The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENATE OF CANADA

Mr Sterling moved resolution 22:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate of Canada should be abolished.

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

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Yesterday I gave a brief statement prior to question period about my decision to try to talk a little bit about the Senate at this time during our constitutional discussions.

It's my feeling that when our constitutional committee was convened some year or year and a half ago now, the primary focus of the members of that committee and most of our thinking during those deliberations was in relation to inviting Quebec into the constitutional package, which it has really never accepted; it has never signed the Constitution Act, 1982.

Since that time, a lot of events have taken place and focus has come on two additional issues: one, the aboriginal inherent right to self-government, and the other, the Senate. I decided that today I would like to give members an opportunity to express some of their opinions with regard to the Senate.

I have had the privilege of being involved with the constitutional discussions, sitting behind or near the Premier during some of the private discussions which have taken place over the last four or five months. The experience has perhaps been very enlightening to me and I want to thank the Premier for inviting both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party to participate in those discussions.

Our present Senate has 104 senators plus, I believe, an additional 10 appointments, so there are about 114 senators in our federal Senate. One of the first reactions I had to the discussions, and particularly to Alberta's thrust that we should have a triple E Senate, was my lack of understanding as to what the Senate of Canada should really do, what its function was, what it should be involved in in governing Canada. I find myself back to that very initial reaction at this time. That initial reaction was probably evoked or came to me some three or four years ago.

One of the parts of the proposal we have in front of us, as negotiated by the nine first ministers of our provinces and the federal government, is that we have a Senate with eight senators from each province and two from each territory, making up a total of 84 senators. If we have a new territory, which is expected in the next two or three years, I assume it would gain another two seats and that would be 86 senators. Then there is some talk about aboriginal representation as well and we don't know how many seats that would flesh out in the final analysis.

When I was at the last constitutional discussions with the Premier during that Tuesday afternoon when things started to come together with regard to the present proposal with the triple E Senate, I sat down with my trusted calculator, perhaps as an engineer might when he's trying to calculate the meaning of what is going on, and I drew up a schedule of what would be required to meet the various thresholds for the Senate to reject the initiatives of the House of Commons.

In order to reach the threshold of getting 42 votes or 50% of the votes in the Senate of Canada or the proposed Senate of Canada, it would require representatives of 12.5% of the population of Canada. In order to meet the threshold of 60% of the votes in the Senate of Canada or the proposed Senate of Canada, you would have to have representatives of about 16% of the people. To get 70%, which is the magic figure in the proposal at this time, you need only to get the representatives of 25% of the population of Canada in order to turn back virtually any kind of legislation, save a supply bill, in the federal Senate.

I had some concern with regard to the very sparse populations we have in Canada and how they would be properly represented in a triple E Senate. I think it's fair to say that the Premier has had concerns about that, that my leader, Mr Harris, has had concerns about it and that many people in Canada have concerns about it.

The other part of the proposal which bothers me perhaps more than the numbers, than the assumption I make in my previous adding up and calculating out what would be required in order to deal with House of Commons legislation, is the very negative aspect of this chamber. It appears to me that the only function of the Senate of Canada as envisaged by the first ministers at these meetings -- and this was prevalent in the attitude I saw around the room and which you were not privy to, the major concern of the ministers around that room -- was to block the House of Commons and the will it might have with regard to legislation and with regard to policy.

I believe, and I think members believe, particularly at this time in our own history here, that perhaps there's enough opportunity for opposition, be it the media, be it the official opposition or be it the third party, with regard to initiatives a government might want to take and put into effect. So my concern overall is with the attitude with regard to the genesis of this new proposal for the Senate of Canada; it is that the provinces, as represented by their premiers in general, want another check on our federal House of Commons.

1010

Quite frankly, Mr Speaker, whether it's the party I support or it's the party you support or the New Democratic Party, there have to be limits and there has to be some opportunity for the government of Canada to govern, regardless of the fact that you may or may not agree with the policy it is putting forward.

I think the attitude exhibited around the table by the various delegations -- I want to exclude the Premier from this because I don't think that was Ontario's attitude, and of course it's definitely not my attitude with regard to this proposal -- was exemplified by the fact that when we elect the senators, it was only through the insistence of Mr Clark, and it was only through the insistence of Mr Rae, Mr Cameron and Mr McKenna, that there were to be concurrent elections. The concern of Mr Clark or any federal politician who was in the House of Commons or was a member of cabinet was that if you had separate elections and the election came in the middle of a federal term in the House of Commons, it would naturally turn into an anti-government election, and in most cases you would have a Senate hostile to the House of Commons, members from different parties as per the House of Commons.

I think the other very salient point to remember in terms of the motivation with regard to the proposal we now have before us in these Senate negotiations is that the premiers insisted on and were successful in preventing a senator from becoming a member of the federal cabinet. That particular attitude tells me they don't want the Senate to be part of a constructive government governing the people of Canada, and therefore I think we would be better off abolishing the Senate than accepting the proposal we have before us.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I too have had the privilege of being involved in those multilateral discussions, and it's from that experience that I rise today to speak against this motion, which while I have some sympathies with it, I believe is a counterproductive motion.

I should point out that the Premier of Ontario has clearly indicated many times in many different forums that we preferred to abolish the existing Senate. That was the position of the Premier. It was indeed my position and the position of many of the members within our government and within our own party. That is true.

However, while the constitutional agreement reached on July 7 by multilateral representatives is not perfect, I strongly believe that it provides a firm basis for negotiating a renewed Canada. To simply delete an item from the agreement, in my view, is risky, dangerous and counterproductive.

Ontario went into these negotiations with four main goals: preserving national unity, creating a stronger economic union, entrenching a social charter and recognizing the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal peoples. All four of these goals were addressed by the proposed package.

As Ontario's priorities have been addressed, so must the priorities of other regions of Canada. For maritime and western provinces, the Senate is viewed as an important tool, if reformed, in providing a greater voice for regions in the federal government.

We say that in protecting the interests of Ontario, we must also acknowledge the interests of our other partners in Confederation. For them, Senate reform is, was and will continue to be important. In my view, Ontario responded constructively by agreeing to Senate reforms which clearly define and limit the powers of the new Senate in order to avoid the dangers of legislative deadlock.

Ontario agrees that a reformed Senate should be elected by the people of Canada. In my view, this new Senate would be radically different from the way senators are appointed at this time. The multilateral agreement, if ratified, will put an end to the system of patronage Senate appointments which caused so many of us to call for the elimination or abolition of such an institution. The proposed Senate will, for the first time, be directly accountable to the people of Canada. In my view, that is something the people of Canada will agree with.

Ontario does not support a reformed Senate which would thwart the authority of the House of Commons. Therefore, the proposed agreement recommends that the Senate only be able to block legislation with a simple majority vote on matters of taxation directly related to natural resources, which may be of interest to this province as indeed to many other provinces. Should 60% of the senators vote against a proposed bill, the legislation will be brought before a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Commons. In these instances, the principle of an equitable chamber will come into force.

The House of Commons will also be reformed under the terms of the agreement to better reflect the principle of representation by population upon which the chamber is based. Ontario will gain 10 more seats in the reformed House of Commons to reflect its population growth. Ontario's interests therefore, in my view, will be well represented if the Senate and House of Commons are required to sit jointly. The 10 additional seats Ontario would have would play an important role in those joint sittings. The joint sitting requirement also places an onus on the two chambers to jointly resolve matters which they could not resolve separately. This is a positive mechanism.

To fully block legislation, 70% of the elected senators must vote in opposition to the legislation. If such a majority were obtained, bills related to supply and budgets could only be delayed for 30 days, not defeated. I am confident these reforms will not result in legislative deadlock.

In giving a greater voice to the regions of Canada, we are doing a great deal to address the sense of regional alienation and dissatisfaction within our federal system. We must do this if we are to build a truly renewed Canadian federation. A reformed Senate that is democratically elected by the people of Canada will be an important feature of a renewed Canada.

We have all had to make compromises to reach an agreement which I believe is the basis for negotiating a new Constitution. In agreeing to Senate reform, Ontario has not compromised its interests. The rules and limitations placed on the proposed Senate will help to ensure that a Senate with equal representation cannot thwart the will of the majority of Canadians.

In conclusion, I reiterate my government's position that a first ministers' conference must be called by the Prime Minister as soon as possible, with Quebec returning to the table, so that the historic agreement reached on July 7 can be discussed. In such a process, we fully expect there to be changes to the package, but we have agreed with the proposals contained in this package and we support them as a starting point for further negotiation.

We do not advocate, as the member for Carleton does, that we should eliminate an element of the package which is integral to its acceptance in many regions of Canada. To do this would, in my mind, set the constitutional agenda back considerably.

We've made great gains during this process, not just for Ontario, but for all regions of Canada. The reformed Senate proposed in the July 7 agreement is acceptable to the government of Ontario, and I am confident that this agreement has laid the foundation for a renewed Canada.

1020

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise this morning but before I speak on it, I should indicate that I spent the evening thinking about what I would say about pennies and when I get into the House I find that the honourable member Mr Sterling, who is a sterling fellow, is not prepared to speak about sterling or pennies, that we're speaking about the abolition of the Senate.

I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, my rest was interrupted a bit by thinking to myself, if you got rid of pennies, it would round everything to nickels and in fact if you rounded everything to nickels, it means the price would go up. Let's say the government of Canada decided to increase the price of a stamp from 42 cents to 43 cents. Of course, it would have to be 45 cents or 40 cents. They wouldn't drop it; it would have to be 45 cents.

I'm just going to say a few more words on this, then I'll get into the topic of the abolition, but, as I say, it kept me awake last night thinking about this. You look at the question, if we abolish the penny, what would happen to our terminology that we have, songs like Pennies from Heaven, two cents for your thoughts or a penny for your thoughts? What would you put in your loafers, if you had loafers?

Now I want to get to the topic at hand. I appreciate that sometimes common sense prevails and instead of doing the penny, we're doing the abolition of the Senate. In that case you have to look at it from the standpoint of common cents too, because if one looks at the Senate of Canada, it has been an old boys' club, a repository of the politically faithful to various parties. I think most Canadians, first of all, ignored it for a while because the senators didn't do anything, so it didn't bother them. Of course the Senate really came into great prominence when it attempted to block a few unpopular measures of the federal government and that's when it really became popular. But one has to look at it, if in fact they're just repositories of people who have been put there by political payoff, what are the taxpayers paying for?

My sense is that the taxpayers today have grave concern about the number of people they are paying to keep in their jobs, be it the members of the Legislature, be it members of the Parliament of Canada and be it the senators. They expect value for their dollar, which I think makes sense. So I think if you asked average Canadians on the street, "What has the Senate done for you today?" they might say nothing or they might say some particular item that it has blocked, namely, the GST.

I guess their efforts to block the GST made them knights on white horses with lances. It's too bad they couldn't effectively block the GST because the GST is destroying this country. That, plus the PST, is making it impossible for the economy to turn around. In fact one fellow told me the GST does have positive aspects because you no longer have to figure out what the tip is when you're at the restaurant. All you do is mirror-image the GST and the PST and you've got your tip. But the Senate there could have served a very important purpose.

The proposals that are taking place within the framework of the constitutional discussions are talking about people who are accountable. Certainly I think if the Senate were to be accountable, were to be directly elected and were not to play the partisan games that are played by most politicians, then in fact it might be a worthwhile endeavour. I might be prepared as a taxpayer to support their rather humble trappings. We all know that the Senate has very humble trappings in Ottawa. They don't receive many benefits. Their salaries are extremely low. If you believe that, then I have some swamp land in Florida I would sell you.

In any event if they're meaningful, then as an institution I would be prepared to support them. But thus far, I've looked at the suggestions that have been made in terms of the Senate: first of all, the question of getting eight from each province, and a person having to run for the Senate, let's say in Ontario or Quebec. The cost of running for that seat would be so astronomical that person couldn't possibly come to that role without an awful lot of baggage. You see it in the United States. In the United States, some of these people have to represent very large communities and, as a result of it, when they get elected, the cost of getting elected requires them to pay back the people who have supported them financially.

What are you going to have? The eight senators will be people of great prominence. Now that's a positive. It may mean these eight people are going to be people who can give something to Canada, can add something to our circumstance. It might be similar to the situation that I'm surprised in the discussions of the Constitution they're not discussing the question of whether cabinet ministers, of whatever parliamentary system, are people who are drawn from the private sector and from business and from the union membership who are people who know something about the portfolio they're about to take over, instead of having people elected from the populace at large and then choosing people to become this, that and the other thing.

It's pretty difficult for a person to be the Solicitor General or the Minister of Correctional Services if he or she is not in fact involved in the justice system. What do they know about it? Similarly, in British Columbia I believe they've just appointed a person as a cabinet minister for the Attorney General's portfolio who's not a lawyer. What does that person possibly know about the portfolio? In fact if you don't know much about your portfolio, then things can happen behind your back, as we've all experienced in this House this week and last week and the week before, that you're not knowledgeable about. That's to the detriment of the people of Ontario or the people of Canada.

I would suggest that abolition of the Senate gives me mixed emotions. It's an established body. It's one more of our traditions being eliminated. But at the same time, dollars today for taxpayers -- particularly when you consider that, what is it, on July 15 or something the Canadian taxpayers are finally able to take their money and run, because they've paid tax right up to that point -- they want dollar value. If you can't give them dollar value for the political representation they've got, then abolish it.

If we had the magnificent ability to be able to have people sitting out there in their armchairs to vote on this themselves, I think you'd probably find that they would support abolition of the Senate, because they don't see it as a functioning body. Even with the amendments, even with the discussions that are taking place within the constitutional framework, they would not perceive this as an advantage, except that, as I understand the situation, if there was an elected Senate and if in fact it was given the rights that are being proposed, at least initially in the constitutional discussions, that Senate could effectively have stopped the GST, the goods and services tax, or as it's affectionately called, "Get some more taxes."

I think that would have been a positive aspect for this country. We allowed a federal government to take a tax of an amount that has now had a staggering effect on our economy. That's why people are crossing the border to shop. It's not that prices are cheaper, it's just that they don't want to pay the tax, so they bring it back and they try not to pay the tax. We have overtaxed our people totally, and we as politicians are going to suffer the downfall of that, because eventually they're going to decide not just the abolition of the Senate, they're going to abolish the rest of us. They're going to figure it would be a lot cheaper just not to have us around. We will become like the dinosaurs.

1030

I guess you don't know how I'm going to vote on this, whether I'm in favour of the Senate or I want to abolish it. The specific reason is that I came here this morning to discuss common cents, pennies. Here I am with a number of delightful things to say about pennies and I can't say them. I want to save a little time for my colleague, because he will probably have something to say on this. He's probably well prepared to speak to this matter.

But it demonstrates -- hopefully I've demonstrated without having people click off their television sets out there -- just how foolish this whole thing of 10 to 12 every Thursday morning is. On the last occasion I think I offended my friend the member for Durham East about the fact that I said it was nice for him to bring a motion in support of English people here in Canada being able to have their pensions. I thought that was marvellous, but I spoke in the same way I'm going to conclude this morning: that until we reform this chamber and make the results of private members' hour from 10 to 12 every Thursday meaningful, so that the government of the day has to call the bill or the motion, then we are in an anachronism this morning. We are here spending two hours talking about the abolition of the Senate rather than pennies and in essence there's absolutely no point to us being here this morning.

I say to the taxpayers of Ontario: "Unite. You write to your member and tell him that the 10 to 12 session in the morning on Thursdays should be abolished because it's costing you money and nothing comes from it whatsoever." It's a debating club. I think the taxpayers would probably press the button not just for the abolition of the Senate but for the abolition of private members' hour on Thursday morning while the House sits from 10 to 12 --

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): You just want to sleep in, don't you?

Mr Callahan: No, but I don't believe in coming down here to attempt to represent my constituents and perhaps bring forward a bill such as I did for schizophrenics -- it was passed by the House and it never went anyplace. There are still schizophrenics roaming the streets of Ontario and parents who would dearly love to be able to do something for their loved ones, and it had absolutely no effect on the legislation of the day in terms of changing it.

So I say to you that if important things like that cannot be passed then really we have become unnecessary on Thursday mornings. Having said that, I will reserve a bit of time for my colleague, who will speak on the abolition of the Senate. I certainly look forward, Mr Sterling, to being able to debate the question of common cents, the penny, in the future.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this resolution in support of my colleague the PC member for Carleton, Mr Sterling. I think the member for Carleton has set a kind of record in this House because, to my way of thinking, since I've been here in 1981 I have never seen a resolution as short as this one is. The resolution reads, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate of Canada should be abolished." I think that says volumes of what the people in this province are saying.

The first woman elected to the Canadian Parliament, Agnes Campbell Macphail, was born near Hopeville in my PC colleague's riding -- Mr Murdoch's -- the riding of Grey. Agnes Macphail had a pretty quick wit and in 1923 she called the Senate the "House of Refuge."

When B. T. Richardson addressed the Empire Club in Toronto on March 12, 1959, he said: "The chief reason why the Senate has never contributed a single creative idea to the solution of any serious problem in our whole history is that it has failed to organize itself with information, research, study and discussion to arrive at conclusions on complicated problems. That's basically the reason why the Senate does not, in fact, know what's going on in the country, or in the world."

Ten years after that, in 1969, Richard J. Needham wrote: "Isn't it awful about those loafers sitting around taking handouts and simply sponging off the taxpayers? Let's abolish the Senate immediately!"

Our country is being torn apart by negotiations, discussions and debate surrounding various proposals for the creation of a triple E Senate. The people of Simcoe East tell me that the re-invention or reform of the Senate is not one of the major issues facing them. They're more concerned about job creation, the sorry state of the economy and putting food on the table for their families. They do not believe Senate reform is one of the critical components of the constitutional package currently being studied across Canada.

People ask me what a bunch of appointed senators can do for them or their country that their elected representatives in Ottawa are not already doing. I can't think of one single, solitary senator who has a constituency office that he or she uses to listen to the views, opinions or concerns of the people.

There's a majority of Canadians who simply do not take the Senate seriously any more, and it appears that many senators do not either, if Senator John Haig was to be believed when he rose in the Senate in 1950 and said, "We members of the Senate are the highest class of pensioners in Canada." In 1964 Canadian artist Harold Town said, "We have one, mind you only one, really well-run home for the aged and infirm (prematurely or otherwise), and it is called the Senate." Mr Town's comments may be humorous, but it is truly unfortunate that we do not treat our senior citizens half as well as we treat the patronage appointees to the "House of Refuge," and that's to borrow Agnes Macphail's words.

We have an obligation to reflect the views and opinions of the people who put their trust in us to represent them in this Legislature. We can reflect their views and opinions by supporting this resolution by the member for Carleton that calls for the Senate of Canada to be abolished.

I think it is most important that on the eve of the Leacock Festival in Orillia I leave you with the words of Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock, a famous resident of the city of Orillia, who said in 1913, "Whatever be the virtues of an ideal system of appointment, the Canadian Senate is a mere parody of it."

This debate this morning perhaps would have been more appropriate at an earlier date. However, I believe it brings to the attention of this Legislature the views of the people of this province who want to have some real say in what's taking place in Ottawa. I remember sitting in this Legislature and the Premier saying, "We want the people involved, we want input from the people and we want the people to be part of this process of the Constitution." He condemned the previous Premier for not being open and accountable. Well, there's no one who has been less accountable to this Legislature in my opinion than the present Premier has in bringing the views of the people to that table -- not his own personal views, but the views of the people.

The agenda in this Legislature, which has brought closure in now by the House leader, will end the debate today until September 28. I wanted the opportunity to speak on some very important legislation that was taking place in this House. That opportunity has been denied to me. I wanted to speak about the House rules. I wanted to speak about Bill 75, the Middlesex-London annexation. I wanted to talk further about county restructuring. That is not going to happen with the House adjourning today.

1040

Regarding this debate on the Senate, for a party that I understood was so much opposed to the Senate that on many occasions it has said, "We want the Senate abolished," will the real New Democrat please stand up who wanted that for many years? Is there one over there today with the views of that party who has said, "We want the Senate abolished"? Is there one of them over there today who's going to stand up when the vote comes and say, "We do want the Senate abolished"?

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this important resolution. I commend my colleague for bringing this resolution forward. I think the debate here today, as I said earlier, is so important that I wanted to express my views, as I have been doing for a very long time, with regard to the Senate and the patronage appointments being made there. I have yet to see one great expression from that Senate of how it would run the country. I don't know what they do, but I wanted to express what my thoughts were.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): In the few minutes I have available to me I'd like to address very directly the issue that's been raised about the abolition of the Senate.

As many honourable members will realize, we on this side of the House as a party have for years given support to the view that the Senate should be abolished. In fact, many of us really believe that should happen. But I'm afraid the reality is, we're in a situation in Canada now where we have gone into negotiations with eight other provinces and we've had to make some very tough decisions about what kind of institutions we're going to be able to continue to have in this country.

So we had to look at the possibility of allowing for a Senate which would be elected, which would have some powers and which would also be equal. Equality was going to have to be weighed for the position of our government; it would have to be weighed in looking at the powers and the effectiveness of those powers.

So it was that there was an arrangement made which was going to provide, I would say, an insurance policy, with the clause that spoke about the joint sessions between the House of Commons and the Senate that would effectively prevent a deadlock between the two houses of Parliament. That deal was one that needed to be made. I fully support the Premier of this province in having done that.

Let me also say that people in Ontario might not realize we do not have any senators in Ottawa. Mr Trudeau has senators, Mr Mulroney has senators and even Mr Pearson has senators, but Ontario has not had any senators in the whole history of having a Senate in Canada. They have been patronage appointments. They have been people totally committed to the person who appointed them to that body. So we have not had representatives. The very least we will have in this new Senate are eight people who are truly representative of the needs and aspirations of the people of this province; let that be understood.

I might also say that in terms of our deliberations as a select committee here in Ontario the select committee spent a great deal of time on this issue of the Senate. Although there was not overwhelming evidence across the province of a view of what the Senate was made up of, there's no question there was an indication in Ontario that this issue was important and that if indeed there was going to be a Senate that Senate should be elected.

We did our work as a committee and we came up with our own proposals. I was involved in the discussions on the Constitution at the five constitutional conferences with the nine premiers. Our proposals put forward in the report of the select committee on the Constitution were very widely spoken about. In fact, I would say that it was at least a jumping-off point for the premiers to come at the Senate in the way they eventually did; that is, to look at the Senate as an equal Senate perhaps yes, but that the powers would have to be diminished somewhat. They have been in this proposal. It is not a triple E Senate that we have agreed to as a province; it is a two-and-a-half E Senate, or maybe even a two-and-one-third E Senate. That has to be understood by the people of this province and the members of this House.

I've touched very briefly on the points I want to make. We are at a time and a place in which Canadians are waiting for a resolution of these constitutional discussions. To not see that the agreements that have been made have been made within the context of deliberations and negotiation is to miss the point. We can talk blithely about taking unilateral decisions and say, "No, we're going to go for abolition." We can alienate the west of Canada, we can alienate the east of Canada, but what we must not do is destroy the country. So it shows statesmanship when the Premier of this province is willing to take seriously these negotiations and attempt to bring Quebec to the table by ensuring that certain fundamental questions have been dealt with.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I regret that this House has so little time to discuss matters of importance of this kind -- in this case, about two minutes and 14 seconds -- but I want to deal with the idea of abolishing the Senate, which I think is the only action that the government of Ontario should be supporting at federal-provincial negotiations. For years, the New Democratic Party, if any party, has been the leader in wanting to abolish the Senate. We have seen a circumstance now where that position has been changed considerably.

I cannot see how anybody who believes in the democratic system we have grown up with could possibly countenance moving away from representation based on population. Here in the province of Ontario we have some 99 seats. We're supposedly going to get some more seats as a result of a deal. We're going to get those seats in any event because, based on representation by population, we have a change at the time of redistribution, and Ontario will get those seats.

What we are doing is reducing the influence of the people of the province of Ontario; we're approximately 10 million strong, handing the same power, to show the other extreme, to Prince Edward Island, which is a province with about the same population as the city of St Catharines. It makes no sense to me. It flies in the face of democracy. The abolishment of the Senate is the only solution. It will cost us millions upon millions more dollars now that we have an effective Senate and one which is, if not equal, close to equal, because those people will be demanding the same services the House of Commons has.

I find it odd that Premier Rae could be outmanoeuvred in these negotiations by, of all people, Premier Don Getty, who I do not believe necessarily represents the people of the province of Alberta in discussing matters of the Senate. I don't think the people care about the Senate. They want to get rid of the Senate. They want to go back to a situation where democracy rules and not a second chamber.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'd be more than happy to give the member for St Catharines two minutes of my time if he'd like to complete his remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Bradley: It's very kind of the member for Parry Sound to do so. I want to give credit in this case to the member for Carleton for drawing this matter to the attention of the House. We in this House have avoided this issue. What always happens in these circumstances is that the debate comes after the deal, and it's in effect a deal which is solidified by the premiers. If we want to see the provinces have some powers with which they could be comfortable, we could enhance an organization known as the council of first ministers.

At the present time, from time to time the first ministers meet to conduct certain business dealing with the entire country. By making those meetings more formalized, with a secretariat, with a commitment on the part of the federal government to meet with the provinces from time to time, I think we can accomplish the same thing in terms of allowing input from various provinces into national decision-making. But for the life of me, I do not understand why we'd move into a circumstance where you're going to have political deadlock.

I'm sure there are many people in Australia who would love to be rid of the Senate because of the deadlock they have there. In the United States, which has a different system from Canada, there are many people who see that the only way they break deadlocks in the United States Senate and in the House of Representatives is very simple: by making deals, deals that do not benefit the nation as a whole but that benefit certain fiefdoms in certain areas of the United States, so the contract for a new missile system goes to one state and a contract for a submarine to another state and so on and so forth.

Let's avoid the deadlock; let's bring back democracy to this country; let's abolish the Senate of Canada for good.

1050

Mr Eves: Despite the fact that I gave two minutes of my time to the member for St Catharines, I don't agree with his comments or with the member for Carleton in this resolution.

I am here this morning to say that although my personal preference is that I don't care what happens to the Senate, and I don't think many other Ontarians or Canadians do either, I do want to point out something to members of this House. Those of us who have travelled on the constitutional committee of this place -- and I've been on all three that we've had since 1985 -- and those of us who have had the privilege of attending some of the constitutional meetings among ministers and first ministers can tell you that you have to appreciate the feeling that people in other parts of Canada have for the need for one institution in our federal system where they are indeed equal players.

I think that if you listen to the concerns of the maritime provinces and of the western provinces, they have legitimate concerns. I don't think this is going to be the be-all and the end-all even if they are able to achieve an equal Senate, and I don't think it's going to solve all their economic problems, as some of them may think it will, but I think one thing it will do is to make them feel as if they are indeed equal players in one institution in our federalist system. I think that is very important and I think that has been the source of a lot of aggravation to western and maritime provinces for some period of time now.

I think that we as Canadians in the richest province in Canada, the most successful province in Canada, have to have some generosity of spirit and some understanding as to how people in other parts of this country think. Surely we are not so small or so parochial in our own thinking that we are not prepared to design an institution that will take nothing away from us except for, perhaps, 16 senators who weren't elected. That's all it's going to take away from the province of Ontario, in my opinion, especially with the proposal that was arrived at by the nine premiers and Mr Clark of the federal government a few weeks ago.

The powers of that Senate are not, quite frankly, as great as the powers of the existing Senate, the way the powers today are given to the existing Senate. The fact is that the Senate today doesn't exercise its power, as it feels that it's not a legitimate body because it's not elected by the people. I think that if we're going to have a Senate in this country, if it's going to continue to exist, it definitely has to be elected. The agreement that was structured by the nine provinces and Mr Clark of the federal government, although not everything I would like to see, is probably the best compromise you can achieve in our system, with so many different concerns, so many different parts of Canada with different concerns and different interests, and in trying to accommodate all of those.

I happen to know that the Premier personally was not in favour of an equal Senate. But as I've said to him before and will say here again now, if push comes to shove at the end of the day and that is the price of saving the country, then so be it. Surely we're not so small that we have to sit here like fat cats with 10 million people in the province of Ontario and try to dictate to the Prince Edward Islands and Albertas of the world what's good for them. "Because we happen to be from Ontario, we know best. We know what's better for you than you do."

As I say to the critics who talk about the population of Prince Edward Island, they might want to think about what the population of Rhode Island is compared to the state of New York or California. I realize that this is a different system of government, but the ultimate authority will still remain in the House of Commons for most important matters. The majority needed in the Senate will be very substantial indeed and in fact may require a joint meeting of the House of Commons and Senate, in which case members of the House of Commons still have an exceedingly overwhelming majority under such a system. I don't know what we're afraid of here.

I want to get one final comment on the record. If this House passes a resolution here this morning saying to the province of Quebec that the province of Ontario is in favour of abolishing the Senate, I think that is a very wrong signal indeed to be sending at this particular point in time.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too would like to commend the member for Carleton for bringing forward this timely and important issue. I want to assure the member for Carleton, however, that if he's concerned that a reformed Senate is going to in some way fetter the powers of his national leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, let me assure him that after the election, he'll have nothing more to fear.

The member for St Catharines was quite right. The Liberal government in past years has evaded this question of reform of the Senate. The issue of the Senate was not solved at the Meech Lake accord. The issue of the Senate was not resolved at the 1990 conference, the Langevin conference. As late as September 1990, this predecessor government had a committee set up to study the future role of the Senate.

We don't live in a vacuum. At one time, my thinking was that we should abolish the Senate. I now believe that thinking is passé.

I'm not aware of too many committees that have been established that have recommended the abolition of the Senate. I do know that the Allaire committee, the Liberal Party committee of Quebec, recommended abolition of the Senate, and the Spicer committee recommended abolition of the Senate or a total restructuring of the Senate. Certainly the special joint committee of 1970, the 1978 Ontario advisory committee on the Senate and the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity all favoured retention of the Senate but fundamental and structural reform of the Senate.

Why was the Senate set up in the first place? It was certainly set up for the protection of provincial minority and regional interests and as a chamber of second thought. While as a chamber of second thought it's certainly not been effective, it can be effective in the areas of protecting provincial and regional interests. I think that's what the member for Parry Sound was so accurate on when he said, moments ago, that the regional, the provincial interest in the east and the west can't live in a Canada without equal representation in the Senate.

We may criticize the method of selection of senators, we may criticize the term of appointment, we may criticize the failure to devote time to their duties, but the Senate certainly constitutes for us a second chamber that can reflect those diverse interests across Canada. I feel that the compromise settlement reached among the nine premiers and Mr Clark represents a larger step forward than has ever been taken before in our review of the Senate.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton, you have two minutes.

Mr Sterling: I want to say I know many other members would have liked to have had an opportunity to speak, but unfortunately those are our rules.

There can be no doubt that the powers of a new Senate, an elected Senate, would be much, much greater than they are at the present time, regardless of the rules. If I was elected as a Senator in Ontario and represented 1.5 million people, I've got to tell you, I wouldn't be taking a back seat to any MP from this province of Ontario who represents something like 100,000 people. For those who think a Senate which is elected will not participate in blocking and harassing the House of Commons in the future to a much greater degree, let them think something very much else.

My resolution does not relate to the fact that Ontario and the other provinces may indeed have to agree to a Senate in constitutional discussions. My resolution states that the Senate of Canada as it's now constituted should be abolished. My resolution says that this province, this Premier, this government should have taken, and we all should have taken, a much stronger stand from day one in the negotiations. Our first and best position is that the Senate be abolished. I am concerned about the attitude and the negotiations which have led to the existing proposals.

But I do not take the confirmation of this resolution, nor do I think anybody else can take the confirmation of this resolution, as a rejection of what the nine premiers and the federal government negotiated. All I want this Legislative Assembly to say is that, on behalf of its constituents, it would rather have the present Senate abolished once and for all.

1100

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

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This point of order relates to the orders of the day that appear on business of the day for July 23, 1992. You'll note, sir, that there are two orders listed for debate this afternoon after routine proceedings. Order 50 requires us to continue the debate to --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is private members' business.

Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that.

The Deputy Speaker: But this is out of order.

Mr Sorbara: It's not out of order.

The Deputy Speaker: It is out of order. This is private members' hour and there are two items to be debated, so we must debate the issues that are on the Orders and Notices.

Mr Sorbara: All I'm asking you for is a ruling.

The Deputy Speaker: Orders of the day.

MUNICIPAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr Sutherland moved resolution 20:

That in the opinion of this House, all regional, county, district, city and town governments with a population over 10,000 should be required to develop purchasing policies by January 1, 1994, that include the use of recycled materials, and that each purchasing policy include the following: (1) that all tendering documents indicate that preference will be given to bids that use recycled material; (2) that all advertising for contracts will indicate that preference will be given to bids that use recycled materials; (3) that in selecting the supplier of the contracts, the municipality may consider an allowance in the bid price for those products that have 50% recycled material.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Sutherland moves ballot item 22. Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to my resolution. Let me say by way of introduction that this resolution is not meant to be an all-encompassing one in terms of solving all our environmental problems or all our garbage or waste problems. It is a resolution very focused on one specific aspect, that is, trying to develop some new markets for recycled products and recycled materials.

Each year in Ontario there are nearly 10 million tonnes of waste generated. That represents one third of Canada's total. Approximately 90% is disposed of in landfills. As we know, a great many landfills are going to be closed in the next few years, and we're going to have to try to find new ones.

Many municipalities across the province have engaged in recycling, whether it be blue box or some other form, and they are to be commended for that. The problem that has seemed to develop, though, is that many municipalities are concerned about the cost of recycling. They're also concerned that the prices they have been receiving for the recycled material has decreased significantly as a result of there being a surplus. Part of the reason is that new markets for the use of those goods have not been developed. As a result, in some cases much recycled material is just being stored in warehouses.

The purpose of this resolution would be to have municipalities start to create the markets by developing procurement policies that would encourage entrepreneurs, small business people and large business people, to spend some time, energy and research to use their creative talents and develop new products. If all the municipalities listed in my resolution were to do that, I believe it would create a large enough market that the entrepreneurs and creative people out there would want to spend some time trying to develop markets for that product.

Of course, after it was developed for them, I suggest it would also allow them to produce the product at a reasonable price because of the size of this market and then those products would become available for the general public as well.

In my resolution I left out townships for this requirement and towns under the size of 10,000 only because there are some administrative responsibilities for looking at and examining bids on this type of resolution and not all those smaller municipalities have the administrative support staff or the resources to carry that out. I certainly want to encourage those municipalities to look at doing that.

As I said, many municipalities are concerned about the costs of recycling. They are also concerned about the costs of trying to find new landfill sites. They're lengthy battles. We had one in the riding of Oxford that went on for several years. It cost the county government, which is responsible for landfill, a great many dollars, and I think it's important that we try and deal with that.

There are a lot of initiatives under way by different municipalities already. They are to be complimented for that. The city of Toronto has a policy. There's also something called the GIPPER program, which is Governments Incorporating Procurement Policies to Eliminate Refuse. It's a committee of municipalities, many of them from the GTA as well as federal and provincial ministries, working on ways in which waste can be diverted. They look at federal guidelines and try and develop standards for their purchasing. That's good too, because obviously reducing the amount of waste is what you want to focus on as well. Given the sense that we've made a firm commitment in this province to go forward on recycling, we need to try and start developing the markets.

I just want to make one note here: In the June 1992 edition of Ontario Recycling Update is an article the member for St Catharines brought to my attention. Shell Canada is introducing a new line of motor oil containers that use a minimum 50% post-consumer recycled plastics. They are getting the plastic from Resource Plastics in Brantford. So there are initiatives under way in the private sector, but I think the public sector has a firm responsibility to provide leadership, and municipalities as well.

As to the specifics of the resolution, it's one thing to have a policy that you're going to give preference. It's important that the public and those people who are going to supply the products have some awareness of that. That is why I have required that it be mentioned in any of the tendering documents put out by a municipality, also in the advertising of those tenders in newspapers and whatever other forms they advertise.

In my resolution, I have said that a cost allowance could be allowed if those products contained more than 50% recycled material. I thought about putting in a specific amount of cost allowance, but I thought that should be left at a municipality's discretion as to what it thinks is appropriate. In some cases, in the initial stages to encourage new products, some type of cost allowance may be put in -- that has certainly been done in other practices; to sometimes give preference to products from a particular region or area, there have been cost allowances built in -- and I certainly hope municipalities would want to do this.

I don't see my resolution being an onerous thing on municipalities. They express concerns from time to time about legislation that is passed down to them or that they have to follow and don't have control over. I think that if this type of practice came into being, the municipalities would find it would save them money in the long run in terms of the costs of their recycling or allow them to expand their recycling into other products they're not doing currently. Again, that would be in the best interests of the environment as well.

1110

I also think it's very important to take note of the fact that the government of Ontario does have initiatives in this way, so the resolution is not asking the municipalities to do something the provincial government won't do itself. They have undertaken initiatives there. I don't know all the history; I think some of that might have been started with the previous government. Certainly our government has undertaken to step up that program and try to reduce the amount of waste, but also specifically deal with procurement policies that involve recycled material.

I also think the economic impact here, in terms of creating jobs and new technology, is important. We all talk about green industries and how they're very important in terms of economic renewal for the province in those new areas. If we help to create the market, I think the private sector will develop these products and hopefully some of these products will have export potential. In a lot of areas there are already demands on products. Certainly for newsprint many of the foreign contracts now require that it contain so much recycled material. Of course, municipalities right now purchase items that contain recycled material -- think of the steel industry, which has been recycling for quite a while -- and products that way.

But I think we need to get more comprehensive. It has to be the majority of municipalities in this province doing it, using their dollars to spend wisely. I think if members of the public at large see municipalities, their elected representatives, taking the leadership they will pick up on that leadership and be more aware of how they spend their money in terms of purchasing environmentally friendly products and those products that have recycled material contained in them.

I look forward to the comments from my fellow members who will participate in the debate this morning, but I think this is a positive resolution for the environment, municipalities, our economy, small business, the entrepreneurial types, the inventive types and the creative types. I mentioned earlier, from the Ontario Recycling Update, how even some of the larger corporations, such as Shell Canada, are starting to get into this direction.

Overall, I hope all the members will agree with me that this is just one step in the process of greening the province and making it more environmentally friendly. This should not be seen, though, as an attempt to avoid the other two Rs, which of course are to reduce and reuse. More emphasis needs to be given to that. Those two Rs should take preference over the recycling, but clearly, if we're going to be able to keep recycling working effectively, we must develop the new markets.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this resolution. I want to commend the member for introducing it into the Legislature. I had the opportunity this morning at Brock University to address the International Joint Commission Great Lakes Environmental Education Institute. One of the points I made in an informal discussion with the people who were present was that even when there is less of an emphasis today on the environment because of the economic circumstances that face the province and the country, and in fact much of the world -- we don't get the stories in the news media about it; it's not the lead item on the CBC national news, it's not on the front pages of the newspapers, it isn't in the electronic media to the extent that it was before -- one of the reasons for hope was that when we looked at the private members' hour, as we used to call it, the private members' time, many of the resolutions coming forward from members of all sides of the House dealt with environmental issues. This is clearly a message that members of this House, certainly from all political parties, and members of other elected bodies consider environmental issues to continue to be of importance.

It's a difficult time in the field of the environment. This is why I commend the member for coming forward with this initiative. There are many people who would like to put environmentalists on the run at this time. You will notice not-so-subtle efforts south of the border and some even in our country on the part of certain people in the corporate sector and certain naysayers about matters related to the environment -- certainly not all; others are working well -- to put environmentalists on the run, to put aside many of the initiatives that have been developed in various jurisdictions over the years, including Ontario.

No doubt there would be those watching today who would be critical of the member for suggesting this kind of resolution in these economic times. I would not be one of those. I think these are precisely the times when these initiatives should come forward: to demonstrate clearly to the public of Ontario that members of this Legislature believe the environment is important regardless of the state of the economy.

I also want to commend the member for dealing with the issue of recycling. There's a perception out there that recycling is a distant third in terms of the hierarchy of dealing with environmental issues. But the member has appropriately pointed out in his remarks that reduction and reuse are extremely important as well; in fact we should be making a variety of efforts in that field.

There are, first of all, those people who don't like any environmental initiatives and feel all environmentalists are somehow granolas who shouldn't be paid attention to. However, there are also fairly extreme people on the other side of the issue who wish to discount recycling as a significant component of dealing with environmental issues. The member has appropriately brought forward a resolution which says recycling does play a role. It may not be the pre-eminent role but it is still a role to be played, and it's a practical role in many cases.

There are those who will advance the argument, for instance, that it's still cheaper to throw garbage in a hole in the ground. I need not at this time, in July of 1992, explain to members of this House the hidden costs of doing that, costs which are not on the ledger. We all recognize it initially appears to be much more expensive to have a program which involves recycling. You will hear municipalities and you will hear others, the naysayers out there -- who never wanted to see recycling programs and had to be dragged into them kicking and screaming -- now complaining about costs, again not weighing the costs of continuing to burn or continuing to bury garbage in this province.

The member has a moderate resolution. It's a practical resolution. It's not onerous on any municipality, in my view. When he talks about preference being given in bids that use recycled material, "preference" to me is a very reasonable word to use.

I like his third suggestion as well, that they may consider an allowance in the bid price for those products that have 50% recycled material. Sometimes, at least in the initial stages, we find recycled materials do cost a bit more so people tend to recoil from that. If they're prepared to give that allowance, that will encourage many more people to put recycled material in their bids.

When the blue box program began in earnest in 1985, the member would know there were a lot of people who were naysayers at that time, a lot of people south of the border, a lot of people in the engineering field who said: "Well, of course this doesn't work. You're going to find that when markets go down, you will be in very great difficulties." The last government persisted and this government has persisted. Neither government has backed down in the face of that criticism. That bodes well for this Legislature and for this province.

When Chris Ward was the Minister of Government Services he began a program which has been extended and expanded by the present Minister of Government Services, Mr Wilson. As we walk down the hallways of this Legislature we see containers where you can recycle polystyrene. We see newspapers and we see fine paper that can be recycled. All these things can be done if there's a will there and if there are regulations.

1120

There are those who will make the argument -- and the member, I'm glad, hasn't bought this argument -- that people will do this of their own volition. They will do it when they're regulated to do it. Regulation is very good for at least getting the program going. The regulations don't have to be stringent, but they have to set out the parameters that the member has suggested in his resolution. I believe this resolution is worthy of favourable consideration by members of this House. The Minister of the Environment may then give it consideration.

I am pleased to see the member has taken this initiative. I lament the fact that the budget of the Ministry of the Environment has been cut. I say that not in a political sense; I say that as one who's been the Minister of the Environment and knows how you have to fight for dollars. Resolutions of this kind don't cost a lot of money for people. This is a practical resolution, it's a sensible resolution, and it's certainly one that I will be supporting.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I take pleasure in rising this morning to speak on this resolution by the member for Oxford. The resolution requires that all regional, county, district, city and town governments with a population that exceeds 10,000 be required to develop purchasing policies that include the use of recycled materials.

I would have loved to see a resolution here this morning with regard to packaging, something this government has not fulfilled a commitment on that many of us have been looking for. It wasn't many days ago that I had the opportunity to purchase a rain gauge. A lot of people would wonder why I would be wanting a rain gauge at this time of year, but I purchased one at a hardware store. I've got to tell you, the packaging that was required, apparently by the manufacturer, to put that little rain gauge in was amazing. We are debating today a resolution with regard to the policies of municipalities; I would have loved to see one here with regard to packaging.

The purchasing policy, I want to indicate, would include the following: that all tendering documents would indicate that a preference is given to bids that use recycled materials; that all advertising for municipal contracts would indicate that a preference is given to bids that use recycled materials; and that in selecting the supplier of the contracts the municipality may consider an allowance in the bid price for those products that have 50% recycled material.

The member for Oxford explains his rationale for introducing this resolution in a letter to the members, of which I received a copy:

"The purpose of the resolution is to help create new markets for recycled material. While a great deal of emphasis has been placed on municipalities to recycle, little attention has been given to the use of products containing recycled materials. Some municipalities, including the city of Toronto, have developed a purchasing policy towards environmentally friendly products where economically viable." They have done that.

The resolution deals with municipalities because of, as the member for Oxford says in his letter, "their responsibility for providing new landfill sites, plus sharing the cost of recycling programs." The member for Oxford feels this resolution will significantly decrease the cost of recycling programs for municipalities by increasing the demand for recycled materials. Under the resolution, municipalities would publicly state their preference for products with recycled materials, and the municipalities would also have the right to provide an allowance in the bid price for products that have more than 50% recycled materials.

The process to reduce the amount of waste going into disposal is well under way. The government of Ontario has established targets to decrease the amount of waste going to disposal by at least 25% in 1992 -- I believe that's been reached -- and we've been looking at another 50% by the year 2000. Any initiative that helps to reduce the amount of waste that is generated is welcome. The member for Oxford's resolution, however, is fraught with problems and, I believe, was poorly thought out. I want to tell you some of the problems.

It is yet another example of the government's downloading on to the backs of municipalities in Ontario. In his opening remarks the member for Oxford indicated that it was a concern of his; however, he did not think it would be downloading.

At the present time Ontario municipalities are drowning under the added weight of increased welfare rolls. This has contributed to decreasing any financial flexibility these municipalities might have to adopt a preference for products with recycled materials. Most municipalities have had their tax bases shrink during the current recession, which also contributes to making it more difficult for them to adopt the principles of the member for Oxford's resolution.

If we look at the tax rolls, the taxes not being paid, the back taxes not being paid, the municipalities, when you talk about giving them more responsibility, are having a problem. This also represents another example where Queen's Park creates programs for the municipalities while forgetting to send along a cheque to accompany them. This has happened in many, many cases. It is also well and good to suggest that municipalities should use products from recycled materials; however, many municipalities are being forced to go into debt at the present time to provide basic services.

The member for Oxford's resolution also fails to spell out what criterion was used to determine that this resolution would apply to municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more. What criterion did he use to determine that? The resolution would have been useful if it had made the use of products with recycled materials optional for each municipality and if incentives were provided for each municipality to adopt this method of purchasing. Municipalities are forced into the inevitable position of pitting their commitment to the environment against raising taxes or going further into debt.

In all the recent polls I've seen lately, the residents of Ontario are more concerned -- first is the economy, second is taxes and third would be the environment. In the member's letter outlining his resolution he states, "Some municipalities...have developed a purchasing policy towards environmentally friendly products where economically viable." That is the essence: "where economically viable." The bottom line for the municipalities when they purchase is, and must continue to be, cost. It goes without saying that all municipalities would purchase environmentally friendly goods if the price were competitive with other products.

The member for Oxford's resolution is very similar to the previous government's tire tax. The tax on tires was designed to stimulate the tire recycling industry by funnelling or rerouting the money spent on tires into tire recycling. Suffice it to say that the tire recycling industry was not sparked and this money has not gone into tire recycling.

If the resolution had any real merit the government would have incorporated it into the waste management systems planning program, which is designed to assist municipalities in designing long-term waste disposal systems. One of its objectives is to encourage the development of environmentally sound waste planning and provide a process that initiates 3R activities. That's what we want to see happen.

It is also ironic that this resolution should be brought forward by a member of the government, a government whose record on the environment is shoddy at best. I remember the government members, the Minister of the Environment particularly, when they were in opposition. She had all the answers, she had all the avenues of how she was going to solve the problems, but since they have been in government the answers they thought they had are not there.

The letters "NDP" have taken on a new meaning for the people of York, Durham and Peel. The meaning they have now is "No Dumps Please," to describe the environmental flip-flop carried out by the present administration. Residents in York, Durham and Peel feel betrayed by a government that has broken another election promise. These individuals remember the NDP's pledge during the last election campaign that no garbage dumps would be established in agricultural land or environmentally sensitive areas. However, they have selected 57 sites in Peel, Durham and York to house Metropolitan Toronto's garbage. Several of these sites are on agricultural land or in environmentally sensitive areas.

1130

What bothers me is that I cannot figure out how they could pick 57 sites. What criteria are they using for 57 sites? Why don't they go back and pick probably 10 and then look at it from that point of view? These are proposed sites that you're looking at. My goodness, I wonder what criteria you are using to do that.

But don't forget, you have residents who live in these communities. They're worried about the quality of the water they'll be drinking and the health of their families and the sale of their homes. If you had a site proposed next to your property and you wanted to sell it, do you think the value would be up?

I'm telling you, that's why the people of Peel, Durham and York are angered by the process this government has used to select the sites for these dumps. The three final sites will be tabled in the spring of 1993, I understand, but I also hear it could be in September. Nobody really knows, and I for one feel sure that the government itself does not know.

These same people have been left to wonder why they were not asked about these garbage dumps and why there's no regional representation on the government agency. Why is there no representation from these municipalities on the Interim Waste Authority that selected the sites?

Why will there not be a full environmental assessment of the dump plan? Without a full assessment, no options other than the three-dump plan will be considered by the NDP, and the NDP's environmental policy will make losers of all of us.

If the NDP is searching for a constructive environmental initiative, it should look no further than Ontario's version of the chamber of horrors, better known as the Ministry of the Environment. The MOE has systematically slowed development to a crawl. Not only is it stifling initiative in this province, but the ministry is certainly a contender for Bob Rae's title as Buffalo business booster of the year. The constant holdup of approvals and the confusion that comes from a ministry that is seemingly changing the rules on the run has made Ontario a nightmare for investment and development.

You can talk to many of your constituents who are looking at the problems with the MOE. They're looking at approvals they're trying to get. One of my constituents, Mr Smith, has come face to face with the MOE's chamber of horrors:

"The problem we are experiencing is that of a bureaucratic nightmare. With the development industry in such poor shape today, the province must devise a system which allows a certain degree of wealth and prosperity. If this does not happen, people cannot find work, and those with the wealth are not willing to share it by providing employment in the labour force."

Mr Gill is just one of a growing legion of people who are becoming frustrated and alienated by the insensitivity and dictatorial nature of the Ministry of the Environment.

I guess no one is more punished by the Ministry of the Environment than Mr Bell in Stayner, who is trying to get a plan of subdivision approved. He says:

"I have to improve myself and become more competitive in this environment and I can't survive very much longer. The costs of trying to get [approval] are killing me.

"This is about my survival here as a business. Really, my only hope is to get this [building] permit so that we could develop this site...to bring more money into the business."

I could go on, but I want to talk to the people with regard to the hydrology studies that appear to be a problem within that ministry. There is a waiting list of about nine months to a year. An individual will have his plans returned to him. He will have his consultant revise them. He will return them to the ministry and they will be at the bottom of the list. There are all kinds of examples of that.

I look at the blue box recycling plan that's been in place. I look at my own community, where the people are trying to get into the recycling of plastics. When we had the mayor of Mississauga before a committee, she claimed they had 500 tonnes of plastic in storage that they couldn't get rid of. Is this resolution going to implement a policy that is going to do away with those plastics that are sitting in storage now?

I think the essence here today, dealing with this resolution, is that I would have been more pleased if we had been dealing with reduction of packaging. The minister spoke very strongly on that in opposition but I have not seen direction coming from this government with regard to packaging. I started out my remarks by indicating the purchase that I made a short period of time ago, with regard to the packaging involved. Why is the leadership not coming from these people with regard to packaging?

Today we have professional people who do the testing of water and I commend them for the job they're doing. They want to make sure the environment we live in is more friendly and makes Ontario a better place.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I am very pleased to give support to this resolution from my colleague the member for Oxford. This resolution makes possible a clear and very important statement for municipalities regarding the value of waste reduction and recycling. In addition to municipal recycling through the blue box system, it would signal concrete support for the products and industries that will develop in response to the abundance of recycled materials that unfortunately used to end up in landfills and were consequently wasted. We know that as a society we can no longer afford to waste our resources.

In addition to the waste of our resources is the fact that siting landfills is a highly emotional and very expensive proposition for a community. Traditionally, people have feared that property values will go down, that soil and water will be contaminated and that the host community will suffer as a result of that landfill site. Yet ironically, while many of us will resist having that landfill in our neighbourhood, we still persist in creating the garbage that needs to be landfilled.

The key to resolving this contentious issue is of course to produce less waste, less garbage. That is why in Bill 143 the Minister of the Environment, the most honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, included changes to the Environmental Protection Act, changes that compel the industrial and commercial sectors to conduct waste audits and reduce the waste they generate. It's part of the pollution prevention policy and strategy of this government. It's why the waste reduction office has been set up: to facilitate this most important step in the reduction of the waste we send to landfill.

In Bill 143 there is a requirement for waste to be separated at the source so it can be reduced, reused and recycled effectively and efficiently. If we're ever to move away from our reliance on those unpopular landfill sites, we have to change those wasteful ways.

I'd like to say here too that interestingly enough, even while there was acknowledgement during the public hearings on Bill 143 -- I dare say if you were to ask members in this House about the 3Rs, the response would be that we must make every effort to save resources and make better use of those resources -- there was still, despite that acknowledgement that we must reduce, reuse and recycle, the complaint from some municipalities and some in the business communities who came to the Bill 143 hearings that recycling was too expensive and unsustainable because markets for recycled material were not readily available.

There was much discussion about expenditures for the warehousing of materials collected by recyclers, materials that didn't have a market. Since this apparent lack of market places recycling in jeopardy, it's therefore essential to have a use for the collected materials. This, of course, is what makes this resolution by the honourable member for Oxford so very important and appropriate.

If municipalities do indeed develop purchasing policies that include the use of recycled materials, there will be a very real incentive for businesses and entrepreneurs to develop more products containing recycled materials. We will see more of the green industries that we believe will be the basis of our economic renewal. I must add that it will be an economic renewal that is not only sustainable in terms of resources, but also promotes a cleaner and safer environment.

The procurement currently being pursued by the government of Ontario is one that supports the 3Rs and the conservation of energy and water. We have recognized our responsibility to lead by example. In addition to efforts to reduce waste, reuse where possible and then recycle is the decision to acquire supplies, equipment and services that have the least negative environmental impact. There has been a decision made to use procurement as a means to support the suppliers of equipment, products and supplies that have specified levels of recycled content.

1140

Because of the value of government purchases -- and I must say that the incentive is very attractive and very profitable to suppliers who wish to fulfil this requirement -- these environmentally sound requirements, if enhanced by municipal purchasing policies, will doubly add to the value and will make a much greater market for the kinds of goods that show we are indeed concerned for and willing to take steps to protect our environment.

It's not enough for us to say we should create less waste. It's not enough for us to say we don't like dumps and just protest the siting of landfills. Those are, I think, the false environmentalists, because while they generate the waste, they're refusing to take responsibility for it, and we have failed our environment if we continue to behave in that way. We have to act in a constructive manner. This resolution provides a very positive vehicle for municipalities to use their considerable buying power to effect tangible, positive results for themselves and for their constituents.

In conclusion, I'd like to say once again that I commend my colleague the member for Oxford for bringing this resolution to the House. I would also like to compliment him for the additional information he's provided. He hasn't simply said we should require municipalities to adopt these procurement policies; he's also provided an extremely valuable checklist for municipalities to use so that they can pursue this important course of action.

This checklist includes some 35 guidelines to assist governments' purchasing staffs in product selection, things such as product criteria which require, for example, that the product designed be durable and long-lasting; that recycled materials used to produce the product be indicated very clearly; that the product not contain banned substances; that the product is recyclable following use and that the product is energy efficient, and in response to my colleague across the floor, requirements around packaging -- for example, that the product packaging be designed in a minimal way and that the package be reusable or recyclable.

Herein you can see that the honourable member is not only inventive; he is providing us with very practical ways to make his resolution work.

I'm convinced of the dedication of Ontarians to our environment and to solving the dilemma that we find in terms of our waste and our garbage. The proposal brought forward today is a firm step in the right direction to achieve our goals for waste reduction, and I thank the member.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'd like to take the remaining time to say that I agree with my colleague that this is a good idea from the member for Oxford, except I have to say to the member for Oxford that I'm going to ask for his intervention with the Minister of the Environment on behalf of a business in my riding called Kentrex International Inc.

Back in August 1991 it was approached -- it didn't approach but was approached -- by the Minister of the Environment to seek a grant to assist it in its operation whereby it recycles 100% of used tires. In fact, they're producing products made from 100% recycled materials for sale in the retail marketplace. As I say, this was at the encouragement of the Ministry of the Environment in August of last year. As of today, nothing has happened. It's still under consideration by the ministry officials.

My constituent tells me the biggest problem is that the personnel keeps changing in the Ministry of the Environment and they keep having to go back and do show-and-tell for them to demonstrate how this particular product could be worthwhile.

I'm told by my constituent that they would prefer to stay in Ontario because they like Ontario, but if in fact something is not done by the Ministry of the Environment in terms of arriving at a just decision in this regard, it'll be necessary for them to move to the United States, and once again we will see an elimination of jobs from this province.

They were told there was tire tax money available, and of course tire tax money has been collected for three years, yet they hear things such as, "There's no money," or in the alternative, "You have to show us what your product can do all over again."

That's 14 months ago again, at the urging of the people from the Ministry of the Environment. They were urged to apply for a grant to assist in the installation of a scrap tire reduction facility in Ontario. I'm informed by my constituent that their facilities are designed to produce clean, ultrafine rubber crumb for blending with recycled plastics for utilization in the manufacture of value added products for the consumer marketplace. They've not got any response. In fact, the process my constituent has is one where nothing goes to the landfill at all. It is 100% recycling of the tires and inclusion of that with plastics, so you in fact have a perfect opportunity for the process. The only program it seems the Minister of the Environment is interested in is 3Rs.

In Ontario it's estimated the jobs that could be created would be significant. It would generate taxes. There would be a positive effect on our balance of trade. As well, it would consume some 100 million pounds of recycled plastics annually while providing a viable and profitable solution for the disposal of some 2.3 million tires annually. Some of the investors in this company are getting tired of the answers they're getting -- the government of Ontario, they say, lacks credibility with the business community -- that there are no funds available. They were told in one instance that if the grant was approved by the ministry, the receipt of the same could be delayed indefinitely.

People from my riding met on April 16, 1991, with Brendan Killackey of the ministry to discuss the situation. June 17 they met again. August 19, 1991, they met again. It's, as I say, due to the numerous changes in the personnel.

Kentrex, which is the name of this company, calculates that 15 million pounds of compound translates to 100 direct jobs in the manufacturing sector. In fact they sent to the minister some of the job creation projections that would be attributable to this. Some 82 direct jobs would be attributable in the tire reduction facilities, 300 direct jobs in the compounding industry, 700 direct manufacturing jobs in plastic moulding, 800 direct jobs in the plastic recycling sector, 1,400 direct assembly jobs in the manufacture sector and 50 jobs in transportation of bulk materials.

I say to the member for Oxford, I support your proposal, but the proof is in the pudding. Here you have a state-of-the-art facility that didn't go looking for a grant from the government at all. It was approached to do it because they said its program fitted so well into the 3R program the Ministry of the Environment wanted. Since August 1991, they still have not got an answer.

I suggest you write that name down, Kentrex, and you inquire of the minister as to why that application has not been granted, because you look at the large number of jobs we could lose to the United States if in fact this grant is not allocated and if in fact they keep them on a string. It falls totally in line with what your minister seems to be proposing and in line with the principle of the motion you brought forward before this Legislature today.

I urge the member for Oxford to seriously consider that if the government is truly responsible and truly wishes to use the principles of environmental reduction it has and isn't prepared to look at any other type of application, then in fact it should be responding immediately to applications such as this, particularly when it and its ministry officials say that this fits in so well with the program, particularly when you consider the number of tires that need to be disposed of. You're going to have them disposed of in a way that will not require incineration. It will be a matter that will be 100% recyclable, nothing will go into the landfill sites, so that all the problems that have been created by the question of other types of garbage that are creating demands for landfill sites will be reduced.

The member for Oxford, I'm going to consider supporting your resolution but I suggest to you the minister has to get the message that when people approach her with ideas that are acceptable and that work, she can't just put them on the back burner and say there's no money or you can't keep changing personnel in the Ministry of the Environment so these matters never get dealt with, because what in fact you do to companies is force them, from a standpoint of economics, to retreat from this province.

1150

My friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has done a litany of retreats of industries from this province on a daily basis, the number of jobs that are being lost. If the government is truly interested in preserving those jobs and in generating those jobs, then in fact what has to happen is the ministry has to be active. But what we're seeing with the Ministry of the Environment these days seems to be sort of put it on hold and play games with it because you don't want to give the money out right now. That money's all there. That money was collected for a very specific purpose. I ask you to keep in mind the name Kentrex and if you would follow up on that and find out what the ministry is doing with it.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased indeed to rise in support of the resolution of the member for Oxford, which I feel will go a long way towards encouraging sustainable municipal procurement in this province.

I recall that one presenter before the standing committee on Bill 143 suggested a future archaeologist might conclude of our society that this wasn't the Stone Age or the Bronze Age or the Iron Age, these people lived in the trash age. As we accumulate mountains of garbage and non- biodegradable solid waste, our society's most enduring legacy may be the amount of accumulation of garbage. The average Ontario resident throws out each day more than 2.5 kilograms of waste and, as has been observed earlier, as a province we generate 10 million metric tonnes per year, only 20 of which are recycled. So we need to encourage everyone, young and old, to encourage utilization of the 3Rs, reduce, recycle and reuse, so that we can achieve our target this year of a 25% reduction in waste and a 50% reduction in solid waste by the year 2000.

I would applaud my own city of London for some of its initiatives taken to reduce waste and also to create some innovative procurement programs. I checked with our city hall yesterday on this issue and was advised that we have a signed statement in London committing our city to buy, as much as possible, only things with recycled paper content, and almost all the paper used at city hall is recycled.

Moreover, all city construction projects used recycled asphalt and all asphalt that is removed is recycled. In construction tenders, in practice, contractors with city hall are encouraged to reuse waste concrete and asphalt and there is a plan now to rewrite the standard tenders. There is also a program in place for staff to visit business and industry to instigate waste audits which will enable them to assist with planning waste disposal and recycling.

I'm proud that our government has spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past fiscal year on recycling projects, including the sponsorship of students involved in school recycling programs. I'm pleased that some of our students are present in the House today to be commended for their efforts. Our minister, Ruth Grier, has said how delighted she is to see how many projects for recycling are being put forward, especially by young people.

I realize time is short, but I would commend the students who put together this report called Visions 2020: Youth, Environment and the Future, which is a discussion in response to the Brundtland report on sustainable development. Through poetry, artwork and short essays, students have attempted to come to grips with some of the challenges we face in terms of recycling.

I will just quote very briefly from a presentation by London District Christian High School in London, where the authors write, "Our goal is to prevent materials that could be reused from being discarded in landfill sites."

These are resources that must be reused. The government, through programs and incentives, will create the structures needed to collect, process and reuse once-used products. Permits and strict guidelines must be obtained to ensure responsible environmental stewardship.

I'm confident, through the vehicle of this resolution, that public scrutiny will be brought to bear on the important issue of municipal procurement, and I trust that in the future we can eventually target 100% recycling.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I want to personally thank the member for Oxford for bringing forward a very creative piece of private member legislation, because it really raises the consciousness of everyone in this House and the public at large to a very important topic. Very simply said, landfilling is expensive. The more we can do either as individuals or as municipalities and at other levels of government to ensure that as little as possible has to be landfilled, we are basically saving ourselves as taxpayers an awful lot of money.

To follow up on some of the comments that have been made here today, locally in my own riding Domtar paper recycles post-commercial products, that is from Bay Street and possibly from this government as well, and reworks that paper into a beige-coloured paper. Anyone who has ever received a copy of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment will recognize very easily that this is their paper. It's something that obviously can be done by many municipalities.

I want to quickly comment on a few comments made by members opposite and say that incineration is really not an option. I have here the Ontario Recycling Update for June 1992, and it states that a report from the New York City department of sanitation claims that "state-of-the-art technology will eliminate pollution from incinerators." This report from the city's office of the comptroller states otherwise. "Even the best available pollution controls still allow the escape of toxic elements in the form of gases or particulates."

Further, as the member for Simcoe talked about, in the packaging industry there are in fact a whole range of initiatives to reduce the amount of packaging, and municipalities really have to be conscious of the cost-saving factors here too.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford, you have two minutes.

Mr Sutherland: First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues the member for Middlesex, the member for London South and the member for St Catharines-Brock for their comments and their participation in the debate today. In my summary, I want to make a couple of comments in reference to the comments made by the member for St Catharines and the member for Simcoe East.

The member for Simcoe East talked about the costs to municipalities and the economic costs of such a resolution as mine. The member for St Catharines made reference to how people's environmental concerns have dropped a bit, given the impact of the recession and their focus on jobs. What we all have a responsibility to do is to educate people so they see that economic competitiveness is equal to environmental concerns.

Those industries that are out there on the leading edge of the environment in terms of cutting their waste, their energy use and those types of things are the competitive companies -- certainly the ones in my riding that are taking that initiative. All we need to do is look at Japan and Germany in terms of how they turned energy efficiency in their auto industries into a worldwide industry. We need to become the leaders in new areas, so I think that's important to remember.

1200

In terms of the overall cost and the cost allowance for startup costs, I think it's important that our orders of the day are printed on recycled paper. When recycled paper was first available it cost far more than regular paper. Right now, because there's been a large market created for recycled paper, you can get it at almost the same cost as regular paper, and that's certainly some of the focus of what we're trying to do here.

Finally, my last comment is to the people at home or wherever who may be watching, to write to their local municipality and find out what type of procurement policy it has for environmental products, and if it doesn't have one, to encourage it to develop one.

I thank all the members for their participation.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' business has expired.

SENATE OF CANADA

The Deputy Speaker: We will deal first with ballot item 21 standing in the name of Mr Sterling.

Mr Sterling has moved private member's notice of motion 22. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Pursuant to standing order 94f, the recorded vote on this ballot item is deferred.

MUNICIPAL PURCHASING POLICY

The Deputy Speaker: We will now deal with ballot item 22 standing in the name of Mr Sutherland.

Mr Sutherland has moved private member's notice of motion 20. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

1207

SENATE OF CANADA

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

Ayes -- 27

Akande, Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Conway, Dadamo, Elston, Fletcher, Haeck, Hansen, Jackson, Johnson, Kormos, Lessard, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, O'Connor, Sola, Sterling, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Waters, White, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays -- 18

Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Eves, Ferguson, Frankford, Huget, Klopp, Mackinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Sutherland, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' business have been completed. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I received a Dear John letter from Hydro Mississauga:

"We want you to be aware of a resolution passed by the Mississauga Hydro-Electric Commission on July 2, 1992, wherein it 'strongly recommends that Ontario Hydro be restricted to an increase of 1% to 2% in the wholesale cost of power.'...

"We believe the time has come to contain the runaway costs of Ontario Hydro. On a recent national convention of the Canadian Electrical Association, Angus Reid reported that cost is the most important public attitude issue of 1992....

"We believe an overhaul of Ontario Hydro similar to results at the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States is what is required. Since 1988, $400 million has been cut from the TVA annual operating expenditures while electricity production increased by 10%. Payroll has been cut from 37,000 to 20,000 people and, most importantly, no rate increase will be necessary in the coming fiscal year.

"Hydro Mississauga has cut its payroll by 25 people (6.7%) and is holding our operating cost budget to a zero per cent rate increase for 1992....

"If our industries are to remain competitive and our customers are allowed to pay electric rates that are in the range of inflation, then something must be done by the management of Ontario Hydro to reduce the cost structure of the provincial utility."

It's signed "Yours truly" by Alan Bradley, chairman, and I wholeheartedly agree with his recommendations.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm extremely disappointed and angry to learn that full public hearings by an all-party standing committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for the London annexation bill will not be held this summer. The uncertainty around this legislation affects the economic growth, whether it be agricultural or industrial land, of all of southwestern Ontario. Final decisions could have been made much sooner as part of the ongoing democratic process had this bill received second reading before the summer break.

The OPP detachment has already announced that areas affected by the legislation will no longer receive its services as of January 1, 1993. The London police force will have to budget accordingly so that the people in these areas remain well protected. In the meantime, it is important that the ongoing transition team discussions continue in order that municipalities can plan their budgets.

The minister has decided to conduct his own hearings in London during the summer. This will provide Middlesex county and London residents and all those concerned the opportunity to discuss alternative proposals and voice their concerns about the administration of some of the best agricultural land in Ontario.

As we all know, there has been a great deal of controversy about the process leading to legislation, Bill 75. The minister stated that the implementation date of January 1, 1993, will not change. Furthermore, he still intends to conduct full public hearings by a legislative standing committee in Toronto after the House resumes in late September. Perhaps before the end of this afternoon there will be a way to get this London bill through. If not, perhaps we can send it out for public hearings after first reading.

GUELPH CIVIC CULTURAL CENTRE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): When the Minister of Culture and Communications announced the $2 million in funding for the Guelph Civic Cultural Centre on July 7, the member for Wellington condemned the announcement as a cynical attempt by this government to demonstrate that it is creating jobs. He should have checked.

Not only has the federal Progressive Conservative government supported this project with $2 million in funding, but the Honourable Mr Winegard, federal cabinet minister, has offered his generous personal support as a patron and has publicly endorsed the centre many times. In fact, this morning Mr Winegard was testifying before an Ontario Municipal Board hearing that his government indeed supports this project.

The member for Wellington should have taken the time to check the list of supporters, including local businesses, and I'm sure he'd have recognized many friends and supporters. The important fact is that this project has drawn support from members of all political parties and all of those supporters are united in recognizing the benefits of this project.

The member's criticism that jobs created by this project will only be short term is so shortsighted I can hardly remark on it.

As for saying that the people of Guelph and Wellington would rather have seen an announcement on hospital funding, the member knows the funding and roles for the hospitals were announced June 1.

This centre is going to be located by the river in Guelph. I hope all members can join me some day in kicking off their shoes and socks and dangling their feet in the river.

JAMAICAN CELEBRATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I will speak on the 30th anniversary of Jamaica's independence. On August 3, Jamaica will celebrate the 30th anniversary of its independence.

Jamaica and Canada have long enjoyed a very special bond. Not only do the two countries have an extensive trade relationship worth millions of dollars annually, but Jamaica is a favourite tourist destination for tens of thousands of Canadians each year. Like Canada, Jamaica is a multicultural society, which is reflected in the country's motto, "Out of many, one people," which could almost be Canada's own. Of course, many thousands of Jamaicans, including myself, have over the years made Canada their home.

Finally, I'd like to note that this year also marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Jamaican Canadian Association, which is one of the oldest West Indian associations in Toronto.

I know that all members of this Legislature will join me in extending best wishes to the Jamaican Canadian Association and the entire Jamaican Canadian community.

I'm sure the new Prime Minister, P. J. Patterson, looks forward to a continued relationship, as do the many Jamaicans who have continued to make this their home and who have had many prominent roles in the Canadian community. We're looking forward to your joining us in having a great 30th anniversary.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make the members of this Legislature aware of the Schomberg "no dump" picnic that is being held this Saturday on one of the nine potential sites Ruth Grier and the Interim Waste Authority have chosen for an 800-acre dump to house all of Toronto and York region's garbage.

Ruth Grier, the ultimate NIMBY, will not even consider any option other than a megadump for Schomberg. Why will you not allow your great non-partisan agency to explore the other options that are available to the people of York, Peel and Halton?

In the great consultative process this government is becoming infamous for, we are supposed to believe that the IWA is listening to the public during the public hearings and that it hasn't already made up its mind as to which sites are on the short list and, quite possibly, which sites have already been chosen for the final three megadumps.

Please join me Saturday as I oppose the IWA's plans to place a megadump on A-1 agricultural land in Schomberg. The "no dump" picnic, sponsored by Respect Our Rural Environment, will be held on one of the nine preliminary sites chosen, the 11th Concession of King township, from 11 am to 3 pm.

This entire process has been flawed from the beginning, with the great NDP defenders of the people willing to displace operational farms for a dump. If this government is remembered at all it will be for its undemocratic ways and the classic hear no evil, see no evil and speak even less.

CLOSURE OF RADIO STATIONS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Several days ago, a decision was made by Pelmorex and Telemedia to close their AM stations, CKCY and CFYN, in Sault Ste Marie, the only two AM radio stations in my constituency. The closure of these two media outlets is of great concern to our community. The elimination of radio stations CKCY and CFYN will not only silence our local news, our local sports, our local causes and events, but it also paves the way for our US border community to further bombard us with American content and culture.

It is important to note that if CKCY and CFYN do close, we will be the only city of comparable size in Canada to function without an AM radio station. The plan to consolidate the management of the remaining two Canadian FM stations will contribute as well to an ever-increasingly uncompetitive environment.

Along with my colleague Sault Ste Marie's federal MP Steve Butland, I feel very strongly that any further decline of control, ownership and content of our local media systems will negatively affect our city's efforts to renew its economy.

At this point, the scheduled closing date for both radio stations is August 31, 1992. Steve Butland and I are appealing to the CRTC to hold public hearings into the issue and postpone the closing date until such hearings are held. We ask the province to support us in this request.

1340

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I am pleased that the Minister of Community and Social Services is listening. There is some attempt to help low-income Ontarians who must pay fees to cash cheques. I fear, however, that her advisers are not doing their homework properly. They remain bogged down in details while the cheque cashing debate evolves.

No piece of legislation should ever be rushed. We must carefully think through the implications of Bill 154. I believe this has been done. What bothers me is this wait-and-see attitude. The Minister of Community and Social Services cannot wait and see indefinitely. Time may be on her side; it is not the side of those who will continue to pay fees. I appreciate and share her concerns, but concern cannot be an excuse for inaction. There have already been too many delays.

The minister wants to avoid Quebec's mistake; so do I. Yet she commits the classic ministerial mistake: procrastination. We know that policy evolves at a snail's pace, yet this is a rare case where the proposed legislation has already been tested. We are benefiting from Quebec's experience. We will ensure that low-income persons can cash their cheques elsewhere after the prohibition of fees. The minister must instruct her staff to move on this issue.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Yesterday the C. D. Howe Institute released its response to the proposals for strengthening the economic union under the Constitution. It is their conclusion that the proposal designed to reduce internal barriers to trade within Canada will only serve to enshrine existing barriers.

Our caucus has been very firm in its support for reducing barriers to trade between the provinces for some years now. In our participation at the constitutional negotiations, we have made sure that the Premier is aware of this in the most direct manner. Unfortunately, the Premier does not appear to agree with us, and thinks that barriers to trade between the provinces are good for Ontario. Ontario -- and Canada, for that matter -- can only benefit from the removal of these barriers.

The current proposal pays only lipservice to the concept of an economic union and is so full of exemptions that it provides little real benefit to our national economy. By providing existing barriers with constitutional protection, as is proposed in the new section 121 of the Constitution Act, we will be permanently denying the Ontario economy opportunities which are increasingly being offered to our international trading partners.

I -- and others, I'm sure -- had hoped the debate on Canada's constitutional future would be resolved by now, but it appears that we will be continuing the debate for the better part of the summer at least.

I would urge the Premier to rethink his philosophy on trade barriers and, in future negotiations, to advocate the total removal of these barriers so that we may indeed achieve the free trade of goods, services and labour between provinces and attain an economic as well as a political union in Canada.

NANCY SWEETNAM

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I am honoured to rise in the House today to pay tribute to Miss Nancy Sweetnam, one of my constituents, who is a world-class swimmer and will be representing Canada at the 1992 Olympics this summer in Barcelona.

What most people don't realize, or maybe forget, is that our young athletes are people who try to lead normal lives. In the midst of highly stressful competitions and always in the public eye, they must remain calm, focused and completely dedicated to their sport and to representing this country. They are role models for all of us and they are also heroes.

Miss Sweetnam is an exemplary athlete. She has been devotedly competing for many years, triumphing recently at the Commonwealth Games, where she won a gold medal. At the same time, she has committed herself to her school work, recently graduating from high school and planning to continue her education at Laurentian University.

When Miss Sweetnam competes in Barcelona, I know the members of the House will be joining the rest of the country in wishing her well. But in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton, we will all be holding our breath with pride and delight, because this young woman from Lindsay proves that you can come from a small place and still make a big splash.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Just before continuing with routine proceedings, on June 17 the leader of the official opposition (Mrs McLeod) rose on a point of privilege with respect to the outcome of an OPP investigation of certain members of this House.

The members will recall that I have previously ruled on the issue of members of an outside police force gaining access to any office within the parliamentary precinct for investigative reasons. As I understand this latest point, the Leader of the Opposition is asking that the Speaker somehow obtain for this House the results of the recent visit by OPP officers to the offices of the member for Bruce (Mr Elston) and the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan).

As has been pointed out on many occasions, the Speaker has no investigative powers. While I can appreciate the concern of all members with respect to the issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I must inform the House that the Speaker has no authority over the OPP or any investigation that that police force may carry out. Thus I am unable to obtain or provide for the House any information which would indicate the results of a police investigation.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I believe it's been myself who's raised this most often. The document that's been referred to, as you know, was a non-confidential, small briefing note that arrived in the hands of the member for Bruce. Less than two weeks later the anti-racket squad of the OPP arrived at his office to interrogate him as to how he came into possession of this document.

The reason it's so important is that fortunately the member for Leeds-Grenville, as the House has now found, was able to find out about a very serious matter because a member of the public felt confident enough to come to one of the members of the opposition.

If you, Mr Speaker, cannot protect us from the OPP anti-racket squad appearing on our doorstep, can you inform the members of the Legislature where we can look for protection then?

The Speaker: To the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I regret if I've been unclear in attempting to describe to the House what powers the Speaker has or does not have. Based on requests made earlier, I made a ruling. I delivered that ruling to all police forces in Canada, instructing that before any police officer has access to a member within the precincts the police officer or the force contact the Speaker's office first to determine if the member in question was aware of the pending visit and would allow access or the opportunity to meet at a mutual time. My understanding is that so far that process is working.

There was a second item which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and that was with regard to whatever reports or results of an investigation: Could the Speaker obtain those documents? The answer is clearly no, the Speaker does not have any investigative powers. The Speaker does not have the ability to obtain for members the results of police investigations.

All that I can say in conclusion is that if the member indeed has had a surprise visit by the police, where the police have not contacted the Speaker's office before contacting you, then I would be pleased to know about that and would take whatever corrective steps would be of assistance. But I must stress that there is no way in which I can obtain for you the results of a police investigation or police visit.

Mr Phillips: Further on that point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would then say that it is up to the Premier to provide the members of the Legislature with guidelines of when they will and will not call in the police. I think the Premier appreciates my feeling on this matter. I hope that some time soon we can see from the Premier the directions and instructions that he would provide to his government in terms of when we will and when we will not be expecting the police investigation of the opposition.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Further to this point of order, Mr Speaker: Very briefly, I would like to get clarification from you on whether you actually asked for those specific documents.

Second, there's some question about what the precincts are. The member for Halton Centre, for instance, was interviewed by the Ontario Provincial Police at the behest of the government in her own constituency office, which is not located in this building or in the Whitney Block, which is considered part of this building. Our concern would be as to the boundaries of that.

We're very concerned because if this were to be the case, for instance, if members felt intimidated, we would not have been getting the flow of documents we've received from various people in the government over the past couple of weeks and the Pilkey affair would not have been before this Legislature without that.

The Speaker: To the member for St Catharines, there are two questions, the first of which is that since it is not possible for the Speaker to obtain documents of the results of reports, then it would be inappropriate to make the request. Second, the precinct is described as the Legislative Building, the grounds on which it sits and the first three floors of the Whitney Block and does not extend anywhere beyond that which I've just described.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We ended the last session of this Parliament with the government running away from the problem of a totally discredited Minister of Northern Development. It appears that we're about to end this session of Parliament with the government running away from yet another problem of another totally discredited minister, the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. My question is for that minister.

For the last two weeks, we have been raising a very serious issue of mismanagement on the part of this minister and his ministry. It's an issue which has enormous consequences. On Monday of this week, to create some sense of responsiveness after the crisis that occurred, the minister told us he had hired Madam Justice Inger Hansen to conduct a review.

It's now a full week since he announced this review, three days since he appointed the judge, and we still have no idea what this eminent person has been appointed to do. There have been no terms of reference provided, and we don't even know if the judge herself has been given a clear indication of what she has been asked to do. I ask the Minister of Correctional Services to table in this House today, right now, the terms of reference so we all know what Judge Hansen has been asked to do.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): First, I want to reject completely the assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition in her initial remarks as a precursor to her question. Second, I want to advise her that Judge Hansen will be ready to commence the investigation that we as a government initiated on Monday. Third, I want to indicate to the member opposite, although I have done it in the House over the last couple of days, that the review is to examine the operations of the Bell Cairn Staff Training and Development Centre in Hamilton.

It will review a broad degree of investigation and interview with a variety of staff, including Bell Cairn staff, including course participants, external trainers and ministry employees. It will also review the documents, the policies, the memoranda etc that are involved, and we will also be collecting information with respect to operation of other training facilities within the area of our jurisdiction and review. All of this will be done by the most competent personage in Judge Hansen, and we look forward to her fact-finding report.

Mrs McLeod: I raise the question because we fear this is all part of the government simply trying to run away from this problem at the end of the session. We don't feel this minister really has any idea of what he expects Judge Hansen to be able to accomplish with what the minister continues to call a review. We believe the minister is simply trying to take a little bit of the heat off.

Nevertheless we recognize that the minister has appointed a judge who certainly has the capability to carry out a full investigation of the very real problems that exist in this ministry and in fact throughout the Ministry of Correctional Services itself. We need some assurance that the government intends to allow a full and frank inquiry to take place.

I ask the minister to explain to the House how his use of the term "review" is different from the carrying out of a full inquiry. When will this review start? When will it end? Will it be carried out in public or will it all be conducted behind closed doors?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I already indicated in the response when the initiative would commence. I want to suggest as well that this minister and this government, once being seized of the information, have been nothing short of proactive, deliberate and immediate. We have done so with respect to launching a police investigation so that we can bring to justice any perpetrators of alleged criminal activities. We have closed the Bell Cairn centre, and I will not allow the centre to reopen until I am quite and totally satisfied it will represent the kind of workplace that is harassment-free and free of any kind of circumstances which are not appropriate. Third is the retaining of Judge Hansen to do this further review into the matter.

It seems to me that those are quite direct actions, they are all-encompassing actions, and we look forward to the disclosure of the facts as they are found with respect to those investigations.

Mrs McLeod: Taking away the training facility for the staff is hardly a way of responding to what has been an ongoing problem in this ministry. Mr Speaker, you can understand our concerns, because this minister on Monday defined his understanding of the accepting of the responsibilities as a minister as attending all the special events in his ministry.

By his actions, this minister has already shown us the very tragic consequences of simply making an announcement, going and cutting a ribbon at the opening and then going on to the next photo opportunity without stopping to administer his ministry along the way.

I ask this minister today whether he can tell us that his government is committed to carrying out a full inquiry; and, in the absence of terms of reference for his review, will he give Judge Hansen the mandate to carry out a full inquiry and to take this inquiry as far as she, in her discretion, feels that it needs to go, and will he step aside so that kind of inquiry can take place?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Responding to the last question first, the simple answer is no, for the reasons that I have advised this House for a week now and that have been borne out by facts the members opposite have in their own very possession.

I want to say as well that, in light of the information that we willingly made available to all members of the House, I find these kinds of questions quite disturbing. In terms of my response to one of the members of her own caucus, I indicated my involvement in terms of administration, in terms of legislative, in terms of special events and other awards, presentations to people in this province who have done a very commendable job on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario. Yet they choose to pick out of that suggestion of administrative, legislative -- they only wish to bring up some comment about ribbon cutting. I find it quite out of context, quite selective, quite political and not relative to the overall efforts made in this ministry.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I hope the people are listening to these answers, I hope Gerry McAuliffe and Peter Mosher and others are listening to these questions, because we are seized of a most serious issue, and remarkably the government, for the first time I can ever remember in the history of this Legislature, refuses to table the written terms of reference for Ms Hansen's inquiry.

I want to say to my friends in the government, accepting that there might be a lot of difference of opinion between us on this very critical question, how is it that anybody in this place, anybody in this government, could imagine that we could launch whatever, a judicial inquiry, a judicial review, a fact-finding mission, without the written terms of reference being placed before the Legislature?

I ask the minister who is in charge of this, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Correctional Services, how dare he not table the written terms of reference of the Hansen inquiry, and will he commit now to do so before this day is out?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I'm really not sure how the member opposite dares ask the kind of questions and the continuation of the questions that he does after having been given full information and letters in absolute writing which state very clear and unequivocal facts. That's what I don't dare to understand.

But if it will assist the member further, I would like to indicate to him that this review will be a review of the ongoing allegations of sexual harassment and assault occurring at Bell Cairn centre, without in any way, I might add, interfering with the police investigation that is ongoing there. Also, it will review the ministry of corrections' response to these allegations, and as well we will attempt to draw conclusions which can be drawn about the ministry's working environment, from both the incidents involved and the response to those incidents.

1400

Mr Conway: Friends, I ask the press, listen to that answer. We have a minister who's launching an inquiry into himself and he won't honourably table the terms of reference for the Hansen inquiry. There is no precedent for that in the Parliament of Ontario. What possible reason is there not to table --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Oh, they laugh. I tell you, they laugh, Mr Speaker.

I ask that the press, if no one else, demand that we see the written terms of reference, because there will be, if there isn't already, an order in council giving Judge Hansen, a very outstanding individual, a very clear and specific direction. In the midst of this grotesque maladministration, in the face of the bumbling incompetence of the minister of corrections, in the face of what may be wilful negligence, I demand, on behalf of the people of Ontario, that the government, at the very least, today table the written terms of reference for the Hansen inquiry.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I didn't hear a question; I just heard the member for Renfrew North being very vociferous and demanding. I would answer the question if there was one hidden in there somewhere.

Mr Conway: We have a sorry tale the minister himself released to this Legislature about sexual assault. We have allegations of gang rape. We have all kinds of senior officials telling us through these memos that they were talking about this maladministration for 10 months. Now we have the government saying, "Trust us, because we have launched" -- something -- "in the name of Miss Hansen." That something may be a review; it may be a fact-finding mission. We don't know what, but we do know this: There must be terms of reference.

It is incredible, disreputable and discreditable for this government, a New Democratic government, not to table those terms of reference so that we can all see what the rules are going to be, what kind of protection and redress Ms Palozzi, who has already paid for this maladministration -- what kind of opportunities are the individuals going to have?

What is there to hide? Whoever heard of a judicial inquiry or a judicial review the terms of which are being kept from the Legislature and from the people? I ask again, will the minister who is launching this inquiry of himself do this as an honourable person: Will he at least commit today to tabling the terms of reference, offering the order in council that is going to provide the guidance for Ms Hansen? Will he commit to tabling the terms of reference today?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I responded to the Leader of the Opposition initially in her question on what the purpose and terms of reference of the inquiry would be. I indicated to her that I had given that information previously in the House and I recounted to her today what that would be. We have given out to all members of this House and to the media all the documents and the covering letters with respect to this so that we could have a very factual explanation of the circumstances surrounding Bell Cairn, and we have done that of our own initiative; we have done it voluntarily and we have done it willingly.

In terms of the terms of reference Judge Hansen will be following, they also are available, will be available. There is nothing to hide in this circumstance and they will be available.

The Speaker: New question, the third party.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question as well is to the Minister of Correctional Services. I think over the past week and a half, if nothing else, we've concluded that the minister did not know anything about this matter at Bell Cairn -- ignorance is bliss in his view -- and there's mounting negative evidence in respect to his performance as a minister. We have people calling, we have letters, leaks to the media in respect to very serious concerns about his job performance as Minister of Correctional Services.

We've heard the minister's defence of his performance. We've heard the Premier defending him day after day. Yet the people who may have something else to say in a public way in respect to this matter are effectively being muzzled by the Premier and the minister of corrections.

I'm saying that if the minister is so confident about his performance as a minister of corrections, why is he continuing to keep his former deputy, Ms Palozzi, and other members of the ministry muzzled through a gag order? Why will he not allow them to come forward to make their views known in respect to his performance? If he's so confident about it, why is this gag order in place?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can reiterate what I've told the House now many times: Once advised of this circumstance and seized of this situation, I acted directly, I acted immediately in a very appropriate way. Quite frankly, I can't help it if members opposite choose not to believe the facts they have been given. There has been a broad circulation of them, to the media and to those beyond who want them. I really don't know what more one can do, except to await the results of the investigations we have launched -- two of them -- namely, the police investigation and that of Her Honour Judge Hansen. I've indicated that will start immediately and that we all, as well as I, anxiously await the findings of that circumstance.

Mr Runciman: This is answer by rote, like the Minister of Northern Development earlier, in respect to the same sort of answer and not responding directly to the questions about his job performance. I want to get back on this issue about his performance and his assurances to everyone that he was doing a good job.

Prior to the opening of the Bell Cairn facility, corrections officers received their training at the Ontario Police College. We were advised that the Ontario Provincial Police applied great pressure to have the corrections officers moved out of the Aylmer police college because of significant problems with behaviour, and I want simply to put one on the record. The fellow who called told of an incident which occurred in July 1988 where a corrections officer was found in the room of a female OPP cadet wearing only his underwear. The female cadet was asleep; she hadn't invited him in. The corrections officer was chased on to the roof by OPP officers who were on duty. The next day he was picked out of a lineup, sent home and given three days' suspension by the ministry officials.

What I'm saying is that there have been continuing problems and pressure from the OPP to get these people out. That's why Bell Cairn was built. I'm asking the minister today, was he aware of these incidents? Was he aware of the problems in terms of the Aylmer police college? That's simply what I want to ask him today: Was he on top of these matters and was he aware of the pressure from the OPP for the corrections people to establish their own training school?

Hon Mr Pilkey: This line of questioning is bordering on the height of ridiculousness. The member now rises and asks me about July 1988. Not only was I not Minister of Correctional Services in 1988, I wasn't a member of the Ontario Legislature in 1988. If he wants to direct that question, he'd better direct it over there to the people who were the government of the day. I suspect they didn't do anything, but perhaps he should ask it over there.

Mr Runciman: Maybe the minister had better listen a little more closely than he's been listening. What I'm saying is, there's been a problem for a significant number of years with the corrections officials in terms of training. The OPP wanted them out of the Aylmer police college. That's why Bell Cairn was opened. You were there cutting the ribbon to open Bell Cairn, and what you're saying here today is that you were not aware of one of the major reasons the facility opened in the first place.

It's obvious that this ministry is rife and has been rife with serious problems for many years. This minister should have been aware of it. He should have been aware of it when he was cutting the ribbon at that school, and indeed he should have been monitoring the activities and the performance of staff and students attending the school based on the fact that they had problems at Aylmer and that that's why this school was created in the first place. Now he's professing ignorance on this. Clearly there's no justification. Explain why you did not know one of the major reasons that facility was opened in the first place. Try to explain that.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I'm not even going to attempt to explain the deficiencies of the previous government and the government before it, before this government was even elected.

1410

The Speaker: New question, the member for Oakville South.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. I've had discussions with employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services. These employees inform me that going back to the fall of 1990 this government was made aware of serious problems within the Ministry of Correctional Services. I am informed that documentation of allegations, including sexual harassment, was given to NDP members of this Legislature. Would the minister confirm that this is indeed correct?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Again, we now have these assertions from people who are not being made public or are not known to me. I don't know whether the assertion is valid or invalid and certainly I can't speak for alleged circumstances of NDP members that are not known to me.

Mr Carr: I am informed through documentation that in the fall of 1990 the NDP MPP for Brantford was made aware of serious allegations at the Burtch Correctional Centre. I am also informed through documentation that in March 1991 the parliamentary assistant to the then minister of corrections, the member for Scarborough Centre, met with them and was given a package outlining allegations. I'm informed that these allegations were known by the then minister of corrections, Mr Farnan, his parliamentary assistant, Mr Owens, the deputy minister at the time, Mr McDonald, and that subsequently you and your deputy minister, Ms Palozzi, were also informed. All this group was asking for was an independent investigation of their allegations. Would the minister update this House on what he knows about the allegations at the Burtch correctional facility?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The opposition now leads a long way away from the Bell Cairn incident which we indeed have taken every responsible action on. They are now back into former ministers, unknown people and all kinds of allegations throughout the ministry. If there is some suggestion that there have not been grievances or difficulties or that there are grievances or difficulties within the ministry, certainly there are, as there are in all ministries. They are being addressed through the normal circumstances and procedures.

Mr Carr: The problem is that this documentation leads us to believe the problems at Bell Cairn may be just the tip of the iceberg. New Democrat MPPs, parliamentary assistants and two ministers were aware of problems within the ministry of corrections. That's what this documentation says. I submit to you that had you acted with an independent investigation, as requested by the employees, you may have avoided what happened at Bell Cairn because, remember, that was in March 1991. This makes you responsible for what happened at Bell Cairn.

My final supplementary is this: Will this minister include in the inquiry that is taking place allegations that may have happened at other correctional facilities as well as at Bell Cairn so that we can get to the bottom of how far these allegations have gone, what other facilities may be aware, including the Burtch correctional facility? Will the minister stand up today and say that this inquiry will look into the allegations that are now coming forward, that what was happening at Bell Cairn was indeed happening at other facilities across Ontario? Will he do that today?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We have commented previously that obviously there is a systemic problem at Bell Cairn. Judge Hansen will be doing her review of that facility and of several others. If from that review it becomes apparent and obvious through those particular findings there are other actions and procedures that can be taken to address any other systemic problems throughout the ministry as a whole, we're anxious for that information and pleased to act on it.

Mr Conway: The member for Oakville South has just put before the Legislature some very serious new allegations, and I want to pursue those with the Minister of Correctional Services.

The member for Oakville South has just said that he has documentary evidence to suggest that some time in the last 18 months two of the honourable minister's colleagues, the member for Brantford and the member for Scarborough Centre, had cause for concern about specific allegations of sexual harassment at correctional facilities in Ontario.

I ask the Minister of Correctional Services: Has he ever heard from either of those two specifically named colleagues, Mr Ward or Mr Owens, anything of a concern such as the one just indicated by the member for Oakville South?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I understood it, the question from the third party emanates from a time under another minister with respect to the ministry. He has suggested certain allegations and documents. If he forwards them to me, I'd certainly be pleased to undertake to review the matter and respond.

Mr Conway: I listened very carefully to what the member for Oakville South said, and I'm sure he will be anxious to pursue this. He cited two dates, one of which was squarely within the mandate of the Rae government. His allegation -- based, he says, on documentary evidence -- is that two of Mr Pilkey's parliamentary colleagues, Mr Ward from Brantford and Mr Owens from Scarborough Centre, are alleged to have had information around specific incidents of sexual harassment in Ontario correctional facilities, and according to Mr Carr's allegation, those concerns were reported by the honourable members named to the ministry and to the minister's office in the Rae government.

That is my specific question: Have you ever heard from either Mr Owens or Mr Ward about any of their concerns about any kind of sexual harassment or related activity of that kind in Ontario correctional facilities?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The question that arises was with respect to the previous minister. I still haven't seen copies of these documents that have been suggested, and all I can undertake to do if I'm in receipt of those is to review my files and respond subsequently.

Mr Carr: I would like to read from some of the documentation. It says, "The MPP, Mr Brad Ward, of the Brantford riding, was contacted in the fall of 1990 by some employees who were at their wits' end over some unresolved issues." I am led to believe that what they asked for was to bring it up to the minister of the time and that a meeting was set up with the MPP, Mr Steve Owens, from Scarborough Centre, the parliamentary assistant; that a package was given to Mr Owens that outlined and addressed some of the problems, including sexual harassment, and some of the problems going back to an inquest that was held, and that recommendations from an inquest were not being followed at this institution.

My question is very specific: Are you aware of any problems at the Burtch corrections facility, and if so, will you so inform this House what your knowledge is about what has been going on in that facility?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member now talks about and clarifies his question under the heading of "unresolved issues." There certainly would be unresolved issues at Burtch, as there would be in all our particular facilities.

As I indicated, if the information is provided, I certainly am happy to undertake a review of my files and respond subsequently.

1420

Mr Carr: It goes deeper than that. I have a copy of a memo that went to the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, wherein it says, "As you can see, the operation of the Burtch in recent years is quite serious and I am led to believe that some of the problems with regard to sexual harassment were such that when they were brought up, the people at that facility were told that the individuals had to come forward themselves, that they could not meet with the investigators through third parties, that the individuals had to come forward themselves and, as a result of that, the individuals did not make some of the allegations known."

My question to you is this: Since you have said that you are not aware of what is going on in spite of the documentation that says a member of your party, the member for Brantford, was aware of it, that the parliamentary assistant from Scarborough Centre was aware of it and had meetings subsequent to this when the change took place and the new deputy minister came in and you took over -- the documentation says that you were informed about the situation, that in fact nothing had been done and that you were aware of it -- will you again tell this House that you are not aware of any problems with regard to sexual harassment, with regard to a coroner's inquest, at the Burtch Correctional Centre?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member opposite, in his document -- which I still haven't seen; I thought it might have been sent over by now -- talks about unrelated issues at Burtch.

He then, after recounting from the paper, puts it down on his desk, leaves it, and in his own words starts to say, "And I was led to believe." If he would leave all this conjecture and send me the facts of the matter, I will review that circumstance and my file and respond to him.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question is to the Minister of Health. Over the past few months there has been some concern raised not only in my own community but in communities right across the province. It concerns the letters sent out last October from your ministry to all health service organizations in the province indicating that the ministry planned to begin negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association on possible changes to physician-sponsored HSOs and also to begin direct negotiations for new agreements with non-profit HSOs.

In order for your ministry to implement any changes arising from the negotiations, you also indicated that all HSO agreements were being terminated effective April 17, 1992, and were to be replaced with new agreements effective April 17, 1992. Subsequent to that initial letter, you've extended the termination date to June 17, 1992.

Over the past few months, both HSO health care providers and consumers have expressed their concerns about the delay in obtaining new contracts from your ministry. I can certainly understand their anxiety, it being a month past the deadline now. Minister, can you tell the House what progress, if any, has been made on reaching new agreements with the health service organizations in this province?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to answer that question. With respect to the health service organizations, it is a program of delivery of physician services that is paid for in a different way from the regular fee-for-service system that we're used to. It was established by the previous government, and the goals of that program are goals with which this government agrees completely.

With any new program, however, it's important to have a period of evaluation. In January 1990 the previous government established a committee to do that evaluation. That report made recommendations for a number of significant changes. We undertook negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association to attempt to achieve some of those changes in order to strengthen the program and be able to achieve the goals that had originally been set out in a better framework.

We actually have, about a month ago, arrived at a tentative agreement with respect to the HSO contracts. We've been working on the final wording. A week ago we finalized that. I'm pleased to let the House know that there are certain aspects of it that I think are quite major achievements. For example, the bonus scheme has been replaced with grants.

Just three more things, quickly: First, 24-hour coverage has been ensured. We have the establishment of an HSO consultation committee to continue evaluations in changing. Perhaps the most important thing the House would want to know is that we were able to roll back the overall costs by about 12%. It means about $17 million in savings.

Mr Cooper: It sounds like you've made great progress, but I understand that each of the HSOs has to ratify its own agreement. Could you tell me when these ratifications are going to take place?

Interjection.

Hon Ms Lankin: I'm glad the critic for the Liberal Party appreciates that this is a good statement that's being made. It's an answer to a very good question. Of course the press release and information on this was released over a week ago. I'm sure she is aware of that.

With respect to the finalization of this with individual health service organizations and the ratification of the contracts, they are reviewing it at this point in time. We expect that we will hear back from each of them by the deadline, which is the end of this month.

Interjection.

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

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. The minister released a very substantial amount of information the other day which indicates very plainly that an enormous number of people within the Ministry of Correctional Services had known and were concerned about the problems of sexual harassment and alleged very serious sexual assault at Bell Cairn on June 1, among other incidents. It's quite clear that it was a very widespread concern over many months around a number of incidents.

Now we have today startling new information provided by the member for Oakville South, and I want to return to that issue. Will the Minister of Correctional Services answer this: Has he ever heard from his colleagues, the members for Brantford or Scarborough Centre, about any concerns they might have had concerning sexual harassment or related activity in any of Ontario's correctional service facilities?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Let me repeat what I said previously and then add to it. We have an assertion about "unresolved issues." We then have the member putting, in his own words, comments that he was "led to believe," and we have all these kinds of -- well, I don't want to --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Pilkey: No, that wouldn't be fair -- these circumstances that are alleged. I still haven't seen that information that I've all but publicly invited to come across the floor.

There are in fact grievances at Burtch and any number of other correctional facilities, as there are, I would suspect, in all ministries across this particular government. These are grievances by members of the union, and I can't really interfere in these particular matters.

I don't know whether I should be responsible for responding to these kinds of allegations that don't appear to be substantiated. But I think that's the best I can do with that particular question.

Mr Conway: It always helps to listen to the answer, and I think the information is beginning to become even more interesting. I'm now hearing about -- let me come back to this --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Collect your thoughts.

Mr Conway: Collect my thoughts, because I'm not principally concerned about union grievances. What I'm concerned about is what is now clear: that the entire Ministry of Correctional Services appeared to not only know but was generally very concerned about ongoing and systemic sexual harassment that included, in terrible part, serious allegations of sexual assault of the most hideous kind on or about June 1, 1992. It was everywhere. Everyone knew and many people were concerned, except the minister. We're told he didn't know anything. His staff didn't know anything.

So now I ask again, because the member for Oakville South has raised a new issue. The member for Oakville South has told us that he has some evidence to suggest that two of the minister's colleagues, Mr Ward from Brantford and Mr Owens from Scarborough Centre, in the course of the mandate of the Rae government --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Conway: -- went to the minister, either this minister or his predecessor, with concerns they had in this connection.

My question again is very specific to the minister: In his time as Minister of Correctional Services and/or Solicitor General, has he ever been approached or is he aware of any concerns that the members for Brantford and Scarborough Centre ever had about sexual harassment or related activity in Ontario's correctional service facilities?

Hon Mr Pilkey: In my capacity as Solicitor General of Ontario and Minister of Correctional Services, I have had over that time any number of members of our caucus and government approach me on a wide variety of issues or concerns they would have. In addition, that is not exclusive to this side of the House. Similarly, members opposite, including the member opposite who raises the question -- that one I do remember because he particularly is hard to forget -- have brought matters to my attention in those dual roles.

As I answered to the member for Oakville South, I will review my file and my information. I suspect that if there were questions, they would be questions with respect to grievances in our particular institutions, and I've undertaken to so check the record. Beyond that, we're left with a lot of innuendo being hurled across the floor this afternoon.

1430

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): What would solve this is if we had an inquiry where the public would be able to see. The opposition does not need nor want to go around in the evening and meet with people and receive documents through members of your ministry. What we should be doing is having a public inquiry where people could come forward, and wouldn't need to do it in back rooms to opposition MPPs late at night because they're fearful of retribution.

In some of the discussions I've had, they inform me that the minister specifically was written to. You, Minister, were written to. They also say the problem we have is that this should be coming out in the open, where people can be asked questions, instead of behind closed doors. What was asked and what was given to me is that this minister knew about it. I go on to say that the Premier and Management Board of Cabinet were also, each in turn, written to about these events.

What we are looking at is a problem within the ministry of corrections going back to March 1991. The people involved say they brought this to the attention -- the member for Brantford and the member for Scarborough Centre will know about some of these allegations. All they asked for was an independent investigation, because there had been investigations at this facility done by the ministry itself. They said that wasn't good enough; they wanted an independent investigation.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question please.

Mr Carr: My question to the minister is this: Will you clear the air? Will you tell the people of this province that you will have a public inquiry that will go to the extent of looking at all the investigations at all the facilities right across Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can only reiterate the response I gave previously, and let me reiterate one other: I still haven't seen that piece of paper come across the floor. It's usually been the practice in this House that when the opposition has something, not only will they tell you but they'll send it over quickly in the hand of a page. I still haven't seen that document.

Notwithstanding having not seen those documents, I'm quite prepared to review my file, as I indicated. If there were any discussions or correspondence with respect to that item, I will be pleased to acknowledge them. If there were, though, on an initial response, I would suggest that the likelihood is that they would have been grievances with respect to that facility, and that is not unusual in our ministry or any ministry within this entire government.

Mr Carr: The problem with this whole situation is the fact that employees are now starting to come forward with allegations at facilities right across this province. What may have happened at Bell Cairn is the tip of the iceberg. People are fearful of coming forward because of the retribution that may come about as a result of some of these allegations. If we had a public inquiry, people would be able to come forward and present what is happening without doing it in the darkness, in the evening, with brown envelopes being sent back and forth to opposition members.

The allegations are very serious. In March 1991, if you had acted, we may not have had the problems we had at Bell Cairn and the tragedies that resulted there. We don't know, but we suspect that if you had taken action earlier, when the ministry knew about this and when parliamentary assistants knew about it and when members of the NDP caucus knew about it, we might have avoided the tragedy that happened at Bell Cairn.

The problem, in speaking with these people, is that they say these tragedies may be going on right across the province in other facilities. We don't know that, and we need to know that. The employees are fearful, the public is fearful --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Carr: Will this government come clean? Will the Premier order this minister to have a public inquiry to look into these investigations so we clear the air, so the opposition doesn't need to go around at night clandestinely trying to figure out what this government has done?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, before I respond to the member opposite, could I seek a clarification through you or through Hansard? Did the member say March 1991? What was the date he quoted?

The Speaker: I will allow the member the opportunity to clarify the point.

Mr Carr: Which date?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Well, you said it. I'm asking you what the date was that you said.

Mr Carr: If you like, I will give you the events. The allegations that we talked about were that the member for Brantford -- if this is what he's talking about -- met just after being elected in the fall of 1990, and that there were meetings held with the parliamentary assistant, the minister of corrections, going back, and I believe the date of that is, according to this, March 1991, and as a result of this, Mr Speaker -- and if I'm going to stand, maybe he should sit --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. All that was asked for was a clarification of a date. Would the minister respond, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Let me say, perhaps a little tongue in cheek, that I can well appreciate why the member opposite is stumbling over his own correspondence and over his own words and doesn't particularly understand what he's even saying himself. I think that's quite self-evident from the response.

I have had meetings with OPSEU and the president of OPSEU with respect to grievances that are within the ministry of corrections. It is no secret that there are grievances there. There have been under Progressive Conservative governments, there have been under Liberal governments, and there are under this particular government. We are quite proactive --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister succinctly complete his response? No?

New question, the member for Scarborough West.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): My question is for the Minister of Education. I've received a number of questions from constituents about the cost of our education system. Concerns have been raised with me about the amount of money and staff engaged in administration as opposed to active classroom work. Concerns have been expressed about whether the present structure of the school boards is the most effective and cost-effective system of governance. What are you doing to ensure that our education system becomes truly cost-effective while maintaining and improving its standards of quality?

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Do you think you can handle that one, Minister?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I'll try to handle that, to the member for St George-St David.

The question the member for Scarborough West raises is obviously one of the biggest challenges we are trying to deal with within the Ministry of Education and within school boards. I think I can provide a number of answers in terms of some of the work we are doing on the program side, which is continuing some of the work indeed begun by our predecessors around a revamping of the complete program of education, from the early years to the end of high school, and, in looking within that, some of the issues around funding.

One of the things that we have done is to provide a three-year announcement to school boards with respect to the funding of education so that they can be more adequately prepared to plan beyond one year. We also, through the transition funds, are getting some interesting instances of cooperation between school boards in some of the early submissions that we've received. In that way, as well as through some of the examinations that we are beginning to have around some of the governance issues and the relationship between the Ministry of Education and school boards, I think we will be beginning to address some of these issues in a fundamental way.

1440

Ms Swarbrick: I frequently hear also from seniors and others their feeling that property taxes are not a fair way to raise taxes to support our public education system. What can you tell us about the Fair Tax Commission's deliberations on this issue and when is it expected to report?

Hon Mr Silipo: The work that the working group on property taxes from the Fair Tax Commission is doing will be crucial to the work that we want to do within the ministry and the government around the question of establishing a fair system of funding education. We expect a report from the working group in October, a report which will be public and which will obviously inform our opinion and our recommendations with the Treasurer to the cabinet with respect to changes and improvements of the funding system of education. Obviously, one of the guiding principles in that review will be to try to devise a funding system for education that is fair and that addresses some of the inequities that exist as a result of the high reliance on the property tax system which has been there for many years.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. He has been minister of that department for almost a year. We know that in that period of 12 months there have been within his Ministry of Correctional Services very serious, high-level concerns about sexual harassment and sexual assault at a number of facilities, most especially the Bell Cairn training centre. The minister says he knew nothing, he heard nothing, he read nothing and he saw nothing.

I must say, because the minister responded to me in his last answer, it is true that I went to him in recent days with a particular issue having to do with policing in rural Ontario. He and his staff responded, I thought, in an exemplary fashion. I went to him with an issue around rural policing. That's the issue he was referring to.

We are now told by the member for Oakville South that two of his colleagues, the member for Brantford and the member for Scarborough Centre, have raised concerns about sexual harassment in certain facilities operated by the Ministry of Correctional Services. Has this Minister of Correctional Services ever heard anything from those two members, Mr Ward from Brantford and Mr Owens from Scarborough Centre? Has he ever heard anything or seen anything from them about any concerns they might have had with respect to sexual harassment or related activity in any of Ontario's correctional service facilities?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): First of all, because I've been listening to some very disturbing kinds of assertions from the member for nigh on to a week, I appreciate that he finally acknowledges that I have acted very responsibly, at least to him in his inquiries. That ought to tell him something about the operations of my particular ministries.

I have told this House that I have been contacted by members of this government, by those parties on both sides, on a wide variety of circumstances on any number of matters from policing through to corrections. I believe that I've acted responsibly on any and all that I have had. I am quite willing to check my file with respect to any and all matters. I readily acknowledge there are any number of grievances that have been of concern to different individuals with respect to various facilities, but also I don't believe that is anything different or unusual, as I've said, from any ministry in this government.

Mr Conway: These issues are not about rural policing. These issues are not about cutting ribbons. These are concerns about sexual harassment, and in one specific case, on or about June 1, the allegation is of the most hideous sexual assault committed apparently against female crown employees by other male crown employees on site at a public facility owned and operated by the government of Ontario.

In light of all that was going on in the department of Correctional Services about concerns about sexual harassment -- the concern was about sexual harassment at Bell Cairn particularly -- with everybody in the department writing and expressing their concern, if any honourable member, particularly any of the minister's colleagues, had raised any concern, it ought to have ignited all of this stuff in his office.

My question: At any time in the year during which Mr Pilkey has been the Minister of Correctional Services, has he ever heard from, orally or in writing, Mr Ward from Brantford, Mr Owens from Scarborough Centre or any other member of his caucus about concerns they had about sexual harassment or related activity at any of the facilities operated by the department of Correctional Services?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member opposite truly now starts -- but he's not alone; he's adjoined by others -- to draw a very long bow with respect to this issue. They take the very specific issue of Bell Cairn, which has been acted upon immediately and effectively, and now try to introduce other assertions for which members opposite won't even forward over the so-called basis of their concern.

Notwithstanding that kind of jaded approach, I have undertaken to review my file. I suspect, as an initial response, if there were any matters brought to my attention -- and there may well have been -- through the variety of our facilities, they would have been with respect to union grievances that would have been dealt with in the normal way and through operational reviews of the facility.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): To suggest this is a long bow is insulting. First, it's your staff who brought these forward, your ministry officials. Second --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: To the corrections minister: (1) They met with ministry officials; (2) they met with government caucus members; (3) they met with the parliamentary assistant to corrections; (4) they would have met with you if they could have. They couldn't get a meeting, so they wrote a letter to you, to the Premier, to Management Board.

What exactly did these bureaucrats, these officials, have to do to get your attention, Mr Minister? They went through every possible step, every possible channel, they could, including meeting with your caucus member, including meeting with the parliamentary assistant. What did they have to do to get your attention -- have a bonfire on your front lawn?

The Speaker: Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, it's difficult to respond in an appropriate manner to that kind of question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: There are grievance procedures that are in place with respect to grievances that arise through the Ontario public service. They are dealt with in a very appropriate and programmed way. In terms of meetings with responsible union officials, I have done so, more particularly with the president of OPSEU, with respect to matters of mutual concern in the corrections ministry.

Mr Stockwell: If you're concerned about these said allegations, the parliamentary assistant knows who these people are. Mr Ward from Brantford knows who these people are. They have met with them.

Interjection.

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

1450

Mr Stockwell: They have undertaken to pass on the documentation they received from the ministry officials. They undertook to pass this information on to the minister and members in the bureaucracy.

Now the question: First, you told us you reviewed all the files when you released this information. This apparent information was neither reviewed nor released. This damning indictment of the incompetence of this minister and government is a clear sign that a public inquiry is due. When will it be called?

Hon Mr Pilkey: With regard to the matter that arose directly with the announcement from the member opposite of the events at Bell Cairn, all of that information was brought forward, it was made public, it was given to the opposition, police inquiries were called and Judge Hansen was called in to review the matter.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Pilkey: The centre was closed. All these things have been done. The suggestion now that the opposition is going to stand and pick off and name all the different detention centres in the province and say, "Why wasn't every grievance with respect to those released to the opposition and the media last week?" I think is a ridiculous assertion. It really is.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Conway: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to serve notice under the relevant standing order that I am unsatisfied with the answers provided to me this afternoon by the Minister of Correctional Services on the questions. I'm just serving notice that I am unsatisfied with the answers provided by the Minister of Correctional Services to each of my questions this afternoon. I will look forward to a late show this evening.

The Speaker: To the member for Renfrew North: I trust you will file the necessary document with the table and the necessary arrangements can be made.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I also, in light of some of the concerns that have been outlined over the last period, am unsatisfied with the results that were given today by the Minister of Correctional Services and will also be seeking the same situation.

The Speaker: To the member's point of order: Indeed I trust he will file the necessary document with the table.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I wish also to file notice of my dissatisfaction with the answers, but I can't, as you've told me before, get on a late show.

On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As a result of the very serious evidence that has come forward today, and because of the necessity of our caucus wishing to have a brief meeting in relation to the events that have just come to our attention and other material we have received, we would ask that the House adjourn just briefly, if we could have a 20-minute adjournment and then come back and carry on with the day's proceedings so that each member of our caucus could attend our meeting.

The Speaker: There would need to be a motion to adjourn. Other than that, if there was a request for a recess it would require unanimous approval.

Mr Elston: Can we have unanimous consent, Mr Speaker, so that we may have a brief caucus meeting and be back here in 15 minutes?

The Speaker: There is a request for unanimous consent for a 15-minute recess. Agreed?

Interjections: No.

The Speaker: There is not unanimous agreement.

PETITIONS

ORGANOCHLORINES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a petition here. It's to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario pulp and paper industry discharges 50,000 tonnes of organochlorines into Ontario's waterways each and every year despite the availability of technologies which discharge no organochlorines;

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment announced a provincial policy of zero discharge in September of 1991;

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

"Immediately establish a timetable for the complete phase-out of organochlorines from the pulp and paper industry."

I have a number of petitions here, totalling some 1,070 names, and I have affixed my signature thereto.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"That the province of Ontario not pass enabling legislation which would allow the Metropolitan council of Toronto to implement market value assessment as presently proposed due to the adverse effect that this would have on the commercial base of Metropolitan Toronto; and

"That the province of Ontario instead recommend a more equitable system of reassessing properties which would encourage not discourage investment in the greater Metropolitan area."

I too have affixed my signature to it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I want to remind all members that it's very difficult for the Speaker to make out who wants the floor because of the conversations.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 potential sites in the greater Toronto area as possible candidates for landfill;

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

"Whereas a willing host community such as Kirkland Lake will not be allowed a proper hearing to consider the Adams mine site as a possible solution to the greater Toronto area garbage issue;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario remove sites W4B and W4C from any further consideration as a candidate site for waste disposal in the greater Toronto area.

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

This is signed by some 500 persons and I have signed my name to it.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 377 names from municipalities throughout my riding, mainly from the town of Caledon. They include Bolton, Palgrave, Inglewood and other municipalities throughout the region of Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"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 environmental assessment, including the right to a review of 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 the disposal of the 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 new disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have here with me 20 sheets of petitions that represent 250 names, people mostly from the Ottawa-Carleton area. There are nine "whereases" that I previously read in the record. It says:

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

"enhance the current child care system by concentrating the available resources for low-income families;

"abandon initiatives towards a universal child care system;

"guarantee that future child care initiatives will give equal recognition to traditional child care options. (Stay-at-home parent or care by a relative.)"

I have affixed my signature to each of the 20 sheets.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition signed by many people from my riding of York Mills. It reads:

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

"Whereas the proposed changes to 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 of a sound economic environment; and

"Whereas a recent public opinion poll showed that 83% of Ontario citizens support the withdrawal of those proposed changes,

"That the government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the existing labour legislation."

I too have affixed my signature to this.

1500

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

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

That has been signed by individuals who are involved with Health and Safety Consultants Inc of Mississauga and I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 375 names from Pickering, Whitby and Mississauga. 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."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural and residential land, both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of class 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would severely disrupt the vibrant agricultural community. The farm families in these areas have continued to invest large sums of money into their farm lands. These communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority by putting in a megadump; and

"Whereas most of the people in Whitchurch-Stouffville depend on groundwater for their drinking water and the dump would threaten their clean water supply; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies of these communities;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime agricultural farm land in the heart of the town and turn it into Metro and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek alternatives to landfill and to implement aggressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

It's very similar to the petitions from East Gwillimbury and Georgina, and I affix my name.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I suppose it would be inappropriate if I asked if the member who just submitted the petition agreed.

I have one that's similar. It says:

"We, the undersigned, absolutely reject the alternative of a Metro Toronto-York region megadump and petition the government of Ontario to immediately reconsider alternatives."

It's signed by a number of people and I have affixed my signature to that.

ORGANOCHLORINES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I also have another petition that is very similar in nature to the one I tabled just a few moments ago with respect to the failure of this government to act towards any timetable to work towards zero discharge of organochlorines in the production of pulp and paper in the province of Ontario. I submit that with my signature as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"This act interferes with the individual freedom of Ontarians;

"Whereas the proposed changes to labour legislation will increase potential job losses; and

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

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

"Whereas a recent public opinion poll showed that 83% of Ontario citizens support the withdrawal of these proposed changes;

"That the government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the existing labour legislation."

I too have affixed my signature to this.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition signed by some 300 persons:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 potential sites in the greater Toronto area as possible candidates for landfill;

"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);

"Whereas a willing host community such as Kirkland Lake will not be allowed a proper hearing to consider the Adams mine site as a possible solution to the greater Toronto area garbage issue;

"We, the undersigned, 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 disposal options for greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area, where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

I have signed this petition in support.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition signed by 962 people from Waterloo, Dundas, Thunder Bay, Bowmanville, Sturgeon Falls, Huntsville, Walkerton, Sarnia, Port Dover, Port Colborne, Aurora and Claremont and it reads as follows:

"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 signature to it.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed my name to this petition.

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by well over 500 people who write to us as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, in support of the mother of Debra Pauline Williams Ellul, draw to the attention of the House the following:

"That the right to appeal the decision made in 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.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition signed by some 1,400 persons which reads as follows:

"Durham region is responsible for its own garbage. Peel region is responsible for its own garbage. York region is responsible for its own garbage but will now be forced by the provincial government to house all of Metro Toronto's garbage as well for the next 20 years.

"If we allow this dump site to happen, it will be the biggest dump site in North America. Is this what you would like your community to be most known for? This is an outrageous proposal and it must be stopped. We must prevent this disaster. We are not in favour of dumping Metro's trash anywhere in York region."

I have signed this petition in support.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed my name to this petition.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House stand adjourned until September 28, 1992.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, as you know, I had begun my remarks last evening on this motion, and I'd just like to read it, "That on the sessional day on which this motion is carried, when the House adjourns that day it shall stand adjourned until September 28, 1992."

That motion means that if the government insists that this motion be passed today, the House will not sit until the end of September, some months away. The government wants the House not to sit and the Premier wants the House not to sit, and as I indicated yesterday, there is one reason and one reason only, and that reason is Allan Pilkey.

Allan Pilkey is known, as a minister, to be uninformed on the issues, known as a minister who didn't do his homework, known as a minister who could cope with the openings and the celebrations but couldn't cope with much else. We've heard in question period today and yesterday, and the day before that and the day before that, evidence that's very clear of the minister's incompetence. We've also seen that the Premier is allowing that minister to remain a minister, when his ministry was inadequately directed, when he was not undertaking the responsibilities of a minister, when he was not doing what he should have been doing for the public of Ontario.

Bob Rae had the Martel affair, and the House adjourned as soon as additional information came to the floor of the House. Bob Rae now has the Pilkey affair, and the House will adjourn as soon as additional information has come to the floor of the House. Today we've heard additional information relating to the competence, the way this minister handled his responsibilities as a minister, information he had that was presented directly to him, perhaps by his colleagues but certainly in writing, that he refused to act upon and did not pay attention to.

In all of this we have to ask again, as we've asked in the past, what are Bob Rae's standards? We heard a lot about those standards in the throne speech debate. We heard a lot about those standards when Bob Rae served as a member of the opposition. But what are his standards today?

They are very, very different. He hasn't asked or sought the resignation of his Minister of Correctional Services. He hasn't allowed the scrutiny of the House to further investigate the information that's been placed before us today and additional information that may well become available to people in this House and elsewhere. No, Bob Rae's instructions are: "Get out of the House. Let's keep this information under wraps. Let's not let anybody know."

We recall that when the former Minister of Health resigned, one of the reasons she resigned was that changes in procedures in her ministry had been introduced by her that made her directly privy to information from the ministry without the appropriate advice from her officials. We have seen that the Minister of Correctional Services, Mr Pilkey, hasn't resigned, although he too has changed the process in his ministry and that means he is cut off from the appropriate advice from officials. He didn't choose to have that advice. He didn't choose to have that information. He didn't choose to serve as a minister. He didn't choose to carry out his ministerial responsibilities, and that has become clear and more clear day after day after day.

Mr Pilkey was being paid as a minister. He wasn't doing his work as a minister. Things were occurring all around him that he seemed oblivious to. Why doesn't he resign?

If the Minister of Correctional Services didn't know what this House has been told about sexual harrassment by ministry staff against ministry staff on ministry facilities, about property destruction, about staff-to-staff assault, what else was he missing? What else didn't he know?

Some other information has come to light before this House today. We know he's been informed, he's had letters and they've been on his desk. The question is, did he read them? Did he pay any attention to information that was coming to him from his caucus colleagues and from people in his ministry? How could he have avoided taking action that was very clear and very public? What else didn't he know about the responsibilities and the operations of his ministry, for which he has the public responsibility, the responsibility to report to people in Ontario and ensure the adequate and correct operation? What else didn't he know about treatment of inmates in those institutions if he didn't know this information about staff?

This minister has been a minister who appears to run a ministry with the view that one should speak, hear and see nothing; that one shouldn't be involved in meetings with senior officials so that one could be advised on the issues of the day. By eliminating himself as a person and a director at the table, he has in fact indicated to us that he tolerates the things which have occurred within his ministry: the sexual harassment, the destruction of property, the vicious rapes that have occurred among people on his staff. It is absolutely clear to us that he is incompetent in his work, incompetent at his job.

My colleague from Oakville South raised today in the House two other areas that very clearly show why we're going to be out of here, because Mr Pilkey's derogation of his responsibility wasn't limited to his relationships with his officials; it was clearly related as well to his relationships with his colleagues. The member for Brantford, Mr Ward, apparently brought to the attention of the minister information with respect to another institution about staff assault, about sexual abuse, about sexual harassment that was occurring there. The member from Brantford knew who were making the complaints, had that information and took that information further. That information was also shared by the member for Scarborough Centre, Mr Owens, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Correctional Services at the time. Mr Owens also clearly took that information forward. The information went to the Minister of Correctional Services, it went to the Chairman of Management Board, and that information was placed in written form on the desk of the Premier of Ontario.

What questions weren't asked? What meetings weren't held? How many people were left vulnerable to the tolerance which appears to have been a mark of this minister and this government in relationship to sexual harassment issues?

The Minister of Correctional Services hasn't been doing his job; he shouldn't be paid for doing his job. The information that has come to us in the Legislature makes that so very clear. That's why this motion is on the table. That's why the Legislature will rise -- if not today, perhaps Monday, but it will certainly rise -- before any further evidence of his incompetence and his lack of responsibility in the direction of his ministry will come to the fore.

I listened to the minister today responding in question period. The minister said he has been nothing but proactive. One of my colleagues leaned over to me and said, "Proactive for Allan Pilkey means being in a stall." Proactive for Allan Pilkey means that sexual harassment in his own ministry, in his own facilities, is tolerated, because there was no action until information came to this place, not when information came directly to his desk, when he had the responsibility to take action for that information as a result of that information coming forward. That's why the House is rising. It has nothing to do with any of the other issues. The issue and the reason for the rising of the House is Allan Pilkey.

1520

There may be another reason that the House is rising. Yesterday we heard the minister responsible for women's issues speak from her heart about the depth of destruction that's involved in these kinds of issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault against women. We also heard her speak with some sanctimony, laying blame on the opposition for these incidents occurring. Frankly, that's the wrong place for blame to be laid. The minister should have been taking action.

Another reason that this House will be rising is that groups like Justice for Women in Hamilton, where the Bell Cairn centre is located, are now coming forward and speaking out. They are demanding the minister's resignation. They are demanding his resignation because they don't believe that he has matched action to words. They don't believe that he has managed his department with any sense of the responsibility that he should have as a minister. They don't believe that he understood the elimination of sexual harassment in any way other than distribution of memos, that there was any other action taken by him to eliminate what is clearly systemic sexual harassment and sexual assault from his ministry.

Justice for Women in Hamilton is the first of many groups. There will be many others. I've had calls in my constituency office about this issue. I'm certain that every other member has or will receive those same calls. Women are outraged. Women see professional people who are employed as crown employees who have been assaulted, raped, harassed, touched and laughed at by people who are their coworkers. Women will not tolerate that. They will not tolerate seeing a minister at the head of a department where these issues have been going on, where there has been knowledge of these issues, of these occurrences, where that information has been on his desk and there is no action.

The minister said, "I've been nothing but proactive." He's been proactive after the event, after information has come to him on the floor of this Legislature. He should have acted. You're darned right he should have acted. If you don't think that this minister should have acted, then you belong in another world, because there is no other circumstance where the head of any business, corporation, union or ministry, where all of these incidents had been occurring over the period of time over which they'd occurred, where that minister would not have known, where the leader would not have known, where that leader would not have acted. I will tell you, this man didn't act, and he didn't act because he is lazy and he's irresponsible --

Interjection: And incompetent.

Mrs Sullivan: -- and he's incompetent too. Other women legislators feel just as angry and upset about this as I do. They know that Mr Pilkey, the Minister of Correctional Services, should not be in that place. He allowed this to go on because he did not act, he did not pay attention, he wasn't doing his job.

When I have to talk to my constituents and justify to them how a minister of this government, any government, could have been in a situation where there were rumours rampant, where there were grievances before officials in his ministry, before union members in his ministry, when I have to explain to them how this minister could not have known, the only way that I can respond is by saying the minister wasn't doing his job.

The minister responsible for women's issues will know that the minister is known for not doing his job, for not attending the meetings, for not meeting with his officials and discussing the issues of the day. That's the only reason that he didn't know: He was not doing his job.

Every time the minister opens his mouth, the tale gets worse. The minister says he can't interfere; he described that today. He says he didn't know, but that he can't interfere is something that is really a matter for some doubt and in fact for some kind of scathing response. Why couldn't he interfere? Any other minister in his position would have interfered lickety-split. Any other minister would have provided direction, would have ensured that these kinds of actions and activities and the surround which allowed them to occur were absolutely removed from the table in the operation of his ministry. He says he can't interfere. He can't interfere when people on his own staff, members of his own bureaucracy, are being assaulted, are being harassed, are being physically and psychologically injured, perhaps for the rest of their days? He can't act? He can't interfere? That is absolute nonsense.

Believe me, the other reason that this House will rise is that women's groups will agree with me that any minister in a circumstance like this who says he can't interfere should know that he's not wanted, that the people of Ontario don't want him, and the Premier should get rid of him right away.

The minister is responsible for his ministry. That means he must take responsibility to this House and to the people of Ontario for his actions and his inaction. His lack of action tells as much as his action does, because there was no action. If there had been action, some of the revelations that have been before this House in the last week and this week would never have been here.

I look at his colleagues in cabinet -- the Minister of Citizenship, the Minister of Health, the minister responsible for women's issues, the Minister of the Environment -- and I know they believe, just as I do, that this minister did not respond, did not act, was not proactive in dealing with these issues. They were far too widespread. If he'd been doing his job, they wouldn't have been that widespread; in fact, they would have been eliminated.

In the few short minutes that I have to complete my remarks I want to turn to the notion of the cessation of Parliament as a tool for the government to get out of difficult issues or to not face issues which are before us in a public way. We've seen the clear evidence before the House this week and last week that the singular reason the government wants this House to rise is Allan Pilkey.

The government has exhibited such a disdain for Parliament, such an attitude of quelling the issues, of keeping the issues under the table. We saw another example yesterday when the Minister of Health didn't bring to the floor of this House and to the attention of the public decisions that had been made by cabinet to eliminate drugs from the drug benefit plan. No information had gone to senior citizens who are affected, no information had gone to vulnerable social assistance recipients who are affected, and there was a deliberate attempt to keep that information from the House. There was a deliberate attempt not to allow people to be informed.

The consultation was a sham. The consultation on this issue began on May 28. It was to end on June 10 -- 10 days of consultative period with two weekends in the interval. The information was sent to the association heads of the experts that were involved: the OMA, the pharmacists' association, pharmaceutical manufacturers. There was absolutely no time for any broad-based consultation. The information never reached the doctors, it never reached the pharmacists, it never reached the pharmaceutical manufacturers so that there could be legitimate comment. Indeed, that consultation was specifically designed that way. The announcement of the elimination of those drugs from the drug benefit plan was also deliberately shaped so that it would not occur when the House was sitting.

1530

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They wanted to do it in the middle of the summer.

Mrs Sullivan: They wanted to do it in the middle of the summer, when the public would not be informed through this chamber, when senior citizens might be involved in other matters and their attention might not be on the particular government actions.

The Minister of Health spoke slightly over a week ago to the senior citizens' coalition, knowing that this decision was in the tubes, was in the pipes, knowing that it was going to be made, first of all, last Wednesday, and that the second shoe of that decision would be made within the next couple of weeks, and she mentioned not a word. She had the floor at that convention for a full-blown speech. She didn't raise the issue. She did not mention it one bit. There was nothing on the table.

People over 65 who are eligible for the drug benefits should have had that information. They should have had the information on which to comment, on which to make their views known, on which to be able to discuss with their doctors what other alternatives they had to face, what other alternatives were before them in terms of their own treatment, in terms of their own health care services.

But the minister kept it quiet. It was a deliberate strategy, and that is so offensive, not only to me, not only to other members of this Legislature but to every senior citizen and every person on social assistance in this province.

It follows a pattern: We saw the House rise last time after my colleague the member for Kenora raised the issue of the Attorney General's staff having knowledge and taking part in a deliberate attempt to build support for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the minister who says she took a lie detector test to prove that she'd lied, that she was telling the truth when she said she lied.

Today, we have a motion on the floor to ensure that this House will rise in another exact instance of scandal. In this case, the reason for the decision to make this House rise is Allan Pilkey, and if this government thinks that Allan Pilkey will be gone because the House is risen, believe me, he will hang over your heads until he's gone from government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): This completes the time allotted to the honourable member. Further debate?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's interesting: The Treasurer just told us the reason that we have to get out of here, and his reason was that it's July. Well, I'd like to tell the Treasurer and the rest of the people sitting opposite that most people work in the month of July at their jobs; they don't take all summer off. If there's work to be done we should be here getting this work done and we should do it now.

That is really what Mr Elston's motion is about. Mr Elston's motion has done nothing more than to ask the government to complete the work it told us it had undertaken to do.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): What a lazy bum.

Mr Harnick: Now the Treasurer's calling me a lazy bum. I'm not offended --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I am. You're not a bum.

Mr Harnick: My friend the member for York Centre is sticking up for me. He says I'm not a bum, and I appreciate that.

The Treasurer has a very simple way of dealing with all of these issues. Unfortunately, it's his agenda that we're trying to complete and it's his party that doesn't want to complete that agenda. I find that kind of logic perverse, and the only way the Treasurer can really answer that perversity of logic is to call me a bum. I'm not offended. I understand where it's coming from, I understand the frustration. But I think we should take a look at what we're standing here debating today so that the people watching can understand why we're here in July.

Mr Elston has moved an amendment to Mr Cooke's motion to adjourn the House for the summer. The amendment is that we don't adjourn the House until second reading of Bill 75, the London-Middlesex annexation, is complete, and second reading of Bill 68, the pay equity bill, is complete, and that on completion of second reading of these two bills the House stand adjourned until September 28, 1992.

The government, in carrying out its business, for some reason wants to introduce time allocation motions. I think this is the third one I've had the opportunity to speak to in the last couple of weeks, probably more than any legislator who has been in this chamber for maybe 20 years. The Treasurer has probably been here longer than anyone and I'll bet he hasn't had the opportunity to speak on this many closure motions, adjournment motions, time allocations motions, in the whole time he's been here.

Hon Mr Laughren: Charlie's right.

Mr Harnick: He finally acknowledges that I'm right. I appreciate that, because that's probably the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, you're a nice guy, Charlie.

Mr Harnick: I appreciate that too. I've gone from a bum to being a nice guy.

In all seriousness, we have a situation where the government has told us it has 121 pieces of business it has to complete. These were what they described as the must-haves. That must-have list has sort of evaporated. It now consists of Bill 40, which has been completed and is now out to a committee, and it consists of Bill 150. I don't know what's going to happen to Bill 150, but we know we had a closure motion last week so that only one member of the Legislature had the opportunity to speak on an important bill in which there were 42 amendments; in a sense, that bill was never even debated. I suspect that before we get out of here we might vote on that or else it would be a tragedy that only one person had an opportunity to discuss this very important bill.

The only other bills that appear to be left on this must-have list of 121 are Bill 75 -- we began the debate on second reading of Bill 75 just the other day, almost by accident, because I think the government House leader had nothing else to call at that time and he didn't have a closure motion or a time allocation motion hanging so we had to really debate a piece of legislation -- and the pay equity bill.

I expect that once my time is done the government House leader will march in here and under rule 45 of our standing orders he'll ask that we vote to get out of here right now. I fully expect that, but I think we have work that has to be done here: We have must-have bills the government has insisted upon dealing with. I will be very interested to see which members of the government are going to say, "Let's deal with pay equity because it's a must-have bill," or "Let's go on vacation." I'll be very interested to see what happens to the London annexation bill, a bill the government must have, a bill that it had to come into this chamber to ask for unanimous consent to get on the docket. Now it's on the docket, and what are they going to do? They're all going to go fishing. I will be very interested to see which government members are prepared to stay and complete this so-called must-have legislation.

I had a discussion recently with the Minister of Financial Institutions and he told me that we just have to have this auto insurance bill. The reason we have to have the auto insurance bill, another one of the must-have pieces of legislation, is because, in his belief -- I'm not so sure I disagree with him, and I don't say this critically -- the auto insurance companies are making so much money because of the terrible Liberal auto insurance scheme that's been inflicted on the people of this province that he's got to do something to stop the money they're making that isn't getting into the hands of innocent accident victims.

1540

I'm not prepared to agree that his scheme is going to in fact do that, but the fact is that he was absolutely adamant when he spoke to me that he had to get this piece of legislation on because the auto insurance companies were making too much money, that all they were doing was playing for time, because the more time they could have the more money they were going to make; and then, come October, when he went to introduce it for second reading, they'd be at his door with another excuse as to why he shouldn't proceed with the bill.

As I say, I don't know if I terribly disagree with the Minister of Financial Institutions in terms of his theory -- I don't know what the right answer is -- but the fact is that he wanted to have this bill now and we're all going fishing.

The government wants to adjourn this place when there is important legislation on the docket, the must-haves, and I'll be very interested to see whether the Minister of Financial Institutions stands in his place today to vote in favour of adjourning this House when he had such strong opinions about why we had to do the auto insurance bill now. I'll be interested to see what he does. I'll be interested to see what the minister responsible for women's issues is going to do when she has the opportunity to stand in her place and vote to adjourn this place or vote in favour of Mr Elston's motion to complete the pay equity bill.

The government can't speak out of both sides of its mouth. They can't tell us in the middle of June that they have 121 pieces of legislation that they haven't introduced in April or May or most of June but have saved for the last two weeks. They can't tell us that they must have this legislation and then get Bill 40 and duck out of here because Mr Pilkey's in a lot of trouble. It's just not right. You're not going to fool the public about why you're trying to leave this place.

Everybody knows this must-have legislation is really not must-have legislation, and everybody knows that all you wanted to do was come up with a scheme to get Bill 40 through the Legislature. I might tell you that the architect of your scheme probably did about the sloppiest job anybody could ever devise in terms of trying to get that bill through the Legislature. I've got to tell you, you people look bad -- very, very bad.

You're not going to fool anybody. You're not going to convince anybody that the must-haves were real must-haves. All you wanted to do was get Bill 40 finished, you wanted to get it out of here, you changed the rules to do it, and now the Minister of Correctional Services is just burying himself in question period and you're absolutely as anxious as can be to shut this House down. It's just as simple as that. The must-have legislation takes a back seat to the problems that the Minister of Correctional Services now finds himself in.

The member for Halton Centre, who just spoke, made a very interesting observation. When we left here for the Christmas break, we left here under the cloud of the Martel situation, the minister who admitted lying, who took a lie detector test and proved that, yes, in fact she was lying. We left here under that cloud. Now it appears that we're going to leave here under a cloud that is every bit as black as the cloud we left Minister Martel under.

Now we're going to see what transpires. We're going to see if the government really wants to come clean. It would be very easy for them to do that. It would have been very easy for the minister to have stood in his place today and acknowledge that we have a problem in the ministry of corrections, and the problem is that in very many of the institutions within that ministry there is a form of systemic sexual harassment. The minister could very easily have said that he would have a proper inquiry into those institutions and into his ministry.

Did the minister offer to do that? The minister did quite the contrary. The minister, because I suspect he's been coached by the spin doctors in the New Democratic government, took a bunker-mentality approach to that problem.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): That's tough to take, even from this side of the House.

Mr Harnick: The Minister of Transportation says that's very hard to take, but the fact is that we heard today that there is systemic sexual harassment that appears to be prevalent in a ministry. It may be hard for the Minister of Transportation to take the fact that his friend the Minister of Correctional Services is in some hot water because of it, but the minister of corrections could help us all out by saying: "You know, there really is a problem here. Maybe I didn't read my briefing papers as carefully as I should have."

When those people came to him, the member for Scarborough Centre and the member for Brantford, to advise him what those problems were and to advise the Ministry of Correctional Services's deputy minister what those problems were, maybe the minister would say: "You know, we really do have a problem here. Sexual harassment is something that we cannot tolerate as a government."

I know that's the feeling of this government. I don't deny that for one moment. I don't deny the good intentions of this government in dealing with that evil problem for one instant. But the fact of the matter is, we should be having a full-blown inquiry. The reason we should be having a full-blown inquiry is not necessarily to be looking into the conduct of the minister or the lack of action by the minister at the appropriate times. The reason we should be having the inquiry is so the public can see that this is a problem that exists, it's a problem that's wrong and it's a problem that this government collectively, the government side and the opposition side, is doing its utmost to make public and to eradicate. That's the reason we have to have a public inquiry.

What do we have? We have a minister and a government led by Deputy Minister Piper and Deputy Premier Piper and we have a government that has a mentality to bunker down and try to weather the storm. I tell you, that is not in the best interests of the people of Ontario. I don't think there's anyone on the government side who would acknowledge otherwise. The fact of the matter is that we should be having an inquiry -- I'll say it again -- not necessarily to examine the actions or inactions of the minister; the reason we should be having this inquiry is so that we can examine the systemic sexual harassment that appears to exist in a very significant way within the Ministry of Correctional Services.

We should make this a public examination so that the public can see that we as a collective group, both government and opposition, are opposed to this kind of behaviour, that there is zero tolerance for it and that we will try to educate the public about the evils of sexual harassment at the same time as we have a full-blown public inquiry. That is what the opposition parties are after.

The government can portray us as being as sinister as they want. They can make us out to look like the most sinister people in the world. But the fact is, we care about this issue. They do not have a monopoly on caring about women, on caring about the disadvantaged. When we stand here in question period and the government squirms, we stand here with the very best of intentions, but the government only wants to do one thing. They only want to get out of this place. They want to get out of this place without dealing with those significant issues, one of which is the issue that the Correctional Services minister now finds himself dealing with.

You can portray the opposition as ineffective, you can ignore us, you can yell at us, but the fact of the matter is that we care about that issue. We care about that issue as much as you do. We should stay here and hammer out the terms of a proper inquiry, and the Premier should back off and should review what he said. The minister himself should review what he said so that we can have that proper inquiry and we all can do the right thing. The right thing here is not necessarily the attack on the minister's action or inaction, but it's the fact that we have a very significant problem within a ministry.

1550

Just to carry on, as I said earlier, this is my third opportunity in less than three weeks to be able to speak on adjournment motions, closure motions or time allocation motions, more than probably the most senior member of this House, the Treasurer, has ever had the opportunity to do in over 20 years in this place.

Just so that people watching can understand what's going on here, the government, through its inactivity, presented virtually no legislation for this assembly to pass or to debate during the month of April, during the month of May and during the month of June. In the latter part of June, the government then delivered what I think were about 121 pieces of legislation. Among those was the crown jewel of their whole regime, and that's the Bill 40 labour legislation.

They delivered that among those 121 pieces of legislation, and they then decided they would have to debate it. They don't want to debate these things. They don't want opposition. They don't want a critical approach to anything they do. They just want to ram things through here without hearing any opposition, without hearing any criticism, without hearing any mechanisms to make a piece of legislation better.

They brought this piece of legislation forward, and the idea was that they were going to ram it through, and almost at exactly the same time as they brought that piece of legislation forward, they brought in the new rules of the Legislature that they were proposing. They took their gun and they put it to the opposition's head, and the opposition was told, "Either accept these draconian new rules or negotiate and come up with another package."

Under those circumstances, the opposition parties did negotiate and they did come up with a package that was better than what the government originally provided. It wasn't great, but it was better than what the government provided. It was certainly bad enough that if the Treasurer was sitting on this side of the House and something like that had happened, we'd have had to peel him off the ceiling if someone was to tell him that we were going to have rules in this Legislature that would limit him to 30 minutes of debate. I've read the Hansard and I've read some of the long and detailed speeches the Treasurer made over a period of 20 years.

Hon Mr Laughren: I was never long-winded.

Mr Harnick: I'm not saying the Treasurer was long-winded, because you're only long-winded if you're saying nothing over a long period of time and the Treasurer as an opposition member was a constructive opposition member who stood for many hours on important pieces of legislation and spoke, and I tell you, Mr Speaker, he would not ever have accepted the idea that he would be restricted to 30 minutes of debate on important pieces of legislation.

Nevertheless, the government had to get those rules through this Legislature because it had to get its Bill 40 through so its members could go home for the summer. They then went ahead and passed the new rules. With a gun to our heads, we did the best we could to come up with the best package that we could live with, and that was done.

We now have a situation where the new rules are in effect. We have a situation where the government now had an opportunity and the right to bring in time allocation and where it had the right to limit the number of hours of debate any member could engage in. We now have a situation where we have new rules and we have a piece of legislation that, to say the least, is a controversial piece of legislation. It's a piece of legislation that every worker and every employer in this province is concerned about.

They're concerned about it because the employers know it's going to cost jobs and the workers know their jobs may be the ones that are affected. We now have this dastardly piece of legislation, and the government now has the new rules. They figure that in a skinny minute they will have this rammed through the Legislature and Mr Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour, can go on vacation with a big smile on his face.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm always smiling.

Mr Harnick: He says he always smiles. Mostly, when he looks at me, I see him scowling. Nevertheless, he is smiling today.

We now have this scenario, and that's the scenario I want the people who are watching to understand. What does the government do as soon as it calls this piece of legislation? It brings a motion to allocate time. Immediately upon the piece of legislation being called, they bring a motion to limit the amount of time in which this very significant piece of legislation can be debated. They go ahead and limit the amount of time.

This is the first foray into the new rules, which we were told only weeks earlier will be used sparingly. "We will very seldom use that time allocation rule," which I might tell you, Mr Speaker, takes away your discretion. It doesn't provide you any discretion if you believe there hasn't been enough debate. So we now have time limits on how long individual members can speak and we now have a motion on the most significant government bill we're going to see here over its tenure. We now have a time allocation motion to limit the debate on that bill.

What happens? Lo and behold, we debate and we waste more time, because they don't want to call the bill. They'd rather argue about time allocation. So we have to have a time allocation motion and the debate therefore is limited.

A great many people who represent ridings in this Legislature did not have the opportunity to stand in their places and speak on this very significant bill. I say that not only about opposition members but about government members as well. Government members didn't have the opportunity to stand in their places and explain to their constituents why this bill is good or bad for them.

We now have this scenario, we now have this scene being set and we now have this first foray into the new rules. In fact time was allocated based on how many hours the debate would have left, and ultimately, within a matter of days, Bill 40 was rammed through this Legislature.

Then we got to Bill 150. This is the second foray into the new rules. This time the government did something a little different. We were in the middle of debating Bill 150 under the new rules. My friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt debated on behalf of his party and, according to those rules, he made a 90-minute speech. The baton was then passed to my party. The member for Carleton got up and began to speak, and after 15 minutes the debate was cut off, with assurances from the Speaker that day that he would be able to continue debating and he would get his full time.

At the same time, we have the next time allocation motion, but it really wasn't a time allocation motion at all. It was a motion that said: "We're invoking the provisions of rule 44a(a) and we're not allocating any time. We just want to have the debate shut down." The Speaker, much to my disbelief, in spite of the fact that this motion demands time be allocated, allowed that motion as if it were a closure motion.

I tell you, Mr Speaker -- I don't say this in any way so as to give the impression that I'm challenging the Chair, because that's already water under the bridge -- that very decision is going to have the gravest ramifications for every member who sits in this Parliament in years to come. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that a number of the people sitting in this Parliament and living by that decision are now members of the government who, after the next election, I can assure you, will be sitting in the opposition. They will be howling about the use of those rules.

That doesn't seem to bother them now, because the role of opposition, something they perfected over a great many years, doesn't mean anything any more. The significance of being in opposition doesn't mean anything any more.

1600

The idea of having legislation on the docket debated as quickly as possible and rammed through this place makes a mockery of the new rules, which they told the opposition would be used sparingly, which they never indicated would be used improperly.

They then went ahead and did exactly what they told us they would never do, so that we've had two pieces of legislation in a row immediately following the new rules and on both pieces of legislation, despite assurances that closure and time allocation would seldom be used under these rules, we've now had two bills in a row that we've had rammed through this place without any meaningful debate.

It's all based on a matter of trust. We were told: "Trust us. We will seldom use this." Well, I can't personally rely on your trust. Having seen the way the rules have now been used, I will bet this will be the pattern this government uses from now until the end of this parliamentary session. The public is going to have legislation rammed down its throat. It's not the opposition that's going to have the legislation rammed down its throat; it's the public. The public are the people who are going to suffer with this legislation that you won't allow meaningful debate on, that you won't accept any amendments on.

Because of that, when the next election rolls around, it's going to be the public that says, "They rammed this down our throats and therefore they will never get my vote again." Everywhere I go in my riding, that's what people are saying to me. They're saying: "How much longer do we have to have this government? Is there anything you can do about it? Why do they keep ramming things down our throats?" That's what is now occurring out in the public. I know this government has lost touch with the public.

I've only got nine seconds left, but I'd like to say one more thing, and that's that I fully expect that when this debate goes back to the government side, they will be moving closure. I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This terminates the member's time. Further debate? The honourable Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: It's with considerable pleasure that I rise to engage in this debate this afternoon. The members will all know, of course, that we are debating a motion to adjourn the House and come back again on September 28. Contrary to what some members opposite said, including my good friend the member for Willowdale, who indicated that --

Mr Harnick: Take that back now.

Hon Mr Laughren: I take back what I said earlier.

Mr Harnick: Your apology is accepted.

Hon Mr Laughren: Right, and I'll never again say he's a good friend.

Contrary to what some have said, the adjournment motion that's been placed before the House this afternoon is not to give anybody a holiday. The members opposite work just as hard as members of the government. When the Legislature is not in session, the vast majority of members are either serving on committees of this assembly or they're back in their constituencies doing the work of their particular ridings. I think that is almost without exception. Certainly members do that if they're here for a second term. I think that it's inappropriate to characterize the motion as an attempt by the government to go fishing or to have a holiday. That's simply not the case.

Having said that, this is July 23, and it's about a month later than we would normally be sitting. I think it's most appropriate that we adjourn, and contained in the motion is the recall date of September 28, so I think we will get back on schedule then.

When this spring session began we said to the people of Ontario and to members of this assembly that we had an agenda for economic renewal, for justice and for equity. We went at least some small way to delivering on that agenda. Of course, no government delivers its entire agenda in one spring session, but I feel we made some progress on those matters of economic renewal, justice and equity. I think those are important priorities for this government.

I would like to take the opportunity of highlighting a few of the things we accomplished in this session.

Through the Ontario budget we launched the Jobs Ontario funds, which in total would create about 23,000 jobs this year alone. On top of that, there was capital spending in all the ministries, what's known in government as the base expenditures of capital throughout government, for another 67,000 jobs. Then, in response to our equity priority, we set up a special youth employment fund which created another 8,800 jobs -- oversubscribed, the fund, already as a matter of fact.

As a result of that, this year alone this government will make a contribution to the Ontario economy of almost 100,000 jobs. That is a major commitment to the economy at a time of a severe recession and at a time when the revenues of this government are flat. I think it was not less than we should have done. We should have done that and we did it, even though there was enormous pressure from members opposite not to spend that much money. But I really believe we had an obligation to job creation.

Prior to the budget being brought down, we held a large number of consultations with the public. During those consultations people told us: "We want you to do something to create jobs in this province. We want you to keep the deficit in check. We want you to maintain the essential services to which we've become accustomed in this province." I believe we did all three. Never enough, of course, but I really believe that given the times, we did as much as anyone could expect of us, given the revenue problems.

We passed worker ownership legislation that finally, in this province, will provide working people with an opportunity to invest in their economy. That to me was an important step forward.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Your guys may vote against it.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, of course, anything is possible.

We introduced that legislation and it's before the House. We introduced very important legislation to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Perhaps I could take a moment and express my gratitude and admiration to the Minister of Labour who brought forth amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, an act that had not been amended in over 15 years, and is long overdue for the working people in this province to make their investment in this economy.

We responded to changing public opinion by introducing legislation to allow Sunday shopping in this province, an issue that has bedevilled all three governments in the last 10 or 15 years. It has been an enormous problem. Quite frankly, it's no secret in this chamber that all parties within themselves have differing opinions on the whole question of Sunday shopping.

Mr Bradley: I think Mel Swart is on the phone. Mel is on the phone.

1610

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, of course, people have differing opinions; I don't deny that.

We responded to the report by Stephen Lewis on racism with a number of anti-racism measures.

We introduced the first mandatory employment equity legislation covering both the public and the private sectors in Canada. I believe it'll be a model that other jurisdictions will follow in the months and years to come.

We launched the Jobs Ontario Youth program, 8,800 jobs, oversubscribed.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): And we bought the triple E Senate. Who would've thunk it?

Hon Mr Laughren: We're proceeding with a number of pieces of advocacy legislation that will empower vulnerable adults, long overdue legislation as well.

Mr Conway: Bob Rae lost a poker match with Don Getty.

Hon Mr Laughren: When I hear members opposite complain about the legislation, they had the opportunity to introduce these pieces of progressive legislation and chose not to do so, despite being in office for five years. We've decided to move on those progressive pieces of legislation.

Mr Conway: Bob Rae was outsmarted by Don Getty. Think about it.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Treasurer has the floor.

Hon Mr Laughren: The dyspeptic dilettante from Renfrew North persists in heckling me over the constitutional talks that have been going on for some time, talks in which the Premier of this province, I'm proud to say --

Mr Conway: Has been outsmarted by Don Getty and Floyd knows it.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- has played a major role. It's fine for the member for Renfrew North to say we were outsmarted. At least the Premier of this province --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Interjections, as all members know, are out of order.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's extremely unfair for the member to use words we don't understand. I ask if he would explain the terminology he utilized just a moment ago.

Mr Conway: On that point, Mr Speaker: I understand it and I'm not at all offended.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable Treasurer has the floor.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sure I'm not the first person to call the member for Renfrew North a dilettante; dyspeptic, perhaps, but not a dilettante.

Mr Conway: Mitch Hepburn once called George Drew the dyspeptic son of Mars.

Hon Mr Laughren: I would not refer to the member for Renfrew North in that way.

The point I was trying to make before the heckling began was that this session has been a difficult one in which the mood in this assembly has not been pleasant, quite frankly, for much of the time. I appreciate the fact that feelings run very high and members care about the legislation that comes through. They care about the rules changes that were introduced and passed in this Legislature as well. But I don't believe for a minute that any party in this assembly would not have proceeded with similar rules changes, given what the opposition was doing to our attempt to govern in this province.

I know the opposition does not like the rule changes. I would even refer to them as mood-altering rules, as a matter of fact, the way the members in the assembly behaved once they were introduced and passed. But I believe, and I suspect that all members in their quieter moments would agree, that government has an obligation to deliver on its agenda and to pass legislation with dispatch after lots of opportunity for debate.

I hear the nonsense about the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The Ontario Labour Relations Act has been through first reading and second reading. This is after a year of discussion papers out there. It is now going out to committee hearings for five weeks. That is ample opportunity for people to have their views known. I do not believe people in this province expect that any legislation should have unlimited debate. I think that is an inappropriate expectation on the part of the opposition.

Mr Conway: But three and a half months from start to finish is obscene by any of our standards. That's what I object to.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Renfrew North, please.

Mr Conway: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. I do apologize, but the fact is --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable Treasurer has the floor. Interjections are out of order, and it's very difficult for the Speaker to hear what the Treasurer is saying.

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not attempting to be provocative. I know the member for Renfrew North saw my remarks as provocative, but I think that reflects more on his view of the legislation that we were dealing with than on the rules that apply to its debate.

I think there is nothing untoward about the length of debate we've had on the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I would remind members that there were discussion papers for about a year on that proposed legislation. The legislation was brought in, debated -- it was introduced for first reading and debated on second reading. Now it goes out for five weeks of public hearings and then --

Mr Conway: In August, in the middle of the night.

Hon Mr Laughren: There is absolutely nothing unusual about debating bills in the summertime. I've chaired committees of this Legislature that had controversial legislation on their agendas and travelled in the province during the summer, hearing presentations. That's exactly what we're doing with the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: I know the members opposite do not want to see changes or amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, but those changes are long overdue and we are determined to proceed. I understand the members opposite. They are in an ideological frenzy over amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and that is unfortunate, but I can tell you that we have an obligation to update the legislation concerning the Labour Relations Act.

Mr Conway: Give me one example of another bill of that size.

Hon Mr Laughren: I gave the member a couple of examples --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable Treasurer address his remarks to the Chair? That may help to some degree.

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don't want to carry on with the debate, because it's not contributing to the orderly conduct of affairs here this afternoon. I do simply want to say that I understand the opposition of the members opposite to the rules changes. I appreciate that. But I would warrant a guess that if the government were to change some time in the future, the rules wouldn't. Who knows whether that will be the case, but that would be my suspicion because I believe the rule changes were necessary for the orderly conduct of business in this House and to allow any government to deliver its agenda and to function in an orderly manner.

Before I sit down, in anticipation and in hope that we are going to have an adjournment -- we'll see -- I did want to express my appreciation to the members of my caucus for their contributions to debate and the management of the province's affairs since this session began. They've done a wonderful job. I'd also like to express my appreciation to members of the opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, who have done their job. While I may not have agreed with the way in which they've done it from time to time, they didn't appreciate my behaviour when I was in opposition either.

I think the hour of the day has come when I should ask you, Mr Speaker, that the question now be put.

1620

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I presume, although I don't think the government party now needs any standing orders at all, that the gentleman is moving under standing order 45. Mr Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention the fact that there has not been the necessary debate carried on to this stage, that there have been but two speakers in our party, two speakers in the Conservative Party and but one speaker and a part of a speech by the second speaker for the New Democratic Party to deal with this motion.

Interjection.

Mr Elston: He's not finished with his time. It's one speaker and a part of a speech.

Mr Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention the fact that there is a whole series of other very important issues for us to examine as we deal with this very important motion to take this House out of its capacity to do business in this province.

We have already talked about the fact that the 121 pieces of legislation, not all of which have been introduced even now, were laid out by the government House leader as the reason for bringing in the new rules. They are now resorting to the old rules to shut us off.

But, Mr Speaker, it seems to me that in order for you to find that this motion being brought forward by the Treasurer of this province, after he has made some interesting remarks -- some of them would be described as session-ender remarks, I believe, or the people who crafted those for him. Some of them would be his own words. It is not yet time for us to have this motion made, because we have been unable to examine the real reasons why this government wants out of here.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that you should bear in mind the suggestions of the previous occupant of the chair today, in his incarnation yesterday as we dealt with the possibility of a closure motion, saying, "There will be ample time for all members who are recognized to speak to give their case," basically saying that there would be almost unlimited time and that he felt there should be a very broad opportunity for as many people as possible to speak.

We have had but six speakers to this particular motion. Having 130 people who might possibly speak, six speakers are very few indeed when it comes to representing the public business of this place and whether or not this forum should carry on.

It is not that we have not been here for some time. But you would recognize, Mr Speaker, that we began this session a full one month after we were originally scheduled to come here because the Premier of the day -- and the Treasurer, in fairness; it wasn't just the Premier -- were concerned about the financial arrangements with respect to this province because they had been unable to put together a consistent fiscal plan to take care of the disaster of the first budget year which had been processed by the member for Nickel Belt. They came back a month late. We have sat and made up just about the same amount of time.

But, Mr Speaker, it is apparent to me that, but six members out of 130 having spoken, it is much too early for you to find this motion in order today.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has made his point.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: Very briefly, I would ask you to take into account, when you're making your decision with respect to this closure motion which has been moved, the precedent in this place with respect to the number of hours and number of speakers required before closure has been deemed to be in order in the past.

By my calculation, there's been somewhat of two-plus hours of actual debate time on this particular motion before the House. I would acknowledge there were two 30-minute bells yesterday but that is not debate. There have been six speakers. I would like to point out to you that, for example, on December 9, 1982, a closure motion was ruled to be in order after five hours of debate and some 10 speakers. I would also like to point out to you that on May 9, 1990, on a similar closure motion, there were 104 hours of debate and 26 speakers. I would ask you to bear this in mind when you are deciding whether or not this motion is in fact proper at this time.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Very briefly, I think the Speaker in making his ruling on this motion has to take into consideration a couple of points. First of all, I think you must be aware of the fact that we are debating a routine motion. This is not a piece of legislation. This is not a major issue. This is a routine motion that normally in the Legislature passes without debate at all.

Second, we have had at this point seven speakers involved on a routine motion. The discussions at this point now have nearly gone on for four hours on a motion that usually takes 30 seconds.

Finally, on the point that the House leader for the third party has made in terms of the actual debate time, the fact of the matter is, it is relevant that at least an hour yesterday of time that could have been spent debating this motion was spent with the bells ringing because the third party and the official opposition decided to adjourn the debate in an attempt to adjourn the debate for a second time. That is a relevant factor. It's clear that this is a routine motion and that the motion for closure is in order.

The Acting Speaker: The Speaker will deal on the motion prior to the point of privilege. After due consideration -- I thank the honourable members for having brought forth their arguments -- the Chair is now ruling that Mr Laughren's motion is in order and that the question now be put.

1659

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Will the members please take their seats. Before we take the vote, pursuant to standing order 33 the member for Renfrew North has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Correctional Services concerning the Bell Cairn and Burtch matters.

Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Oakville South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Correctional Services concerning the Bell Cairn investigation.

Pursuant to the same standing order, the member for Renfrew North has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Correctional Services concerning the minister's role in the ministry.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

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

Ayes -- 67

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 31

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Conway, Cunningham, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Henderson, McClelland, McLeod, Miclash, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Scott, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It's your time; I'll wait.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills and the member for Renfrew North, please.

We will now go to the original motion that was introduced by Mr Cooke, which reads as follows: "that on the sessional day on which this motion is carried, when the House adjourns that day it shall stand adjourned until September 28, 1992."

Would the members like to take the same vote?

Interjections: No.

1735

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

Ayes -- 66

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin;

Mathyssen, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 32

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Conway, Cunningham, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Henderson, McClelland, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Scott, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Orders of the day.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: In my other life I --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the member succinctly state his point of privilege.

Mr Callahan: My point of privilege is this: Over the years I discovered that in the correctional system women were very often incarcerated for crimes such as bad cheques and minor crimes. Most of them were because they were trying to support their families. I was appointed by my leader as critic of correctional institutions and I have a very significant interest in this. I took on that role, and immediately upon taking it on I wrote to every institution in Ontario.

At first I got a very receptive response: "Yes, we would like to see you. Come see us." It was then followed by letters saying, "You can't see us unless you go through a specific person in the ministry or the minister's office." I was therefore blocked in my role as critic of corrections in terms of carrying out the function I was responsible for as a member of the official opposition. I was most specifically concerned as I sat here and listened to what went on in this House in terms of the statements by the Minister of Correctional Services in terms of how particularly women were being dealt with.

Mr Speaker, I want you to look into this matter. My role as critic for corrections requires that I be allowed access to correctional facilities to have an opportunity to make those observations myself. I can tell you that in my professional career I visited correctional institutions and I believe there is a very significant problem there most specifically with women. They are in fact at the mercy of being housed in there under the power of the correctional facilities.

I'm asking you, Mr Speaker, to look into the issue to ensure that I will have free access and not be prevented by the minister's office or the political people from going into the correctional facilities to examine the facilities.

The Speaker: To the member for Brampton South: Indeed I appreciate the point of privilege he has raised. I will have to reserve on this. As acknowledged, the House is expected to rise today, but I will endeavour to get back to the member personally as quickly as I can with a response to him.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I know the next order of business will be the vote on third reading of Bill 150. I know that as soon as it is moved under the closure motion that was brought here and sanctioned by your chair nothing else can take place on that issue, but I ask again, because it was raised by the Speaker who was in the chair at the time the member for Carleton was speaking, that we have unanimous consent for the member for Carleton to resume the debate. This of course, Mr Speaker, was something you had suggested could be done. I suggest in fairness, since there has been not a full speech at all made by one member of the third party, that unanimous consent from the government for the completion of this speech would be in order before we vote on the bill.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce: Indeed he has correctly identified the situation. It would be appropriate to ask for such consent at the point when the order is called, not prior to it being called. I have asked for orders of the day. When that's called forward, indeed it would be appropriate for someone to request the unanimous consent he has identified.

LABOUR SPONSORED VENTURE CAPITAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES CORPORATIONS À CAPITAL DE RISQUE DE TRAVAILLEURS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments / Loi prévoyant la création et l'inscription de corporations à capital de risque de travailleurs aux fins d'investissement dans des entreprises ontariennes admissibles et apportant des modifications corrélatives.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I ask for unanimous consent to have the member for Carleton speak.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): There's a request for unanimous consent for the member for Carleton to speak. Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: No?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since we now have confirmed this spectacle where members can be cut off in midspeech, might I suggest --

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Not in midspeech; in midsentence.

Mr Conway: -- In midsentence -- I think it would probably be a lot easier and a lot tidier if you and the Chair were just absolved of any responsibility to even bother calling out the orders, because we'd get the business done more quickly if we didn't even have to trouble ourselves with calling for the orders. Gee whiz, if we had no calling of orders, we'd have no speeches, no debate and the government would get it all without any trouble at all.

The Speaker: Would the member resume his seat. It's always appreciated when members are trying to be helpful.

The vote is on Bill 150.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can you tell us under what auspices you are taking the vote now, please? Can you confirm for the House under what auspices you have called for the vote at this time?

The Speaker: It was in the order. It's been ordered by the House, by a previous decision. It was ordered by the House. There's nothing out of order. It's perfectly proper to be having a vote at this time.

1750

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for third reading of Bill 150, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 86

Akande, Allen, Beer, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Buchanan, Callahan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Eddy, Elston, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Henderson, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, Miclash, Morin, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Poirier, Pouliot, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Scott, Silipo, Sullivan, Sutherland, Swarbrick;

Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 9

Carr, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the member for Victoria-Haliburton to be a man of integrity and honour, and I'm wondering if he might have an opportunity to explain how he feels with respect to the fact that his word, given in good faith, was undermined and the undertaking that he gave to be fulfilled was taken away from him by the House leader. I wonder if we might have unanimous consent for that.

The Speaker: The member for Brampton North can resume his seat. Unless the member for Victoria-Haliburton wishes to address the item, we have dealt with this matter.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It's important to note after the results of the vote on Bill 150 that the net result of the closure motion of this government is that members representing those against this bill had a total of 15 minutes in the third reading debate to talk about a very complex piece of legislation.

The Speaker: I understand fully the member for Carleton's concern. The member may wish to re-read the --

Interjections.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: This is neither the matter that some expect nor is it a matter about the rules. I've observed this debate, and I've nothing to say about the rules. I understand they're there, and I share the position of my party on them. It is a matter that affects all our privileges when the House leader utilizes the rules to cut off a member in midsentence. That may have been dictated by the circumstances of the case; I don't know enough to say.

Frankly, we all hoped unanimous consent would be granted so that the member could bring his speech to a quick conclusion by perhaps no more than five minutes or 10 minutes on the issue. When that unanimous consent was not forthcoming -- and I saw the House leader signal that it would not be given -- it seemed to me there was an element of a new spirit in the House that I find, frankly, very unattractive.

I hope that in the future honourable members will be able, notwithstanding the cut and thrust of debate, in which God knows I participate as vigorously as anybody, to allow that minimum level of courtesy. I think it's the introduction of a mean spirit into the House that is not in the interests of anybody. Nobody else may share my view, but I wanted to express it and I thank you for the opportunity.

The Speaker: To the member for St George-St David, no one more than I would like to have an atmosphere of mutual respect and the opportunity to debate issues openly and freely without rancour.

SPRING GREEN CO-OPERATIVE ACT, 1992

Ms Swarbrick moved second reading of Bill Pr37, An Act to revive Spring Green Co-operative.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

SILVERBIRCH CO-OPERATIVE INC ACT, 1992

Ms Swarbrick moved second reading of Bill Pr38, An Act to revive Silverbirch Co-operative Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

1800

MISSISSAUGA REAL ESTATE BOARD ACT, 1992

Mr Sterling, on behalf of Mrs Marland, moved second reading of Bill Pr46, An Act to revive The Mississauga Real Estate Board.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BIKUR CHOLIM ACT, 1992

Mr Elston, on behalf of Mr Cordiano, moved second reading of Bill Pr48, An Act respecting Bikur Cholim.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LYTTLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT, 1992

Mr Sterling moved second reading of Bill Pr53, An Act to revive Lyttle Investments Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF UXBRIDGE ACT, 1992

Mr O'Connor moved second reading of Bill Pr56, An Act respecting the Township of Uxbridge.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK ACT, 1992

Ms Ward moved second reading of Bill Pr57, An Act respecting the Borough of East York.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, with unanimous consent I'd like to move a motion to set up the committees for the summer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Cooke: I move government notice of motion 14:

That the following committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the assembly to examine and inquire into the following matters:

Standing committee on administration of justice to consider Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110 related to advocacy and consent to treatment, pursuant to the order of the House dated Thursday 28 May 1992 --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the government House leader take his seat? I ask the cooperation of the member for Renfrew North in particular and the member for Etobicoke West to allow the government House leader simply to read the business of the House.

Hon Mr Cooke: Standing committee on estimates to consider the estimates of certain ministries;

Standing committee on government agencies to consider intended appointments as provided in its terms of reference;

Subcommittee on the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly to adjourn to Cincinnati, Ohio, to attend an annual meeting of the National Conference on State Legislatures;

Standing committee on the Ombudsman to consider the review of the Office of the Ombudsman;

Standing committee on public accounts to consider the matter of the appointment of the Provincial Auditor;

Standing committee on social development to consider Bill 112, An Act to revise the Building Code Act;

And that committees be authorized to release their reports during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the assembly, and upon the resumption of the meetings of the House, the chairs of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I wish to speak very briefly to this. It's not going to take very long. I had delivered a couple of proposed amendments to the House leader and also to my colleague the House leader for the third party, and asked at one point to consider some fairly important business in respect to the committees, since in fact we have not been allowed to proceed, as I had moved yesterday that we should be, with the pay equity bill.

I knew we would have work time available in the standing committee on social development. I had proposed that that committee should, during the summer intersession, be allowed to examine a whole series of issues relating to child protection and specifically to focus on the continuum of programs for the population of children known as those "at risk." That has been precluded, even though the schedule is now much lighter than it would have been under a previous business agenda which was given to us.

I have been told that if I move this, the motion would not itself be moved to allow the committees to sit during the intersession, so I am not, in accordance with my agreement that there is no sense in holding up the entire committee business schedule. I don't find that helpful, because there are, as everyone knows in this particular Legislative Assembly, some very serious social matters which need to be addressed.

One of them was addressed by our Premier, David Peterson, when we were in government. The other was raised, in fairness to the leader of the third party, by Mr Harris in relation to the desperate situation of a whole series of children in our society who are at risk, who are hungry. We felt it would have been fairly easy for a nod to have allowed the business of looking into the programs for children in our society in the social development committee.

I admit partly that the circumstances of the feelings of this House are such that perhaps the government House leader could not give the nod to this, but I regret -- I'm not blaming anybody. It came late, and I appreciate that, but it came late because there was time to do business because Bill 168 was not proceeded with.

I don't even suspect for a moment that there aren't many members in each party who wouldn't have assumed that this Legislative Assembly would have been better off using the social development committee to proceed to examine just how desperate the situation is in some homes in this province. I guess I had hoped that we could have had a nod to deal with that particular issue. Having alerted the House now to our tremendous sense that there needs to be something done for children at risk in this province, led by my colleague the member for York North and my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau, perhaps at another time we can get at that issue.

1810

The second item I had brought to the attention of the government House leader, and it's a matter of a long-standing nature, was the sense that perhaps as a result of being here a little bit longer than most people expected, partly because we didn't start early and partly because there were other issues at stake, I had asked, reasonably I thought, for some time, that we start the proceedings on the public hearings on Bill 40, which is the labour bill, on August 10.

It had been a long-standing request and had been made persistently by myself on behalf of my colleagues, because we felt that it was an important piece of government business that needed to be looked at carefully. It needs to be looked at with eyes and spirit which have not been burdened by an extended sitting; in other words, by people who are receptive to the points being made for the first time in a public forum by many of the presenters who will appear.

From my standpoint, moving us out of this place today and into the committee room on August 4, at a time when there will have been less than five days' expiry between the last date for responses to public advertisements for attendance at this committee and the beginning of the committee, forces the issues to such an extent that I believe some people will be unfortunately left in the lurch as they look for places to register either their assent or dissent from this particular piece of government legislation.

I bring these two matters to your attention, Mr Speaker, and to the floor of the House only to say that there are tremendously important things to be done in our committees and that there are tremendously important pieces of government business that need to be spoken about in this chamber. It is partly because of my very strong feeling about the sanctity of this chamber and its representative nature with respect to freedom of speech that, if we have appeared -- and I have appeared, on many occasions, unfortunately, in these last weeks -- to be totally without manners, it is beyond anything else the sense of a violation of the sanctity of this chamber's representative features for the freedom of speech for all of us.

It's not always because we wish to be negative, that we wish not to make the point that something more can be done, but it is, Mr Speaker, I merely confirm to you, because you sometimes have been the object of some of my interjections, a sense that is real and that is true and that perhaps on another occasion in this House I will rejoin, because it is the pleasure of my caucus and the pleasure of this member that we be measured with respect to how keenly we preserve the right to speak. And we will speak.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, a motion that this House do now rise is deemed to have been made.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Bruce had filed dissatisfaction with an answer provided to him --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No, you wouldn't allow me.

The Speaker: Renfrew North; I'm sorry -- with the response given to him by the Minister of Correctional Services. Additionally, the member for Oakville South had filed dissatisfaction with the same minister. The member for Renfrew North will be recognized first. He has up to five minutes to present his debate and the minister has up to five minutes for a response.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first point is with the Solicitor General, but I'm glad to see the minister of justice here, and he's about to leave. He'll probably leave.

One of the things I want to put on the record in this is that as we think about the so-called Bell Cairn affair, it was earlier this year that in a published letter in the Toronto Star, the former Deputy Attorney General, Judge Mary Hogan, said the following about her boss, the then and the now minister of justice, the Attorney General for Ontario, Howard Hampton. Mary Hogan said this in a published report:

"Sadly, as you know, Mr Premier, my minister has refused to work with me. He will not meet with me. He will not support me. On more than one occasion he has embarrassed me. The Attorney General's executive assistant has sought to undermine me from the beginning of my employment as the Deputy Attorney General."

I want to put that on the record because that is what one outstanding public servant said of another minister in this government this year.

We are now looking at the administration of the department of Correctional Services. In the hall today, I received from a reporter the terms of reference for the so-called Hansen review. I want to say a number of things at the very outset. I have the highest regard for Judge Hansen. I know of her outstanding work in Ottawa and I am sure no more capable person could be imagined for these kinds of public responsibilities. But what do we have? We have terms of reference that were not produced by the justice minister in this House. I had to get this in the corridor from a reporter, and I find that in itself unacceptable.

I find it unacceptable that we have the minister under investigation in charge of the investigation. This is a matter that clearly falls to the chief law officer of the government. I would have expected that the justice minister would have stood in his place the other day and would have launched whatever inquiry was to be launched. But, no, we've got the spectacle of the minister of justice sitting in silence with nothing to say. But rather, we have the corrections minister, the man who clearly has defaulted on his responsibility, now in charge of an investigation of himself.

What does the investigation suggest? I want to say that these are some of the most limiting terms I have ever seen. The eminent judge has no power to compel anyone to do anything, to produce anything or to say anything. The judge is not going to be allowed to inquire into the conduct of the minister at issue. She is going to be allowed to go into a number of other areas, but she is expressly not allowed to investigate the conduct of the minister. I find that is --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): That's the issue.

Mr Conway: That is the issue. It is breathtaking that she would not be allowed in these terms of reference to inquire into the conduct of the Minister of Correctional Services and his staff. The Premier and the government have carefully orchestrated this public relations campaign to have people believe that they have gone and acquired the services of an outstanding judge and given that judge every authority to inquire into all matters at issue, and that is not true. It is misleading and it is going to be seen as such. I think it is an injustice to subject Inger Hansen or anyone else to this kind of straitjacket.

I want to say as well that Dina Palozzi, by these terms, is not going to have any power to examine witnesses, to examine materials. She will have no power to cross-examine witnesses. She is going to have no protection. She is going to have no opportunity.

I want to say again that I am all for an inquiry. I am for an inquiry that has a real capacity to get to the heart of this issue. But this is a scam. It is a premeditated scam and it seeks as --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Conway: -- its first objective to make sure that Allan Pilkey will not be a subject for Judge --

The Speaker: Would the member sit down. The member's time expired. The Minister for Correctional Services has up to five minutes to respond.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): It won't take me very long to respond. I simply want to say the very action-oriented needs that have cried out to be addressed as a result of this difficult situation, since it has been brought to my attention, are in fact being done.

In terms of Her Honour Judge Hansen, I have every confidence in her completing very successfully the task that she has been called on to do, and I think that's very important and critical work because it will speak to the concerns of sexual harassment in the workplace, which after all is the central issue of this circumstance. It will be done as well with a sensitivity to those who have experienced difficulty with respect to this particular item.

1820

Beyond that, I understand why the member opposite is having difficulty with the terms of reference, because it won't allow him into the kind of political witchhunt that he has involved himself with over the last number of days. That may be of concern to him but I don't believe it's of concern to the people of Ontario, who are after the real issue in this matter, and Judge Hansen will indeed deal with that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Brampton South.

The member for Oakville South has up to five minutes to present his debate and the Minister of Correctional Services has up to five minutes for a response.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I guess the sad part about this whole affair is that had the member for Leeds-Grenville not raised it in a question in this Legislature, the whole thing would have been swept under the carpet, Minister. It is only because the opposition was able to get some information that this ministry was even aware of what was happening at Bell Cairn.

I referred to the paper this morning, in the Toronto Star, where the guards have called for an inquiry, and you're aware of it. It isn't the opposition. It isn't a political witchhunt. The employees working in these facilities, their own people -- and the Health minister, I understand, worked in that and knows the people and the feelings. They aren't doing this for political reasons. They aren't doing this because they want to embarrass the government. They are doing it because they want to get to the bottom of the problems, not just at Bell Cairn but at all the facilities.

With regard to the reference that has been put out, the opposition has very clearly been able to bring this to the minister's attention. He had no idea what was happening in his ministry. We are led to believe there are serious problems at other facilities, and these terms of reference will not deal with any of that. That unfortunately will be swept under the carpet.

The employees of these facilities are saying: "Come clean with the people of the province of Ontario. Let's have an open investigation, a public investigation, of all the facilities so we will get to the bottom of all the problems." Because the problem with this whole situation is that the people who are going to be reflected on in this are the employees at all the institutions across this province. They need a chance not only to clear the air at Bell Cairn but to clear the air on what has happened in this ministry, this ministry that has gone through tremendous problems.

As they relayed in the article, it is a case of problems with the management. The mismanagement is to blame for the scandal at the Hamilton training centre. I say that if there are any more problems at any other of the institutions because this minister failed to act, it will be indeed sad for any people who are involved as a result of what may happen because this minister didn't take action.

We unfortunately are the ones who have had to lead the fight on this because the minister didn't know what was going on in his own ministry. The people of this province deserve better. I say to the minister very clearly: Come clean with the people.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Brampton South, come to order.

Mr Carr: All we need to do is make --

Interjection.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Brampton South to please come to order.

Mr Carr: The problem we've got, and the Minister of Health will know this, is that the employee concerns that are out there need to be addressed. They are coming to the opposition because they do not believe they are being addressed, and the way to do that isn't through the back doors and through brown envelopes. It's in an open process where the people are heard, where people are allowed to come forward. That is the way it should be done so all sides are truly represented, so people can come forward with their legitimate concerns, because I believe there are some serious concerns out there from the people.

I suspect what has been happening over the last little while is that there are so many people concerned that they are now attempting to try to get their message out. How far this goes, who knows what? If we stop at only Bell Cairn, I'm afraid that the people of this province will never know.

In closing, I say to the minister and I say to the Premier, who ultimately has responsibility: Come clean with the people of the province. Come clean, let them find out exactly what is happening at all the facilities so that they can clear the air so the good name of the employees and the good name that we used to have for the correctional facilities in the province of Ontario can be restored for the confidence of the people of the province.

The Speaker: The minister has up to five minutes for his response.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I find it unusual indeed that the member for Oakville South stands and calls in his statement for people to come clean, particularly when I invited him on no less than four occasions this very afternoon to forward across to me voluntarily, at my request, alleged information that he declared to be very on point with respect to this matter. I would like to suggest it was nothing more than a political attempt to drag another red herring across the very substantive issue we have before us.

I have, as I indicated to the House earlier, indeed reviewed my files and have found that the correspondence I received from Mr Ward on September 13 was indeed forwarded. It was responded to almost immediately; there was a response to union officials within four days. Following that, there was correspondence additionally, 10 days after, as well with respect to the issue. The regional manager met with the superintendent, with the union officials. The matters were thoroughly discussed. It was only at that meeting and as a result of that meeting at that point in time that one sexual harassment issue was brought forward with respect to a verbal abuse that one correction officer had made. I'm advised that the matter was settled to everyone's satisfaction.

So I somewhat have to refuse these kinds of unfortunate attempts by members of the third party in this issue, but at least there is one good thing out of it: We continue in the Ministry of Correctional Services to try to improve that situation. We are attempting to deal with the grievances that are alleged. This government has a very clear mandate in terms of sexual harassment and making absolutely determined efforts to stamp this out in the workplace. We will do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

The member for Renfrew North had filed dissatisfaction on a second question. He has up to five minutes to present his debate.

Mr Conway: I don't think I'll need the five minutes. I want to end on a quieter note, because there is for me a fundamental issue here. The fundamental issue for me is ministerial responsibility. In this case I submit that the member for Oshawa has defaulted on his responsibility as a minister of the crown. He has not been as good as his oath, taken some months ago, when he swore that he would be vigilant, diligent and circumspect in the performance of his duties -- in my opinion, and that's fair enough.

I say to my friend the member for Hamilton West that there is altogether too much documentary evidence which suggests to a reasonable person -- and I'm not talking just about me; there is an editorial in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, there's one in the St Catharines Standard, there have been editorials in the Toronto Star, I think in the Globe and Mail, in the Toronto Sun. I know I'm an oppositionist, and I know I'm not objective in these matters, but I ask honourable members to think seriously about the issue here.

I want to read a very brief passage from Lord Carrington's memoirs. Carrington was the Foreign Secretary in Margaret Thatcher's first government. He resigned over the Falklands affair. He resigned not because, he said, there was any specific indication that he had defaulted in his responsibility. He said the following; I'm reading from Carrington's memoirs. This won't take very long, and I rest my case with this.

"The general reason for my resignation was my sympathetic understanding that the whole of Great Britain felt angry and humiliated. I felt the same myself. British territory had, without warning, been invaded. There were hysterical outbursts in Parliament and yells of 'betrayal,' and although these were inaccurate and offensive they were understandable. Inhabitants of a British colony -- men and women of British blood -- had been taken over against their will. Diplomacy had failed to avert this. Military reinforcement had not been tried. Deterrence had been exposed as a bluff. Our hand had apparently been called. There was never the slightest doubt that, with Margaret Thatcher at the head of the government, we wouldn't retaliate and we did. But the first shock and fury were felt throughout Britain, and in those circumstances -- with people very naturally turning on the government and accusing it of mismanagement -- it is right, in my judgement, that there must be a resignation. The nation feels that there has been a disgrace. Someone must have been to blame. The disgrace must be purged. The person to purge it should be the minister in charge. That was me. Therefore I resigned."

The Speaker: The minister has up to five minutes for his response.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I'd like to say that I acknowledged fully in the House over the last number of days that the member for Leeds-Grenville first brought this matter to the attention of the House. I also was very forthcoming with the members of this House in terms of explanation, and indicated that I had not been advised of the matter and the circumstance that surrounded that.

Honourable members opposite chose to reject that. They couldn't believe it. They called it into question. They called it a coverup. They called it all kinds of things.

The member opposite started to talk about documentary evidence. Even that was provided to him in a letter dated July 15, over the signature of an individual whom he suggested he knows and respects.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Pilkey: It was indicated quite clearly in writing, and signed, that the minister had not been advised of the circumstance.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am very pleased to report to the House that once made aware of this circumstance, I have acted immediately and directly, in a very firm, managerial way, to address the issues and concerns at Bell Cairn and in terms of issues that may emanate beyond that.

I cannot help the kinds of assertions that have been made by members opposite. I believe the information I have brought to this House to be accurate, truthful and fair. This is a problem that we do not wish to have within this government and this ministry, and it will be our task in this government to resolve it as expeditiously as we can.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Brampton South.

There being no further matter to be debated, this House stands adjourned until Monday, September 28, at 1:30 in the afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1832.