Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ROLE OF INDEPENDENT MEMBERS

Mr Drainville moved resolution 10:

That in the opinion of this House, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly should be authorized to review and report to the House on recommended changes to the standing orders to allow independent members of the assembly the right to more fully participate in the work of the assembly.

In particular, the committee should review:

-- Clause 30(b) of the standing orders to give independent members the collective right to make one statement every two weeks during the period for members' statements.

-- Clauses 32(b) and (d) of the standing orders to give independent members the collective right to ask one question and one supplementary question every two weeks during the oral question period.

-- Section 69 to continue to give a member who is not of a recognized party in the Legislative Assembly the right to make one speech at second and third readings of every government bill.

-- Clause 108(a) of the standing orders to give an independent member the right to sit as a member of the standing committee of his or her choice.

-- Clause 108(a) of the standing orders to give the government of a majority Parliament the right to appoint an extra member to a standing committee that has an independent member sitting as a member of the committee.

-- Section 124 of the standing orders to give an independent member the right to take part in public proceedings of any standing or select committee of which he or she is not a member, with the right to ask questions of witnesses and the right to receive all documents and exhibits, but with no right to vote on the committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Drainville moves private member's notice of motion 10. Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): As I begin to discuss in this short period of time that I have the resolution we have before us, I want to give the context in which it was prepared.

I remember sitting in this House in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, the years of Nixon and Lewis and Davis, the years when there was much debate in the House, and in those days, I was very interested in the standing orders. I was a teenager and Parliament interested me. It interested me because in a sense I felt a great affinity always with the theory that here in this place we had opportunities to bring forth the best that we could bring for the people of this province, that we could discuss at length the things that were important for the people and that we would have an opportunity to serve the people of Ontario and to give voice, if you will, to the needs and aspirations of all people in our society. So it was that I got those first glimmers of interest of being in this place and of participating with these standing orders.

I've got to say that at its best this Parliament is a place where the people's needs and aspirations are expressed, and at its best there are people, members, who come to this House from whatever political persuasion and they are people who are deeply committed to a vision of what this society might be. But at its worst, this House becomes a place where there is discord and at times even animosity and distrust, a place where sometimes the standing orders do not readily facilitate adequate debate, and it seems at times that the will and the needs of the people are lost in that difficulty.

So it is that I come here to speak about this resolution within the context of parliamentary reform. I cannot do that without saying two things.

First of all, in terms of those who think there is not interest in this province in parliamentary reform, they are wrong. They think that these rule changes that we make in this House are rule changes that are ignored. Well, they are not ignored. There are people in my riding who have written to me about the need to change the way we do public business.

We have a group in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton called the Citizens' Open Circle which has a project called the Assembly of Electors, where it is responding to the questions and concerns of citizens throughout our riding and saying that Parliament, either the House of Commons or this place, does not any more represent the kinds of things that we believe are important: accessibility to government, being able to ensure that the things that are on the agenda of the people are somehow found on the agenda of the Legislature and that the public business that goes on is done in a way which is able to ensure that timeliness is taken into consideration, that the issues raised are issues that certainly represent their views and that the members themselves have an opportunity to educate and to speak out on the issues of the day both in a way that is going to be edifying and in a way that is going to bring consensus, not constant division and opposition. So it is that there are people who are watching today and there are people in my riding who are very concerned about the fact that Parliament does not function the way it should.

I can't give up this opportunity without making a couple of comments about parliamentary reform and the changes that have been brought forward by the government in the last few days. I must say there is no question in my mind that there is some need for change in the way we do our business, that some of the government's initiatives to change the standing orders are very much needed.

Yet I've got to say -- and I speak from great disappointment in my own government when I say this -- that it seems to me the broader needs of parliamentary reform go far beyond the needs of a government to have its legislation passed through the House. Rather, fundamentally, parliamentary reform has to do with the relationships we build within this place for the betterment of our society so that we can do the best that we can do for the people of this province. I'm afraid that as I look at these changes that have been brought forward by the government, they will be helpful in the passage of government business, but they will not necessarily be helpful in building this as a better institution for the people of this province.

Let me say also that issues such as party discipline -- I've spoken with members of my own side on this issue, and I've got to say that in the corridors of power around this place, there's not a great deal of interest in looking at party discipline and that doctrine, and how we have such an extreme form of that doctrine here in this country and in this province. There's no interest in trying to change that kind of thing, and I ask why.

It is because every party, regardless of what side of the House it is on, when it gets into the position of government, is unwilling to change the status quo. They are unwilling to change the status quo because, as we all know, power is something which, when you have it, you don't give away. And so it is that my government, I lament to say, in that respect is no different from the Conservatives or the Liberals, and I can't say that with any pleasure.

1010

When I wrote my paper on parliamentary reform and did all the research for that, I saw in Aristotle a quote which was in the document which I'm going to quote into the record today. It captures some of the spirit that is important to me in putting forth this resolution today. Aristotle wrote in his Politics:

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost."

We find ourselves at a time and a place in which the people do not feel that they have access to government; at a time and a place when the parliamentary reform of democracy has changed substantially from the theory of Parliament into a situation in which a few people control in every province -- this is not just true of Ontario, but true of every province in the federal system -- a very few people control what is done and what is said and how things go and the direction that it goes, and in fact the legislatures and the parliaments of Canada have very little real say in the future of this province and of this country.

I want to say that not only is this wrong, but it defeats and destroys the whole theory of Parliament when we, as members, don't have the opportunity to be able at times to dissent and to argue vociferously on issues that may not be to the best advantage, in our own opinion, of our ridings or of our people.

So it is that we come to this point where I put forth this resolution. Let me say at the outset that one would think that in such a resolution, which has to do with the rights of individuals who are elected by their people to sit in this House and to give voice to their concerns and their questions and to give forth their vision of what this province might be, there would be nothing but agreement that independent members, if there are any in the House, should have the same rights as members who are aligned with the party. You would think that it would be given assent, and yet there those, not the least of whom are members of the government, who say: "No, we don't need to change the rules. We don't need to do anything more. We don't want to give independent members any more power."

There is a principle at stake here, and the principle is that if the people of whatever riding choose a member, that member deserves the honour, the respect and the dignity of having the right to stand in his place and to give voice to the needs and aspirations of his people. If we do not change these standing orders and reflect that, if we're not willing to be courageous enough to help independent members to be full members of this assembly, then we are perpetuating a fraud in the understanding that the people of Ontario deserve to have their voices heard here. I believe we have an opportunity to say clearly to the province, to the government of Ontario, that every member in this House deserves to have the right to speak, to stand up, to be heard.

Now, if we pass this resolution, who knows if anything will be done? Perhaps nothing. But I must say the principle is worth fighting for. The principle is worth enunciating in this House and throughout the province that independent members are equal members and that those whom the people elect are the representatives of the people and deserve their rights.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In the brief seven and a half minutes that I have, since I'm reserving time for my colleague the member for St Catharines, it's very difficult to speak on an issue of this magnitude.

Let me say I commend the member for bringing forward his resolution. I was a bit troubled by the fact that it dealt only with independent members. Without being political, I suspect that when he brought it to his caucus, they perhaps did not want him to address the real issue, and the real issue he has addressed quite well, I think.

The people of Ontario have to understand one thing. They go out and vote, and perhaps work for a candidate, get him or her elected, and anticipate that person will come to this chamber or to the Parliament of Canada and do great things, particularly things that are central to their riding and their concerns. I think the thing people have to understand is that the present parliamentary system, without reform, in fact blocks that.

Particularly when you are on the government side, as the member for Victoria-Haliburton has so wisely put it, you have all these threats of perks being taken away, such as committee chairmanships and parliamentary assistant jobs, which carry extra money. You have the possibility of not getting into cabinet; that's always a threat.

In view of that, the members of the government, particularly in a majority Parliament, tend to vote as though they're affixed at the hip. I'm sure the people out there who elected them and worked for them have to recognize that they don't support every piece of legislation that's put forward in this House.

In the brief time I have, the people of Ontario should understand as well that this place, and the policies and decisions here, really are made on the basis of what is politically sexy, not what is important for the people of Ontario but what is politically sexy.

That decision is made -- and it's not one party that necessarily carries that ball -- on the basis of the Premier, or in Ottawa the Prime Minister, maybe three or four inner circle cabinet ministers and about six to 10 unelected people who come up with these ideas and bring them to the Legislature. Of course everyone over there, despite the debate that takes place in this House -- the people watching it on television must sometimes wonder to themselves when they see the government voting, again, as if they're joined to the hip. They have to say to themselves, "I elected that person to represent me and he is not in fact representing me."

I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that unless that is changed, unless that fundamental principle is changed, you're going to see people get more apathetic about this entire process in the Legislature of Ontario and the Parliament of Canada. I think in the last election much of what the people told us was that they were fed up with taxes, but more important, what they were fed up with was the fact that having to pay these taxes, they weren't seeing any great return for them because the legislation that was being proposed was not necessarily what they thought was important.

For instance, right now we're discussing changes to the rules of the House when we should be discussing the questions of youth unemployment and adult unemployment. We should be discussing things such as one in 50 kids on the streets in Toronto being afflicted with AIDS. We should be talking about a whole host of very important issues, rather than the issues that are raised in this House.

Our leader, Lyn McLeod, was elected, and it was in the campaign of all the people aspiring to leadership, on the basis that should we form the government, there would be effective changes in this House, effective changes in the participation by all members of the Legislature. Each and every one of us has something to share. Each and every one of us comes to this Legislature with grey matter that is untapped if you sit there and vote at the hip, if the situation continues as it is. Each and every one of us has a specific type of understanding of our own specific riding and its needs, and we have a duty and a responsibility. The opening prayer says, "Let us aspire to decisions that are just." But we're not doing that. You're not doing that.

The question of an independent member having the powers that were suggested by the member -- as I said, I think the reason he brought that forward in the way he did was because he was somewhat muzzled. I say that with respect. In fact I'll be surprised when the vote comes if his government colleagues don't let him down and vote against him. One of the things Bob Nixon in our caucus said, and Lyn McLeod as well has said, has been that this is private members' hour and you vote the way you want to vote; you don't vote the party line.

I suggest that's a very healthy approach and one that should be continued and perhaps expanded upon in this Legislature. There's no question in my mind that if we do that, if we bring those forward, we could eliminate the necessity of having to limit debate, as is the proposal by the present government.

The government wants to limit debate for members. I suggest that's not necessary. The acrimony in the House is a direct result, I suggest, of the frustrations, particularly of the government members, sitting over there on the benches and having to go home and tell the members of their ridings that they just voted for something that's totally against the interests of their ridings and having to explain why they did it.

I was in Barrie discussing the Ontario labour relations amendments and was told that the NDP government member there told the business leaders: "Forget about it. We're not going to discuss the question of this legislation. It's a done deal." Well, I think that's absolutely outrageous. That means the member is saying there's no possibility of any changes being made as a result of debate.

1020

If that's democracy, then I can sell you some swamp land in Florida. It's not democracy and I think people expect us to be democratic here. They expect us to represent our ridings. There is no problem in terms of being able to vote your conscience or vote what the people in your riding expect you to vote, because in the House of Commons there were 82 resolutions upon which the government of the day was defeated and the government didn't come tumbling down and result in an election.

If you go to Westminster, which is really the seat of our Parliament, the questions asked by the government members are sometimes more stinging and significant than those asked by the opposition. Yet here we see questions being asked during question period that really are nothing more than asking the minister to tell us about a particular policy. I suggest that's not effective questioning.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Two weeks' notice.

Mr Callahan: Well, you raise that issue, but I suggest to you -- and I don't have much more time left -- that you can say what you like about that but in fact, when you leave this place, if you're satisfied that you have effectively represented the constituents of your riding under a reformed Parliament and you're not afraid of losing a perk here or there, then you can walk away with your head held high. If you can't do that, then I suggest all you've done is occupy a seat with a join at the hip.

It's interesting, finally, that in the United States there are, I believe, 70 congressmen who are not running for re-election, so the situation is not just unique to us; it's in the United States as well. People who came to the Legislature or the Congress and believed they could set the world on fire found that under the present systems, we really don't have the opportunity to do that.

It has been a pleasure to participate and I'd like to reserve the balance of our time for my friend from St Catharines.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm very pleased to rise and speak on this today. I specifically asked in my caucus that I get this opportunity to speak to it. I'm pleased to support the member for Victoria-Haliburton in his motion today. It is indeed appropriate that we look at the way we conduct Parliament. I suspect that perhaps he is considering bolting the NDP caucus and I wouldn't blame him.

Let me speak specifically to some of the changes he is proposing. I suggest that the right of an independent member to make a statement every two weeks -- and we're not allowed to amend these motions, of course, so I will vote for it -- is too much, because it can give an independent a disproportionate amount of statements. The same would hold true for oral questions. There are many members of both the government benches and the opposition benches who can't get on every two weeks. But it is appropriate that we give these members the right to clearly have their voice heard because ultimately, whether they are elected as an independent or subsequently become an independent, it's appropriate that they be able to reflect their constituent's concerns, which this motion would certainly help.

Quite clearly, it is appropriate that we continue to allow those independents to make a speech at second and third reading of any bills and the idea of them being able to sit on a standing committee of their choice is appropriate.

These are good measures, but we must look at them also in the context of what the government House leader has brought in this week: changes to the House rules. I am deeply offended by the manner in which these House rule changes have been brought in. It is true that House rules have been brought in by both the Conservatives and the Liberals over the years. However, the method by which these were brought in is absolutely unprecedented. They were brought in as an edict. We were told we were going to have to sit on these until we pass the House rules and they know that they have enough votes to barge this through.

When the Liberals brought in the last House rules, they were tabled by the government House leader at that time, Sean Conway, the member for Renfrew North. But he tabled them and then left them open to a discussion panel of all parties. The method in which the NDP is going ahead is: "There is no debate. We're simply going to have our way." It is inappropriate, and I would suggest that in all probability the reason the House rules are at the top of the agenda for the government at the moment is because it wants to muzzle one of its own dissenting members, namely, Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, who famously spoke for 17 hours in this House and was applauded by the now Premier for his effort in fighting what he considered to be wrongheaded legislation. Whether it was or not is beside the point; he was expressing something which he deeply felt.

Before we're allowed to debate Sunday shopping, which he also has strong views on, the House is going to have him muzzled so that he will only be able to speak for half an hour. This is one of the most undemocratic governments that we have ever seen, a government which is determined to muzzle its own members.

I'd like to put on the record that before I agreed to run for the Conservative Party in the last election I came and spoke to my leader, Mike Harris. I had never met him before and I asked him about this question of party discipline. He assured me he was convinced that in Canada generally, and in Ontario too, there was entirely too much whipping of members. He said he does not believe in it and indeed he committed at that time, and has been consistent ever since I've been here, to our not being obliged to vote the way of our party.

It happens that we have a very unified party.

Mr Mills: It's easy when you're the third party.

Mr Turnbull: It seems that one of the NDP members, the member for Durham East, would like to muzzle this comment. But indeed, our leader has never told us we must vote in a certain way. To my knowledge, we are the only party that is allowed, on every single vote, to vote the way of our conscience. That is something we can be proud of. I know that my leader has mentioned it in this House on many occasions, and we gets hoots and hollers from the NDP over this. But the truth is there. We have never been whipped, since I have been in this House, to vote in a certain way.

It is depressing to speak to the members of the NDP and see what their personal views are. They don't like things that the government is pushing through and then they vote like sheep. Indeed we need to have rule changes, but we also need to have a change in the philosophy of all parties.

Our party has led the way and has said it is important that members express the views of their constituents. As we move towards debate of Sunday shopping, you will see that within our party we hold different views and that they will be expressed and voted on according to the conscience of the people who populate our party.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Same thing over here. It's no different on this side.

Mr Turnbull: I'm pleased that the member for Welland-Thorold says it's no different on their side. Well, we have seen no consistency between the rhetoric we hear officially and the way they vote as compared with the private conversations we have with them, where they are deeply troubled by what they're doing.

I think this legislation that we're seeing with respect to House rules is directly aimed at the member for Welland-Thorold, and I suspect at the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

1030

I am indeed pleased to vote in favour of this motion today, but it really isn't going far enough. We need to revolutionize the way this House works because we must ensure that our constituents are heard, not some old boys' club that comes here and then gets very cosy over a glass of Scotch and decides how it is going to vote. It's got to be the way the people who elect us want us to vote, and where we disagree with the people who elect us and we vote our conscience, then that's fine because we take the ultimate sanction. If the people do not like what we've done, they can vote against us at the next election. That is the way it should be.

I am very pleased to support this motion. I suspect we are going to see the changes in House rules shoved down our throat. We're going to go back to night sittings with all they meant. We know that much-vaunted old NDP warhorse Elie Martel indeed fell down drunk in this chamber and had to be assisted up by the Premier in night sittings. That is well known and was one the reasons they moved away from night sittings. It is indeed disgusting that this party should be suggesting that we should be going back to night sittings, particularly night sittings which can be called at --

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Point of order, the member for Durham Centre.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Mr Speaker, I realize that the member to whom he was referring to is no longer in this chamber, but surely his privileges and rights are being infringed upon by these kinds of derogatory and unnecessary insults.

Mr Kormos: It was untrue.

Mr White: Not only untrue, but not even original. The member for Renfrew North has already made the same slanderous allegations.

The Deputy Speaker: The member who was referred to is not a member of this House, but --

Mr White: He was.

The Deputy Speaker: Let me finish, please. I agree that if we were moderate in our debates, we would prevent this type of animosity. So I ask you to be careful, please.

Mr Turnbull: I will remind you that the member for Renfrew North mentioned this event in his lengthy debate of the House rule changes on Monday of this week. Indeed we didn't see any of the NDP members jumping up on foolish points of order at that time, because he was here and observed it with his own eyes. It is a story which has gone around this Legislature many times. I have heard it many times.

It is inappropriate that we should be moving in the wrong direction. We've got to make sure that we're expressing the will of our people, not in some drunken stupor. We should indeed be able to plan our lives so that we can spend time with our constituents and not have night sittings possibly pulled at the whim of this government on two weeks' notice.

I know this doesn't sit very well with the government, but it is the truth. You know very well it is the truth. Check with your members who were here and they will tell you this is the truth.

I do wish to leave some time on the clock for my colleague the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I would like to begin by saying that I agree fully in principle with the submission of parliamentary reforms in Ontario as put forth by the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

As already pointed out, significant discrepancies exist in the present standing orders between independent and recognized party members. Despite the fact that all members are equally elected, independent members are denied the full extent of rights and privileges granted to caucus members simply because they do not hold enough seats in the Legislature to constitute a recognized party. This is a reality that independent members must continually confront. As the member for Victoria-Haliburton stated, it is ultimately the people of Ontario who suffer from not having effective representation.

In light of the fact that new parties may be entering the political arena and citizens' anger against traditional party politics is increasing, the prospect of more independent members in this House is real and probably not too distant in the future. Subsequently, the status of independent members must be amended in order to avoid any further problems on a larger scale.

Rest assured that I do not advocate a greater freedom away from party rules for caucus MPPs, for I do acknowledge the importance of party discipline in providing coherence to the work being done in the House. But as committed as I am to the value of party discipline, I do not believe it is fair that standing orders should be used to uphold party discipline.

Why does an MPP have to be part of a recognized party to be able to fulfil her or his duties? A line must be drawn between the rules of the House, which should place all members on equal ground, and party discipline, which should be distinct from parliamentary rules. A more equitable distribution of rights is needed if independent members are to be able to effectively represent their constituents, and it will be up to the Clerk's office to find the best way to realize this objective. Once this has been determined, the Clerk's office should be called before the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to discuss these proposed changes.

Changing the status of independents in the Legislature must remain an issue of priority and the proposed amendments brought forth today are a step in the right direction. If not for my recent predicament, I probably would have never realized how unjust the present situation is, but having experienced this situation at first hand, I understand the great difficulties and frustrations an independent member of this Legislature encounters.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the present situation only serves to silence the voices of thousands of citizens who choose to exercise their right to vote. If we do not make the necessary changes, these voices will remain silent. The bottom line is that the people of Ontario have the right to be effectively represented and if they choose to be represented by someone who does not belong to a recognized party, there is no reason to deny them a full and equal voice.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I had hoped to have the opportunity this morning to speak favourably of this particular resolution because I think a lot of time, effort and energy have gone into it and some good thought has gone into some potential changes to the way the Legislature operates, in other words, to our procedures. I want to commend the member for Victoria-Haliburton for initiating this particular activity.

What is most unfortunate, of course, is that it's in the midst of the atmosphere of the government of which he is part wanting to change the rules unilaterally in this House and make rather substantial changes that would limit not only the powers of members of the opposition, and that's important in a democracy, but also the influence of members who are not part of the cabinet and the government.

I find it passing strange that the New Democratic Party, which has always, at least in terms of its rhetoric and I think for most members, sincerely stood for democracy and the rights of the opposition, the NDP and its predecessor the CCF having been in opposition in Ontario until the 1990 election, and in opposition in many other forums across Canada -- I would have expected, and that's why I commend the member for Victoria-Haliburton, that the kind of changes that might have been forthcoming from the government would have been those initiated by him, as opposed to those which have been announced by the member for Windsor-Riverside, the House leader of the government.

1040

I think a number of the members were intrigued by some of the suggestions made by the member for Victoria-Haliburton and probably supportive of many of the suggestions. What has poisoned the atmosphere, however, has been not only the content of the government resolution to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature but also the manner in which that resolution was introduced to this House.

As I've looked over the years at the NDP caucus when it sat in opposition, there have been some people who have been, I think, highly respected in this Legislature. I think of Jim Renwick -- he used to sit for Riverdale -- who always commanded the attention of members of this House. I think of Patrick Lawlor, who sat in this Legislature and was a person who could wax eloquent and of course defend the rights of the opposition and of democracy in this province. I think of Stephen Lewis, who sat in this Legislature, made many a compelling speech, shared his views with the members and always defended the underdog, always defended the rights of those in opposition, who do not have all of the forces, who do not have all of the money, who do not have all of the levers of power that exist with members of the government.

So it's disappointing that when the member for Victoria-Haliburton has taken the time to think carefully about the rules of this Legislature, to think carefully about the role that individual members can play in this Legislature, that the government House leader would turn around and bring in a motion of the kind which has poisoned the atmosphere in here, and it has probably damaged the chance of the kind of ecumenical support I think the member for Victoria-Haliburton would have had, had this not happened.

I am concerned that in the package which exists -- and I'm sure the member for Victoria-Haliburton would not have contemplated this -- the government in fact wants to sit fewer days. There's a very good reason for that: they don't like question period. Nobody who sits in government as a minister likes question period, because you are accountable, because you must be prepared to answer questions not only from those who are in opposition but good questions from time to time from your own members who are concerned about matters in their own constituencies. The limiting of the amount of time the House sits in terms of question period, I think, diminishes the rights of the opposition and the backbench members of the government.

In addition to this, I'm extremely concerned at the limitation to be placed on speeches. I happen to consider that some of the manoeuvres that are used by oppositions over the years, the bell-ringing and other manoeuvres which are simply time-wasters, are not justified, but I do believe lengthy speeches to draw to the attention of the public the concerns about bills are.

The member offers a number of, I think, good suggestions on what can be done to assist in this Legislature. Wanting to enhance the rights of individual members is important. He has identified what I believe many people are seeing today, and that is that the general public views legislators as not being particularly important in the scheme of things.

It's not a matter of ego, but it's a matter of the fact that they elect someone to represent them in a Legislature such as this or in the House of Commons in Ottawa and then find that he must adhere to party policy on all occasions, that he is simply called upon to vote when the government needs his vote and then when opposition parties need his vote, but his powers to influence government policy are extremely limited.

The suggestions which have been made by the member for Victoria-Haliburton offer an opportunity for members to play a more meaningful role. There are people who come from various backgrounds in this Legislature. Some have been here a short period of time, some a lengthy period of time. If you look at the economic backgrounds, the social backgrounds, the ethnic backgrounds, whatever you want, we have a pretty good cross-section of Ontario here. Unfortunately, the government benches where the ministers sit really is where the power resides, and of course with the civil service and the advisers to the Premier's office, the Premier's office has been all-powerful in virtually every government there has been in the province of Ontario.

I hope the member is not discouraged by the fact that there isn't the kind of enthusiasm expressed openly for his resolution that there might have been on this day. I think it merits a lot of support, but the government House leader has torpedoed his efforts to be ecumenical today.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to begin by commending the member for Victoria-Haliburton for bringing forward this resolution this morning. I think it's quite timely, given that the government House leader, Mr Dave Cooke, has tabled rule changes in this Legislature.

I want to take the three minutes I have to first of all tell the member for Victoria-Haliburton that I was unaware that independent members did not enjoy many of the same privileges that I and my colleagues in all other parties enjoy in this Legislature. I thank him for bringing forward his resolution, which has, I think, caused all members to think of this chamber and its rules. Perhaps I would agree with the government to some extent that the rules do need to be changed, that reform is warranted.

I had the opportunity to be in my riding yesterday and I spoke with a number of constituents who are very concerned with what appear to be the very raucous events that occur in this chamber day after day. I remind all members of the Legislature that Parliament is a substitute for war, and that in countries where they do not have the opportunity and freedom of speech to battle it out in a controlled chamber such as the one we have here they simply take arms and have guerrilla warfare. It's important that members remind their constituents of that, as I do when school groups come and tell me, "Jeez, it's awfully noisy in there and people appear to be ill-mannered." I simply remind them that it's an excellent forum in which to voice very serious concerns on their behalf.

Because the government is contemplating rule changes, I want to put on the record some quotes from an article that appeared yesterday in the Examiner, one of the Barrie newspapers, by Gil Hardy, a member of our press gallery. It was sent to me by Mr Peter Sticklee, one of my very well informed constituents. In reference to the upcoming rule changes, I just want to quote from Mr Hardy, who says:

"But the NDP's antics from their time in opposition are coming back to haunt them. It's difficult to take Cooke's complaint seriously when he and his party wrote the book on delays and filibusters."

The important part here is the following:

"Cooke may well succeed in speeding up the process. But the short-term gains may have harmful lasting consequences. That's because the more substantial reforms needed to enhance the role of MPPs could be placed in peril. The reform process is barely under way and could easily dissolve because of bitterness over imposed rule changes. Without a balanced reform package agreed to by all sides, the Legislature will continue to stumble from crisis to crisis. It's a prospect MPPs should dwell on once the summer recess does begin."

I hope this morning's resolution brought forward by the member for Victoria-Haliburton, a member of the governing side of this Legislature, is a sign that the government is willing to discuss rule changes in a democratic and open way and that the government House leader will not simply dictate to this House what the reforms will be. My party and, I believe, the official opposition, the Liberal Party, are willing, as in the past, to sit down in a non-partisan fashion to try to hammer out reform to this Legislature, which I agree is needed. I thank the member for Victoria-Haliburton for beginning that process today.

1050

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: Yes, further debate, Mr Speaker. What we're going to do of course is distribute the time equally among people in this caucus who are debating it, so I want somebody to let me know when I've reached five minutes.

I tell you, Speaker, I'm really pleased to be able to join in this. I'm especially pleased to follow really as eminent a pair of colleagues as one could ever have: Mr Drainville, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who has my respect and admiration, and Tony Rizzo, the member for Oakwood, who, I'm ashamed to say, probably wasn't treated particularly fairly over the last almost two years. None the less, he is now and always has been a vocal spokesperson for his riding and his constituents, articulating their concerns effectively to members of the NDP caucus and, more important, to members of cabinet.

I tell you, Tony Rizzo is a person of integrity and fairness and I'm especially pleased to be able to follow him in this debate and especially pleased that he is, as a New Democrat and an elected member, a colleague of mine. He has my respect, admiration and, I tell you, affection.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton -- I know we're not supposed to refer to people by names, but holy zonkers, the fact is that there're folks watching there who don't have the little scorecards with them, or don't have the programs. His wife calls him Mr Drainville; I know that. So it's Mr Drainville, as Mrs Drainville would have him known by, but Dennis Drainville to bring this resolution and we all know it's a companion to the proposals that he has prepared and made to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, basically discussing an overall package of reform.

I've got to tell you something. Mr Drainville -- I'm sorry, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, whom his folks down there know -- I was with a couple of them yesterday when the people from the Ontario Real Estate Association were up here lobbying. Two of them were in from Haliburton and spoke well of him. Notwithstanding that they didn't agree with him politically or philosophically on every issue, they spoke highly of him, as I expected they would, knowing him much better than most of us do.

He's prepared a package of reform proposals which I've read with great interest. I know that Gil Hardy from Thomson News Service, who's a darned good journalist, has written at length about them and complimented the member for Victoria-Haliburton. Gil Hardy, who refers to him as "Dennis Drainville" in those columns, has complimented Dennis Drainville for the hard work and the insights into really what's needed around here if we're going to make the whole process more meaningful.

I'm just a backbencher from Welland-Thorold down in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula -- just a backbencher. The reform proposals here, as they apply to independents, impress me all that much more, not because I necessarily ever anticipate being an independent -- I will always be a New Democrat. I believe very strongly in the things New Democrats have always believed in and I'm as proud as anybody could ever be about being a member not only of the party but this NDP government. My concern is that what goes on around here -- I was here for a little while before 1990. I remember when there were only 19 of us and that was in the official opposition. The third party had even fewer members. The government majority was so great, so numerous, that the government members didn't just occupy this side of the Legislature; they occupied where half of the Tories are sitting now in what was called the rump, for I'm sure a number of relevant reasons, no reflection on the people who were forced to sit there by their House leader.

The problem is that even when you have the phenomenon of, let's say, free votes -- and the Premier recently on the issue of Sunday shopping indicated that there would be a free vote -- you see, it's not really a free vote because if you're a member of cabinet and you happen to feel strongly about the issue, if you're a member of cabinet who wants to keep the promise you made to your constituents, then you're not really free.

When is a free vote not really free? I suppose it reminds me of some of the final chapters of -- what was the book? -- Animal Farm, or Here in 1992, because "free vote" means free vote for caucus members but not free vote for cabinet ministers. Surely if there's going to be a free vote it ought to be a free vote for all participants.

When is a free vote not really a free vote? When there are motives, when ambitious caucus members may want to impress the Premier with the fact that they're on his side in this most unattractive, unseemly issue. That bothers me a great deal too.

I don't support all the reforms proposed by Dennis Drainville in his grand proposition, in his paper, but I believe very strongly that they warrant discussion. Every one of the propositions here is admirable, not only because they should apply to independent members but because they should apply to government members as well. I tell you that government members should be entitled to make members' statements as a matter of course and in a way where they're distributed fairly and equitably among members of the caucus, not just because people happen to attract the whim or the affection of the whip's office. I tell you, that's a ding-dong way of doing things that isn't acceptable to me and I don't believe is acceptable to fairminded people.

I'm going to sit down now. I'm going to speak at length on the motion amending the rules, because I have some things to say about that. At this point at least, until those rule changes take place, I have the freedom and the right to speak to those.

But until then, let me tell you something: This coming Sunday -- not this week but next week -- June 21 at 1 pm in Welland, in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula is the Rose Festival Parade, one of the finest, greatest parades in all of Ontario. Come on down.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I am pleased to join in this debate today. Earlier my colleague and friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton set a lofty tone for this debate. I know he has had a long and enduring interest in parliamentary reform. I call him my friend, and I know his wife may refer to him as Mr Drainville but I usually call him Dennis. When Dennis quoted Aristotle, I was reminded of the birthplace of democracy in the city-states of Greece, where people would attend and make their popular will known to the government of the day in a very direct fashion.

But city-states multiplied, populations grew and society became increasingly complex. I think the representative democracy was a fine and honourable compromise that evolved over the years. When members are elected and bring with them all those rights and privileges to this august assembly, they have to remain accessible, they have to remain accountable and sometimes they have to put forward in this House the unique perspectives of their own constituents.

Sometimes those unique views and perspectives may not accord absolutely with the view of government; one hopes that they do. But in those instances, sometimes, as a result of conscience and principle, members have to withdraw from their own caucuses. It is at that point, I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the constituents in that member's riding become unduly penalized, because they have effectively, under our current standing orders, lost their voice in this House.

I applaud the member for Victoria-Haliburton for coming here today and reminding me and the House of this loss because, although the voters may be enfranchised in a particular riding, if their member sitting as an independent has no opportunity to participate in the statements, the questions in the House and the debate or to sit on committees, those voters in that person's riding have effectively lost their voice in this House. So we need to restore to a significant degree the right of independent members to adequately and honourably reflect the interests of their constituents. I welcome the resolution of the member for Victoria-Haliburton and I'll certainly be providing my strong support for it today.

1100

Mr Drainville: First of all, I want to thank very much the members for Brampton South, York Mills, Oakwood, St Catharines, Simcoe West, Welland-Thorold and London South for their words and their support for this resolution.

I would like to say, though, that even though in these times when we discuss private members' public business we generally have a handful of people who are interested in an issue and come here and give of their advice and their knowledge and their wisdom, yet we must be careful that we do not see this experience as representing the full impact of what the people of Ontario are saying to us.

They are saying that we must change, that Parliament does not adequately represent the needs of the people any more, that the way we do public business needs to be altered so people have more access to government and so their representatives have more access to the decision-making processes which run government.

One time a poet named Robert Priest said these words, "Leaders are dangerous, but the most dangerous people are the followers." Indeed that's true, for the people of this province now have to decide on leadership. They do not believe in the leadership, they do not believe in many of the things we do and say, so they are considering what their actions will be.

In the sight of those people, it is our obligation to ensure that they know that we are committed to such reforms as will bring democracy into a new spirit in this province, that we will continue to further and further the ends of democracy so there will come a time when the people of Ontario will know that those whom they have elected will be truly their representatives and that their voice will be heard.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Mrs Caplan moved second reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Education Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This is the first time I have moved a private member's bill in this Legislature, and I'm pleased to do so on an issue which I think is of great importance to us in the province. The opportunity at this time is to discuss the issue in principle, and I hope to be able to convince members that it is worthy of support and further debate and discussion at committee. I believe that as members start to investigate and understand what my bill is proposing, they will realize that there is tremendous confusion and a great deal of what I would suggest is almost a chaotic situation in the province.

When we look at the principles of the right to education for children in Ontario, I think there's a general agreement in this debate in principle that all children should have the right to an education and that it is in Ontario's best interests to educate our children. We know as well that we tend to agree with the principle that says we should not be penalizing our children for the sins or the wrongdoings of their parents.

We further have goals in this province. We want the very best educated population we can have in the future so we can create wealth, create jobs, develop that human potential which I believe will make Ontario as attractive in the future as it has been in the past and enhance our competitiveness in this global world.

We have further goals in our society, to reduce illiteracy, reduce poverty, break the welfare cycle of dependency, and we know that education is the key to achieving those goals. There are some barriers in place today which I believe we just haven't thought about. This is the time, during private members' hour, when I would like to raise those issues and suggest that we can begin to correct some of those barriers within our society by giving the boards flexibility and discretion in the area of the establishment of fees.

Technically in the province of Ontario children do not automatically have the right to an education if they are the children of, for example, illegal immigrants. Similarly, the Education Act mandatorily sets a fee for the children of visitors or for those who would like to come and choose Ontario and who can well afford to pay for the education of the child.

I believe it is important that the boards be able to differentiate between these groups and, in order to ensure that all children have appropriate access to education, we must give the boards the flexibility to set policies which reflect the reality in their communities. In my community in North York, in the riding of Oriole, there are some children in the schools whose parents are fearful for one reason or another, and whenever there is a question of the child's eligibility for registration or a question of whether a fee should be assessed, that child will be pulled from the school and denied an education.

Today you have a situation where the school boards themselves often do not -- and I stress, they often do not -- register a child when they find out that they would then have to pursue the parents. Other school boards do register the child and then, as they would say and as they've told me, "go after the parents." The result of going after the parents will often result in the child being denied an education, being denied access to that education. Unfortunately, the Education Act does not give the school boards the flexibility to set appropriate policies which will ensure that our children have access to education: those who are here today, those who often live in poverty, those who will be denied the right to be literate in the future unless they do have access to education.

There's nothing new in what I'm proposing. As I said, some school boards do it in spite of the law and others are looking for some clarification as to what their powers are. I don't believe this will ultimately mean a great cost or any cost to the school boards themselves. I do believe that unless we correct this, it will continue to have great economic impact on the province of Ontario because what will happen is that these children, denied access to education, will be more of a burden on our society in the future than they would have to be or would be at all if we gave them the key to successful living, the key which is education.

I was interested this morning to see an article in the Globe and Mail which says that education now seems to be a better way to stem fertility rates. I mean, everyone is suggesting that it is education which seems to be a more effective pill.

When we talk about poverty, when we talk about race relations, tolerance, illiteracy, anti-racism strategies, we know that education is the key. As a strong supporter of the public education system, I believe we can respond to the needs of the children in our society who today are being denied access to education.

This amendment of the Education Act is proposed to allow the children of non-residents who are not legally eligible to attend our schools without payment. It's that simple. It would allow the boards the discretion and the flexibility to waive these fees on an individual case-by-case basis.

1110

This amendment, I believe, will help clarify for school boards the situation of who is in fact eligible, under what circumstances, and allow the boards to respond appropriately to the needs and to the right of the child. I think it's timely for us, as Canada engages in the debate on the rights of the child which the United Nations in the recent Convention on the Rights of the Child has also addressed. I would draw members' attention to Article 28, item (e), which says: "We should take measures to encourage regular attendance in schools and the reduction of dropout rates."

The reason we have children in jeopardy is often because they are pulled out of one school, registered in another, and they don't have the consistency. This encourages, in my view, the kind of dropout rate that regular attendance would help if the child was not living in fear. I believe that's just one example of how we could begin to commit ourselves to the best interests of the child, which I believe is also in the best interests of Ontario.

This amendment, if passed and accepted in principle by the government today, could go to the standing committee on social development, which will be my request, or a standing committee of the Legislature if the social development committee is too busy, so that school boards could come in and make us all aware of the situation that exists today in Ontario. It's my hope that this amendment would then enable the boards of education to educate the children in our community without the fear that they are breaking the law.

I've spoken with a number of educators around the province. I know that the situation in North York is perhaps different from the situation in other parts of the province, and I think it is important for us as legislators to look at our laws and see that they are responsive and flexible and that they are updated.

I would remind you that this province, under the Family Law Reform Act, removed the banner of illegitimacy. Children in Ontario are no longer illegitimate. By this amendment to the Education Act, we can say to children, "You are not illegal in Ontario." It is the kind of humane response that I believe is appropriate not only in 1992 but for the future as well.

I point out that this amendment does not interfere with the boards' ability to set fees for visitors. This amendment does not interfere with the boards' ability to set fees for out-of-district students. I believe all of that is appropriate and that the boards should have the ability to do that. What this amendment will do is ensure that all children living in Ontario will be entitled to an education while they are living in Ontario, and allow the school boards in Ontario to expand their mandate and to look at their policies to ensure that the principles and the goals that I've espoused today are part of their policies and considerations.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'll be speaking of course to Bill 24, the bill put forward by the member for Oriole on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus.

I would like, first of all, to commend the member for bringing to our attention the concern with regard to the application of fees and the mandatory fee that in fact exists in Ontario today for non-Canadian citizens, it says in the explanatory note here, who were admitted to a school by a school board. I think I will start by saying whether we mean "non-Canadian" or "non-resident," or whatever we do mean, the beginning of my speech is going to say that there's some confusion in this legislation, and I think the best result would be if we agree with the principle to have this bill referred to a committee, perhaps the social development committee, so we can have some clarification.

I would like to start by talking about the intent and the principle. It's my understanding that this amendment is proposed to allow the children of non-residents, who are not legally eligible, to attend school without payment. Right now, it is incumbent upon the boards to follow the law, and that is to impose a mandatory fee on the non-resident students. Some school boards, as the member for Oriole has already stated, have in fact waived this responsibility, and I think she's concerned, as we are, that if that's what they want to do, they ought to be able to do that without breaking the existing law of Ontario.

By giving school boards the flexibility and the discretion to waive school fees, children will be able to be educated in Ontario, which is our great goal. Every student, every young person in this province has a right to an education, and a right to that before all.

Certainly, with regard to people who intend to be citizens of this country and this province, we want to put our best foot forward and at least give the opportunity of an education to them. Many of them come from countries where they haven't been able to go to school. One the great hopes for any family is to come to this land, still, of opportunity, and opportunity begins in our schools.

It's nothing new apparently, this piece of legislation, except that the confusion the member for Oriole described is discriminatory against so many young children. This amendment will help clarify for school boards who is eligible to attend Ontario schools and may give us opportunity for some debate around our responsibilities as elected officials representing our constituents.

The amendment will inform school boards that it is okay to enrol children who are unable to pay the fees, and if this goes to committee, will allow those school boards to come before the committee to make their presentations. All children in Ontario, as I said, are entitled to a wonderful opportunity, to an education. This does not interfere with the boards' ability to set fees, if they choose to do that, I should say, and I'll underline this, for visitors or out-of-district students. I think that should still be part of the legislation and should not be changed. We don't want school boards to break the law.

I'd like to put on the record some of the concerns from the work we have done preparing ourselves for this morning, so that the member for Oriole will be prepared to deal with these as they may be raised at committee in the future; that is, if the government is going to give us that opportunity, which I think it ought to be able to do. These are the concerns expressed by school boards as we phoned out to them and as they contacted us.

They told us, and I think this is true, that illegal immigrants are not out for publicity. They are not the kind of people who are going to go around and talk about their status. They're afraid and concerned and they obviously eventually want some assistance in becoming Canadians. We're talking about their children. But they will not register with school boards for fear of being, in their words, tracked down at this terrible time in their lives. Don't get me wrong. I don't think any of us are here to support that kind of action. We're here to say it's a reality, that it exists and let's deal with it.

London right now is currently facing a high population of Salvadorans and Vietnamese, and it's been brought to our attention that some of them are of this status. The taxpayer will absorb the cost of this if we allow illegal immigrants into our school system without paying. That was the concern of all school boards. I think we have to have an opportunity to have some discussion around what that statement really means, because in the case of the greater Toronto area this number was given to us. Because immigrants tend to settle in the greater Toronto area, the Toronto board estimates this initiative could cost it approximately $11 million.

Knowing the background of the member for Oriole, she is not interested in socking $11 million to the Toronto Board of Education. Certainly, knowing the background of many in this House who have sat on school boards, that's not what this is all about. But we are interested in hearing from them. This process today doesn't allow for that and so we have to get this into committee.

The Toronto board goes further, to say that it doesn't receive provincial dollars, so of course this would all be local taxpayers' money. I think it's up to them to debate that in one way or another, perhaps individual by individual or perhaps as a board policy, whatever they prefer to do as a result of this legislation.

We would love to have the opportunity for clarification of non-residents and non-Canadian citizens. The member for Oriole used the terminology "non-residents"; the explanatory note to the bill uses the word "non-Canadian."

We're in favour, in principle, of this legislation and we hope the government and the members of this House see fit to refer this to committee, probably the standing committee on social development, for further discussion and clarification and certainly to invite the school boards to be part of that.

1120

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Upon first reading I found Bill 24, An Act to amend the Education Act, to be a very attractive piece of legislation. Who could deny equal access to all children? How can the government deny equal access? How can our government, a social democratic government whose history and traditions have sponsored immigrants -- we have had members here in our community, such as Dan Heap, who have fought vigorously and hard at the federal scene to help immigrant families here in Toronto. Yes, there are many in our community who might deny such children, the children of illegal immigrants, access to schools here in Canada, but I suggest these people are mean-spirited and certainly do not represent the majority of our community who are fair and decent people.

As a family therapist, I would like to pick up on one of the comments our colleague the member for Oriole mentioned, the quote from the Bible of the sins of the father being passed unto the sons, unto the fourth generation. That is all too true here in Ontario -- still too true.

I would go further and suggest that it's often the sins done unto the children, particularly the daughters, that are passed on from generation to generation. Here we are talking of adults who make decisions, who should be responsible for their decisions, but whose children should not be so responsible. In so many other areas we see that happening. How can we condone it? I have seen, as a social worker and a family therapist, so often how lives can be damaged for ever by actions that occur when youth are still at home, damage done to them that then passes on to their children.

How do we change that? We change it only through education and information, through an enlightened, informed, educated community. I think that here we have a community, an educational system, which is in the forefront of dealing with many difficult social problems.

Just this Monday we had Mr Silipo, the Minister of Education, speak about how the curriculum can be changed to deal with racism, an affront to those values we hold dear, those racist concepts that are still in our community. They can be approached; they can be dealt with through the educational system. We know how well the educational system has dealt with issues like sexism, enhanced the role of women and young girls through an informed and enlightened perspective and moved our community ahead. We know how keenly aware students are of environmental issues.

Yes, I would suggest that the best way to invest in our community, in our youth, is through that system. I thank the member for using those quotes. We are in fact in a community blessed with an excellent educational system that is the marvel of many throughout the world.

In my community we have people from across the world who come to a private school, a visa school. I believe there are some 5,000 or 6,000 students who attend such schools in the greater Toronto area. These people pay an enormous amount of money, far more than the cost through our public educational system, so that these young girls at the Trafalgar Castle girls' school, formerly the Ontario Ladies College, can enjoy an Ontario education, something that is acceptable to our universities and to our community.

They have an excellent system; almost, I would say, the equivalent of our public educational system. I've had the opportunity of being there on many occasions; twice this very month. This Saturday I'll be at their graduation ceremonies and I look forward to that.

If this bill were passed, it would mean that schools like this would be in severe jeopardy. They are excellent schools, but the reasons these visa students come is because they want to have an education in Ontario. Were this bill to be passed, these visa students would be forced into the public system, and that private school, that excellent school, would probably go the way of many of its fellows in bygone days. So I would suggest a caution in that regard, as the previous speaker mentioned. While I support many aspects of this bill and its application, there is still concern in some areas, such as these private schools, such as Trafalgar Castle school, which I think would be imperilled by this act.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will allow my colleagues to speak about other of these issues.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It's a pleasure to rise and join in the debate in support of my colleague's proposal. I welcome the comments that have been made by her, by our colleague the member for London North and our colleague the member for Durham Centre. I say at the outset, because I know well the school my colleague has just mentioned, Trafalgar Castle, that I appreciate the issue that has been brought forward. It seems to me this is one that could be dealt with and that there are some ways of handling it. Obviously, as the member for Oriole has said, in committee we would have an opportunity, I think, to address that. It is a real issue but one that I think can be addressed.

I'd like in my time to focus on two areas of the bill. The first thing I want to do is to say that I really think our focus -- and I believe it's been the focus members have taken in addressing the issue -- has been on children. I want to remind members of a debate we had in this House approximately two or more years ago. The document I'm holding in front of me is Children Have Rights Too: A Primer on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Members who were here in the last Parliament will recall that the former member for Riverdale, David Reville, had brought in, actually, an opposition day motion urging that Ontario sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This document, which I strongly recommend to members, is an excellent document prepared here in Canada by a group of activists working with children. One of the things that makes it interesting -- and I know it's hard to see on television -- is that it is full of drawings by children and looks at some of the specific issues that children around the world face.

I think that all too often we, here in Canada, sometimes feel that we're better than all other countries and that we don't have any problems. I think, as all members know, we do have problems, and we need to focus particularly on children at risk and the factors that put children at risk.

I'd like, in this debate, just to read that part of the convention that speaks to education. This is what the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says about education:

"The child has a right to free and compulsory primary education, equal access to secondary and higher education and school discipline which reflects the child's human dignity.

"The state shall ensure that education is directed at developing the child's personality and talents; preparing the child for responsible life in a free society; and developing respect for the child's parents, basic human rights, the natural environment and the child's own cultural and national values and those of others."

That represents articles 18 and 19 of the United Nations convention. I think that in dealing with the issue before us, it's important to go back to some first principles, because whatever legal and technical difficulties there are in coping with this issue, none the less our focus is on children and making sure they all have an equal right and an equal access to education.

1130

I would also want to draw to members' attention, in support of my colleague's amendment, several other studies that have been done in Ontario over the last several years which talk about children at risk and the importance of ensuring they all have an education. Members may be aware of the Ontario Child Health Study: Children at Risk, which looked very specifically at the kinds of problems children can have that are going to mean they simply don't lead a normal life and don't have what most of us take for granted in terms of being able to lead full lives. Clearly one of those areas where kids can be at risk is if they do not have access to education. Obviously that is what the principle of this bill speaks towards. The Children First document -- the former Minister of Community and Social Services, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, was a member of this particular committee -- again looked at how do we make sure all children will have access to education. Finally, the document Better Beginnings, Better Futures again set out a number of models by which we wanted to help children have an equal playing field and not have to face a whole variety of problems.

So if we use that focus, whatever reservations we may have on, as I say, the technical-legal side, I think what we want to do with this bill, what's important, is to get this into committee where we can deal with it. I'm sure my colleague from Oriole would say that if indeed through that process we find a better way to ensure that, fine. The issue is just in making sure those young children, whose parents are perhaps frightened of the system and what might happen, will have that right to education made very clear.

The second point I would like to mention is one we faced when we were a government. I think it speaks to the federal government but it needs to be placed on the table today. This was the issue around refugee children. A few years ago members may recall there was a tremendous surge of refugees and a number of school boards in the Ottawa area and the greater Metropolitan Toronto area were suddenly finding large numbers of children showing up on their doorsteps and they had no knowledge they were there. The boards were frustrated, and it was understandable why they were frustrated: There was no funding that came with those children. At that time we had talks with the federal government around the whole question of refugees and how we make sure these young people can be in the school system and that there must be a responsibility on the federal government, given that it is responsible for the refugee system, to help the province, to help the school boards.

As we look at this specific issue, it is interesting that during the constitutional discussions that have been going on, the issue of immigration and how the provinces and the federal government come together in that area, which is of course right now a joint area, is an important one. In moving forward with this bill, Ontario may want to explore the idea of an agreement with the federal government around the question, among others, of children: children of refugees, children of illegal immigrants. It's difficult because one wants to say, "They're not there; we won't acknowledge that they're there," but we know they're there. I think it is a responsibility, in addition to the one we have here in this chamber, of the federal government in terms of a number of the funding issues that flow from that. We should not be hesitant in reminding them of that. Indeed, in my view, perhaps once the constitutional discussions are completed, we should look at whether Ontario, as do six other provinces, needs to have an immigration-refugee agreement with the federal government around the funding of a number of programs because, as has been stated earlier, Ontario and in particular Metropolitan Toronto will find the largest number of those children in this area.

I want to underline again that I think the member for Oriole has raised an issue the principle of which I think is fundamental and one we want to respond to. Whatever problems there are of a technical and legal nature, I think those we can address in committee. It would be very useful and helpful, not only to the children, to be able to bring to the committee representatives from school boards and others who work with children so that we can make sure every child living in this province is not going to be deterred from having an education, participating in school, because of the legal status of his or her mother or father. I would urge all of us to support the member's bill.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm very pleased to join in the discussion today dealing with private member's Bill 24, An Act to amend the Education Act, which has been put forward by the member for Oriole. I agree with the principle. However, I would agree also with the member that this needs to be sent out to committee for further clarification. I think just today there have been many points that have been raised -- for example, the definition. Are we dealing with non-resident or non-Canadian? I guess to me, "non-Canadian" means that anyone who's not yet a citizen would be denied access, so certainly we need to discuss that.

I would certainly agree that all children in this province need to have the right of access to education. Unfortunately, because of the situation that has been created throughout the province because we do have refugees who have not been granted landed immigrant status, because of people who are here illegally, there are children at the present time in this province who do not have access to education and who are sitting at home and certainly are not being served very well in preparation for their lives in the future. We need to take a look at how we best meet the needs of those children.

There's tremendous confusion throughout the province on this particular issue. We see some boards accepting children of refugees and we see others that do not, but certainly there are many, such as the ones in my own community, that on compassionate grounds do accept these children.

We have some other cases now in my community as well, and I know throughout the province, where we have children who come from countries where there is civil war and they come to stay with relatives in Ontario. They are now seeking access to our public and separate school system. Again, we need to determine, how do you deal with those children who have been sent away from the country because of war and possible death and a very uncertain future?

I think we need to take a look at this issue, because there is tremendous confusion and each board seems to be dealing with the issue quite separately. This amendment would certainly help to clarify for school boards who is or is not eligible to attend Ontario schools, because there always is the possibility for abuse. There are many people who admire the Ontario school system and obviously would send their children here to stay with family, and we have to make sure that the reasons are appropriate.

I think, as I mentioned, we need to clarify that definition. Who is it that we're talking about? Are we talking about a non-resident in that school community, a non- Canadian or who? That certainly needs clarification.

I've had an opportunity to talk to a few people in school boards, and although they do agree with this bill in principle, they have some concerns. It appears innocuous. It appears to be housekeeping. But because of the lack of clarification today, they've raised a couple of concerns I would just like to share with you today that could be potentially serious and that we need to give some very serious consideration to. Really it's the confusion over the definition: Is it non-resident, non-Canadian, or what are we dealing with?

I'm pleased that these school boards did take advantage of the opportunity to provide me with some feedback, and I guess that's the reason why this bill needs to go out to committee for discussion. We need to hear not only from school boards but from groups and individuals who have been directly impacted by the confusion existing in the province today. As I say, we all approve of the principle and we recognize that children should have access to the system. However, there are some serious implications.

1140

For example, if we're talking about non-residents in a school district and if there is a strike at that board, because the bill indicates that every child in Ontario is entitled to an education, neighbouring boards -- in my case, if Waterloo went on strike, Wellington, Wentworth etc -- would be mandated to provide spaces to those children who applied and paid the associated fees, and the boards could not refuse them. We need to clarify that situation and make sure we know exactly whether this would be a reality. We do have strikes at school boards, so that could certainly happen. We've had them in the past and students then seek to cross the line and enrol in neighbouring boards. And of course it provides hardship for that board; they simply don't have the space or the teachers to deal with the additional students who are coming from boards that are undergoing a strike.

Second, if foreign students apply for admission to the system and pay the fee, it's possible, because of the lack of clarification we have here today, that boards throughout the province would lose the power to refuse to take them. We need to take a look at that because it could have very serious implications for school boards. Again, it could raise the cost of local education within an area and put an additional tax burden on those residents.

Finally, there is a concern that if you have a board in this province that is respected and well known for undertaking a high-risk, expensive special education program, we all know that people throughout the province would probably like to have access to that board, especially those people from neighbouring jurisdictions who could easily be transported back and forth by their guardians or parents. Boards then could lose the right to refuse admission to the special education programs they offer. Again, it's a lack of clarification. And, of course, since the amount of the fee that boards can levy is presently capped, they would not be able to recover the full cost of these very expensive special education programs, and the difference would have to be paid by the taxpayer in the jurisdiction providing the program.

So we need to clarify. Are we talking about non-residents in the board's district? Are we talking about children whose parents are refugees or illegal immigrants? Obviously we're not talking about children who are here and are landed immigrants, but again, the bill does not make it clear. Certainly I wholeheartedly support in principle the bill that's being put before us today. I hope we will send this out to committee and that we can very quickly resolve this situation, because there are many children throughout this province who today, for whatever reasons, are not attending school and are being denied that very basic right. I would support this and my caucus will support it.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I, too, am pleased to lend my support to Bill 24. I compliment the member for Oriole on her bold initiative, which I think deserves our support in enabling people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada to attend schools in Ontario without the payment of maximum fees. As you know, Mr Speaker, people enter Canada for a variety of reasons: for education, for work, to visit sometimes and often as refugees. Many of the newcomers to my riding of London South came to London as refugees from Central America, Poland or other places where they have experienced considerable political turmoil.

I think we have to be mindful that there is indeed a lot of consultation that has to be done on this. I think the member for York North and also the member for Waterloo North underscored this point today. We need to look at what the cost implications are. What are the cost implications for our school boards? As you all know, education is financed not only through provincial grants but also through municipal assessment, so we need to consult with our local school boards. Perhaps the work of the Fair Tax Commission will be relevant here. Perhaps we'll also look at amendments to the education finance reform act. These are important considerations that interact with this particular bill.

As you know, currently the Education Act provides that a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident can be charged a fee calculated in accordance with the regulations. It's unfortunate that many of the people who come here to Canada as refugees are the least able to afford payment of these fees, and I think this amendment would go a long way towards obviating their particular plight.

There are indeed, as the act stands right now, exceptions provided for in subsection 49(7), I believe, from the requirement to pay maximum fees on behalf of several classes of non-citizens or non-permanent residents to Canada, including refugees and members of the diplomatic corps, but I certainly feel we would do no injustice in expanding these categories of exception to the payment of fees.

There are also concerns, I know, under section 15 of the Charter of Rights as to whether we can justify differential treatment of people who are non-residents. I know recent jurisprudence flowing from the Supreme Court of Canada would seem to support the view that we can't support this kind of discrimination. I think the amendment the member for Oriole promotes in the House today would certainly bring our legislation under the Education Act more into conformity with section 15 of the Charter of Rights.

At the same time, if we remove the requirement of payment of fees, we definitely have to consult with the federal government, as the member for York North observed, because certainly if we relax the requirement for payment of maximum fees, it may increase the demand for easier access to student visas under the Immigration Act, and I think we have to be prepared for that.

We need to consult with the federal government. We need to consult with the boards of education and municipalities. I think we need to consult with the private schools that are currently targeting people in this category to ensure what effect this legislation would have on the future of those schools and other private schools where visa students are currently enrolled. There's a great deal of consultation that has to be done in connection with the costs and consequences of the amendment put forward by the member for Oriole, but in principle I'm certainly prepared to lend my own support to second reading of Bill 24 today.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you like to take the remaining five minutes?

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Yes, I would.

The Deputy Speaker: We'll finish first with the member for Kingston and The Islands.

1150

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm pleased to join my colleagues in this debate, because I think, as has been well said already and is shown by the interest in this bill, we do have a great interest in educational matters. I'm very pleased to see so many school children in the gallery today watching these proceedings, because, as they can hear from the debate, this affects their future as well as their kids' future.

I think the member for London South has outlined very well some of the areas of concern we have with this bill. He supports it in principle. I join him in saying that. Several speakers have outlined where problems lie in this that have to looked at very carefully. One of course is consultation with the federal government to make sure this fits in with its legislation and where it would like to see this area move. I think, though, that the member for York North, in outlining the reports that have come forth on matters dealing with children, including education -- that is, Better Beginnings, Better Futures; Children First, and Children at Risk -- shows that this is an issue that goes to the heart of our policies dealing with children.

Regardless of the issue the member for Oriole raises of people who are left out of the system, even the kids who are in our school system now need the best school system possible. I think the problems that have to be addressed in this bill relate to the money available. Certainly we want to make sure the money is there, but we don't want to cause changes to it that will create dislocations that will cause downgrading of the educational system. I think it is understood that we will look at this very carefully.

The final thing, though, is to have the best school system possible for all our children, to make sure it is accessible to whoever that child is in our community, partly because that is a thing we can use that goes beyond our community into the world at large, that the resources we have as a group will be devoted to the best interests of everybody.

The member for Downsview has shown some interest in this matter as well, so I would like to give him some time.

The Deputy Speaker: There is one minute and 19 seconds left.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak to this bill as well. I would like to applaud the efforts of the member for Oriole. I don't normally agree with many of her positions, but I do agree with her position on this particular bill. As a former trustee, I can tell you that this is something school boards often have problems grappling with when there are children on their doorstep who are otherwise not receiving the education that, in my view, they would normally be entitled to if they are to have any hope of being able to become productive citizens in this country or any other country.

I do have some reservation about some of the technical aspects of the bill, because I attended a high school where we had many very well-to-do students who came from the Orient in most cases. My reservations would be that if this were to happen as is before us, those students would be able to get a free education here when they could technically afford to pay.

Mrs Caplan: I would like to thank all those members who spoke in support in principle. I would like to point out that the member for London North, the member for Durham Centre, the member for York North, the member for Waterloo North, the member for London South, the member for Downsview, the member for Kingston and The Islands, members from all parts of the province understand and share the principle that's been put forward today for the debate and, further, that private members' hour is an opportunity for every member of this House to raise issues of concern, to debate them in a non-partisan way and then to, hopefully with the support of the House, continue that debate at committee, where we can address the issues that have been raised in a very thoughtful way by many of my colleagues on both sides of the House in today's debate.

I would like to mention and be very clear that I do not condone the behaviour of illegal immigrants. I do not condone the actions of adults who come to this country in an illegal way. I do not condone lawbreaking in any manner whatever. My intention with this legislation is to say that while I do not condone illegal behaviour or lawbreaking in any way, I also believe that it is in Ontario's interests, our interests today and in the future, to ensure that all children living in Ontario, whether the status of their parents is legal or not, to see that those children are educated.

If the parents are subsequently deported, the child will return a little better educated to the country of origin. If the parents are granted amnesty or find a way to apply for legal status in the future, then that child will be a more productive citizen of Ontario in the future.

I'm the first one to agree that there is great confusion among educators and school boards in this province today as to how to resolve this issue. I've heard members of the Legislature this morning talk about the intergovernmental and interinstitutional and interjurisdictional difficulties with this issue. I hope with this bill in committee we could begin to address how to do that, but I don't believe the barrier of intergovernmental dispute, bureaucratic wrangling, should stand in the way of legislators solving a problem which will lead to greater prosperity, greater economic activity and greater wealth creation as well as a better place for all our children and grandchildren, because we've taken steps today to ensure equality of access to education for children living in Ontario.

My colleague the member for York North in particular, and others, referred to very important documents, one which contains the signature of Mr Beer, the member for York North: Better Beginnings, Better Futures. I don't think there's a statement which says it better than, "If you give children a better beginning, you will have a better future." If we in Ontario dedicate ourselves to ensuring that all children have access to education, ensuring that when they arrive in this province and however they come here they have a better beginning, we will all in Ontario have a better future because of that.

The Children at Risk study, the Children First documentation and Children Have Rights Too, all before us in this House at one time or another for debate, suggest that we share this common goal, and the debate this morning, I think, has just highlighted how much we in this House all have in common. I would ask that this piece of legislation be allowed to proceed to committee so that we can find the solutions together.

I do not intend, through this legislation, to have an impact on visa students, to have an impact on those students who should quite properly be able to be charged for the education they receive in Ontario. That is not the intent of this bill. I would point out to one member -- I believe it was the member for London South -- who said that under today's existing law students can be charged, that without the definitional clarity, students must be charged. The boards have no discretion; the boards have no flexibility in the cases of those children who, as the member for Downsview quite rightly pointed out, are often on their doorstep identified as in need, identified as at risk of being uneducated, facing a future illiterate and facing a future without opportunity because legally today the boards in Ontario must charge. They cannot have any discretion to waive the fees.

I was interested also in the comments of my colleagues the member for London North and the member for Waterloo North regarding the potential costs. I believe there are many school boards today that in fact do not obey the law and educate these children. I applaud them for doing that, but I don't think they should have to break the law to do it.

1200

I am also very surprised at the estimate from the city of Toronto and I hope we could explore that further, because it is my understanding that the policy of the city of Toronto school board is to admit these children and not ask any questions.

If in fact there are those kinds of potential costs, I think we should explore that and determine how we would resolve that. There is only one taxpayer in this country. That taxpayer pays federal taxes, provincial taxes and municipal taxes, and we all have to be sensitive to that taxpayer, because nobody wants to pay more taxes. At the same time, I would point out that the cost to that very same taxpayer of having illiterate, uneducated, unproductive, wasted resources in this province is a much greater cost that we cannot bear when there is a solution.

I would again like to thank all of those who participated. I'd also like to thank the administrator of the North York school board who pointed out to me that this was an issue that should be addressed. I want to thank him for bringing that to my attention and to thank those school boards which offered advice and assistance as we did some research into this issue. I'm hopeful we will have the opportunity at committee to find a solution so that we can ensure that children in Ontario have access to the education we all want them to have.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private member's public business has expired.

ROLE OF INDEPENDENT MEMBERS

The Deputy Speaker: We will deal first with ballot item 13, standing in the name of Mr Drainville. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Drainville has moved private member's resolution 10. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

The Deputy Speaker: We will now deal with ballot item 14 standing in the name of Mrs Caplan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

1207

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

Ayes -- 43

Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Christopherson, Cooper, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hayes, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Poole, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sullivan, Sutherland, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

Nays -- 0

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: We will wait for the member to take his seat. Pursuant to standing order 94(k), this bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mrs Caplan: I request that it be referred to the standing committee on social development.

The Deputy Speaker: This bill will be referred to the standing committee on social development. Agreed? All those in favour of the question will please rise and remain standing.

Please take your seats. The majority of the House being in agreement, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on social development.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AIR QUALITY

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I'd like to make some comments to the members of this House and the people of Ontario with respect to the clean air program, otherwise known as CAP. This is a bit of history I'd like to share with some of my colleagues and the people of Ontario.

Regulation 308 of the Environmental Protection Act was actually first brought into being and promulgated in 1968. At that time there were obviously different technologies and methodologies in terms of measuring air pollution.

In August 1990, after, I might say, a considerable amount of work done by the previous government under the leadership of Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, regulations were put in place that were in draft form.

Let me give a bit of history of what happened there. The Liberal government responded to the outdated regulations by setting up a working paper and said, "How can we arrive at regulations that will deal with clean air initiatives in this province?" Out of that came draft regulations. They were tabled or submitted to the public at large in August 1990 with a view to having a six-month consultation period to refine those regulations and bring them into place. That public process would have resulted in those regulations being on line in February 1991. To date we have heard nothing at all from the current Minister of the Environment. We have no idea what her plans are for continuing the clean air program or for a new program.

Changes in regulations are important. The direction of this government is important. People want to know, industry wants to know, environmental groups want to know. In the absence of any consultation there is no degree of certainty as to what is happening with the clean air program. The people of Ontario are looking for leadership in this area and deserve to have this government pick up the good work that was begun and to do something with it.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): The Minister of Health is currently reviewing the Swimmer report, which recommends that the province take over all ambulance services in Ontario. Private ambulance operators have grave concerns about this recommendation and how it will affect their business. The Ontario Ambulance Operators' Association believes that the minister should not adopt this recommendation because it will be too expensive and will not improve the quality of services in the province.

The Ontario Hospital Association has also expressed concerns about the province taking over ambulance services. They also believe it would be too expensive and would reduce local autonomy and accountability.

My PC colleagues and I agree. Buying out private operators would cost the province millions of dollars at a time when health care costs are spiralling out of control and hospital beds are being closed and staff laid off. The cost of implementing this recommendation would be yet another unwelcome burden on the taxpayers of Ontario.

Unfortunately, private ambulance operators have good reason to worry about their future. They have seen the NDP's attempts to run private day care centres out of business and they fear the same will happen to them. Private operators also have legitimate concerns about whether they would be adequately compensated if the province decided to run them out of business. The NDP has not given private day care centres adequate compensation, and there is good reason to believe private ambulance operators would fare no better.

I urge the minister, who has endorsed the principles of the Swimmer report, to do the right thing and allow private ambulance services to continue to operate in Ontario.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): For 14 months now 27 employees of the Cambridge Reporter have attempted to negotiate a first contract with their employer, a division of the Thomson newspaper chain. After months of stalling tactics by the company, the Reporter employees were forced to take strike action. The company responded by recruiting replacement workers.

Following three months of strike, the Ontario Labour Relations Board decided in favour of the employee guild's request for first-contract arbitration. Unfortunately, the management of the Reporter continues to operate in its customary heavy-handed, autocratic manner. The Reporter has now fired four of its full-time employees. You won't be surprised to learn, Mr Speaker, that all these individuals were individuals who exercised their democratic right to strike, and they had from two to nine years of seniority.

This action by the Reporter's management might be justified if they were downsizing, but this is not the case. Replacement workers hired during the strike have been kept on. Replacement workers with just a few months' experience stay on while experienced staff are let go. To add insult to injury, during negotiations prior to the strike the company and union had agreed to bumping privileges for senior employees. This article, however, is not binding until the first contract is arbitrated.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, why do we need the proposed Ontario Labour Relations Act? Precisely because we have employers such as Thomson's Cambridge Reporter. Unfortunately this legislation was not in place to protect these workers at the Cambridge Reporter. Hopefully it will help others in the future.

DENTAL CARE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I'd like to bring the attention of the House and the Minister of Health to the very real problem of inadequate dental care faced by thousands of Ontario seniors and long-term care clients.

The plight of our senior citizens with dental problems has been well documented. In addition to a recent study conducted by the Ontario Society of Public Health Dentists, an investigation conducted by the Dental Committee on Dental Care for Seniors in Need showed that approximately 75% of seniors were found in need of preventive dental care and 25% were in need of dental treatment requiring the services of a dentist or denturist. Moreover, many seniors are not eligible for dental insurance plans and simply cannot afford adequate dental care on their meagre incomes.

All of this amounts to indicating that the time has come for the minister to move on this very important issue. While I understand the issues that have come to bear on the Health budget in general, this is a step, taken in time, that can save millions of our taxpayers' dollars.

I only point to the fact that the dental program for children in Ontario, which was put in place by the Liberal government, showed positive results to the extent that now there is less need than ever before for dental invasive procedures with respect to our young children.

I believe if the current government follows the lead of the two previous Liberal ministers of Health, myself and the member for Oriole, and brings this program to operational activity, it could save the province lots of money and bring better health to our seniors.

COLLEGE STANDARDS AND ACCREDITATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement today is directed to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and of Skills Development.

One of the recommendations in Vision 2000, the report on quality and opportunity, was to develop a College Standards and Accreditation Council called CSAC. In September 1991 the minister announced the creation of a CSAC establishment board to seek the views of interested parties and citizens on the major issues facing this body.

The discussion paper of the CSAC establishment board proposes that CSAC ensure that general education constitutes 30% of program hours for all college program within 10 years following the establishment of CSAC. This recommendation does not add extra hours to the curriculum to compensate for this. It will be at the expense of vocational education.

We know that technical, vocational and generic skills are all important, but given the economic challenges that business and industry are experiencing, it is important that students are receiving the technical skills they need to compete in our competitive global economy. Many college programs are set up to be intensely geared towards a specific field of study. If these programs have to be watered down in order to meet general education quotas, the students and the industries that hire them will be the losers. Quality is very important, but so is opportunity -- opportunity for our young people to be trained in colleges across this province with job-training skills.

CARROUSEL OF THE NATIONS

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): The 17th annual Carrousel of the Nations, Windsor's multicultural celebration presented by the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County, will be held Friday, June 12, Saturday, June 13, Sunday, June 14, Friday, June 19, Saturday, June 20 and Sunday, June 21. In recognition of our 100th anniversary as a city, Carrousel of the Nations will salute this special occasion under the theme "Carrousel Celebrates Windsor's Centennial."

Carrousel this year will feature 28 ethnocultural villages, including Afro-Canadian, British, Caribbean, Chinese, Croatian, Filipino, German, Greek, two Hungarian villages, Indian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Lebanese, Macedonian, Polish, Scottish, two Serbian villages, Slovenian and three Ukrainian villages. I want to personally welcome three new villages this year: Trinidad and Tobago, Slovak Nativity Lutheran Church and Maltese.

I'm proud to say that all but five of these villages are located in my riding of Windsor-Walkerville and all will be presenting the best in traditional cuisine, entertainment, crafts and displays. And the best part of all: Admission is free. Opening ceremonies take place tomorrow afternoon at Lanspeary Park on Ottawa Street, and I want to recognize and express my thanks to the sponsors of this year's Carrousel, Tony Azar and Raymax Construction, CBC and Molson.

1340

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I rise today for the purpose of recognizing a special event that occurred 92 years ago, June 12, 1898: the establishment of a free, independent, democratic republic of the Philippines. This day is not only an important date in history, but it has great significance to our Canadian citizens of Filipino heritage.

Though many of us take our democratic system of government for granted, the celebration of the 92nd anniversary of the establishment of democracy in their beloved homeland serves us as well as a useful reminder to all that in order for the tradition of freedom to be preserved it must be valued and guarded with great vigilance.

In recognition of the important contributions that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to economic development and indeed the cultural enrichment of our province and country, the blue, red and white flag of an independent Philippines will be raised tomorrow morning at city hall.

These Philippine colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship, respect and affection that we have for the Filipino Canadian community. Therefore, in recognition of this special day, we say to all our friends who trace their roots to the Philippines, "Mabuhay ang Pilipinas."

GREY SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I'm very concerned with the latest unwelcome development in the relationship between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the conservation authorities of Ontario. Under a memorandum of agreement signed April 16, 1986, with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority has on two occasions, in September 1987 and May 1989, asked for and received a withdrawal of surplus funds in respect of revenues received by the minister in management of the forest area.

On March 31 of this year, knowing the balance of the program account was over $40,000, Grey Sauble asked for further money. Instead of a cheque, it received a letter announcing that the ministry was reneging on the agreement and had unilaterally decided to review the process and would be withholding funds in the interim. The conservation authority signed and has honoured this agreement in good faith. It relies on revenue from the sale of trees to carry out its program and now, especially when funding is being slashed, it seems most unfair to withhold money which has traditionally belonged to the authority.

It seems to me that if the ministry can, with no consultation, go back on the agreement it signed, a conservation authority may do likewise. If the minister wishes to have the agreement stand, perhaps he could investigate the situation and advise me and the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority as quickly as possible.

SISTER CHRISTINE LEYSER

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): People in Guelph were happy to learn that Sister Christine Leyser of the Sisters of Loretto is one of 12 recipients of the 1992 Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship. Sister Christine is a familiar downtown figure, providing meals, shelter, advice and encouragement. She is also a well-known activist for Guelph's poor and homeless.

Sister Christine left a long teaching career in 1979 to work with inmates at the Ontario Correctional Rehabilitation Farm in Guelph and the Ontario Correctional Centre. She soon realized that these people needed help after they were released. In 1983 Sister Christine organized the Welcome In Drop In Centre Corp. The board included representatives from churches, the trades, social work and a doctor.

In 1984 the Welcome In Drop In Centre opened, serving coffee and doughnuts. Now it is open seven days a week and serves a noontime lunch and evening meal. It is a place where people can get nutritious, affordable and good food, friendship and support. On any given day, there are about 40 clients at the centre. Some 90 volunteers staff the centre and Sister Christine is usually on hand all day.

In 1984 Sister Christine opened the Dwelling Place to provide longer-term supportive housing for about eight adults. In 1986 she opened the Stepping Stone to provide emergency shelter for about 10 individuals. Sister Christine has also been putting up the homeless at various motels. In the late 1980s, she spearheaded a move by the Guelph Non-Profit Housing Corp to build 38 affordable homes for families and individuals. This project is called Yorkhaven.

Sister Christine is a credit to our community and she makes our community a lot richer.

LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, Thursday is a very important day around this building. We have House leaders' meetings to deal with the business of the day, and from time to time there is disagreement with respect to what we can and cannot do in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware of the fact that under the standing orders, if this were a regular sitting of the House, after today's date no further bills could be introduced that allow for second reading to follow by the end of the sitting of the House unless something is reached consensually to allow otherwise.

In fairness to the House leader for the government, he has agreed that he won't force this issue on us, but I wish to bring to your attention the fact that the government House leader has advised us today that under standing order 66 he is not under any prohibition at all from introducing bills after the end of June, if we are still sitting here in July, that will preclude their passage into second reading and beyond if he so chooses.

This presents to us in the opposition some pretty difficult questions. If he decides he will introduce a bill as of Monday's date or next Tuesday's date or next Thursday's date, we could sit here and look at it for a little while and it would then wait for debate in the fall, unless, as he tells us he has been advised by some experts -- and we haven't seen the opinion because he said it was given orally -- he extends the sitting into July, in which case any bill he chooses to introduce from now until the rising of the House in July he says he can force to second reading and in fact pass it.

It is my contention, on behalf of the opposition Liberals at least, and probably on behalf of the opposition Conservatives, that the spirit of putting into play standing order 66, which is a new rule, was to prevent the government of the day -- our's in that situation, but also dealing with the Tory administration before -- bringing bills to the House on the last few days of a sitting and stuffing them into the debate channel and requiring their second reading passage and ordering them for debate or whatever in committee in the summer months.

That would seem to be unfair to the opposition since we would not be prepared then to give it a successful debate and go out to the public and get our own materials in order so we could provide the appropriate interjections that are required for debating the bill.

I was, unhappily, very upset by the suggestion of the House leader that if he is unable to introduce his London annexation bill today, with an introduction of that bill on a date later than today but with the House extended into July, it could be forced to second reading without a consensual agreement among all of us. He alleged that he had advice that this was in fact correct. I have countered that with the very strongest suggestion that it would be a nasty departure from the real reason the rule was brought in.

While I wish to tell you now that there is every probability we can come to some kind of agreement with respect to that piece of legislation, I was totally taken off guard that the government House leader would actually suggest that merely by extending the sitting of the House, he could take out the operation of standing order 66 and thereby really negate the safeguard against the end of public debate -- or at least the unfair nature of opposition being prevented against the bill.

I'm sorry for going on, Mr Speaker, but I wanted to give you the full facts, and I don't want to say that the government House leader hasn't now agreed to come and talk to us about the bill, but I want you now to deliberate upon that very point of standing order 66 and advise the House formally whether it is your position that in fact that rule can be negatived by merely extending the sittings of this place a day or two, at the discretion of the government. I would see a positive declaration on your part to that assertion as really ending the reason for having that rule in the books at all. I thank you for your timely consideration of this matter.

1350

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point, Mr Speaker, I think this is a fairly significant point of order in that I suspect it has not been ruled upon since the rules were changed in 1989. I would reiterate some of the points my colleague has made with respect to standing order 66 and the whole intent and rationale behind standing order 66 in the first place.

The rule changes started some time probably in about 1986 or 1987 and in effect weren't agreed upon by all three parties consensually, as of course we always do in this province, until 1989. The whole point of inserting that rule in there was so that governments of the day, regardless of what political stripe they were, could not put a whole pile of legislation on the order paper at the last minute and expect it to be passed without proper notice and debate and giving the public and the opposition parties an opportunity to respond to whatever legislation it was that the government of the day chose to introduce. That is the whole point for having standing order 66.

I realize that if you read that standing order in an extremely technical fashion, it talks about "the last eight sessional days in June" and it talks about "the last eight sessional days in December."

I can't use the expression, because I can't use the word "liar" in this Legislature, but I guess there's a way around anything. It is not the intent and wasn't the intent of the individual who negotiated these rule changes for the New Democratic Party at the time, I might add -- in fact they were very concerned that this standing order be put in here to prevent any government in the future -- presumably they never thought they'd ever be elected government, but lo and behold they have been. The whole intent of that rule is that the government cannot dump a whole pile of legislation on to the order paper, and in this case now use the argument that it is trying to circumvent the rule by extending the sitting time or the sessional days during which a particular sitting of the House happens to occur.

I don't think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion, "If I can just get past June 25 and have the House come back on June 29, then I can introduce 1,027 pieces of legislation and I'm entitled to get them passed next week because I've found a technical way to breach the rules." I know that would be the technical argument the government House leader might use, but I would strongly urge you to consider, Mr Speaker, the thinking and the rationale that went into and the intent behind rule 66 in the first place.

Surely if the government has ordered its agenda in a proper fashion, it will have no problem at least having first reading of any bill it intends to pass. I can see it, as it finds itself now, not being able to get its legislation passed and therefore extending the sitting of the House, but I don't think that should allow it to abrogate the spirit and the intent of rule 66.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I appreciate the fact that the opposition House leaders have raised this matter, and even though it's a hypothetical question, I think it would be appropriate for you to rule. If I were an opposition House leader, I wouldn't necessarily want this matter ruled on in the House.

This morning when we had the House leaders' meeting, I raised the matter with the House leaders. The House leader for the official opposition raised a concern and expressed the concern. I thought we had resolved it in that I said we would share the draft legislation, see if we could work it out and see if it could be sorted out, because I understood the concern. I thought that was the purpose of House leaders' meetings, to try to sort it out.

But, Mr Speaker, I agree; I think it would be useful for all of us to have this matter ruled on so that the opposition and the government understand that if the House does sit into July, that section of the rules doesn't apply.

There's one piece of legislation the issue arises from, and it is the London-Middlesex annexation, whereby I've been trying to sort out a solution with local people and advise the opposition parties that I wasn't going to be able to meet the date of the 11th, but because of the date for the annexation to take effect, we have to get the legislation dealt with for second reading to have public hearings in London.

I think the matter could have been dealt with among the three of us in the way the opposition House leader eventually suggested this morning in the House leaders' meeting, but if he wants a ruling that will stick and be clear in the House that would be fine with me.

The Speaker: To the three House leaders --

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, the government House leader, on his sitting down, said some things that I think I should ask about.

He has basically said he's going to get a ruling from you that says you will allow them to introduce bills and get second reading. He said, "We want this thing on the record and we know that the opposition will not be happy with it."

Mr Speaker, I hope he hasn't predetermined this. I just want to reiterate in the strongest fashion possible that a positive answer to the request to allow introduction of bills in those last eight sessional days and then getting second reading would really be a usurpation of the whole spirit of this standing order.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce and the House leader for the official opposition, the member for Parry Sound, the House leader for the third party, and the government House leader, there are a couple of aspects that all members should be aware of.

First, it is clear that by the standing orders this House will rise on Thursday, June 25. Any bill to be passed during the next two weeks must, of course, be introduced by today at the latest; that's clear, with the exception of unanimous consent.

Beyond that point, what the House is asking me to deal with is a hypothetical situation. I must say, however, that while it would be inappropriate for any Speaker to deal with a hypothetical situation, I understand full well the intent and purpose of the rule which the House leader has stated and indeed, I guess succinctly, the intent and purpose is to allow a reasonable amount of time for debate on any measure that's brought before the House except, of course, with unanimous consent that such a matter could be dealt with expeditiously in less than the prescribed two-week period.

Having said that, while it's not my intention to disappoint anyone who brings points of order to my attention, I think it would not be proper for the Speaker to rule on a hypothetical situation.

Lastly, of course, as always, what makes this place function best is when the three House leaders are able to come to an amicable conclusion with respect to the business of the House.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, if I may, I appreciate that you don't want to deal with hypotheticals, but I find that the operation of this place is going to be somewhat stymied by the government House leader holding this weapon over our heads. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that from my point of view it is not hypothetical when you sit in a meeting with the government House leader and have to argue for some time to get us back to where there is agreement as to the introduction of and dealing with a piece of legislation.

He has used the very first tool he had at his disposition, which was to say that standing order 66 has no effect if you sit beyond the end of June. That makes it a real situation for me and for the people in opposition. While you see it as hypothetical in a sense -- the bill has not yet been brought in -- it is real in those meetings and it does take time for us to deal with those situations.

I only want to bring that to your attention -- I don't want you to deliberate upon it further; we will, at an appropriate time, if that were to arise, bring this back -- just to allow you the knowledge that the standing order 66 issue is being used effectively and aggressively by the government House leader.

The Speaker: In conclusion on this point, I appreciate what the House leader has brought to my attention and I can assure him that at any time when an unusual procedural matter is brought to the attention of the Speaker it will be taken into consideration very seriously with respect to not only the rules but the precedents and the intent of the standing orders which govern the operation of our House.

1400

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm pleased to tell the members of the House that I've released this morning a new report, Offences Against the Environment. This report marks a first for Ontario, a who's who of individuals, companies and institutions convicted of environmental offences in this province.

We are making this information available to send the message to would-be polluters that assaults on our natural surroundings will not be tolerated.

As you can see from this report, my ministry's investigations and enforcement branch has an excellent record of tracking down polluters and our legal services branch is outstanding in prosecuting environmental offenders. Together they have set a national record.

The report shows a 30% increase in the number of convictions in 1991 compared to 1990, a 400% increase between 1985 and 1991 in both the numbers of convictions obtained and prosecutions initiated, and a total of $2,575,000 in fines from 485 convictions in 1991. Contrast this with 1985-86: less than $667,000 in fines.

Judges are also making increased use of creative sentences. One company was required to establish environmental scholarships worth $30,000 at a university after an oil spill. This was in addition to a fine. Other companies have been stripped of profits or required to set up trust funds and training programs. Another trend is that directors are being held personally liable for the environmental consequences of their companies' activities.

Offences Against the Environment shows why Ontario leads all Canadian jurisdictions in investigating and prosecuting environmental offences. I am very proud of our record. With the release of this report, the Ontario government is serving notice that our environment will not be held ransom to the short-term interests of a few.

We would be wise to remember that in the long run it is the environment which will judge our actions, and that judgement will be harsher than anything the courts can hand out.

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would like to inform members of the Legislature of upcoming changes to Ontario's liquor licence regulations. By setting out a consistent, sensible and fair approach to the sale and service of alcohol in sports stadiums in Ontario, these changes will bring Ontario's liquor licensing policies into the 1990s.

For many years the sale and service of liquor has been prohibited in Ontario sports stadiums. With the arrival of the Toronto Blue Jays, the government of the day made an exception to the regulations to permit the sale of beer during Blue Jays baseball. Further exceptions were made on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. Today six stadiums in Ontario have licences to sell alcohol to spectators. They are allowed to sell only beer and alcohol products with less than 5% alcohol, and only during professional baseball, football and soccer events. This is an unfair and discriminatory policy.

Under the regulations I am announcing today, all sports stadiums in Ontario will be eligible for a liquor licence as long as they meet established criteria. To be eligible, a stadium must have permanent and fixed-tiered seating and it must be home to a professional sports team or players that hold live sports events on a regular or seasonal basis. This, by the way, does include horse racing. The type of sporting event must be pre-approved by the Ontario Liquor Licence Board.

While most professional sports will be eligible, sports involving motor vehicles and sports where a majority of the participants and/or spectators are under 19 years of age will not be eligible for a licence.

A written resolution by the municipality in which the stadium is located will be a mandatory requirement for licensing. Members of the community can express any concerns they may have at the local level through their municipal council.

The new regulations will permit the sale and service of wine in addition to beer and coolers and will require stadium public service advertisements to promote the responsible use of alcohol.

The six stadiums already licensed have reported few social or enforcement problems related to alcohol. The new regulations will ensure that these same high standards continue to be met by newly licensed facilities. In addition, stadiums will be encouraged to work with their local communities on responsible drinking public education strategies.

The changes to liquor licensing regulations were developed in consultation with facility owners and managers, professional sports teams, unions, the police, government agencies and public interest organizations. We also worked closely with the Addiction Research Foundation.

I think all members will agree that these changes are long overdue. They represent a sensible and socially responsible approach to the sale, service and consumption of beverage alcohol in this province.

The new regulations will come into force by the end of this month.

AGRICORP

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Later this afternoon I will be introducing a bill named the Agricorp Act. This legislation will create a crown agency named Agricorp to administer the government's crop insurance, income stabilization and other safety net programs. We are proposing that Agricorp have its own board of directors reporting directly to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that the board of directors, to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, be responsible for operations and that the minister continue to be responsible for policy directions.

The board will have strong representation from the farming community. In this way Ontario producers will benefit from more direct control of the programs and a more efficient operation.

In keeping with our belief in maintaining close local ties, Agricorp offices will move to Chatham, the heart of Ontario's farm land.

The idea of an agency to deliver safety net programs has been around for a long time. The prairie provinces have had similar agencies since the mid-1960s and Quebec's agency has been successfully operating for a decade. Here in Ontario the farming community and others have already been consulted and have expressed their support for such an organization.

The welfare of current employees of these programs will continue to be a top priority for my ministry.

The creation of Agricorp is another example of how this government is committed to working together with producers and others to ensure the long-term economic health of our farming community.

RESPONSES

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): While I would support the initiatives by the minister today to make changes to the Liquor Licence Act regarding stadium licensing, I would like to point out a few concerns we have with respect to the announcement she's made today.

I would hope the minister will ensure that she follows a list of requirements of criteria that were set out before regarding the new licensing arrangements -- that is, to ensure that there's proper security, that servers have the proper training, that she make drink-free areas available under these new arrangements and that you stop serving the liquor before the end of the game in a certain amount of time that's required for that. I would also ask the minister to expand public education programs with respect to responsible drinking surrounding the establishments.

I have concerns with the fact that the LLBO is now required to pre-approve these sporting events. Shouldn't this really reside with the government to make that decision?

As well, I would also say that it's going to be difficult and somewhat inconsistent for the government to determine when there is a majority of people who are under the age of 19. What criteria will be used to make that assessment?

I'd also like to say to the minister that it's quite ironic that in this announcement her government would allow people to express their concerns at the local level through their municipal council about these changes but would not do this in the case of Sunday shopping. It did not allow the Sunday shopping local option and the ability of people to express their concerns locally with respect to that important issue but will do so with this. I find that very inconsistent and quite a bit ironic.

Let me finally say to the minister that while this is an initiative I support, I think there are other pressing matters that she could be behind with respect to changes that are required. The office of the Registrar General is in a mess; members of the Legislature can't get their birth certificates and people in the public have told you time and again that it's just simply falling apart up there. As well, some of the other things that she could be doing are with respect to consumer protection legislation. Bring those things forward. Don't let your cabinet colleagues muzzle you on those important items. Bring them forward in the Legislature.

1410

AGRICORP

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Mr Speaker, I'm pleased to hear the statement of the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the Agricorp Act and to respond to it.

This legislation was first introduced by the Liberals, by my colleague the member for Timiskaming, in the spring of 1990. What could possibly have taken the NDP so long to decide to reintroduce this legislation, a lengthy 18 months after being elected? What advantages have been lost by this lengthy, unnecessary delay?

If it has taken the NDP this long to decide to reintroduce a non-controversial piece of legislation, no wonder the minister's commodity loan program is still not up and running three long months after it was announced. As well, the other initiatives in the minister's agriculture investment strategy, to recycle rural savings, are still waiting to be implemented a month after they were announced and more than a year after they were recommended in the Hayes report. This legislation is an example of how long farmers have to wait: too long.

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I rise in some amazement that the minister stands in her place and somehow cloaks herself in some sort of accomplishment. When you look at the numbers she presented today, without paying tribute to the fact that virtually every one of the increases she spoke about today resulted from the initiatives that were undertaken by the previous government, it is no surprise that she uses as her benchmark year 1985-86.

What is happening very clearly is that it is the initiatives taken by the former government that have come to fruition at this point in time. You fail to recognize that, Minister. I think it goes without saying that this was nothing more than an orchestrated attempt to create an impression today that you are doing something in the absence of any substantive action from your ministry.

I want to remind you, Minister, that you made some tremendous promises in the past, and what you're doing now is talking about increased prosecution. I want you to listen to these words and see if they have a familiar ring to them:

"We need action plans on pollution that require zero discharge of toxic chemicals into Ontario waterways....We support zero discharge of all toxic chemicals into the air and water by the year 2000."

There's no question that the reason you had that press conference this morning was because you needed to have some kind of orchestrated show that you are doing something when in fact you're not, Minister. You know you couldn't respond to questions put to you this morning about what had happened over the past year in terms of increases or decreases in environmental pollution and crimes. Minister, it is time for you to do something and not talk about past accomplishments.

AGRICORP

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food, thank you very much for finally bringing in Agricorp. I hope it doesn't take quite as long to get off the ground as the commodity loan program.

Had Agricorp been in place during the fiscal year 1990-91 I know it would have strongly supported that this government take up the net income stabilization account program and the $12 million to $15 million of federal money that would have been available to Ontario's agriculture. I just hope that the Premier and the cabinet really listen to these people because, as the minister said, they will be coming from the farming community, and not always listen to those people who suggested $350 million. Show the priority: $350 million to the Canadian Auto Workers at de Havilland -- 3,000 people. They got all that money and yet for agriculture they couldn't find the $10 million to put in to get $15 million out of the federal government.

I just hope that Agricorp is listened to and that it indeed has more power than the John Sewells, the Bob Whites, the Jack Laytons, the Dale Martins and the Ross McClellans and the rest of the pink socialist army around the Premier.

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to respond to the statement given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. For the short time she's been here she has rarely given a statement on pieces of legislation. All she has given are statements with respect to regulations.

The member for Leeds-Grenville has been pushing this issue for months and months. You could have passed this months ago, but you waited and dithered around, trying to make decisions over there. Finally you've got around to listening to the member for Leeds-Grenville, who's been working very hard on pushing this subject around Ontario, particularly Maple Leaf Gardens. What is fair for the Dome should be fair for Maple Leaf Gardens, and it's taken all this time for you to get around to deciding this issue.

The only major criticism I can give -- because we wholeheartedly support this; the member for Leeds-Grenville has been supporting it -- is of, "Sports where a majority of the participants and/or spectators are under 19 years of age will not be eligible for a licence." These are professional teams you're speaking about. I don't know what this is going to apply to, professional T-ball games? I mean, I don't really know whether you're going to be taking a count at the door. It's all very silly. Why can't you make some legislation of substance in this House, Madam Minister?

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It wasn't worthy to come into the House and talk about 57 dump sites in the GTA. It wasn't worth the minister's time to talk about the Crombie commission report on the waterfront. What we have today that is worth the time of the Minister of the Environment is to outline the convictions that flowed from previous governments. I'm sleeping easy, knowing full well that we got this gentleman here for throwing a styrofoam cup out of his car window. That makes the people of Ontario feel good, Madam Minister. You're doing a job, let me tell you.

Madam Minister, where is your environmental bill of rights? That was a big promise you staked your career on. We haven't seen it. Where's the clean air program, Madam Minister? Did you forget these again? Is this something that slipped your mind for the past 21 months? How about the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement? You've had an opportunity to bring in a toughening of the rules and legislations on that. No, we haven't seen that either, Madam Minister.

Your bringing forward this particular announcement today is simply announcing the programs that have been in place where people have been charged, and you're suggesting that this is proving that your government is following its commitment on environmental issues that it dealt with and promised when it was in opposition. Let me just say this. You must be very thankful that your cheque from the Ministry of the Environment is directly deposited, because you must be embarrassed to cash it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Labour. It has been exactly one week now since the minister brought in his changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. At the time of presenting those proposals the minister said, "Why don't you just take your time and look at the legislation?" That's exactly what we've been doing over the past week. We've looked at the legislation. We've talked to people across this province. I can tell the minister that the concerns we and people across this province had are still there. In fact they're greater than they ever were before.

The main question we still hear is, what is the reason for bringing in this legislation? Why is the legislation needed? I ask the minister to tell the House once more, in face of the evidence that shows Ontario's labour relations are already good, that 95% of collective bargaining agreements are settled without a strike, why he felt this legislation was needed.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition isn't aware enough of the Labour Relations Act and some of the problems that do exist out in the field to know that it hasn't been updated in 15 years and that we still have a confrontational approach, not a cooperative approach in this province.

Mrs McLeod: The minister has not yet provided us with a reason for bringing in the legislation, but let me reflect back to some of the statements we believe we've heard him make in the past.

One of his reasons seemed to be that his legislation would help to reduce violence on the picket line, but as we look more closely at these legislative proposals, we wonder if in fact the proposals might worsen picket line violence. One proposal would give managers and supervisors the right to refuse to do struck work.

Before this bill, managers could say to striking workers, "We don't have a choice," before crossing the picket line. Striking workers can understand that somebody may be required to do their job, but they may well be less understanding of a manager or supervisor who chooses to cross the picket line. Worse still, we wonder about the antagonism that arises during a strike that could last well beyond the conclusion of that dispute.

I would ask the minister if he could explain to us how giving managers and supervisors the right to refuse to cross picket lines will actually improve tempers during a strike. Is this provision not likely to lead to a legacy of costly divisions in the workplace, once the strike is settled?

1420

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'd like to simply tell the Leader of the Opposition that just because she doesn't agree with the reasons we've given for bringing in this legislation it doesn't mean that she's right and we're wrong. I'd be very interested in knowing if the Leader of the Opposition would agree with bringing in replacement workers in a legal strike situation, like, for example, the Toronto Star.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not making judgements with my questions. This minister asked us to look at his legislation. We've looked at the legislation --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader take her seat for a minute, please.

The Leader of the Opposition with her final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: I would stress to the minister that we have looked at the legislation, that we're raising questions of concern that come directly from the proposed changes that he's put before this House.

I seem to recall that another goal the minister has stated in the past is to enhance the collective bargaining process and to ensure that settlements will be arrived at at the negotiating table, recognizing that already 95% of collective bargaining agreements are settled at the negotiating table. We do see aspects of this legislation that are likely to do the opposite of enhancing the collective bargaining process and the assurance that there will be settlements at the table.

We think that first-contract arbitration may be an example of that. The government's proposal, as we understand it, will require an arbitrated settlement between a fledgling union and company management after 30 days in a strike or lockout position. That does not mean the workers even have to be on strike. To us this appears to mean that neither the union nor the management has to bargain seriously for that first contract. If you wait 30 days, the government will step in with arbitration to settle it for you.

I would ask the minister why he would propose first-contract arbitration in this way when the provision offers neither the employees nor the employer any incentive to resolve the contract.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: A 30-day period for a worker who's out on strike, particularly in a new unit, is a very difficult and lengthy period of time. It seems to me that the minister should understand that a long, lengthy dispute is not one that leads to better labour relations in the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: It was our understanding that you don't actually have to be on strike; it's 30 days in a strike position.

My second question is also for the Minister of Labour. It is our intention to continue to analyse this legislation and to look at the concerns that are being legitimately raised with the changes that are being proposed. Our overriding concern with these proposals is that this government really does not seem to care or has absolutely no idea how many jobs are going to be lost because of these proposals.

We've been asking this minister and this government for months to provide some detailed studies on the impact that this legislation will have on investment and on jobs. So far, all we've had is the reference to a costly four-page report that says it needs to be studied.

Over the past week, we've been doing our own consulting. We find there is considerable response, even in the course of a couple of days. These are the kinds of comments we're hearing. Here's a comment by an individual in Concord, Ontario, who says: "We were planning to expand this year, our fifth year in operation, but our plans are on hold. We're considering a move to the United States if these new laws become a reality." Here's one from somebody in Hamilton -- very close to the minister's heart -- "I know of businesses in Hamilton that will locate out of the province." They go on to say: "Hamilton just can't stand any more. The pity is that a once-mighty giant now slumps."

I ask this minister why he will not admit that this legislation is going to drive people out of the province. Does he simply continue to believe these small business people are just bluffing?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No, the answer is that I simply don't believe the proposition the leader has put that this will cause the problems she's raising.

Mrs McLeod: In the absence of studies, in the absence of the minister's refusal to accept any evidence, we're just not sure what it is he's prepared to acknowledge. If the minister won't admit that he's driving people out of Ontario, I want to tell him about one company that is driving people out of Ontario; it's Allied Van Lines.

Allied Van Lines knows at first hand what this government is doing to Ontario, because this month alone its business has increased by 37%. It's good news for Allied Van Lines, but the sad reality is that practically all of this increase is due to people moving down to the United States. There is already a mass exodus out of this province.

Doesn't the minister think that, given this kind of evidence, he should at least have done an impact study of the effects of his legislation, or is he simply prepared to take a chance on driving business out of the province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: What I'm trying to do is assist business and labour to work the problems out together in a cooperative way in Ontario. I want to tell the leader that the long consultations we've conducted with over 300 groups were as good as any study in getting the views and opinions of people and bringing their concerns to us in the ministry.

Mrs McLeod: Let me try to get the minister to focus then perhaps on one of the more vulnerable regions of this province. My colleague the member for Cornwall advises me that his community is under enormous pressure right now. The minister's well aware that Cornwall is about half an hour away from the Quebec border; it sits right along Highway 401, and 75% of the businesses in Cornwall's industrial park exist to supply Quebec-based industry. We are told that one of the reasons they were there to begin with is because of Quebec's anti-business labour legislation.

With this piece of legislation, the minister is wiping out one of Cornwall's only remaining competitive advantages. I ask the minister why he failed to carry out impact studies of the effect of this legislation on businesses in eastern Ontario. Will he not acknowledge that his proposals, taken as a whole, are much more difficult for business to work with than the legislation that currently exists in Quebec? Is he prepared to sacrifice eastern Ontario in the name of carrying out his political agenda?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm not prepared to sacrifice any part of this province in carrying out our political agenda. What we're trying to do is solve some of the problems we've had for a long, long time.

I can't help but go back to the figures on the firms we've lost. My colleague just happened to give me a little report here that shows in 1989, for example, 22 Ontario firms moved to Buffalo. In 1991 there were seven.

The Speaker: New question, third party. The member for Etobicoke West.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor. First question.

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Minister of Government Services.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Minister of Government Services, if you can bear with me, Mr Speaker. I am sure the minister is well aware of what has been described as a bizarre story involving his ministry and a $67,000 contract to install siding and insulation at a Picton housing project, awarded last July to North Country Renovations of Kingston township.

1430

For the benefit of other members, could the minister confirm the facts as reported by Cy Chapman in the Heritage newspaper: that prior to this contract, the biggest job ever done by North Country was a $7,300 job; that the job was in fact work done on your home, Mr Minister; that you paid for that job on July 19, 1991, one day after the Picton tender closed on July 18; that the North Country bid was $9,000 lower than the next closest competitor; that for some reason the 10% bid security or performance bond required under your ministry's policy was not collected in this case; that North Country's reputation in the community was so poor that suppliers were reluctant to provide supplies on credit and the company had to resort to a trust agreement to secure supplies; that the company never completed the contract and it was in fact thrown off the job site because it didn't have liability insurance or workers' compensation coverage; that on December 12 the president of North Country wrote you personally at your Queen's Park office about this matter; that then on December 23 your ministry, again in violation of its own policy, released $13,000 of government money directly to North Country, which broke the trust agreement and left suppliers high and dry?

Minister, could you confirm these facts and would you not admit that the circumstances surrounding this contract demand a full and complete and independent inquiry?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): I assure you, Mr Speaker, and through you the House and the member, that I had absolutely nothing to do with the tendering or awarding of the contract of which the member speaks. My staff has thoroughly examined the contract and have assured me that it was publicly tendered and awarded in accordance with the ministry's procedures.

Mr Stockwell: You're suggesting it was awarded according to ministry procedures. Let me just remind you, Mr Minister, that no 10% bid bond was supplied when they bid on the contract. They didn't have workers' compensation coverage. They didn't have liability insurance. You had to release the money through a trust. Is that part of your ministry's policies, Mr Minister?

Further, could you acknowledge that your ministry's performance in this matter has been sloppy at best? Even the president of North Country has said, "I honestly believe they shouldn't have accepted my bid." But not only was the bid accepted, taxpayers' money was released, because as you yourself put it, somebody played Santa Claus. For all you know, and all we know, somebody over there might also be playing the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. Father's Day is coming up; maybe somebody else will get a cheque.

Mr Minister, you said in that same article you intended to get to the bottom of this, but why don't you ask the Provincial Auditor to come in and help you get your Santa Claus under control?

Hon Mr Wilson: In that same article that you quote, sir, you'll also see that the gentleman you have quoted here said that I had nothing to do with the situation, as he saw it himself. What was sloppy was the article itself. It was full of unconnected circumstance, a few manufactured coincidences, and it has no validity whatsoever. Even the writer of the article, within that article, said I had no connection with the problems.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Maguire of North Country Renovations has said he never told you he had a contract tendered to your ministry during the time he was working on your home, but according to the Heritage report, you said you knew that North Country Renovations had a contract with your ministry but you did not see any problem with these circumstances. Mr Minister, are you serious? You didn't see any problem, when you knew this tender was taking place? They didn't post a 10% bid bond; they didn't qualify for workers' compensation; they didn't have any insurance liability. Mr Minister, you knew about this contract. Clearly $13,000 was released when it shouldn't have been because Christmas was coming. Are you serious in suggesting you don't see anything wrong with this?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'll tell you what I am serious in saying: that it's not my job as Minister of Government Services to know the internal workings of every tender that passes through my ministry.

Furthermore, are you suggesting, sir, that because someone in this House, any side, any party, has work done by anybody who works also for the government, we should specify in some kind of contract that the person cannot do dealings with the government? Furthermore, the gentleman did not tell me, as he stated, that he had a contract with MGS.

Mr Stockwell: He's lying.

Hon Mr Wilson: No, he's not lying. He's telling the truth. One of his workmen told my wife that he had a contract with it. My wife told me, and I still see no difficulty with someone doing work for a citizen of this country, also for MGS.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is to the government House leader, who also serves as the deputy Deputy Premier and minister at large in the province. This afternoon you have made it quite clear you intend to proceed with debate on your unilateral rule changes without calling any other legislation, especially the Sunday shopping legislation that your Premier indicated about a week ago you'd be proceeding with forthwith.

We can only speculate as to the reason you're not proceeding with Sunday shopping legislation here today. Is it because you want the rules changed so you can have your rules to deal with your controversial labour legislation or is it because you're not sure of where your backbench members are coming from on Sunday shopping legislation? What is the real reason?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I think it's very clear, and I've made the point to the House leader for the third party and the House leader for the official opposition many times, that the rules of this Legislature need to be changed to be brought in order with the rules of other legislatures in Canada. We're proceeding with rule changes because this place has got to --

Interjections.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): There were a number of bills, but you just don't want to call them.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I find it interesting that the opposition parties want to deal with legislation now that we've brought in rule changes. They didn't want to do that for months around this place. Now all of a sudden they want to cooperate.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): There is tremendous confusion in this province concerning the issue of Sunday shopping and a tremendous amount of uncertainty. Owners of franchise outlets who have contacted me and who have indicated they are staying closed are now being told by their franchisors that they must open on Sundays or mail in the keys to their shops, because they are not covered by your proposed legislation in the same way as store owners in malls. This has been confirmed by the Solicitor General's staff, who in response to a phone call from a franchisee said, "Yes, we agree, you're not covered and you could be served with a breach of contract, but if you take it to court you could probably win."

Unfortunately, many of these franchisees are small, family business owners. They have neither the financial resources nor the time to endure expensive and lengthy court battles. What do you intend to do to resolve the situation for these franchise owners as soon as possible?

Hon Mr Cooke: The specific aspects of Sunday shopping legislation that the member might want to ask about would probably be more appropriately asked of the Solicitor General.

I can tell the member, as I have indicated to the House leader for the third party, that we will get back to the legislative agenda of this place when the rules motion is dealt with in the Legislature so that we can deal efficiently, not just with Sunday shopping but with a whole host of legislation that this government feels is important for the people of the province.

Mr Eves: How can you believe anything that comes out of this government's mouth? We had the Premier in here about a week ago saying, "We've got to deal expeditiously with this matter of Sunday shopping," and, "My colleagues are going to have a free vote on the issue of Sunday shopping so people in the province know where they stand." There's all kinds of uncertainty out there, as my colleague has more than demonstrated, with respect to the effects of Sunday shopping legislation.

Assuming that what the Premier said is correct and that there is going to be a free vote, there's absolutely no assurance whatsoever that legislation will pass. Why won't you do the right thing for the people of Ontario? Stand up and deal with Sunday shopping, get it behind you, face the issue head on, have a free vote and everybody in the province will know where they stand, instead of your unilateral, dictatorial rule changes.

Hon Mr Cooke: Again, I find it very interesting. The third party now wants to deal with legislation. It was only a week ago --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Parry Sound.

Hon Mr Cooke: It was only a week ago that we sat in this Legislature and we couldn't even get to orders of the day because the third party stalled the whole afternoon by playing procedural games in the House with introductions of bills and all the other games it played last Thursday.

That was a clear indication that this place needs to be brought in line with other legislatures in Canada so that we can deal efficiently with legislation. The games the Conservatives played last Thursday and during the budget a year ago showed clearly that this place has to change and the rules have to change.

1440

LEGAL AID

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Twice over the past week I have asked the minister if she is standing up for the women of this province who are upset with her government's policy and plans to bring in legal aid family law clinics and deny women the right to choose their own lawyer. This government seems bound, bent and determined to remove the right of choice from women, whether it be our right to choose our own child care or our right to choose our own lawyer.

The minister has claimed that many women's groups are in favour of the government's proposed changes, but I have today letters from prominent women's groups across the province that have indicated they are opposed to what the government is doing. I'd like to share the names of some of those organizations: the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, Rosewood Shelter for Women and Their Children, Family Service Association of Metropolitan Toronto, Women in Transition, Metro Toronto Committee Against Wife Assault, Lanark County Interval House and Sexual Assault Centre, Family Service London, Sexual Assault Centre London, London Second Stage Housing, the London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse and, finally, one the minister is most familiar with, the London Battered Women's Advocacy Clinic.

Minister, would you please share with this House exactly what women's groups are in favour of your proposed changes, which remove the right of women to choose?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): For a number of years a number of women's groups in the province -- the one that I think of most often is one from the Kingston area -- have suggested that because of the inability of women to access civil lawyers, so few of whom are prepared to accept the tariffs that are currently available through the legal aid plan, they would like to see us as a government try a clinic that would specifically deal with women's issues.

I worked, for example, with the community legal services at the University of Western Ontario in London on a joint scheme with the London Battered Women's Advocacy Clinic on the whole issue of restraint orders. There are a number of reasons why it would be prudent for us to examine the possibility of clinics, as long as we ensure that the choice of lawyers is also available. The Attorney General has made it very clear that part of his proposed reform is to improve the tariffs for legal aid in the civil law area. We believe very strongly that this will increase choice, not end it, as is assumed by the letters, which I of course have also received. They assume that a clinic would be imposed and women would not be able to choose their own lawyer. That is not the intention of the change.

Ms Poole: The minister mistakes the issue. The issue is that this government is proposing that these family law legal aid clinics replace the right of a woman to get a certificate for legal aid and choose her own lawyer. That is the proposal and that is what these groups are objecting to. It is the job of this minister in cabinet to defend the rights of women. Time and time again we've heard this government's self-laudatory congratulations on the fact that there are 10 women in cabinet. I would like to know whether you stood up for women in the legal aid family law issue. There are only two scenarios possible. Either you or the women in cabinet did not stand up in cabinet for the right of a woman to choose, or you thought you did fight for choice for women and you lost. Which is it, Madam Minister? Are you gutless or are you toothless?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Neither, if that is the question. Am I gutless or toothless? Neither. The women in cabinet stand up, as do all our cabinet colleagues, for choice for women all the time. We simply disagree with the opposition. We see this particular policy not as ending choice. The whole issue is to allow a different kind of legal representation for women, and we are insistent upon improving the legal aid certificate process as well.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, on May 1 you announced you were going to spend $5 million on six pilot projects to provide opportunity planning to social assistance recipients. The purpose of the program was to help social assistance recipients find employment and live independently.

The Lakeshore Area Multi Service Project, otherwise known as LAMP, which is in Etobicoke, has been something that has been worked on very diligently by the Minister of the Environment for the past number of years. LAMP submitted a proposal to your ministry that would add up to $1 million in four years; $782,000 was in salaries alone. It has been short-listed.

Let me quote from LAMP's proposal: "It was an opportunity to encourage and support approximately 150 social assistance recipients in becoming involved in their community as helpful neighbours, participants in community events, as members of organizations, as volunteers."

Minister, do you really feel this is an appropriate use of taxpayers' dollars? Certainly this is not the purpose of opportunity planning.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): The opportunity planning requests for proposals went out and we had 194 from a number of different communities across the province and several proposals from quite a few of the communities in Ontario.

We asked for proposals of a number of different kinds. Some were particularly geared to get people into the workforce and some were particularly geared to those who might not be able to join the workforce but who could benefit from greater community opportunities in terms of life skills.

I have not read all the applications. We had a community advisory group that, together with representatives from the ministry, vetted the 194 proposals. They did come up with a short list of under 25. I'm not sure of the exact number, because there was some question about whether some would be joined together. Those groups were asked to give further details.

Obviously, when we come to the final decision about these projects, the value for dollar has to be a particular concern to us. Opportunity planning needs to be available to all our clients, and there are a number of different forms it can take. This is an experimental kind of program to look at how we can best assist all people who are recipients of social assistance.

Mr Stockwell: This is $1 million over four years, and to quote, "They have been short-listed." First, for the $1 million, $782,000 goes into paying salaries. Second, the proposal they're putting in, which you people have short-listed and I assume consider to be worthy, talks about the need to belong, participate, be involved and feel good about oneself.

The money crunch is very obvious in this province. Taxes are going up, your deficit's getting higher and money is being wasted by this government. Do you really believe that $1 million given to LAMP and $782,000 spent on salaries to make people belong or participate in community events is a worthy expenditure, considering the very difficult and tough times the people in this province are having in just getting by?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am aware that LAMP has been short-listed. I'm also aware that the member has consistently opposed LAMP throughout his political career, so it's not surprising that he's opposing it here in this House.

I also need to make it clear to the member that many social assistance recipients find it difficult to participate in their community, whether that's in the workforce or just in terms of normal quality of life, because of self-esteem issues. The major issue in terms of people being able to be successful in looking for work is that issue.

The member is quite right. When we are talking about this kind of work, it is labour-intensive work, and salaries are always going to be the highest proportion of any of these projects, so that is not surprising. However, the member can be well assured that part of the issue for us is the greatest value for dollar. That will be looked at by the advisory committee that makes the final choice.

1450

GARMENT INDUSTRY

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Many members of the Legislature will know that my riding is home base for a significant portion of Ontario's garment manufacturing industry. In fact, this industry is still the largest single industrial employer in the city of Toronto.

I recently met with a group of Portuguese Canadians in my constituency office, and they want to know what our government is doing to ensure that Ontario's apparel manufacturing industry, which is vital to our economy and has suffered under the Canada-US free trade agreement, is not jeopardized by a North American free trade deal, a deal that many Ontarians are opposing vigorously.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): As the member will know, our government has always had great concerns about negotiating regional trade agreements dominated by the US agenda. Nothing illustrates it more clearly than this example in the apparel negotiations, where the US continues to push for more restrictive rules of origin, actions that place the Canadian apparel workers and industry manufacturers at great risk.

I can tell you I've made our views known to Mr Wilson that the US proposals are completely unacceptable, and we've urged the federal government to continue to push the US on this issue and not allow the Americans to play off the textile industry versus the apparel industry. That's completely unacceptable to us.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Labour and it has to do with jobs. You were the person who was going to speak for the working people of this province. You were going to be the person who ensured they had jobs. Since you became Minister of Labour, every single day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, 400 more people go into the unemployment ranks. Every single day since you've been Minister of Labour, we've seen unemployment go up by 400 a day. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology talks about the Ford announcement that created 400 jobs. Every day that you've been Minister of Labour, we've seen unemployment go up by 400 jobs.

I want to know directly from you, Minister of Labour: What have you done to create jobs in Ontario -- you, the Minister of Labour?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to say that the situation we faced in terms of plant closures, shutdowns and moves has been a disturbing one -- I would hope a disturbing one for all members of this House. But it's a situation that started before we took office. It has continued. We have done what we can in terms of trying to set in place wage protection, which has given an awful lot of money that workers would not otherwise have received. We are working on training programs extensively. But more fundamental than that, we are also trying to change the basic approach in this province to one of cooperation instead of confrontation so that we can make a more viable and productive society for us.

Mr Phillips: You're supposed to be the Minister of Labour. I tell you that you are known across the province now as the Minister of Unemployment; that's how you're known. Every single day that you've been minister we've seen 400 more people on unemployment. Every three days in this province another plant closes. Seventy per cent of those workers who are laid off because of plant closures are unionized workers, people who assumed that you would look out for their interests, people who supported you, who thought that you as Minister of Labour would actually do some of the things you said you would do when you were in opposition.

I want to know very clearly from you, Minister of Labour: Give us the things you're going to bring to this House over the next few months to actually create jobs. I understand dealing with the unemployed, but they're looking for you, Minister of Labour, to bring forward proposals to create jobs. I want to know the two, three or four proposals that you're going to bring to this House that we will see creating jobs.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the member that I've already outlined to him some of the things that we're trying to do in Ontario. The one thing I can tell him that we won't do is call an early election to get out of the responsibility of the mess you put the province in.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: I again ask the member for York Centre to please come to order.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship, with responsibility for employment equity, the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat, multiculturalism, the disabled, human rights and seniors -- a very busy minister.

In the last election, Minister, you campaigned with your leader very vigorously and the Agenda for People referenced your concern for the quality-of-care standards at rest and retirement homes and vulnerable seniors who are living in those accommodations. That was probably precipitated by the very unfortunate but sensational death of Joseph Kendall in November 1987 in one of these unregistered residences north of Orillia.

Minister, your government campaigned on this being an important issue. You stood in this House on November 29, 1990, and said, and I'm quoting from Hansard, "I am requesting an initial assessment be completed after three months," and then after six months you would ask that final recommendations be made available -- this is back in November of 1990 -- and then your government would take immediate action.

Madam Minister, that was a year and a half ago. Why is it that you've not brought forward the Lightman commission report and recommendations when it was so terribly important to you at election time and so terribly important to you a year and a half ago?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Yes, it still is terribly important to this government and to myself today as well. Mr Lightman has completed his report and we will be tabling it very shortly. He required a bit more extensive time, because, as you probably know, this issue is very complex, very diverse, and the province itself is very diverse, so he requested some additional time. But I'll be very pleased in a very short time to be able to table this report. I'm sure at that point you'll be very interested in asking more specific questions on the report itself.

Mr Jackson: Madam Minister, although I did not speak to Mr Lightman directly, a reporter within the press gallery has advised me that from her conversation with Mr Lightman, he gave you the report in December of 1991 --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): December.

Mr Jackson: Thank you. December of 1991; we'll do a duet. Mr Lightman was told in February of this year that, "Yes, we've had the report, but we've been delayed because it's in French translation." He was subsequently calling about his report and was told in March that it was delayed in printing. Madam Minister, he was then told that it would be tabled in May.

How can we get a sense that you're committed to the seniors and vulnerable citizens in this province when your throne speech doesn't reference the word "seniors" once in it? This is Seniors' Month, but there have been no announcements from your government or any support for seniors as a policy statement from your government.

The least you could do is bring out the Lightman report, for those seniors who are awaiting it and need the appropriate legislation to respond to, that you've been sitting on and your government's been sitting on since December of last year. He didn't need extra time. Why do you need extra time to delay the recommendations of the Lightman report?

1500

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, I must correct the honourable member across the way, because --

Mr Jackson: You are not correcting me; you are correcting a reporter in the press gallery.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Now the honourable member is saying that he's correcting the reporter in the press gallery. Quite frankly, I don't see any reporters up there saying that they have need for corrections. I think they should speak for themselves and perhaps the member would like to speak for himself as well.

What I will do, though, is say that Mr Lightman had not completed his report in December 1991 and needed an extension of time, which we granted because this is a very serious issue. We realized that with his expertise, with his knowledge and with his information, if he required that extra time we wanted to make sure the report was complete and that it addressed all the areas of interest.

As I said to the member across the way, and I'm rephrasing it very carefully, we will table the report very soon in the Legislature. I'm very pleased that it will certainly bring about a lot of interest. I'm very pleased he's interested in this issue. I'm sorry that in 1981 and 1982, when there was deinstitutionalization in this province, this member opposite and that party opposite did not make sure there were proper requirements for people who were thrown out on the street. Then I wouldn't have to worry now, today, 10 years later, to make sure that these things are put in place.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I've got a very tough question for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the seven landfill sites in Durham East. Many of my constituents live near these landfill sites, and it would be an understatement to say they're very upset with me and about the process. I told them the process is fair and that fairness will prevail, and in the end I can live with fairness. But despite this they've asked me what went wrong with Whitevale and what went wrong with Kirkland Lake. They say: "The process under SWISC was under way. Why was it stopped and what was wrong with it?" That's my question, Madam Minister.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Let me say that I certainly understand the anxiety and concern of the member's constituents and those of the constituents of all members who have found that the Interim Waste Authority has identified landfill sites in their community. It is not an easy process and it is not easy for the people who are concerned. But I can undertake to the member that it will be fair and that it will be open.

In response to his specific question as to what was wrong with the previous process, let me say again that the previous process had completely departed from the normal way in which waste management planning was done, needs to be done and must be done. The process that was set up under SWISC, the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee, which had been put in place by the previous government, sought communities to be willing hosts for GTA waste anywhere across Ontario. This was unprecedented. It opened up the entire province to the waste from the greater Toronto area and it meant that every community was vulnerable to this. It was also untested. There was no guarantee. There was in fact a great deal of doubt that the criterion for a willing host was one that an Environmental Assessment Board would ever accept. It was a very flawed process and very dubious of success.

Mr Mills: Madam Minister, some people say you've created special rules for the Interim Waste Authority. How is this process being followed by the Interim Waste Authority as compared with the municipalities?

Hon Mrs Grier: Municipalities always have and will continue to begin waste management planning by establishing the boundaries within which they will seek disposal sites, composting sites and what kind of waste reduction they will do. The establishment of those boundaries, the time frame within which they will do their planning, is a standard way of approaching the search for a landfill site.

The Interim Waste Authority has been directed by legislation to have the boundary of its search, the boundaries of the greater Toronto area and the 20-year period for which it has to find a disposal site consistent with that chosen by many communities as they begin their work process.

Let me say to the member that the Interim Waste Authority is having a much more open and consultative process than any other waste management master plan. I know the member's constituents will take full advantage of that. I depend on them to do that because it is their participation that is going to ensure it is the kind of fair, open and non-political process it has to be if it is to succeed before the Environmental Assessment Board.

VITAL STATISTICS REGISTRATION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding the recurring nightmare the general public, as well as our MPPs' offices, is facing with respect to dealing with the office of the registrar general.

It's been over a year since the office relocated to Thunder Bay. Since that time the minister has offered up a number of excuses as to why the registrar general's office is backlogged. She's claimed inexperienced staff and computer system difficulties. The minister's latest shift of the blame goes to MPPs' offices, which, according to the March 5 memo she sent out, are overwhelming the office with routine requests. Consequently, she asks that we refrain from assisting our constituents except in emergency situations.

I'll respond to that by saying the reason we have emergency situations is that they're created by the unacceptable delays at the ORG itself. I've written to the minister on numerous occasions over the past few months about the problems at the office of the registrar general and, while I've received these little pieces of paper trying to give me a reasonable response, I have yet to see any tangible improvements in the service.

I have little other alternative than to ask the minister today why she won't demonstrate that she is capable and competent as a manager and get to the bottom of the mess at the office of the registrar general.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think the reason we have emergency situations is because of the decision to move such a vital public service agency to a new location.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Don't keep blaming it on that. That's ridiculous.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Caplan: That's ridiculous.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: Having said that, I have acknowledged that there have been problems at the ORG. I'm not happy about it. I do not accept the delays and I'm working to improve it. In fact, as I said recently, the situation has improved and I continue to work in every possible way I can to make those improvements because I recognize what an inconvenience it is for the public out there.

In terms of the request to members to ask for specific help only in emergency situations, that related to the fact -- and you're quite right, there are a lot of emergencies because of the backlog -- that some MPPs were actually asking for special consideration for their constituents who were not in emergency situations. Therefore, those people, because of their special status as MPPs, were jumping the queue. We don't think that was fair. There is a problem and we're trying to be as fair and equitable as possible in terms of the way we deal with that.

Mr Cordiano: It's not just MPPs' offices that are frustrated beyond belief with the office of the registrar general. It's even more important that as of April 1992 children's aid societies across Ontario were still waiting for over 600 outstanding requests for verification of live births, some dating as far back as February 1990, and 89 adoptions have been delayed due to major problems with documentation being received from the office of the registrar general. This is more than a minor inconvenience. The lives of adoptive families, adult adoptees and crown wards are being put on hold for anywhere from six months to two years because of the significant delays.

The minister's lack of concrete action is a real insult to all Ontarians. I ask the minister today to get to the bottom of this mess, to do something about it, to be a competent manager of this office, to get to the bottom of the mess, to do something with respect to her position as minister.

1510

Hon Ms Churley: As I already said, I am getting to the bottom of it and have been working very hard on a mess that I still say was created by those people across the floor. They have to accept that responsibility. The mess will be cleaned up, but I can assure you I am at the bottom of it and things will improve.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, if they'd like to have an answer, I'm ready to answer the question. This is a difficult problem that affects all of us as members in our ridings. We all have to cooperate in a way that we can make this better, and that is what I have asked the members to do, work with me to try to improve the situation. That was one of many solutions I am finding to try to deal with the problem, and I hope they will cooperate with that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: Another thing that I have been doing is meeting with client groups and focus groups to talk about legislative changes that should be made and could have been made years ago --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No wonder the population is going up. You don't know about it.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Ms Churley: -- that will in fact help improve things. There are a variety of things that can be done and will be done, and I ask you, instead of laughing, to try to cooperate with me and with all of us to make the situation better for your constituents.

EDUCATION STREAMING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, this week the Premier's adviser on race relations made some recommendations that will very directly affect your ministry. The one I'd like to draw to your attention is the one with regard to revision of curriculum at every level of education so that it fully reflects the profound multicultural changes in Ontario's society. The recommendation goes on to include the elimination of streaming in the school system.

Mr Minister, I'm absolutely sure that you're aware of the first report of the select committee on education, where the recommendation to the ministry states that you move to reduce streaming but that it be accompanied by other measures such as smaller class sizes, in-service programs for teaching destreamed classes and mentoring, which I think is extremely important in this instance, individualized instruction and remedial programs.

My question is this: How do you plan to rearrange your global budget in order to move these dollars towards these necessary measures, and are you still insisting, given all the work that has to be done, on an implementation date of September 1993?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I think the member and I have had at least one other exchange in the House on this issue, but I'm happy to be able to add to the comments that I've provided to her and to other members in this House before on the question of streaming.

Although she did, I think, relate the question to some of the other comments that were made in the report by Stephen Lewis, let me just say I found the comments that were made in the report with respect to education to be quite helpful and ones which we are looking at very seriously. Indeed some of the indications that I've given in this Legislature with respect to actions around anti-racism are ones that are very consonant with the approach that was taken in the report.

Specifically on the question of what we are doing to prepare for the destreaming of grade 9, as I've indicated already in this House, we understand that it will require some additional work that will have to be done with respect to preparation for teachers, such as curriculum documents. I'm not convinced that it requires the huge expenditures of additional funds the member suggests, but we know that some additional funds will be required. It's our sense that given the expectations we have for September 1993, which is the next stage in that process, we believe we will be ready to deal with the expectations we will have for our teachers and that they will be prepared appropriately for what we will set for them as expectations for September 1993.

Mrs Cunningham: My question had to do with two things: the numbers of resources necessary to make these very important programs work and the time it takes to write the appropriate curriculum, to set up the appropriate program, to work with communities so we can get the cooperative part of these programs there for students who are looking for jobs, technical education and training and work experience, and the third part, the training of the teachers.

I'm going to go back to the minister with regard to something he just said in his response. He stated he's not certain that the number of resources I mentioned -- and by the way, they're not my words. These words come from the first report of the select committee on education. They are its words. I'm very careful to put that into context. I believe these resources are necessary, and that if you try to do it without them, it won't work.

Mr Minister, my question still stands: How do you plan to rearrange your global budget?

Hon Mr Silipo: Obviously we are looking at the question of budget and what we can do over the next few years as we look at the longer-range changes in education financing, as the member well knows.

The point I want to make is that I don't believe the solution with respect to the destreaming initiative lies solely in the area of finances. While we recognize that some additional dollars will be required, we also recognize that a great deal of the change will need to come about and can come about with some very serious work done both in the area of curriculum changes and in the area of preparation of our teachers. It's in those two areas that I can assure the member we are spending a lot of our efforts in making the necessary preparations. In fact, I hope to be able to give some public indication of some further work we've done in that respect before the House rises.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Organizations like the Ontario Head Injury Association have been lobbying members of this Legislature for quite some time with respect to the sale of Nevada tickets. I know we've heard as much from the member for Welland-Thorold on several occasions. They sell those tickets in communities where they do not have branch offices.

In the current fiscal climate, charities that depend on this form of fund-raising are facing incredible uncertainty. United Ways across the province are way under budget in terms of their fund-raising. All charities are facing really strong constraints. What are you doing, Madam Minister, to address this issue and to help these organizations maintain the valuable services they provide to our communities and our constituents?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, I'd like to thank members from all sides of the House for bringing this issue to my attention. I certainly recognize that the charitable organizations with a provincial mandate have needs that are not met by today's rules. I did go out and consult with the organizations that are affected by this. It took a little time, but I became quite concerned when I heard the members' concerns and I'm happy to say that I now have authorized revisions to the existing policy to give these organizations a single summary licence for all their locations. This should help organizations with their administration. Also, it will help the ministry to continue monitoring the charitable gaming marketplace, which is an important part of this as well.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Speaker, with the unanimous consent of all members, I rise to make a brief statement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

CONGRATULATORY MESSAGE

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Miss Margaret MacKinnon, the daughter of the honourable member for Lambton, will be getting married today at 6 pm. On behalf of all the members of the House, we extend our congratulations and best wishes to the bride and groom. Margaret, Doug and Ellen, our thoughts are with you today.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the ratepayers, parents, staff and students of the Metropolitan Separate School Board are concerned about the way in which Catholic education is funded by the Ontario government and Metropolitan Toronto.

"Although separate schools have been given the right to provide education to the end of grade 12 OAC, they were never given equal funding. For example, in 1991 a Catholic elementary school child in Metro was educated with 75% of the money spent on his/her public school counterpart and the Catholic high school student was allocated only 20% of the money spent on his/her public school counterpart.

"These differences represent a shortfall of $1,678 per student at the elementary level and $2,502 at the high school level, leaving the Metropolitan Separate School Board $198 million short of its Metro public counterparts in total operating cost revenue for the same number of students.

"The BNA Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education and in keeping with this the province of Ontario supports two education systems from kindergarten to grade 12 OAC. Unfortunately, only 20% of residential taxes go into the separate school coffers. Unless the Catholic householder specifically elects to support the separate school system, his or her residential taxes go into the public school purse by default.

"By 1995, the pooling of corporate taxes that started in 1989 will be complete, but the separate schools will be entitled to only 20% of this money and not the 30% that one might expect. Unfortunately, the division of funds is based on residential assessment and not on student enrolment.

"We urge you to act now to restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I have attached my signature to this petition, which contains some 60 signatures.

1520

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition here signed by more residents from my riding and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is against the United Church of Canada's policy to indulge in any type of gambling, gambling casinos bring crime to a community, not everyone has the self-control to limit their betting and low-income people will suffer from unwise use of their resources;

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

"Be it resolved that the Toronto Conference of United Church Women do strongly object to the Ontario government's proposed legislation to promote offtrack betting, sports lotteries and gambling casinos."

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I have two rather brief petitions signed by approximately 140 or 150 residents of Cambridge. The first to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor, Legislative Assembly:

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

"The 1991 federal Criminal Code section 163 is clear and concise in its definition of obscenity. Mr Robert Payne, chairman of the Ontario Film Review Board, is mandated to review films and implement the law. We support the action of Project P and reject any undermining of the law through personal interpretation."

ABORTION

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): The second petition:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas our society abhors violence, especially violence against women and children; and

"Whereas abortion is violence against women and children,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop abortion in the province of Ontario."

I submit both of these petitions, Mr Speaker, to you.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a total of six petitions, all with identical wording, signed by a total of 103 citizens of Middlesex county:

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendations of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have affixed my signature to the six petitions.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have been happy to add my name to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from over 50 citizens of the county of Middlesex, including the town of Strathroy, the township of Adelaide and the townships of London and Delaware, who ask that Mr Brant's report be set aside. My constituents have said very clearly to their elected representatives that they would like the size of this annexation reduced so that agricultural land and the rural way of life in Middlesex may be preserved. I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have some petitions here to add to the many thousands that have come from Middlesex and the London area, and it is to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to the destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable,

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here.

"We, the residents of land-leased communities, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel that it should be a priority of this government to release the report and take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on resales of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents with long-term leases and where they fall under the rent review legislation,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report on land-leased communities and to propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live in land-leased communities."

I know that my colleague from Durham East, Gord Mills, also has a community like that in Wilmot Creek and he supports it as well. I affix my name.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition containing 197 names 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;

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

I have affixed my name.

ABORTION

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas children are our most valuable resource and our only link with the future; and

"Whereas the destruction of pre-born babies is against natural and divine law,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop funding abortions, to give expectant mothers pertinent information, to assist women with problem pregnancies through their pregnancy to the birth of their baby and to promote chastity among young people."

This petition has been signed by some 35 residents of the Cambridge community.

1530

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition signed by about 1,000 residents of the city of Burlington.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, concerned citizens of Burlington, do not support Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To defeat the proposed Bill 38 by voting against it and thereby upholding the present laws on no Sunday shopping."

Or, as I like to say, it has my signature in respect to wide-open Sunday browsing laws in Ontario.

CHILD CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a second petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP Community and Social Services ministry is moving towards a universal, publicly funded child care system in the province; and

"Whereas the government's place in child care should be contained in the areas of licensing, monitoring and providing financial assistance to those families who need such assistance; and

"Whereas in these difficult financial times the government should not be providing capital funds to non-profit agencies when private sector ones are ready and able to provide the needed services; and

"Whereas the attempted elimination of private child care by the NDP administration is an attempt to remove the right to choice in child care,

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

"That the NDP government immediately reconsider and revoke its plans to eliminate private child care in the province of Ontario and so ensure the democratic right to choice in child care for all Ontario parents."

This petition is signed by several hundred residents and has my signature of support.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

It's signed by 46 individuals from Dundas, Puslinch township, Uxbridge and Stouffville, and I have affixed my signature.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have numerous petitions here to add to the ones that have already been given in to this House. It's a petition 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 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."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have two of the same petition. I guess they total about 800, and it is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses" --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Independent? It is organized all over the province.

Mr Jackson: Minister of Housing, if you don't care to listen, they're in the communities of Grimsby --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Burlington South simply read the petition, please.

Mr Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. But I was invited by the member to say where they came from.

The Speaker: All interjections are out of order, and I would ask the member to direct his statement of the petition to the Chair.

Mr Jackson: That was the ruling I was looking for. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the government of Ontario declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

That is signed by about 850 from Burlington, Grimsby, Hamilton, Dorset and Agincourt. It has my signature of support.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BIKUR CHOLIM ACT, 1992

Mr Cordiano moved first reading of Bill Pr48, An Act respecting Bikur Cholim.

Motion agreed to.

AGRICORP ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR AGRICORP

Mr Buchanan moved first reading of Bill 63, An Act to establish a Corporation to provide for Agricultural Insurance / Loi portant création d'une personne morale offrant de l'assurance agricole.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I talked briefly about this earlier in the day. This is an important bill that I believe is long overdue. It has been proposed for a number of years and members from the opposite side have commented on that. The farming community has been consulted. This is something they very much like. It will allow this government and any future government to deal with long-term programs, crop insurance, safety net programs and income stabilization. It's something we hope to use and employ in the future, and I look forward to the support of members on all sides of the House for this piece of legislation.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion 7 on amendments to the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I believe the honourable member for Renfrew North had the floor when we last met on this topic.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): When I was last addressing government notice of motion 7 I was just preparing to look at the particulars of the government package. I want to begin my remarks today by saying it is right and fitting that we should be resuming this debate today after our friend and colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton drew the attention of the House earlier today -- I might add with the rather enthusiastic support of others, including the member for Welland-Thorold -- to some of the frustrations and inadequacies of past practice.

I say again, it seems to me right and fitting, particularly for members of the majority party in the House today, that we should be resuming a debate in this place about the NDP's unilaterally imposed rule changes on this, the day our friend and colleague the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton has asked us all to think about how we might move forward in ways, in his case, to accommodate the role of independent members.

I was with a number of my colleagues in the House in the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly last week and at that time I made plain that I wholeheartedly support many of the initiatives contained in the private ballot item this morning, sponsored by the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

I would ask my colleagues this afternoon to join with me in a look at the specifics of government notice of motion 7. What is it that the NDP is unilaterally proposing to do by way of changing the rules of this House? I repeat that what we have here now is, for the first time in my experience, a unilateral move by a government party to change the standing orders. That is technically allowed, but it has been thought to be politically injudicious and there are many independent observers of this place who would never have imagined that the party to have moved forward with this kind of unilateral action vis-à-vis the changing of the rules of debate and practice in this House would be the NDP.

At any rate, Mr Speaker, I ask you and colleagues to look to the proposal set down by the government House leader. The first of the proposals concerns the parliamentary calendar. I should just say that I've had the opportunity largely because my colleague the member for Halton Centre has done the homework on this. The parliamentary calendar unilaterally proposed in government notice of motion 7 effectively reduces the number of sitting days by 12 -- three sitting weeks.

For members of the opposition that is interesting because it effectively eliminates 12 question periods. So in this particular motion the government is unilaterally proposing to reduce by something in the order of 12% the number of question periods that are available to members of the Legislature to exact accountability from the government.

My friends opposite have come to this Legislature over the last number of weeks and months saying that we believe it to be a hallmark of the NDP government that we are going to be more open and more accountable. I simply ask honourable members opposite and around me to realize that the first of the proposals unilaterally offered by the Bob Rae government is to reduce the parliamentary calendar by three weeks, to reduce by 12 days the number of sitting days and to eliminate 12 question periods.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I can applaud that.

Mr Conway: My friend from Muskoka-Georgian Bay says he can applaud that; I'm sure some people will join him. I just simply want to tell honourable members that in these proposals there is a 12% to 13% reduction in the number of question periods afforded this House. I think that says something about the willingness of a government to face the music in this place.

Then we move on to that provision in the unilateral proposal tabled by the government House leader to recommend night sittings on Mondays and Tuesdays. I do not want to rethrash old straw. I apparently attracted some anxiety the other day when I reminded honourable members that it was the NDP which in speech after speech through the 1970s and 1980s -- I cited one from 1986 where Ross McClellan, the NDP House leader, argued that if we were to do anything in the interests of productivity, family life and general good sense it would be the elimination of night sittings. Mr McClellan went on to say that it was his view and presumably the view of the NDP that night sittings were really intended as part of the government agenda to get the government's business done. I never shared that view and I will say to my friends opposite, as a single person I don't have any difficulty if the House wants to sit every night of the week, but I can well understand how married members would find that difficult. That was the argument in part that was advanced all the time by the NDP.

I just simply want to say that in this particular motion we now have a fundamental reversal, an absolutely transparent contradiction of an NDP position around the working conditions in this place -- namely, we ought not to sit at night for the reasons Mr Martel and Mr McClellan gave. I repeat those: It is counterproductive, it is anti-family and it really only facilitates the government.

What we have in government notice of motion 7 is not just a request for night sittings, but in fact there is no opportunity for the House or the Speaker on behalf of the House to pass any kind of judgement as to the advisability of night sittings. We have here in this particular standing order amendment proposed in this motion, the new standing order 9, a clear tilt in favour of executive mandate. Again, I find that interesting and it's a pattern that's repeated throughout much of the rest of this. There is no requirement in this new standing order 9 that there be any consideration other than the government's will and wish. Again, I find that an interesting deviation from past practice.

The next order of business dealt with in a substantive way in the proposals is the new 23a(a), which reads essentially that we're going to have time allocation and, except where otherwise indicated, there will be a 30-minute limit on speeches.

I want to say something that may surprise people and I think I hinted at this the other day: that I doubt if in this Parliament or in recent parliaments, with a couple of exceptions, there has been anyone who's been as willing to speak at length as I have myself. I understand how that can sometimes irritate people. I did it the other night on third reading of Bill 118, a bill about which I feel very strongly. So if there's anyone to whom or against whom this particular order is targeted, I would have to believe that it would be myself.

I am quite prepared to live by this rule. I have said previously that I can live with a 30-minute rule and I can live, quite frankly, with a number of the other allocations, because it seems to me that they are, in the main, what characterize --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Then show us, Sean. At quarter after we will be watching the clock.

Mr Conway: I will just come back to my friend. I quite agree, but I will say in digression, let there be no confusion in the minds of my honourable friends as to what I think we have with this declaration of unilateral action.

Last Thursday we got two pieces of government business that are of a piece. We got Bill 40, An Act to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act, a significant, long-awaited piece of highly controversial legislation, and we got delivered, quietly and silently to the Clerk's office on the same day, the companion piece, namely, the unilateral government rule change motion. This motion, I say to my friends opposite, has to be understood as part two of the labour relations strategy. This is the ramrod that is going to see this very controversial bill shoved down the throat of this Legislature and of this province.

I'm quite prepared to deal with rules in the ordinary fashion. I was reading the other day the sixth edition of Beauchesne, which, of course, concerns the rules and forms of the House of Commons of Canada. I know the table will have some understanding of the hard work that people like Mr Fraser, Mr Dawson and a certain Mr Holtby applied to the rewrite of these rules and forms of the Parliament of Canada.

In the sixth edition of Beauchesne's, published just a couple of years ago, it is observed, and I quote from page 5, "Traditionally changes in the standing orders" in Ottawa "were generally made by consensus after study by a special committee and consideration in committee of the whole." It goes on to talk about recent experience in Ottawa, the Lefebvre committee, the McGrath committee, both of which were in the early 1980s, and the gentlemen speaking in Beauchesne's sixth edition conclude, "The permanent changes resulting from these two committees were adopted on a motion moved by the government after consultation and compromise with the opposition."

I say to my friends opposite, that has been the way in which we have dealt with rule changes in this chamber over many years, and I would recommend it to my friends opposite as a way to proceed this time. I say again, I am quite prepared to entertain sweeping rule changes, and some of them might appear to be to my own disadvantage, but in this matter we have not just a substantive question of what we're going to change but why we are changing it.

I want to be very direct. In my view, this motion 7 is a companion piece to Bill 40. It is a piece of government business that concerns itself with making sure the Labour Relations Amendment Act is put through this chamber as quickly as possible.

I'm going to come in a moment to more specifics, but let me say this. When I went the other night, because I hadn't had the opportunity to do it on Monday -- and I know people were rather vexed with some of my anger on Monday. I was extremely angry on Monday for a variety of reasons, one of which is this: What we had on Monday was, as far as I can tell, also unprecedented.

For a government House leader to quietly propose this kind of rule package, that's his right. I don't quarrel with that. But he went about that in a very clandestine fashion, put it on the Orders and Notices paper for Monday, the first day on which it appeared, and called it on Monday. That was for me an act of war.

1550

I say to my friends opposite who know anything about the way we do business, and I know there are people opposite who care about the institution, for a government House leader to quietly come up with a set of proposals is one thing -- and I don't have as much of a quarrel with that as you might imagine; it's not particularly wise, in my view, but it was none the less done -- but what was done here on Monday was even more breathtaking.

The government House leader, on the first day government notice of motion 7 appeared, moved to call it and has apparently said in regular channels that there will be no other government business dealt with until these rules are changed consistent with this motion. If a Tory or Liberal House leader had done that in the 15 years when I was here from 1975 to 1990, my friends in the NDP would have threatened to burn the place down.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): No.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): No, no.

Mr Conway: Well, no, you wouldn't, because you were not here. I understand that. I understand my friends. I believe them. I don't think they would have done it. But when I think back to the conduct of honourable members from communities like York South and Windsor-Riverside -- don't believe me; look to the record -- we saw some tactics that were in my view totally and absolutely discreditable.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): On a point of order, Mr Speaker -- it will give my honourable friend the member for Renfrew North a chance to have a drink of water -- I made a mistake earlier today when I introduced the AgriCorp bill. There are three components to it and I read only the one into the record. I would like permission to read the other two sections of that bill into the record so that it can be brought forward before the end of June.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections: Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker: Unanimous consent. Please read your bills.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AGRICORP ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR AGRICORP

Mr Buchanan moved first reading of Bill 63, An Act to establish a Corporation to provide for Agricultural Insurance / Loi portant création d'une personne morale offrant de l'assurance agricole.

Motion agreed to.

CROP INSURANCE ACT (ONTARIO), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'ASSURANCE-RÉCOLTE (ONTARIO)

Mr Buchanan moved first reading of Bill 65, An Act to revise the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario) / Loi portant révision de la Loi sur l'assurance-récolte (Ontario).

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any statement, Minister?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I simply want to thank the House for its cooperation in allowing me to introduce these last two pieces of that bill so I could get them into the House for the record today.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Conway: This little incident makes a very small but important point. You see, this is the way this place works even in highly contentious debates. I warn my friends opposite, and I know there are very difficult and highly sensitive issues --

Mr Perruzza: It only worked because Mahoney wasn't in the House. He would have disagreed.

Mr Conway: Well, there are all kinds of routine things that happen here on the nod and by unanimous consent, and if people become angry to the point where they feel the need or the desire to pull that consent back, people like the minister, who had a perfectly valid reason to come in here and seek that and get that cleaned up, will be denied that. It is a slippery slope that leads to a very unhappy result.

I simply say that when I cite the reference to the sixth edition of Beauchesne's -- and let me do it again: "Traditionally changes in the standing orders" -- in Ottawa -- "were generally made by consensus after study by a special committee and consideration in committee of the whole." The permanent changes made most recently in Ottawa resulted from a review of particularly the McGrath committee report. Those recommendations "were adopted on motion by the government after consultation and compromise with the opposition." That's the way it is normally done and normally done here.

Let me say something heretical. I think I may have said this the other day. I look at this package. There is a part of me, not a small part, that could and would buy this entire package, not because I think it is the best package we can decide upon, but when I look at this, I am very interested in most of it because I know a group of parliamentary outlaws against whom I would like to apply it.

That's not a good way to make policy, but I tell you, if I seem a little exercised, I have a right to be. It is to me breathtaking. It is absolutely breathtaking that we would get this motion from that party in the name of the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside in light of what happened here between 1987 and 1990.

Let me be once again ecumenical in blame-spreading. I wasn't here 10 years ago when my Liberal friends began that bell-ringing, but that was equally discreditable conduct. It was, in my view, fascistic. It is the fundamental abnegation and contradiction of Parliament to ring the bells and walk away. I can't imagine anything just more awful, more inexcusable and indefensible, and my Liberal friends did it. I was away and I was embarrassed. Whether if I had been here I would have won the day I don't know, but I want to give my friends opposite every assurance that that kind of conduct I will not engage in.

When I look at the specifics of this package, what I see -- and I hope the member for Welland-Thorold gets into this debate, because I looked very carefully at the proposals, and the proposals more than anything else seem to be targeted particularly at the antics the member for Welland-Thorold employed against the Liberal government. I remember the day when, in the middle of this floor, in a Brezhnev-like hug, the now Premier endorsed that conduct.

I know for new members it's none of your concern, and I excuse you from this, because you'll never do that, and those of us who have been around a while and have played some of these stupid games I hope have grown beyond that as well.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I read through the rules, I find that the Speaker -- it's really a judgement call -- can exercise certain powers. What I find intriguing in Hansard is that the arguments that are being put forward by the member now he said verbatim last day. In the same debate he said it on Thursday. He's just repeating, rehashing the same arguments, the same ideas, and I believe you have the authority to move him on or sit him down, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your comments. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Actually it's a fair criticism and I take it seriously. I make the point again, however, that the Beauchesne's reference advises us as to how we change the rules and what we are now engaged in is something unprecedented. We have a unilateral action with no prior consultation, and the day it appears on the Orders and Notices paper, it's called as the one and only order of government business until it's passed.

I submit again that the reason that is being done is that the government is determined to use these rule changes to ram the labour relations bill through the House and upon the province, and I find that equally distasteful.

1600

Let me go back now to my specifics. I ask my friends opposite to look at the proposal around 23a(a) in terms of limit on speeches. I say again that I do not have a particular problem with that. I will say to my friends opposite that if you think or any of my friends over here think that limiting speeches is going to limit debate, you are wrong. It might be vexatious to listen to Conway the windbag for three hours on Bill 118, but I can tell you that if I am limited to 90 minutes as the principal spokesperson, or to 30 minutes as an individual member --

Mr Perruzza: In fact you read that article in the Ottawa Citizen.

Mr Conway: Listen, I accept the criticism that's been levelled at me. I'm big enough and old enough to know that in the business of politics you must take as well as give. I understand how people might not have liked what I said on Monday. I'm a big boy. I don't go crying and whining and whimpering because somebody has taken a good public shot at me. That's the fun of politics, and the day I can't take it is the day I should stop giving it out. I'm somebody who has spent his time in this place freely giving it out and if I can't take it then I should get out. Some of what was said I don't particularly agree with, but I can certainly understand it and in my view it was altogether fair criticism.

Now, let me say that here we have the rule that says the 30-minute speech and the 90-minute speech for leaders and for principal spokespersons. I don't have a problem with that, but I sometimes think the people who propose this imagine we will now use this to restrain debate. It will not happen that way. If I wanted to circumvent the intent, if that is the intent, the way I would do it on those matters would be to simply introduce some amendments, and on each amendment, of course, the speakers would have another round. Also, instead of maybe three speakers an hour I might decide that 12 speakers needed to take 30 minutes. There are ways in which the debate can be expanded.

I'm not here arguing that we should talk at great length on all issues. The Tory House leader was absolutely right today when he said that last Thursday, which was an interesting day, the government got two bills. Any time you get two bills it's not a bad day. There was very little debate on Bill 123, as I recall. I suspect that one could apply some of these new rules and cause much longer debate. When one looks at the number of bills that pass with very limited debate, some of them on the nod, I'll tell you it's not an unimpressive list.

I think it's interesting that the proposal for 23a(a) is different than the Ottawa proposal, which has three categories as I understand it: Party leaders are given unlimited time; critics are given a fixed amount of time, which I think is in something like the 90-minute category, though I don't know for sure, and individual speakers in Ottawa I think are limited to even less than the 30 minutes. But I say again that I don't personally -- if I can say this I dare say that just about everybody in this chamber should be able to say it equally: I can live with the limitations considered in 23a(a).

Then I want to move to 29a. This is a very interesting change and it ties into the subsequent change having to do with dilatory motions. Here I know the government's frustration. Last week we saw the third party take one of the items that was not dealt with three years ago, namely, introduction of bills, and apply it in a dilatory fashion. So what we have in 29a is a provision which says essentially, "At 4 pm on any sessional day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and...shall proceed to orders of the day. There's no if, and or but. The Speaker has no say, once again, in whether or not there are extenuating circumstances to discount the direct move at 4 o'clock.

I simply observe that in my own experience over the last couple of years we've not had, save and except those incidents of last week, any real difficulty with the current rules. Clearly, this is an effort to tighten very closely any loose ends that might provide an opposition or a private member, or a government supporter not in the ministry, to hold up the business of the House for whatever good or bad reason.

Then we have a companion piece, 36(a), "The report of a standing or select committee on any bill shall be taken into consideration immediately and the Speaker shall put the question on the motion for the adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without amendment or debate."

I say to my friends that this is one of the specific Kormos provisions because the government is here seeking to eliminate any debate at the report stage of a bill's progress through the process. Who among us will forget the debates back in the previous Parliament, the one of 1987 to 1990? The New Democrats, most especially, seized upon the debate at report stage. I remember Kormos, Reville, Mr Cooke and others extending by hours and, I believe, days the debate on the report stage.

Isn't it interesting that the government notice of motion 7 is going to ensure, if adopted, that no one in this Parliament is going to do to the NDP in government what the NDP freely did to another government just a few years ago in respect of a lengthy debate at the report stage.

I want to ask my honourable friends opposite and all private members, do we want to eliminate for ever a debate on the report of a standing or select committee which is reporting back to the House a very important bill or other matter? Perhaps we do, but I think it deserves some consideration that I have not had the time to offer. I say again to my friends opposite, let there be no confusion as to what you're doing.

I ask my friends from Brock, Simcoe and elsewhere, is there not some embarrassment that you are barefacedly, in these proposals, striking out at your own for what they did? Is this now an admission that what they did in this particular connection was wrong and unparliamentary? Maybe it was. I am not, on this one, prepared to make a decision at this point, though I can tell you if I were in government, it would clearly be of some real help, but I'm not so sure that the practices of this Legislature are such that we need, without any prior discussion, to eliminate the long-standing practice we've had for sometimes good, short and, sometimes in my view wrongly, very long debates around the report stage of a particular bill. But that is what you're proposing and that is a direct attack on what you and your own party did in this chamber just a few short years ago.

We move on then to the new section 44. It's interesting when we look at the new 44 as compared to the old 44. The old 44(a), on motions, simply says: "Motions to adjourn the House or the debate may not be moved until after the oral question period except upon unanimous consent of the House. Such motions do not require notice."

Section 44(b), "When a motion for the immediate adjournment of the House has been defeated, no other such motion shall be made unless some intermediate proceeding has taken place."

Third, "A motion for the adjournment of a debate or of the House during any debate, or for the Chair of a committee to report progress, or to leave the chair, is not debatable."

The new 44 strikes that out and talks only about dilatory motions. Again the intent of the government is clear: They are going to tolerate nothing of the kind of antics they themselves perpetrated in the name of the public good, they said, just a few short years ago.

Personally, I don't have a problem with some of the issues around some of the aspects of dilatory motions, but I say to my friends opposite, what evidence beyond, I think, a few very limited examples -- and I don't think they yet make the case for significant and sweeping change -- in the last two years have we got to ditch and to abandon the current set of rules?

1610

As I say, you know that there is in 44(b) the opportunity that when a motion for adjournment of the House has been defeated, no other motion shall be made unless some intermediate proceeding has taken place. I know that Edighoffer, among others, has made some rulings around what the minimum practice there is going to be. I think it is not bad practice to date. Here we have in its stead quite an interesting discussion around the following:

"Dilatory motions may not be moved until after routine proceedings, except upon unanimous consent of the House. Such motions do not require notice and are not debatable.

"Where a dilatory motion by a member has been defeated, that member will lose control of the floor and debate will continue."

Now, this again is directly aimed at what Peter Kormos did a few years ago, and I hope my friends opposite -- I was hoping Reverend Drainville would be here -- understand what this does. In those days of not too many years ago, when we would see New Democrats on their feet engaging in a whole series of dilatory motions and other antics, some of them entirely distasteful, they were none the less allowed by the Liberal rules, even as changed, to continue in the debate.

But the New Democrats would do the following. If Peter Kormos were up, as he was for days on the insurance bill, under these rules the moment -- let's say on second reading -- he moved a dilatory motion, the following would happen: If his motion were defeated -- and in a majority Parliament you can imagine it would be defeated -- he would lose control of the floor and the debate would move on to someone else. I'll tell you, that is draconian.

As a former government House leader, I like it. I like it a lot because, as I say, I know some outlaws from personal experience against whom I would like to apply it. But I don't know that this is what we want to do in this place. I don't think we want to tilt the balance in the favour of government to that extent, particularly when we do not have the evidence to make that case. We may get it, but I look at this and I see a very interesting trend. I repeat that section 44(b), had it been around, would have scuppered the Kormos filibuster on auto insurance and the NDP filibuster on Sunday shopping in 1988 in a way that we were not ourselves even contemplating addressing.

I say to my friends that this is a kind of parliamentary cannibalism that we should stop and think about, because we may not want to be so bloody-minded with respect to those who might take a very independent course of action. But I repeat, as a former government House leader, I look at this and say, "Boy, if you want me to have it, I'll have it and I'll use it, and I know exactly the kind of people who will give me cause for its application."

Section 44(c) says, "For the purpose of this order 'dilatory motion' shall include a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House during any debate, or that the Chair do report progress or do leave the chair, or that the House do move to another item within routine proceedings, or that the House do move to orders of the day." This covers all of what I would expect a dilatory motion of this kind to cover.

I repeat for the last time -- very interesting -- the case law which has given rise to this kind of response. I want to tell you, this has nothing to do with the conduct of Liberal members in the 35th Parliament of Ontario; it has everything to do with the conduct of New Democrat members in the 34th Parliament.

On to an addition to standing order 44:

"44a(a) The government House leader or any minister of the crown may move a motion providing for the allocation of time to any proceedings on a government bill or government substantive motion."

That is very interesting. One of the things I find striking is that there is no requirement for any notice; no notice at all. Presumably at any point during a debate any cabinet minister can get up and, without notice, move time allocation. Let me say, I'm quite prepared to talk about time allocation. We've had a lot of it in this place in my time. The time allocation that's worked here has in the main been a voluntary time allocation.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: My friend points to the clock. He doesn't understand the point of his own government's initiative. I'm quite prepared to limit myself to 30 minutes if we are doing this in the ordinary course of events, but the government House leader has said we will debate this until it's passed and then we will move on to other government business. I repeat ad nauseam, that is a barefaced attempt by the government to unilaterally change the rules so it can, in the next few weeks, ram the labour bill down the throat of this chamber. I will not easily let that happen.

Mr Perruzza: You just said that that couldn't happen.

Mr Conway: It will happen under the passage of this motion.

I want to say that we've had time allocation in this chamber for a long time and, as I say, it has worked in the main on a voluntary basis. There have been times I myself have had to do it, to put a motion to move a certain order of business through the House, but this makes it a standing order. This makes it routine business, where any cabinet minister on any bill or any substantive motion by the government can invoke time allocation. Again, that is one of those changes that is going to profoundly affect the parliamentary culture of this place.

I will make no bones of a discussion I had just this morning with the Clerk of the assembly, Mr DesRosiers. He observed that in Ottawa they have very nice, neat, tidy rules and some not very good practice. We have had over the years a rule book that is not very tidy, but practices that have tended to be much more efficient than the rules would indicate. If one wants to move, as perhaps some do, to highly codified procedures, then you may in fact get the very reverse of what you want.

I say again, when one looks at these rules, one is always looking at the balance between the government's right on the one hand to get on with its business and, after an appropriate amount of time, to conclude the business, and on the other, the right of honourable members as individual members or in the opposition to say their piece with respect to what the government is doing and not doing.

I submit to you again that in standing order 44a(a), by having no notice provision, you have also slightly tipped the balance in favour of the government. If I were where I would hope to be in this kind of discussion, at an ad hoc committee representing the three parties, I would be quite willing to talk about time allocation. I don't think I would do it quite this way. I say to you, as honourable members, you would not want me, as a government House leader, armed with this kind of ammunition.

If the New Democrats think they will never again be in opposition, they should endorse this package with great enthusiasm, but if they ever think the day may come when they themselves walk across this 18-foot aisle or whatever it is to join the opposition benches, they're going to look at some of this and see that they authorized a set of rule changes -- if they're adopted -- that tilted the balance in favour of government.

1620

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): That won't happen.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot says it will not happen. Dare I be provocative?

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): What other way do you know?

Mr Conway: Watch me. That is a bit presumptuous, and I'm only being half serious when I say that, but the day will come when you might very well have to be living with the other side of this.

It's not just that. It's a question of getting a time allocation codified in a way that will get less done than we now get. The practice around here, and it's been no secret, has been that in your first few weeks or months, that fall or winter term, a lot of time is perhaps not assiduously spent, and at Christmas and the end of April an awful lot of cramming is done and a lot of work gets done. A lot of consensus allows that to happen. That's time allocation of a kind. We've had it; it's worked. If you want to move to this, it's your right, but don't think it will get you what you want, because the Ottawa experience would indicate that our voluntary time allocation has served us better than its highly codified time allocation.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Six months before the election we'll change it back.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Guelph says, "Six months before the election we'll change it back."

Now I want to move along to something that I think ought to be really of concern to members of the Legislature as individual members, to any and all members who beat their breasts in joy and self-praise a few years ago when we decided that we were going to elect a Speaker, we were going to remove that awful tradition where essentially the Premier nominated the Speaker and created the impression that the Speaker was there really at the behest of the Premier and would somehow do the Premier and the government's bidding. If you check the record you'll find that people like Mr Breaugh and Mr Johnston, both very fine, hardworking, thoughtful New Democrats, wanted as much as anything a change that would cause the election of the Speaker, so that the Speaker would be independent, would not longer be faced with appeals to his rulings and would feel that because of his elected mandate he would be able to make some of the tough decisions a good Speaker must take.

Now we come to the new standing order 45, the closure motion. In some ways -- I don't know who said it -- this is an improvement, because our closure motion has been extremely irregular, confusing and contradictory. My friend the Clerk was reminding me that for us in this assembly over the decades our closure motion was the motion that said "and that the previous question be now put." But in the practices of the Ontario Legislature "the previous question" never meant the previous question; what it really meant was "the main question before the assembly." Very odd, very peculiar.

We have here now an effort by the government proposal to clean it up. They have cleaned it up. We've got 45(a), which is the guillotine motion, which says, "After a question has been proposed from the Chair, either in the House or in a committee of the House, a motion for closure may be moved by any member, without notice, and shall be in the following words: 'That this question be now put.' Such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. If a motion for closure is resolved in the affirmative, the question that has been proposed from the Chair shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."

That is the classic guillotine. It simply says that if you're in a debate on anything and someone stands up -- anyone, because it says "a motion for closure may be moved by any member" -- the question then before the House is "that this question be now put." That's the question immediately before the House. It must be decided then and there. That's the guillotine. Quite frankly, that's all you need. There is then 45(b), which is an effort to clean up the previous question and to actually have it mean what it says it means.

Interesting, and I find that effort not entirely disagreeable, but when I look at 45, then I look at the old 45, what do I find? Let me read the old 45. I want you all -- you who have embraced rightly the notion that we should have an elected Speaker as part of the enhancement of the Speakership and as an effort to make the case that this now is a truly modern Legislature, that gone are the days when Speakers did as Les Frost and Mitch Hepburn and Howard Ferguson threatened them to do for fear of revocation of their three-cornered hat and the perquisites of office -- to reflect upon the old rule 45: "A motion for closure, which may be moved without notice, until it is decided shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words: 'That this question be now put.'" This is the sentence I want you to carefully consider.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think this is a very important subject that needs to be dealt with and listened to. I understand that cabinet ministers have very important functions to carry out during the day and I appreciate the fact that they're not here. But considering the fact that the information is sage advice, I think we should have a little more attention being paid to the speaker at this time.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your comment.

Mr Conway: I want everyone, if they will, for just a moment to listen to this sentence, because this is a sentence --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I'm serious. This is a sentence that is not in the government notice of motion 7 around your closure motion. This is the sentence that's been dropped: "Unless it appears to the Speaker that such a closure motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question" -- the motion of closure -- "shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate." Very important, because in the old rule there was an allowance for the Speaker to exercise judgement. It was the Speaker's right to sit and hear what was going on. If the Speaker felt that the motion to close off debate was premature or was in some way an infringement of the right of an honourable member to make a point not yet made, the Speaker, on his or her own, could exercise that important adjudicative right.

I say to my friends opposite: Why has that right, that discretionary power that I think is important for the Speaker, been stripped out of this new proposal for the guillotine and for closure? I am very concerned about that. It might have been inadvertent; I dare say it probably wasn't. This is a matter that we ought to consider if we thought we were doing something two and a half or three years ago in electing the Speaker and in elevating the role of the Speakership, because this is a significant diminution of the Speaker's powers in this assembly on a very important matter, and that is a matter to cut off debate.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Are you going to drag on this debate until August?

Mr Conway: I'm not going to drag on the debate. In fact, I will --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Does anybody over there either understand or give a damn about this? We're talking about the very future of this Legislature.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: It is important for all of us, particularly for those of us who've been around and who might want to be around for a while -- the NDP is a group of men and women who have always been interested in and concerned about this kind of stuff.

1630

God, when I think of people like Lawlor, MacDonald and Renwick, to the extent I know anything about this stuff is because I listened to people like that. Jim Renwick was probably one of the most articulate, eloquent, thoughtful and sensible people on subjects like this. Jim was, of course, a New Democrat from Riverdale. I put the question, where did that Speaker's discretionary power go on the closure motion and why did it leave the scene?

As honourable members concerned about our role as private members, if we really are serious about the role of an independent Speaker, do we want, in an act of unilateralism by the government, to strip that out? You see, I don't disagree with some of what's here in other ways. I think the cleanup of this business in other matters is probably overdue, but that doesn't mean that I want to just simply endorse it willy-nilly.

Again I say to my friends opposite that if you force me and if you force my friend Harnick, you will win the day with this. Some day, maybe in 1995, maybe in 1998 or maybe in 2004, you will be on the receiving end of this. You may think then, "Boy, we really did close off all the doors." The doors you've closed off in this package, by and large, are the doors that Peter Kormos opened and slammed with the able assistance of David Cooke, Bob Rae, David Reville and others. That is the delicious irony.

Mr Wood: And Sean Conway.

Mr Conway: No. You see, I say to my friend the member for Cochrane North, I give him this assurance that I will never do the things that were done here a couple of years --

Mr Wood: You're doing it now.

Mr Conway: No, I am not. I am not doing that. I wouldn't even be on my feet if this motion were where it should be. It should be off with some kind of panel. I would go so far as to say I don't even mind the government saying: "We are concerned about the dilatory nature of these discussions. You may not like it, Elston, and you may like it, Eves, but we have a motion. Here it is. You better go off and decide what you're going to do about it. We've got some minimum conditions and we want them met." I can't say anything else because that's what I did myself three years ago.

But I tell you, my friends, that is a long way from walking in here and saying: "On Monday, June 7, we have on the Orders and Notices paper major and unilateral changes to these rules. That's the order of business today and it will be the order of government business for every consecutive day until they are passed." That is revolutionary for this place. We want to think about that. As I say, if you apply your majority you can win this.

I'm always accused of using words that are multisyllabic, but there is a very good word for the victory you will win: It is called pyrrhic.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Can I hear that again?

Mr Conway: It is a pyrrhic victory and it will be a victory that will serve no good end. I can appreciate my friends' frustration, particularly members of the executive council, but you had better know what you're doing and you had better understand that this may come back to haunt you sooner than later, and certainly later, should you ever be out of office.

Mrs Marland: In two years' time.

Mr Conway: I'm not prepared to say that. The people of Ontario will make a decision. They may very well return the government; I don't know. They may return my friends in the Conservative Party. They may return --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I want to make a final point on the specifics, because I don't intend to hold the floor all afternoon. In fact, I will keep it for a little longer but not much longer.

Standing order 101(b) is again a provision to disallow any debate on the report out of committee of the whole. Let me read the new 101(b): "If such a motion is carried, further proceedings of a committee of the whole House on the matter or bill then under consideration shall not be superseded; but the matter or bill shall be resumed at the point where they were interrupted. Such a motion shall not prejudice...."

Sorry. Actually, I've got that in reverse order.

The final point is 101(a), where essentially we're stripping out any possibility for a discussion of the report of the committee of the whole House, and that's consistent with what we did elsewhere in stripping out any possibility to discuss any of the matters contained in a report back to the House from a standing or select committee.

Mr Speaker, I submit to you that these proposals are interesting. They ought to be looked at by a committee. They ought to be looked at from the point of view of balance. They ought to be looked at from the point of view of what they do to the Speakership. They ought to be looked at from the point of view of notice to private members.

I say again to my friends, those of you who've got families, do you really want to start into the night sittings? I won't quarrel. I will sit Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights. I don't think you should be subjected to the bachelor preferences or possibilities of the member for Renfrew North, because many of you have families, and the arguments that you've made over the years have always, to me, made sense. But in a dramatic reversal of traditional NDP positioning on this timetabling matter, you've decided you want to forget all the advice of Ross McClellan and Elie Martel and others and you want to go back to night sitting.

Well -- I'm not authorized by my colleagues to say this -- you'll get no quarrel from me; none at all. But I think you'll get some quarrel from your spouses and from your kids, and if you don't, you should.

I want to return briefly, as I conclude, again to the argument that's been advanced by the government House leader. The government House leader is saying, "We must have these rule changes unilaterally imposed now because we're not getting anything done." I submit that is demonstrably not true and it is transparently not the real reason the government is here today with this motion.

Government notice of motion 7, I repeat for the umpteenth time, is part of the tactics to ram the Labour Relations Amendment Act through this House as quickly as possible. That's what the real agenda is, and it was, I think, interesting and noteworthy that both Bill 40, the Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, and the government notice of motion 7 arrived together last Thursday. They are of a piece, clearly. But what have we seen? What have we seen in this place over the last few months? My friend the member for Parry Sound, who'll be speaking shortly, will be able to give much more chapter and verse than I of the government's business.

I was asking my friend the member for Bruce where we stood, and where do we stand? We stand with a government -- granted, governing in tough times -- that is increasingly torn among its several factions. We've got the feminist wing of cabinet at war with the labour wing of cabinet. We've got the pragmatists at war with the ideologues. We've got the geographical components consistently working out. I must say that's not altogether new to the NDP government, but it's causing, in this environment, a very tortuous introduction of bills.

I want to just use some examples. I used one the other day. Whose fault is it if the government has now brought forward 190 amendments to the advocacy and consent bills? I congratulate the minister, who's here, for listening to the people.

I was down this morning in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. We have Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments. In the last few days the government has introduced an Eaton's catalogue of amendments. The bill is being rewritten in the committee as we speak, and it's more than that. There are two components. In the worker ownership component we have the Steelworkers saying it's fundamentally flawed, and on the venture capital side -- only the unions and cooperatives will be able to run the venture capital corporations -- we've got people like the Ontario Federation of Labour saying, "No way, José; we're not buying."

1640

That's a very important piece of government legislation, priority legislation. I forget how many, but there are scores of government amendments that are being introduced as we speak down in the committee. That's not the opposition holding anything up; that's the government. I understand, because we were there, that it's difficult to get it all together, but it's not all together. The bill down in the committee is, as I say, being fundamentally redrafted on the floor. I want to give some credit to some of the government members. I was there this morning briefly. The member for Oxford seemed to be doing a good job in difficult circumstances. But that's happening; I'm not making that up.

I noticed the government House leader had the amendments to the Game and Fish Act on his "must have" list: "We must have third reading of Bill 162 before we adjourn this summer." That was just the other day. Just a few days before that, the Minister of Agriculture and Food said in the standing committee on estimates the following about Bill 162: "I think it got first reading, and I think it got to first and maybe second reading under the last administration. Now my good friend the Minister of Natural Resources has brought in his Bill 162. So who wrote up the definitions, I'm not sure. No, I didn't have any input into the definition of a farmer, but" -- here's the salient point -- "I'm going to have to have a lot more input in terms of how we handle game farming before this legislation becomes final for third reading stage."

Here's the Minister of Agriculture and Food saying on May 26 that he's got to have a lot more input on the definition around game farming before Bill 162 can have third reading, and a few days later we've got the government House leader saying, "Bill 162 is on our 'must have' list for third reading by June 25." That's not opposition obstruction. I understand what Elmer Buchanan is saying, but don't blame us for the problems the government is having.

I was reading the London papers the other day. The spectacle of the London-Middlesex annexation policy is something to behold. It changes every week, if not every half week. We have, alternatively, the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying one thing; we have the member for Middlesex, for whom I have no little sympathy in this matter, saying another thing. My friend the member for Bruce just handed me a fax copy of the Saturday, June 6 edition of the London Free Press with the headline, "London Expansion Could be Slashed: The Proposal Has Angered Mayor Tom Gosnell and Arbitrator John Brant." Just reading the first paragraph, "The Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs says he's willing to consider a proposal to drastically reduce the amount of land London would annex at the end of the year." That may be right and good; I don't know. All I know is, I have the government's "must have" list on June 11, and on that list it says the London annexation bill is to be announced and it must be passed.

I'm sorry, that is a provocative act, and the person who launched it knows only too well how provocative it is. But it is clearly a contradiction of the government line that somehow the opposition is holding up the business of the House.

That nonsense my friends engaged in the other day, the endless reading of bills, troubles me. I wish they would stop, but they will make their own decisions. It will make every gazetteer in the province happy, but it will make most of us very unhappy.

Interjection: What are you doing now?

Mr Conway: I hope I'm speaking to the substance of your motion, since apparently I'm not going to ever again have an opportunity to address it.

At any rate, I say that on the government's own list of "must have" legislation is the London-Middlesex annexation bill we don't have, and we don't have it, I think, for a very good reason, and I'm sympathetic to the government: The policy has not been decided. Presumably the members from Middlesex and others will continue to press a variety of possibilities and they will do good work in that connection. But don't come in here with government notice of motion and say, "We've got to have this because we are not getting our business done, and one of our priority pieces of business is the London-Middlesex annexation bill," the policy of which is not yet decided.

I say as well on the government's "must have" list is Bill 38, the so-called Sunday shopping proposal. I'm with my friend from Parry Sound. What a spectacle. It was a week ago yesterday that the Premier himself, on one of his rare visits to the chamber, said: "I want to cut this clean. I want a vote, hopefully sooner than later. I want to make it a free vote. Let's get it over with so we can get on with other business." I think I said, indelicately: "You've done the right thing. Get on with it. Sit down and eat your crow," because I expected we were going to have a debate, one where I think a good voluntary time allocation ought to apply, and for God's sake, let's decide this thing and move on to other business. That's what I thought we were getting. I thought it because the Premier said it and the bill was introduced very well by the Solicitor General on June 3.

I get up this morning, I read the Financial Post, and what do I read? It's a Canadian Press story. I'm going to read three or four paragraphs, "NDP Delays Free Vote on Sunday Law," by Canadian Press, in today's Financial Post, June 11, 1992:

"A free vote on Sunday shopping originally scheduled for today in the Legislature has been delayed indefinitely, Solicitor General Allan Pilkey said yesterday.

"But the vote to repeal restrictions on Sunday shopping in the Retail Business Holidays Act is a formality since stores have already been allowed to open on Sundays, Pilkey said outside the Legislature.

"'I don't sense anything is turning on whether or not the second and third reading gets done next week or next month.'"

That's clearly a contradiction of what the Premier implied, and I think it was the member for Waterloo North who today indicated that the bill does have some current application.

It goes on to two other interesting paragraphs. The Canadian Press story today says the government's decided to change its mind and the minister responsible said it doesn't really mean anything or matter. Then we get the government House leader saying "he won't bring forward the vote on Sunday shopping until the opposition parties agree to pass so-called rules changes" in this Legislature. That I think is a clear indication again of what the real agenda is.

Finally, just to quote a last paragraph from the story today, "New Democrat Peter Kormos -- an opponent of Sunday shopping -- said that by pushing the rules changes ahead of the free vote the government has shown it has little regard for opponents of its bill."

I have to agree with my friend from Welland, because I said earlier that the real intent of these proposals is to get at the Kormos filibuster so that no one -- did I say Kormos filibuster? I meant the Kormos insurgency, because one of the points of this is that the government, the Rae government, Bob Rae, the man who, like Leonid Brezhnev, stood here and embraced Mr Kormos for all of these tactics applied against the Peterson government on Sunday shopping and on the Joan Smith affair and on the workers' compensation policy, policies the NDP found absolutely obnoxious and totally unpalatable -- those tactics that were so freely applied by them against us will not be tolerated when the shoe is on the other foot.

My friend Bradley likes to observe that politics is like baseball. It's a matter of both pitching and catching. And what we are seeing is a group in government that has grown to see baseball only as a game of pitching.

1650

I simply observe that again on the government's "must have" list is Bill 38. That's what we're being told, and in the papers today we read something quite to the contrary.

We have as well, and I'm going to just take one other example, the labour bill. To introduce on June 4 a bill of such complexity, sensitivity and controversy and expect that the bill is going to be disposed of in the last three weeks of a sitting --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): They knew it couldn't be done.

Mr Conway: They absolutely knew it couldn't be done. Again I'm not going to be unreasonable. I understand what the government wants and I'm quite prepared as one member -- I have no authority on behalf of anyone else -- to say to my House leader, who tells me, by the way, that most of the "must have" list is not particularly difficult to accommodate, to go so far as to let it be accommodated with one of our traditional end-of-session voluntary time allocations. I will submit to that as long as the three leaders come to some understanding and that's going to be done by consensus and compromise.

But I repeat, my House leader tells me that when he looks at the government's "must have" list there are a lot of things on there we think we can accommodate if we ever get the bills; if we stop getting what we get today on Bill 150, an avalanche of government amendments; if we get the London annexation bill, if the policy is ever decided; if we get Bill 38, the Sunday shopping legislation. I mean, we've got to have it before we can speak to it and decide it.

Another observation, en passant, is to see --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Hey!

Mr Conway: Well, I just want to tell you. You should know this. Stephen Lewis wrote a very important report this week. I was perusing it just this morning. Let me just read the following from the recommendations, page 19, having regard to employment equity. Listen to this, my friends. This report was tabled two days ago, on June 9, and this is a recommendation.

"The employment equity legislation should be introduced for first reading before the end of June, and if the session is for some reason prolonged, second reading should proceed. Whatever the timetable for early readings and committee consideration, the bill should be passed by December 31, 1992."

Let me repeat that. "The employment equity legislation should be introduced for first reading before the end of June," and he recommends that "if the session is for some reason prolonged," we should add this bill to the "must have" second reading list.

This is the agenda. I don't fault Stephen Lewis, but what's going on here? I'm very sympathetic to employment legislation, but this is equally revolutionary. I mean, it's unthinkable in the past practices. We'd have a recommendation. We all understand the urgency. But we've now got outside commissioners telling the House that if it's going to sit beyond July 1 -- and it probably will -- we should put another piece of yet-to-be-introduced, probably yet-to-be-drafted legislation on the "must have" for first and second readings.

I will leave my argument there by simply observing that yes, the opposition has I think in some cases been perhaps a bit exercised. The debates have in some cases been extended. I myself have participated in some of those. I believe very strongly that in the case of Bill 118 it is a very important government policy pregnant with all kinds of future difficulty.

It's only a few weeks ago that I looked at the government agenda and there were about four bills on it. We have an obligation as an opposition to criticize, to oppose and to dispose. But we can't dispose of that which we don't have, and we didn't have for some time Bill 40, the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act. We've got, but apparently can't or won't get at, the Sunday shopping bill. We're going to get, but have not yet seen, the London annexation proposal. We've got apparently Bill 171, the Toronto Islands bill, which again has been totally recast with scores of government amendments.

I'm not going to be repetitive. I say that if there is fault, at the very least it is a shared fault, and anyone with any experience ought to know that walking in here in the last three weeks of the session and saying, "We are going to put on the 'must have' list" and get things as contentious as the government has put on the "must have" list, like the OLRA -- that is a provocative act and people who sponsored it know it as such.

I say in conclusion that government notice of motion 7 is interesting. Speaking personally, there is much that I can live with and, all of it, I would some day literally salivate at the thought of using it. But I don't think we ought to make changes on the basis of that kind of personal preference. I think there has been a tried and true way, and I think we should resort to that.

I don't even have a problem if the government wants to do as I did three years ago to focus the mind: put some things on the table and then move them aside for due deliberation by people like my friends from Bruce and Parry Sound and others, perhaps the members from Cochrane, Durham-York and Sudbury, I don't know.

We should think very carefully about how we're going to do this. We should do it because it's the right thing and not because there is another obvious agenda, which I submit there is. Today's Financial Post and last week's simultaneous tabling of Bill 40 and the government notice of motion make that very plain to me.

If I was angry the other day -- and I was. I was absolutely furious to think that Guy Fawkes would come into this chamber and ascend the pulpit and preach with breast outstretched the first-order importance of parliamentary decorum, efficiency and fire safety in these precincts.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Further debate?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): It is with some reluctance that I join this debate, because I don't think it's one that's necessary at this particular point in time. Having said that, however, there are many points that I would like to get on the record.

I guess the first place to start is, my, how the New Democratic Party has changed over the years with respect to its attitude towards time allocation motions, closure motions, limiting debate, introduction of petitions, introduction of bills, ringing of bells for days on end. In one case they actually prevented a budget from being read by the Treasurer in the chamber.

Now here they are, defenders of parliamentary tradition, so they say, and for the first time in the 125-year history of the Ontario Legislature we have this party that supposedly defends democratic principles unilaterally trying to shove through with its majority something that it has stood steadfastly against for almost the entire 125 years of this Legislature, because, you see,

it's been in opposition for almost the entire 125 years of this Legislature.

Defenders of principle, defenders of democracy, defenders of the minority, people's right to speak, unlimited debate -- that is what the New Democratic Party and its predecessors have stood for all these years. Today we have the House leader of the New Democratic Party with his notice of motion to unilaterally change the rules of this place for the first time without consensus by all three major recognized parties in the Ontario Legislature. That is where we have come to.

I have some advice for the New Democratic members, the government members; that is, perhaps they should take stock of who they are and whence they come, because I think they seem to have forgotten who they are and what their principles are and what their party has stood for for a great number of years.

1700

I was left a few moments ago with a small story from the Canadian Jewish News dated Thursday, June 11, 1992, which the member for Willowdale left with me. I think this one small story is some good advice for the members of the New Democratic governing party in Ontario.

"The wise man of Chelm was faced with a dilemma. He had never been in a public bathhouse. Without the distinction of clothes, how was he to tell who he was? He had no birthmarks, no warts; he looked like everyone else. What was he to do?

"Suddenly an idea struck him. He tied a scarlet thread around his toe. 'This will be my identifying mark,' he said, confidently entering the shower. But somehow the thread got loose and by chance became wrapped around the toe of the fellow showering next to him. The Chelmer stared down at his toe and saw no thread. Startled, he noticed the thread wound around the toe of the man showering next to him. He politely tapped him on the shoulder and said, 'Pardon me, sir, I know who you are, but would you mind telling me who I am?'"

Now that is exactly what has happened to the New Democratic Party today. They've forgotten who they are, and since they have assumed all the trappings of power with their majority government they have become what they said they would never become. They have thrown away their principles. They no longer stand for minority rights to speak. They no longer stand for unlimited free debate. They now stand for protecting the power they have. That's what they stand for today and this notice of motion speaks to it perhaps better than anything else.

I would also like to get on the record at the outset that I have many speeches by former NDP House leaders, leaders, parliamentary experts of their party, as to exactly what they thought over the years about the introduction of rule changes unilaterally, what they thought about the introduction of time allocation motions, what they thought about the introduction of closure motions, what they thought about limiting an individual member's time to speak or right to speak in this place. It's amazing to read some of these speeches -- and very eloquent too I might add; a lot of them were extremely eloquent.

The former member for Riverdale, Mr Renwick, has a great treatise here of some 20 or 25 pages, every single word of which I hope to get to read into the record because I think these people have forgotten the Mr Renwicks of the world, of their own kind, who have on previous occasions, some 10 years ago, lectured to this House and talked to this House and informed this House how we got the parliamentary tradition that we have in Ontario today.

I would also like to point out that the government House leader seems to be putting a spin on things, that the opposition is somehow preventing him from proceeding with business and calling legislation in this House. For the benefit of the public out there, who may not be familiar with the proceedings of this place or how we do business here, I would like to point out that what is called on any given day in the Ontario Legislature is entirely up to the government House leader and no one else. The government House leader can call any piece or order of business he or she wishes on any day at any time that he or she properly has the floor. Usually what is agreed upon at the House leaders' meeting the preceding Thursday morning is what takes place and the business is arrived at by consensus.

We have found in this Legislature that has worked relatively well over the years. There is always legislation that any particular government of any political stripe may introduce that the opposition parties vigorously oppose or one of the opposition parties vigorously opposes, and that's to be expected in our parliamentary system of government. I can think of the Bill 94 debate, which was a very hot issue, where the other two parties in this place happened to differ from the party I belong to with respect to that very controversial piece of legislation. I can think of previous Sunday shopping bills, Bills 113 and 114 which, I might add, the current government vigorously opposed. I have some great speeches here too, actually the government House leader's thoughts on Sunday shopping in Ontario, in that great year of 1989 I believe it was, and what he thought about Sunday shopping and how Sunday shopping might undermine the moral fabric of our Ontario society and certainly should not be introduced into this province at any time whatsoever.

That provides for some very interesting debate, if and when we ever get around to the Sunday shopping legislation that his leader and Premier promised last Wednesday to call as expeditiously as possible so we could have some certainty about Sunday shopping in this province, have a free vote, let the individual members, all 130 of them, vote their own individual conscience and put that matter behind us.

I'd like to read a letter I received from the government House leader, in my capacity as House leader for my party, this past Monday morning. It was delivered to my office. I was sitting in my office after a question period meeting and at 10 am this missal arrived from the government House leader. It says:

"I'm writing to inform you of my intention to move a resolution changing the standing orders of the House. I have consistently over the past year expressed concern with the level of legislative progress being achieved and the amount of taxpayers' dollars wasted while important public business sits idle."

Mrs Marland: What's the date on that?

Mr Eves: June 8.

"I believe that the reforms that I am proposing today will allow for a thoughtful scrutiny of issues while ensuring intelligent debate."

I don't think we can ever ensure intelligent debate in this place. We can ensure debate, though, no doubt.

"A copy of my resolution, which appears in today's order paper, is attached for your information. It is my intention to debate this item this afternoon.

"As usual, I welcome any comments or suggestions you may have with respect to making this Legislature work.

"Yours sincerely."

For the members of the public out there who don't know how this place works quite as well as some of us do and some of us wish we did, you're supposed to file any order of business which you want on the printed order paper before 5 pm of the preceding day. If that does not happen, it's not printed and generally isn't dealt with, except the government House leader, of course, as I said, always has the prerogative to call any order of business he wishes -- in this case "he."

I wasn't here last Thursday afternoon, unfortunately. However, I understand that the reason or the excuse the House leader gives for having to take this drastic measure was that my colleagues introduced 20 separate pieces of legislation asking for economic impact studies on what the proposed labour legislation, now known as Bill 40, would have upon different regions of Ontario.

This should have come as no surprise to the government, because over the last six, seven, eight, nine months, my leader has consistently asked the Minister of Labour in question period, time after time after time, as has our critic for the Labour ministry, time after time after time: "Do you have any impact studies as to what effect your legislation will have on jobs, on employment in the province of Ontario, and what impact it will have on the economy of the province of Ontario, what impact it may have on future investment in the province of Ontario? Indeed, will current investment in jobs and employment leave the province of Ontario as a result of this proposed legislation?"

Mr Stockwell: What did he say?

Mr Eves: Time after time after time, the Minister of Labour has not answered that question. There has been no study that the government has done about the impact of this proposed legislation. He has on occasion used that opportunity during question period to -- shall I say an impolite word? -- dump all over some independent studies that have been done, because anything he doesn't happen to philosophically or ideologically agree with, as far as he's concerned, is phoney and irrelevant and he refuses to take that into account.

Why doesn't he order his own independent study? I think that would be a prudent and responsible thing for any government to do. To introduce a very significant piece of legislation where you know there is at least some question, to be fair, as to what economic impact this legislation may or may not have upon the economy of the province, upon employment in the province, upon investment in the province -- yet he has steadfastly refused to even do that.

He didn't do his homework. We had to do it for him. Hence, we introduced 20 individual bills for 20 different regions of the province that have 20 different regional economies, to ask what the impact of such legislation would be.

1710

At the end of the day, as I understand it, the government House leader managed to put through a motion to extend the sitting hours of the House until 12 midnight or 12 am, whichever you prefer. As a result of that process, there was a negotiated agreement to pass Bill 118, the Hydro bill, on third reading, and Bill 123, the Ottawa-Carleton bill. I would think that was significant progress for any House leader in one day. He accomplished third reading of two very significant pieces, especially Bill 118.

As my colleague the member for Renfrew North has pointed out on several occasions, Bill 118 is a very important piece of legislation. It changes philosophically the role of Ontario Hydro. It gives the Minister of Energy and cabinet very hands-on, direct control of Ontario Hydro. I think it's a very significant piece of legislation. Whether you agree with the philosophy or not is almost immaterial, but it is a major ideological change with respect to that crown agency. I would have thought the government House leader might have expected a vigorous debate on the philosophy and principles behind Bill 118.

Just as an aside, while we're talking about that, whenever questions are asked by the opposition on government agencies, I've heard cabinet minister after cabinet minister say: "Oh, completely hands off. It has nothing to do with me. I, as minister, cannot order an agency that's under the jurisdiction of my ministry what to do." I presume that reason or excuse has been blown for ever by Bill 118, because what this government wants is a very direct, hands-on approach to government agencies. They want the minister and the cabinet to be able to pick up the phone and say to the chairman of any agency: "You are going to do this because we are in charge. We control your budget and you will do as you're told." So I presume that response will never come across the floor again from any cabinet minister responsible for any government agency. I presume that argument is out the window.

I want to talk about all this legislation. Another thing that irked me a little bit, going back to last Thursday and this Monday morning, was the fact that before I had even read the government House leader's letter, which he was kind enough to have delivered to my office at 10 am, I read the contents of the letter in the Globe and Mail newspaper. Obviously, to have it printed in Monday morning's newspaper, the Globe and Mail must have had the contents of what the government House leader was intending to do long before Monday morning.

We also note that according to the rules, the government House leader must have filed his notice of motion with the table Clerk before 5 pm on the preceding Thursday. In fact, he must have filed it when he was negotiating, supposedly in good faith, with my colleagues and the colleagues of the Liberal Party as to exactly what we were going to get passed last Thursday evening in this place. He had every opportunity to stand in his place prior to 6 pm last Thursday or indeed prior to midnight and tell the members and colleagues in this House, again in good faith, what he was planning to call for Monday afternoon's business.

According to standing order 53, that is exactly what he is supposed to do and bound to do by the rules of this place. Standing order 53 says, "Before the adjournment of the House on each Thursday during the session, the government House leader shall announce the business for the following week."

What did the government House leader announce? He announced that he would inform the House on Monday what he intended to call. He didn't comply with standing order 53, in my humble opinion, because he did not announce the business of the House for the following week. He just said he would make an announcement about an announcement which he would announce the following Monday, knowing full well that he intended to call this notice of motion and knowing full well that when he gave the story to the Globe and Mail and it was there in Monday morning's newspaper, he hadn't exactly dealt with my colleagues in good faith.

I want to go back on the rules changes a little bit too, because I want the public to understand the background behind this. Going back as far as last fall, I will give the government House leader this: He had indicated his concern with the rules and parliamentary reform and he had indicated to myself and my Liberal counterparts on numerous occasions at House leaders' meetings that he would like to see a new package of rules or the rules of this place changed.

For our part, our party was never against and still is not against discussing rule changes. I have been the House leader through that entire period of time and I have always consistently indicated to the government House leader and to the House leader of the Liberal Party, whoever it was at the time -- and I'll come to that problem in a moment -- that we were more than willing to sit down and talk about rule changes, that we thought the proper way to do it was by consensus, as it has been done for 125 years in Ontario, and that we preferred the method that was done the last time the rules were changed.

Basically, for the public out there, the rules were changed by an ad hoc committee of three people, one representative of each caucus sitting down and negotiating what rules they thought should be changed, how this place could be improved upon and how it could work more cooperatively. That process took, if I'm not mistaken, a couple of years. When that package was agreed upon by that ad hoc committee, the package finally went to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Legislative Assembly committee made a few recommendations and changes of its own and eventually we ended up with a consensus set of rules that everybody could and did agree to. I'll get to the speeches where the now government House leader spoke in glowing terms about arriving at rule changes in this place by consensus, not by unilateral action. That is what happened then and that is what has usually happened in the past.

I also want to deal with the government House leader's reason or excuse that he needs these rule changes now before he can discuss any legislation whatsoever because the place has ground to a halt and he needs to get all kinds of important legislation through and he's afraid he can't do it unless he gets the rules changed. He also has indicated, I believe in the media -- I don't have the clipping with me -- that he has some 121 pieces of legislation that he would like to see passed and can't get done.

I think a good place to start is to look at how many government bills were held over from the last Parliament, the last session when we prorogued last December, before we came back. The government held over 22 pieces of government legislation from the last session. To date we've passed nine of those 22 pieces of legislation that were held over. We have by unanimous agreement of the three parties sent four advocacy pieces of legislation plus a new one, so that's five, to committee. We've agreed by consensus, as is usually done in this place, upon how those five bills will be dealt with. So that brings us to 14 out of the 22 having been adequately dealt with by unanimous agreement and consensus. That leaves only eight.

I also want to point out before I leave that point that the reason some of those pieces were left over and had to be carried over from one sitting to another was the fact that at the time there was a thing called the Martel incident in Ontario. Late last December the three House leaders were negotiating every day as to what the terms of reference of the Martel committee would be. We were negotiating every day as to what pieces of legislation the government would get then and what pieces of legislation would be held over until the next sitting or the next session, in fact until after the House, which had prorogued, was called back and there was a new throne speech.

1720

I want to point out that the government House leader, who didn't have to agree to any of this, agreed to hold over these pieces of legislation, especially the tax bills, because he talked about the tax bills from the previous budget: the retail sales tax bill -- I believe it was Bill 130 -- and the gasoline tax bill, which I believe was Bill 86. He talked about what a shame it was that they had to be carried over. This is what he agreed to do. I would let you pass them. However, the other party -- there are three parties in this place -- insisted that those two tax bills be carried over. All three of us agreed in the end.

That is how negotiation usually goes. Usually you don't get everything you want. I'm sure the government House leader is only all too aware of that. He voluntarily -- I don't recall anybody holding a gun to his head -- agreed to carry those pieces of legislation over to this sitting. That's why we had the 22 left, just in case the public is interested. To date we've disposed of 14 of them by unanimous agreement, voluntarily, by consensus, and we happen to have eight left that are carried over.

Now I want to deal with what's happened this spring, because I think it's important that the public know what we've been doing. We were supposed to come back here, according to the schedule of the calendar outlined in our standing orders, on March 9. The government decided it didn't want to return March 9. One of the reasons given was that March break fell the week of March 16 -- I'm being very fair here -- and it didn't seem to make much sense to bring the House back on March 9, have a throne speech, start that debate, then go away for a week and then come back.

At one point in time we actually had consensus. Again, I must say the Liberal Party didn't want to agree to this consensus, but it finally did as part of the negotiation around the Martel committee and around what pieces of legislation would be carried over, despite the fact that the Liberal Party, to give it its due, steadfastly disagreed and always wanted to come back on March 19. One of the chips it had to give up in the bargaining process -- because we all have to give up something to get something -- was that it would agree to come back on March 23. All three House leaders agreed to come back to this place on March 23, as much as the Liberal Party did not want to.

Then, lo and behold, while we were on break we learned that the new session would not be starting on March 23, as agreed to by everybody, including the government House leader. There was some talk that the Legislature might then come back the following week, which was March 30, and that rumour went around for a few days. That didn't happen either. Eventually the government did call the Legislature back on April 6, the House reconvened and the throne speech was read.

If the government had such a chock-full legislative agenda, with all this important legislation that had to be passed, and if it knew that it was going to take a considerable length of time -- because some of these pieces of legislation are fairly significant, especially Bill 40. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, you have to admit that it is a major change to labour legislation in Ontario. You can't expect to pass that type of legislation on the nod. You know that it takes a considerable amount of time in debate in this place.

We have all these other important pieces that the government House leader says we're preventing him from introducing. We're not, because as I've explained, he can introduce them any day he wants to because he's in total control over that, as he is in introducing this motion. That's why we're debating this motion this afternoon instead of legislation. He chose to debate this as opposed to dealing with some of his important legislation. He says he's going to keep on calling this order, and he's going to call it and call it until he thinks he has enough time in to invoke closure, cut off debate and shove it down our throats. That's his game plan. Then when he has his new little package of rules that limit debate, invoke closure and introduce time allocation, he'll be able to pass his labour bill or any other piece of legislation with a minimal amount of debate. That is what the objective is; let there be no mistake about that.

But if he had all these significant pieces of legislation, why wasn't he back here on March 9? He wasted the week of March 9; he wasted the week of March 23; he wasted the week of March 30. A month after he should have come back on April 6, exactly 28 days later, he shows up to read a new throne speech. All that aside, a month has been wasted; three weeks, actually, because there was March break in there.

When does he get around to introducing his new, as he says, significant pieces of legislation? Having made the argument that he has all these important pieces of legislation -- indeed he must have, because it was a new throne speech, new principles and new stated objectives of the government -- let me tell you when he got around to introducing some of his legislation. What did he introduce on the very important week of April 6, when he just couldn't wait to get back here to introduce these 121 pieces of legislation? He introduced one bill, Bill 1; that's a long way from 121. He just had six months off; actually seven, because he took an extra month off, he and his cabinet colleagues. He had just had six or seven months off --

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Six or seven?

Mr Eves: When did we last sit? Pardon me? Back up. He had just had four months off. Are you telling me that during those 15 or 16 weeks, however many weeks are in there, cabinet ministers didn't have time to draft all these new, important, significant pieces of legislation which they absolutely would have to have by the end of June? What were they doing during part of December, January, February, March and the first week of April? What were they doing when they were supposed to be drafting these significant pieces of legislation? They were in such a rush to do this that they introduced one bill the first week back, Bill 1, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency Act.

Then what did they do the next week, the week of April 13 to 16? Did they introduce the other 120 pieces of legislation they had to have passed? No. They introduced two pieces of legislation the next week.

Mr Stockwell: They doubled their workload.

Mr Eves: They're really working hard over there, those ministers. They got out two that week. I might point out that the two they managed to get out on April 15 were Bill 11, the Corporations Tax Amendment Act, giving a break to corporations for tax, and Bill 12, the Mining Tax Amendment Act, giving a break to mining companies for tax. Pretty controversial, heady stuff. "Nobody could possibly have any quarrel with those. We'll introduce those two safe ones this week."

Being exhausted by this hectic pace they've kept up, they've now had about 19 or 20 weeks to draft their 121 bills. Guess what they did the week of April 20 to 23.

Mr Stockwell: What?

Mr Eves: Zero. Absolutely no new bills introduced at all. Absolutely none.

Now they've been back for three weeks. They have 121 pieces of legislation, the government House leader says. They're just chock-full of ideas over there and they just can't wait to get this legislative agenda before the people. They've been off for four months. They've been back to work for three weeks and in three weeks they've managed to introduce three pieces of legislation -- one, two, three. They had to take a rest. When you introduce two in one week, boy, you'd better take a week off. They introduced three bills in three weeks, after they came back a month late, and two of those are totally non-controversial, reducing the rate of taxation.

Now we get to the week of April 27. In the week of April 27 they introduced on budget day one bill, Bill 16, the Ontario Loan Act, which goes hand in hand with the budget. Now they've been back for four weeks. They say they have 121 bills that we're stopping them from introducing and they've introduced four bills in a month after they came back a month late, after they had 16 weeks off. Boy, they are busy little beavers indeed, but it's our fault that they can't get their legislation through. How can you get something through when it ain't even on the order paper and hasn't been drafted yet, when you've had five months to prepare it?

1730

We've been back to work for four weeks and we've had four bills introduced, three of which are totally non-controversial and very simplistic pieces of legislation. So now we get into May. You'd figure that by May they'd be hard at it, they'd be back, they'd be used to working, right? They worked so hard in the first four weeks, they introduced four bills. What do we do the fifth week back, the week of May 4 to 7? Zero. No legislation. Absolutely not one single government bill introduced. We've been back at work for five weeks, we've got four bills introduced and three are really basically housekeeping in nature.

Mr Elston: We're still waiting for the spring equinox.

Mr Eves: We're still waiting for those 121 important pieces of legislation. We're in the month of May now. Now we get to the week of May 11, and guess how hard they work in the week of May 11. Again they introduce zero, not one single piece of legislation that week either.

Mr Stockwell: That's way off. You people are workaholics.

Mr Eves: Boy, these are busy little beavers. They work so hard over there that they come back to work a month late. They've had five months off by now, because they've really done nothing in the first four weeks. Now they've been back to work for six weeks, and they've introduced four bills in six weeks and they say they have 121, so they still have 117 hiding somewhere under somebody's desk, but they don't have the energy or the wherewithal to introduce them, let alone call the pieces of legislation that they already have on the order paper so we can deal with those.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Are the people of Ontario ever lucky.

Mr Eves: I hope the people of Ontario are watching, because I want them to understand Mr Cooke's rationale as to why he has to have these rule changes to get all this important legislation through so quickly, because they worked so hard, they came back a month late, and when he came back, in six weeks he got around to introducing four bills.

Mr Stockwell: What was their coffee bill, Ernie? They were up all night.

Mr Eves: The coffee bill was probably the biggest of them all.

Then we get to the week of May 18, and guess what happens that week? We've all worked so hard, we get a week off. It's called constituency week. We've been working so hard for six weeks that we've got four bills drafted, after we had four months off, and after we came back a month late and we worked our little fingers to the bone, so now we have to take a week off to go on vacation, because we've worked too hard. We've introduced four bills in six weeks. Makes sense.

Does the public have a lot of sympathy for Mr Cooke's position now? Now that they understand exactly how this place works and exactly how hard he and his colleagues have been working over there. We're now up to May 25 and we've introduced four of these 121 bills that he says he just has to get passed.

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think some of the statements the member for Parry Sound is making at this time are the kinds of information that cause cynicism among the public about politicians. I know the member for Parry Sound is also a hardworking member of this provincial Parliament, and what the public doesn't understand is that there is a lot of work that MPPs do when they're not in this Legislature.

The Speaker: It's certainly a point of information for the chamber, but it is not a point of privilege. There's no particular privilege that's been lost, and the member for Parry Sound may continue with his remarks.

Mr Eves: I've only gotten to the week of May 25, and to answer the honourable member, I'm not suggesting that individual MPPs don't have constituency matters that they have to attend to and other things that they have to attend to.

But what I am trying to address is the urgency with which the government House leader now says he has to have these instant rules; like drop them with a teaspoon of something in a glass of water and stir them up and they're ready, the new rules, and we're going to have to drink this, whether we like it or not, because "We have 74 members. We got exactly 1% less of the popular vote to the decimal point than Frank Miller got in the election of 1985."

We know how well and in what high esteem some of my colleagues over there held Mr Miller in the election of 1985. You people were exactly 1% less popular on election day than Frank Miller was in 1985. Any time you need some humility, maybe you should think about that for a minute.

We're up to the week of May 25.

Interjection.

Mr Eves: You mean you wrote off a pile of ridings so you could plunk your votes down in certain ridings so you could get a majority out of your measly 36.9% of the vote. Is that what you mean? You wrote off the others?

Hon Mr Cooke: What did you get, Ernie?

Mr Eves: What percentage of the vote did I get? Over 50%.

Hon Mr Cooke: Your party.

Mr Eves: What percentage of the vote did your candidate get in my riding? I think he lost his deposit if I'm not mistaken. As a matter of fact, he finished fourth. The Green Party candidate finished ahead of your candidate.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I understand the rules, when members engage in debate in this House they speak to the Chair, they speak to the Speaker, they don't engage in casual dialogue across the floor. What's happening now is that the member is beginning to engage in casual dialogue.

The Speaker: Indeed, the member for Downsview has a valid point of order. I would ask the honourable member for Parry Sound to direct his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I will try to remember that. I just wanted to get that little aside in, but I want to get back to the business of the House, which is the week of May 25.

On the week of May 25 we got pretty busy indeed. We'd been off for a few months, we'd been back for six weeks. We had to take a week off because we were working so hard. We had four bills introduced in six weeks. So we got back here on the week of May 25 and on May 26 we introduced two bills in one day, but -- there's a "but" to this -- they were both the Education Amendment Act bills, Bills 20 and 21, and they were both part of what was previously Bill 125. So we didn't have to think very hard about them. We just had to take certain parts of Bill 125 and renumber them 20 and 21. But that took a long time to do that. That took about seven weeks to think that up and we finally introduced two parts of that former bill, which died on the order paper in December 1991.

Then we go to the next day and they were busy indeed the next day, May 27. They introduced five bills in one day. But two of those bills were again part of the previous Bill 125. They were the Colleges Collective Bargaining Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 23, and the School Board Finance Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 27. They actually came up with three new ones, though: the Parking Infractions Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 25, the Gaming Services Act, Bill 26, and the Income Tax and Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 31.

Now they figured: "If we're going to try to invoke these new rule changes and explain to the people how we need them so urgently and desperately, we're going to have to get even busier than we've been so far. Busy, busy, busy. We have to get more pieces of legislation because we said we had 121 and we know that we really don't, but we've got to do something. They're going to think we're crazy when we want to introduce these rule changes."

The week of June 1 they introduced the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, Bill 32, arising out of the budget, no doubt, which of course was done on April 30, but we don't get around to introducing the bills arising out of the budget until over a month later on June 1: the Vehicle Transfer Package Statute Law Amendment Act, again arising out of the budget, Bill 34; the Special Education Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 37, but there's a little catch with this one too, Mr Speaker. This is just a rewrite of the former Bill 114 which died on the order paper in December 1991. My, what original thinkers we are over there.

Then on June 3 we introduced two more bills, the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, that's just last Wednesday, by the way, which is the Sunday shopping bill that the Premier of the province made a glowing statement about and said we had to proceed as expeditiously as possible with this significant piece of legislation, Bill 38. There would be a free vote so we could put the uncertainty in Ontario about Sunday shopping behind us, so that every single one of 130 members could vote his or her own individual conscience and so we could let the people of Ontario know where they stand.

1740

How many times has that important bill that the Premier said would proceed expeditiously been called by the government House leader since last Wednesday? The answer is zero. He refuses to call it. He instead decides that he wants to deal with rule changes.

Also on June 3 we introduced the Ontario road safety bill, again another very controversial bill I'm sure will take months and months of debate in here, Bill 39.

Then on June 4, which was last Thursday, we got around to introducing the really controversial bill, the labour relations and employment standards bill, Bill 40.

We hear all these tales of woe: "We have 121 pieces of legislation, and woe is me, how will we ever get them all passed in the session we called back a month late, after we introduced four bills, three of which were insignificant, in the first six weeks of the session, and we worked so hard getting those four together we had to take a week off then. Now we've been back for seven weeks and we still only had four in, and we just rushed around, scurried around as fast as we could scurry, and we got 13 more done in the next two weeks."

Out of those 13, a good many were just former bills reincarnated by different bill numbers or they were very non-controversial bills, like the Ontario road safety bill, the parking infractions statute, the vehicle transfer bill etc, or they arose out of the budget or they were renumbered and taken as a part out of the former Bill 125, the education bill. That's why we need, I presume, all these important rule changes.

What have we done this week? We've introduced today the Agricorp bill by the Minister of Agriculture. Today, I should point out to the people out there, is a very important day, because today is the last day the government had to introduce bills it wanted passed in this sitting. Bearing in mind that they say they have 121 pieces of legislation to introduce, bearing in mind that they've only managed to introduce 17 of them, I would have thought we'd have had a flood of paper in here this afternoon. I'd have thought we'd still be introducing bills because we had another 104 to get ready.

Did that happen? We had one, one bill from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Yesterday we had a Toronto Islands bill. Even the Toronto Islands bill wasn't an original thought, because it's going to replace Bill 171, the former Toronto Islands bill, but we didn't quite do that right and we had to change 22 things in it, I believe, so we had to introduce a new bill. So that's not a new piece of legislation either.

There are almost no new bills that this government has introduced.

Mr Murdoch: But we've got to change the rules.

Mr Eves: But we've got to change the rules to get them through in a hurry because they're so important.

"This labour bill was so important to us. Did we have it ready on March 9, when the House should have come back? No, we didn't have it ready on March 9. It was really important to us, though. It goes right to the crux of what the NDP stands for. It's part of our ideology. It's part of our philosophy. It's part of our principles. It's very important. We believe in public debate. We want it out there in front of the public as long as possible so there can be open, full and frank discussion about this very significant bill.

"Did we introduce it on March 9? No, we stayed home. Did we introduce it on March 16? No, we stayed home. Did we introduce it on March 23? No, we stayed home that week too. Did we introduce it on March 30? No, I guess we'll stay home another week. We're getting kind of tired. We'll wait till April Fool's Day goes by.

"Then in the week of April 6, when we finally come back a month late, did we introduce it that week, when we introduced one other bill? No. Did we introduce this really important labour bill in the week of April 13, when we introduced two other Mickey Mouse bills? No. Did we introduce it the week of April 20?

"It's really important to us though, this bill. We've got to have this sucker. It's really important. We've got to have it. It's going to change the whole outlook in the province of Ontario. It protects everybody.

"Did we introduce it in the week of April 13? No, we introduced two other bills, but we didn't get around to this one because it's too important to get around to. Did we introduce it in the week of April 30? We don't want to introduce anything that week. We're getting tired. We've introduced three bills in three weeks.

"Did we introduce it the week of April 27? No. It's budget week and we have to prop Floyd up and get all the hype up and have to have a lot of caucus meetings to talk about the budget, how we're going to explain away a $15-billion deficit. It's going to be tough to do. Won't have any time to introduce many bills that week. No time left. The Ontario Loan Act, we'll do that. It arises out of the budget. We've got to introduce it anyway."

"This really, really important labour bill that's going to protect every worker in the province of Ontario, that's going to change the whole outlook of the Ontario economy, it's so important, did we get around to it the week of May 4? No. Not only did we not get around to it, we didn't get around to anything at all."

The week of May 11 comes around and surely by now Mr Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour, must have this very significant bill ready. But no, not only does he not have that bill ready, nobody else has got any other bill ready either, so we have nothing introduced that week. "But it's really important that we get this, Mr Speaker. It's really important that it's out there for public consultation and comment so the public of Ontario have a chance to talk about it. It's so important that we can't get around to it that week either."

As I said, we get to the week of May 18 and we've worked so hard that we've introduced four bills, three of which are really insignificant, in six weeks, and now we've got to take the week off because we've worked so hard.

I do not understand why we need to change these rules.

When they do get around to introducing 13 bills, they all either arise out of the budget and they have to be done, or it is the former education bill, Bill 125, and we chop it up into four quarters and throw out four new ones, or we rewrite the Toronto Islands bill "because we didn't like the way it was written before, because we made 22 mistakes in it." Mind you, that's pretty good, because in another bill there were over 190 mistakes and we had to make 190 amendments to it.

Mrs Marland: The housing bill had 249 amendments.

Mr Eves: Pardon me. In Bill 121, the housing bill, as my colleague points out, there were 249 amendments. "We only made 249 mistakes in that one." Is it any wonder they don't introduce many bills? Their erasers are running out of rubber. They can't correct all these mistakes.

"But we need to get these rules passed, Mr Speaker. It's important that we change the rules because we have all this important legislation that absolutely has to be dealt with. That's why we've got to pass them in a skinny minute, Mr Speaker, without any debate."

Now I want to get around to House leaders' meetings. I don't want to talk about what goes on in House leaders' meetings, because we all have comments that we have to make and that has to be a pretty open and frank discussion and I'm not going to breach any confidences. But we have on occasion asked the government House leader for his list of "must have" legislation. You see, again for the people out there who have never been party to a House leaders' meeting, what happens at a House leaders' meeting, besides drinking the odd cup of coffee and eating the odd Danish, which the government House leader conveniently provides, and we appreciate that, is that we negotiate.

The government gives us its list of the legislative agenda, tells us what it would like to have dealt with during the next week, during the next four or five days of sitting, and the two House leaders of the two opposition parties respond as to whether we have caucused that particular matter yet or not. We respond as to how much time we think the debate will take, whether there will be a recorded vote, when the vote's likely to take place, and we try to do this stuff -- and we usually do, well over 90% of the time -- by consensus, which is the best way to operate this place.

1750

This is why this kind of irks me about this notice of motion with respect to the rule changes. Not only did we not receive any notice prior to the Globe and Mail coming out this Monday morning about it; we didn't have time to caucus it because, as anyone knows, caucus meetings are held on Tuesday mornings, so it would have been fairly difficult to caucus this item.

Usually, as a matter of courtesy, a government House leader will, at the very least, give his two opposition colleagues the right to caucus any piece of legislation, business of the government or government notice of motion before he calls it for debate in the Legislature under orders of the day.

After asking the government House leader for the "must have" list, we finally got the "must have" list two Thursdays ago, quite close to the end of the sessions.

Mr Elston: A week ago yesterday.

Mr Eves: Oh, pardon me. My colleague from the Liberal Party informs me it was only a week ago yesterday that we got this list.

We've had it for all of a week now and it has the list of "must have" legislation on it, all nicely typed up in the government House leader's office on official stationery. "On third reading we must have":

The Power Corporation Amendment Act: Well, they got that last Thursday. The Ottawa-Carleton amendment act: They got that last Thursday too. The Municipal Law Amendment Act: This is called the municipal omnibus bill. It's been floating around out there for about 18 months and there's one controversial part of that bill with respect to municipal debentures. The government has known for over a year that this is the only controversial part of that legislation, but it refuses to do anything about it. We have the co-op corporations amendment act.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West: Your colleague the member for Parry Sound has the floor.

Mr Eves: Anyway, we've indicated to the government House leader he can have Bill 166, the Co-op Corporations Statute Law Amendment Act, but he doesn't want to call it because he wants to deal with the rule changes instead. The Ontario Loan Act, Bill 16, he could probably have. The Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency Act, which was the first bill they did introduce after all when the House resumed the week of April 6, they haven't bothered to call again either. The Mining Tax Act and the Corporations Tax Act, which give breaks to companies in certain sectors, we're prepared to give them those but they don't want to call them. They don't want to pass them; they want to deal with rule changes first. The colleges collective bargaining act: That's part of what used to be Bill 125. The Game and Fish Act has been sitting around for a long time; the education assessment act, Bill 27; the education act with respect to equity, Bill 21, and the Gaming Services Act.

They want third reading of every one of those bills but they don't want to call them. They want to deal with rule changes instead and then they want to call them. We've told them they can have most of those but they don't want them, Mr Speaker. If they want them, all they have to do is to call them.

Second reading: "We must have second reading and send out to standing committee during the intersession":

The Ontario labour relations act: They did introduce it; that's Bill 40 now. They know that that is going to be very controversial and they know it's very important. It's so important that they never got around to introducing it until last Thursday, June 4. They didn't introduce it on March 9, they didn't introduce it on March 16, they didn't introduce it on March 23, March 30, April 6, April 13, April 20, April 27, May 4, May 11, May 18, May 25 or even June 1; they got around to it on June 4, "Because it's really important and we gotta get it," the same day, I'm sure, that just by coincidence they introduced and tabled, without telling anybody, the rule changes they have to have.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound has the floor.

Mr Eves: "We also need for second reading," Mr Speaker, and these are significant pieces of legislation: The pay equity bill, Bill 168, its companion bill, the public service act, Bill 169 --

Mr Elston: It's been introduced for a while.

Mr Eves: Which has been around for a while, as my colleague the Liberal House leader says, and quite rightly so. It's been around for a while. They know it's going to go to committee. They know there's going to be some debate. But at no time have we said we're going to try to prevent that legislation from going through the House. But we can't deal with it if the government House leader won't call it. It cannot be done.

Then we come to one that I presume does create a few problems for them, especially with the member for Welland-Thorold, called the auto insurance bill, Bill 164. That's been around for a while. We could've dealt with that. All these weeks that we were here doing nothing we could've dealt with that auto insurance bill.

I said to myself that we could've done it in March. We had four weeks in March we could've done that one, but we were too busy doing nothing. We could've done it four weeks in April, but we were too busy doing four other bills that were really rather insignificant. We could've done it four weeks in May, but we were too busy then too. The last couple of days in May we got busy.

We found about seven bills to introduce. But we didn't want to talk about the auto insurance bill because we might be embarrassed by our colleague the member for Welland-Thorold. Wait until we get our new rules through first and we'll be able to shut him up. He will be able to talk for only 30 minutes. That's when we want to deal with that, when nobody can talk about it.

Then we have the London annexation bill, and that still hasn't been introduced. I have some sympathy for my colleague the government House leader about that particular piece of legislation because it is rather controversial in the London area. To give the government House leader his due, he is trying to work out a compromise solution and is trying to obtain a bill that will be equitable to all and that all parties will be able to support. I say to him, as I said to him this morning in the House leaders' meeting, that if he's able to do that I will be more than happy to let him have unanimous consent and we'll deal with that piece of legislation regardless of what standing order 66 says, which of course says you have to introduce any bills you want passed in the session by today, before the last two weeks of the sitting.

There's the building code, Bill 112. That's been around for a while as well. We would like to see that brought forward for some discussion so that as well can get out to committee over the summer and be dealt with etc, but they haven't called that one either. I don't believe that bill has ever been called since we came back here on April 6.

Then we have the Toronto Islands bill. To be fair to the government House leader, he did introduce a new piece of legislation yesterday on the Toronto Islands, because he has approximately 22 changes he'd like to make to the former Toronto Islands bill. He did get it in under the wire.

Then we have Bill 150, the worker ownership bill, which is out in committee now. We all know that legislation will take some debate and public discussion. That's moving and proceeding as it should through the normal channels around this place.

Then we also have these other pieces of legislation that are listed here, some of which I've talked about before: the vehicle transfer bill; the parking offences bill; the education omnibus bill; the vehicle transfer bill -- that's on there twice; the education omnibus bill is on there twice as well -- maybe they're not as busy as they think they are; the retail sales tax bill; the income tax bill, and the road safety agency bill, all of which we would be more than happy to deal with if the good government House leader would only give us the pleasure of calling those items so we could debate them here in this place.

The Speaker: I wonder if the honourable member for Parry Sound might find this to be an appropriate place to adjourn the debate.

On motion by Mr Eves, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, I've just been handed a notice about the business of the House pursuant to standing order 53 that I presume the government House leader is going to talk about after 6 o'clock.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Well, read the whole thing.

Mr Eves: I see here that on Monday we are going to be debating our motion to deal with the extended sitting times of the House, as is his privilege during the last two weeks of any sitting, from June 15 to June 22. Then we're going to resume debate on government motion 7, the changes to the standing orders.

On Tuesday, June 16, and June 17 and 18, we will continue the debate on the government notice of motion 7, changes to the standing orders, followed by -- after we get done with the standing orders, I presume -- Bill 40, Bill 38, Bill 168, Bill 169, Bill 164.

The Speaker: Will the honourable member for Parry Sound please resume his seat.

Hon Mr Cooke: The only thing the honourable House leader for the third party missed was that on the morning of Thursday, June 18, we'll debate ballot item 15 standing in the name of Mr Turnbull and ballot item 16 standing in the name of Mr Malkowski.

The Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1801.