The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROVINCIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA CONSULTATION POPULAIRE À L'ÉCHELLE PROVINCIALE

Mr Turnbull moved second reading of Bill 30, An Act to obtain the Opinion of the Public on Questions of Provincial Interest / Loi visant à obtenir l'opinion du public sur des questions d'intérêt provincial.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for York Mills has 10 minutes for his opening remarks.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I am pleased to present my private member's bill, the Provincial Public Consultation Act, 1992, for debate, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of all the citizens who are demanding a more active role in our democracy, more than just a vote on the election ballot. My bill allows for the referendum question to be placed on provincial election ballots by either the provincial government or private citizens who obtain the signatures of 15% of eligible voters on a petition.

A referendum is a vote of all eligible voters in a jurisdiction on a proposed question on a matter of public policy or law. In ancient democracies, like the Greek city states and the Teutonic tribes, each citizen had the right to express an opinion and to vote on each and every decision affecting the state or tribe. As countries got larger and populations increased, this practice became impossible and had to be discontinued. Modern technology now allows this process to be reconstituted in the form of a referendum.

If citizens in countries like Switzerland and the USA can assume more political responsibility, I believe Ontarians can equally well. The information explosion in the past 40 years, combined with increased education, means our citizens are ready and able to use referenda successfully. Citizens who have to live with the effects of legislation should at least be allowed to have their say on it.

A new-found enthusiasm for direct democracy in the form of referenda is spreading right across Canada. In June 1991 the Quebec National Assembly passed a bill which empowers the Quebec government to hold a referendum on constitutional matters. In October 1991 elections held in both Saskatchewan and British Columbia, referendum questions were placed on the ballot. It is indeed time that Ontario offered its citizens the same rights and privileges.

Turning to the need for this bill, the first point is citizen mistrust. The mood of the citizenry is one of anger and mistrust. Voters are tired of the undue influence upon legislation by individuals and organizations representing so-called special interests. It is apparent that many Ontarians are feeling a sense of frustration at their inability to affect the policies of government. I believe this is responsible for the growing lack of respect for our political system and for politicians in general. Parliament and government are in danger of losing the respect and trust of the citizenry. If respect for government is lost, respect for law and order can also be lost.

Citizens want legislation which is more responsive to their wishes and the needs of the majority. They want government which is more accountable to the voters. Too many times all three parties take the same position on controversial pieces of legislation, for example, on separate school funding and the French Language Services Act, and those citizens opposed do not feel that their point of view receives a fair airing.

I quote from an address by Allan Gregg, the president of Decima polling company, made at a gathering of bankers and academics last year: "There has been a wholesale loss of faith in government. The population is not willing to let the government manage a two-hole outhouse." Gregg told the group that in 13 years of polling he's never seen Canadians so cynical, rudderless and full of hopelessness.

I hope my bill will address those concerns and show that Ontario legislators are open and willing to listen to its citizens, encourage public participation and trust voters with more responsibility in the decision-making process.

My second point is the sense of alienation. Many of my constituents have expressed dismay at the effectiveness of the opposition in influencing a majority government determined to pass legislation. I know many of my caucus members and fellow legislators from both other parties have also expressed the same sentiments. All too often the opinions of the legislators are ignored and bypassed by cabinet, with little or no consultation with the public. This bill may lessen the sense of alienation the public has from its government.

1010

The results of a referendum may well support passage of the legislation, but citizens would have an opportunity to express their opinions in an meaningful way, and they would have proof that the majority of the population supported the idea. Following a referendum, everyone has an obligation to support the majority decision.

NDP members should know that one of their gurus, Ralph Nader, believes that referenda can politically activate people who ordinarily would not be part of the political process. A referendum results in active citizen participation in the political process. If we are trying to buy people back into the political process, then this bill will help.

My third point is that it leads to the acceptance of legislation. Presently government does not need to consult with the people before passing far-reaching or controversial legislation. However, if ideas of government or even all three parties lack public support, they lead to public resentment and resistance. A referendum would lead to a full airing of both sides and give the government an opportunity to garner support for its position. It will mean greater public support and acceptance of controversial legislation.

On the question of support, I wish to read from a press release prepared by the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Committee.

"We...support David Turnbull's Bill 30 and its clear vision of the direction of much-needed reform of our Canadian and Ontario political systems.

"David Turnbull's Bill 30 will hopefully find support from those MPPs who trust the common sense and goodwill of Ontario's citizenry.

"To be against David Turnbull's advances in Bill 30 is to be against trusting the citizenry and against fuller living for the citizenry.

"There is a tremendous amount of unused talent in the citizenry of Ontario and Canada. Let's bring out the best in that citizenry."

I would like to thank the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Committee for its fine words of support. Just this week they brought to the leaders of the three parties here at the Ontario Legislature petitions containing the names of almost 2,000 voters who want the right to have referenda.

Individual voters should have the opportunity to make their voices heard on issues of importance. The demand for this type of citizen involvement is growing and will, I predict, become such a groundswell that any government that ignores it does so at its own peril.

My referendum bill is non-binding because the courts are likely to declare unconstitutional legislation which states that a referendum automatically becomes law when it is approved by the voters in a referendum triggered by a signature drive, which is the American model. Such a bill would constitute a new legislative process in which the Lieutenant Governor played no role. In the past, the courts have held that this kind of legislation alters the Office of the Lieutenant Governor and therefore violates section 92(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

However, a bill which provides that when a ballot question is passed by the electorate in a referendum -- the government is required to submit legislation to the Legislative Assembly implementing the proposed measure -- is likely to be acceptable to the courts. Also constitutionally acceptable would be a bill providing for a reference to the electorate of legislation already passed by the Legislature.

To stop frivolous use: The common concern I have heard from those opposed to allowing referendum is that it could be used frivolously by special interest groups. I have taken several steps to guard against this: the 15% requirement of voters' signatures on the petition requesting a referendum is the highest of any jurisdiction that allows citizen-initiated referendum; the results are non-binding on the Legislature; and to be considered successful 60% of the voters must vote one way on a question in which at least 50% of those eligible vote. I believe these requirements will eliminate the likelihood of trivial questions ending up on the ballot.

In conclusion, I am not suggesting that my bill is a cure-all for the problems of our democracy or that it will solve citizen alienation, but it can help. It is a vehicle requiring the government to be more responsive to the feelings of the electorate. It can help people by having more responsibility given to them.

The Acting Speaker: Each party will now have 15 minutes to participate in Mr Turnbull's private bill number 30.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): First of all, I'd like to say that I was here last Thursday to debate this bill and the member for York Mills didn't come to work that day. I'm very annoyed. This bill today should have gone to 132 on the list. It's really thrown a wrench into my bill that's coming up because I've been backlashed, and I want to let the people of York Mills know that the member didn't show up.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We're here to debate Mr Turnbull's private bill number 30. I would appreciate it if the honourable member could address his remarks to the Chair. Thank you.

Mr Mills: The member's bill calls for a referendum question to be placed on provincial election ballots either by the provincial government or by private citizens who obtain signatures of 15% of eligible voters on a petition.

At first blush, or should I say first flush, the idea seems to be sort of sensible until you stop and give it a little thought. The member maintains that the public will feel less alienated from government if they have the right to referendums. He goes on to say that the public feels the opposition parties have too little influence on a majority government and that there is too little public consultation.

Having followed the political scene in Ontario for many years before I was elected to the Legislature, I used to have great sympathy with the thoughts of the member for York Mills during the reign of the Progressive Conservative Party. In those days, and I can speak with a great deal of knowledge, to get the ear of that government under the reign of the God Emperor himself, William Davis, you either had to have an inside contact or know someone with rank within that party. Anything less would have been talking to a blank wall. That's true.

Today things are very different. We have a government that is open to all the people of Ontario. We have consulted with more people in Ontario than any other government of our time, all this in spite of the opposition's cynical attitude towards the consultations which this government has done in unprecedented numbers.

Effective consultation has taken place on many important issues and has resulted in improved legislation and policy. We have consulted on the custody and support legislation, we've consulted on rent controls, on health care issues, and we have consulted and will continue to consult on the Ontario Labour Relations Act regulations and so on, on many more important issues. We have heard from people from all walks of life and from various circumstances. Consultation with the voters of Ontario has become second nature to this government.

Our representative system of government in Ontario has the advantage of decision-making by a select group of individuals who are chosen by the public to show responsible leadership and to protect the interests of the communities which they represent in this Legislature. The system allows the decisions we make to be made by those who have the time and the inclination to develop a much fuller and deeper understanding of the complex issues of the public agenda and the difficult choice of options in finding solutions.

1020

The member's bill begs the question of what's wrong with it, and that question needs to be answered. The danger of all referendums is not that they will be used frivolously, as the member has suggested, but that they could be used by special-interest groups to force very substantial and serious policy changes that would be contrary to the public interest. They allow for a mass appeal to the lowest common denominator, appealing to the most fickle of public opinion, which can be manipulated by advertising and public relations techniques that oversimplify and distort issues and options. The outcomes of referendums depend less on a thoughtful, well-considered and well-informed expression of opinion than on the manipulation of marketing and polling techniques, timing, exact wording of the question and the shifting context of recent events.

It's easy to appeal to common public fears and prey on ignorance in dealing with issues such as government spending and taxes, the fear of being a victim of crime in seeking changes to the criminal justice system, and misinformation, prejudice and misunderstanding regarding social assistance. We have had many examples of just that in recent weeks: prejudice with respect to immigration, refugee and language issues and the carefully orchestrated negative public perception of unions as demonstrated in the campaign against the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

If the member's bill were to become law upon third reading and subsequent royal assent, we could have referendums placed on provincial election ballots which are totally out of keeping with the traditions we hold very dear in Ontario. These traditions centre around tolerance and respect for others of different customs and cultures. It's not very hard to imagine the kind of referendum items that could be brought forward by 15% of the people led by a special-interest lobby group that would result in very ugly and divisive campaigns and possibly very harmful outcomes. The prospect to me is alarming.

In closing, I would not be fair in this debate if I did not concede that there may be occasions when a referendum is a useful tool of public consultation. It is a tool that must be wielded with great caution and, I believe, very sparingly. With those thoughts, I will conclude by saying that based on what I've said and my perception of referendums and, lately, some of the things the leader of the Reform Party has said which are frightening as they pertain to referendums, I will not be supporting this bill as put forward by the member for York Mills.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I rise now to speak to this bill. I was quite taken aback by the thoughts brought forward by the member for Durham East, who usually is quite measured in his interventions. I think what has been lost on the honourable member, and perhaps others who are concerned about referendums, is the fact that what the member for York Mills has done is struggle with the whole issue which surrounds this chamber today, that is, how do we convince the public that this is a place of open and reasoned debate, measured activity designed to reach the public good?

The concern expressed by the member for Durham East about the manner in which the former Progressive Conservative administrations operated in terms of consultation is a speech which was perhaps well made in days of opposition. It might even be extended by some unsympathetic person to the way the former Liberal administration worked in its days in office, and at a time when the New Democratic Party's administration is but a memory, somebody will extend to it the same kindness with respect to the adequacy of its consultation.

By and large, what happens is that the people who are in charge of government, either at the executive level or at the bureaucratic level, attempt the best way possible to garner what they believe to be sufficient evidence to support their cause before they move. I am generous enough of opinion, experienced enough in both the role of opposition and in government, to understand that there is today a complexity of our society which precludes us from reaching a large degree of consensus among all the people of the province.

What happens when we face particularly difficult times, as we find ourselves now facing, is a sense that: "Nobody is listening. The people we elect cannot be seen to be listening if they don't agree with us, because I still feel as a citizen of this province that nothing is benefiting me that goes on in the provincial chamber." It's that difficulty --

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Oh.

Mr Elston: The member for Huron doesn't even understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that the people are feeling pressures that don't seem to be addressed here in this chamber. The sense I have is that each administration -- Tory, Liberal or New Democrat -- will do the best it can with its consultations. I don't believe for one moment that there is any administration that has precluded consultation. The style may be completely different, and I'm prepared to admit that; I don't disagree with that. But the consultation has occurred, and while our way may not be taken at a particular time as an interest in the public -- you may decide, for instance, not to support an amendment to the building code which allows me as a farm person to use ungraded lumber. I may lose that day and I feel, after it's all been debated here and in the committee to which that bill is now going, that nobody listens because my way has not been heard, because when I'm under pressure and I need relief, I don't take kindly to hearing the word no.

This is nothing more here than a council chamber, a council chamber for 130 ridings in this province where we as members represent to the best of our abilities the views from our constituents, and at times of extreme stress, which is what our province is now under, at times of extreme stress for the country, which is what we now feel, the people who are unhappy with the problems of the day would like to find some place to be heard, but they know not how to do it. "I can write a letter," they say, "I can telephone your office," they say, "I can write to the Premier," they say, "But does anybody hear? Does anybody really listen?"

What is so difficult for me to accept in listening to the remarks from the member for Durham East is that he has passed that whole concern by in expressing his concern about referenda and merrily strides beyond the issue which the member for York Mills is trying to address: It is struggling to find a way to have us look like and be like the people want us to be, that is, open for debate, accessible to debate, movable in listening to the arguments. For me, that's all this bill as a private member's bill represents, an attempt to find some way to say to the public, "We want to provide the very access that you are longing for."

It is not a ticket for any special-interest group to use to get its way, because in our society, the complexities of our interests, the dynamics of our province and of our country are such that we cannot be moved by a single-interest group against the will of the majority, referendum or no, and in particular when a referendum is not even binding.

1030

While I accept that the member for Durham East does not like the idea of a debate around referendum, I think it would have been more wise had he provided for us a sense that he understood what the member for York Mills was at least trying to address, that is, the frustration of the citizens of our province and of our country with all elected officials and all our institutions.

That is why I will support this bill, not because I'm a fan of referendum necessarily, but because I believe if I'm elected to represent the people in my riding, I am elected to find the will of my riding and then to speak in that regard with respect to particular issues if I'm allocated the time.

That would take me into a whole series of issues around what is happening with the rules here, but I won't at this stage. I only say that now the complexities are such that I cannot foresee referendum being the end of sort of consensus. I don't see this bill, if taken into committee, as being sort of the ticket for special interest to override all of us, because, in the end, each of us, as representatives of our constituencies, make decisions about how relevant a particular special interest is to our own area and what benefit it has. It is the role we play as backbenchers, the only executive function we practise. We make a decision with respect to what we see the interest being in terms of the public good in our areas, and sometimes we're influenced a little bit by our partisan allegiances.

I believe in certain things. I believe in the enterprise we practise in Ontario where people can make profit. I believe in the fairness of the distribution of that profit to the people who live here in the province. I believe in the way in which we assemble government funds and try to distribute them rationally. I even would suggest that my friend the member for Nickel Belt is engaged in that exercise now, although we may have some difficulties with the amounts of money he's giving out and the places he's putting those.

I don't think there's a great deal of difficulty with the concept that is being practised here in this province, but I come at it from a different perspective than some of my friends on the other side who perhaps are not as convinced as I am that the development of businesses that are profitable to earn money to pay to employees and to reinvest in our economy is the right way to go. I'm not a fan of total central control of our activities. I would even say that the New Democratic Party here, although espousing a number of those principles opposed to my view, is very soft on the totally centralized economy.

The whole reason for the debate this morning is not to have the member for York Mills's vote carry so that a business lobby can defeat the Ontario Labour Relations Act or so that Sunday shopping can be defeated by the union organizers who don't like it or so that somebody can't come in here and defeat the marketing boards in agriculture.

Interjection.

Mr Elston: The member for Durham East says it's all about money. Referendum may be well financed, but the signatures on the bottom line cannot be bought. The will of this chamber, in my view, cannot be bought. The members in this chamber, any one of them, cannot be purchased, and it cannot be possible when referendum is not binding to have, as indicated by the member for Durham East, money buying my consent. I believe fully it is not possible to buy any one of the consents of any one of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, in the Conservative Party or in the Liberal Party. It cannot be that this referendum bill would allow that to occur.

In the end when it's not binding, you see, the decisions ultimately reside with me and with my friend the member for Simcoe East, a member of immense experience both provincially and municipally. It cannot be that it would be binding, or at least binding to the extent that the member for Simcoe Centre would make a decision against the public will merely because there is a referendum well orchestrated.

Mr Speaker, I think it's interesting for me, in any event, to consider what might have happened had we had a referendum on Sunday shopping, or maybe we should have had a referendum on the labour bill itself. You know what would happen. I would think that if you really sat down and looked at what would happen on Sunday shopping, it would not have passed a referendum in the 1990 election, at least by the experience I felt in my constituency. In fact, a number of the New Democrat members were elected with substantial help from the anti-Sunday shopping lobby. Isn't that interesting? I think it's interesting.

Having said that, and thinking that the election of 1990 would have told a whole group of the New Democrats that they should not have Sunday shopping, where are we today? We are today with wide-open Sunday shopping done totally without a referendum.

What what was it? What sufficiently well-financed lobby was it that changed their view? It wasn't a referendum. It wasn't the member for Welland-Thorold. My God, everybody knows what he says about Sunday shopping and everybody knows what he says about his party. It was not a referendum, but it was a sense that the will of the public good has moved the party away from its position in 1990.

What would happen, Mr Speaker, if we took the honourable member for York Mills's bill out to committee and actually went out and talked to some people about the idea that there was another way to get to their members? I'm using what I would say is the common expression in my riding: "What does it take to get to you people?" -- not to get you, but to get to you. "How is it that I know you really do express the concerns I have?" I'm doing what a lot of members do regularly: I am writing replies to letters. Some of these were form letters, but letters from people in my constituency, some from Welland-Thorold, some from Scarborough riding, some from Oshawa --

Mr David Winninger (London South): Any in London?

Mr Elston: Actually I had one from London. These were all people who are concerned about Bill 162, the Game and Fish Act, which of course causes difficulty for the people all over the province who are engaged in the practice of hunting. These are people who for years and years have enjoyed hunting and who are owners of hunting dogs.

They are concerned, and they want to know that we're going to have something to say about the Game and Fish Act, which of course we will. I understand from my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin that it will probably find its way to a public committee someplace, so we can make sure there are some amendments which will address the concerns of the women and men who comprise the list of contributors to the opinion-making around Bill 162.

They want to know that there is something real that comes out of these letters. All I can say is that the member for York Mills has touched the right key. He probably has not touched the right solution in a whole series of minds, but he's touched the right key. We, as private members, have to understand what will make our roles here more effectively felt in the ridings, and that the voters can sense when they go to the polls in the next election that their vote will count for more than just the election of a person on that date and that it will have a continuing and abiding influence on the member. If it isn't just letters that can be sent, maybe the referendum is a tool that would help.

I've got more to say. I regret to say that my time has expired, but I support the idea that, as members of this Legislature, we ought to struggle very hard to find more ways to let our people know that their expressions of concern are heard and that they count.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Turnbull's private member's bill number 30? The honourable member for Simcoe West.

1040

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It's my very great pleasure to rise this morning and speak in support of my colleague for York Mills's private member's Bill 30, An Act to obtain the Opinion of the Public on Questions of Provincial Interest, known as the Provincial Public Consultation Act, 1992.

I also want to commend the former speaker, the Liberal member for Bruce, for what I thought was a very well reasoned and supportive debate this morning. It flies in direct contrast to the previous NDP speaker, the member for Durham East, Mr Mills, who, I would say, has either totally missed the boat on this or totally missed the boat on what in the world he's doing here on behalf of his constituents from Durham East.

I think we must get past the day, and I had hoped that long gone was the day when members of this Legislature or the Parliament in Ottawa would, as members of the governing side, take decisions from Monday to Thursday while they're at Queen's Park or Ottawa and then go back and lecture their constituents on weekends and tell them what's good for them.

That has been the style of Bob Rae and Brian Mulroney, and I tell you, Mr Speaker, that style is no longer acceptable to the people of Ontario. They do not want us to go back on weekends and tell them what's good for them because we've taken closed-door decisions or the government's taken unilateral decisions here at Queen's Park or in Ottawa.

This bill is designed to give the public a greater voice on the issues of the day and, in the process, restore its faith in politicians and in the political process. We inherited a good political process from our ancestors, and I dare say that process has been abused from time to time because of members like the member for Durham East who show a clear arrogance and a clear misunderstanding of what their role is as members of provincial Parliament. I think the member for Bruce expressed very eloquently what the purpose of this morning's legislation is and what the purpose and role of the member of provincial Parliament is, which is to speak up on behalf of your constituents.

I always say to my constituents that you either have faith in the collective wisdom of the people of Ontario or you don't. If you don't, you shouldn't be here because they're tired of being lectured to and told what's good for them by members who feel that somehow they're superior to the will of the people. That's not acceptable.

This bill would allow for a referendum question to be placed on provincial election ballots by individual citizens or the provincial government if 15% of eligible voters sign a petition. I want to take a moment, on behalf of my colleague the member for York Mills, to explain some of the guts of this bill.

If at least 50% of the electors vote in the referendum, with 60% voting the same way, then a minister of the crown is required to introduce a bill into the provincial Parliament here that proposes to implement the results of the referendum. However, the act does not bind the minister or any other members of this Parliament to vote on the bill in any particular way. The bill this morning provides specific provisions that guard against the tendency to use referendums for frivolous purposes. I think my colleague the member for York Mills touched upon that in his remarks.

The 15% requirement of eligible voters is the highest of any jurisdiction that permits citizen-initiated referendums. Again, the results are non-binding on the Legislature, but the important part of the bill and the process as outlined in the bill is that the minister of the crown must introduce the outcome of the question of that referendum into this Parliament so the people have the opportunity to have their legislators debate that important issue on their behalf. Mass participation is guaranteed in this legislation by ensuring that referendums are endorsed by a minimum of 60% in an election in which at least 50% of those who are eligible to vote cast their ballots.

There are three types of referenda in use throughout the world. One is constitutional, and some political jurisdictions have constitutions that require that if certain measures are to be adopted by the government, they first must be approved by the people before they take effect. An example of this is a constitutional amendment itself. The government has exclusive power to decide the contents and timing of the amendment, but the referendum determines whether this amendment becomes part of that country's or that jurisdiction's constitution.

Two is an advisory referendum. An advisory, often referred to as contingent, referendum is one where the government decides that a law passed by the Legislature will only become law once it is ratified by the voters. An advisory referendum is called to solicit the views of the electorate on some matter. Again, however, the result is not binding on the government.

The third type is commonly referred to as the initiative. This type of referendum enables the voters to vote on a measure before it becomes law. It differs from both the constitutional and the advisory referenda because the decision to hold a referendum originates with the electorate and not the government itself.

For the benefit of all members in the House I want to briefly touch upon some of the background with respect to referenda throughout the world, in the United States and in Switzerland particularly.

All members are aware that the US has a long history of both government referenda and citizen initiatives. Currently 23 states and the District of Columbia use the initiative, while 25 states and also again the District of Columbia use the straight referendum.

In the past 20 years the initiative has become increasingly popular in the US. In the November 1988 elections there were more than 200 initiatives on the ballot in 41 states. In California alone there were 29 initiatives on the ballot. Thirty-five per cent to 45% of the more than 1,500 citizen-initiated ballot measures have won approval in the US, which is a remarkable track record.

Arguably, I think that all members and citizens would agree that the most famous modern-day initiative was Proposition 13 in California. This 1978 initiative slashed property taxes by half and forced significant cuts in the size of the public service.

I want to just touch upon some of the remarks made by the member for Durham East by simply pointing out that the results in the US indicate that the initiative is a politically neutral instrument -- ie, no one's special interest, either individual or group, has benefited specifically from holding referenda. Forty-three of 96 initiatives, or 43%, that were introduced by Liberal or left-leaning groups were successful, while 41 out of 91, or roughly 45%, of initiatives introduced by right-wing groups have met with success in the United States.

In Switzerland, direct democracy has deep historical roots. As early as the 13th century some Swiss provinces routinely made decisions by popular assent in citizen assemblies.

Any amendments to the Swiss Constitution approved by the federal government must be submitted to a popular referendum. One hundred thousand citizens, or 3% of the Swiss electorate, can trigger a referendum on a proposed amendment by affixing their names to a petition which contains the text of the proposed constitutional amendment within 18 months of the amendment's publication. The Swiss Parliament cannot change the proposed text in the constitutional amendment; however, Parliament can propose a counterproposal, which often leads to the withdrawal of the original initiative by the sponsor.

All constitutional amendments proposed in a referendum, including the counterproposal, must gain the support of a majority of voters nationally as well as a majority of the voters of the cantons or provinces. This latter provision ensures that large urban cantons do not steamroll the wishes of smaller rural cantons. In some Swiss cantons a referendum is required for all laws passed by the cantonal Parliament, with the exception of certain pieces of financial legislation.

I want to briefly touch upon a local example here in Ontario of how ballot questions have worked or, in the case of the current government, have been failed to be listened to by the government.

Last November in the municipal elections in my riding several municipalities put a referendum question on the election ballot. The question was simply, "Do you favour restructuring," a huge issue in my riding. An overwhelming number of residents voted against restructuring, but the NDP government is moving ahead with restructuring anyway. Ninety-four per cent of the voters in Sunnidale township were against restructuring. Eighty-five per cent of the voters in Nottawasaga township were against municipal restructuring being forced on them by this provincial government.

Although this municipal referendum afforded my constituents an opportunity to participate directly in the electoral process, the NDP government refused to act on their wishes.

1050

I took the results of those referenda questions to my riding and I introduced not one but two private member's bills in this Legislature in an attempt to ensure that the people of Simcoe county and particularly my riding of Simcoe West were listened to by this government. Promises made by Bob Rae when he was in opposition and now as the Premier that he would consult and listen -- the problem we have is that this government may consult but it doesn't know how to listen and therefore follow up with action that's appropriate to the wishes of the people, because all it does is consult. I think it misuses the term "consultation" and doesn't truly act on the wishes of the people.

That's reflected in the two bills I brought forward. One would have given a greater say for municipalities that did not want to be forced to restructure, a fairly simple principle but the NDP government voted against it. The second one, and this is the irony of ironies, was an attempt to move a boundary line in the town of New Tecumseth back over to Highway 27, where it had been prior to the restructuring in 1990. The Liberal government forced that restructuring, that boundary line, which was ill-conceived.

When we debated my private member's bill some three weeks ago today in this Legislature, the Liberal members, including the former Minister of Municipal Affairs who had drawn the boundary line back in 1990, got up in this Legislature and said: "I'm sorry; we made a mistake. You're right, Mr Wilson, your constituents are right and we're going to vote with you to put the boundary line back where it should have been. Sorry we made the mistake."

The irony of ironies is, for some reason that is totally mind-boggling to me and unexplained to my constituents to this day, that side of the House, the NDP, voted as a bloc against my private member's bill, which the Liberal government at the time had forced upon the people of my riding. Now in opposition the Liberals were agreeing with me to help correct the mistake of the past. These mindless NDP individuals over there were whipped by Dave Cooke, the government House leader and Minister of Municipal Affairs --

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I resent the member calling me a mindless individual. That's unparliamentary.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Speaker, it was a rather sweeping accusation, but I'm glad one member caught on to whom I was referring to.

I'm very angry about this. I have consulted with my constituents and I have taken action in this House. I'm being stonewalled by a government that pays lipservice to consultation but refuses, when given the opportunity in a very fair way -- I met with Mr Cooke, the government House leader and Minister of Municipal Affairs, with a delegation last November. He was very courteous, he was willing to listen at the time, but he wasn't willing, when it came down to the crunch, to have his members agree with us and support my resolution.

I am very supportive of this morning's resolution. I think it'll bring some common sense back to government. I do not understand why the NDP government is once again not supportive of my colleague from York Mills, because he truly is trying to get you people to listen to the people of Ontario. I respect him for that and I know his constituents respect him for sticking up on their behalf.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Listening to the so-called debate has left me with some doubt about how I will vote on this. I certainly came prepared to support the bill of the member for York Mills because I thought it did make some interesting suggestions that should be looked at. However, with some of the support he's received from his colleagues I must say my support has been called into question. That's in part because you have to look at where the support is coming from and I guess make some evaluation about the worthiness of the measure.

However, I will at least go into the reasons why I came here expecting to support the bill. At least the member for Simcoe West has given us the textbook case for referenda, and if he'd stuck with that I think then it would have been a lot better for the bill of the member for York Mills. Again, it's hard to think of moderation and to suggest this is a moderate case when it's been argued so intemperately by the member for Simcoe West. However, I will say that the member for York Mills does enjoy esteemed support from someone no less than Thomas Jefferson, who was the third president of the United States and said, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people, and if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them but to inform them by education."

I think that is of course one of our enduring ideals in Ontario. It certainly was reflected as recently as the convocation at Queen's University where an honorary doctorate was being conferred on John Polanyi. His opening remark to the graduates was, "Education is the hope of the world." So we can see that education is a very important element, and in fact I think referenda can play an educative function in our political life.

I don't see it either as supplementing the Legislature but complementing it. It's certainly the experience in the United States, and I don't think the member for Simcoe West has mentioned this, but it adds up to only around 1% of the bills that pass through the legislatures that have the referenda initiative. So I think there is a place for it and, as I say, this educative element is very important. When we think of the individuals who are deciding on referenda across the province, we have to remember them in the life they lead in the province. That's where their opinion on the referendum will be coming from.

That again is important: the education and where that comes from. I'd like to point out that measures we are proposing to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act speak very directly to this because workers, in their relations at their workplace, gain a lot of education from being in a union because that way they're able to take a much greater role in the running of their workplace and have to contend with items such as health and safety and retraining. In that sense I would expect the member for York Mills to support initiatives like the amendments to the Labour Relations Act because they do speak very directly to that educative element.

Another example is Action Canada Network, which also educates the people of the province on the issues of the day. I think his proposal that there be a referendum to address certain issues allows that education to be used in debating the issues that face us as a province.

The member for Bruce suggested that members in the House need some help in representing their constituents. I'm not sure that's the case. We certainly have a lot more help in our staffs. The resources that the people of Ontario provide us to do our job, I think, are certainly ample and are a great help in making that representation. Even the resources we have here at the Legislature in our very fine library, for instance, allow us to find out the information we need to carry out our jobs. That is certainly over and above what the ordinary citizen would have. Again, it comes back to the kinds of functions we set up in society to make sure that people can be informed on the issues that we're debating. Certainly the school system itself is very important and that's why we as a government are taking that so seriously: to make sure that the resources are there and the curricula we will need to educate the population in a changing environment will be there.

On these issues I think the member for York Mills would agree that it's very important to have an educated population to make these decisions, but I do see a place for the referendum as being both an element of education, because people will debate the issues -- I think he certainly has put very tight restrictions on it. The idea of 15% needed to bring the referendum into the Legislature is very important and a very high figure -- almost a million people would have to sign that petition -- and then it has to be debated in the Legislature. So I think there are some very strong restrictions there, and I think it will serve a function, as I say, of complementing rather than replacing the representative Legislature.

I want to close by saying that democracy has been called a system that allows the people to make their own mistakes. Again, that's an educative function and it will be a help in the governing of the province.

1100

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I want to compliment the member for York Mills for presenting this bill. They are of course very difficult issues, and frankly, while there are many difficulties with referenda, like my friend the member for Kingston and The Islands, I generally support it.

There are some problems. I'd like to just briefly outline one. There is the issue, for example, of Sunday shopping which we will be voting on soon, I believe, in this House, and I think probably this issue will pass here. Most people, were a question posed to them, "Are you in favour of Sunday shopping; are you in favour of convenience?, would say, of course, yes. But were the question instead posed in a different manner, "Are you in favour of Sunday working? most people would say no. If it were posed in a balanced manner, it would probably have to come out with a much clearer mix. These are difficult questions. How questions are posed is an essential issue.

I will probably be supporting my colleague's bill.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for York Mills has two minutes in summation and response.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe I have three because I think there was a little over a minute left on the clock before.

I want to thank the members who have contributed to this debate, and specifically I would like to, first of all, comment on the member for Kingston and The Islands and some of his debate.

The whole question that we're debating here is how we can complement, as he correctly said, the government legislation that is driven out by the government. As we know, very few private members' bills ever see the light of day and that's unfortunate.

The people of Canada are concerned that their political institutions are not responsive to their needs. I lived for two years in Switzerland and I saw, in living colour if you wish, how a democracy can work supported by the will of the people through reference to referenda.

I have not made this referenda legislation so that it will be on an ongoing basis other than at general elections, simply because I don't believe we can afford that at the moment, but my dearest wish would be that we could have this passed today and referred to the justice committee for examination. I recognize that there may be improvements that need to be made to this and that all sides should have their opinions thoroughly aired, but I would point out that this can work very well in restoring the confidence of the electorate.

I do not presume to believe that it will do everything to restore the electorate's confidence; however, it will go some way in that direction. I think that when one looks at the kinds of issues that are passed through referenda items in the US, it's interesting that about one third of all references to the people get passed in legislation and about half of them are so-called left-wing measures and so-called right-wing measures.

Indeed, it is an expression of the general wish of the people and I think that is a very healthy direction. I do encourage all members to vote yes to this bill so that we can send it out to committee for a thorough examination of it by all parties of all areas of the political spectrum. I think that kind of airing would be most useful to furthering democracy in this province.

With that, I thank all members who spoke in support of this.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We will be dealing with Mr Turnbull's bill at 12 noon.

AGNES MACPHAIL DAY ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA JOURNÉE AGNES-MACPHAIL

Mr Malkowski moved Second Reading of Bill 35, An Act proclaiming Agnes Macphail Day / Loi proclamant la journée Agnes-Macphail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes in which to participate in the debate and will have two minutes to wrap up. All parties will have 15 minutes each for participation in the debate.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the proclamation of March 24 as Agnes Macphail Day.

On March 21, 1991, I talked about the Canadian Constitution as a shattered mirror and how we were reassembling all the pieces to make sure that Canadians are reflected in that mirror. One important part from that mirror is missing, and I think that part is the recognition in this bill of those people who fought for social equality and social justice. I think we're putting that piece back into the mirror to honour those people who went before us and their contribution to these causes. Without those people's contributions most of us would not be in the House today.

Many people in my riding who I have met over the past two years have told me wonderful stories about the life and work of Agnes Macphail that she did in my riding, and I felt this was an important issue. Agnes Macphail was the first women and quite a pioneer. The 50th year of her election will be marked next year in 1993. She was elected as a member, an MPP for York East, in 1943-45 and 1948-51. She was the first elected woman. There was another woman elected, Rae Luckock, and they were the first two women in the Ontario Legislature. Agnes Macphail represented my riding for two terms.

She was also the first woman elected in the federal House of Commons. Before 1919 you are aware that women were not allowed to vote on the Legislature. After that time they were given the vote and Agnes Macphail was one of the first women elected to the House.

The proclamation of March 24 as Agnes Macphail Day, I think, is very timely, because it is the 50th anniversary of her election; it will happen next year. What is really important is that compared to the national level, Agnes Macphail is not as well known here in her home province of Ontario. They have taken the initiative to recognize Agnes Macphail as a symbol. My counterpart, Alan Redway, the federal MP for Don Valley East, has already moved that she be recognized on a Canadian postage stamp to celebrate the 100th anniversary of her birth on March 24, 1890.

The leader of the federal New Democratic Party will be honouring her with an unveiling of a plaque on her former office door in the House on Parliament Hill. She will also be re-introducing a few of Agnes Macphail's motions which still have not passed, the issues of international peace, of disarmament and support for agricultural and social reform.

Agnes Macphail was a very brilliant and skilled orator. She fought for women's rights. She fought for youth, disabled groups, the poor, for farmers and for people within the criminal justice system. I think the honourable members need to know of her life and her times. A few weeks ago the honourable member for Simcoe East, Al McLean, spoke about her birth in Grey county and the many, many progressive issues that she championed during her political life.

I think it is very important to do more than just recognize Agnes Macphail for being the first; I think she was also one of the best. She was one of the best orators in North America and was very popular. She spoke very eloquently on social justice. I think we need to honour Agnes Macphail because she fought for social justice and two of her greatest victories were equal pay for women and the provision of pensions for old people. She also worked on the abolishment of torture within prisons, and she worked to give farm families an adequate and better way of life.

1110

She had two great victories here in the Legislature. The first was equal pay for equal work for men and women, and she also established old age pensions. Those were two of her greatest achievements.

There are many other other social justice issues, one being the reduction of torture within the penal system. She was also involved in the establishment of the Elizabeth Fry Society. She was very active with different groups that focused on social justice. Being a champion and a great symbol for those people who had experienced oppression, she tried to increase their standard and quality of life.

She also worked as a country school teacher, and then was led to positions of national and international recognition. She was picked as one of three Canadian delegates to be a representative at the 10th assembly of the League of Nations in Geneva. That assembly focused on disarmament. She talked of disarmament and of international peace and became a world leader of international peace.

We also want to honour her for the things she attempted that have still not been won today; for example, international peace and understanding and disarmament. Those goals are still worthy of attainment. They are even more critical today than in her time. We need to continue to fight for them.

She has become a symbol for people. Many people who have been oppressed are inspired as they look to Agnes Macphail who stood up and spoke out for people to fight for the right to equality.

I am sure Agnes Macphail would be watching our government members to see how we are following in her footsteps and dreams to try to improve the current situation in terms of introducing our legislation such as employment equity.

In York East some people who have participated in our committee have asked to be involved to have Agnes Macphail recognized.

Charlotte Whitton called Agnes Macphail "the most important woman in public life that Canada has produced in the 20th century." What an inspirational role model for our youth.

I would like to thank the Agnes Macphail committee -- Moira Armour, John Ridout and Susan Hughes -- for their support for the introduction of this bill.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): It seems but just a few hours ago that we were debating before, but now we're debating a bill that would allow March 24 to be set aside as Agnes Macphail Day. I am delighted to support the member for York East, Mr Malkowski, in this endeavour because, as he said, Agnes Macphail was not only the first; Agnes Macphail was the best.

In 1919 there was a momentous occasion in Canadian history, that is, there was a passage of amendments to the Election Act that granted women the right to hold office at the federal level. It wasn't till 10 years later in 1929 that we were recognized as persons, but prior to that, in 1919, we at least could hold office federally.

The first election following that was 1921, and Agnes Macphail was the first woman elected in Canadian history. She was the age of 31. At that time, it was a very difficult thing. She was criticized by the media and by her male colleagues for everything from her dress to the fact she didn't wear a hat to the fact that when she was speaking in the House she was extremely aggressive; this was tolerated in men, but not in women, of course.

She ran in several subsequent elections and she won in 1926, but in 1940 Agnes Macphail, much to her bitter disappointment, was defeated by her own constituent. But the loss in the federal Parliament was the provincial Parliament's gain because Agnes Macphail ran provincially in 1943. Along with Margarette Luckock, she became the first woman elected into Ontario's Parliament.

As the member for York East has mentioned, she was very involved in prison reform and was a founder of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Canada, which helps women on their release from prison. At that time, prison reform was considered to be a women's issue. I'd like to tell you a little anecdote about Agnes Macphail on prison reform. Once, when she was in the course of checking out conditions in prisons, she showed up at the doors of Kingston Penitentiary. She was told that no ladies are allowed. To this she responded, "I'm no lady, I'm an MP." Agnes Macphail was admitted, and prison reform was as good as won.

As was also mentioned by the member for York East, she was the first Canadian women to be a delegate to the League of Nations, but she rejected pressure to sit on committees dealing with welfare, women and children -- you know, these women's issues -- and she successfully insisted on becoming the first woman delegate to sit on the disarmament committee.

As most members know, she was very active in support of Ontario's first equal pay legislation.

She was also known for her sharp wit. Once, a heckler wanted to know why she didn't get herself a husband. She shot back, "How do I know he wouldn't turn out like you?" Another time on the campaign trail, she was heckled by a man seated in the back row. "Don't you wish you were a man?" he shouted. "Yes," she replied, "Don't you?" So she was certainly well renowned for her wit and her sharp retorts.

She said a couple of things that I think are very interesting to women who have been fighting the battle for women's equality. In an autobiographical note, she wrote: "One of the outstanding features of this age is the number of intelligent women who do not marry. I have talked to hundreds of these fine, alert and very capable women in business, the professions and the arts, and their reason was the same as mine: The person could not be subjected."

One time in Parliament, she said: "When I hear men talk about women being the angel of the home I always, mentally at least, shrug my shoulders in doubt. I do not want to be the angel of my home. I want for myself what I want for other women: absolute equality. After that is secured, men and women can take turns at being angels."

When she was defeated from the federal Parliament, I think she had feelings of disillusionment and bitterness. One time, after her defeat, when she was in the Ontario Legislature, she told the Legislature what a short thing fame was. She said: "I had a letter returned from Ottawa, I think it was yesterday, which said, 'Not known here.'" But we will remember Agnes Macphail, and through this resolution we will remember her for some time to come.

I'd like to close with something she said of herself. She said: "It is well for us at times to be idealists, not to be scoffers and doubters, not to be cynical, but to believe that all the people of the world, regardless of colour, regardless of the country in which they live, are fine people, and if we treat them as though they are, they will treat us in the same spirit. It is well for us sometimes to go to the hilltops, and when we do as individuals and, in great moments, as nations, we see a fairer world. The fairer world is no dream; it can be made a reality if each of us takes the matter seriously and works toward that end."

I'd like to close with words of Charlotte Whitton, the long-time mayor of Ottawa, who sent a sheaf of lilies to her funeral. The card read, "To Canada's Woman of the Century." Many would agree that she still deserves that tribute.

1120

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I am pleased to be able to rise today to speak in support of the member for York East's bill, An Act proclaiming Agnes Macphail Day.

As members know, Agnes Campbell Macphail was born on March 24, 1890. At that time, her family lived in a three-room log cabin on a 100-acre farm near Hopeville in Proton township. Some time later, they moved to Artemesia township, both of which are in my riding of Grey.

Her ancestors were the sort of people I spoke about in December when I introduced my resolution which asked this House to declare April 6th Tartan Day in Ontario. I am grateful that the House chose to agree to my motion, because by doing so we can now honour the contributions made by people like Agnes Macphail's family.

Like so many others, they emigrated from Scotland and soon chose Grey as a place to settle and to work the land. Agnes Macphail is descended from people who never doubted that rewards come from hard work. They were governed by a strict moral code and relied heavily on their strong religious faith. They also believed in community service, and they instilled these values in their children. They were social, friendly people who helped their neighbours in times of trouble and who rejoiced with singing and good conversation when times were good. Thus, they exemplified those who settled the county and those we are proud to have in Grey today.

As a small child, Agnes attended SS No 4 Proton, a local one-room school house like the one I went to in Sydenham township, and she worked on the family farm. In his book, Agnes Macphail and the Politics of Equity, author Terry Crowley tells us that through these chores, she realized early that while a farm was a joint enterprise, it was a partnership where rewards were distributed unequally. She undoubtedly gave some indication of the path her life would take when she said that, "In farming, women break 50-50 with the men, but if this is true, it is $50 to the men and 50 cents to the women, and I doubt that this is overstating the case."

With the understanding learned at a young age that she was equal to any man, and with dreams of becoming a teacher, she persuaded her family to let her travel to Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute to further her education. This is the same school that I am proud to have attended and where I was president of the student council, which they call head boy.

After achieving her goal, she taught children in several locations in rural Ontario for 10 years. Among these schools was SS No 14 in Egremont township, or Boothville as it was then called. It was during this period that Ms Macphail became interested in national issues and involved in community affairs. By writing a letter to the Owen Sound Sun, she attracted the attention of John Ross, the paper's editor, who was interested in extending the participation of women.

He introduced her to the United Farmers of Ontario. This was a populist rural movement with which she could personally identify and with which she completely agreed. It was a movement which stressed mass involvement and advocated more direct accountability by officials to the voters.

She realized that even though the agriculture sector was vital to the well-being of society, it was vastly underrepresented in Parliament. Sometimes I think that not much has changed. In my view, rural Ontario still supports the large cities, yet the large cities and this government do not always understand that and, worse, do not seem to care.

But Agnes Macphail did. Even though there was a great deal of opposition from some of the less enlightened voters in what was then Southeast Grey, who couldn't believe that there were no men left to run the county, she was nominated by the United Farmers of Ontario to be the Progressive Party candidate in the 1921 federal election.

It was difficult to be the only woman in Parliament. She recalled that at first she was intensely unhappy because many members resented her presence and made her feel uncomfortable. But she soon developed the courage to match wits and better her detractors. As a true populist, political labels mattered little to her. She believed, rather, in the people that politicians represented. In fact, she sat as an independent for most of her years in the capital.

Agnes Macphail is a true daughter of Grey. Terry Crowley tells us that no matter how far Agnes travelled, she kept returning to her birthplace. In fact, after she won the election and became a member of Parliament, she bought a house of her own in Ceylon, a small village near her birthplace and her family home. In that, she is like most Grey natives who never really lose touch with the county. I believe that if Ms Macphail were alive today, she would still feel the same way about Grey. I am sure she would delight in its natural beauty and enjoy all the recreational activities the area has to offer. She would enjoy the lovely beaches along Georgian Bay, the Blue Mountains, the beautiful walking trails and the scenic drives throughout the whole county. And I think she would be proud of the small industry which has sprung up since she left. Her own area is home to several furniture companies and although they are suffering, they are struggling to survive. She would approve of the fine artistic and cultural groups in the county and the volunteer and service organizations which continue the sense of community that she loved.

History tells us that she excelled at athletics, so I am sure she would attend games and cheer for many of the championship softball, hockey, lacrosse and other sports teams we have in Grey.

I'm also sure she would still sympathize with the plight of the farmer who, these days, is not always making ends meet. She would also understand the concerns of the land owner who is feeling the suffocating intrusion of this government with some of its policies and legislation. I think she might be a little ashamed that the offspring of her party, which cared so much about the rural community and their property rights, would be the ones to force an ANSI program, areas of natural and scientific interest, the new amendments to the Game and Fish Act, the proposed Trees Act, the wetlands policy announced yesterday, and the Niagara Escarpment plan on the people she once represented. I cannot believe, and I am sure she would not either, that Agnes Macphail's party doesn't understand that those who own and who work and who know their land should have some say as to what happens to their property.

I am sure that she would feel at home and even assist groups like the Grey Association for Development and Growth, which has formed largely because it believes government has lost any contact with the people. For better or for worse, they think they have to take matters into their own hands in order to have legislators listen. She would empathize with the feelings of isolation and the futility they feel in having big government never taking their concerns into account, for she rarely missed an opportunity to express the farmer's point of view.

But I think that she would be pleased that she is remembered in Grey, and in Hopeville, where a statue has been erected to her memory.

In 1990, on the anniversary of her 100th birthday, the Split Rail Festival in Flesherton honoured her by making Agnes Macphail the theme of its weekend festivities. Along with many historical displays which celebrated her life, school children in Grey were invited to participate in an essay contest about Ms Macphail. I feel this was particularly fitting in that education for our young people was one of her earliest interests.

1130

I was delighted to be able to arrange a tour of the Legislature and to host a lunch at Queen's Park for the three winners of the contest, Dove Gowanlock, Laura-Ann Blakey and Sarah Reinhardt. I would now like to read the first prize essay written by Dove Gowanlock of Flesherton:

"Why Should We Remember Agnes Macphail?

"I think that we should remember Agnes Macphail, because she had ambition and courage. She showed these two qualities when she ran for Parliament, by going out and trying a new, different and very unheard-of job for a woman in that time.

"She set the example for the future generations. Her success only makes another reason why she should be remembered. Agnes Macphail should be remembered because she was born and raised locally, so coming from a rural community, being a politician of any sort wasn't to be expected. I'm sure her being the first female MP was quite a shock.

"Her loyalty is another factor. She was loyal to her job. For example, when she was visiting persons, she was told 'no ladies allowed.' Her reply was 'I'm no lady, I'm an MP.' I'm sure this quality was a major asset to her career.

"Finally, she set a good example. She showed how ambition and work could achieve the impossible. I feel she should be recognized for these reasons and more.

"At the funeral of Agnes Macphail, the long-time mayor of Ottawa, Charlotte Whitton, sent lilies and a card saying, 'To Canada's Woman of the Century.' Now you see how important she was. So where would we be without her?"

That was the winning essay in the contest.

Agnes Macphail had many of the character traits which we in Grey still admire. She was honest and straightforward and spoke from the heart. She was a very successful politician who was re-elected four times to Parliament in Ottawa and twice to the provincial Legislature. She was noted for her championship of farmers and women, but her interests were far broader.

She was a compassionate human being who fought injustice wherever she found it. She was the first woman to be a delegate to the League of Nations, the first woman to sit there on the disarmament committee and one of the two women first elected to the Ontario Legislature. She was the founder of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Canada, which helps rehabilitate female inmates and was largely responsible for the establishment in 1935 of a commission to investigate Canada's prisons. She fought for old age pensions, hospital insurance schemes and other social legislation for the disabled and the unemployed.

A crusading feminist of her day, her commitment to the cause was never separate from her other beliefs. She always contended that women's equality was simply a matter of fundamental human rights. When told that politics was no job for a lady, she replied that she was no lady, she was a human being. She scoffed when she heard men say that a woman was the angel of the home. "I always, mentally at least, shrug my shoulders in doubt. I do not want to be the angel of any home. I want for myself what I want for other women, absolute equality. After that is secured, men and women can take turns being angels."

Through her statesmanship and courage, she made it easier for those women who would dare to follow her into public life. I am sure she would be pleased that so many women are now involved in some area or other of politics, but I think she would agree that while progress is being made, we have a way yet to go.

Agnes Macphail was known for her wit and sarcasm which could level her opponents when she chose to do so. Her years in politics left her with few illusions, but she never lost her delight in the process or indeed in life itself.

I would like to congratulate the member for York East for bringing this legislation before the House this morning. Grey has produced many talented, dedicated and supremely able people who have entered all walks of life. In politics we must not forget, among others, Dr Mackinnon Phillips, WP Telford Sr and Jr, WS Middlebro, IB Lucas, Senator Brunt and Senator Jenner, Garfield Case, Roland Patterson, Vic Porteous, Walter Harris, Colin Bennett, Farquhar Oliver and, more recently, Gary Gurbin, Wally Downer, Percy Noble, Gus Mitges, Ross Whicher, Eric Winkler, Eddie Sargeant, Bob McKessock and Ron Lipsett.

But Agnes Macphail stands out. She was an inspiration to all who know of her, and even to those who are still learning about her today. Agnes Macphail makes us proud.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Agnes Macphail is someone for whom each of us who is a woman in this House must have great respect. We know how difficult it is now to function effectively in this House. How much more difficult it must have been then. Too often today there is still the traditional gamesmanship, the traditional maleness of the rules which, it seems, are there to be played with.

Women by necessity generally deal with life in a very straightforward manner. Women the world over deal daily with the basic necessities of feeding, clothing, nurturing their families and also earning a living with little time for games. One small example: How often do you see women involved in hockey, football or baseball? Things have to get done, when children are crying, without delay.

I am reminded of a eloquent summary of reality for women. Women make up half the world's population, perform two thirds of the world's work hours, receive one tenth of the world's income and own less than 1/100th of the world's property, and this comes from the United Nations report of 1980 at the beginning of the decade for women.

If this is the way life is today, it is hard to comprehend how many more barriers there must have been in 1921. For a 30-year-old woman to run for office in rural Ontario must have been totally incomprehensible for some. In fact the headline in the local newspaper the day after her election victory read, "Are There No More Men Left in Southeast Grey?" That says it all. Total denial.

To have the courage to run, to convince people to actually campaign for you, to undoubtedly have putdowns and be ridiculed, Agnes Macphail has earned our respect. Yet running for office was probably nothing compared to what she must have faced after that brief day of victory in 1921, to walk into the halls and the chambers of Ottawa. That must have required the utmost of strength and conviction. Of course she must have worked twice as hard and accomplished twice as much to earn her place and begrudging respect.

The outstanding record of her accomplishments includes her efforts in agriculture, in peace, in pensions and reform of the penal system. In 1943 she was elected to the provincial level as a CCF member for East York, and as was said at her funeral in 1954, "There has been little good social legislation of the past 30 years in which she has not had a considerable part."

1140

Mr Speaker, 1993 will be the 50th anniversary of Agnes Macphail's election to the Ontario Legislature, and East York, together with MPP Gary Malkowski and MP Alan Redway, wants to honour Agnes Macphail. I ask the House to join me in endorsing their efforts.

When I walk down the second floor east hallway of the Legislature and see the row upon row of pictures of male legislators, I get a feeling of what it must have been like back then for her. To achieve equality, I believe women must participate on an equal basis in the economic and the political life of this country. I ask every one of us to consider what this country might possibly look like if we in fact had, or when we in fact have, half of the federal Parliament women, half of the provincial Legislature women and half of our municipal councils as women.

I thank Agnes Macphail for taking that long trip to Ottawa back in 1921 and coming here to Queen's Park almost 50 years ago to start us down that journey to equality.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Malkowski's private member's bill?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm please to rise in the debate this morning and speak very briefly. Much has been said which is historically accurate and factual, and I believe that Ontario and Canada have been blessed by leaders such as Agnes Macphail and others. For those of us who stand in their place, those of us women legislators who admire and respect the ground-breaking achievements of women like Agnes Macphail, I believe that today is a good opportunity for us as we review the history of the role of the women in politics in this country, and particularly in this Parliament in Ontario.

We know that Agnes Macphail was born in 1890 in a three-bedroom log cabin in Grey county, and we've heard quite a lot about her wit. We know that when she passed away in 1954 she was considered not only an important woman in public life, but also one of the most important women that Canada had produced. She was not only the first woman elected to the Canadian Parliament, but also the first Canadian woman to be a delegate to the League of Nations and the first woman to sit there on the disarmament committee. She followed that by being one of the first two women elected to the Ontario Legislature.

We've heard much about her this morning, and in the few minutes that I have I thought I might share a humorous aside with my colleagues here in the House. Not so long ago in question period when the Minister of Government Services referred to me as a lady, my mind immediately went to Agnes Macphail's comment in a similar situation when she said: "I'm no lady; I'm an MP."

I know how the women members of the government caucus felt when the minister made what most in this House would consider an inappropriate comment, although outside this House it would not be considered quite as inappropriate. I know that many of us thought of Agnes Macphail and her quest to be absolutely equal with her colleagues in the political arena, her colleagues right across this country.

I thought, if I would, in just expressing my support for this kind of recognition, recognize that these are the sorts of issues which are not partisan. In fact this Legislature has produced some outstanding women. I notice today in the newspaper that Bette Stephenson has been awarded the Order of Canada, and I think that is a fair and fitting tribute to a woman who was an outstanding member of the provincial Legislature, a cabinet minister in this province, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and a leader in the medical profession in this country.

I note also Margaret Campbell, member of the provincial Legislature, the only woman in the Liberal caucus, the first Liberal woman member, as a personal role model of mine, could also be well deserving of a day of recognition. Perhaps we will have the opportunity in the future, since the precedent has been established to recognize outstanding Ontarians, outstanding legislators, to recognize some of the achievements of people like Margaret Campbell who, I believe, deserves tremendous tribute because of the outstanding ground-breaking work she did in the area of family violence.

I stand in support of recognition of the contribution of Agnes Macphail. I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in the Legislature this morning. She is deserving of tribute today as she was deserving of tribute during her lifetime and upon her death, and I am pleased to support the motion.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I'd like to begin by giving a very sincere thank you to my colleague Gary Malkowski, the member for York East, for introducing this bill to recognize Agnes Macphail through proclaiming March 24 Agnes Macphail Day and calling for a building to be named after her.

As Canadians we're very shy to claim our heroes, and Agnes Macphail indeed is a Canadian hero, a hero for all Canadians, for all Ontarians, as well as for all women in this country.

Agnes Macphail fits the classic definition, even, of hero. She dared to go where no woman before her had, and she did so in a manner that few women or few men have.

Canadians know, and the United Nations has clearly now recognized, that we live in the best country in the world and are fortunate to do so, and it's Agnes Macphail who was one of the leaders in helping to make this country great. It's Agnes Macphail who helped to lead some of the fights for the things that are what the United Nations cites as some of the things that make this country great: the medicare, the social justice.

Some of us also celebrate the things that make us different from the United States, and some of those are the very same kinds of things that Agnes Macphail fought for. Her political goals, her political gains were for the feminism, for the equality, for the social gains that helped to define Canada as we know it today.

Agnes Macphail was a true Canadian hero, and this bill gives us an opportunity to celebrate her for all women, for all Ontarians and indeed for all Canadians.

I'd also like to point out that Agnes Macphail did all of this and dared to do it without the support, in fact, that most male politicians have. I don't say that in a begrudging kind of fashion; I say that in recognition of a real reality. As a single woman in politics there were a lot of sacrifices she made to be able to do the work that she did, and a lot of extra hardships: the realities of things like having to cook your own meals, having to do your own laundry at the same time as doing the hard work of some of the best of the men of the time.

There were a number of the firsts that she went through that have been shared by a number of the colleagues who have spoken before me in the House today: first as a woman member of Parliament, first as one of the first two women members of provincial Parliament in Ontario, being one of the first women to represent Canada internationally at the League of Nations, and the first woman to sit on the League of Nations disarmament committee. Indeed, all of these things made her a tremendous role model for Canadian and Ontario women, and I'd like to point out that she did these things at a time when it was still a popular belief that women have no place in politics. Indeed, the attitudes of the time were so challenging that another prevailing attitude at the time was that women and children should be seen and not heard.

I think it takes great courage and great heroism for a person to rise above those kinds of attitudes. She worked at the time for the social and economic improvements of us all, but she also is the only woman in the legislatures of our country, for most of her parliamentary years, who spoke as the sole parliamentary voice for a majority of the population -- for 52% of the population who are women -- so indeed, she often was the voice that would say, when policies were being discussed, "What about the women?"

One of the examples of that was in the federal House when the question of relief camps was raised. She challenged the Minister of Labour: "If men are not capable of taking care of themselves during periods of stress and unemployment, does Parliament think that women are more capable of taking care of themselves? If they are not, what provision has the government made, or what provision does it propose to make, for a single, unemployed woman?" Apart from a token woman on the National Employment Commission, the minister was forced to admit that the matter had not been considered.

1150

Agnes Macphail is the role model for most of us women in Parliament who have to ask the same question still today, "What about the women?" She was one who was also very able to point out some of the contradictions that still today we need to point out, contradictions like the fact that in her time, in spite of the economic demands of the war at the time, child care centres sprouted up all over the place in spite of and because of the war effort. Women's participation in the employment market not only suddenly was there in great numbers but in non-traditional jobs. She pointed out the contradictions that once the war was over those child care centres were closed down. Once the war was over, tax deductions were changed to make it less profitable for married women to participate in the workforce, and in fact the government even resorted to a barrage of propaganda to force women back into their homes, into the family life where it was felt they belonged.

Agnes Macphail worked on so many fronts to end discrimination against women in our country, against the sexism of child rearing that ends up causing a lot of the inequalities that exist as well. She worked to assist women in Quebec in their longer battle for women's suffrage there.

As has been pointed out in this House, she had tremendous wit, humour and insight in exposing a lot of those contradictions so she was one of our earliest women to gain prominence in making comments like: "Women have, in an unusual degree, the gift of intuition. However, in women it's called jumping to conclusions, whereas in men it's called genius."

Another example of her wit that related very much to her social and economic politics was her reference to pointing out the imbalances of unbridled capitalism, where she said that capitalism reminded her of the elephant who cried, "Every man for himself," as he danced among the chickens.

Agnes Macphail's actions and her life changed our country. One of the ways it changed our country was by helping to bring to life one of her main contentions: that women's place is wherever she wants to be, as is man's.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Malkowski's private bill?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I stand in praise of Agnes Macphail. I don't stand in praise of her as being a woman because I know today if I stood here she would say that this is what she has fought for as a person, because I know she has done more for people than she has done for women, singularly, or for men, but collectively for people of this province, this country, this nation and this world.

Great people are always adopted by all political parties and ideologies. Agnes Macphail, as you heard, who ran for the Progressive Conservative Party at one stage and was a member, was also a member of the CCF and embraced the beliefs of the CCF and also much of the wonderful Liberal ideology that we of the Liberal Party embrace. Agnes Macphail also embraced those. So great people are adopted by all political stripes.

That is why it is so easy for us to debate or to talk in praise of Agnes Macphail. In my constituency there is a school named after Agnes Macphail in her honour, and I know that principal Iris Schickler, students, staff and parents carry that name with great honour.

We also know that at various times she was extremely active, as was said here, in the United Farmers of Ontario. Many times she was challenged about some of her beliefs and stood up very proud in defending them. It is rather ironic that today Agnes Macphail would be mentioned, because today the debate of how we express ourselves in Parliament and how we conduct ourselves in Parliament will be a continuous debate -- previous to this day and beyond. She was one who would not be restricted to the discipline of partisanship if she felt that it restricted the expression of the belief of the people.

I think it is -- I was going to say "unfortunate" -- but I think it's rather fortunate that it is so, because we all will be very mindful of her belief and what Parliament is all about in expressing those things.

I would urge all my colleagues, as we name this day, not to remember her as a woman and the first woman to be elected federally and as also one of the first women to be elected provincially, but as an individual who believed in the things of democracy and the issues that were neglected day to day and that one can so express it and we should not be muzzled or restricted in doing so.

There are many, many issues out there and constituencies that need to be expressed in the House here that somehow don't get on the floor. Also, she said there are ways in which people would like to express these things in Parliament that don't take five minutes or 10 minutes; some people would need some time -- an hour, two hours, three hours -- in order to do so.

If I would speak on behalf of Agnes Macphail, because as I visit the school I get the feeling she represents something that is bigger than the individual, greater than the individual, that cause she carried forward, she would say: "No, let it be expressed. We have not yet arrived where we accept all, where we accept women as equals, we have not arrived where we accept minorities as equals. Don't restrict the time for people to bring those issues forward, to be expressed in Parliament. Do not muzzle that." I feel that way about Agnes Macphail and I feel that if her vision and her belief are to be carried on, we should not do that in dishonour of her name.

I praise the member for York East who brought this forward and we commend that. I said how easy it is for all of us to embrace that day of Agnes Macphail but to remember it in the right spirit -- not as a woman, not as a member who was elected in York East, but as a person who believed in the rights of people regardless of partisan rulings. I stand in praise of that and I support that.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Malkowski's bill?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's a great pleasure for me to rise and stand in support of this motion. I think it's most appropriate, as we come up to the 50th anniversary of Agnes Macphail's election to this Parliament, that it is the member for York East who is bringing this motion forward. As Agnes Macphail broke through many barriers and started a new course for women's involvement in politics, the current member for York East has started a new course for involvement in politics by other members, members of the disabled community, and has set a good role model for them to become involved in the process. I think it's very appropriate that he has brought this forward.

I also think it's appropriate to recognize her significant contributions to this country. We don't always recognize people who have made outstanding contributions. I know the member for York North wants to recognize one in changing his riding to York-Mackenzie and I think that's very appropriate.

I note with great interest, as one who represents a rural riding, that Agnes Macphail's career in politics started out in a rural riding, in the riding of Grey, and that she was an advocate for farmers and rural people and rural women as well. I think there are many women in our rural communities today who continue that through groups such as Women for the Support of Agriculture and other organizations, including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

I also want to take this time to note that mention has been made of Charlotte Whitton. I believe Charlotte Whitton was the first woman elected mayor in Canada, but the first actual woman mayor happened to be in the city of Woodstock -- Bernadette Smith back, I believe, around exactly the same time. I want to make note of that fact: that there were strides made in Oxford as well for women to contribute.

I think what we need to look at in terms of the recognition of this day is the type of contributions that have been made. What can we learn from someone like Agnes Macphail and her outstanding contribution to Canadian society? We can learn that as an individual you can make a lasting difference. We can learn that you can go forward, that you can make progress on those issues and you can make progress by not listening to the naysayers, by having courage, by having determination, and by of course always, as has been mentioned in comments by other members, doing your homework, doing your research and being one step above the naysayers who sometimes just like to say no for the sake of saying no. She has made a significant contribution to our province, to our country and I think it's important that we are here to recognize her.

As a male member, I must tell you that in my 18 months here I appreciate the great learning experience I have gone through. I always thought I had some understanding of the issues that many women face in many of our communities and as members of this place. I want to tell you that my learning experience has been incredible in the last 18 months. I thank my fellow members of my own caucus, I thank the many women in my own community and I thank many of the special women in my life who have taught me that we need to continue to go forward.

Agnes Macphail started something, but I think, as we recognize this day, we all need to remember that while progress has been made, we still have a lot further to go to truly make women equal in this province and country.

1200

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for York East has two minutes in response and summary.

Mr Malkowski: I was very inspired to hear the comments from the members of the opposition and from our own government side, and the comments seemed consistent in terms of recognition of Agnes as a true symbol of a person breaking the barriers and of a champion of social justice issues.

The member for Grey talked about the experience as the only women, and I find I have a very similar experience as being the only deaf MPP and many barriers we need to overcome. There were several members, from Eglinton, from Scarborough West and from Oriole who talked about what a great inspiration Agnes was and what an inspiration for equality in terms of equal pay for equal work. She is a symbol of feminism within the community, not only for women but for all different groups, for agricultural groups, for the poverty groups, for disability groups, for people who are within the correctional system, that you can achieve your goals.

The member for Niagara Falls was talking about the equality of men and women, and I'm sure that in comparison to the number of two women who were in the Legislature, and the number of women who we have, over 25, I'm sure that we will attain Agnes Macphail's goal of equality of men and women.

I would also like to thank all the members of the House for becoming aware of how important it is to recognize and honour the proclamation of Agnes Macphail Day, and how we will continue to remember her.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private members' public business has now expired.

PROVINCIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACT, 1992

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with Mr Turnbull's motion.

All those in favour of second reading of Bill 30, An Act to obtain the Opinion of the Public on Questions of Provincial Interest, by Mr Turnbull, will please say "aye".

All those opposed will please say "nay.

In my opinion the ayes have it.

The vote will be deferred until after we deal with Mr Malkowski's motion.

AGNES MACPHAIL DAY ACT, 1992

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Malkowski has moved second reading of Bill 35, An Act proclaiming Agnes Macphail Day.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

1210

PROVINCIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACT, 1992

The House divided on Mr Turnbull's motion, which was tied on the following vote:

Ayes -- 30

Arnott, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Elston, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mancini, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Turnbull, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Nays -- 30

Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Huget, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Malkowski, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Perruzza, Rizzo, Sullivan, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Waters, Wessenger, Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): In this case, the Chair will support the motion by Mr Turnbull. I declare the motion carried.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I would ask that this be referred to the justice committee for consideration.

The House divided on whether Mr Turnbull's bill should be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 28; nays 32.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: How is it possible that during the vote for this very important matter, the member for Durham Centre and the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings had the audacity to vote in favour of the bill, but when the Speaker asked whether or not --

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Mancini: -- we should refer the bill to the justice committee, those two members had the audacity to vote against such a motion. What hypocrisy.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1219.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement today is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Mr Speaker, you were here last night when I spoke about the difficulties being faced by the mining industry of this province. As well, you heard me make reference to the Consolidated Professor mining project in my riding which is having some difficulty in getting its operations under way. Just imagine this: construction costs of $53 million; generation of $25 million on an annual basis into the region's economy, and 175 jobs to an area which has experienced some of the highest unemployment in the province.

What's holding all this up? What is preventing this development, this influx into the economy in my riding? Let me tell you, and this will not come as a surprise to a lot of the members in this House: This government cannot make a decision.

Well over a year ago, the president of the company, representatives from the neighbouring first nation and I were assured by the Premier that he would ensure that the Minister of the Environment would assist in working out solutions to the problems encountered by this company. Obviously someone is not listening or communicating because we are approaching a point where the company is ready to abandon this project. The reason is that it cannot get an answer from the government and, more important, it cannot get an answer from the Minister of the Environment.

In closing, all I can ask is that I hope this government does not let this development, one so important to my riding, slip through its fingers.

SIMCOE COUNTY FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture will be holding its annual farm tour on July 8 to give members of the provincial Parliament and the federal Parliament an opportunity to meet with local commodity representatives and listen to their views and concerns about agriculture in Ontario.

The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture is made up of volunteers who serve as the voice of farmers in Simcoe county. The federation represents family farm concerns to governments and the general public. It has a long and proud history of advocating in the interests of Simcoe county's farm community.

I would urge all members who have been invited to attend this unique learning experience to hear presentations by the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, the Pork Producers' Association, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the Soil Crop Improvement Association, the Simcoe county milk committee and the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture.

The $36-million decrease in his ministry's operating budget is a concern to farmers; that there were no new income assistance programs announced in the last provincial budget; the detrimental effects on the agriculture industry of the Ontario labour relations reform legislation.

The minister must convince his cabinet colleagues to include farmers in his government's long-term vision of the future. The government has the obligation to collaborate with the farming community to ensure productivity and fair distribution. I say this because a province that cannot be reasonably self-sufficient and secure in its production of food risks losing a precious measure of independence, security and prosperity.

NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE BICENTENARY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to remind members of this House that Niagara-on-the-Lake in my riding is celebrating its bicentennial this year.

Members may recall from their history lessons that Niagara-on-the-Lake, formerly called Newark, was named the first capital of Upper Canada by then Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe. It was in Newark that Upper Canada's first Legislature was established.

Next week, from July 3 to 5, the old town and the village of Queenston will play host to a variety of activities including fireworks, parades and mock battles. In short, it promises to be a fun-filled four days steeped in the history of another era.

The highlight of this week is July 4 when several hundred re-enacters set up camp and present colourful displays of late-18th-century garb and military artefacts. Six tall ships will sail from Toronto and anchor at the docks along the Niagara River. Native re-enacters will also be mingling with the crowd, answering questions about traditions and heritage.

But that's not all. The celebrations move closer to home this fall when our Legislative Assembly visits Niagara-on-the-Lake on September 17 to hold a special open-air session. I know the town has spent many months planning for this event and eagerly anticipates the full participation of all members.

I invite everyone to take a step back 200 years into the past and visit Niagara-on-the-Lake this summer and this fall.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I recently received a copy of a letter which was sent by Scarborough's mayor, Joyce Trimmer, to the Minister of Revenue on June 18, 1992.

This letter goes over the numerous attempts -- including leaving at least half a dozen unanswered telephone messages -- made by the mayor to have a meeting with the minister rescheduled. This meeting, originally scheduled for May 12 and then abruptly cancelled due to "circumstances," was to have been held to discuss market value assessment, which is an issue of great importance to Scarborough residents. To quote Mayor Trimmer:

"I respectfully suggest that it is inappropriate to have to go to such lengths simply to secure a meeting with you on a topic of major concern and importance."

I am certain that all members of this Legislature, Mr Speaker, including yourself, who represent ridings in Scarborough, will join me in urging the minister to keep her commitment to meet with Mayor Trimmer on this very important matter.

Let me emphasize that this is not a single time we have seen this happen. Consequently, we are having very much difficulty getting ministers to meet, and I know it's not the Premier's intention and that he would like his ministers to meet especially mayors who represent all people, and especially in a great city like Scarborough. I would urge you, Madam Minister to meet with the mayor.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to speak to the House about the 15 dump sites within my riding of Dufferin-Peel. I have heard from literally thousands of Caledon residents who cannot believe this government would even consider a massive landfill site for this area.

What should I tell a person who discovers that the farm that has been in their family for 100 years could be expropriated for a dump?

This morning alone, I received another 40 letters from citizens who want action. They have a common theme: Don't ruin prime agricultural farm land and the natural beauty of Caledon with garbage from the greater Toronto area. It is unnecessary; it is immoral; it goes against everything that this government has been promising in terms of a progressive agricultural policy.

I will deliver these letters to the Premier, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture and Food so that they can read them personally. I urge the Premier, I urge the Minister of the Environment and I urge the Minister of Agriculture to listen to the people of this province. Reconsider your plans to destroy Caledon. Repeal Bill 143. Replace it with an equitable system that restores the process that the people of this province deserve: full environmental assessment of all possibilities.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of a very serious issue that is developing in my riding of Lincoln. As I have told this House on numerous occasions, there is a proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a giant toxic waste facility in my riding to incinerate all hazardous waste for the province.

In a recent study, the California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that residents living near the facility will face a risk of developing cancer 1,000 times greater than other Ontarians. This is outrageous. The study shows that the other studies conducted for the environmental assessment hearing neglected to include the effects of human exposure to breast feeding, showering and eating fish caught in nearby waters. Besides putting all the people in Niagara at risk, the effects could be much farther-reaching, as Niagara is the only area left in Ontario where tender fruit is grown.

The facts are on the table. The Ontario Waste Management Corp's own studies show that this monstrous plan will contaminate the ground water, making it useless for future generations, and this study shows that the people in the area will not be able to enjoy living in a healthy environment.

This proposal should be stopped now, before it's too late, and we must begin to look at the alternatives and the 3Rs if we truly want to solve Ontario's waste management crisis.

1340

SEMAINE FRANCOPHONE

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Monsieur le Président, depuis vendredi dernier, la communauté francophone célèbre la Semaine francophone en Ontario. On a eu des pique-niques, des soirées de cinéma, de la musique et de la littérature. Bref, c'était une semaine de fête pour la communauté francophone. C'est dans ce contexte que j'aimerais faire quelques observations sur le gouvernement d'aujourd'hui, vis-à-vis la communauté franco-ontarienne.

Lors de la dernière campagne électorale, l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario a fait circuler un questionnaire concernant les politiques en matière d'affaires francophones. Les réponses de Bob Rae ont soulevé les espoirs de la communauté franco-ontarienne.

M. Rae a déclaré être en faveur de promouvoir les services en français en matière de services de santé. Le NPD a promis aux francophones de la province qu'il mettrait sur pied un réseau de collèges pour les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes. Bob Rae a déclaré être en faveur de créer des conseils scolaires en langue française pour desservir les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes. Il a déclaré être en faveur de la création d'une station de radio pour défendre les besoins des francophones qui habitent Toronto.

On attend depuis 1990 des actions concrètes du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Le ministre déploie toute son éloquence, mais ses mots sont vides de sens.

MEMBER FOR WELLAND-THOROLD

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to congratulate a colleague and member of this Legislature, the member for Welland-Thorold, Mr Peter Kormos, who has won a very prestigious award. Mr Kormos has been recognized by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, and I'd like to read from a letter I have from the Association of Trial Lawyers to Mr Kormos. It states:

"It is my pleasure to formally share the good news that you have been selected as a recipient of the ATLA Amicus Award of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. The award is presented as warranted for outstanding contributions to the civil justice system and preservation of victims' rights.

"As an ATLA member and steadfast pioneer in the fight to preserve the right of innocent accident victims to be adequately and fairly compensated for their losses, we are honoured to notify you of your selection for this award."

If I might have just a few more seconds, I know that everyone in this House is feeling the same way I am and very proud of Mr Kormos's accomplishments. Although they are not always accomplished on the conventional path, Mr Kormos is recognized probably far and wide in this province as being the one and only person who sits in this government who represents the rights of innocent accident victims and is in fact fighting for those rights and on behalf of those thousands of people.

I convey my congratulations to Mr Kormos. I wish him well, and I tell him to keep up the good fight.

EVENTS IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise in the House today to inform members of a number of events that took place in my riding of Hamilton Centre on Sunday, June 14, 1992.

In celebration of Canada's 125th anniversary, most events were tied to the National Neighbourhood Party. As part of the Neighbourhood celebrations, I attended the Fairleigh Avenue street party and the Church of the Ascension party on Forest Avenue, which drew enthusiastic crowds. On the same day, Hamiltonians took part in the celebrations of the 25th anniversary of Dundurn Castle's restoration. These festivities also highlighted the joy people of Hamilton take in Canada.

Another important event that I know many members have taken part in was the Decoration Day service in remembrance of Hamilton's war heroes. Along with the hundreds of war veterans, Hamilton MPPs marched in the Veterans Day parade and placed a wreath at the cenotaph.

This weekend also marked the closing ceremonies of Lusofest, which I attended with the honourable Minister of Citizenship, Elaine Ziemba. Members are familiar with Lusofest from my June 10 statement to the House in which I outlined the activities surrounding Lusofest.

All of these events had a common theme: the importance of building on our national pride. While we often criticize our neighbours to the south for their flag-waving enthusiasm, we should occasionally stop and consider the benefits and feelings of satisfaction Canadians can get from boasting about our own great country. We should do it more often.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the 17th Annual Report of the Commission on Election Finances, which covers the year 1992.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also appreciate members' attention to the fact that this is the last day for the service of our current pages. They have, I think you will agree with me, served the members and the House with distinction over the past five weeks, and indeed I think they deserve our heartfelt praise for their hard work. I would invite you to join me in thanking them most warmly for their dedicated service.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): This afternoon I will introduce an historic piece of legislation, our government's employment equity bill.

Before I do this, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and the dedication of my employment equity commissioner, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, and the hard work and dedication of a group of a people who came together in my technical advisory committee.

Those people are Judith Andrew from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Tom Corcoran, Ontario Chamber of Commerce; Julie Davis, Ontario Federation of Labour; William Frakes, Unilever Canada Ltd; Amy Go, Coalition of Visible Minority Women; Irene Harris, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Ian Howcroft, Canadian Manufacturers' Association; Beverly Johnson, Ontario Public Service Employees Union; Michael Lewis, United Steelworkers of America; Judy Maddocks, Royal Insurance Canada;

Charlotte MacFarlane, Association of Municipalities of Ontario; Carole McGregor, Disabled People for Employment Equity; Handel Mlilo, Alliance for Employment Equity; Peggy Nash, Canadian Auto Workers; David Onyalo, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Judy Rebick, National Action Committee on the Status of Women; Robert Richardson, Alliance for Employment Equity; David Williams, National Grocers Co Ltd, and also Helen Cooper, who is president of AMO.

Today for me, this is a moment of tremendous pride. I'm privileged to have worked on this important initiative with many committed business, labour and community leaders. The employment equity legislation will open doors for many and will add a wealth of untapped human resources to our workplaces.

I would like to take a moment to quote from the last throne speech: "Ontario's people are its greatest strength.... Using the talents and abilities of all our people will help us compete in a global economy. Simply put, employment equity makes good economic sense."

This government believes in investing in people and investing in Ontario. I am honoured to say that we are following through on our commitment. We are proud to be the first province in Canada to introduce mandatory employment equity legislation.

The simple fact is that employment equity makes good business sense, and it's fair. It encourages employers and employees to work in partnership, to tap the skills of highly capable people who have been excluded in the past. Employment equity involves comprehensive and cooperative strategies to level the playing field in the working world. It's about reaching out to all Ontarians to hire, train and promote people according to their ability to do good work. It's practical. It's grounded in workplace realities and it seeks results. Any business with its eye on the bottom line will hire and promote from the widest possible pool of candidates.

This legislation is rooted in extensive public consultations. We have listened to the people of Ontario and we have listened well. Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, Ontario's first employment equity commissioner, held meetings across the province and received more than 400 submissions from business, labour and community groups. I'm pleased to announce that the commissioner's consultation report is being released today to complement the introduction of legislation.

In early May I set up an advisory group with representatives from business, labour and designated groups. In fact they are here today, as I mentioned earlier, and I want to say personally that this group will continue to play a key role in developing the regulations. It will be a rigorous process to be chaired by the commissioner. Our goal is to develop effective and cost-efficient rules to make employment equity work for Ontario's employers and employees. We aim to present the draft regulations as we go into second reading of this bill.

Before I go into some of the key elements of the bill, I'd like to reiterate that employment equity is about partnerships. It is about results. As one designated group member put it eloquently, "Employment equity is making a difference between our reality and our dream."

1350

The legislation targets four groups of people who have suffered profoundly from systemic discrimination in our society. They are aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women.

My ministry will convene a working group to consider special employment equity measures for persons with severe disabilities. We will also develop an action plan to coordinate government-wide initiatives involving education, training and access to transportation.

Francophones will continue to be a designated group in the Ontario public service employment equity program. Aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women who are also francophones will be covered by this legislation.

This government is also committed to responding to the concerns of the gay and lesbian communities by reviewing anti-harassment provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

An employment equity workplace will benefit all workers. The principles of employment equity as established in this bill represent a statement of public policy and, as such, we hope the spirit of these principles will be embraced in all workplaces.

Because we welcome the chance to set an example for all employers, this government, the second-largest employer in the province, will be the first required to comply with the legislation.

This fair, rational and practical bill recognizes the different needs and capacities of different-sized workplaces and so provides for flexible timing and implementation. The bill therefore establishes simplified requirements and longer, phased-in time frames for smaller businesses.

This legislation will cover about three quarters of all employees in Ontario. We believe this proposed coverage is fair and effective.

In recognition of the Statement of Political Relationship with the first nations, we will conduct government-to-government discussions to develop requirements for aboriginal workplaces.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of partnerships. Employers and employees will work together to coordinate employment equity measures.

An independent employment equity commission will be established to administer the legislation. An employment equity tribunal will have the power to ensure compliance with this legislation. We aim to eventually bring all our equity initiatives under one combined system.

To conclude, employment equity is about fairness in the workplace. It is also about a new vision for Ontario. It is a vision of social justice succinctly put by the Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice:

"We see an Ontario where people value the dignity and self-worth of individuals, where systemic discrimination and barriers are eliminated and where society celebrates human diversity and strives towards a common purpose."

I am proud that this proposed employment equity legislation will be a landmark to this new vision of Ontario. It is a turning point. Together with all our partners, we will take on the challenge.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Three weeks ago I brought before the House a package of reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act to improve workplace relationships and foster a more productive and cooperative approach to labour-management relations.

I also stated at that time that further amendments to the act were pending. Later this afternoon, I will introduce legislation to promote greater democracy, freedom and local control in the relationships between internationally based parent unions in the construction industry and their Ontario-based locals.

Ontario-based construction locals have long expressed a desire for greater control over and involvement in their affairs. I am proud to say that this government is responding positively to those concerns.

Right now these local unions need more say in how internal union jurisdictional issues are resolved. They need a fair voice in the collective bargaining process and they need protection from sanctions imposed by their parent international unions. These Ontario locals often have little input into the administration and use of their funds for employee benefit and pension plans to which their members have contributed.

These circumstances have developed over time and can be traced to the unique nature and history of trade union organization by craft in the North American construction sector. For example, under the Labour Relations Act designated trade unions hold bargaining rights for any tradesperson who wishes to work in the construction industry. No avenues currently exist to change these bargaining agents. Yet in every other industry, decertification would be possible.

The Labour Relations Act has an entire section dedicated to ensuring stable collective bargaining in the construction industry. Members will know that the province has long maintained an active interest in this area. Several positive precedents have been achieved between employers, the unions and the government in regulating this sector.

Today I am building on those precedents. These amendments will bring a sense of balance and fairness to the relationship between locals, their members and international parent unions. In particular, these reforms will guarantee to Ontario construction locals: shared bargaining rights in the non-industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, a right currently enjoyed in the ICI sector; much greater control over the resolution of jurisdictional disputes within their trade; protection from interference or reprisals from their parents; proportionate control over their benefit plans; rights of successorship conditional on the consent of their international parent and achieving a double majority vote of both locals and members.

It is important to note also that a provision has been included to maintain province-wide agreements where they already exist. Many local construction trade unions have voiced their support for these reforms. My ministry has also sought the advice of the bipartite Construction Industry Advisory Board and major employer organizations in the construction sector. We intend to continue consultations with business and labour over the summer. Further refinements are quite possible.

Our government believes that promoting fairness is directly compatible with the progressive spirit and tone of our major law reforms.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before this House meets next on Monday, the second oldest musical organization in the country, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, will be in bankruptcy and the Art Gallery of Ontario, the largest art gallery in Canada and one of the largest in North America, will close its doors. I don't understand why this so-called Cinderella who laughs with Prince Charles hasn't got a statement to make to this House about our cultural institutions --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St George-St David will know that it is not a point of order.

Mr Scott: She gets in her car, directing the chauffeur to go hither and yon.

The Speaker: I ask the member to come to order. It's time for responses.

RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too want to commend those who have assisted the minister in the process of bringing the employment equity introduction today. But I should say, Madam Minister, with all that help, it still seems that the government was not really ready for an introduction of employment equity. They have done a tremendous job and my hat is off to you because it is a very, very difficult policy paper to present.

We are dismayed that this government, which has made very clear and rather specific promises about employment equity, has been dithering about on this important topic for over 18 months. Now all they have come up with at this point is that the minister says she will propose introducing legislation today. You may recall, Mr Speaker, they were supposed to have been ready because of their little private member's bill that the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, had in hand.

The Liberal Party, as you know, Mr Speaker, is extremely committed to eliminating barriers to full employment in Ontario and we are dismayed that this government, which has made a very clear and specific promise of employment equity, has taken such a long time to bring it forward.

1400

If the NDP was really committed to employment equity it would not have taken this long to produce this legislation. The public consultation, as you know, as I mentioned, was extremely extensive and has been completed for months. What on earth took so long? It seems that as I saw the applause and everyone hugging each one there, there must be some division in cabinet.

We're concerned that the minister might not have had the full support of her cabinet colleagues such as the Minister of Labour, and that this might account for some of the delay. I notice that the construction industry is not included in this, and you can then extend your thoughts on that.

This legislation is not what the NDP promised. It has once again abandoned a firm commitment it made to the people of Ontario, has abandoned the promises it made to specific groups and has abandoned, as I said, Bob Rae's private member's employment equity legislation, that really model bill that was put forward.

We're also concerned that the NDP government fails to keep Bob Rae's promises to implement the recommendations of the access to professions report, which is sitting there, Mr Speaker, and has not been done. This is an important bill on creating full equity in the workplace.

When she was asked in the press conference about the cost she didn't know what it cost; the response was that it was more costly not to implement it. Employment equity has no cost and the Advocacy Act that they're putting in has no cost to it. Maybe they're not ready. The regulations are not ready. We hope it's not a closed-door thing. We hope they make it quite open. We have many questions to ask you, Madam Minister, which cause concern. I stand here to help you and this government and the legislation in order that we have proper employment equity.

Interjections.

Mr Curling: The heckling that's coming from over there tells me, Mr Speaker, that there is not a full understanding of what we're about to do. I am in support of what the minister is trying to do. It's an extremely difficult task. You yourself, with your shouting --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Yorkview, come to order.

Mr Curling: I hope that at some time he could meet quietly with me, and I'd be able to explain to him, just in an elementary way, what employment equity is about. You can then direct those directions to the minister and we can have good employment equity. I look forward to many questions in this House.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): In response to the statement by the Minister of Labour, I think that at the outset I could categorize it as an interesting statement. It's one, I can tell you, that we're going to be looking at very closely in terms of what it means and what it does.

The minister has indicated correctly that this legislation was coming when he introduced his changes to the Labour Relations Act last June 4. Since then I've been contacted by many union members adamantly opposed to the legislation the minister says he's going to introduce today. Members from across the province involved with bridge structure, ornamental ironworkers, members across the province from the boilermakers' union and members from all over have indicated their concerns about this legislation.

With respect, I have also spoken to those in favour. One thing is clear: The minister has not done any consultation with respect to the matter of this bill except for possibly one day in November. I would like to serve notice to the minister that we will discuss this bill. We will ask questions about this legislation, about what it means and about its impact. I want to give the minister notice that that will take place when this bill is called for second reading, which I would expect, because of its introduction so late in this session, won't be until the following fall session.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. Responses, third party.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'd like to respond first to the new labour law amendments, which are supposed to clarify the trade union relationships in the construction sector.

I'd just like to say to the Minister of Labour that you've done it again. You have not conducted a consultation process or listened to the individuals. Our fax machine at times feels like it's burning up. Unions are sending us faxes, and I can assure you that they are not happy with what you have brought forward today. I would just suggest to you, Minister of Labour, that you could take a page out of the book of the Minister of Citizenship.

I would also say that you indicate you'd like to promote greater union democracy and fairness. If that is indeed your objective, then you should amend Bill 40 to allow for secret ballot votes, because that would give greater union democracy and fairness.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'd like to turn now to the statement concerning employment equity, and I'd like to start by offering my congratulations to the minister and also to the commissioner for the manner in which they have conducted the consultation process. They have made the effort, unlike the Minister of Labour, to listen to all the concerned parties. They went out with questions and they were looking for solutions. They did not take the Premier's agenda, the bill of 1990, and rigidly adhere to that agenda. They did honestly listen, and I think the willingness to listen, the willingness to incorporate all the views, has resulted in the document we have before us today. Certainly we do appreciate very much the process that has been used.

I also congratulate you on setting up the technical advisory committee, because, again, this is very different. These people are going to have an opportunity to define some of the specifics of the bill. This again is in stark contrast to what happened when the Liberals introduced pay equity in 1987 and some of the mistakes that resulted.

I can assure you the small business community is happy, because those who employ fewer than 50 are exempt from the legislation.

However, there are still many concerns that need to be addressed. First of all, it's still a numbers-based system. Certainly we agree that the emphasis should be on education. We prefer to see, if at all possible, the voluntary best effort, and I believe we need to continue to focus on education, on training and removing the barriers to access.

As well, we are not aware of the compliance cost to business. How much is this legislation going to cost business in Ontario? Certainly in these very difficult economic times that is a question the government must answer for people. Furthermore, what will the administration and the monitoring cost be to the taxpayer? How many millions of dollars will it cost to set up and operate the commission?

Unfortunately what we have here today is a legislative solution instead of a concentration on opportunity equity. I go back to what I said before. We need to concentrate our energies on giving people the skills, the education, in order to prepare them for the modern-day workplace and occupations. You cannot force employers to draw from a talent pool that is not filled.

There's also no mention in here of an incentive tax to businesses that are going to modify their businesses to accommodate the disabled, and I would hope some consideration will be given to doing exactly that.

I would hope that as the government proceeds it will handle this issue very sensitively. There is still fear out there that no one outside the designated groups will be hired. Unfortunately, employment equity makes it matter to people that they belong, however artificially, to groups. Again, there's some concern that the individual is being ignored, and I hope that will be handled in a very sensitive manner.

We must do everything possible to avoid the hardening of attitudes and the further division of groups of people. Racism and sexism have always been wrong and they remain wrong today. We must make sure that, whatever we do, we do not attempt to correct past discrimination by focusing discrimination on another group of individuals. Therefore, I would encourage the government to do everything within its power to focus on the job training, the education and the removal of the barriers to access. I would encourage you to reach out to the four groups, encourage them to apply and encourage employers to recruit them vigorously.

1410

RACE RELATIONS

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I rise to respond to the questions of some members yesterday. I want to explain to the House the context of my comments on June 20.

I have spent more than 20 years of my life building a fairer Ontario, an open, multiracial Ontario, an Ontario free of racism. I have also committed my life's work to young people as a school teacher, as a school principal, as a mother of three and as a United Way board member and volunteer.

It was with great pride, then, that I accepted the Premier's request to bring Jobs Ontario Youth on board this summer. This is a program for all young people: black, white, Chinese, native. It also includes a special effort to get young blacks employed because of the higher unemployment and dropout rates among black youth.

The final youth selection decisions rest with the employers, companies such as the Bank of Montreal, IBM Canada, Noranda, Canadian Tire and the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, Windsor, Hamilton and Ottawa. Most employers have agreed to take the government's plan to recall all unemployed youth and also to make a special effort to reach out to black youth. Employers receive candidates of any racial and ethnic background from youth employment agency workers.

During a workshop at the NDP convention last weekend I was explaining how the youth employment agencies were handling the policy of serving all youth and reaching out to black youth. I praised the work of these youth employment service workers and the employment agencies, who have undertaken a difficult task quickly.

I gave different examples, and then I noted one instance that made me disappointed. I described an in-service training session for the youth service workers, and I recounted a question from one of the youth workers who had not seemed to understand the government policy of serving all youth and reaching out to black youth. I said that her question had been, "How will we be able to tell who is a black youth in order to implement this program?" I and others at the meeting were surprised at such a question, especially a question from a front-line worker. The question was an unusual one to be posed by an employment service worker involved in the placement of youth, especially after a thorough presentation of the program.

My answer reflected my disappointment and my frustration with such a question posed by a person in this role. It was at that point I said: "No one seems to have a problem identifying us when they want to shoot us. It seems to me they can use the same identification skills when they want to employ us."

I told this story to convention delegates at 9 am on a Saturday morning. Now this one explanatory comment has been raised in this House. It was an expression of my disappointment at the question raised by the youth worker during an in-service session.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): You repeated it later.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Ms Akande: In conclusion, I know that all members of this House welcome efforts to provide jobs for unemployed youth and simultaneously to make a special effort to reach out to black youth, who are experiencing higher unemployment and dropout rates. As well, I know that all members will support the efforts of many chief executive officers and municipal councils in making the program a reality.

The Speaker: I thank the member for her point of personal explanation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I have a question for the Premier. I know the Premier has been away a lot on business and will probably want to refer this, as he has been doing with important questions, to other ministers. But I ask the Premier to consider answering this question personally because of the very grave concerns the cultural community has about the disposition of its institutions at the hands of this government.

The Art Gallery of Ontario has been open on a daily basis for almost 100 years. The gallery has announced today that because it has suffered a net loss of funding of $2.6 million, more than 25% of its annual budget, it will be closing after the weekend and will not be able to reopen at the -- I see the sign has been given that the Premier doesn't want to deal with this so we'll have Cinderella answering the question.

The fact of the matter is that this gallery has been open for 100 years and it has suffered a net loss of its funding at the hands of this government; 45,000 children visit it annually and dozens of thousands more visit its partner galleries in 120 community centres across Ontario. I want the Premier to tell the people in Ontario -- in addition to half the gallery staff who have been permanently terminated or laid off -- what he is going to do to preserve this important cultural institution in the province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Scott: I think the cultural community of Ontario is entitled to have an answer from the head of the government.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer this to the Minister of Culture and Communications.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): In reality I did not cut funding to the AGO. The funding base to the AGO was $8.5 million. In a time when my ministry took a $6-million cut, I was able to put together a package for the AGO of $3.8 million, consisting of $1 million to its base -- in the next fiscal year it will receive $9.5 million, an increase to the base to the AGO -- and I have also released $1.8 million in a special exhibit fund for them to use for staff and for installing new work in their new gallery, and I have also made available an additional $1 million they can apply for as a grant to help support the art services and the outreach programs they have.

This was not a cut. This was an increased package of $3.8 million to the art gallery.

Further, Mr Speaker -- it was a long question; I have a long answer.

The Speaker: I ask the minister to try to make it succinct.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Further, it is important to note that the AGO is not closing its doors. It has accelerated a program where it was going to close for three months in order to open its new gallery in January. As a cost reduction effort on behalf of the board, they decided to accelerate that.

Mr Scott: I'm disappointed that the Premier has plenty of time to travel to Japan, to cut all the ribbons that are available and to hobnob with his new friend, the Prime Minister of Canada. But cultural institutions in Ontario have a serious problem and to pass it off with the triviality that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: The honourable members think this is a laughing matter.

Interjections.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): You used to be a serious politician.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.

Mr Scott: The House leader says because I ask a question about the Art Gallery of Ontario I am not a serious politician. I reject that.

I think this is an important cultural institution in Ontario that has been open for 100 years. Its budget has been cut. I see all the flim-flammery. I tell the Premier in this context: We are told that with $1.2 million more this year the staff can be retained and the gallery remain open. The question is one of priorities.

The government can spend over $1 million for a hotline to send people copies of speeches from the throne and other irrelevant trivialities that aren't acted on. Why can they spend money on that? Why can they spend $1.9 million to move Ministry of Natural Resources staff to North York when next year they're going to move them to Peterborough? Why can they spend $2.5 million to move the cabinet office across the street? Why is it that they can't raise $1.2 million out of those funds to save the Art Gallery of Ontario?

1420

Hon Mrs Haslam: I understand the concern about jobs because that is why I was able to put together a package for $3.8 million. I sympathize with those people. I sympathize with the board. As the minister faced --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I do understand the pressures the AGO is facing. I want to say that it is my understanding that half of the jobs that will be laid off will be rehired when the AGO opens in January. In terms of the numbers of layoffs, it is sadly a predominant feature in our recessionary times. It is not the only agency facing layoffs. I do want to say, though, that to make those decisions within the ministry, those are tough decisions that have to be made and the AGO is now making the same tough decisions.

Mr Scott: I've been a minister. I understand the difficulties that ministers have. That's why I asked the question of the Premier, because the question is one of priorities. You're spending this money there and you're not spending that money here. That's why I want to know. The question isn't whether people are having hard times. Of course they are. The point is that this gallery, after 100 years, is closing for at least six months.

The question I have for the Premier -- and I suppose he won't answer -- is this: When he can spend $2.5 million to move his offices across the street -- they were fine where they were as far as we were concerned -- when he can spend $1.9 million to move Natural Resources to North York for one year, when he can spend over one million dollars to put in a hotline so people can get material from his government and so they can get lists of people to send NDP material to, and when -- wait until you hear this -- he, the Premier, elects to spent $30 million on new telephones for Management Board when they didn't even answer the old ones, why can this Premier, who ducks all the tough questions if they aren't raised in a constitutional setting or in Japan, not take a bit of this money and keep our gallery, visited by hundreds of thousands of citizens and tourists, open at least one more year? All it takes is $1.2 million. I know, Minister, you can't do anything about it.

The Speaker: Will the member conclude his question.

Mr Scott: If it isn't an opening, your hands are tied. I want to hear from the Premier. Where are his priorities, telephones for Management Board or the Art Gallery of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I think each minister in this government is dealing with the same situation. There is $5 million less in revenue. There is less support coming from the federal government. There are caps. There are problems in transfer payments for the Health ministry. There are a lot of things that this entire government has to deal with.

I am only one minister who has to do what I have to do within the ministry to support the arts and culture for all of Ontario. It's what the ministry is trying to do. We're also very pleased to see the Art Gallery of Ontario working with us, trying to restructure what it does, to work within the allocations it gets. I've had to very carefully say to the AGO that it must live within their budget, that there will be no bailouts, and that is what the AGO is attempting to do.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Our second leader's question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who I gather is on his way. Therefore I'll stand it down until Mr Philip arrives.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Premier concerning a question yesterday and his commitment to come back to the House today with an answer and a position on his parliamentary assistant affair.

Today we heard from the parliamentary assistant about the good work she is doing in promoting and encouraging more employment for youth. We agree. She talked particularly about the difficult problem facing black youth. We agree. We didn't agree with the lecturing tone. We're not so sure we understood the reference to the NDP card-carrying civil servant on the front line asking an inappropriate question at your convention.

However, Mr Premier, I heard nothing from the parliamentary assistant as to whether she thought the comment was appropriate or whether an apology was forthcoming to the police. I heard nothing from the parliamentary assistant as to whether she recognizes how very difficult it will be for her to be perceived as one who can calm the rhetoric and bring people together in this very difficult affair facing us this summer.

I would ask you, Premier, if you, in your silence today, are condoning the statement, if you believe it was productive and if that is the position of you, the Premier's office, your party and the government of Ontario.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the member for St Andrew-St Patrick has given an explanation to the House as to what her work and her efforts have been on behalf of all the people of the province. I'm certainly satisfied with the explanation she gave today and she has my full support.

Mr Harris: I believe we are all very supportive of helping to solve the difficulties of the unemployment of our young people with hope and opportunity, particularly those of visible minorities and particularly blacks facing extraordinarily severe problems.

However, there is another very major problem that is facing us in this summer of 1992 and it has to do with the relationship of the police to minorities in our communities, particularly the black minority. The Police Association of Ontario, represented by Robert Morrison, wrote to you, Mr Premier, indicating, "How you would expect this person to in any way contribute to the lessening of tensions and the healing of wounds between the police and the black community is beyond our comprehension."

Where wounds need to be healed, where understanding needs to take place, where we must bring police and blacks particularly together just as quickly as we possibly can, one of the parties is expressing a complete lack of confidence in your parliamentary assistant having any role in this. Surely the goal and one of the roles of a parliamentary assistant in the Premier's office is to help tone down the rhetoric, not elevate it, and to help bring the sides together in understanding, compassion and working forward. In light of that, Mr Premier, do you believe this parliamentary assistant and this viewpoint expressed on your behalf are going to be helpful in that debate?

Hon Mr Rae: I certainly do believe the honourable member is going to be not only helpful but enormously constructive and a very important part of the work of this government. I think when all things are seen in the perspective which she has brought to this job, the directness she has brought to this job, the commitment, the passion, I do believe the honourable member can do great service to the public of Ontario.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, 21,000 members of the Police Association of Ontario wrote to you through their president asking, "As a result of her unconscionable behaviour, we are demanding that Ms Akande be directed to apologize to all police officers in the province for her intemperate and insulting comments."

I did not hear an apology today, Mr Premier. From you I have heard acquiescence to the comments, and I did not hear an apology from you. I ask you one more time, if you're not prepared to apologize on your own, if you're not prepared to direct that Ms Akande apologize, would you agree with the 21,000 police officers represented by the Police Association of Ontario that Ms Akande should be either directed to apologize or relieved of her responsibilities?

Hon Mr Rae: I very much want the member for St Andrew-St Patrick to carry on in her duties. I think she has a great deal to contribute to the public life of Ontario.

1430

ONTARIO HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Energy. On Monday I asked the minister about Ontario Hydro's exclusive contract with Bell Canada for up to $10 million worth of telecommunication service. This contract is currently being negotiated without going out to tender. The minister responded to me that it hasn't been awarded yet. It's true, it hasn't been awarded yet. I'm trying to prevent a terrible tragedy from occurring. Before these negotiations are allowed to continue, I'm trying to bring your attention to the fact that Ontario Hydro is not putting out to tender $10 million worth of new telephone equipment.

The minister said he'd get back to me. That was three days ago. I would ask if he can now, after my having brought it to his attention, assure this House that Ontario Hydro will be ordered to go out to full tender for the full amount of this contract that it has currently been negotiating in secret with Bell.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): First, there are obviously no secret negotiations. The member is aware of them. Second, no, I can't assure the member that the minister will force Hydro out to tender on this issue. Third, I've requested of the chairman of Hydro a full and complete response, which the member will receive in due course.

Mr Harris: Either you believe in the tendering process or you don't. Your response to me and your attitude in this House to these issues that I've raised with Hydro before indicate you do not believe in the tendering process.

Will you, Minister, put a stop to this negotiation that is going on, this exclusive status that one monopoly that you control and are responsible for and now under Bill 118 can direct to do your bidding -- and with Marc Eliesen there, if that doesn't work, the Premier will make him do the bidding -- will you assure us that all contracts will go out for full tender and that you will stop in its tracks the negotiation of this $10-million exclusive contract being negotiated right now with Bell Canada? Did you direct them of that, and if not, why not?

Hon Mr Charlton: I've already answered the last part of the question of the leader of the third party: No, I did not direct, and no, I will not direct.

The leader of the third party is obviously seriously out of touch with the private sector in the province of Ontario, seriously out of touch with the business community in this province and how it operates. The vast majority of Hydro's contracts go out to full tender, and I set that out in my answer to the member on Monday.

There are a range of circumstances around which tender is not the most appropriate approach. Does the member who is leader of the third party put it out for tender when his car needs an oil change and a new oil filter? It's time the member who leads the third party took the time to sit down and look carefully at the response with which I will provide him within a day or two.

Mr Harris: The minister is quite right if he suggests that I don't understand why it's okay for his government to condone and for Hydro to do a $10-million deal without going to tender for a product and for services that are available from many companies right here in Ontario.

I ask you one final time: Will you insist that Hydro stop this so-called strategic purchase agreement, which is what they're smoking past you to justify not going to tender on this $10-million deal, and on up to hundreds of millions of dollars that they plan to smoke through you under this same strategic purchase agreement in the future? Will you put a stop to that today?

Hon Mr Charlton: I repeat, no, and I will provide the leader of the third party with a full, detailed response from the chairman of Hydro.

I really must comment on his reference to smoking, because his tone of voice obviously indicates that there's some smoke and some fire in himself.

At the same time, he doesn't understand that in fact there are not, in this particular instance, other companies able to deliver the service.

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and I offer this question against the backdrop that the government, in my view, quite rightly has indicated that its top priority is job creation in Ontario.

Accepting that our collective responsibility in this Legislature is to create an environment for job creation, can the minister for the province of Ontario report to this House today on the latest developments in the American rail strike, which strike is now into its third or fourth day and is threatening in a very real and immediate way tens of thousands of jobs in the Ontario manufacturing sector, most especially the auto sector, which of course employs one in 10 Ontarians?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I can report that we are naturally concerned about that and the effect on jobs in our industry. We understand that, at least for a few days, there is no immediate crisis, but my staff are working with people in the industry and talking with them. Some of the companies will be affected more than others because some, of course, use truck transportation rather than rail transportation for most of their parts.

Mr Conway: I very much appreciate the minister's concern. He will know that the auto makers in this province are reporting in the press today that in some cases they feel they are but a day or two away from very significant shutdowns.

Since the American rail strike, it seems to me, makes a very real and significant point in the summer of 1992 of just how incredibly vulnerable are the tens of thousands of jobs in the Ontario manufacturing sector, but particularly, to use a case study, the Ontario auto and auto parts industry, having regard to what this American rail strike is doing to that sector, does the minister of industry for Ontario not agree that his government's Bill 40, particularly some of its provisions around replacement workers as they will apply to the Ontario-based auto sector, could very quickly create precisely the situation that has brought the minister and all of us today to the point of very real concern about what the American rail strike may very well do to tens of thousands of jobs in this province today?

Hon Mr Philip: I know the honourable member, like myself, has a particular interest in the history of this province, and if he looks at the history of the auto industry in this province he will know that the problem of replacement workers has not been a particular problem in that industry. What is interesting is that the industry has a higher productivity than anywhere else in the world. You can see that, whether you talk to the Japanese-Canadian car companies or indeed the Big Three. We think that by developing a labour relations act that creates more cooperation, more partnerships between business and labour, that we will be even more productive and therefore even more competitive.

1440

Mr Conway: My friend the industry minister on the one hand talks about his concern as to what the American rail strike may very well do this week or weekend to hundreds, if not thousands, of well-employed Ontario people in the manufacturing sector, most especially in the auto sector. He talks of his concern. Then he talks of partners, particularly in, let's say, in this case, the auto business in the province.

Does he not understand that his partners in the Canadian and the Ontario-based auto industry are very concerned about Bill 40 and about the provisions it contains, which in their view -- not mine, in their view -- could create and may very well create precisely the situation the American rail strike has in fact created for the Ontario manufacturing sector this week? Is he not concerned about the view of his partners in business in this province?

Does he not agree that if the replacement issue is not and has not been a problem in the Ontario auto sector, then why fix something that is not broken? Does he have or can he produce any studies that the Ontario industry ministry has done to look at the impact of Bill 40, particularly in this key business of replacement workers in industries like auto and petrochemical that are so incredibly sensitive and vulnerable to continental and global conditions? Has he done any studies of the impact of Bill 40, and can he and will he introduce and produce those studies forthwith?

Hon Mr Philip: As members of the advisory committee on auto parts and on the auto industry will tell you, I have very forcefully brought their concerns to the Minister of Labour and to the cabinet. In fact you will find that some 20 changes have been made in the Labour Relations Act, thanks to the input not only of the auto industry but also of other industries, and 11 are substantive. They appreciate the fact that I have brought their concerns and that they have had some changes made as a result of our listening to them. That's the kind of consultation which didn't take place in the previous government.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question's to the Premier, and it has to do with the abuse of power. The Premier will understand, I hope, that perhaps the most serious step a democratic government can take is to use its police force against its democratically elected opposition. You, Premier, have authorized just such moves, calling in the OPP anti-racket squad to silence the opposition.

Several weeks ago, my colleague the member for Bruce came into possession of something that was called a non-sensitive document from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. That I know made you and the government angry, and the move you took was to call in the OPP to find out how the member got that. You personally authorized this, Premier. I realize that the phone call was made by the bureaucracy, but you were then briefed and you had a choice. You could have said, "Don't do it; stop that investigation," or you could say, "Proceed with the investigation."

The Bob Rae I thought I knew, the Bob Rae I used to see in opposition, would have said so clearly: "This is a gross abuse of the use of the OPP. We are not going to go after the opposition on a matter like this using our police force." You would have said, "Stop it." But you sat silent and you said: "Go after them. Let the investigation proceed."

It's an extremely important matter, Premier, as I hope you can appreciate, for us in the opposition. My question is clearly this: What criteria did you use to allow the OPP to continue the investigation against the opposition?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member says that I personally authorized a police investigation. That happens to be false -- completely and utterly false.

He then says -- and I'm quoting him, and if it doesn't make it sense, it's because I wrote down the quote as he said it -- that I sat silent and said, "Go after them." That's the second allegation the member has made.

I want to say to the member that allegation is also completely and utterly false. It is without any foundation whatsoever. He said this twice. I understand the member's concerns. I heard him last night in the House, as I was watching him in the House, express this point of view again.

All I can say to the honourable member is this: The allegation that this government or this Premier personally authorized any kind of police investigation is completely and utterly false. It is without any kind of foundation whatsoever. I would not dream in a million years of interfering in any way whatsoever with decisions that are made with respect to the police and with respect to the administration of justice. I wouldn't have dreamed of doing it in opposition; I wouldn't dream of doing it as Premier.

I would hope that the member would have enough confidence in the integrity of the public service, in the integrity of the police process and in the integrity of our administration of justice to know that a Premier has absolutely nothing to do with the question of who investigates whom, when, why, what and where -- never, ever. That's our parliamentary system.

Mr Phillips: Premier, you have to come to grips with this. There is no question that the whole bureaucracy and the opposition were waiting for your answer on this. There's no question that everyone knows you made the final decision. I was completely convinced you would say, "Stop the investigation." It makes no sense to go after the member for Bruce for a non-sensitive document. What kind of an abuse of power are you bringing to the Legislature?

My question to you, Premier, is this: What are your criteria? When will you authorize your cabinet ministers to allow the OPP to investigate the opposition? What are we to expect from you, Premier? What are your criteria, what are your guidelines and what are your principles for when the OPP can be used to go after the opposition?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt as calmly and as directly as I can that I would not dream and the cabinet would not dream -- there isn't a cabinet minister around who would in any way, shape or form authorize, the way you've described it, a police investigation. It is not authorized by the cabinet. It is not discussed with me in any way, shape or form.

The idea that the Premier would suddenly be briefed on a police investigation with respect to an issue or that he would be asked to authorize such an investigation -- the member sat around the cabinet table --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): You sent them into my office.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mr Rae: He knows the basic principles of the division of power in our society. I can only say to him that I regret very much that the honourable member would continue to make these allegations. I can tell him they're without any kind of foundation whatsoever.

He says, "The Premier of this province sat around the table and said, 'Go after them.'" He says I said that. That is absolutely ludicrous. It's completely and utterly false. I would never dream of saying such a thing. He says I authorized an investigation. That is equally false.

Mrs Sullivan: Who sent them into my office?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member I think there may be a legitimate question we'll all have to discuss in this House and there may be a legitimate question that should be referred to a parliamentary committee with respect to a question of this kind.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I have no objection to it being considered in that way.

The member is somebody who has my respect and he will continue to have my respect, but I will say to him that to make that kind of an allegation is really unfair of the member. It is unworthy of a member who, generally speaking, is accurate and acute in the questions he asks in this House, but not in this respect and not in regard to this question.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The Ontario Provincial Police came to my office to question me on the direction of this government in relationship to a cabinet document that had come into my hands. How did they get there?

The Speaker: I believe the member alludes to a point of privilege which she indeed raised earlier.

Interjections.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I will get to him in a moment, when order has been restored to the chamber.

1450

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: On a very brief point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I listened carefully to what the Premier said but it is quite clear, speaking for the official opposition, that we are mad as hell about the fact that for the first time in my memory -- and there have been about four different cases -- the Ontario Provincial Police have found their way to offices of members of the Legislature. There will be a debate as to how they got there, but the Premier has made the suggestion that perhaps we ought to have some kind of an investigation.

Let me say, because this in my view is as fundamental a matter of parliamentary privilege as exists, that my friends from Bruce, Halton Centre and Scarborough-Agincourt will not rest content until they get a better indication as to how and why those police officers found their way to their offices, because it is perfectly incredible that those police officers did it entirely on their own whim.

Speaking as the deputy leader of the official opposition, I would certainly on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues ask you at the earliest point to convene some kind of meeting so that there can be a very clear and thorough investigation as to how this deplorable conduct occurred and on whose instructions or in whatever kind of capacity it occurred so there can be a complete and full report back to the assembly at the earliest time.

The Speaker: On the same point, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I would like to rise on the same point. There is no question the members the deputy leader of the Liberal Party has referred to are upset, as any member of this Legislature would be. Indeed, I would hope all 130 of us are upset and treat that intrusion on one member as an intrusion on all of us.

Questions have been repeatedly asked in the Legislature to ascertain if the Premier was behind this. He says not. I then suggest to you, Mr Speaker, there is one recourse left to all 130 of us as members: I, on behalf of all 130, if they wish me to speak on their behalf, but certainly on behalf of the 20 of us whom I am empowered to speak for, would ask you, sir, as Speaker, to conduct a legislative inquiry into who called in the OPP.

The Speaker: To the member for Renfrew North and the leader of the third party, the members may recall that in the first instance upon this matter being brought to the attention of the House earlier, your Speaker issued instructions to all law enforcement agencies in Canada that they were to first appear at the Speaker's office prior to visiting any member's office and that the Speaker must be satisfied that any visit to a member's office would be authorized by the member himself or herself.

While I'm not sure precisely of how much further help I can be, I understand the points that are raised and I understand they are serious. I am very pleased to reflect on this and to try to provide whatever assistance my office may be able to provide. I will try to get back to the House as quickly as possible because I realize how much members are concerned about this and, as your Speaker, I'm very concerned about it as well. I'll do my best within the jurisdiction of my office to be of assistance to members.

The member for Mississauga South with her question.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I'm sorry the Premier scooped up his marbles and ran out of the House, because I actually had a question for him, and I don't think we're very late in the day with question period that the Premier had to leave. It's unfortunate because we need somebody else in this province to speak for culture other than the current minister we have.

I want to say, since I now have to ask the Minister of Culture and Communications the question, since the Premier has left, that on the very day, Madam Minister, that your government tables your employment equity legislation, which comes on the heels of pay equity, on the very day you table that legislation, how is it that you can show so little regard for the employment of, mainly, women at the Art Gallery of Ontario? How is it that your government chooses to celebrate Canada 125 by closing the most important cultural institution in this country?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Mr Speaker, I think it's already been indicated that the board at the Ontario art gallery has some very difficult decisions to make. The ministry provides them with $9.5 million in funding and they have --

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Two point five less than last year.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Speaker, the member has indicated that it's less than last year. Perhaps what the member meant was that last year the art gallery came and asked for a bailout because they had a deficit. The last minister helped them with a one-time grant of $4 million.

It has come to this ministry and this minister to say that there will be no more bailouts.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St George-St David.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I understand the member's concern about jobs. I understand the hard decisions that the AGO board has to make. The ministry has had to look at those same hard decisions.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, this minister doesn't understand the meaning of the word "commitment." It was this province that initiated the expansion of the Art Gallery of Ontario. It was this province that mandated pay equity. When the art gallery went to the government last year and said, "We need some additional funding to meet your pay equity requirements," the government gave it the money for one year. What good is it to mandate a program in terms of pay equity and not give them ongoing funding? No wonder the board is making very difficult decisions. This minister's absolutely right.

But if you want to be very crass about it, I think this government, if it had any business acumen -- which I doubt very much -- would look at the $500-million worth of art that the Art Gallery of Ontario owns and then it would say: "Well, in terms of a business decision, it doesn't make any sense at all to close that gallery for six months." I say to this minister again -- my question is: How can you condone something that results in being so anti-culture and also anti-women?

Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Speaker, I've think I've been very, very clear in stating how much funding the Art Gallery of Ontario receives from this government.

Besides the $9.5 million that the art gallery receives from the ministry, it also receives funding from the Ontario Arts Council. It also receives additional moneys from the ministry to help with maintenance of its building.

The art gallery in 1987 and 1988 received over $8 million to help it with its new stage that's being put in place. I think it should be noted that I've seen a letter that states that when that gallery opens, the estimate of an increase to operations looks like $320,000, and it was supposed to be in the form of a foundation that was never set up.

1500

The Art Gallery of Ontario has had to make a very difficult decision right now to take a look at living within its base allocation. This is a first step in reorganizing and restructuring the art gallery and I'm sure that the art gallery will continue to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister succinctly complete her response.

Mr Scott: We want Rosario back first. Everything would be all right if we had Rosario back.

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

Hon Mrs Haslam: As I've said, there is culture in all of Ontario. This member complained a month ago because $68,000 was going to Mayworks, which was a cultural event in other areas of Ontario. There's culture in all of Ontario; there are organizations all over Ontario. We're all in a difficult situation. We're all working to maintain the culture of all of Ontario.

BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Tuesday night I was watching the news on television and I saw a story. It stated, or it really implied, that the provincial government has approved a CFC-based foam insulation product for use in residential construction. We're supposed to be getting rid of the CFCs, and I want to know why this product is being approved.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member for Guelph is correct; the item on the news was incorrect. We are in a situation where the federal government has approved a special CFC-based polyurethane, sprayed-in foam for insulation purposes. We have not accepted it here in Ontario for inclusion under the building code. In order for it to be included, it would have to be approved by the Building Materials Evaluation Commission. The ministry is looking at it now, but certainly it's not before the commission and has not been approved.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Mr Speaker, you and the members of this House and the people who are watching heard earlier the member for St George-St David raise questions with the Minister of Culture and Communications about the closing of the Art Gallery of Ontario and the imminent bankruptcy of the Toronto Symphony.

My question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is really quite simple. Given the fact that the summer is the period during which the art gallery has most of its visitations -- thousands and thousands of people come to the art gallery, and indeed thousands come to the city of Toronto and the greater Toronto area so they can visit the Art Gallery of Ontario -- I want to ask the Minister of Tourism and Recreation a simple question: Has he done anything at all? Has he spoken to the Premier? Has he spoken to the Treasurer? Has he spoken to his colleague the Minister of Culture and Communications, who sits directly beside him? Has he raised his voice in protest to say that for $1.2 million we are threatening the very tourist season in the city of Toronto and in the greater Toronto region because the government cannot find enough funds to keep one of Ontario's and Canada's premier cultural institutions open? What has he done?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I appreciate the question from the member. I would say to the member that the government of Ontario at the present time supports the Art Gallery of Ontario, and I'm sure he recognizes that, because the Minister of Culture and Communications has had a number of opportunities today to speak in this House about that. He would know that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation would support the Art Gallery of Ontario and that we recognize the value of what the Art Gallery of Ontario does in terms of tourism and the wealth of tourism that it creates.

I have had a number of opportunities to speak to the Minister of Culture and Communications, as well as to the Treasurer and the Premier, and he would know that, because I see these people on a regular basis. Our support is there in terms of tourism; our support will continue in terms of tourism.

Mr Sorbara: A couple of days ago the Minister of Skills Development used the forum of the Legislature to announce that he was creating some 241 temporary training jobs at a facility in southwestern Ontario. Today 244 people are about to lose their jobs at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Today the province of Ontario and the art gallery are about to forgo $30 million in revenue because it's closing its doors. Today the Premier of Ontario refused to answer a question about it. The Minister of Culture and Communications simply stood in her place and talked about all the wonderful things that she had done for the art gallery.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation expresses no concern, doesn't say a word about the fact that this is a direct and perhaps fatal attack on the art gallery and threatens tourism in Ontario. What are you doing about it? Are you speaking to anyone about it? Are you raising it in cabinet? Can you sacrifice $1.2 million from your own ministry so this institution can stay open?

Mr Scott: Take the bull by the horns and cough up.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): That's always the answer with you guys.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): No management telephones. If they answered their phones, they wouldn't need busy lines.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): With the cooperation of the member for St George-St David, the minister will have an opportunity to respond to the member for York Centre.

Hon Mr North: I suggest to the member that I have an opportunity to try to help develop tourism in the province; the opportunity to do that is not always an opportunity that --

Mr Sorbara: Close the science centre.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr North: Perhaps unlike governments of the past, I don't have the same opportunity to simply throw money at problems, nor do I have the opportunity to help the province by political grandstanding. My opportunities in the province are based on funds that I have and on opportunities that we can either create or that already exist. The member speaks of an opportunity that exists, and rightly so, but I suggest to him that the opportunity for us to have revenues from all different venues in the province from tourism does exist and will exist in the future.

A decision has been made by the board of the AGO that this is the approach it wishes to take. I don't have the money to simply throw at the problem. I am disappointed I don't have the revenues or the dollars that governments in the past have had. I don't have that same opportunity, and for that I am sorry. But other than that, there are tremendous opportunities in this province for tourism, and I hope those will exist in the future; I know the AGO will be one of those opportunities that exists in the future.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Conservation Council of Ontario has come up with a grade for the Minister of the Environment in her performance over the past term; it has come up with the mark of a D. Our caucus met, and everyone but Chris Stockwell agreed that an F would be more in order. The D, though, from the council stands for the dumps, the draconian way in which you're running things and the dictatorial way in which you're running your ministry.

My question really has to do with the selection of possible landfill sites within the greater Toronto area that fall in the watershed of Lake Ontario and of the Ganaraska. It pertains to those potential landfill sites and the very negative nature all these sites will have on Lake Ontario. Have you, as the minister, ever considered just dumping Metropolitan Toronto's garbage in Lake Ontario directly rather than doing it the slow way?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): No.

Mr Cousens: Thank goodness. Maybe she never thought of it, and that's good, because what she's done in thinking so hard is come up with a solution --

Hon Mrs Grier: Your government proposed it 15 years ago.

Mr Cousens: The proposals you are now coming out with, by having the Rouge Valley and the Ganaraska sites right next to Lake Ontario, so close to Lake Simcoe, are further proof of this ministry's not understanding the impact of these landfill sites on our water systems.

The D mark that has been given to the minister has to do with the failure of the government to respond to the need for good sewers and to the need to dispose of scrap tires. The Ontario Waste Management Corp has failed to be reviewed. There has been no review by this ministry to look at the emission levels in the post-1994 Countdown Acid Rain program. What I'm really pointing to is a whole series of problems around this ministry, and I would therefore like to know if the minister has any plans to try to improve her credibility.

1510

Hon Mrs Grier: I assume the member has read the entire report on Ontario's environmental track record which the Conservation Council of Ontario released yesterday. As is the mandate of the council, it addressed a number of ministries and a number of issues. Coincidentally, the very day it questioned where the wetlands policy was, the Minister of Natural Resources released a very strong, comprehensive wetlands policy.

Let me direct the member to the conclusions of the report, where it states that if the province carries through with its programs, we can expect to see improved protection for natural areas, improved pollution controls and a more environmentally sound economy. I can't think of a better record or rating than that.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. First of all, I would like to congratulate her on her announcement on employment equity today, as I'm sure my colleagues would join in congratulating her.

In the riding of Kitchener, the municipality I come from, a rather unique situation has developed. The city of Kitchener, to its credit, under the leadership of the current mayor, Dom Cardillo, had some foresight when it came to employment equipment. A number of years ago it hired an employment equity officer, did an employment equity audit and took some progressive measures in order to implement a plan and recognize some of the employment deficits that exist within the corporation itself.

However, a situation has developed recently among the firefighters of Kitchener, where the city is now putting together a new fire station and it is going to be hiring some additional firefighters. Part of that process requires that individual applicants obtain a mark of 70%. However, if you happen to be a white male and not from one of the designated groups where there is currently an employment deficiency, you have to obtain a mark of 85% in order to move on to the next step in the process.

I'd like to ask the minister, because a number of people in the city of Kitchener are asking, and quite rightly so, is this true employment equity?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I welcome this opportunity, first of all, to congratulate Kitchener. They did have the foresight, long before this legislation is enacted, to start to work on making sure that all their workplaces were fair and equitable and to take a leadership role. We're very pleased that they have started that process, and I want to congratulate them, as I'm sure you have already.

When it comes to the situation with the firefighters and setting various requirements that people attain certain marks within specified questions, the thing that was very interesting to me when I reviewed the process they used was that in the second round of questioning, the second test that was given to the individuals who had come to that particular point, a woman from the designated group actually scored the highest mark. It makes us wonder whether perhaps the first round had some bias in the questions. Perhaps they were not culturally sensitive and perhaps they were gender-specific types of questions. However, not having seen the questionnaire, it's very hard for me to know if that was the case.

We will be monitoring that type of outlook to make sure that what we really intend to do with employment equity -- Mr Speaker, I know you want me to wind down, so I will do so -- is to make sure that every individual in this province is treated fairly and equitably and is given the same treatment. That is what employment equity is all about: fairness and equity in the workplace for every one of our citizens in Ontario.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to refer you to standing order 51 of our standing orders. It reads as follows:

"All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table or filed with the Clerk of the House before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day."

Now, sir, I refer you to the business of the House for Thursday, June 25, 1992; that is today. I note that on page 6 of the business of the House there is a motion standing in the name of Mr Cooke, the member for Windsor-Riverside and the government House leader. I take it that this motion is printed in the Orders and Notices today because it was submitted, laid on the table, before 5 o'clock yesterday or filed with the Clerk or both.

I have a dilemma in this regard. At 6:40 yesterday, this draft of this motion was presented to our House leader by the assistant of the government House leader, Mr Cooke the member for Windsor-Riverside. The name of the assistant is Richard Lewko and at 6:40 he presented it to our House leader. At that time he was asked whether this version of this motion had yet been filed with the Clerk or tabled in the House, and the answer was that it had not, that the motion had not yet been tabled. The final version was there before Mr Elston, our House leader. So I simply put it to you, sir: How is it that this motion is printed in Orders and Notices today if it was not tabled, as confirmed by Mr Cooke through his assistant, before 5 o'clock yesterday?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the matter which the member has brought to my attention. I trust that he will realize that I will have to check with the Clerk -- I don't know instantly -- to determine whether or not what is printed on the notice paper was in fact filed, as prescribed by the standing orders, prior to 5 o'clock.

I am informed that the motion which is printed on the paper was indeed filed prior to 5 o'clock yesterday and therefore it is in order as per our standing orders.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I simply point out that in your conversation with the Clerk, you asked him whether it was tabled verbatim and he indicated it was. I simply want to inform you that yesterday, after 5 o'clock, I approached the table officers to see a copy of any notices that had been tabled with the table officers and I was advised that a motion had been tabled. I asked to see a copy of it and I was advised that members have no right to see a copy of those motions. I wonder if you could confirm whether that is the case, first of all, whether a document tabled or any notice tabled in this Parliament while it is in session is not available to a member.

Second, sir, I simply want to ask you to investigate the inconsistency between the information that you have been given -- that this motion, as written on this piece of paper, was tabled before 5 o'clock -- with the information provided by the government House leader, or the assistant to the government House leader, that the motion was not tabled as of 6:40.

In doing that, sir, I simply want to advise you that at 6 o'clock yesterday, I was part of a meeting with my House leader in which we were examining a draft motion and proposing amendments, some of which amendments were accepted by the government and included in this version as it is tabled now, so it couldn't possibly be the same as the motion that was tabled before 5 o'clock, if indeed there was a motion tabled before 5 o'clock.

1520

The Speaker: The member raises two points. On the second one, all I can deal with is the question of whether or not what is printed in the notice paper is verbatim what was tabled in the House or with the Clerk's office prior to 5 o'clock on the previous day. I'm satisfied that indeed is the case. Of course the Speaker has no knowledge of private conversations between members of the House or staff or anyone else.

On the first point the member raises, the member is absolutely right. I believe he would agree that it would be improper for any member of the House to receive information ahead of other members. It is has been our practice for as long as I'm aware that all members should receive the same information at the same time. The only way we can effect that is by way of the notice paper. The notice paper is printed up and the members receive it in their offices in the morning.

To release documents prior to that, it seems to me, would be quite improper, in that one member, in this case yourself, would receive notification ahead of other members. I think the member would agree that would not be a fair situation.

Mr Sorbara: On the same point, sir, one small additional point on that matter: I submit to you that once a document is tabled in this House it is, at the moment of being tabled, available to all members for inspection. I want you, in the investigations you've undertaken to do, to advise me, sir, as to how a member of this Legislature can independently verify that a document was tabled within the time frame provided by the standing order.

You know, sir, because you are very familiar with the rules, that if the document in question was not tabled by 5 o'clock, then without unanimous consent of the House it cannot be called for debate today. Therefore, it becomes an interesting, and I would submit to you an important issue whether or not this document was tabled by 5 o'clock.

I would like you, sir, to investigate the following and report back under this standing order whether or not the document that is in the business of the House today is the document that was tabled before 5 o'clock yesterday. Sir, at the same time I would like you to show me and provide to me a copy of the document that was tabled before 5 o'clock yesterday, and at the same time advise me as to how I as an independent member in this Legislature can independently ascertain whether or not a document has been filed or tabled within the time frames provided for in the standing orders.

It's a very complicated issue, sir, and I certainly hope you can report back after your investigation.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, it's not nearly quite as complicated as he may wish to believe. The member will be happy to know that there is no investigation required. The member should know, and I suspect he does, as all members of this assembly are aware, that the table officers and the Clerk are trusted servants of the House. They serve all members without favour and they serve in an honest capacity. When I ask the Clerk if what is printed in the order paper is verbatim what was received in his office prior to 5 o'clock and he says yes, that's all that's required.

On the other question the member raises, it's an interesting one. I would be pleased to reflect on it, the question of whether or not, when something is tabled, at that moment does it then become available to any member who inquires. I must balance that against the principle that all members in the House should be made aware of information at the same time so that no individual member has any undue advantage.

Having said that, I'm pleased to reflect on it and to see if I can provide for the member an answer which will satisfy his curiosity on this point. I appreciate him bringing it to my attention, because it's an interesting one. To my knowledge it has not been brought to this House before and thus will require a bit of thought.

Mr Sorbara: On a further point of order, Mr Speaker: Listening to your comments, I want to make it absolutely and completely clear that I do not question for one moment the competence, integrity and hard work of our table officers. They work extremely hard, and I suggest to members of this House put up with a lot while they sit here and listen to the debate.

I want to reiterate one point, sir, and that is to simply remind you that under the laws we pass in this Parliament, the legal meaning of the word "notice" is that when notice is given, then it becomes available for inspection to those for whom notice is given. The very nature of the term "notice" suggests that those for whom notice is given, at the point when notice is given, will have an opportunity to examine the document and independently verify that the appropriate notice is given.

I was advised yesterday after 5:30 that something had been tabled, but I was not allowed to look at it. I suggest to you, sir, that is inconsistent with the legal definition of "notice," whether used here or in other parliaments. I want you to advise me in due course what recourse I have as a member to determine independently of the table officers, in whom I have great confidence, and you, sir, in whom I have increasing confidence, that notice is given within the time frames provided for in our standing orders, and I would urgently like your response after due investigation.

The Speaker: I believe I told the member I would be pleased to reflect on it. I will take the matter under advisement with respect to the notice procedure and I will report back at my earliest convenience.

Finally, I appreciate the kind comments about the table, which I believe are echoed by every member in this chamber and well deserved. His kind personal remarks are also appreciated very much.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: This is a point of order on a new matter relating to what the member for York Centre just raised.

When you are reviewing this matter, I would ask you to review one further section of it. As the member has just stated, prior to 5 o'clock there was a motion tabled with our officers, and I certainly echo his words about their integrity and their competence and I have the highest faith in them. There was a tabled motion at that stage. Our House leader brought us a copy of it. Section 66a was missing from it and our House leader told us this would be in the revised copy. Today, in Orders and Notices, section 66a is in.

The question I would ask of you is, when a motion is tabled, can there be amendments made to it throughout the evening before it is printed, and would it have the same validity as if notice was given in its original form? Perhaps if we could have clarification of that, it might help resolve this matter. If indeed it cannot be amended, then I would support the argument that was just raised that this may not be in order for us to debate today.

The Speaker: I believe I can be of some assistance to the member for Eglinton in this matter. Quite simply, whatever is tabled in the House or in the Clerk's office prior to 5 o'clock will be printed verbatim on the order paper for the next day. If there are changes to be made, they may be made in the House. The Speaker, of course, has no control over private conversations, over whatever documents may or may not be altered by private parties who are having discussions. The Speaker has no authority and no business to be involved in anything like that. The Clerk's office will simply reprint verbatim what it receives prior to 5 o'clock. Any changes that might be made to that must, of course, be made in the House or new motions tabled on the succeeding day or days thereafter. I hope that clarifies the matter for the member.

1530

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would ask all members to join me in welcoming to our gallery today and to our assembly two very special visitors, His Excellency Alfred Siefer-Gaillardin, the Ambassador of France to Canada, and Mr Pierre-Antoine Berniard, the consul general of France. Welcome to the assembly.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition signed by 24 residents of Middlesex county, petitioning the arbitrator to "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."

I've affixed by signature.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 2,278 names from the town of Caledon which I'd like to submit to this Legislature.

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

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 21 proposed sites in the region of Peel as possible candidates for landfill, 15 of which are located in the town of Caledon;

"And whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, section 5(3);

"And whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environment assessment, including the right to review all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area, where a 'willing host' community exists who is interested in developing a new disposal system for greater Toronto area waste."

I have affixed my name to that petition.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I wish to exercise my right and obligation to present a petition to you. It's a petition addressed to the government of Ontario and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, wish to congratulate the pages who have served this Legislature for the past several weeks. They, all of them, are clearly an outstanding group of young women and men who have probably taught us far more than we've taught them. We thank them for their presence here at Queen's Park and for the diligent service that they've provided to this assembly.

"We express special gratitude to young Melissa Moreau from Thorold, who has shown exceptional talent and maturity, who should be very proud of herself, because" -- I tell you, Speaker -- "her parents, her schoolmates, her community and her MPP are especially proud of her.

"We wish all of these pages well as they return to their homes and hope for all of them a pleasant summer and have no doubt that some of them will be gracing this chamber as adults as members representing their respective constituencies."

That is signed of course by myself, and so the initial word "we" would be appropriate; Mr Johnson joined with me.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): The member for Parkdale.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to see you. You certainly brighten up this place.

I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the government of Ontario from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. The petition, signed by 1,400 people, says:

"Since Premier Bob Rae and Natural Resources/native affairs minister Bud Wildman took their current offices, they have changed the application of conversation laws. In fact, you are no longer applying the Game and Fish Act, the migratory bird act or federal Fisheries Act to natives. I believe we should be living in a democracy where the laws apply equally to all citizens and no one is exempt. Please reconsider and take action to treat us all as equals."

Madam Speaker, I'll give this to the page to present to you.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I listened intently to the petition my friend introduced. I want to assure him that I have many responsibilities in this House, but one of them does not deal with conversation laws.

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: That's exactly what it says in this petition. I forward it to the minister.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 141 names from my riding. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recent death and injury of five youths within the riding of Dufferin-Peel has deeply disturbed the residents; and

"Whereas these deaths might have been prevented if legislation concerning graduated licensing had been in place; and

"Whereas we would like to prevent further deaths and injuries to our new drivers and young people;

"We would like to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring forward legislation to introduce graduated licences within the province of Ontario."

Madam Speaker, I have affixed my name to that petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 58 constituents from the county of Middlesex. These constituents petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to set aside the Brant report, request a reduced annexation and preserve agricultural land and the rural way of life in the county of Middlesex.

This petition has been signed by residents of Granton, Glencoe and Parkhill. It was circulated and sponsored by the municipal councils and the county of Middlesex. I have affixed my name to this petition.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition of approximately 1,000 names from constituents in my riding and other parts of Peel. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Matthew Morten died tragically at his residence at York University as a result of a severed brachial artery caused by a shard of glass;

"Whereas the glass which caused Matthew's death broke free from the door of his residence and was not safety glass;

"Whereas the regional coroner from Metropolitan Toronto has refused the family's request for an inquest and has indicated that it was economically unsound to make universities replace non-safety glass, although a 'recommendation' has been sent to universities by the coroner asking only that they consider replacing such glass;

"Whereas there are other issues which should also be addressed, including the late response of the ambulance because it became lost on campus and the inability of the attendants to carry Matthew out on a stretcher due to the narrowness of the stairs;

"Whereas ignoring the abovementioned circumstances may lead to another death or serious injury;

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

"That an inquest into the death of Matthew Morten be ordered immediately to ensure the safety of other Ontario students is safeguarded."

I have affixed my signature to this as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Madam Speaker, before I present my petition, may I say what a delight it is to have you grace the Speaker's chair this afternoon.

"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 too have affixed my name to this petition.

1540

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition here signed by residents of Kitchener, Waterloo, Linwood, St Jacob's, Elmira and Petersburg, and it states:

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

"1. 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;

"2. Repeal the discriminatory and unconstitutional Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, in the province and all areas designated as French language."

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads in part as follows:

"That the right to appeal the decision made in the Debra Williams Ellul murder acquitting Guy Ellul of all charges be granted based on the fact that the decision not to allow the appeal does not accurately reflect the public's abhorrence and unacceptability of the outcome of this trial."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that's signed by 67 individuals from communities like Kitchener, Hillsburgh, Orton, Fergus, Arthur and Erin and it 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."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 11 signatures from my riding of Orangeville and other areas around the province. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my name to that petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have another 13,000 petitions here to bring to the total now 142,000 petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

It is signed with my signature of support.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from my riding and other cities around this province, from Concord, Scarborough, Thornhill and Etobicoke. It's addressed 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."

Madam Speaker, I've affixed my name to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr50, An Act respecting The Town of Mattawa and The Township of Mattawan.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Ms Ziemba moved first reading of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Does the minister have comments?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Just a few comments, in that we feel very strongly as a government that we must make sure all of our workplaces in Ontario are fair and equitable for all of our citizens in Ontario. This makes good economic sense as we come out of our recession and it builds towards the partnership between business, labour, equity-seeking groups and the government. I feel very strongly that we have set a model in place that will provide for a fair way of doing business in Ontario and make sure that all of our citizens in Ontario have that opportunity to participate fully in our economic recovery.

I would just like to say in closing that I want to thank all the people who have worked very hard to make sure that this bill came to fruition today, as I stated in my statement: the employment equity commissioner, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, as well as my cabinet colleagues, my caucus colleagues, the equity-seeking groups and my advisory community. They have done a very good job in helping me and giving me the assistance that I needed to come forward today with this bill.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Minister, comments on your bill?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): These amendments are intended to protect the integrity of Ontario construction locals.

1550

CONDOMINIUM CORPORATIONS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES ASSOCIATIONS CONDOMINIALES

Ms Churley moved first reading of Bill 81, An Act to revise the Condominium Act / Loi révisant la Loi sur les condominiums.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Would the minister like to make some comments?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I can do it now? Thank you, Madam Speaker. I notice my notes say "Mr Speaker." I'm pleased to be able to say "Madam Speaker" today.

I'm very pleased to introduce for first reading amendments to the Condominium Act. First enacted in 1967, this legislation has not been significantly amended in over a decade. During this period, condominium construction and ownership have increased dramatically. However, adjustments to the act and its regulations haven't kept up with the marketplace.

Provisions under the new Condominium Act will include such things as increasing the disclosure of information to condominium purchasers, improving the balance of rights and responsibilities within condominium corporations, providing increased protection for investments made by consumers in condominium housing, streamlining the approval process for condominium development, and expanding and diversifying the housing options available for condominium ownership.

I'm very pleased that today some representatives from the condominium industry are here with us and I thank them for their input over the years this has been going on. I certainly urge members to support this legislation, which will provide consumers with improved protection and make the operation and management of condominiums fairer and more accessible to the people who live in them.

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK ACT, 1992

Ms Swarbrick, on behalf of Ms Ward (Don Mills), moved first reading of Bill Pr57, An Act respecting the Borough of East York.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 16, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

1600

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

Ayes -- 62

Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury);

North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 28

Arnott, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Eddy, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Miclash, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ruprecht, Scott, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Bill ordered for third reading.

ARNPRIOR-NEPEAN RAILWAY COMPANY INC ACT, 1992

Mr Jordan moved second reading of Bill Pr47, An Act respecting Arnprior-Nepean Railway Company Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

FAITHWAY BAPTIST COLLEGE OF CANADA ACT, 1992

Mr Wiseman moved second reading of Bill Pr1, An Act respecting FaithWay Baptist College of Canada.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

SCHOOL SISTERS OF NOTRE DAME OF ONTARIO ACT, 1992

Mr Jackson moved second reading of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the School Sisters of Notre Dame of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CAMBRIDGE DISTRICT ASSOCIATION FOR CHRISTIAN EDUCATION ACT, 1992

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

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

1610

CITY OF LONDON ACT, 1992

Mrs Cunningham moved second reading of Bill Pr 10, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

372595 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 1992

Mr Mahoney, on behalf of Mr Ruprecht, moved second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act to revive 372595 Ontario Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF NORTH BAY AND TOWNSHIP OF EAST FERRIS ACT, 1992

Mr Harris moved second reading of Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of North Bay and Township of East Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF NORTH BAY ACT, 1992

Mr Harris moved second reading of Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of North Bay.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1992

Mr Mahoney, on behalf of Mr Chiarelli, moved second reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY STANDARDS OFFICERS ACT, 1992

Mr Christopherson moved second reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PEMBROKE AND AREA AIRPORT COMMISSION ACT, 1992

Mr Conway moved second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Pembroke and Area Airport Commission.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF VAUGHAN ACT, 1992

Mr Mahoney, on behalf of Mr Sorbara, moved second reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Vaughan.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PETERBOROUGH CLUB ACT, 1992

Ms Carter moved second reading of Bill Pr26, An Act to revive The Peterborough Club.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1992

Mr Mahoney, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, moved second reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

1620

CITY OF CORNWALL ACT, 1992

Mr Mahoney, on behalf of Mr Cleary, moved second reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Cornwall.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

SHER-BASSIN GROUP INC ACT, 1992

Mr Wessenger, on behalf of Mr White, moved second reading of Bill Pr30, An Act to revive The Sher-Bassin Group Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF CALEDON ACT, 1992

Mr Tilson moved second reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the Town of Caledon.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CINQUEMANI HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT, 1992

Mr Mahoney, on behalf of Mrs Caplan, moved second reading of Bill Pr33, An Act to revive Cinquemani Holdings Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1992

Mr Mahoney, on behalf of Mr Chiarelli, moved second reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

DUTCH CANADIAN ALLIANCE OF ONTARIO, INC. ACT, 1992

Mr Harnick moved second reading of Bill Pr39, An Act to revive the Dutch Canadian Alliance of Ontario, Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PORT ELGIN SPORTSMEN'S CLUB ACT, 1992

Mr Mahoney, on behalf of Mr Elston, moved second reading of Bill Pr41, An Act to revive Port Elgin Sportsmen's Club.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TRI-DELTA OF TORONTO ACT, 1992

Ms Murdock, on behalf of Ms Akande, moved second reading of Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Tri-Delta of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

1630

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1992

Mr Mammoliti, on behalf of Mr Marchese, moved second reading of Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1992

Mr Mammoliti, on behalf of Mr Marchese, moved second reading of Bill Pr86, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

RIDEAU TRAIL ASSOCIATION ACT, 1992

Mr G. Wilson moved second reading of Bill Pr94, An Act to revive Rideau Trail Association.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, there is unanimous consent to move third reading of Bill 16.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Cooke, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading of Bill 16, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant les emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Motion agreed to.

WATERFRONT REGENERATION TRUST AGENCY ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'AGENCE FIDUCIAIRE DE RÉGÉNÉRATION DU SECTEUR RIVERAIN

Mrs Grier moved third reading of Bill 1, An Act to establish the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency / Loi créant l'Agence fiduciaire de régénération du secteur riverain.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Does the minister have any comments?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): No, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Does any member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I would like to comment on Bill 1, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency Act. We had a chance the other evening, as we did second reading, to consider certain parts of the bill and I have to say there are two or three concerns I would like to bring before the House.

I just had a short discussion with the minister, just to confirm that this bill does not contain within it the possibility of people donating property or gifts of property to the province and then through that donation receiving a tax exemption for it. In fact, the spirit behind Mr Crombie has been one that I think is somewhat conciliatory in trying to work out a long-term plan. As people can move into that plan over a period of time, then there will be a sense that we will have protected better than we have in the past the waterfront along Lake Ontario.

If it should turn out that a generous benefactor to the province may want to give maybe a certain parcel of his property, the frontage or so many metres or feet, and then at that time relinquish the responsibility you have with ownership and the taxes that go with it, but also gain back not only the feeling of goodwill, of having contributed a lifetime gift to the province, but also to have some kind of tax benefit through that contribution, inasmuch as this bill does not contain that kind of tax advantage for people, I would hope there is an opportunity in the not too distant future where the Minister of the Environment can take the spirit of these comments and bring them forward in some other bill that might begin to encourage people to give something that is theirs to the rest of the population.

I think there is something in Scottish law where you may own something, but people can then still use it. We have a different sense of ownership on property; you can fence it and it's yours. That is something that is too bad in many cases, because sometimes we will own the best view of a river or a lake or an island and people driving by would like to see it and yet there can be no-trespassing signs that prohibit others from sharing in the beauty of that.

So as we are able to mature in our understanding of ownership of property, that is something we have to begin to say, that if you're willing to share that, then there can be a reciprocal benefit back to the benefactor or the donor of that property.

It's begun to happen at this point with snowmobiles where there are trails now crossing over private property and there's an understanding that's taken place between the owners of the property and the snowmobile clubs as they've developed fantastic winter trails through parts of the province of Ontario. That is something we can continue to develop as we develop walking trails and methods for our whole province to sort of open up, that there isn't anyone who has that classy, special privilege that separates them from others who may not have that ownership.

So the sense I'm bringing forward here certainly isn't covered in the bill. It's not reflected in any act we have before the government and I table it as something the minister might begin to look at. If I were to get a commitment from the minister that she were going to do it, I would not need to craft my own private member's bill or one from our caucus on this matter.

I want to raise as well a second subject. It has to do with the question I asked in the Legislature today. It wasn't what you'd call a friendly question to the minister, but it none the less raised the very question that was brought up last night in Whitchurch-Stouffville.

1640

When you start thinking about the effect the Interim Waste Authority could have upon the waterfront and on the water systems within the watershed of Lake Ontario and the Ganaraska and Lake Simcoe, in fact these proposed waste sites are being located on the headwaters and the tributaries of the water systems that feed into Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe and the Ganaraska. Placing these huge, 20-year-capacity landfill sites on locations where they will possibly break through and begin to destroy right at their headwaters and within those tributaries the very water systems we are trying to protect through this regeneration bill, is a matter of great concern to people in Ontario.

People now understand the damage that was done on the Don River and on the Humber. Only recently have we begun to appreciate that the Rouge is such a valuable natural heritage that we must do everything possible to protect it in perpetuity.

The fact of the matter is that the government now is considering placing on strategic, environmentally sensitive lands landfill sites that will for ever change the potential environmental health of the waterfront and of the watershed.

It is inconceivable that the Interim Waste Authority could even have thought it was possible to place landfill sites on these watershed systems and on the Rouge Valley system. The two in Markham I'm especially familiar with feed into the Rouge Valley system. Why, in the first place, would the Interim Waste Authority consider that there could be any viability to sites that are on the Rouge Valley? Why did they consider them worthwhile, to cause the community to say, "Is this the environmental sense of the Ministry of the Environment?" If the Minister of the Environment is that far out of it to have allowed fundamentally sacred environmental sites to be selected, then that Minister of the Environment has failed in the overall environmental responsibility to the people of Ontario -- no longer green, no longer sensitive to the commitment all of us want to see on the protection of our watershed.

I can't begin to tell the Speaker and other members of this House and the people of Ontario how angry people are becoming. I guess the problem is that many people do not know how this system works here at Queen's Park. They have no sense of how a bill, such as Bill 143, brought in by the government last October, the latter part of October -- the government would have tried to rush through Bill 143 so that by December 19 when the House rose it would have been dealt with, it would have been passed, and then at some choice moment the Interim Waste Authority would release the potential landfill sites that would be used for York, Durham and Peel.

I for one never suspected that the Interim Waste Authority, which is under the aegis and control of the Ministry of the Environment, would begin to choose sites that it has, sites that feed our water systems.

People are concerned about their air, their land and their water. The bill we're talking about here, Bill 1, the first bill this government wanted to present to show good faith to the people of Ontario when the House resumed back in April, was this regeneration bill of the waterfront. Good sense, good intentions, but on the one hand they present this bill as if there's something going to happen, and on the other this government is allowing sites that feed this waterfront, sites that feed into this watershed, to be considered as landfill sites. It is totally inconsistent.

That is why I asked the honourable Minister of the Environment the very simple question, "Did you as a minister consider just dumping the garbage directly into Lake Ontario?" The minister quickly responded today, and it's probably the shortest answer I've ever had from the minister. She said, "No." I'm pleased she didn't.

But the fact of the matter is that the net effect of having sites that could be part of the tributary system, the headwaters of these rivers that feed into our watershed, which can then become the lifetime habitat of our garbage, is absolutely unacceptable in the extreme.

I can't believe the Minister of the Environment has not gone back to the Interim Waste Authority and said: "Remove those sites. Remove them now from immediate consideration or further consideration. Let there be no further thought of those sites as being under consideration, because they're part of the Rouge, they're part of the Don, they're part of the Ganaraska." Because of that the minister, in her former environmental self, would have some sense to say: "Remove them. I want to take action on them."

The concern of the people in York, Durham and Peel goes far beyond the NIMBY syndrome: not in my backyard. The member for Durham-York last night obviously had a deep sense of how people were feeling. People are angry in his riding. They're angry in my riding. This government has declared war on the people in the greater Toronto area by saying, "We're going to put the garbage dump right in the most valuable land in Canada, land that can then feed right into the watershed that's part of Lake Ontario."

All the confusing signals that come out of the choices for the selection: It's on historic land, it's on prime agricultural land, it's on land near large communities -- there are so many issues about the flawed choice of properties to be considered for landfill sites for the greater Toronto area. Among the most flawed is the very decision by this government to allow those sites to be on the watershed, to be on the tributaries, that then in the future our water may be something we just cannot drink. We are faced with a sense of how we can work together to protect our waterfronts. That's one of the issues.

The inconsistency of this government coming along with Bill 1 and saying, "Yes, we want to do something about the waterfront," and in following the sense that we have in the Crombie report, there you see the picture of it. Seldom do you see the context of that where you see all the tributaries feeding into Lake Ontario. What I didn't have time to do was place on this map in York, Durham and Peel where the landfill sites are and how they are going to flow into this network. That is in itself one of the master subjects that has to be dealt with.

Of course we will be told by the honourable minister that this will be given full and proper consideration through the process established under Bill 143. It's a flawed process in the first place. It's a flawed process that doesn't allow other options to be considered such as the possibility of rail-hauling garbage to other sites such as the willing host at the Adams mine in Kirkland Lake, which would mean you would not have the chance of the water systems that we're talking about in Lake Ontario being impacted negatively by having landfill sites here.

If we were allowed to rail-haul to northern Ontario, where they want it, I think, after it successfully passed an environmental assessment and it was proved that the site was worthwhile, then we might be in a position to have far more sites that are located around Lake Ontario, around Simcoe, around the Ganaraska, protected.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would draw the member for Markham's attention to Bill 1, which is on the orders at this time, and respectfully ask him to address Bill 1.

1650

Mr Cousens: If there's any doubt I'm on topic then you obviously haven't been listening, Madam Speaker. The fact of the matter is that this ties in very closely. People are saying you've got something to do. I am mad. You can't come along and say, "Bill 1 is a statement of wonderful principle of this government," when on the other hand this government has implemented, and is in the process of implementing, Bill 143. They are not inconsistent. If the Speaker is trying to rule me out of order because I'm tying the two in, then I would like to see her ruling.

I do not see any inconsistency from where I'm coming from. I will challenge anyone who says Bills 1 and 143 are a dichotomy. What has happened with Bill 1 and what is going on with Bill 143 should be harmonized. I, for one, am not about to accept the approach that this government has considered: to allow this basic hypocrisy with the people to be perpetuated, or to allow it to go by without comment or to allow myself to be taken in by something that is far more important, and that is the whole subject.

You cannot isolate one thing from the other. In politics people like to compartmentalize things so that you can say, "Hey, there it is." But what we're talking about with our whole watershed and the regeneration of the waterfront ties in to how you feed it in.

If this government thinks the people in York, Durham and Peel are going to stand idly by while this government is going to place landfill sites in environmentally sensitive areas that are part of the heritage and the environment, then I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that we're in for a major confrontation, and that confrontation is really part of my speaking up today.

There are people out there who want to be heard and who want this government to understand the interaction of all the different concepts that come together to do the right thing, so that you've taken into consideration the latest technology, the social habitat, the whole environmental picture, the nine principles that are presented by Mr Crombie in his report. All of these things begin to give us a composite.

To deal with Bill 1 in isolation from Bill 143 is a mistake. Though I support Bill 1 and the intentions that are so well presented by Mr Crombie in his report and by the general intent of the bill, I dislike the fact that there is going to be more money spent -- you've got another agency started and you've got a lot of hidden agendas that may come to the fore through this. I don't want to be proved wrong on this, but there is not a lot of trust on the part of people who were looking for more from the honourable minister. There is not the total commitment to water that this government was to have brought forward.

One of the things is the whole act on water, the water secretariat. Where is that legislation? It's not here.

In making my remarks, I draw attention to these very real concerns. They will not go away. The people of Ontario have lost their fighter in the opposition member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore -- I hope I've got the right riding -- the now Minister of the Environment, when she was in opposition and was one of the most ardent spokespeople for environmental concerns. Now that she is in the very high and lofty post of Minister of the Environment she is one who seems to have lost the grasp of the grass roots and the concerns they have about these fundamental issues. It is not a subject that will go away. I am not about to allow the subject to drop.

Different members are indicating that they would like to get on to other subjects. I really had every feeling that I had more time to pursue this subject. If that is not the case, I want to respect some of the agreements that have been made.

I have to say to you, Madam Speaker, that there is far more to be said to the Minister of the Environment and to the government on these environmental matters. I, for one, hope that I am not silenced by all these new agreements and arrangements around the Legislature, which is now somehow going to control the amount of time we have to speak and the amount we can represent for our ridings and to our people on these issues.

I believe that what I have to say on this has to be heard. I'm just sorry that though the honourable minister is here, she does not react as responsibly as I would have hoped, when you consider that in her own mark for Ontario's environmental track record from the Conservation Council of Ontario the minister has only been given a D. I would have given the Honourable Ruth Grier an A in all the subjects when she was in opposition. Now that she has a chance to do it, the marks aren't coming out as well.

May we still hope for something good, and may we, in reviewing the next few weeks as Bill 143 continues to be a subject of debate, as Bill 143 ties into Bill 1, as the whole issue of the environment heats up in the heat of summer and as people in York region, Durham and Peel continue to understand how this government has lost its mission and has lots its sense, we must remind them of the purpose we have to fight for all environmental matters and to be genuine in our commitment to make a difference in a positive way.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions on the member's speech? Seeing none, I would ask the minister if she would like to wind up her final comments.

Hon Mrs Grier: Madam Chair, I have no further comments.

Motion agreed to.

TOWN OF MATTAWA AND TOWNSHIP OF MATTAWAN ACT (OTTO HOLDEN DAM BYPASS), 1992

Mr Eves moved second reading of Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the Town of Mattawa and the Township of Mattawan.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 11, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

Bill 12, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur l'exploitation minière.

1700

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI RELATIVE AU GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL DANS LE DISTRICT DE PARRY SOUND

Mr Cooke moved third reading of Bill 77, An Act to amend The District of Parry Sound Local Government Act, 1979 / Loi modifiant la loi intitulée The District of Parry Sound Local Government Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Does the minister have any comments?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No.

The Acting Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter into the debate?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to compliment the minister and his staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for bringing this bill forward.

This bill will actually clear up problems in two municipalities, the township of The Archipelago and the town of Carney, which were created by the District of Parry Sound Local Government Act in 1979, and by an oversight of the government of the day -- we all know who that was -- the roads in those two municipalities were not transferred to the municipalities. Really, that is the purpose of this legislation: to clear up that anomaly so that these municipalities can get on with their business.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Mr Cooke moved government notice of motion 10:

That notwithstanding standing order 6(a)(i), the House shall continue to meet commencing Monday, June 29, 1992.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Cooke moved government notice of motion 11:

That the standing orders be amended as follows:

The standing order 6(a) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"6(a) During a Parliament, the House shall meet:

"(i) from the Monday following the week prescribed by the regulations made under the Education Act for the school holiday in March to the Thursday preceding Victoria Day and from the first Monday following Victoria Day to the fourth Thursday in June; and

"(ii) from the fourth Monday in September to the Thursday preceding the week in which Remembrance Day falls and from the Monday of the week following Remembrance Day to the second Thursday in December."

That the following new standing order be added after standing order 23:

"23a(a) Except where otherwise expressly provided by the standing orders, when the Speaker is in the chair, no member shall speak for more than 30 minutes.

"(b) Notwithstanding clause (a), the first speaker for any recognized party in the House may speak for not more than 90 minutes in the following circumstances:

"(i) debate on second reading of a government bill.

"(ii) debate on third reading of a government bill.

"(iii) debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

"(iv) debate on the budget motion.

"(v) debate on the interim supply motion.

"(vi) debate on any other substantive government motion."

That the following new standing order be added:

"37(f) The period for 'Introduction of Bills' shall be limited to 30 minutes."

That the following new standing order be added after standing order 44:

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

"(b) At the end of the sessional day during which debate on the time allocation motion commences as the first government order of the day, the Speaker shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, the division bells shall be limited to 15 minutes.

"(c) A time allocation motion may not be moved until at least three sessional days of debate have taken place on second reading consideration of any government bill or a substantive government motion when that government bill or substantive motion has been called as the first government order of the day on each of the days.

"(d) For the purpose of this standing order the term sessional day means any day on which the House sits."

That standing order 51 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table before 5:00 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day. Government notices of motion shall be distributed by the Clerk to the House leaders of recognized parties in the Legislature at the time of tabling."

That standing order 66 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"66(a) No government public bill, other than the supply bill, introduced during the last 8 sessional days in June in the period provided for in paragraph (i) of standing order 6(a) or during the last eight sessional days in December in the period provided for in paragraph (ii) of standing order 6(a) shall be called for second reading during the same sessional period.

"(b) When the meetings of the House as provided for in standing order 6(a)(i) and standing order 6(a)(ii) are extended by motion of the House beyond the fourth Thursday in June and the second Thursday in December, no government public bill introduced during the last eight sessional days in June, the last eight sessional days in December or in the extension period shall be called for second reading in the extended period."

That these permanent standing orders come into force at 12:00 midnight on the Friday of the week that they are passed by the House.

That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised edition of the standing orders of the House, renumbering as may be deemed necessary and making such technical and consequential changes as may be necessary.

That outstanding issues relating to the standing orders be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee for consideration and that the report be sent back to the House leaders of recognized parties in the Legislature for final agreement.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Do you have any opening comments?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker. This is the government motion that reflects discussions that have taken place over the last couple of weeks that deal with amendments to the standing orders of our Legislature.

I know there are members in the Legislature on all sides -- but obviously in particular in the opposition parties -- who feel very strongly about this issue and about the first resolution we presented as a government. But I want to say that I very much appreciate the work that has been done in the last week and a half or so, where the House leader for the official opposition, the House leader for the third party and myself have sat down to try to take the first draft -- if we might call it that -- of rule changes, work on some of those rules and try to work out as best we can a compromise to modernize the rules in the Legislature to still protect very much the role and the right of the opposition parties to oppose the government but also to bring in some changes to the rules that will allow the government of the day to get its legislative agenda through the House.

The rules change we are proposing simply deal with a few items, and I'd just like to outline them.

First of all, the calendar is changed very minimally. The calendar is changed so there is just one week off at the beginning; instead of coming back the week before the March break and then having the March break and then coming back after, we are now going to come back the week after the March break. At Christmas, there will be one fewer week so that instead of adjourning the Thursday just before Christmas, it will be one week before that, which will be exactly the same as the federal House.

The other changes deal with the provision for time allocation in the rules. The opposition parties had expressed some concern that the original time allocation motion which we proposed did not provide for adequate guarantees and protections for debate of bills at second reading or for substantive motions of the government. The compromise that's been worked out guarantees that the government of the day cannot move a time allocation motion until there's been at least three sessional days of debate at second reading or for a substantive motion of the government.

Another change being proposed is like what we did a few years ago under the previous government when restraints were put on the time to introduce petitions because of problems that occurred when we were in opposition and we used the open-ended ability to introduce petitions to hold up government business. The same thing has happened with the introduction of bills. Under this proposal there will be a 30-minute restriction on the introduction of bills.

Those are the major changes in the rules. I think they will provide some guarantees that the government will have a better opportunity to get its legislation through the House, but they will also provide more than adequate opportunities for the opposition parties to oppose and indicate their opposition to legislation that's before the House.

There are a couple of other items that were requested by the opposition parties. We've included automatic sharing of the motions that are tabled with the table officer so that at 5 o'clock, when a substantive motion is tabled, the opposition House leaders will now be given a copy of that by the Clerk's office.

I understand there are members of the opposition parties who are not happy with the rules package, but I think it certainly was time to look at some modernization of our rules. I think this is very much a middle ground when you compare the original rules proposal that I tabled on behalf of the government with the package we are now debating.

Understanding those strong feelings, I look forward to listening to the debate this evening, and I very much appreciate the assistance and good-faith bargaining that has gone on in the last couple of weeks with the House leaders for the official opposition party and the third party.

1710

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to enter the debate?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): We're just sorting out some of the confusion between the third party and ourselves as to the process for this evening, Madam Speaker. It's nice to see you in the chair. It occurred to me earlier that if the member for Mississauga West and the member for Mississauga South weren't here, there might not have been any business done in this House this afternoon. So congratulations on a job well done today. It's your first time in the chair, I believe. That's terrific.

I want to take a moment to put on the record some concerns and to make it very clear to people what these changes are all about, because one of the great frustrations we've experienced in opposition is that the general consensus or feeling in the public is: "What are you guys doing? Why don't you get on with these rule changes and stop fighting about this stuff?" The media have a big yawn about it. The implication in some of the media reports was that the government House leader had arrived at a deal, I think was the terminology that was used in the media.

I want to set the record straight and tell you there was no deal on the part of the official opposition, the Liberal Party. What there was in essence was capitulation, facing the reality that the government, with its large majority, really had us in a position where we were backed up against the wall, backed into a corner, no tomorrow, all those clichés that forced us to say, "Well, I guess you're going to shove this down our throat and I guess we're just going to have to live it."

The reason there was no deal or no agreement, even through all the negotiations the government House leader referred to with regard to the opposition House leader and the House leader for the third party, is that the word "draconian" would not do justice to some of the amendments.

Just in case and in the hope someone might be watching this in the public, I just want to lay down in the clearest terms what I understand the impact of this to be.

The term "time allocation" gets thrown around as being not that significant. What this does is amend the rules where there currently is a provision for time allocation to deal with a piece of legislation, and as you know, Madam Speaker, the debate goes in rotation. The government can stand up at some point and move time allocation under the current rules, which in essence says there will be a specific amount of time for debate, a specific amount of time for committee work and a specific amount of time to vote on the particular piece of legislation. So it lays out the ground rules.

You, in the capacity of the Speaker, would have the authority under the current rules to stand up in this place and say to the government, which is moving time allocation: "I am the Speaker. I don't believe enough time has been spent on this legislation. I don't believe there have been enough speakers. I don't believe there have been enough hours or days in that situation."

The new rules take that power away from you. They take away the power of the Speaker, more than anyone else in this place, because the Speaker will no longer have the authority to make that judgement call. The Speaker will no longer be able to say: "There have been only three members of the opposition speak against this bill and two members of the government, and I don't think that's enough debate. There has been only one day or two days of debate, and I don't think that's enough debate. We're going to continue the rotation." Your hands, your powers will be taken away and you will simply be forced to put the motion to dispose of all questions before this House as soon as the time allocation takes effect.

If a government does not abuse it, the implication may not be that great. But what about a government that does abuse it? This government may say, "Well, gee, we wouldn't do that." What if -- and I would ask members in the opposition to think about this -- we wound up with some very radical right-wing government, maybe 20 years from now, that might decide it's going to ram through its legislation and its agenda and to heck with the members of the opposition? This will give them the power to do it.

I ask the government House leader, why do we need to go that far? Why do we need to strip the Speaker of his or her authority to allow debate to continue when you take a look at one of the other changes -- and this is a change for which there would be some sympathy in some ranks of the opposition and in the public -- and that is the amendment that will reduce and limit the time for speeches?

We've all heard speeches. When we were in government, we heard one from a member up here, who will be speaking on this a little bit later, that lasted 17 hours. I think he was reading the phone book for the most part.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It was a good speech on a key issue of Liberal legislation.

Mr Mahoney: You thought it was a good speech. I was suffering through it at the time. I was a little less than impressed. What I was impressed with was the fact that an opposition member of this Parliament had the tools available to him to put forward the concerns of his constituents in Welland-Thorold and of all people across this province. He used it to the limit.

What we're now being told is that we're going to have limits of 90 minutes for the opening speech, which would be by the leader of the party or the critic for the issue, and then each member in this place would be limited to 30 minutes. Thirty minutes is a time frame in which you should be able to give a pretty decent speech.

But limiting the length of speeches is in effect time allocation. Saying that the leadoff is 90 minutes, there you go; you move around the rotation to your three leadoff speakers, you do 90 minutes for each one, you then come back and you do 30 minutes. If every member in the place spoke for 30 minutes, which is an absurdity -- it simply would not happen -- at the end of that period, time allocation would be automatic and a vote would take place.

If we're bringing in time allocation on the length of speeches, why do we need to give this government time allocation on debate on a bill? It is a double hammer that is totally unnecessary and simply shows that this government is afraid to debate the issues that are of such significance at any length beyond the controls it's putting in place. You can shake your head, Mr Mills, but I don't know what other conclusion I can arrive at, except to say you're just going to stomp your feet and you're going to use your big majority to bring in two forms of time allocation.

Let me talk about another aspect of our current regulations: closure. Closure should not, under our current regulations, be confused with time allocation. Time allocation says we're going to do the following in the following order. Closure says we're now going to put the question and there will be no more debate. You no longer need closure because time allocation under these rules in effect becomes closure. Any minister can stand up and move time allocation for any bill and it's over; the party's over. Sure, you have to have three days' debate on second reading. We had to wrestle that out of the government House leader over weeks and weeks of acrimony and fighting and disagreement to get him to agree to three days. So we get three days debate at second reading.

Then the time allocation motion is put and we get one day. It was the House leader for the third party who insisted there be at least one day's debate on the time allocation motion. He would agree, I'm sure, he had to wrestle the government House leader for weeks on end to get that. What they wanted was a one-hour debate on time allocation and the jig's up, the game's over. At least we have a day to debate time allocation. Hopefully during that day we can point out to the public, we can hope they care and the public understands, that we're having our rights taken away here.

I can just see it a year from now -- maybe even sooner than that, maybe when the government puts time allocation on the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, because we know that's what this is all about. I can just hear the phones ringing in your office and mine, with people saying, "You're an opposition MPP; why didn't you stop those guys?" You know what I'm going to say? "Do you remember the debate on the rule changes? Do you remember the debate when one day we came in and called for a quorum and forced this House not to sit for the entire day and people said, 'A pox on all your houses'?"

I suggest to Mr Robert Fisher of Global, who apparently was the one who made that comment, to look at what these rule changes do. They put a hammer in the hands of a majority government that can stifle and shut down the opposition in this Parliament with one single motion and four full days of debate. It calls an end to it.

Why didn't former governments do that? We had 95 members. We lived with the time allocation motion. Sure, we put time allocation, but we put it in a way that the Speaker had the option of saying, "Not enough time has been allocated to this particular bill, and I'm going to insist, as the Speaker, that debate continue." If we wanted to be heavy-handed, we could have buried the opposition. We chose not to do that because we respect the parliamentary democratic traditions of this place. We respect the fact that regardless of who you are and where you come from and what party you represent, you are one of 130 people elected to sit in this Legislature and represent your constituency; that for all our differences, we are all equal; that for all our different positions and different perks in salaries and limousines, we are all equal, we are all members of provincial Parliament.

1720

Some of you are in support of the government, some of you are the government and some of us are in opposition to the government. We have a role that should be distinguished, that should be built on the finest parliamentary traditions, which say it is not only our right but our responsibility to hold the government accountable to the voters of this province and to ensure that full debate takes place on each and every issue and motion that comes before this Legislature.

We have members of this Legislature who have been here some time, who are so disturbed by what this government is doing with these rule changes that they are thinking of resigning.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Oh, no.

Mr Mahoney: They are. They are distraught over the fact that they are being stripped of their right to stand up and debate at whatever length they choose an issue of significance and importance to the people they represent. For all of my philosophical differences with the socialist party in this province, I would never have believed it would sponsor such a motion. It's a shock.

I say to the people at home: "Wake up, folks. Understand this is not an issue about limiting my right to speak to 30 minutes." That's not the issue at all. This is not an issue about limiting a leader's right or a critic's right to speak for 90 minutes. This is an issue about the purest form of democratic expression this country cherishes, the right of the minority to be heard. We are the minority, for the time being. We have certain tools at our disposal to make sure our voice is heard, to make sure our issues are put forward. The New Democratic Party government in Ontario is taking that away through time allocation and through limiting of the speeches; it does not need both.

Bring in a reasonable amount of reform that puts a time on the speeches. Other jurisdictions, the federal House and other provinces, have that. We can live with that. Perhaps not all members can -- some of my colleagues want unlimited speeches -- but I for one would be prepared to live with some sort of orderly process that allowed for time limits on speeches. What I cannot tolerate is this bald time allocation motion that allows this government to shut us down.

I'm only going to speak a short time on this, as much as I would truly like to go on at some length because I feel very passionately about it. But there are other members who have been here longer than I who have very strong feelings on this who will be carrying the debate and who may not be as moderate, frankly, as I have just tried to be in suggesting I would entertain some kind of motion that limited time on speeches. We have other members who think what Mr Kormos did in 17 hours is totally appropriate and that he or anyone should be allowed to continue along those lines. There is a valid argument for that. These other people are going to speak on this issue.

I want to address something else before I conclude my remarks. One of the justifications of the government House leader and members of the government whom I've talked to about this is that they want time for more participation by their backbench members. They want an opportunity for the members on the back benches of the government to stand up and speak, yet do we hear them doing that? You have all kinds of chances. Negotiate with your House leader the same way I do to get on a speakers' list. But we don't hear that.

The government says it wants more time in the Legislature for its backbenchers to speak. Could somebody please explain to me how that jibes with an amendment that reduces the sitting time in this Legislature by one week around the March break -- one week less you will be here; you won't have an opportunity to speak -- and we would sit for only two weeks in December instead of three? They originally wanted four weeks' less sitting time in this place and it was negotiated down to two weeks. Now it's two weeks' less time. How does it compute that you want more time to talk to your constituents and the people of this province about what it is you want to debate, yet you're reducing the sitting time of this House, assuming you call us back on time in the fall, which I have grave doubts about? There's going to be two weeks' less sitting time in this place.

I'll tell you what they want, Madam Speaker. They want two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, any number of weeks' less question period time, less pressure time for the Premier and the cabinet to be held accountable to the public. That's what they want. They want less accountability. They want a bigger hammer to put a muzzle and a sock in the mouths of the opposition members. It's absolutely undemocratic, and I can tell you that I and the colleagues in my party will be voting against these amendments, because we have not agreed to any deal. The only thing we agreed to was that it was about time we got on with some of the government business.

For the first time in weeks today, as I and other people in this House stood up and moved second and third readings on behalf of our colleagues, we went through three pages of second and third readings on bills. It was our party that was insisting we get on with government business. There were 15 bills we identified. We said, "We want you to bring them in."

Why haven't we dealt with Sunday shopping? It's supposed to be a free vote. We can't talk about it. I'd like to hear from the members opposite who don't support their Premier, and I think maybe the public would. I'd like an opportunity to debate an issue of such significance, but they bring in a bill that is retroactive so they don't care when it gets dealt with and they simply push it under the rug.

Don't kid anybody about a deal having been made. There is no deal. There is only capitulation. There is only browbeating. There is only stomping on the democratic principles and freedoms of members of the opposition by a government that is bent on its agenda, that cares nothing for the rights of the opposition which it used to defend so greatly, that believes its way is the right way and everybody else is wrong, that has become arrogant and fat and bloated in a short 18 months in office and frankly must be a terrible embarrassment to the members of the New Democratic Party and to the people who voted for them.

1730

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I won't be nearly as lengthy as I was in my last speech on the standing orders. I believe it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of three and a half hours.

[Applause]

Mr Eves: Now that the member for Carleton has applauded, I might have to reconsider.

I would like to get a few comments on the record about the proposed standing order changes, and I would also like to talk a little bit about the process. I believe we are finally doing changes to the standing orders the way they are supposed to be done; that is, by negotiation and ultimately agreement of the House leaders of all three recognized parties in the Ontario Legislature.

I do regret the tack the government took. I've said that previously in my previous remarks, and I won't belabour it here, but I do regret the tack the government took, not only in placing on the order paper, because that has been done before, for example, by the government represented by the same party as the member for Mississauga West -- at that time, the House leader of the day, who is the member for Renfrew North, tabled unilateral standing order changes on the order paper but then used that as a negotiating tactic -- lever, hammer, whatever you want to call it -- to bring the other two House leaders into negotiations, and ultimately the rules were changed in 1989 on that basis by consensus.

The difference here with the government of the day is that not only did it table the standing orders, it actually brought them forward as an order of the day and began debate as a further pressure tactic to get the other two parties to sit down and negotiate changes to the standing orders.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): And they didn't tell us.

Mr Eves: And they didn't tell us. That's a very important difference, I might add. It was tabled at 5 o'clock on a Thursday, and the next thing we knew, when we got up on Monday morning, we read in the Globe and Mail that we were going to be discussing standing orders. I don't believe that set a very good tone at the outset, and I believe we wasted, quite frankly, some five or six days of time in this House that could have been spent dealing with legislation because we were debating a set of standing orders that everybody knew, including the government House leader, were never going to come to pass. It was not going to be done, I don't believe, unilaterally. I believe it was being used as a bargaining ploy to exert some pressure to get negotiation on a rule package.

I would submit that could have been done just as effectively through House leaders' meetings and, if necessary, by sending the package out to the Legislative Assembly committee, as was done in 1989, having it report back to the House leaders, as it did then, and agreeing by some consensus.

I don't see any need for absolutely having to have standing orders before we leave here for the summer recess. However, that is the government's prerogative and it is the government House leader's prerogative to call such orders as he or she may see fit, and in this instance the government House leader has, much to the disappointment of a lot of us, or all of us on this side of the House at least, chosen for many days in a row to call an item of business that has nothing to do with public policy, that has nothing to do with legislation, that won't create one single job in the province of Ontario and that won't help one single individual; it is to deal with the standing orders. I don't believe this is the proper place to be carrying on those negotiations. They should be carried on in committee and in House leaders' meetings.

However, having said that, I do believe we now have a package amending four or five basic standing orders that I think will make this place a more efficient operating legislative chamber. I do not totally agree with each and every new agreed-upon standing order but, as in any negotiation and consultation process, one has to make some compromises.

We in our party do not agree with the shortening of the calendar for the Legislative Assembly. Originally the government proposed that the calendar be shortened by some three weeks, and it has now backed off to shortening it by two weeks. I think the very argument the government House leader himself has made on occasion, that he doesn't have enough time to get legislation through, is kind of contradictory to the fact that now he wants to shorten the calendar by some two weeks.

I would totally agree with the member for Mississauga West when he says that the real agenda on the government's part here is probably that it wants to spend less time during question period. I don't blame any government for doing that, I guess, but I think we also have to balance that by realizing that's what makes our parliamentary democracy so different from a presidential or republican system, when the ministers of the crown, who are duly elected ministers under our system, have to appear in public every day and answer for the public policy decisions they are taking. I'm not in favour of reducing the amount of opportunity opposition members, or indeed even government backbench members, have to hold those ministers accountable in the public forum and in the Legislative Assembly. That's standing order 6.

Standing order 23a puts limitations on the length of speeches in the chamber. This is new to us here in Ontario, but it certainly isn't new across Canada. I believe there is only one other province in Canada besides us that currently has unlimited speeches, and that is Prince Edward Island. Other jurisdictions either have something similar to what is being proposed in standing order 23a, that is, 90-minute leadoff speeches and 30-minute follow-ups -- I believe four provinces, four other jurisdictions in Canada, have unlimited leadoffs and 40 minutes thereafter.

I don't totally agree with the amount of time. I would have preferred unlimited and 40 minutes. I'm sure others will speak on this matter because I know they feel very strongly about this. I do think there is something to be said in a parliamentary democracy about an individual member's right to represent his or her constituents and to represent his or her point of view with respect to any public policy issue of the day. As the member for Welland-Thorold I think so eloquently showed during his fight for what he believed in in a recent debate in the last Parliament, I think it is important that integrity and accountability of the system be left in place.

However, we must move along and we must come to some agreement, and we have, with respect to how long people can talk in certain debates if that will help expedite the process, without unduly cutting off individual members' rights to speak.

I appreciate the government's concern about standing order 37. We've added a section, standing order 37(f). The period for introduction of bills shall now be limited to 30 minutes as opposed to being unlimited. What that simply means is that opposition parties will not be able any longer to use that as a delaying mechanism or tactic to prevent the government of the day, whoever that may be, from getting to orders of the day at a reasonable period of time during the course of the day.

I think the most controversial change in the standing orders is the introduction of a new standing order called standing order 44a dealing with time allocation motions. I think people often get time allocation and closure motions confused. Time allocation motion is a motion the government or a minister of the crown will bring forward limiting or setting out how much time will be spent on each particular stage of the bill. A closure motion is simply a motion -- not so simple, because it cuts off and ends debate -- that is put, by parliamentary tradition or precedent, after a certain amount of debate, a certain number of rotations have taken place and a certain amount of hours or sessional days have been spent debating a particular item.

When the Speaker in his or her discretion feels that in accordance with parliamentary tradition enough time has been spent on that particular item in that particular debate, then a member, obviously usually of the government, can move that the question now be put. It is put without further debate and that is the end of the issue. That is a closure motion. That is still going to remain in our standing orders and it's still going to remain subject to the Speaker's discretion.

We on this side of the House would like to have seen a time allocation motion with the same Speaker's discretion that applies to closure motions. That was our original bargaining position with the government House leader. However, the government was insistent for its part on having something more definite in the standing orders with respect to time allocation motions.

There were other suggestions that were brought out during the discussions as well such as limiting a minimum length of time that could be set on each stage of a bill. I thought that was perhaps a lot more equitable than what was being proposed by the government; not as good, obviously, as giving the Speaker total discretion, but I thought it would have gone a long way to satisfying the government's concerns.

It would in fact have been somewhat cumbersome on the government, but I understood the government's rationale and reasoning to be that it would probably only ever use time allocation two or three times a sitting at most. Therefore, I didn't see that proposal had any real difficulty for the government, but the powers that be in government over there decided they wanted something even more definitive than that.

1740

Eventually what we ended up with is what we have in proposed standing order 44a, which is that there will be at least three full sessional days of debate on either second reading of a government bill or on a substantive government motion before time allocation is able to be moved. We asked for and got on this side of the House that such notice will be given of such a motion so the opposition will know at least at 5 pm the day before that the motion is coming.

There will be one full sessional day's debate on that motion and, although it's not the compromise I would have liked to have seen or I'm sure that members of the Liberal Party would liked to have seen, it is better than the very bald time allocation motion that was originally proposed in the government's first proposal that was tabled as a motion some days ago.

I want to point out the intent behind some of the aspects of standing order 44a and I hope this will not become the subject of controversy in the future, but I think it is important that I get a couple of these things on the record. The intent and the agreement among the three House leaders is that a full sessional day means exactly that, no matter how many hours the House sits that particular day. That is, if we get to orders of the day as we usually do in this place around anywhere from 3 to 3:30, which is the normal time, the first order called will be what we're debating and we will debate it from the very time the first order is called until the end of the day, be it 6 o'clock or be it, as we're sitting now in the last eight sitting days or sessional days, whichever language you prefer, 12 o'clock. That entire period of time from 3 to 12 constitutes one sessional day. That is what the agreement is.

If there is a motion to extend the sitting to 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock, whatever period of time that sessional day is, the full amount of time will constitute one sessional day for the purpose of standing order 44a. I want to make that perfectly clear because that is the intent, that is the understanding and should there ever be any difficulty with it in the future, hopefully somebody will remember that I put these remarks on the record and that they would refer to them.

I also would like to speak as to the intent, I presume, of any government that was ever going to introduce a time allocation motion. I can't perceive of them ever wanting to introduce a time allocation motion after three days of second reading debate that would just absolutely cut off second reading debate right there. I would feel there would at least have to be some time provided for in the time allocation motion for some further second reading debate.

Some of the time lines we threw around when we were discussing some of these items were, for example, four weeks of public hearings on a controversial piece of legislation when the House was not in session. That means four full sitting days of committee when the House is not sitting, which usually runs from 10 am to about 6 pm with two hours off for lunch, which is about a six-hour day. Those were some of the parameters we threw around and discussed when we thought we might be able to come to some agreement on limiting each stage of a bill.

For clause-by-clause we talked about two weeks of a committee sitting when the House was not sitting. That number of hours in each case was going to be the minimum parameter we were going to suggest for such time allocation motions. A few days of committee of the whole and of course at least a day of third reading debate -- those were just some of the thoughts that were thrown around and I think they would have been workable. But, as I said, the government obviously wanted something more definitive and chose to go the route we've gone instead.

I also am glad to see two minor points in the standing orders that are now being somewhat clarified, I think for the benefit of everybody. Standing order 51 talks about notices and notice being given. It is now written in the rules that when the notice is given and tabled, as it has to be before 5 pm on any sessional day, that notice will be distributed by the Clerk's table to the House leaders of each of the recognized parties. Hopefully we'll never again have a situation where we get up on a Monday morning and read in the Globe and Mail what we're going to be debating in the Legislature that afternoon, because we'll have had notice at least at 5 pm on the previous sessional day.

In standing order 66 we are now tightening up the language, I believe, so that the intent of the rule changes that we made in 1989 will be lived up to. I'm not saying it hasn't been lived up to. In fact, there's not been one single instance that I know of where the government, whichever party it was, has not lived up to it, but I think we've closed what we perceive to be a loophole in the language of standing order 66.

Now a government of the day will have to have introduced -- if it wants the bill to go through all stages and be introduced for second and third readings before the House rises, and whatever sitting it is -- that bill prior to the last eight sessional days in the calendar, and even if that sitting is extended, as is going to happen with this sitting next Monday, then those bills will not be able to go through unless they have been introduced prior to the last eight sessional days, be it in June or be it in December. I think that will be an improvement and will clear up any misunderstanding that may arise in the future with respect to that standing order.

To conclude my comments, I think there could be other reforms to the standing orders, and each one of the three parties has submitted a list -- and I'm sure there will be others yet to come -- of issues and items that it would like to see discussed by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

I'm also pleased to see that the wording of the motion we're passing here eventually says that the outstanding issues relating to the standing orders be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee for consideration and that the report be sent back to the House leaders of recognized parties of the Legislature for final agreement. I believe it is essential that we change the rules only by consensus of all three parties. Sure, any government, I suppose, that has a majority can change them unilaterally; none ever has in the province of Ontario and now none will up to this date.

We were hoping of course that the government would not proceed unilaterally and it did not, although a government of the day can do it if it has a majority. I think this place only works when there's a spirit of goodwill among all three parties, and in particular among all three House leaders. If any government ever did proceed unilaterally with rule changes, it would become a very acrimonious place indeed. If members of the public think it's been acrimonious in the past, I would suggest to them that it could become far more so in the future if any government decided to proceed in that fairly dictatorial manner.

A few of the changes that we'd like to see considered are secret ballots by the Legislative Assembly to confirm or appoint or, for that matter, remove certain officers and people who are appointed by and report to the Legislative Assembly directly.

We would also like to see, during the election of the Speaker, that the results of the voting be made public and knowledgeable to the members of the chamber as each ballot takes place, so we know where we stand at the end of each ballot. Election of a Speaker is a relatively new thing to our chamber and we did experience, I believe, a few minor glitches in our last election of the Speaker. I think this would help clarify some of the practical problems that occurred at that time.

Another suggestion -- I'm not going to read them all -- is that there be a type of bill introduced called a committee bill, which I think would go a long way to making committees a much more meaningful part of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and that is where the majority of members of a committee decided that they wanted to change an act or even proceed by substantially changing an act, the committee could agree that a bill would be introduced in the name of the Chairperson and the government House leader would be obliged to call that for second reading debate for one sessional day minimum, within 30 legislative days of the introduction of such a committee bill.

When I attended the constitutional conference the government sponsored at Hart House -- I believe it was back in February of this year -- there were some very interesting working sessions and workshops that I attended conducted by a lot of people who suggested that one real way of improving the committee system here in the Legislative Assembly would be for each recognized party to have the same number of members on a committee. Then I think you would eliminate a lot of the partisanship that sometimes occurs in committees, especially with respect to government legislation. I think you would find that this would become a much more workable place. Members would actually be doing, proposing and considering changes to legislation they felt would improve the legislation, instead of just doing what their party, whatever party that happens to be, wants them to do. I think it would give members more individuality, independence and individual authority.

I hope that when we proceed, whenever that is referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, these and a lot of other items my party -- and I know the Liberal Party and the NDP government -- have submitted go to Legislative Assembly -- this is indeed a two-way street here. We aren't here just for the benefit of whoever the government of the day happens to be. We have 130 members in this Legislature. Each and every one of us represents our constituents' point of view to the best of our ability and we are all equal, as the member for Mississauga West has already pointed out. I couldn't agree more.

Anything we can do to point out the independence of individual members will only stand us all in the system in good stead in the months and years to come. I thank you very much for listening to my few brief remarks with respect to the proposed changes to the standing orders and I look forward to hearing the comments of other members as well.

1750

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I want to thank my colleagues, both in the opposition and significantly in the government caucus, for facilitating my participation in this debate this evening.

I'm not in any way, shape or form, I'm sure, speaking on behalf of my colleagues when I address this issue now. I am pretty confident that my lack of enthusiasm for these rule changes, for this motion, isn't shared by my colleagues in the government caucus. At the same time, I think it's important that we have the right and the obligation to do this and that's what causes me some great concern.

It's no secret, and there's been reference made to the fact that when I was in opposition -- well, there were 19 of us and that was the official opposition. The third party was but 17. Already the acting government House leader, when he addressed this issue, spoke of the enormity of the Liberal government: 95 members. They were so numerous or so grand in number that they had to place them over there. There was a whole lot of them, as I said. I was as sensitive as anybody could be to the difficulties a minority in the Legislature has when it wants to deal with some very serious issues.

I don't think there's any one of the 130 people representing their communities and ridings here who don't do so with sincerity and vigour and who didn't enter politics in whatever strange or peculiar ways, as most people do, without a strong passion for making a difference. The reality is that when you come here and you're silenced, all the passion in the world is for naught. It means so little.

The fact is that this is the final safeguard. I really regard it as that and while I'm grateful and I commend the House leaders for producing a package somewhat less unconscionable than the package of reforms originally contained, I still have some serious concerns.

I have concerns, of course, about the time constraints on individual members' participation in debate. When you combine them with time allocation, it could well mean and will mean that people in this assembly will no longer have the right, as they do now pursuant to the standing orders, to participate at second and third reading of bills. As it is now, members of this assembly have that right, which I think is an entirely appropriate one. It's a right that accompanies the trust your constituents place in you when they elect you.

People in this province and this country regard this assembly and others like it as a place where democracy can be engaged in and where it can be watched, be it by people in the spectators' galleries who are of course entitled to be here or by closed-circuit television. You've heard it from every one of your constituents: People expect to hear you on your feet speaking out about issues important to people in your riding, yet the combination of time restraint, the 30-minute rule with time allocation, will mean people will no longer have the right to speak on second and third reading, and I'm sorry, I dispute the proposition that somehow it will facilitate more people engaging in debate. I tell you, friends, it will facilitate and ensure fewer people engaging in the debate. That surely is of concern to opposition members.

I recognize that it wasn't that long ago that as an opposition member, with the support of 18 colleagues in the official opposition and quite frankly with the support of the 17 members of the Conservative Party, we fought, for instance, Bill 68. We fought it because we believed sincerely in what we were doing, because we were speaking on behalf of a large number of people in this province, and we felt an obligation to speak out and to draw attention to the issue, and yes, we engaged in the tactic of filibuster. I think that's a tradition that is a long-standing one. It's a tradition of course that's being abolished by these rule changes, and I say that's an unfortunate thing.

Oh, I'm not about to suggest that changes which, for instance, restrict the time period for presentation of bills or for petitions -- and in fact it was the last government that supervised the rule changes which restricted petitions to 15 minutes. Why? Because I was among the people who would stand up and read petitions for hours at a time in an effort to draw attention to a plight that was being felt by so many people out there in communities that we regarded as not being properly responded to by the government. It was all we had.

I think members of the opposition have as much of a right and an obligation to represent their constituents and their philosophies and their ideologies and their viewpoints as any other member, and indeed I think the opposition is a very essential part of this whole process. Why, there are even legislatures which you well know of where -- well, one with the good fortune of a government to occupy 100% of the seats. Even there, notwithstanding the obvious temptation, opposition leaders not elected were permitted to come to the bar of the assembly to ask questions on a daily basis.

Our system depends very much on a lively, on an active, on a vocal, on an articulate, on an outspoken, on a courageous opposition. Our system also depends on the presence of government backbenchers with that same readiness to be courageous and to be articulate and vocal.

I was so pleased when my friend Mr Drainville, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, presented his proposition regarding changes in the rules to accommodate backbenchers, to accommodate independent members, members who were ousted from their caucus. I don't anticipate any special interest on my own part in that regard, but who knows? History shows that that's happened.

I tell you, it seems strange Mr Drainville's propositions with respect to reform would be applauded as a positive step, as a way of ensuring fuller participation and more accurate representation of communities across this province; it's ironic that should be applauded, yet at the same time, rule changes such as the ones we're facing would be encouraged and presented.

I'm sorry to say that I can't support this motion. I'm sorry to say that I regard this as an unfortunate -- well, more than unfortunate. It's a dangerous assault on what this institution should be. I recognize that the history of the last couple of months may well make it easier for government members to support the motion. I understand that, I think everybody does, but I'm incredibly concerned that what we're seeing here is a silencing of backbenchers, a silencing of opposition members, and I'm confident that democracy will not necessarily be well served.

However, again I commend the cooperation of House leaders and their ability to come to agreement and the somewhat more moderate proposition that's contained in this motion, and I commend the utilization of a committee process to continue to look at rule changes. But I urge people to be incredibly cognizant of the value and the relevance of opposition members and of backbenchers. I tell you, we're at great risk of becoming government by executive, and that is not a good thing for Ontario; it's not a good thing for us; it's not a good thing for the people of this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Welland-Thorold for his contribution to the debate.

[Report continues in volume B]