the future as it is right now.

I simply ask the minister how he can possibly justify this kind of direct intervention without any clear guidelines as to what is expected, without any clear plan as to what his government intends to achieve. With all these tradeoffs, what kind of legacy is this minister leaving future school boards and future taxpayers in the province?

Hon Mr Silipo: As the Leader of the Opposition would fully understand, it isn't the place for ministerial statements to outline in detail all the guidelines we will be following. Those guidelines are there; they're being developed. We have another meeting set up for next week to conclude them with the stakeholders I mentioned and for us to talk with them about the specific process of approving these funds, because we believe that's the way in which this should be done, not simply by the minister, without that kind of discussion with people at the local level.

The guidelines are there and the objective is as set out in my statement, which is to encourage the kind of collaborative approach at the local level between school boards and their employee groups that I think will assist us in getting to a point where we have -- the question of salaries has been addressed, as well as the question of other benefits, whether it's protecting jobs, which we know in the school board sector, on the teacher level particularly, means the protection of programs, like French immersion programs, like junior kindergarten, like English-as-a-second-language programs, and that's exactly the kind of direction we believe we need to pursue in order to make sure that protection occurs.

LOAN GUARANTEES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. This Thursday, Premier, we'll find out just how deep a hole the Treasurer has dug for Ontario taxpayers. Given Ontario's current financial woes, would the Premier tell us why you are even considering offering loan guarantees to Olympia and York? Does the Premier not realize that by letting it be known that you are considering offering loan guarantees, both you, the Ontario government, and the federal government have sent a signal to the banks that virtually guarantees they'll offer no form of bailout package or no form of restructuring without the taxpayers being on the hook federally and provincially? Do you not realize you have done that, and why are you doing it in the first place?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party, who's looking particularly well today, and say to him that there have been no guarantees given to the financial institutions or to the company in question and that he would be among the first, I think, who would think it among the responsibilities of this government to be working with the federal government to monitor the difficult situation which we know O and Y has been in for some time. But beyond that monitoring, no decisions have been taken by this government.

Mr Harris: I realize no decisions have been taken. My question didn't deal with the decision; my question deals with why you have served notice that you are prepared to consider. Why have you done that? The taxpayers of Ontario, I suggest to you, Mr Premier, cannot afford to bail out Canary Wharf. Let's let John Major guarantee their loans and look after their problems with the Canary Wharf project in England.

Premier, you will likely kill more jobs in your own budget on Thursday than Olympia and York will save with your loan guarantees. Given all of that, will you today send a clear message to the bankers, who have advanced the money to Olympia and York and are now looking for the taxpayers to get them off the hook? Will you send that clear message to the bankers and Olympia and York and all the negotiators who are there that they will not get one cent of loan guarantee from the beleaguered Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Mr Rae: The only thing this government has been doing, which I think any government in this situation would be expected to do, has been to monitor, through its officials, with federal officials, with people from the Bank of Canada and from elsewhere, with respect to the situation the company finds itself in, and that is the extent of whatever has been put forward by the government of Ontario. We have obviously been listening and learning about the situation from the people involved, as well as from others in the private sector and in the public sector, and that's the responsible thing for us to do. Beyond that, no decisions have been taken.

1420

Mr Harris: This document contains the names of 1,500 companies that have gone bankrupt since your government took office, Mr Premier. Thousands -- hundreds of thousands, many will say -- are out of work in this province as a result of this. Belleville Furniture and Appliances, Frank Furlong Auto Repair, Hart Marine Ltd -- I suggest to you, Premier, that your attention should be on these economic problems. What forced these businesses to go under? You say in response that you have done nothing but monitor. Will you then assure this House, and therefore send a clear signal out to the taxpayers of this province and the negotiators for the banks, that the Ontario government will not be receptive to any advance to guarantee any of the Olympia and York loans?

Hon Mr Rae: The Ontario Development Corp, as the leader of the third party knows perfectly well, has been involved for many years under all three governments in responding to different situations across the province with regard to companies. To suggest, for example, that we have been unreceptive to the difficulties facing a number of companies across the province would be quite unfair, or that we are favouring one company or one group of companies over another would be an accusation without any foundation.

All I can tell the honourable member, as clearly as I possibly can, is that if we were not monitoring the situation and looking at it together with the federal government in terms of what is taking place, the leader of the third party would be the very first person on his feet saying that's what we should be doing. Beyond that we have made no commitments.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Harris: It is totally incorrect for you to suggest what I would be doing. I am clearly telling you, Premier, that what you are doing is telling the banks they would be foolish not to ask for the loan guarantees, and you know that's what will happen --

The Speaker: Is this the member's second question?

Mr Harris: -- and second, to every other business, "If you've got a problem, come to the Ontario taxpayer" --

The Speaker: Order. Does the leader of the third party have a second question, and to whom does he wish to address his question?

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question as well is to the Premier. Earlier this year our caucus asked, through a survey, 50,000 businesses in Ontario what they thought about your proposed labour legislation. The response to the survey was overwhelming, some 10 times the statistical average for response to surveys of this type; the response rate was some 10 times greater. Forty-eight per cent of the responses said that they will cut back on staff if you proceed with your plans and the direction you are going in.

Premier, knowing that you will kill jobs in this province if you proceed unilaterally, will you immediately place a moratorium on your labour legislation changes as they are proposed to go forward by the Minister of Labour before we lose one more job in this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, we've had a consultation. We've now had an opportunity to hear from a lot of people. Cabinet will obviously be considering any proposals coming forward from the Ministry of Labour with respect to the legislation, the House will have an opportunity to debate the legislation and committees will then have a chance to consider it. This will be the year in which this discussion will take place.

That's the way this government intends to proceed. I also say there are some very clear examples I can offer the member quite to the contrary. I doubt very much whether the Ford Motor Co would have invested $1 billion in Oakville and $1 billion in Windsor if the Ford Motor Co felt the general approach taken by this government would be one that would be antithetical to or hostile to that company's plans to invest. We welcome investment in this province, we welcome positive labour relations between employers and employees, and we welcome the investment we have seen coming so far to the province.

Mr Harris: I think the president of Ford Motor Co is very clear and explicitly on the record as to what he thinks of how you are proceeding with the labour legislation changes. He has indicated that it is over great objections, but that in spite of that, some other factors, none of which have to do with that or your government, are enabling him to proceed with the plans they had already made several years ago to invest in Ontario.

Fifty-four per cent of the businesses we surveyed said they would consider leaving Ontario if you proceed unilaterally. This will cost thousands of jobs. Premier, are new and expanded powers for union bosses more important than workers' jobs in this province? That is what it boils down to.

Hon Mr Rae: The idea that trying to ensure workers have a right to organize, that the right is made real, that we reduce the amount of counterproductive and lengthy delays in dealing with certification applications -- to characterize that as giving more power to union bosses is rhetoric worthy of the 1920s or 1930s and has nothing to do with a modern industrial province.

Mr Harris: I read in the clippings this morning, Mr Premier, that you supported the comments made by Mr John Tory in a recent speech. I would like to quote from Mr Tory's speech: "In the case of the government, their timing is appalling; their attitude is suspect. Just as we need confidence and stability, just as we are faced with global economic restructuring, the NDP decides to conduct a one-sided revolutionization of our labour laws."

Mr Premier, business has offered to sit down at the table with you. I have asked you repeatedly to take them up on their offer for a tripartite committee of government, business and labour to set the agenda, to look at labour legislation changes as part of that agenda and to find solutions together. Given that jobs must come first in this province, will you today finally sit down at the table, as Michael Harcourt is in British Columbia, with business, labour and government to deal with the future changes to the labour legislation?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that's exactly what we have been doing and that's exactly what we will do.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is about jobs as well, and it is to the Premier. Last Friday, Placer Dome announced the layoff of 99 workers at its Campbell gold mine in Balmertown, a community of some 1,569 people. Here are some of the facts that brought about this decision: Hydro cost increases are escalating -- 12.9% last year and they are facing 8.9% increases this year; as well, they face a 49% tax burden on their operating earnings; Workers' Compensation Board costs are rising through the roof and much uncertainty on where they are going to end up has been placed. We don't know where they are heading.

During the past year Placer Dome has reinvested in high-technology improvements and new production equipment to enhance its environmental and economic performance and has done well in this area. In spite of this, the company still had to lay off 99 of its workers.

Mr Premier, this is one of the stars in the mining industry in Ontario and yet this government is forcing it to lay off people. What is your government doing to ensure that companies like Placer Dome will not be forced to make similar layoff decisions?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I will refer that to the Minister of Mines.

1430

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): It was with some dismay that I was advised by Tim Mann, the general manager at this particular mine, that in fact they would be laying off 99 people effective on Friday. I can tell the House that, in correspondence sent to me by the mine manager, he indicated very clearly that the two reasons for the layoffs were, one, the very low price of gold which the company is experiencing and having difficulty responding to, and two, a review that was done by a management consultant one year ago to try and look at the overall operations in order to determine where further cost-cutting measures could take effect. Indeed, the consultant study unfortunately did show that cuts in costs could come. This happened at the managerial level, hence the layoffs that occurred.

The member raises a very good point: What are we trying to do with other mine operations in order to deal with the very serious problems they are having? While there is not much we can do with respect to international prices either of gold or other metals, there is certainly a great deal we can do with respect to dealing with environmental regulation and with incentives. In both those cases, the Minister of the Environment and the Treasurer have asked me to deal with mining companies in particular to see where we can move in those two important areas.

Mr Miclash: Madam Minister, I'm talking about jobs. We know these 99 jobs are gone. Some four hours down the road from Red Lake we have a development ready to go. Madam Minister, you'll be aware of the Consolidated Professor Mines development that is ready to come on track. We know this will create 175 permanent new jobs. We know it will pump $53 million into the local economy during the mine's pre-production period. As well, we're looking at another $14.3 million into the local economy on an annual basis.

Madam Minister, you'll be aware as well that a redesignation under the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act has been requested by this company. In light of the announcement made by your government -- and you referred to the Minister of the Environment earlier -- to streamline that process, what are you doing to help Consolidated Professor Mines, and more important, the mining industry across the province to get back on their feet?

I've just cited an example of 99 miners in Balmertown gone -- no jobs left for those 99. What are you doing in terms of helping other mining industries to stay in this province?

Hon Miss Martel: The member should know that I did indeed have an opportunity to meet with Mr Cunningham-Dunlop of Consolidated Professor at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention. I was also very pleased to meet with representatives of one of the band, who are very interested in having the project proceed because they know full well that a number of native members of their communities will receive employment from that.

I can tell the member that discussions are under way among several ministries, and at the federal level and with the province of Manitoba with respect to the Shoal Lake project. He will know this was designated under his government. There has been a request for that project to be de-designated and we are looking at what the implications of that might be.

I cannot make any commitment to the member at this time as to what will happen in that regard, but I can tell him that a number of ministries are involved at the present time in seriously looking at that request to determine what we can do.

ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Public opinion research conducted for the Better Roads Coalition reveals that 82% of Ontarians want the provincial tax money collected through gasoline, tire and other road taxes to be invested in road maintenance and construction.

You're already spending approximately $1 billion less than you raised from these transportation user fees, yet this year the reduction in transfer payments to the municipalities is forcing cuts in road maintenance and the cancellation of new projects. Presently your government is following the Liberal example of allowing our infrastructure to crumble while spending money on such items as propaganda phone lines and buying out private day care centres. Can you explain why this $1 billion is being allowed to be frittered away when the condition of roads is so desperate?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): In terms of the money being spent and the achievements of the Ministry of Transportation, this fiscal year indeed represents the highest it's ever been. The total amount is $2.8 billion. Transfer payments, money that's flowing from the province to municipalities to fix bridges, to address the road system, has gone up 1% from $727 million to $735 million. At the Ministry of Transportation these are difficult but far from impossible times. We're capital-inclined.

I recall so vividly when these people formed a government. During good years they spent money like drunken sailors, except that at least drunken sailors spend their own money. Not only are we doing the best we can; this is an open-minded administration and we are seeking new ways, putting literally our best foot forward so that the investments of yesteryears will be improved both in terms of transit systems and in terms of transportation.

Mr Turnbull: This minister displays his lack of understanding of his own ministry. He's just suggested that he is spending more this year on roads than the total ministry budget, not counting transportation transfers. At the Ontario Road Builders' Association you mentioned that you were considering toll booths on Ontario highways as a source of revenue. Minister, all of these new taxes are just going to disappear in the general revenue unless you put something in place to guarantee that doesn't happen. The figures you just quoted are incorrect. You are not spending $2.8 billion on roads. You're just plain wrong. Tell me: If you're going to introduce toll booths, are you going to guarantee that money goes into road building and not your stupid propaganda projects?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The same polls will also indicate that the people in Ontario -- the motorists, the 6.3 million people who have a valid driver's licence -- in their position are way ahead of the third party because 64% of the people are saying go and find an imaginative way to meet the cost, for instance, of Highway 407. It's $20 million a mile.

Interjections.

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Later today I will be presenting a petition on behalf of the York-Finch Hospital Foundation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mammoliti: This is a very important issue. I hope they don't decide to shout me down again. Later today I will be presenting a petition on behalf of the York-Finch Hospital Foundation. Nine thousand people have signed it, supporting the hospital's request for urgently required funding. My question then is to the Minister of Health.

Honourable Minister, my community has requested that I bring their concerns directly to your attention. York-Finch General Hospital opened in 1970, and even though Yorkview has grown fantastically and is still growing, the hospital has not kept up. Today our hospital not only services the Yorkview area but outlying areas as well, including Woodbridge and Etobicoke. We urgently need funds to expand our current hospital services. Our planned expansion fulfils your ministry's guideline for providing more outpatient and ambulatory care services for communities without increasing hospital operating costs. Madam Minister, could you please inform me of the status of York-Finch General Hospital and its request for funding?

1440

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I appreciate the question from the member for Yorkview and also receiving a copy of the press release from his press conference that he held today jointly with the CEO of York-Finch hospital. I appreciate his expression of the level of community support. He asked for an update on the status of this project. The project was originally supported by the district health council back in about 1986. In 1987 they started doing some planning work but the project's never been given ministry approval and they have been awaiting that status and a response to that.

Right now, the member will know that as of January 21 we announced that we are conducting a major review of outstanding capital commitments. Those commitments are for projects that have been approved that are not currently in the ground but have already been started. A number of them have tenders already out. We are currently trying to get those cleared up and get responses to those hospitals and those communities as soon as possible because we recognize, yet again, holding them up is a real problem.

Until we do that, until we get those projects in line with the new guidelines and the hospital funding program, as well as the strategic directions of the ministry, we won't be able to get an answer to some of those hospitals that haven't got approved projects. I appreciate the member's concern and we will try to get him an answer when that's possible.

Mr Mammoliti: I look forward to hearing from the ministry.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Government Services. In January, the Premier spent $62,000 of taxpayers' money telling Ontarians that times are tough and that we have to tighten our belts. Talk is about the only thing that's cheap with this government.The latest example of wasteful spending is the move of the Cabinet Office to the fourth floor of the Whitney Block at a cost of $2.5 million. This minister moved his colleagues from perfectly good offices here in the Legislature to new quarters in the Whitney building. I just want to point out to the minister that $2.5 million could support 100 families annually at $25,000 per year.

I would ask how the Minister of Government Services can approve spending money so frivolously in these difficult economic times?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): The member for Oriole is quite correct and the Cabinet Office has been consolidated in the Whitney Block from four former locations. The total cost for that move was $1 million --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: As I was saying, the Cabinet Office was consolidated in the Whitney Block from four former locations, one of which was in the Legislative Building, two in the Whitney and one in the Mowat Block. This consolidation was done in response to the recommendations of an all-party committee on the parliamentary precinct and is part of the overall plan for the restoration of the Legislative Building. The approximate cost for that was only $1,940,000 -- far under budget. The quality of the operations and new furniture are comparable to the standard for government or private use; 60% of the existing furniture and equipment were reused.

Mrs Caplan: I think, on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario, the Minister of Government Services should know that I believe, and I think the taxpayers believe, that in excess of $1 million is a lot of money. He misses the point when he stands up and rhymes off an apologist's justification for what has been done.

What has been done is clearly wasteful and it is just part of a list of wasteful expenditures which include $200,000 for putting police officers up in the Sutton Place Hotel for budget security measures; $170,000 to publicize the throne speech, which was already published in full text in the paper and televised on the legislative channel; $500,000 for a completely useless legislative inquiry, and a $25-a-call NDP propaganda hotline.

This minister keeps justifying wasteful expenditures. I would ask him, why doesn't he change the name of his ministry to the Ministry of Government Waste?

Hon Mr Wilson: I imagine that last remark from the member for Oriole referred to my having the 3Rs program within my ministry.

Nevertheless, the consolidation of the cabinet office in the Whitney Block is part of the long-range plan, which I am sure the member is familiar with, of the refurbishing of the legislative precinct. It will in fact free up space within this very building in which we sit to allow us, for instance, to move members back into this building.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, the Treasurer is poised to make some pretty dramatic cuts in social services on Thursday. At least that's what we are being led to believe. Faced with that predicament, rather than possibly reducing the number of children who are impoverished and need meals in this province, rather than dealing with the 12,000 children on mental health waiting lists, rather than providing a safe environment by not cutting the budgets of children's aid societies, you and your government have decided to proceed with a rather expensive plan, worth about $105 million, to wipe out private day care and the day care spaces it is providing to thousands of children in this province.

How can you justify this expensive ideological experiment that will be of no direct benefit to children in this province, especially to children in day care centres who will lose their spaces, women workers who will lose their jobs, women owners who will lose their businesses and their life investment and, last but not least, taxpayers who will lose value on their $105 million instead of putting it into children's services?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): As I am sure the member is well aware, I will not comment on the first bunch of allegations he made about the budget. On Thursday you will hear about the budget and understand the commitment we have to those who are most in need in the province.

In terms of the issue around the support for private child care centres to convert to the non-profit sector, we believe these dollars are well spent on behalf of the children, their parents and indeed the staff. Of that $105 million, $30 million is specifically to pay support for the direct operating grants and the wage enhancement to people in those centres.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take her seat, please. With the cooperation of the member for Etobicoke West, the member for Burlington South can ask his supplementary.

Mr Jackson: The truth of the matter is, Minister, that you have $105 million of open-ended funding which, by your own testimony before a committee of this Legislature, you indicated was going to pay for non-profit centres that were closing. You were propping them up. A lot of that money is not going to conversion and saving spaces; it is to save a system that isn't working in this province fiscally. That's where you're putting your money, Minister, so don't try and suggest to this House that all that money is saving day care spaces. Thousands of spaces in for-profit and independent centres are closing.

I repeat my question: You have an opportunity now, faced with the difficult cuts you are going to have to make, with the news your Treasurer shares with you, you have the option of dropping this expensive ideological experiment and allowing those children's services to be retained in this province. A poll was announced today that showed that 80% of the citizens of this province support choice and the most inexpensive way economically of delivering day care in this province. That's what 80% want.

On television in January, in an address on the economy, the Premier said, "I want your input." The province has spoken, and 80% of people want you to go back to the system of allowing this sector to survive. Will you respond and will you change this offensive ideological priority for spending when children's spaces are closing all across this province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are allowing private child care centres to stay open. Those that are now receiving grants will continue to receive grants and we continue to say that choice will be available to parents. We are saying that we will not put our scarce public dollars into profit centres when we need to strategically place those dollars to create a child care system in this province.

1450

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Chairman of Management Board. Minister, on Friday you announced the relocation of government jobs from Toronto to communities across the province. In Kingston I announced on your behalf that the Ontario Heritage Foundation will be moving to Kingston with 60 jobs. However, the people of the Kingston area were expecting 230 government jobs. Can you explain why this change was made?

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet): As the member knows, we went through a review of the relocation program and as a result of that managed to identify over $300 million in savings as well as making what we think are a number of improvements to the original proposal.

With regard to Kingston particularly, we have I guess three points I could make to the member. First, we believe the move of the Ontario Heritage Foundation to Kingston is a better fit than elsewhere, and we think for that reason that's more sensible.

Second, we know there was some concern with respect to the number of jobs and will continue to work with the community in Kingston and within ministries about further possible relocations. Also, we've indicated that we are looking there at the possibility of alternative economic development funds we can make available to Kingston as the community is looking at what other industrial development activities it wants to undertake.

Third, we were able to confirm that a number of jobs from the Ministry of Transportation which were in some possibility of being moved out of Kingston will in fact be confirmed as remaining in Kingston. That's about 225 jobs. We think that with all of those things together, we have been fairly fair with the Kingston community.

Mr Gary Wilson: Minister, the chairperson of the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission is concerned that the Kingston announcement shows a lack of support for eastern Ontario, and we need that support. For example, on the very day I was announcing the move of 60 jobs to Kingston, Celanese Canada was announcing that it was closing a production line at a cost of 160 jobs. What is the government doing to promote the economic development of eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can certainly give at least two very specific examples. With respect to Renfrew, which was one of the other communities that was involved in the relocation program, we came up, as a result of discussions with people in the Renfrew community, with an alternative economic development fund of $3 million from our end, which replaces the relocation move, which from their point of view makes a lot more sense as well in terms of the discussions we've had.

We anticipate that's one of the options that's available with respect to Kingston. We realize the discussions there have not gone as far as they have in the Renfrew community, but that's, as I've indicated, one of the options that's there and that will be discussed further, certainly with the member and with the mayor of the city and with other people in the community.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Minister of Government Services last week admitted that the government is going to conduct more polls. The Minister of Transportation today quoted a poll saying 70% of the people were for something so the government was going to be doing it.

This question is for the Premier. At a time when his NDP government is closing hospital beds, is laying off nurses, is cutting educational programs, is shutting down kindergartens and is denying essential prescription drugs to elderly patients in Ontario, how can the Premier justify spending government funds, taxpayers' money, on more public opinion polls?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the upcoming --

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Speak right to the TV audience, Bob.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the helpful suggestions being made by the member for St George-St David with regard to question period. His ongoing commentary is a source of education and amusement to all of us and it's a period we all look forward to.

My answer to the member would be to say that I think the estimates discussion and the budget discussion will give the member an opportunity to see the priorities of this government with respect to public services and with respect as well to information. I think it's important for us to always remember that our first obligation is to serve the public and make sure the public is getting the services that it needs, and as well from time to time to let people know what we're doing and from time to time to ask people, which I think all institutions do -- in fact, the leader of the third party asked a question today based on a 50,000-firm survey that was presumably carried out by the Progressive Conservative Party. I would think --

Mr Bradley: That is party funds, not government funds.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't know whose funds they were, whether it was done by the caucus or whatever. These are things we all have to do from time to time.

Mr Bradley: In his earlier days in opposition, in his politically pure days, when he dismissed casino gambling and offtrack betting as politically evil, the Premier believed that government-commissioned polls paid for by taxpayers represented a cynical manipulation of the political process. Why, now that he is Premier, has he abandoned his principles of the past? Why does he not do what he vowed to do in opposition and cancel this costly, strictly political exercise?

Hon Mr Rae: I suspect for the same reason that, when the member was the Minister of the Environment for five long years and polls were conducted by his cabinet, he sat back and participated in that: for the simple reason that there is a normal process by which governments try to seek out and listen to people. There are a variety of ways of consulting with people, of which polling is simply one. The results are shared with the public and shared with members of the Legislature. That's the traditional practice in the Legislature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Premier. Employees at the Cambridge Reporter recently attempted to get their union decertified. Thirty of 54 employees, the majority, have signed a petition requesting that the union be decertified. Apparently several union cards were obtained by the organizers at a union party where a number of people under the influence of too much beer and good cheer were given cards without paying the requisite $1 fee.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board has turned down the petition because an application to terminate bargaining rights cannot be made until after the first collective agreement is settled. The first contract is currently pending before an arbitrator. The 30 employees, the majority, do not feel that their voices have been heard on the issue of certification. They are frustrated by a process that is not responsive to their wishes.

Would the Premier not agree that this case clearly demonstrates the need for a secret ballot vote for certification to protect the democratic rights of workers in this province and to ensure that all voices are heard?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I'll have to take your question as notice.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Premier, you would agree that labour legislation must be responsive to the interests of all working people in the province. Your discussion paper gives unions additional rights but no accompanying responsibilities. There is absolutely no onus on a union to provide employees with copies of recent collective agreements, the union constitution, discipline procedures and information on the amount of dues payable in order that employees can truly make a well-informed choice.

Today you talked about providing workers with the right to organize. However, that right must be balanced. They also need to have the right not to become unionized. The only way to ensure that the democratic rights of all employees are protected is to provide them with the ability to vote on the issue through secret ballot.

Premier, when you introduce your bill to amend the Labour Relations Act, will it contain the requirement for a secret ballot vote for certification, ratification of agreements and the decision to strike, as I put forward in my private member's Bill 152?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only to say to the honourable member that I find that ironic coming from an élite member of the third party. After all, it was her party that was in power and passed legislation over many years providing for the pattern of certification that is in place today. Her complaint does not appear to be simply with the legislative proposals that have been made by this government; her complaint appears to be with the labour legislation that was passed by 42 years of Tory government in the province of Ontario.

1500

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. She should know that across this province volunteer organizations, be they groups like the Rose City Snow Seekers or the Welland Snowmobile Club, sports groups, hockey teams, bowling leagues, what have you, know they can't go with hand out to municipal governments, or indeed even to the provincial government, expecting grants and funding. What they are forced to rely on is that labour-intensive effort of fund-raising. They are ready to do it. They are eager to do it. They are eager to spend long, smoke-filled nights in bingo halls trying to raise money for their volunteer activities.

The problem is that they are experiencing a phenomenon where they are finding it more difficult rather than easier to engage in this fund-raising exercise. This is untenable and totally unacceptable. These people work too hard to provide too much to their communities to have stumbling blocks presented to them by the government.

My question is this: It is no secret that there is a gaming services act being resurrected and scheduled to be presented at some point. What is this minister going to do to make things easier for these small-town groups like the Rose City Snow Seekers, the Welland Snowmobile Club, minor hockey and baseball teams to make it easier rather than more difficult?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It is always a pleasure to get a question from my colleague, formerly of my own ministry. Given the short time left today, I would just like to tell him that of course I am an advocate for the little guy and the little gal out there. I agree that there have been numerous roadblocks for people. I believe that is what he was talking about. There has been confusion for some time before last week about who has been eligible for charitable licences, as I said, starting with the Liberal government. We are in the process of reviewing some of that eligibility. We want to be fair, we want to obey the law, but I am certainly aware of the problems the member is pointing out here today and am in the process of reviewing some of that and making sure their voices are heard in my ministry at last.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a supplementary for the member?

The Speaker: While I appreciate the member's interest in both questions and responses, the question period is one hour in duration, and the time has expired.

Mr Stockwell: Unanimous consent.

The Speaker: With unanimous consent we can do just about anything. Do we have unanimous consent to continue question period?

Interjections: No.

The Speaker: No. I realize this disappoints the member, but we continue with the routine proceedings.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Mr Cooke moved that the membership of the standing committee on regulations and private bills be amended by Mrs MacKinnon being substituted for Mr Fletcher.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that Mr Turnbull exchange places with Mr Tilson and Mrs Witmer exchange places with Mr McLean in order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have here a petition that has been put together by the Tebrik subcommittee of the St Paul's Home and School Association. Some 250 persons have signed the petition, which reads as follows. I note that this group of parents has done an incredible amount of work in putting this together, and I support it fully.

"We, the undersigned, find unacceptable the level of financing from the Ministry of Education towards (a) alleviating the overcrowding at St Paul's Catholic School, Newmarket, Ontario, and (b) meeting the needs of this growing community for further educational facilities.

"We support the board's bid to seek additional funds for Tebrik, phase 2, as proposed in the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board's capital expenditure forecast dated March 16, 1992. We most strongly recommend that the Ministry of Education approve financing of Tebrik, phase 2, in order to provide adequate and appropriate facilities to meet the educational and health and safety needs of the children of our community."

As I mentioned, I have appended my signature to this. It has been put forward by close to 250 people from Newmarket.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Lanark-Renfrew to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual highway signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Incredibly, I have 9,000 signatures from my community. York-Finch General Hospital Foundation this morning gave me the petition. Frankly, I'd like not only to read it but tell you how important it is to me.

"Whereas the York-Finch General Hospital has been working with the Ministry of Health in developing an expansion program that will help in meeting the health care needs of the community it serves;

"Whereas the planning for this expansion has been ongoing for approximately eight years;

"Whereas the community has donated and pledged funds towards its share of the building costs for the proposed expansion;

"Whereas the population in Yorkview and Downsview ridings continued to increase dramatically;

"We, as community residents, request that the government of Ontario provide approval and funding for the York-Finch General Hospital expansion program so that this hospital may more appropriately accommodate the health care needs for its population."

I have certainly affixed my signature to the petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have been asked to present this petition by 68 people in my riding. I say I present it; I do not agree with what it has to say. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas it is the duty of the free people to constantly guard and, if necessary, defend their freedoms, including linguistic freedom;

"Whereas the equality of all before the law is a fundamental principle of a democracy;

"Whereas the French Language Services Act creates a lawful but unjust special status for one linguistic group in Ontario and overrides the equality principle of a democracy;

"Whereas this act was passed by a minority of the members of this Legislative, as only 55 of the 125 elected members of this Legislative Assembly were present to vote;

"Whereas Ontario was founded and developed by the people of many cultures and many linguistic backgrounds in addition to English and French;

"Therefore, to return true democracy to Ontario, wherein all are equal before the law, and to promote harmony and goodwill among all the citizens, we ask this House to repeal the French Language Services Act, Bill 8, at the earliest possible moment."

As I said, I've been asked to present this and I've presented it, but I do not agree with the contents of it.

1510

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I wish to present a petition to the Legislature on the subject of the government considering legalizing casinos. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the current government is considering legalizing casinos in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in the racing industry; and

"Whereas studies show these proposals could affect some 50,000 jobs within the industry;

"The government stop looking to casinos as a quick-fix solution to pay down the deficit."

CENTRES D'ALPHABÉTISATION

M. Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : J'ai en main six pétitions. Par contre, je vais consolider les six en une.

En 1986, le gouvernement de l'Ontario met sur pied une politique d'alphabétisation pour l'Ontario. En 1990, Statistique Canada dévoile dans une étude que plus de 38 % de la population canadienne est analphabète.

En mars 1992, le gouvernement de l'Ontario annonce une coupure minimum de 22 % pour les centres d'alphabétisation. Ces coupures mettent en danger la survie et l'avenir des centres d'alphabétisation. Le gouvernement de l'Ontario doit accepter de prendre sa responsabilité et d'assurer un financement adéquat pour les centres d'alphabétisation.

Nous demandons au gouvernement de l'Ontario de maintenir au budget les montants affectés aux différents programmes d'alphabétisation.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition signed by 203 Ontario residents representing both management and employees of a number of Ontario companies, including Servocraft, Covertite Eastern, Bel-con Engineering, Dineen Construction, Twin Masonry and Zan Dall Construction, which reads:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

I here affix my signature.

TAXATION

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by a number of people from the Ottawa-Carleton area. I have affixed my signature to it and agree with it:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I present to the Legislature of Ontario a petition, which I have affixed my signature to, and it is signed by 30 residents of Ottawa-Carleton:

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation bill, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;

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

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation, the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a number of petitions here signed by tenants in three apartment buildings in North York -- 50, 60 and 70 Ruddington -- as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;

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

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation, the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

I have attached my signature.

GAME AND FISH BILL

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 162 has been introduced to amend the provisions of the Game and Fish Act, RSO 1980, chapter 182; and

"Whereas the undersigned are opposed to the amendment of the Game and Fish Act pursuant to the provisions of Bill 162;

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

"The undersigned respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to amend the Game and Fish Act, RSO 1980, chapter 182, by the enactment of Bill 162."

This is signed by over 300 citizens of the province, and I have affixed my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

Mr Winninger moved first reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.

Motion agreed to.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Very briefly, the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Code would extend protection against discrimination in employment against persons aged 65 and over.

CAMBRIDGE DISTRICT ASSOCIATION FOR CHRISTIAN EDUCATION ACT, 1992

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Cambridge District Association for Christian Education.

Motion agreed to.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES RECOURS COLLECTIFS

Mr Hampton moved third reading of Bill 28, An Act respecting Class Proceedings / Loi concernant les recours collectifs.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Bill 28 is An Act respecting Class Proceedings.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): We are here to see if you get approved.

Hon Mr Hampton: We'll be relying on you, Ian, for your help on this.

Bill 28 received second reading on November 8, 1991, and by an order of the Legislature it has been continued as a bill of the second session. A number of steps must be taken before Bill 28 can be proclaimed. I should mention that there is a companion bill along with Bill 28. It is Bill 29, An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings. The two bills come together.

As I mentioned, a number of steps must be taken before Bill 28 and Bill 29 can be proclaimed. The first step is to design the class proceedings fund. Part and parcel of this legislation is to establish a fund for the purposes of funding class proceedings.

Part of that step will be the need to establish an advisory committee to develop the structure, administration and procedures for the fund. Second, we need to select members for the advisory committee. We believe there should be representation from the Law Foundation of Ontario. We believe that actuarial expertise is required and would be helpful here. We want to ensure that we're able to determine how the fund can be made self-funding through the appropriate levies from damage awards and settlements. The advisory committee will have to resolve a number of issues relating to the fund before we're able to put it into place.

Second, we will need to work out the applications in other forms to provide for class proceedings and we will need to give considerable attention to the Quebec experience with its class actions assistance fund. As you know, Quebec has had class actions for some time and it has considerable experience with some of these things.

Next we'll have to deal with adapting the rules of court. Under Bill 28 the rules of court do apply to class proceedings. Consideration will need to be given to whether it is necessary to amend any of the rules to accommodate class proceedings or whether forms of notice for class proceedings should be added to the rules.

After that, and this is all part and parcel of the nuts and bolts which some members may want to discuss or allude to here, we will have to of course consult with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Class proceedings raise certain ethical issues, such as the potential conflict of interest between the lawyer's duty to the representative plaintiff and to other members of the class.

Finally, one of the issues which will be germane here will be judicial education. Class proceedings will mean a major change for the judiciary. There may be concerns about the impact of this legislation upon the judiciary. The Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform, which did the general discussion of the issue, recommended that special efforts be made to educate the judiciary about the new procedures. We need to be prepared to assist the judiciary in any judicial education programs or other measures that the judiciary initiates for its members.

Part and parcel of what may be this third reading discussion will be the need for a communications public information package. Consumers and business organizations, though we have consulted with them widely on these reforms and the legislation, will need the benefit of a great deal of public information if we are to be able to utilize these new procedures in the optimum way.

Finally, the legislation entails a number of regulations, specifically regulations that will have to deal with the class proceedings fund, and there may be some discussion here about what ought to go in some of those regulations.

We need after that to establish the class proceedings committee. The committee will be responsible for the administration of the class proceedings fund. We believe five committee members must be appointed. There should be one by the Law Foundation of Ontario, one by the Attorney General and three jointly by the law foundation and the Attorney General. There will need to be consultations with the law foundation and, finally, if the committee is to work hand in glove with the legislation, training and orientation for the members of the committee, because they, after all, will be new to this as well.

These are all items that are yet to be done that flow out of the legislation. They will represent the culmination of all the hard work that has been done on this legislation, and I acknowledge here that much of that hard work was done by my predecessor, the member for St George-St David. I understand he may want to speak to some of this today, so I will make no further remarks at this time and leave this perhaps to him and to other members of the official opposition who want to speak at this time.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I am fascinated to hear the way the minister introduced the bill, because he described in detail, more elaborate than I would have thought necessary, the work that has to be done ahead of us, all this education and so on. I drew from that the inevitable conclusion that the minister has no early intention of proclaiming this bill if it's passed.

The reason I'm concerned about that, and the question I have, is (1) when does he intend to proclaim the bill and (2) is he going to be able to get the funding from the law foundation that was promised to support the second bill in light of what the Treasurer and the government are inevitably going to do to the law foundation at or around the time of the budget?

Hon Mr Hampton: In answer to the member for St George-St David, we anticipate, and I tried to outline this in my brief remarks, that we will need at least six months to implement the legislation. Following passage by the House and royal assent, we will have to work through all the steps I have indicated: designing the class proceedings fund, adapting the rules of court, consultation with the law society, some attention paid to judicial education and then, finally, drafting the regulations which must be in place and establishing the class proceedings committee. We will have to do all that; that will take about six months. We acknowledge that the act does require money. However, I've received no indication at this time that this will create a difficulty. It's my understanding that we will be able to manage that.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): At the outset I want to say that we obviously support the legislation and will be voting for it, but I will be less delicate than the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, when he just posed his particular question.

What we have just seen from the Attorney General is a very transparent attempt to further delay this legislation. I think it's very important that we look at the process that has unfolded since this government has been elected with respect to these two bills.

The former Attorney General introduced this very bill -- these two bills, 28 and 29 -- in June 1990, and of course those bills died in Orders and Notices with the calling of the election. The NDP government was elected in September 1990, and we thought this government and this Attorney General were committed to this legislation, because on December 17, 1990, it was introduced for first reading. However, we then found out that it took some full year before this government brought this legislation forward for second reading and further debate and vote in principle. We could not at that time guess why this government was delaying these bills.

1530

The next thing that tipped the hand of the government in terms of its true intentions occurred in the standing committee on administration of justice. When this Legislature referred this legislation to the standing committee on administration of justice we saw the spectacle of the government side filibustering its own legislation.

In November 1991, at second reading, the opposition parties both spoke to this legislation and both wanted it to proceed as quickly as possible. We finished the debate in about 15 or 20 minutes. The government had no further matters to bring forward and the parliamentary assistant, in effect, filibustered the government's own bill, the class action legislation, at that time on second reading.

The matter was referred to committee. In committee, both opposition parties had no amendments to bring forward, the government had no amendments to bring forward, and yet despite the request of the opposition parties, the government refused to bring the legislation back in December and have it voted on for third reading and royal assent before the Christmas break. That was in December 1991.

We had discussions off the record, the opposition parties and some other interested parties, as to why this government would want to delay this legislation. We now see that it is brought forward for third reading and upon introduction for third reading the minister lays the groundwork in great detail, which we did not see before, which we did not hear before, as to why he is being prevented by some other forces from going forward with this legislation, on which there is an overwhelming consensus right across the board, all the stakeholders, the public, the ministry, the opposition parties.

What has happened since this was introduced for first reading back in November 1990 that the Attorney General has to now say, "We are going to set up an advisory committee and we are going to consult with an advisory committee on implementation and on funding, and we have to consult with the law society"? The minister knew he had the full support of this Legislature, the full support of the legal profession, the full support of the public and he sat idly by.

I believe the reason and the rationale are that this government is not now committed to this legislation for some unstated and unknown reason which we can only speculate on, and which I will speculate on because we believe that the agenda for this ministry is non-existent. The agenda of the previous administration, for which there is a total consensus, is being stymied by this Attorney General and this government. The Attorney General raises his eyebrows. I simply have a question for the Attorney General: Why has it taken so long?

To put it in context, we have to know that the public in Ontario is very disenchanted with elected officials at all levels. In fact, they are disenchanted with the administration of justice and in many cases with the legal profession. The conduct of this government, where there is something that is very easy to rectify in terms of the process, is not defensible. It's not defensible to the public and it's not defensible to the legal profession. The public will continue to have a growing cynicism when governments cannot respond in ways that are obvious, in ways that are necessary and in ways that are affordable.

As I mentioned the other day, the legal issues in this province and the problems they are creating are growing in a geometric progression. This minister and this ministry cannot even deal with them on a level playing field or an arithmetic progression. They're falling further and further behind in almost every component of the administration of justice.

One might blame it on the fact that there was internal turmoil in the ministry. There was trouble with the Deputy Minister, Mary Hogan, and so forth, but this agenda item was agreed to by all parties in the previous Parliament with the previous government. It was introduced by this government within a couple of months after its election. There is no reason why it didn't come forward other than there being some force within the ministry which is causing the government and the Attorney General to be frozen on the spot and unable to act on anything.

I do want to go over and put this legislation in context, because it is long overdue. As I said, there is no reason the government is not going forward with it. The push for class proceedings legislation has been long-standing in many jurisdictions including Ontario. I just want to itemize some of them for the record at this time to remind the Attorney General that in my opinion he is being negligent. It's a derogation of his duty not to proceed full speed ahead and not to have done the consultation and not to have drafted regulations beforehand.

I want to review some of the background for the Attorney General. Perhaps he's been too embroiled in turmoil within his own ministry to recall where this legislation comes from and how it got to his desk and our legislative agenda at the present time. The impetus for reform in this area came from a number of sources. The Supreme Court of Canada, in General Motors of Canada Ltd v Naken, in 1982 noted the inadequacy of the existing rule 12, which was then rule 75, for meaningful class actions. The existing rule did not and does not provide the court sufficient guidance for managing complex litigation.

What the court basically was saying was that even though there's good intentions to increase access to the courts, the present legislative regulatory structure of the rules of court did not provide an adequate framework for class proceedings. What that means is that even up to today there are people who ought to have a say in court and who ought to have the protection of the courts, who do not have the protection of the courts. That was an interpretation from the Supreme Court of Canada back in 1982.

In 1982 the Ontario Law Reform Commission published its report on class actions, which recommended new comprehensive procedures. I guess new in 1982 at this stage is pretty old and it still hasn't been done. The Ministry of the Attorney General hosted a conference called the Access to Civil Justice Conference in June 1988 in Toronto. Participants called for a new class action procedure as a way of increasing access to the justice system. That initiative was taken by the Liberal government at that time under the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David. Additionally, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, at its August 1988 meeting in Toronto, also approved in principle class action reform along certain specific lines.

It's interesting to see the terminology "reform." The NDP government and the NDP agenda are supposed to be all about reform. Reform was undertaken by the Liberal government by introducing this legislation and this supposedly reform-minded NDP agenda has put a full stop to it. Even though the legislation is here, the Attorney General today is creating excuses why it probably will be at least a year or longer before this long-requested reform is actually implemented.

If I can on go with some of the background, in January 1989 the Alberta committee on fair dealing in consumer savings and investments published its report entitled A Blueprint for Fairness. The committee recommended that consumers have a civil right of action on a class basis allowing government to participate where consumers suffer losses due to breach of the proposed Consumer Savings and Investment Information Act.

1540

We have similar consumer legislation in Ontario. There are groups such as the Consumers' Association of Canada. There's such a broad consensus for this legislation, I still cannot understand why today, effectively, the minister announces additional delays. Quebec has had class actions available to litigants for over a decade. Ontario is lagging far behind and this Attorney General is creating additional delays.

The United States has had class actions available to litigants at both the state and federal levels for over 25 years. We're 25 years behind the times. We're 10 years behind the time when everyone in this province was advising various governments to proceed. The Attorney General stands in his place today, believe it, on third reading and creates excuses why he's not going to implement this bill as soon as possible. We can only guess at the reasons for that.

The former Attorney General introduced for first reading the Class Proceedings Act, 1990, in June 1990, which would make available a comprehensive procedure for claims on behalf of numerous persons who have suffered the same loss or injury. The procedure is designed to provide a more efficient and streamlined method for the court to deal with complex litigation affecting the interests of hundreds or even thousands of persons.

I want to give a little additional background because I want to relate this background to the statements that were made by the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Attorney General back in 1990 when they decided to reintroduce the former Attorney General's bill. The Attorney General at that time -- this is 1989 -- announced the formation of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform, which was to be made up of representatives of business interests, consumers, lawyers and environmentalists.

I mentioned earlier that there was a broad consensus among the public and the legal profession, and in fact within the ministry. This advisory committee was composed of the following: the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Retail Council of Canada, the Consumers' Association of Canada, Energy Probe, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Advocates' Society, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario.

That committee, which consulted on a very substantive basis with the government, made a number of recommendations. There were certain terms of reference for that committee. The committee's terms of reference require that it design the legal infrastructure of a class action for Ontario within certain parameters. The parameters were as follows:

1. The consultations would start from the premise that the class action remedy would treat plaintiffs and defendants in a fair and equitable manner and would impose no unnecessary burdens on the courts.

2. The remedy would include a structured certification procedure in which a judge would screen potential class actions according to specific tests.

3. A rule that all class members who do not specifically opt out would be included in the action.

4. A presumption that notice would be given to class members following certification, unless otherwise ordered by the court, would be included.

5. There would be a controlled contingency fee arrangement. I will say more on that a bit later.

6. There would be no special role for the Attorney General in class actions.

7. Undistributed awards would be returned to the defendant following the expiry of the relevant limitation period except with respect to environmental cases, which would be given further consideration by the advisory committee.

8. The new class action remedy would apply in all types of claims and that balanced court rules and procedures should apply to this unique remedy. In particular, it would be applicable in environmental litigation and consumer litigation.

9. The ministries of the Environment and Consumer and Commercial Relations, which have been considering introducing class action remedies in their legislation, would contribute their expertise and would leave the creation of the class action remedy to the Attorney General's consultation process while its work was ongoing.

The committee delivered a unanimous report to the Attorney General in February 1990 recommending a specific design for the procedure and its methods of delivery to litigants, the courts and the public. The committee approved the Class Proceedings Act, 1990, as introduced by the then Attorney General.

We had a framework within which the committee was operating. We had a unanimous report from a very broad public interest group. We had legislation drafted and we had unanimous consent on it. That is the background against which the then Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, introduced the class proceedings legislation which now finds its way into Bills 28 and 29.

I want to read into the record the statement of the then Attorney General when he introduced this legislation in 1990. I think it's instructive because at the end of that statement the member for St George-St David, on behalf of the government and I believe speaking on behalf of that overwhelming consensus that produced this legislation, indicated that it was the hope of everyone that it would be passed quickly for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

We now see that is not the case and that this government and this ministry is really creating impediments to its implementation. Again, as I said, I do want to read the member's statement of that day in June 1990. He said:

"A little less than a year ago, on 29 June 1989, I announced in the Legislature this government's intention to undertake class action reform.

"Members will recall that a class action or a class proceeding is a special procedure that permits numerous individuals who have suffered a common wrong to seek redress in one lawsuit as a group, rather than in numerous lawsuits as individuals. It can be a valuable tool for litigants since it will provide an effective means to achieve compensation for widespread harm or injury while at the same time saving limited court time and resources.

"Our society will unfortunately continue to see incidents of mass loss similar to the Mississauga train derailment, the Dalkon Shield case, mass environmental damage, defective products and other consumer losses."

If I can interrupt my reading of the remarks of the member for St George-St David, I want to say that this is the type of action that this government at this time is saying it's going to delay implementing. There are thousands of people out there who are crying for this type of remedy, including the legal profession, the Consumers' Association of Canada and all kinds of other groups.

"These are all examples of the kinds of claims that may be treated...more efficiently in a class proceeding.

"On 29 June 1989, I set out...several principles of reform to which the government was committed. Around those principles, I formed a broadly representative advisory committee to make recommendations. That committee has produced a unanimous report which is being tabled today and on the basis of which I am pleased to introduce a bill entitled the Class Proceedings Act, 1990."

Again if I can interrupt my reading of the quote, that was in June 1990. Again I repeat, we have the Attorney General standing up here today in opposition to that unanimous consent saying why there will be impediments put in the way to implementing the class proceedings legislation. I continue the quote of the then Attorney General:

"The act builds upon the important work of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which completed an exhaustive review of this field in 1982 and published a report that has been hailed as an important contribution to scholarship in the class action area. Although the report presented a powerful case for reform, none was forthcoming at the time.

1550

"This government did not feel it would be appropriate to prepare legislation affecting so many people without the advice of business, environmentalists, lawyers and consumers. It is for that reason that I established the Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform, whose membership included representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Retail Council of Canada, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Environmental Law Association, Energy Probe, the Advocates' Society, the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario and the Insurance Bureau of Canada."

What we see today is the Attorney General saying he is going to consult further with respect to regulations, funding and implementation. This is a disgrace. After the amount of consultation that has gone forward, the commitment that this government, the commitment that this Attorney General had to this legislation when he was in opposition as the critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, to come forward now after lengthy delays since September 1990 and meekly put forward a series of excuses for additional delay is beyond all credibility. We have to ask why. Perhaps the minister will explain why.

The explanations he gave as to what he is doing do not answer why he is just starting to do that now, why he is going to start drafting regulations, why he is going to consult on regulations now. He knew this legislation was going to be passed when it was introduced for first reading. He could've had it passed in one day. In November 1990 he could've obtained first, second and third reading from this Legislature, this legislation was so supported by this House and his own government. Yet he waited a full year between first and second reading and now he is raising a whole series of reasons why he is going to delay further.

If I can continue with the comments of the former Attorney General with respect to this legislation, the then Attorney General gave a word of thanks to the members of that advisory committee who worked as volunteers on a complex subject and produced sound and unanimous advice for the former government. I must say that given the delays that this Attorney General is seemingly implementing, I don't think much thanks would go to this particular government.

"The highlights of the proposed procedure" -- in the legislation -- "are as follows: The class proceeding will include a step in which a judge will screen potential class proceedings according to a specific test; members of the class who do not wish to participate in the class proceeding will have the opportunity to exclude themselves, or opt out, of the proceeding; the representative plaintiff will be required to ensure that the class members obtain notice of the proceedings; and once certified by the court, the proceeding would continue in a manner similar to other civil litigation, but with some significant differences, namely, that one judge will hear all the motions up to the trial and the court will have the ability to make aggregate judgements in cases where the only issue is the assessment of damages for many individuals.

"Normal cost rules for litigation will apply, but lawyers and their clients will be permitted to engage in special fee arrangements for such proceedings, subject to the court having final control over all fees and disbursement arrangements.

"The bill's provisions ensure that plaintiffs and defendants are treated fairly and that the class proceeding make a positive contribution to the resolution of civil disputes."

As the member for St George-St David said at that time:

"I am also pleased to announce the establishment of a class proceedings fund in the amount of $500,000, to be administered by the sole contributor, the Law Foundation of Ontario. This fund, which was a part of the advisory committee's unanimous recommendations, will provide financial assistance and some cost security to those litigants who are prepared to undertake the class proceedings on behalf of themselves and others."

It is very strange, given the establishment in principle of that fund back in June 1990, that the Attorney General stands in his place today and says, quite sheepishly I might add: "We've got to consult. We've got to speak to the law society. We must look at regulations, and it might take six months." As my colleague says, what have they been doing? They have been doing absolutely nothing with respect to this legislation. They've been delaying their own legislation that they supported in opposition and introduced in November 1990. It's just unbelievable that the Attorney General could be so irresponsible with respect to this legislation.

In concluding my quote of the member for St George-St David's statement when he introduced the bill, he said at that time, "I hope that we can enact it quickly in order that the people of Ontario can finally benefit from this important access to justice" initiative.

That last quote is significant, because the Attorney General and this government supported the legislation when it was introduced in June 1990. Now we on this side cannot believe when, in introducing it for third reading, the Attorney General stands in his place and says: "Well, we're going to have some delays now because we have to start consulting. We have to look at how the funding will go into place. The law society has a few things to say about it."

We can only speculate, as I said earlier. We can only speculate that this legislation is being delayed for specific purposes. The specific purpose is that this government does not have the financial commitment to it, and the Treasurer and the Premier are tying the hands of the Attorney General. Alternatively, the ministry and the Attorney General have a much larger agenda that they're not prepared to talk to us about at the present time, that they're looking at this legislation in a much larger context. They're looking at it in terms of an environmental bill of rights. They're looking at it in terms of consumer legislation, and they want to tie together class proceedings on a whole series of fronts with various pieces of other legislation.

I only say that because one can infer that from the statement from the Attorney General when he introduced the class proceedings legislation in December 1990. I want to refer to the minister's news release of December 17, 1990, with respect to this legislation, because I think it's very instructive. It's dated December 17: "Attorney General Howard Hampton introduced legislation today which will support the government's plans to develop an environmental bill of rights."

There's nothing in this legislation talking about the environment or any particular type of action, and yet this bill is introduced in the context of an environmental bill of rights. Now what do we have here? Do we have the Attorney General usurping the Minister of the Environment's area of responsibility? She is the person who responds on the environmental bill of rights. Yet in the news release in December 1990 it says, "Attorney General Howard Hampton introduced legislation today which will support the government's plans to develop an environmental bill of rights and provide another important avenue of access to justice in Ontario."

I'm glad the Attorney General has put the class proceedings legislation in a broader context, because I do in a few moments want to make some comment on that. The legislation, Bills 28 and 29, was introduced basically in identical form to the legislation that the member for St George-St David, the former Attorney General, had introduced. Obviously it has very broad application, and yet it is now being taken over by the Attorney General. In the very first sentence of his news release, his communiqué, he is calling it a piece of environmental legislation.

1600

We now see the Attorney General in this Legislature delaying implementation of the class proceedings legislation. He's delaying it in the same fashion as the Minister and the Ministry of the Environment are delaying the environmental bill of rights. A secret agenda exists which neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Ministry of the Attorney General is addressing.

Mr Speaker, I want to bring to your attention this news release of the Attorney General when he introduced Bills 28 and 29 in the Legislature. It's very relevant.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): What date was it?

Mr Chiarelli: December 17, 1990. The press release goes on:

"An advisory committee on the law of standing has also been created to examine the basis on which individuals have access to the courts when raising important issues of public interest."

Now we have the Ministry of the Attorney General doing a bill of rights on environmental matters. We have this other committee with respect to the law of standing. We have the class proceedings legislation which I believe the Attorney General thinks is ahead of its time, because there is an agenda that exists somewhere in the deep caverns of this NDP government which it is not talking about, and it has specifically, expressly, caused a process of delay on Bills 28 and 29, class proceedings; it has specifically caused and created delays with an environmental bill of rights. We see government members having set up a committee with respect to standing in the courts which is very significant with respect to access to justice.

So if there is an agenda with this government it is not stating it. If there is an agenda, government members want to come out with a monumental propaganda machine with environmental bill of rights, law of standing, contingency fees and a whole series of other matters. But in the meantime, at what cost? At the cost of the implementation of Bills 28 and 29.

Justice delayed is justice denied. There are all kinds of people being denied access to justice by reason of a number of issues, not the least of which is the lack of an opportunity to proceed with class proceedings before the courts. This government supposedly is committed to it, was committed to it in opposition, has introduced this legislation and has brought it forward for third reading, and the minister today brings in a whole series of reasons why there will be delay in implementation. In fact, he stated quite specifically that there will be delay in implementation.

That's not acceptable. Even though there's no general policy in this government with respect to access to justice, it has a very comprehensive, well-thought-out piece of legislation on which there is 100% consensus and it is delaying it.

They delayed it, as I mentioned, from November 1990 to, I think, December 1991 for first to second reading. Why did they defer it for that one year? I see the parliamentary assistant sitting there. He has not got one good reason it was delayed. He has not got one good reason that it did not come before this Legislature in December for third reading, royal assent and proclamation. Then the six or 12 months that the Attorney General is now asking for -- which I assure you, Mr Speaker, will be a lot longer -- would have been completed and this legislation would be effective today in Ontario. There is absolutely no good reason for delay in this legislation.

If I can quote again from the minister's statement of December 17, 1990, "'I am pleased to introduce this legislation because it forms an important part of this government's larger strategy to provide a procedure to assist in redressing environmental loss, among other types of widespread harm or injury,' said Mr Hampton." Was this bill an apology to the Minister of the Environment because she was shelving her environmental bill of rights?

This bill had little to do with the environmental bill of rights. It provides a way people can have access to the courts by way of class action. Certainly it applies to environmental actions, but this legislation doesn't refer to environmental rights in any way, shape or form. When the member for St George-St David introduced it, it didn't refer to an environmental bill of rights. Yet in December the whole introduction is couched in the framework of giving environmental rights.

Either the minister is misreading the broad scope of Bills 28 and 29 or, when he introduced this legislation, he wanted to do a bit of bafflegab and let the environmentalists think they were doing something significant. I believe, on reading this document that was put out by the Attorney General, that a lot of people would definitely have the wrong impression. I'm not so sure that isn't what was intended by this particular announcement, because it was all put in the framework of an environmental bill of rights. The announcement goes on to explain the framework of the Class Proceedings Act, 1990, and Bill 29, An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings.

To give a bit more credence to the points I am currently making, I want to refer to a news article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on December 18, which is the day after the Attorney General made that particular announcement and introduced the legislation for first reading. It says, "Mr Hampton said this legislation would also form part of the NDP's program to protect the environment by giving the power to sue to those affected by toxic spills or poisonous emissions." Once again we see the Attorney General trying to take the Minister of the Environment off the hook.

When we see the process this government and this Attorney General are taking, it raises two questions. The first one is the efficiency with which this government does its business: how long it has taken or not taken to implement this legislation. If I could just review very briefly, it was introduced for first reading in December 1990. Even though there was 100% unanimity -- it could have been passed the same day; second reading, third reading -- this government delayed a full year before it introduced it for second reading.

1610

On second reading, I believe in November or December of 1991, once again both opposition parties endorsed this legislation. They had no amendments to offer and urged the government to pass it quickly. I can recall very specifically on that day, when second reading was being considered, the spectacle of government members consulting with one another in whispers because they had to fill the balance of the day filibustering their very own legislation, these very same bills, Bills 28 and 29, which the minister indicated today he will delay in implementation.

It raises all kinds of questions. There's a question of timing. I don't know whether I can speak for the Conservative critic for the ministry, but certainly we were not expecting this minister to stand in his place today and very sheepishly and defensively create a number of excuses why they will not be implementing this legislation in a timely fashion. It was extremely transparent. Again, we can only say "Why?" I hope the people in the legal profession and in the environmental movement who are relying on this legislation will hold this government accountable for the delays in this legislation.

The second issue raised by this government's and this minister's delay in implementation of this legislation is the whole issue of access to justice. There are a number of areas dealing with access to justice, of which Bills 28 and 29 are only one and which the Attorney General tried to incorporate when he made his statement introducing the bills for first reading.

One of the biggest issues with respect to access to justice is the question of funding. Who pays for court proceedings? We are now dealing with Bills 28 and 29. Bill 29 tries to address that. If I can read from the explanatory notes:

"The bill amends the Law Society Act to provide for the class proceedings fund and establish the class proceedings committee. The class proceedings fund is to be administered by the Law Foundation of Ontario.

"A plaintiff to a class proceeding may apply to the class proceedings committee for financial support from the class proceedings fund in respect of the plaintiff's disbursements related to the proceeding. The bill sets out criteria for the committee to consider in deciding whether to fund a plaintiff. A defendant to a class proceeding is entitled to payment from the class proceedings fund in respect of costs awards made in the proceeding in the defendant's favour against a plaintiff who has received support from the fund.

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council is given regulation-making powers relating to the class proceedings fund."

That's one of the reasons the minister has indicated he is going to delay implementation. That's identical to the explanatory notes that existed in June 1990, in November 1990 and in 1991 when we looked at second reading.

Again, I want to put it in the context of access to justice, because the minister himself has done that with respect to relating it to the environmental bill of rights and to giving remedies to people who suffer class wrongs from environmental conduct of one type or another.

It is related very directly to the issue of intervenor funding. In a sense, Bill 29 provides a type of intervenor funding. There is legislation in existence, the Intervenor Funding Project Act, which was introduced in a three-year pilot project by the former government and was in place when this government assumed office in September 1990.

When in opposition, this government moved to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act. In fact the now Minister of the Environment, who was the opposition critic at that time, moved an amendment to the Liberal legislation which would have extended that intervenor funding. It's intervenor funding which is very similar to the type of application that would be made under Bill 29.

She moved to expand that funding which would be available for something that is similar to a class proceeding so that in addition to the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Energy Board, for which applications for funding were available, funding should be available to other administrative tribunals in the province, including the Ontario Municipal Board. She spoke very eloquently for that. Of course now she's delaying her environmental bill of rights and we have the minister here delaying Bills 29 and 28 and we have the minister trying to put Bills 28 and 29 in the context of an environmental law and in fact protecting environmental advocates.

This government had the opportunity to improve access to legal proceedings when a private member's bill was introduced and again to amend the intervenor funding project legislation to include the Ontario Municipal Board. The Ontario Municipal Board hears very significant cases having to do with municipalities, large developers, and more often than not they involve issues of very significant environmental concern, and this government, through its private members, voted not to extend the environmental project act to include significant matters before the Ontario Municipal Board.

There are significant environmental and community groups that wanted access to administrative tribunals and that could have received it by expansion of the intervenor funding project legislation, and as Bills 28 and 29 are being delayed here today by the minister, this same minister is delaying any expansion of the intervenor funding project legislation. A committee report which ought to have been provided to this Legislature on that legislation is still not forthcoming. Sure, at the last minute this three-year pilot project which was introduced by the Liberal administration was extended by this government, but it did not give the committee report when it did so. It did no further expansion of it; it didn't expand it to the Ontario Municipal Board, which the Minister of the Environment advocated when she was in opposition; it did not extend access to administrative tribunals whatsoever.

We don't know what the paralysis is in this ministry. We simply do not understand why they are introducing delay after delay. Perhaps they just don't have the money for the justice system. If that's the case, why don't they come clean? Why doesn't the minister stand in his place, instead of playing the old-time politics which this government was supposed to change, and say, "We're going to introduce it, we're going to give it third reading, we're going to give it royal assent, but we won't proclaim it because we don't have the $500,000 to fund Bill 29"?

If that's the case, we would understand it, but the minister stands in his place and he comes forward with implausible excuses. They're totally implausible and transparent. He has come in here like a little school child who's been admonished by the Treasurer: "Howie, go in, make any excuse. We don't have the money. We ain't got the money, but don't tell the people that. Just find some way to delay Bills 28 and 29 from being implemented."

This government is a government that promised honesty. It promised to be straightforward with the public. It is not and this is a prime example. They are playing old-time politics more than the other governments in this province have ever done.

1620

Interjections.

Mr Chiarelli: I hear some comments coming from the peanut gallery for the NDP and I think --

Mr Harnick: Just the member for Downsview. He always makes a speech a little easier.

Mr Chiarelli: Yes, the member for Downsview, who is an expert on access to justice in the province of Ontario, has a few words to say. That member does not even know the commitment that his government is breaking.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You don't even know my meaning. How could you know that? Don't point your finger at --

Mr Chiarelli: This member knows nothing about what his ministry is doing.

Interjections.

Mr Chiarelli: The caucus doesn't even know what the justice agenda is in this province. The Attorney General doesn't even know what the justice agenda is in this province, because he is waffling on every major issue. He doesn't even have the capacity to organize his own office.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Put your finger down.

Mr Chiarelli: This finger, to the member opposite, is a proper finger for admonishing the government. It's not the improper finger that some members on that side occasionally address to this side of the House.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. There is controversy and that's understandable. All members will have an opportunity when their turns come to participate in the debate and have their moment in the sun. In the meantime, the honourable member for Ottawa West has the floor and he can resume his participation in the third reading of Bill 28.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In reviewing the procedures for this House, and I'm going to be reviewing Hansard very closely, I would suggest to you that what I inferred from the member is that he used the L-word in reference to this government and this party and that's definitely unparliamentary. I would ask you to give him an opportunity to withdraw that here and now.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I listened very closely and, yes, the honourable member made an accusation of the government. He did not make an accusation of any one individual member.

Mr Chiarelli: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had pointed out in my remarks earlier the unusual spectacle of the Attorney General introducing Bills 28 and 29 with an aura of environmental concern. His press release on the day that he introduced Bills 28 and 29 for first reading very specifically referred to environmental protection and giving rights to environmentalists. There's a very strange juxtaposition between the Attorney General's statement in November 1990 and the Minister of the Environment's statement with respect to the environmental bill of rights that she made in this House on October 1, 1991.

The consultation process that took place in the previous government and that continued with the NDP government with respect to Bills 28 and 29 included the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which is very significant because Bills 28 and 29 do impact on the rights of members of a class to bring action in a way that's reasonable and in a way that's long overdue. So the environmental law association was quite appropriately involved in that process.

It is also involved in another process, which is referred to in the Minister of the Environment's statement. The whole issue of the environmental bill of rights is another access-to-justice issue, as are Bills 28 and 29. So I want to refer to the minister's statement that she made to the Legislature on October 1, 1991. She said, "I wish to take this opportunity to advise the members of the Legislature about the progress of the environmental bill of rights and the next stage in its development."

Keep in mind that this statement is being made over a year after the election of the NDP government in September 1990, and after over one year's delay, she there is in the process of making excuses for delays in the very same way that the Attorney General stood in his place today and set the groundwork for making excuses for delays of Bills 28 and 29, the class proceedings legislation. I will continue with her statement of October 1, 1991:

"My commitment to this bill has long been a matter of record in the Legislature. Our goal is simple but of profound importance" -- so profound that she continues to delay it, but in any case -- "to give the citizens of Ontario the right to act to protect the environment."

Well, my goodness, that's exactly what, in November 1990, the Attorney General said Bills 28 and 29 would do, and for which he has delayed it for close to two years. What is going on with this government? Do they have any answers to these questions? I'm sure the parliamentary assistant will. He's over there smiling like a Cheshire cat, knowing that he's got an answer to all these questions. But the fact of the matter is that he doesn't have answers to the questions. He, like his cabinet colleagues, has excuses. They have excuses; they don't have answers to the questions.

If I can continue with the Minister of the Environment's statement: "I am pleased to advise the Legislature today that I have now established the minister's Task Force on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights."

Well, well. We see the Attorney General setting up committees on how to spend the $500,000 fund with the law society, probably money which they don't have, and we see the Minister of the Environment setting up a committee on how to delay implementation of -- and it's a very serious matter -- access to justice. The access-to-justice issues are growing by leaps and bounds. Society is changing, technology is changing, the court process is changing, and this government is standing there marking time, treading water. There has got to be a conscious decision on the part of the government to delay implementation of all these access-to-justice issues, including Bills 28 and 29, which we will vote for, which will pass today or whenever it comes to a vote.

I want to continue with the Minister of the Environment's statement of October 1, 1991:

"This task force is made up of representatives from business, environmental groups and government. The members will draw upon their expertise and experience to design a draft bill.

"The task force is co-chaired by my deputy minister, Gary Posen, and Michael Cochrane, a senior counsel with the Ministry of the Attorney General. The members of the task force are" -- this is very significant, who the members of the task force are, because the groups that were drawn upon are almost the identical groups that the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, drew on for Bills 28 and 29.

1630

That group of consultation was already in place. It was in place in 1989, established by the member for St George-St David at that time. Yet we have a Minister of the Environment who is talking about access to justice, who waits over a year, since October 1, 1991, to say that she's going to set up a similar committee to the one the member for St George-St David had set up in 1989.

But in any case, who was involved in that consultation committee? The Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Environmental Law Association. I might say parenthetically that's the group that supported expansion of the Intervenor Funding Project Act when it was moved by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in opposition, when I had introduced a private member's bill to expand the intervenor funding and which was in favour of it when I reintroduced it under the NDP administration and which is still lobbying for it. This government continues to resist access to justice issues and we don't know why.

If I can continue, the groups which are involved in the minister's consultation group are the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Ministry of the Environment, Pollution Probe and the law firm of Miller, Thomson. I think it's very instructive as well.

I have a scrum report summary which refers to the Minister of the Environment's comments after she had made that statement. I think it's very important that we review the record because, I want to repeat, once again there is a theme developing from this government, that every access to justice issue -- and in fact, you might say a judgement issue -- but every access to justice issue is being delayed. It's being delayed consciously and we don't know why.

Maybe the ministry was paralysed by Mary Hogan. Maybe that's why she is gone. Hopefully, with the new deputy, we'll see things move with an agenda. You're way behind time, parliamentary assistant, who's sitting there. You've lost so much time it's unbelievable, with respect to justice issues. We hope Mr Thomson can bring you up to speed because certainly your minister can't and has not been able to.

But if I can get back to this particular access to justice issue, the scrum report: "Ruth Grier told the reporters that the minister's Task Force on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights was established due to the need for consensus. One reporter asked whether the NDP government lacks confidence to draft its own legislation. 'Weren't you elected to draft legislation?' Grier responded that the task force will facilitate the process of consultation which, in her opinion, is simply more important.

"When asked why the Minister of the Environment did not pursue the legislation which was drafted when the minister was in opposition, since it was 'good enough to run an election campaign,' Grier said that this project requires more work and time than she had originally anticipated. 'You're entirely misinterpreting what we do as useful, effective and meaningful.'"

We have the Minister of the Environment on an access to justice issue that is very relevant to the Ministry of the Attorney General basically saying that she exercised bad judgement in opposition because she introduced a bill without consultation, without knowing the implementation. She has exercised bad judgement again in government by delaying implementation of the environmental bill of rights which she is committed to doing.

I want to refer to a statement that was issued by our critic for the Environment dealing with the environmental bill of rights which is very significant. I think, looking at Bills 28 and 29 and the delays the Attorney General indicated today, that these statements are very relevant.

It says, and this is from the member for Brampton North, our critic on the issue of the environmental bill of rights: "Despite her promise over a year ago the Minister of the Environment has been unable to deliver on an environmental bill of rights, and has just now decided to consult, Liberal Environment critic Carman McClelland, MPP for Brampton North, said today.

"'With all the help in the bureaucracy, all the able people, it's amazing that the minister has still not been able to produce [the bill] in the time she has had. In fact, it's ironic because she already has a bill ready to go; she tabled one while in opposition,' said McClelland. 'Now, having come to a point where she's unable to do what she said she would do, she says she has to consult again.'"

The Attorney General has indicated in his release with respect to Bills 28 and 29 that it was for environmental protection that Bills 28 and 29 were introduced in November 1990. Yet he has had a course of significant delay that is very similar to that of the Minister of the Environment. If I can continue with the comments by the member for Brampton North:

"During the 1990 election campaign, the NDP promised that if elected they would immediately introduce an environmental bill of rights which would spell out Ontarians' right to a healthy environment, and make it easier for citizens to sue polluters."

Interjection: "Immediately."

Mr Chiarelli: Yes, the operative word is "immediately."

"However, today, Environment Minister Ruth Grier said a new task force, with representatives from business, environmental groups and the government would take several months to come up with draft legislation." Several months are long gone, the same as the 12 months were long gone between first reading and second reading of Bills 28 and 29, the bills we're concerned with here today. "Grier also added she doesn't know when the government will introduce the actual legislation, but promised it would be in place some time before the next election."

Well, how convenient. Some time before the next election could be five years from the "immediately" that she promised when she was appointed Minister of the Environment. This is the government that promised to eliminate cynicism from government. This is the government that promised a new, better, more honest way in its first throne speech. The words don't match the music.

"'While she was in opposition, the minister had all the answers,' said McClelland. 'Today, she's in government and has no answers.'"

The only answer she has is to consult and maybe we'll have it before the next election. She's using her minister, the Attorney General, as the fall guy or the fall person. He has to take Bills 28 and 29, which were introduced, which do not specify anything about the environment, which are class action proceedings legislation dealing with a wide range of possible causes of action in the courts, and he has got to introduce it with all these references to an environmental bill of rights to take his minister off the hook. Having done that when he introduced it for first reading, he now embarks on a process of very significant delay.

If I can continue with the statement:

"McClelland also pointed out that there is not adequate representation, on the ministerial task force committee, from all groups. He cited the agricultural community, as an example.

"'The minister's announcement is too little, too late. The minister has lost it in terms of what she said she was going to do,' said McClelland."

1640

How true. And not only has the Minister of the Environment lost it, but the Attorney General; I'm not even sure he ever had it. In any case he doesn't have it now, because the administration of justice in this province is not adequate. There is no responsiveness to the access-to-justice issues that this province is dealing with at the present time.

I'm going to conclude my remarks, but I do --

[Applause]

Mr Chiarelli: I see the opposition is applauding my remarks. I'm glad some people in the opposition have the courage of their convictions and they're willing to applaud some constructive remarks from members of the opposition.

I do want to say, in summary and in conclusion, that there are no answers to a lot of the questions that are being raised. The access-to-justice issues are not being dealt with. There is no reason whatsoever why Bills 28 and 29 could not have been approved by this government before Christmas in 1991. If they needed five or six months to prepare regulations they could have had them drafted instead of sitting here debating access-to-justice issues and trying to be held accountable for delays. Then we would have the people of Ontario with new, good legislation that would enable persons of a class to bring actions before the courts in an effective, efficient manner.

As I mentioned, we will be supporting this legislation, but we want to know why the Attorney General stood in his place today and made excuses for delaying implementation, which he said he would, and we want to know why the other very significant issues with respect to access to justice, including the law of standing, the environmental bill of rights and matters with respect to contingency fees are not being dealt with by this government. I might add also the question of expanding intervenor funding, which is long overdue.

With that, I will conclude my remarks.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd just like to congratulate the member for the comments made on these very important bills. I think all members of the Legislature will be very aware that the member has canvassed not only the issues within the bill but also the implications of each of those particular provisions and how they seem to juxtapose themselves with other matters coming out of different ministries.

I think the member has been eloquent in his comments with respect to the seeming stalemate that the members of the government find themselves in, unable to address the issues at hand, issues which all people in this province are aware of, and unable to deal with the implications of the issues. It seems the member has well indicated that the only thing this particular government can do in addressing those issues is to consult and study and not to act.

The people of this province find that improper, in my opinion. That after so many years, in areas where the issues are very clear, where agreement has been reached, where funding is available, the government is still unable to take the next step in order to enact these initiatives into law is, I think, something the member has brought out well. As this afternoon proceeds there may be further comments on the actions or inactions of the government on issues of the day. I would just like to congratulate the member for his comments.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'm somewhat perplexed at the length of time it's taken to bring this piece of legislation forward. It seems we've been here for over a year and a half now and this is 28 --

Hon Mr Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): And you've stalled for most of it.

Mr Stockwell: Au contraire, the Minister of Transportation.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member only has two minutes to reply.

Mr Stockwell: I've obviously impressed the group across the floor. I thank them for their honest and heartfelt comments.

What I'd like to say is that a year and a half ago Bills 28 and 29 were introduced and we've waited now a year and a half, maybe two years, to see this legislation come forward. It in fact was sent to committee when no one wanted it sent to committee except the minister himself and the government, I suppose. There appears to be some foot-dragging on this piece of legislation. I know not why.

When they were in opposition they were very much in favour of this kind of legislation. When a government takes this length of time to introduce a piece of legislation that was generally widely accepted from this side of the House, I can only come to the conclusion that there seems to be some disagreement within its caucus or within its cabinet. I'm going to be very interested in seeing how this piece of legislation is implemented, strictly based on the fact that it has taken them so long to process a piece of legislation that should have been in here and through this House in months, let alone years.

Mr Mammoliti: I feel compelled to stand up again and just let people at home know exactly what I have been subjected to in the Legislature today. For the life of me I can't understand why a member of the opposition would stand up and criticize and point fingers, as he did so eloquently, and then turn around at the end of his speech and say: "It's a good piece of legislation. We're going to agree with it."

This is how they ran the government when they were in power: They would say one thing and do another. They would leave the impression that perhaps they meant one thing when in essence they meant another. This is something that people at home should know about.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member only has two minutes.

Mr Mammoliti: I cannot even hear myself and I can't understand why the members across are so rude. I think that when a member stands up and wants to say a couple of words, it's only polite that the honourable members allow that person to finish what he's saying. We've already taken 30 seconds of my valuable time. I only get two minutes.

The whole year and a half that I've been here, anyway, the member for Etobicoke West has continued to play this innocent role and this I'm-the-best, I'm-the-Lord type of approach.

I tell you, as I've told you before, strap yourself down; you're here in that seat, anyway, for a long time.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one further participant.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Just to point out something, the gist of the discussion we've had today with regard to Bill 28 has been the whole question about the delay. I just want to remind the member from the opposition that it was the recommendation of the former Attorney General, within the Liberal government, that this particular bill go back for consultation in order to really cover the bases that needed to be done to put this bill forward. If there was a delay it was because of that. I would remind the Speaker of that.

At this point I'll just leave it and let the member have his reply.

1650

Mr Chiarelli: There was lots of time for the consultation, from the day that this bill was introduced for first reading to third reading today. There's no good, logical reason for the delay.

The point I want to make is that Bills 28 and 29 are about people. They seem to be put in the context of legal process, about procedures and about what goes on in the Attorney General's office. But these bills are about people and for every day these bills are not passed and are not law, people are impacted very negatively.

It's this type of legislation that would enable people who have been injured by the Dalkon Shield, for example, to take a class action and get some remedy for the wrongs that've been done to them. In Ottawa-Carleton there was an environmental spill a number of years ago that destroyed the water system of a number of people in Manotick. This type of legislation would enable them to take some kind of action as a class. Because this legislation was delayed, those people cannot have the benefit of the protection of the law. Justice delayed is justice denied.

That's the exact point. This legislation could've been passed with unanimous consent a year ago. It's the action, or inaction, of the government that has caused those people out there not to have the right of action. There're all kinds of groups out there that've been injured by some sort of product liability or negligent production or manufacturing of products that should be banding together to take action against people who have manufactured negligently. These bills are bills about people.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I've enjoyed --

Mr Mammoliti: This is going to be exciting.

Mr Harnick: I haven't even been able to get my first sentence out and Mr Mammoliti has already provided me with half an hour of extra material.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Again, in the House here we don't use names; we refer to ridings. The member for somewhere in central North York has decided to use a member's name directly.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I want to remind all members that when referring to a colleague within the Legislature, please refer to his riding or title.

Mr Harnick: My apologies for that slip. I meant to say the member for Yorkview, the member who's now running hospitals and hotels. His background becomes more varied all the time. The beauty of being able to speak with the member for Yorkview, the member for Downsview and the member for Durham West here is that they provide you with extra material as you go along. I certainly hope that if we ever get into a situation where we're filibustering, they're all here and have their somewhat dim wits about them.

I've listened with some interest to the remarks of the member for Ottawa West this afternoon. One of the things the member for Ottawa West has said is that he believes -- he may be right; I don't think so -- there's some kind of hidden agenda around these particular pieces of legislation, Bill 28 and Bill 29. He thinks there is some hidden agenda and that's why these bills have been delayed for the past 18 or more months. With respect to the member for Ottawa West, I don't think there's a hidden agenda. I think my friends across the floor have enough trouble coming up with an actual agenda to get themselves from day to day that they couldn't be capable of having a hidden agenda. I don't think they have it in them. I don't believe the hidden agenda argument to Bill 28 and Bill 29.

What we really have is a comedy of errors. We have a couple of bills that were very well conceived. They were bills that were not done in the NDP tradition. They were bills that were honestly prepared by consultation, and even more than consultation, they were prepared on the basis of collaboration. The former Attorney General brought together people from a number of interest groups, varying walks of life, and they created the class proceedings bills that are before this House.

The NDP wouldn't do it in that manner. What the NDP would do is consult with people. They would consult with a whole group of people and say, "Here's what we're proposing." They wouldn't ever sit down with them and listen to what the interest groups were telling them. They would just tell a whole bunch of people they would call in, "Here's what we propose to do about class actions," or "Here's what we propose to do about the environmental bill of rights," or on any other issue.

Then, after they let them know, they would come out of the closed room because they do all their work behind closed doors -- the consultation is never public -- and then they would say, "We've consulted widely." Their idea of consultation is to tell people what they're going to do and say, "If you don't like it, well, too bad." That's their idea of consultation.

These bills were conceived by collaboration. In fact, business, labour, academics and ordinary consumers had the opportunity to sit together and prepare the legislation before us. That's why I'm really concerned with the fact that we have a bill prepared by way of a collaborative effort and the government can't live with that. It is doing everything it can to keep this bill from becoming law. That's why it's interesting when the member for Yorkview gets up to respond to the eloquent remarks of the member for Ottawa West and doesn't say a single thing about the substance of the bill. He just stands up and accuses the member for Ottawa West of pointing his finger and makes what are really ridiculous allegations. But he doesn't say one single thing about the substance of the bill and that concerns me.

It concerns me that the Attorney General came here today and in presenting the bill for third reading never said a single thing about the importance or substance of the bill. The only person who's ever tried to say anything about the substance of the bill -- and I believe he was quite eloquent -- was the parliamentary assistant when the bill was presented for second reading.

I'm just amazed. I'm floored by the fact that here we are with a very significant piece of legislation and not one person on the government bench will stand up and talk about the substance of the bill, whether it's a good bill or a bad bill and why there's a delay in making it law. I'm somewhat flabbergasted by that approach to these two very important pieces of legislation that were models in terms of the way they were drafted.

If I was a member of the government I would be ashamed to have this kind of a response to legislation that's so important. I think it's appalling that no one on the government side of the Legislature prepared themselves to come here and speak to these bills. The only thing they're prepared to do is make allegations about an individual who makes a speech and happens to point his finger. The only things that rub off on them are these bald allegations, these peripheral insults hurled across the floor. That's what's significant to them.

Let me get into a bit of debate about this bill. It's interesting that the member for Ottawa West talked of access to justice. He went to great pains to talk about access to justice. When I look at some of the issues that exist in Ontario today dealing with access to justice I see so many issues and problems that were created between 1985 and 1990 when the Liberals were the government.

That's when the backlog of provincial court criminal cases became so extreme that we ended up with the Askov decision and 40,000 cases were tossed out of court. That developed during that period of time and the Attorney General between 1985 and 1990 was very cognizant of the backlog of cases. He never believed the Supreme Court would deal with it in the way it ultimately did. He had a solution and his solution was, "We're going to deal with this in an administrative way and eventually the problem will be solved."

Well, the Supreme Court of Canada didn't agree with the approach of the former Attorney General and the result was that because of the error in judgement he made, 40,000 criminal cases ended up being tossed out of our provincial courts. So when I listen to the Liberals talk about access to justice, it rings hollow.

1700

When I look at the other history that occurred during the time when the Liberals formed the government after their famous accord with the NDP, the socialist accord, the other major thing that occurred was that we had an amalgamation of the courts.

I look at that court system the socialists put together when they amalgamated the district court and the High Court in Ontario and I look at that court put together by the socialists, and now I see nothing but problems. I see cases that can't get on, I see a shortage of judges, I see a shortage of courtrooms and I see a top-heavy bureaucracy that's been created that has shaken the foundations of the original High Court and the judges who sit in that court. I blame all of that on the former Liberal government and on the NDP for not putting a stop to it when it was elected, because it could have improved the system we now have. I think it is just shameful what the former government and this government have done to the court system in Ontario.

It's of some interest when we talk about access to justice -- and that's what Bills 28 and Bill 29 represent -- what the Chief Justice has said has happened to our courts. I blame this present government and I blame the previous Liberal government for creating this situation, but Chief Justice Callaghan says:

"As the constitutional imperative of trial within a reasonable time in criminal matters takes hold in our jurisdiction, the available court resources are being drained from civil litigation to criminal litigation. As the policy objective of the executive arm of government becomes the speedy disposition of criminal charges, the civil litigator will find it more and more difficult to get court time for the resolution of civil disputes. Surely the allocations of court resources are not decisions for the chief prosecutor and his bureaucrats in what we call an independent court system."

That is the net effect and the result of the Liberal amalgamation of the court system and the creation of a top-heavy bureaucracy that runs the courts out of the Attorney General's department, and nothing could be scarier for the citizens of this province.

The Chief Justice goes on to say:

"The system has failed because the Ministry of the Attorney General has imposed a top-heavy bureaucracy on the administration of the courts, one which has little experience in the courts and courts administration. It has failed because the government has failed to recognize the need to safeguard the judicial independence which makes the court different from government agencies."

What we have is the Chief Justice of Ontario telling us that we no longer have a judiciary that is independent of the executive arm of government, and that is a very dangerous situation. It's a situation that was created by the former Liberal government in its accord with the NDP, and it's a situation where the NDP government did not have the fortitude to put its foot down and say, "This is wrong," and stop. So when we talk about access to justice and I hear the Liberals talking about access to justice, it rings very hollow.

The other thing that comes to mind when I hear a Liberal talking about access to justice is that I think of small claims courts, and I think of the fact that when the Liberals took over in 1985 and entered into their famous accord with the NDP, they totally neglected the idea of the citizens' court, the small claims court. For seven years now, between the life of those two governments, we have had a situation where the small claims courts had a $3,000 jurisdiction in Metropolitan Toronto and a $1,000 jurisdiction through the rest of the province. It took this government almost two years to finally rectify that situation. The Liberals totally ignored it. Access to justice, as far as I'm concerned, meant nothing to them. But now we know there's going to be this increase in jurisdiction and ultimately it's going to get to $6,000.

We've had almost two years to make these decisions. When the parliamentary assistant made the announcement on behalf of the Attorney General the other day, none of the decisions had been made. We don't know who the judges are going to be. Are they going to be full-time judges? Are they going to be deputy judges? Are they going to reduce the number of the full-time judges, as they've continued to do, or are they going to increase the number of full-time judges? Are judges going to receive judicial immunity? All these questions are left up in the air. They're going to go out and consult. That's not access to justice.

If they take the lead of their Liberal predecessors, what they're going to do is create a new court with a higher jurisdiction and have a bureaucracy running that court that will not give the judiciary the judicial independence it needs to run the court in a fair way for the citizens of the province of Ontario. I urge the New Democratic government not to follow the lead of the Liberals when it talks about access to justice and not to do the things the Liberals did when they created the Ontario Court of Justice, but to create a Small Claims Court of equity that has judicial independence and as well protects the justices who will be serving the citizens of this province.

I'd like to go back for a minute more when we talk about access to justice and talk about something that doesn't affect most people in terms of their day-to-day use of the judicial system. We have a group of individuals who work within the justice system known as masters. The masters look after all the interlocutory or motion work during the course of civil litigation.

Mr Offer: They tax bills.

Mr Harnick: They tax bills for citizens who aren't satisfied with the costs their lawyers charge them. I appreciate the member for Mississauga North reminding me of that function of masters.

Under the Liberal government and through its brilliant -- I say that with the greatest of sarcasm -- reorganization of the Ontario Court of Justice, it forgot all about the masters. They forgot all about the work they do. They forgot that the masters have a case load they can't handle because it's too large. What have they done? They've left the masters of the Ontario Court of Justice in limbo. They have too much work to process, so they can't complete the motion work that needs completing and hopefully brings litigation to a settlement.

The prior Attorney General totally ignored the importance of masters and the current Attorney General is doing the same thing. I urge the New Democratic government not to follow in the footsteps of the Liberals if it believes in access to justice, because access to justice meant nothing to the Liberal government. If you follow in their footsteps, as you are, it appears that access to justice means very little to your government.

The other thing I might mention -- again it was a problem created when the Liberals were in government -- is that the justices of the peace, who look after so much of the work under the Highway Traffic Act and the Provincial Offences Act, certain municipal statutes and bylaws, no longer can continue to process the work that's put in front of them because there's too much work and not enough justices of the peace.

We have seen parking tickets tossed out of court. We've seen where the justice of the peace comes into his night court and looks and sees over 200 cases on the docket, says, "I'm not going to bother with this, I can't do this justice," and tosses out the whole docket. The whole docket goes out the window. When that happens, it means all those people who parked their cars without regard to the law don't pay their fines to the municipalities. The revenue of those municipalities is hurt, because they don't get the revenue from the fines that would otherwise be levied.

1710

Again, that's a problem that was created under the Liberal access-to-justice regime. It's a problem the current New Democratic regime continues. I warn the New Democratic government that if you follow in the Liberal footsteps you don't believe in access to justice, and you're doing just that.

The bill before us is the bill dealing with class actions. As I said earlier, it's a good bill. It is a Liberal bill, but it was not created by the Liberals. They didn't ram the provisions of that bill down anybody's throat as the New Democratic government has been wont to do with its legislation, but they set up a collaborative effort. I will give credit where credit is due, and credit is due to the former Attorney General in terms of these pieces of legislation.

I don't understand why this government is reluctant to see these two bills become law. After second reading, everybody is standing up and saying: "These bills are worthy of becoming law. We have no amendments to propose. These bills should become law now. The legal community and consumers are waiting for these bills to become law."

What did the government do after second reading? It sent these bills to committee. Nobody wanted the bills to go to committee, but the bills went to committee. We had about two hours of committee hearings. We didn't even bother going through the bills in a clause-by-clause way. We had submissions from two groups who didn't add anything new to the bills. Then the bills were sent back here. They could have become law in December. They could have been easily passed and proclaimed, but for some reason the government does not want these bills to become law.

I must say I agree with the member for Ottawa West. I was shocked when I saw the Attorney General coming here today, presenting these bills for third reading but telling us: "There's more work yet to be done on them. They're not ready to become law. We have to go through a period of legal education. We have to go through a period of getting the regulations in order."

I don't know what has been going on since this bill was presented for first reading. I believe that was in December 1990. I don't know what's been going on since then. I do know there have been seminars put on for the purpose of legal education. I know the Attorney General has been invited to those seminars and has in fact been the keynote speaker at many of them. I don't know why we are now going to see these bills complete third reading and why they are going to be put back on the shelf. It just doesn't make sense.

My friend the member for Ottawa West talked about conspiracy; he talked about a hidden agenda. I'm not going to make those allegations, but I just don't know why the bills are not going to become law immediately. I hope the parliamentary assistant will rise in his place today and tell us what's been going on for 18 months, why the period of organization has not been completed and why the implementation of this bill is going to be delayed yet again.

It was interesting that a little while ago the Minister of Transportation made the allegation that we were delaying. I can see from a government point of view why people would believe we might be delaying certain pieces of legislation, but this is not one of those pieces of legislation. We have asked repeatedly for this legislation to become law. I don't know why it's going to be delayed again.

I notice members asking me to sit down because they've heard enough about this. I hope that when I do sit down some of them will get up to extol the virtues of this legislation so we can see that some of them actually read it before they came into the Legislature today. I hope some of them who represent the government and in fact are proposing this legislation will ask the question, "Why are we not implementing it right away?" I hope the parliamentary assistant will answer that question. I hope we can walk away from here at the conclusion of this debate and know why this is not going to become law immediately. I would like to know why it didn't become law last December.

We've seen the way this government reacts to some of its own pieces of legislation. I remember the SCOE -- support and custody orders enforcement -- bill that we had before this Legislature about a year ago. I remember the Premier admonishing the member for York Centre about delaying the SCOE bill because we had so much to say about it in committee and because we had so many of our own amendments to propose. I remember the Premier admonishing the member for York Centre for delaying the bill. Then the bill became law and, lo and behold, what happened? They didn't implement the bill for six more months. Why didn't they do that? I don't know, but in the meantime the budget for the SCOE office was reduced and people who had to administer the SCOE provisions were laid off or moved to other departments.

What was the net effect of that? We had a six-month delay caused by the government for no reason and in place of implementing the bill, after it reduced its budget for financial considerations and to show constraint, it went ahead and had a $1-million advertising campaign to tell people about SCOE. It had absolutely no impact whatsoever on the implementation of the bill or on the success the bill is or is not having. They delayed the bill six months, spent $1 million, wasted $1 million of the taxpayers' money and then blamed us, the opposition, who tried to make the bill better, for proposing amendments.

I can see the same thing happening right here. I can see a $1-million publicity campaign looming on the horizon to extol the virtues of a bill that they're not even going to implement. I am starting to wonder whether this bill will ever be proclaimed. I have my real doubts as to whether this bill will ever see the light of day. I think the government would be remiss if it delayed this bill any longer, because the citizens of this province are waiting for this bill. They want this bill because it's going to make --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): It will put the lawyers' rates up, that's why.

Mr Harnick: Now I have a member telling me it's the lawyers who want the bill. That is somewhat of an irony, to have someone who is a member of the government that's proposing this piece of legislation saying they're not going to implement it because it's the lawyers. I hope the member -- let me see if I can find his riding -- for Chatham-Kent will stand up in his place after I've completed my remarks and tell us whether this bill, which his own government is proposing, is going to be implemented. I really have to wonder, when I stand here in support of their bill and I listen --

1720

Mr Offer: It's our bill.

Mr Harnick: I'm sorry, I stand corrected -- when I stand here in support of the Liberal bill proposed by the New Democratic government and hear criticisms from the government members proposing this very bill. I don't think the members of this government have any clue what's going on here today. I don't think they have any clue that everybody speaking about this bill is speaking in favour of it. For goodness' sake, believe me, everybody's in favour of this bill. Pass it, make it law, proclaim it now. I don't know what you're waiting for.

Mr Perruzza: Shut up and we'll do it.

Mr Harnick: The member for Downsview tells me to shut up, sit down and they'll do it. Unfortunately, the member for Downsview is buried so far back in the back benches of his party that he has --

Interjection: In the gallery.

Mr Harnick: He's almost in the gallery, that's right, and unfortunately he has absolutely no influence at all with the Attorney General to ask for this bill to become law.

I think I am going to sit down very shortly because I am very anxious to hear the member for Chatham-Kent, the member for Yorkview and the member for Downsview stand and speak eloquently about this bill, not about any character flaws I might have, the member for Ottawa West or the member for Etobicoke West may have.

I think it's high time we had the members of the government stand up and tell us why Bill 28 and Bill 29 are worthy of our support. I think it's high time that they showed they've read their bill and that they're here to debate it, because they don't even understand that the opposition comes here today and speaks in support of this legislation. They don't understand that. They think this is just an exercise to come out and assassinate one another's character. That's why they're always going to remain buried deep in the back benches.

I hope they will stand and speak eloquently about these bills because the bills are good for consumers. They're going to be good bills for the legal system. They will eliminate certain extra cases the court load can't accommodate, they will make the prosecution of certain civil actions easier and facilitate the implementation of an environmental bill of rights.

I think it would be interesting to hear the member for Yorkview stand in his place and tell us why the threshold in this bill to permit a class action is at the right level and why it would help consumers. I think I would be very indebted to the member for Yorkview, the member for Downsview, the member for Chatham-Kent and the member for Durham West, who stand and shout insults, when they're standing to support their very own piece of legislation.

I think it would be interesting to hear them speak about the threshold in this bill and about the method of collaboration that created this bill. I think it would be very interesting for the member for Yorkview and the member for Downsview to talk about the cost implications this bill sets forth.

I'm pleased to stand in support of the former Attorney General's legislation and I'm very interested in listening to those members buried so deeply in the back benches do more than assassinate one's character. I would very much like to hear them talk about some of the sections in this bill and tell us why they will benefit the citizens of Ontario.

I certainly will support this bill, because it's a good thing for the people of Willowdale. It's a good bill for the people of Willowdale because it will provide them with access to justice. It will provide them with the opportunity, when the need arises, to seek access to justice at the cheapest possible cost. It will provide my constituents with timely access to justice. They won't end up on court lists that will wait for ever and ever and ever to be reached because the government has spent all its money trying to rectify the Askov decision problem created by the former Liberal government.

That's why this bill is going to be good for my constituents. This bill provides cost provisions that will help finance a lawsuit for my constituents if they become part of a class that's involved in a lawsuit. This bill will help defray the costs of the financial disbursements needed to be expended to carry on a lawsuit, and that will be good for my constituents. This bill, in a very limited form, will provide for contingency fees. I believe in contingency fees. I served on a committee of the Canadian Bar Association that recommended the implementation of contingency fees --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, you would. It has be more than that, Charles.

Mr Harnick: -- after a great deal of study, and this bill that the Minister of Transportation is now shouting across the floor about that contains a provision for contingency fees is going to be beneficial to my constituents because of that section I'm now referring to, in spite of what the Minister of Transportation says in a derogatory manner about his own piece of legislation. He too, even though he's a cabinet minister, obviously doesn't understand that the opposition stands here today in support of the very legislation proposed by his Attorney General. He doesn't understand that either, and I'm somewhat chagrined about that.

I would be remiss if I didn't make some comment about one other area before sitting down. Here we are on the eve of hopefully having this bill passed and becoming law and being proclaimed, and this is a very significant bill for the people of Willowdale, for my constituents, in terms of access to justice. But this government that says it believes in access to justice is considering, I understand, the implementation of a services tax on lawyers' fees. I understand that these people who rail against the GST are considering extending a services tax on to lawyers' fees. On the one hand, that may be the way they plan to finance and fund legal aid in the province. I applaud the government if it intends to continue the Ontario legal aid plan. However, I'm not so sure that implementing a sales tax, a services tax on legal fees, is going to enhance access to justice.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Willowdale is attempting to address this House on important issues, and members of the government seem to be carrying on private conversations. That certainly is contrary to order.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to say the same could be said about the opposition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Let's go on with the debate. The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: On that point of order, Mr Speaker, this is a very important matter, but, if you'll note, in his benches there are no Liberals except for three in the House today. Where have all the Liberals gone, the 32 other members?

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Willowdale, you have the floor.

1730

Mr Harnick: I might say I'm indebted to my caucus colleagues, who are here in some number to listen to this speech on two very important bills. I know it would be improper for me to name those who are and are not here and I'm not going to do that, but let me get back to this very important issue about access to justice.

This government that rails against the goods and services tax I understand is close to implementing a service tax on legal fees. I understand that their brothers and sisters in British Columbia, the socialist government that's been elected in British Columbia, have already made the decision to implement such a tax. I know the brothers and sisters in this Legislature cannot be far behind.

If the government goes ahead and imposes a service tax on legal fees it will be giving access to justice in the form of Bills 28 and 29 and taking it away with the implementation of a services tax on legal services, because those individuals who have to pay for their legal services, who don't qualify for legal aid, are going to see their legal fees increase by the percentage the government imposes by way of a services tax on legal fees. This will create a situation whereby their access to justice will be limited. So when they receive bills like Bills 28 and 29 that provide them with enhanced access to justice, the shame of it is that any benefits they receive are taken away when the services tax, the tax they railed so hard against, is imposed on services in Ontario.

I am about to conclude my remarks. As I said earlier, I am very anxious to hear the members of the government tell me why they approve of this legislation, because you'd never have known it by their comments as I and the member for Ottawa West spoke. I implore the government to implement this legislation. Let's pass it now, let's make it law, let's proclaim it and let's let it start to act to help the citizens of Ontario. The worst thing they could do in terms of this piece of legislation and access to justice would be to put it on the shelf for another six months and hope that it goes away.

I don't know why the government is proceeding in this manner. I don't know why it's taken almost two years to get these bills to the point where they're receiving third reading and are about to be passed. I don't know why the government is going to delay proclamation of these bills into law. I hope the parliamentary assistant, the member for Downsview, the member for Yorkview and perhaps even the Minister of Transportation will stand today to tell me why this is happening, why the good legislation they've adopted from the former Attorney General is being delayed. I am very anxious to find answers to those questions and I know some of those individuals I just named will be on their feet to provide those answers to the people of Ontario.

It's been a privilege to be able to rise and speak about Bill 28 and Bill 29. They are bills that I and my caucus will support. They are bills that we indicated our support for almost two years ago. They are bills that should've become law almost two years ago. If there's going to be any further delay, I implore the members I've just indicated who are here listening to this debate to tell me and the people of Ontario why this good and important piece of legislation that provides access to justice is being delayed yet again.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want a share a thought with everybody in the Legislature tonight. Today marks a very special day for me, and my family for that matter. I would like to wish my daughter, Nicole Anna, a happy birthday. She's three years old. Nicole, happy birthday.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Mr Callahan: I would like to comment on the statements made by the member for Willowdale. I concur with him that the very far-reaching and very innovative measure that was instituted by the former Attorney General of the Liberal government is one that should be supported.

Both Bills 28 and 29 are bills that are going to bring true justice to those people out there in society who perhaps are not in the higher echelons who, along with 100 other Ontario citizens, find they've got a car that is in bad shape or that has some problem with it, or some other similar type of situation where they're going to be able to commence an action as a class.

In the past -- to make it very clear to the people who are watching this program -- in fact, prior to this legislation being introduced by the former Liberal government a person had to bring his or her own action, which meant it was very costly, as my friend the member for Willowdale has said. It also delayed justice being served to these people.

In fact, what we've got is two bills: a bill that will now allow class actions to be brought and also a bill which will allow people who are impoverished, who heretofore had been denied access to the courts because they simply did not have the financial backing to be able to take the same advantages as those people who were perhaps a bit more advantaged in Ontario, to seek access and remedy from the courts.

I think it sends a clear message as well to people who are going to be dealing with the public that you no longer have that sort of shield of impenetrability that says that because people are poor or because people are in large numbers you can produce a product that's bad and get away with it because no one will sue you except the rich.

Mr Perruzza: I'd like to take the member up on his challenge and address this issue. You and I know that I have two minutes and you're watching the clock, so I'm watching the clock as well. The debates in this House aren't quite as liberal and free as the member would make it seem. There are 74 members here. If we were all to speak to every piece of legislation that comes through they would never pass this House.

This legislation was introduced in the fall sitting, and if we had gotten cooperation from both the Liberals and the Conservatives in this House it could have been law a long time ago. We wouldn't have had to wait until today to debate it. He's goading us to prolong the debate on this very much needed, very much wanted and very much desired legislation which all three parties seem to be in agreement on. He has indicated that he is going to be in support and his party's going to be in support, and the Liberals have indicated they're also going to be in support of this legislation.

I'd like to touch very quickly on the other points that the member for somewhere in North York addressed. I don't have the piece of paper that says where he's from, but he's certainly not from my neck of the woods. He talks about the back benches. It's better to be on the fourth bench on this side of the House than to be sitting on the second bench on that side. It's the Premier's prerogative where members of this House sit and what responsibilities they take. Not all 74 members can be in cabinet, as he shall find out some day -- rather, as he thinks he shall find out some day.

Closed-door consultation: There's no government in the history of Ontario that has used an open-door policy with respect to the preparation of legislation and in consulting extensively with its public. Criticisms will always be levelled about politicians not consulting, but he well knows that this party has always consulted and will always continue to consult. I hope he shuts up so that we can pass the legislation.

Mr Offer: I would like to use the couple of minutes available to comment on the bill and on some of the comments that have been made. I think it's important for us to remind especially the member for Downsview that as I read it, the bill was first introduced December 17, 1990, there was a second reading November 18, 1991, and here we are in 1992.

The concern of members on the opposition side is that the bill is not going to be proclaimed in force. This bill is the subject matter and has been the subject matter, starting with the previous government, of consultation -- not invitation, but consultation. It is a product of a great many people talking about how this issue should be addressed.

1740

This issue is not about lawyers; this issue is not about courtrooms or any other thing government members might want to pull out. This issue is about people and how people may most effectively address the issues that confront them in a thoughtful, expeditious and economical way.

This issue is about people and their rights. The concern on this side is that, notwithstanding our best interests, the government will refuse and continues to refuse to make this bill operative law. The words of the Attorney General today were to that effect. The people of the province have been shut out by the actions of the Attorney General.

Mr Stockwell: It is typical that we have the government side rising to defend this piece of legislation and not one member rose and actually spoke about the legislation. What we would like to know is why is this good? Why do they accept it? One member wished his daughter a happy birthday and another member railed on about sitting in the fourth bench as opposed to the second.

The question and the point of this process is that we debate legislation. We ask you, on its merits, whether it is acceptable to your standards. The defence we have is a measurement of where someone sits in the House and whose birthday it happens to be. Not once in the summation did any member on the opposite side mention Bills 28 or 29. Not once did they refer to the legislation.

We have had two speeches, two dissertations from each caucus outlining their concerns, their role, what they consider to be good legislation and the bad parts of it, and what we receive from the government side is personal insults and happy birthday greetings.

If it seems frustrating from this side of the House, it's because legislation that is brought forward -- and ultimately I wouldn't want to think that the member would mislead the public out there, but the member for Downsview suggested that this side of the House held up this legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the member for Downsview would know if he checked the record: his government insisted on taking this to committee, not the opposition benches. That's what dragged out the legislation so long. If you wanted it passed sooner you could've got it passed sooner if you hadn't insisted on a committee hearing, which was never a necessity on this side of the House. This is the kind of socialist pap we listen to day in and day out, and sometimes we get frustrated and fed up.

Mr Harnick: I am going to reiterate some of the remarks of my colleague the member for Etobicoke West. It's regrettable that no one on the government side takes this legislation seriously. It's regrettable that no one on the government side of the House recognizes that this will be one of the very few pieces of legislation this government has implemented or intends to implement that will honestly benefit their constituents. Not one person on the government side of the House has been able to stand here and tell us with any authority or intelligence why this particular piece of legislation has been hanging around for two years with unanimous support of all parties in the Legislature and why it still has not become law.

All we get are birthday greetings. Quite honestly, I hope my friend the member for Yorkview's daughter does have a happy birthday, but that's not why we're here this afternoon. We're here to debate a very significant piece of legislation and I wish the member for Yorkview had used his time to tell us why the government plans to put this legislation on the shelf for another six months.

The other interesting thing was to hear the member for Downsview say that he can't debate these issues because there are 74 members who sit on the government side and he says in terms of their involvement that they can't be as liberal with the debates. I'm very disappointed to hear that on your side of the House you don't have the opportunity to stand and speak in support of your own legislation. I think that's very regrettable.

The Deputy Speaker: Were there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr David Winninger (London South): Yes. As the members across the House will recall, this is the first time a government member has actually participated in the debate as opposed to joining in a two-minute response to members on the opposite side of the House.

The member for Ottawa West and the member for Willowdale, both being conscientious members of the House and former practising lawyers, one still practising, I believe, have expressed their genuine concern about the timeliness of implementation of this legislation.

As both these members will know, this legislation is extremely innovative and it's extremely complex, and it does indeed amplify access to justice on the part of the people of Ontario. The people need to be mindful that instead of having a multiplicity of individual proceedings before the court, through the class proceedings mechanism a representative action may be brought. This reduces the amount of costs involved, but to defray the costs of proceeding on a class proceeding basis, Bill 29 establishes a fund to do just that.

This legislation, as both the members know, was worked out and fine-tuned in consultation with the law society, the Canadian Bar Association and the Advocates' Society, and it represents, I would submit, a very finely tuned piece of legislation.

In fact, the Attorney General's advisory committee -- the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David -- recommended that there be further consultation with the law society and other interested parties and that there be further and detailed consultation on the implementation of the class proceedings fund in order to develop a structure, the administration and procedures for the fund; in order to establish the necessary rule changes, because as the members opposite will recall, the rules of court apply to class proceedings; in order to introduce and amend the necessary rules; in order to introduce the necessary forms; in order to deal with issues surrounding the retainer of barristers and solicitors in class proceedings, and in order to deal with questions of ethics involving lawyers in class proceedings. All of the issues the Attorney General addressed earlier in making his statement on class proceedings have to be addressed in order to implement this legislation.

The member for Willowdale indicated that the Attorney General had not indicated the true significance of this bill, yet in his statement on third reading the Attorney General said, "This is a significant step forward in our collective effort to ensure that the residents of Ontario have access to justice through the most modern, the most efficient and affordable means available."

This is a great stride forward, and we want to do it right. It may be said that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. I would suggest to the members opposite, who complain about the time involved, that obviously our predecessor government, the Liberal government, wanted to take the time to do it right, and that's why this legislation was not proclaimed prior to the election.

Now you are hearing this government present the bill for third reading. The Attorney General has reiterated the importance of this legislation going forward. While I appreciate the comments of the members opposite in the House, they do need to acknowledge the necessary consultation in order to implement this legislation properly. Once implemented, the members of the practising bar in Ontario, the judiciary with whom we're consulting, and certainly the public at large will appreciate the efforts we have made.

1750

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I wonder if the member for London South might find this an appropriate point to adjourn the debate. I understand the Lieutenant Governor is awaiting to give royal assent.

Mr Winninger: I would be more than pleased to conclude my remarks at this time.

On motion by Mr Winninger, the debate was adjourned.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

Hon Henry N. R. Jackman (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ce projet de loi.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House adjourned at 1757.