Hansard Transcript 1993-Jun-23 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the members' expenditure report for the fiscal year 1992-93. The members will find a copy in their desks in the chamber.

REPORT, COMMISSION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the report of the Commission on Conflict of Interest Ontario regarding Mr Will Ferguson, MPP.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The Premier and the Minister of Finance have cancelled a party in Brampton, a fireworks display that takes place on Canada's birthday, July 1. It has been going on for years. The reason is that with Bill 48, its uncertainty and its obvious challengeability in the courts, municipalities and other transfer partners do not know what is coming down the pipe. They are therefore taking steps to eliminate such things as the fireworks on July 1. This is a tremendous event. It's a free event. It's a family event. Mr Premier, Mr Finance Minister, you should be ashamed of doing that to the people of Brampton, and I'm sure this will occur throughout Ontario.

More important is the fact that the children's aid societies, which are bound by statute to look after the protection of young children, are going to have difficulty in terms of carrying this out because of this uncertainty. I suggest, Mr Premier and Mr Finance Minister, your bill is so uncertain that I'm sure it will find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, transfer partners, a whole host of them that are listed in the bill, will be dangling in the air trying to figure out what to do. At the end of the day this government will leave the next government a mess that will take years and years to clean up and further uncertainty.

SALE OF FISH

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns the Midland fish shop dealer, Ray Brennan, who was fined $11,000 when he was caught in a government sting operation in 1988.

Mr Brennan was charged by MNR undercover agents for selling fish caught by unlicensed fishermen from the nearby reserve on Christian Island. Mr Brennan pleaded guilty soon after the charges were laid on June 2. The eight native fishermen were acquitted of 108 charges of illegal commercial fishing. The natives argued that the Indians in central Ontario have an aboriginal right to fish in waters surrounding their reserves.

Minister, your government is sending out mixed signals. On one hand, your government is allowing native fishermen to catch and sell fish without a commercial fishing licence. On the other hand, you are charging, convicting and fining non-native fish dealers for selling fish caught by unlicensed native fishermen. Mr Brennan and many other people in Ontario are wondering how you can justify such an unfair law.

Minister, you and your government have an obligation to honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation and to apply and enforce existing laws equally. I urge you to either appeal the June 2 court decision or overturn Mr Brennan's sentence and give him his money back.

EMANCIPATION CELEBRATIONS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to bring to the attention of the members of the House a unique event which is taking place in Niagara-on-the-Lake next month. From July 9 to July 11 the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of the signing of Upper Canada's anti-slavery legislation, the Emancipation Act.

The man who made this possible was Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe. Simcoe's legacy to our province and to our country is documented in many a history book and we, as modern-day legislators, are certainly reminded of his contribution to our legislative history each day as we sit here in the House. As Upper Canada's first Lieutenant Governor, Simcoe was determined to create a society patterned on the image of Great Britain. He founded the first Legislature and enacted a series of laws, including one to provide for the gradual abolition of slavery.

Prior to the legislation, black slaves had no legal or civil rights. This appalled Simcoe and he instructed his Attorney General to prepare a law to abolish slavery, the first such law in the British Empire. Two hundred years later, we are gathering to pay tribute to Simcoe's actions in advance of black civil rights in Upper Canada.

1340

Many people in Niagara have been busy over the last year making preparations for this commemorative event. Highlights of the week's activities include a re-enactment of the passage of the anti-slavery legislation, a lecture series on Simcoe's legislative legacy, a blues-jazz concert, a revival church service and gospel choir in Simcoe Park and black history displays at the local community centre.

I invite all members to attend what I think is an extremely important event for Niagara and for our entire country.

TAX AND FEE INCREASES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I honestly don't think this government has any idea what impact its increase in stumpage fees of some 43% will have on the forestry industry in northern Ontario.

When my leader rose to ask a question regarding this bizarre tax increase to the Premier yesterday, he passed it on to my northern friend the Minister of Finance, the member representing the northern riding of Nickel Belt. His response was totally -- I totally -- unacceptable.

In an area of the province where unemployment lingers around 16%, how can this government justify such a move that will have such an impact on the jobs which northerners depend on?

I, representing a riding largely dependent on the sawmill industry, call upon that great number of northern ministers -- the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Finance -- to give their heads a shake, listen to what northerners are telling them and take a close look at what this additional tax grab will do to the sawmill industry in my riding, in their ridings and throughout northern Ontario.

Let me quote to them a letter directed to the Minister of Natural Resources from an operator in my riding. He indicates:

"These additional charges will strangle the small operators. The Minister of Finance obviously went for a tax grab but did not take into the account the impact on employment or whether the industry could afford the extra expense."

I truly believe that the impact of this significant tax grab was never even thought about. I again appeal to this government to re-examine this portion of its budget.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Last week the Minister of Health quietly introduced legislation which has broad implications for patients who access Ontario's health care system.

While the current minister and her predecessor rail against the evils of rationing health care, Bill 50 will empower bureaucrats to make arbitrary decisions on what health care services will be insured and how often a patient can receive treatment.

Simply put, this legislation will facilitate the further rationing of health care services. But instead of the public and health care professionals determining what services should be insured, it will now be left to Dr Ruth and faceless bureaucrats at the Ministry of Health to make these critical decisions.

There will be no limits on what services can be restricted by the government. As Ontario Medical Association president Tom Dickson said: "It's not just psychotherapy or eye examinations as originally proposed. The power to ration insured and medically necessary services applies to everyone and to everything."

In her response to the valid concerns raised by the medical community, the Health minister claims that Bill 50 is an extension of her government's reform policies. She's half right. These proposals follow the government's panicky pattern of gutting services without regard for the consequences. They represent changes made out of desperation and not meaningful health care reform.

While my party supports restraint initiatives achieved through managed change, we don't endorse the government's continuing slash-and-burn approach to health care. Instead of bashing doctors, the minister should be seeking their assistance on how to obtain savings without endangering the quality and accessibility of Ontario health care.

METROPOLITAN AGENCIES REPRESENTATIVES' COUNCIL

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with a group called MARC, the Metropolitan Agencies Representatives' Council.

MARC is an association of non-profit agencies in Metropolitan Toronto that share a common commitment to provide high-quality services for persons with developmental handicaps. Their agencies are diverse in size, structure and mandate but work collectively to address common issues and concerns. MARC believes that all persons with developmental handicaps have the right to receive services that most appropriately address their needs and ensure the highest possible quality of life.

Priority issues such as children's services, case management, housing, day activities, human resources and mental health services for persons with developmental handicaps are addressed through the establishment of MARC task forces and subcommittees. Working closely with the Ministry of Community and Social Services is important to MARC. Ministry staff actively participate on most MARC committees and projects and currently co-chair a task force on case management.

There are nearly 50 member agencies of MARC including Bloorview Children's Hospital, the Metropolitan Toronto Association for Community Living, Community Living Alternatives Scarborough, Extend-A-Family, Safehaven and We Four Homes for the Developmentally Handicapped.

MARC combines planning and action to ensure sufficient high-quality services in Metropolitan Toronto for persons with developmental handicaps and their families, and I commend it for its hard work.

Also, I would take the opportunity to introduce a good friend of mine by the name of Darron Bunt. At 10 years of age, she is an active member of the anti-poverty movement in Toronto. She is a student of the political system and is quite looking forward to coming and serving this Legislature at some point.

NORTHERN EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Does this government care about the north?

Last week I had the opportunity to visit different parts of northwestern Ontario to meet with school board trustees and administrators, teachers, parents and students. They all raised a number of concerns regarding the provision of education in the north, and there was one point that everyone raised: When will the Minister of Education release his final report of the northern education project?

The northern education project was established in January 1991. It was to undertake an in-depth study of providing educational services to meet the needs of small and isolate boards in northern Ontario.

In June of last year, the project released a consultation report summarizing its findings. This preliminary report dealt with curriculum services and teacher in-service, special education services, supervisory services, finance and capital services and a section on educational governance issues. Upon the release of this report last June, responses were requested by September 30, 1992. A final report was to be ready by the end of last year.

The northern educational community continues to wait for action by this government. Why has the report not been released? Are the expenditure controls and the social contract going to eliminate bringing about important reforms to improve northern education? There is real concern in the north that this Minister of Education and Training and this government plan to do nothing.

Minister, it's time to release the final report of the northern education project and to set out what specific actions you are prepared to take.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm rising to ask for the personal intervention of the Solicitor General of Ontario with respect to a small volunteer fire department in an unorganized municipality in my riding, Laurier township.

The Laurier local services board has made several representations through Mr Jim O'Connor, the chairman of the board, to the Ontario fire marshal's office.

The background behind this is that there was a family, Mr and Mrs Robert Davies, whose home was totally destroyed last year by fire because the fire could not be responded to in view of the fact that there was not a volunteer fire department able to service the area.

Despite the fact that Laurier township has less than 300 permanent residents, they have organized a 24-person volunteer fire department. They have also raised some $18,000 in cash and pledges, plus land to be donated to the construction of a firehall. These 300 people have also undertaken to purchase themselves, without government help, a used pumper truck. They were given a verbal commitment by Mr Bill Bowman of the Ontario fire marshal's office in North Bay that the ministry would be forthcoming with some $15,000 as its contribution to equip and build the firehall.

In spite of that fact, in spite of the fact that the municipality and local residents have done their homework so a disaster like the Davies home never occurs again, the Ministry of the Solicitor General is now reneging on its commitment.

OSHAWA FIESTA

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I am pleased to rise today to tell you of Oshawa's 32nd annual Fiesta celebration, which is going on this week. Fiesta is a celebration of ethnic and cultural diversity sponsored by the Oshawa Folk Art Council and supported by such groups as the Ukrainian Youth Association, the Hungarian Cultural Club and Club Carib, to name but a few.

The Fiesta is organized by the citizens of Oshawa and area and is intended for the enjoyment of the people. There's no government funding or organization involved. There are approximately 18 pavilions located throughout the city, each hosted by different social, cultural and ethnic groups. These pavilions operate through Fiesta Week, this week, offering glimpses of the host culture through food, drink, music, dancing and craftwork.

From the parade and concert to the crowning of Miss Fiesta, culminating in the teddy bear picnic, this week-long festival is fun filled, with the most racial, cultural and ethnic harmony. It acknowledges the value of heritage while celebrating the richness of our Canadian society.

I've had the privilege on many occasions of attending, along with my colleague from Oshawa, the reviewing of the parade and the opening day concerts as well as all the pavilions, have enjoyed some excellent dishes, watched young people dance and even quaffed a pint or two of brew.

At a time when the challenges of modern life are pressing upon us, Fiesta is a welcome respite, and I welcome the people here to join us in Oshawa for this coming celebration.

1350

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr André Bertouille, a member of the Belgium Parliament, and Mr Claude Rijmenans, the consul general for Belgium. Welcome to our assembly.

We are also joined today by one of the officers of the assembly, the Honourable Judge Evans, the commissioner for conflict of interest. He too is seated in the Speaker's gallery.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Mr Speaker, I have a point of order, and it's possibly as well a point of personal privilege. It arises in connection with Bill 48, the Social Contract Act. Specifically, my point of order relates to the highly unusual and unprecedented degree to which Bill 48 authorizes cabinet to make what are fundamentally important and substantive laws by way of regulation.

There is no doubt that it is within the mandate of any government to introduce legislation which contains within it a provision enabling cabinet to make regulations. This happens all the time and is generally supportable. But I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that this tradition has been based on the premise that the legislation itself is to contain the substantive elements incorporating a government's policy, while the regulation-making authority is merely for purposes of facilitating the implementation of the substantive provisions; the regulatory provisions are not to be used for purposes of enacting substantive government policy.

This legislative tradition has evolved over centuries of parliamentary democracy. Like many other traditions we follow and respect in this Legislature, this particular legislative tradition has evolved in recognition of the cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy: that government policy must be subjected to public debate.

A regulation is, as we all know, not subject to debate in this Legislature; in fact, it is not even subject to debate by the caucus of the governing party. A regulation is passed by a cabinet whose meetings are secret. There is no opportunity for members of my party, the official opposition, or for members of the third party to debate the wisdom of a particular regulation, and by and large we accept that. We accept that very severe curtailment of our right to debate a legislative enactment of the government because of the bargain implicit in the tradition to which I have been referring.

The bargain is simply put thus: Members of the opposition are not permitted to debate a regulation arising from the bill which has become law, because the government's regulation is not permitted to embody substantive government policy but merely facilitates the implementation of that policy.

I submit, Mr Speaker, that Bill 48, as it stands, is in breach of the tradition regarding a government's authority to make regulations; it goes outside the bargain made between the opposition and the government.

The following are some specific examples of how, by way of regulation, Bill 48 will enable the government to enact substantive policy and thereby avoid the scrutiny of this House. Let me begin by saying that Bill 48 is generally regarded as the most intrusive wage control legislation ever introduced in this country. It is a very controversial bill. The provisions are powerful and far-reaching and will have a profound impact on many Ontarians and their government-funded institutions. This, I submit, makes it all the more important that the bill respect the parliamentary tradition, or bargain, relating to regulatory provisions.

Subsection 41(1), dealing with the regulations, provides in part as follows, that "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make such regulations as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable for carrying out the intent and purposes of this act." This provision alone gives the cabinet virtually unrestricted authority to make whatever regulations it, subjectively speaking, deems to be necessary or advisable.

Now, what you, Mr Speaker, or my party or the third party or the government considers to be necessary or advisable in given circumstances may very well be four different things, and of course only the government's opinion can win the day. The government is entitled to win the day, but only where a substantive law has been subjected to public debate.

There is, objectively speaking, no restriction whatsoever in section 41 on the kind of regulations the government can pass. If the government determines, subjectively, that it is necessary or desirable to enact a regulation which, objectively speaking, is clearly a matter of substantive law, then it can do so with impunity, without exposing such a regulation to public debate. Clearly, such a provision runs contrary to the parliamentary tradition or bargain about which I have been speaking.

In addition, section 41 allows the government to designate, by way of regulation, other employers not listed in the schedule for the bill that would then be bound by the bill's provisions. Is this not a substantive question? Surely the employers to be affected by Bill 48 should be made known to us now and this issue should be subjected to debate.

Section 41 also specifically permits the cabinet subjectively to define any word or expression used in the bill. Again, this enables the government to interpret the bill, once it becomes law, in a manner which could very well be contrary to what an objective interpretation would dictate.

This list is lengthy, Mr Speaker, but I submit the few following as being other examples of where Bill 48 permits substantive law to be passed by cabinet in secret, without public debate, by way of regulation.

The size of the public sector job security fund and its operation will be dictated by regulation. So would the question of which employers will be required to pay money into the consolidated revenue fund, the amount of money and the method and time for payment to be made. In addition, there is the question about to whom the minister can delegate any of his powers under the act and to whom these persons can, in turn, subdelegate their powers.

I submit that Bill 48 is, in large measure, a law which allows cabinet to pass other laws. These other laws or regulations will, because of their substantive policy nature, go outside the traditional scope of regulations.

I submit, Mr Speaker, that it is beyond the power of this government to introduce Bill 48 in its present form and I ask that you compel the government to withdraw Bill 48 or, failing that, that you in some way ensure that my rights and the rights of the other opposition members of this House to debate substantive government policy be protected.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Having heard what my colleague said, Mr Speaker, I would refer you to the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, section 106(k), which clearly state:

"Regulations should not contain provisions initiating new policy, but should be confined to details to give effect to the policy established by the statute;

"Regulations should be in strict accord with the statute conferring of power, particularly concerning personal liberties;

"Regulations should be expressed in precise and unambiguous language;

"Regulations should not have retrospective effect unless clearly authorized by statute;

"Regulations should not impose a fine, imprisonment or other penalty."

I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to look at that in light of the comments my colleague has made. I would submit that Bill 48 is in contravention, if anything, of the standing orders of the Legislature, section 106(k).

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, I'm just seeking from you an opportunity to speak on the same point of order raised by my friend from Ottawa South and spoken to as well by my friend from Brampton.

For a period of five years while our party was in government, I had the privilege and the opportunity of serving as the chair of the cabinet committee on regulations. The responsibility of the chair in that cabinet committee was to examine every single regulation proposed for enactment by the government, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, prior to that regulation going before cabinet. I should tell you two main features of the work of that cabinet committee on behalf of the cabinet. The first was to ensure that the authority to make the regulation existed in the statute, in the law that the Parliament, this Parliament, had previously passed. Regulations, as you know, cannot be made until there is an empowering statute, an empowering law, an empowering act that gives the authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the cabinet to make a regulation which then has the force of law, every bit as much as a law passed by this Parliament has the force of law.

Our first objective -- and this is a long-standing tradition in the Parliament -- was to make sure that the authority to make the regulation existed in the act passed by Parliament.

That was crucial, because if it were ever found by a court that there was not the power to make the regulation, then as a result of that, the regulation itself was ultra vires and did not have the force of law. Obviously, you had to ensure that was the case, because after the regulation is published and proclaimed, citizens of the province rely on it: everything from the setting of GO fares to the setting of very sophisticated environmental regulations. That's the first point.

1400

The second point, and the point that is germane to the matter raised by my friend from Ottawa South, is this: It was imperative upon us to ensure that the regulation being made was not in fact establishing policy or establishing matters of law that were not contemplated in the bill; that is to say, the regulation-making power of the government and the cabinet could not replace the authority of Parliament to pass bills that set public policy in the province of Ontario.

If a regulation came before my cabinet committee, and thereafter the cabinet, which attempted to usurp the power that is vested in this Parliament, our responsibility as a cabinet committee and as a cabinet was to reject it and to advise the appropriate minister and the appropriate ministry that if that minister or ministry wanted to achieve that end, to establish those laws, then it was his or her responsibility to introduce a bill in this Legislature and have it go through the legislative procedure of being read three times and being considered by one of the committees of this Legislature or the committee of the whole, including, time and again, and often, public hearings so that the public would have an opportunity to consider that bill.

If a regulation came which was really the establishment of new public policy not contemplated by the bill, or if the effect of the regulation was to go beyond the bill, then it was our responsibility to reject it. It could not be sealed and it could not become law in Ontario.

I have personally read, several times, Bill 48, the so-called Social Contract Act, and I simply want to advise you, sir, that given my experience as Chair of that regulations committee and my experience with the legislation that we are called upon to vote today, the power vested in the cabinet is actually power to write new laws that ought properly to be the subject of a bill in this Parliament, and not regulations.

I ask you, sir, to consider that matter, and before this bill proceeds, to ensure that we do not allow this Parliament simply to give the authority that we have and vest that in the secrecy of cabinet and put all the power in this province in the hands of a Premier and a Minister of Finance.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just one very brief comment on the very interesting point that's been raised on the other side, Mr Speaker, and that's to point out to you, sir, that Bill 48 was drafted by the office of legislative counsel, who have done all the legislative drafting for this establishment for many, many years, and legislative counsel assures us that all --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: As you know, their job is not only to draft but to advise on the legality of the legislative drafting that's requested, and we've been assured by legislative counsel that all the matters dealt with in Bill 48 are in order.

The Speaker: First, to the member for Ottawa South, I appreciate the courtesy which he extended to the Chair by indicating in advance his interest in raising a point of order and, indeed, providing me with a verbatim copy of his argument.

I must tell him that it is not a procedural point. There's nothing out of order. The question of governance by regulation has been a topic of some discussion over decades in this assembly and I suspect will continue to be so for many more decades. The points he makes are ones which he may wish to raise in debate, and may wish to place amendments.

The section to which the member for Brampton South refers, 106(k), is one that deals with procedures which are before the standing committee on regulations and private bills when regulations are submitted to that committee for their consideration.

Finally, to the member for York Centre, the points that he raises are ones that very well a counsel, a barrister, a solicitor may wish to raise in the courts. The Chair is not about to give legal opinions, only decisions on procedures. There is nothing out of order.

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer you to section 1(a) of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which the item that I gave you before is part of.

It says, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders."

The Speaker: A point was raised. I have dealt with it. It really is time to move on.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Today, we will be voting against Bill 48, the government's social contract legislation. For the past weeks, we have asked what we believe to be important questions about the problems that we see in this bill and we have received no answers.

Once again, I stress that we support the need for restraint, but we are convinced that the process set out in this bill cannot work. But even more so, we are genuinely concerned that the effect of this legislation is going to be to defer significant costs to future governments and future employers.

One example of this is the special-leave provisions for workers performing critical functions. The unpaid days off given under this special-leave category are to be taken from existing holidays and by law must be repaid after 1996. Now, the government has not said who is to be designated as providing critical functions. Based on the definitions of essential services under the Labour Relations Act, special leaves could apply to correction officers, nurses and other health workers, child care workers, ambulance drivers, utility workers, police and firefighters, and as well teachers could be considered critical services under Bill 48 because you can't just shut down the classroom for a day a week.

When you look at the kinds of positions which could be affected by this category, it's possible that at least half of the 900,000 members of the broader public sector could be included under the designation. This means that under Bill 48, as much as $3 billion in costs could be deferred to future years.

I ask the Premier, how can you justify pushing costs that you have not even begun to calculate on to future governments and future employers?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can only say to the honourable member that this is an exact repeat of an exchange that we had some time ago; it's an exact repeat of the question. I would simply say to her that we don't share her interpretation of the effect and the impact of the act.

Mrs McLeod: The reason that my questions, as we approach a vote on this important piece of legislation, will in fact repeat exchanges, as the Premier notes, that we have had in the past, is because these continue to be absolutely essential questions for public responsibility. We are frustrated that we cannot get answers from this government on them.

Another example of potential deferred costs as a result of your legislation was raised yesterday by our Finance critic, who raised concerns about the growing liabilities in the government's pension plans. You have already deferred last year's $500-million payment to the teachers' pension fund. You now say that you've found $500 million more in reduced payments due to lower wages under the social contract. But the annual report of the teachers' pension plan shows the growth in the unfunded liability more than doubling over the next 15 years.

Again, I ask the Premier: What assurances can you provide that the pressures you are adding to pension plans will not mean more pension costs in the future? How big is the deferred pension bill going to be for future governments?

Hon Mr Rae: All we've said on the subject of pensions, and I think again we've been as clear as we can be, is that the assumptions behind the extraordinary payments, the additional payments which were set out in the schedule attached to the earlier legislation brought in by our predecessor, were based on certain assumptions about inflation and certain assumptions about the size of payouts and certain assumptions about the size of payouts and certain assumptions about the size of increases.

All we're saying is that it may well be, on the basis of the actuarial advice we've had, that those assumptions need to be looked at again. We would not do anything without agreement with our social contract partners and we would not do something, obviously, without full support from the actuarial profession with respect to what's being done. There may well be savings there, and if there are savings that are there, it would seem to me that it's perfectly responsible for us, indeed it's fiscally prudent for us, to make sure that we can achieve those savings without, for an instant, wanting to cast any doubts on the soundness of the plans and without in any way affecting the people's rights under the plan.

1410

Mrs McLeod: I would suggest to the Premier that when he uses words like "may well be," "seems to be," "I believe that," that is not the substance of tough budget accounting. Premier, I say to you that it is not being fiscally responsible to refuse to look at the future cost that your legislation is imposing on future governments just because the bills don't have to be paid today.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Set an example, Lyn. You show us. What's your alternative?

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

Mrs McLeod: You keep saying that you are willing to take everything into account. You have said that the negotiations will take into account wage freezes that are already in place. You've said that your negotiations will take into account unpaid leaves that are already in effect. You've said that the negotiations will take into account delaying any wage reductions until existing collective agreements expire.

But you have not at any point explained how these measures are going to be taken into account, when they will be taken into account or where you intend to find the money to take them into account, and I am asking, how many of these costs are you simply going to defer to the future? Why will you not look honestly at the future cost of your legislation, at what you can realistically achieve under your social contract negotiations in the last six months of the year, and then take some practical steps to look at cuts in your own operations to meet your budget targets?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say directly to the honourable member that of course we're looking at all those things in terms of the expenditure control plan, which was also opposed by the Liberal Party. We're doing it in terms of all the efforts that we make. Whatever we've done, I know it will be opposed by the Leader of the Opposition, but let me just say to the Leader of the Opposition, that coming from a party which left this government to pay for the SkyDome, which left this government to pay for Darlington, which left this government with a structural deficit of some $8 billion, you are in no position to lecture anybody with regard to future costs.

You're the experts on future costs. The Liberal Party wrote the book on future costs and establishing a burden for future generations. We're the party and we're the generation that's now paying the bills that you left us in your time in office. That's what we're doing.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, $3 billion which you will not even acknowledge is a potential deferred cost because you refuse to look at the cost of your own legislation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with her second question.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also for the Premier. This government has talked about its intention to implement the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board literally since it took office. The government set up a transition team working out of offices at 101 Bloor Street West, and yet the OTAB legislation has not yet been passed. The legislation, in fact, was not introduced until a year after the program was announced, it is still waiting for the government to call third reading and it is a long way from actually being implemented.

Yet we have found that Management Board staff have confirmed that the government has leased over 5,000 square feet of empty office space for OTAB, down the street at 175 Bloor Street East, at a cost of $154,000 a year. The lease runs for 10 years and the $27-per-square-foot cost is considerably higher than the $20-per-square-foot average cost in Toronto today. I ask the Premier, why are you leasing expensive and unused office space for a program that does not yet exist?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will be referring this question to the Minister of Education and Training.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I very much appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I find it very interesting, in her question she refers to the fact that we haven't received third reading of the OTAB bill yet. I would be more than willing to have third reading on OTAB.

We spent time in committee; we spent time and time and time in committee; we thought we had agreements of when bills were going to be completed; we thought the bill was going to be reported to the House for third reading, and instead the opposition parties referred it to committee of the whole House.

We in the government are proceeding with the implementation of OTAB. We feel that the coordination of training programs and having a training strategy in this province that will be directed by the labour market partners in this province will in fact be good for the economy and will make better use of limited funds in this province, for the first time, on a training strategy.

We don't need a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition party about the time to implement OTAB in this province. If it's taking too long, then perhaps we could get some cooperation from the opposition party and get the legislation moving ahead.

Mrs McLeod: I can understand why the Premier referred the question. It's quite apparent that he had not been made aware that he was now an absentee tenant.

The minister's refusal to answer the question which was asked, however, is not acceptable and I say to the minister, the question you addressed about how soon third reading of OTAB would take place is not related to the question I asked about the government's renting of unused office space.

Just to put it in context, it was in fact two years ago that you announced the OTAB legislation initiative, but the legislation still has not been passed. The fact is that, because you have not brought that legislation forward, whatever your intents, there are no programs in place and the other fact is, quite simply, that you have been paying rent on this unused office space since last October and the office is fully furnished.

The OTAB transition team told us, when we asked the OTAB transition team, that absolutely no arrangement had been made for office space for OTAB. But Management Board staff confirm that this unused office space is indeed being rented for OTAB.

We went to the office, we found the lights were out, the doors were locked, there was no one there, the people next door haven't seen anybody there. I have to ask you, how do you justify wasting $154,000 a year leasing unused office space when you keep talking to everybody else about making tough choices on cuts?

Hon Mr Cooke: If the Leader of the Opposition is blaming or concerned about the fact that I was talking about the timing of the legislation, she's the one who raised it in her question, so I was responding to her question.

We are in the process, even in the absence of the legislation being passed, of setting up the infrastructure. There are people working on the transition. We will be consolidating the programs. There are training programs being delivered in this province, but those training programs will be transferred to the OTAB project.

I will have to get a specific answer for her about the space she's referring to. I will get that answer for her, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should be aware that there are training programs, and she knows it, that are to be delivered by the province. When OTAB is up and running, those programs will come directly under the control of OTAB, so it's unfair to say there's nothing happening just because the opposition parties have held up third reading of OTAB.

Mrs McLeod: I can appreciate the minister's difficulty. It's awkward when the Premier refers a question to you as the manager of the program, instead of to the Chairman of Management Board who was probably responsible for renting the unused space for the program the minister has not yet put in place. So there is an awkwardness. I should tell the minister, though, that we're well aware there is a transitional team, even before you have your laws passed, but that transition team has an office. It's at 101 Bloor Street and that's why we're wondering about the unused space at 175 Bloor Street.

I understand that $154,000 may not seem like a great deal of money to a government that spends almost that much on a single ad. Nevertheless, we believe that examples like this of wasteful spending are exactly what makes the public believe that this government is not making a serious effort to look at its own operations. It is exactly for this reason that people who are being hit with $2 billion in new taxes are so upset with the government.

1420

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): I've got your expenses right here, Lyn: $320,000.

Mrs McLeod: I realize that the member opposite is interjecting and we should not acknowledge that, but since he's specifically referencing our caucus's ability to control our expenditures, I say with pride that today's expenditure statements show that this caucus has reduced its own operations by $100,000, because we are serious about reducing expenditures.

People who are being asked to make cuts, to make personal sacrifices, are questioning whether or not this government is doing everything possible to cut its own spending.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We all know you bury yours in your office. Don't be so phoney over there. Every one of your cabinet ministers buries it in the office. Get up and tell the truth.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for St Catharines. Could the Leader of the Opposition place her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, I will. The question relates to the fact that this government has spent $154,000 a year on leased space since last October which has not been used. The decision to lease this office space could not have been made by accident, without senior staff in somebody's ministry being aware. I ask the minister, how does this happen? Why did no one question signing a lease for office space that this government has not used?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm certainly very pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is cutting back on the expenses for her caucus. Maybe she can stop sending direct mail into my riding from the Liberal caucus, in a riding she doesn't even represent. It's true and you know it.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's true. Plus the other two Windsor ridings.

I told the Leader of the Opposition that nobody on this side of the House approves the wasting of any money, whether it's $154,000 or whether it's $154 million. We don't approve of that. I don't have all the facts in front of me. I will find out exactly what happened and get an explanation for the member. I'll try to do it before the end of question period.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. This afternoon we will vote on second reading of your social contract legislation. We see this vote as being one that is pretty straightforward: Do we support the principle of cutting back the size and cost of government or do we support the union leaders who do not want to cut back the size and cost of government?

Premier, we want you to know that, unlike the Liberals, who still play the old-time, vested interest, oppose-for-opposition's-sake politics, we plan to support the principle of downsizing the cost of government. We support that goal and have clearly indicated that to you all along.

Having said that, we all know this legislation was drafted pretty hurriedly, we all know it's not perfect, and you know we have difficulties with some parts of the legislation. We intend, as you know, to force this bill into committee, where we will move amendments that will ensure fair, permanent and structural downsizing of government.

Premier, since your government holds a majority on all committees, I would ask you this: When we force this bill today out to committee, will you personally ensure adequate committee time for our caucus, which wishes to make this bill better, to bring forward and debate our amendments? Will you make sure that we have time to do that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Despite any temptations to the contrary from the members of the Liberal Party, I would simply say to the leader of the third party that, first of all, I'd say to him in all seriousness, if there are amendments that are going to be forthcoming from the Conservative Party, or I would say from the Liberal Party, since I gather the Liberal Party has expressed concerns about the bill, and if there are serious suggestions with respect to amendments, I would ask that they be shared with us as soon as possible so that, if there are any technical issues that need to be dealt with by the official draftspeople and so on in committee of the whole, those are issues that can be dealt with. But I would hope that we could deal with this matter in committee of the whole in terms of a good discussion here in the House and have an opportunity for a good discussion.

I would say to him very directly, we are very interested in hearing what particular amendments are going to be forthcoming from whatever side of the House or from others, and we look forward to that.

Mr Harris: We too, Premier, I want you to know, are interested in facilitating moving this legislation along. We think, as we've always said, meaningful negotiations will not take place until the union leaders clearly understand what the alternative is. You can call it bang, bang, bang or first, second, third reading; we're still very interested and believe that's the only way it will proceed.

Yesterday in the House you offered support in principle for the establishment of an expenditure review committee. I agree, you said you'd like to see the wording, and we could talk about that. We would like the committee to deal with eliminating things like the year-end burnoff and review the necessity of government programs. It could well make recommendations on, could some services be better delivered by the private sector than the public sector? Premier we'll also be moving amendments which will provide for whistle-blowing protection of employees as part of that as well.

Now, in conjunction with this committee recommendation, another amendment that we've talked about was to encourage the efficiency and the elimination of waste by setting up a system of rewarding public servants who develop ideas to save money, instead of the current system that tends to reward particularly middle management with having more employees or bigger budgets for spending more money.

Will you, support the principle of this amendment, which will simply ask for a different way of rewarding a number of our civil servants by way of pay for encouraging efficiency instead of them now being rewarded for wasting money?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member, just so you know, that in the context of the talks that have been held since April, we have encouraged the whistle-blowing idea as something to be incorporated into sectoral agreements. We believe in it strongly. We've been working on the legislation with respect to the public service, and we're strong supporters of it.

Second of all, with respect to the issue of performance bonuses, productivity increases and sharing the benefits from these gains are key elements of long-term restructuring and reducing waste and inefficiency in government, and again it's something that at the sectoral tables we've been encouraging.

I'll have to see the specific wording of the amendments, but the principles are ones that we are very much encouraging to be put in place.

Mr Harris: I believe I also indicated that I think there are a number in both management and unions in the private sector, CAW in particular, who have experience in negotiating productivity bonuses for employees. In the case of CAW, they gain when they manufacture the same number of cars with half the number of employees, and we should do that.

In committee as well we will be moving an amendment that calls for a hiring freeze. This amendment will acknowledge the need for essential services to be maintained by allowing for flexibility to hire classroom teachers or firefighters, police and others for essential services.

To date, my sense has been that you have dismissed my caucus's proposals for getting the attrition clock counting in this method. In doing so, I suggest that you are precluding some of the sound long-term management we need to permanently downsize the cost in government, particularly after eight years of high spending and overhiring governments, and I acknowledge your comments earlier today, most of the hiring done by the Liberals.

Will you support our amendment for a hiring freeze while allowing for flexibility as one of the tools to ensure permanent structural downsizing of the government, not short-term fixes?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: I haven't dismissed the ideas with respect to the kind of approach that has been taken at all. We in fact have argued that we need to go beyond a simple freeze in terms of its impacts. Again, it will depend on the wording, because the concern that has been expressed to us from a number of ministries, from managers, who I am sure you would want us to listen to, within ministries, has been what do we do if the factor-80 window which we've opened has a tremendous impact, let's say, on the Ministry of Correctional Services, if I can just give you one example? If that ends up having a serious impact on our ability to provide critical and essential services in that area, a blanket freeze is not the answer. In fact a blanket freeze would be unacceptable.

What I hear you saying is you want to see something which is flexible. The issue then becomes, if it's that flexible, is it a freeze or not. We've been reluctant to go out and say, "Yes, we're going to freeze," knowing that as soon as we bring in the exceptions that'll be the headline the next day, saying, "You said you'd freeze and now you're not."

I would say to the honourable member, we're interested in downsizing and we're interested in reducing in a number of ministries. In a number of areas that's exactly what we're doing. The critical point, though, is to make sure that we've got the flexibility to ensure that we have appropriate staffing levels at institutions where public health and safety and other issues are involved. We're trying to find that happy medium, and I look forward to seeing any wording that you've got.

YORK DETENTION CENTRE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Premier. I'm going to be sending you over a copy of a letter which was sent to you on September 1, 1992, and also a copy of your response. The letter testifies to a serious breach between the policy and practice within your government on the issue of sexual assault and harassment, a breach that has been covered up by senior staff, including ministers in your cabinet, over a period of three and a half years.

I have other letters: one dated June 5, 1991, to Zanana Akande; another to Marion Boyd, dated April 6, 1992; and two letters to your current Minister of Community and Social Services, dated in March and May of this year.

The letters all report the actions of a male employee at the York Detention Centre, a sexual predator, who targeted young, mostly unclassified, female workers, many of whom were community college students. The letter also reports the inaction of your government in protecting the innocent victims involved. It is believed as many as 14 employees were victimized.

Can you explain why you and senior ministers of your government took so long to respond to the serious allegations of sexual assault and harassment at this provincial institution?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I refer the question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think there are a couple of points that I would like to say in response to the member's question. The first is specifically to the letter that he refers to that was sent to the Premier. My understanding is that letter was referred at the time to, I believe, the Attorney General's office for them to pursue, so I think that as far as the Office of the Premier was concerned, they pursued the matter in the normal course.

The other point I think I would like to make is that the employee that I believe the member is referring to had in fact left the employ of the ministry certainly prior to that letter being sent, indeed even prior to this government taking office. I think that is important in the sequence of events.

Third, in the whole discussion that there has been around this issue it's my understanding that in fact there has been a great deal of discussion with employees at the particular centre, all of whom have made it consistently clear from our officials not only that we have zero tolerance level with respect to sexual harassment, but that in fact people were encouraged to go to the police if they had specific allegations they wanted to make.

Mr Jackson: It's of absolutely no comfort to now two rape victims and four sexual assault victims that the minister has stood in his place and said they're to take some comfort that this person is no longer an employee at this institution.

The issues before the House today and before the Premier and his government have to do with the fact that your government has a workplace harassment and discrimination prevention policy. Those guidelines were brought in March 1992. According to them, every ministry is responsible for their implementation -- not the Attorney General's office but the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and you're the minister.

I want to send you over two copies of letters that were sent directly to you. These letters set out very clearly the allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. They talk directly about senior officials at the assistant deputy minister level who frustrated the investigations, who coerced and dissuaded the victims from their natural rights in this province in accordance with your own ministry guidelines. It was only last night --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- that one of the victims went forward to the police with charges after months and in fact three years of frustration.

Was a thorough investigation ever undertaken in accordance with your own government's policies as set out by your Premier? If that was undertaken, have you read it and when did you read it?

Hon Mr Silipo: I want to say that the member raises obviously some very important issues. I want to tell him very categorically that from the time I became aware of this issue, I asked for some further information and in fact asked that an operations review take place, which operations review has been under way and I'm expecting the results of that review by early July. I will be looking very carefully at the recommendations and the conclusions that come out of that review.

Mr Jackson: I sent over letters dated March 9. More important, the Premier is aware that letters were sent to the former minister, Ms Akande, in 1991 about these cases. You're going to tell these victims that in July -- Minister, you won't have until July, because the police are visiting your offices today to ask for and to receive a copy of this report. They are interested in how the rights of the victims of this sexual assault may have been abused in the process by your own ministry.

This is a very serious matter involving as many as 10 or 12 victims at York Detention Centre. Given that the letters shared with three ministers of Community and Social Services, involvement at the deputy ministerial and assistant deputy minister levels, why is it that victims were frustrated, actively discouraged and indeed harassed when seeking their natural rights to justice in this province to pursue a sexual assault charge? Why has it taken three and a half years for your ministry to wake up and for you to stand in this House and say maybe by July you'll have a report? You tell that to the victims who are watching you today.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think it's all right, I suppose, for the member opposite to pontificate about what could be happening or couldn't be happening. What I think --

Mr Jackson: I wasn't sitting on letters for four months like you were.

Hon Mr Silipo: What I think the member should also take into account is the answer I've given him, which is, first of all that, during the course of all these events, it was made consistently clear, as I understand it, by officials in the ministry to employees at the centre as to their rights -- and their encouragement in fact of them to go to the police if they had allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. That has been done, as I understand it, consistently.

I can also say to the member that it wasn't in July or in June that I asked for this operations review to happen. In fact this happened back at the time that I became aware of the first letter, which is dated in early March. Even prior to that, I know that coming from the administrator of the centre there had been a request for an operations review back to January of this year.

Obviously, if the member says the police are looking for additional information, whatever information we have we will share with them. Now that charges have also been laid, obviously the process will ensue and whatever the justice system determines will develop on its own course.

But I can just say to the member that I too take these issues very seriously, which is why, as I've indicated to him, in addition to all of the previous work that had happened, when I became aware of this issue I asked for a further operational review to be undertaken so that in fact we could understand if there were some additional problems that needed to be looked after.

1440

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. You'll recall that in 1967, under the former Liberal government, there was a unit set up --

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): In 1987.

Mr Mahoney: What did I say?

Ms Poole: You said 1967.

Mr Mahoney: Excuse me, 1987. I'm a little behind my time.

There was a unit set up for the purposes of collecting money from employers who had been paying less than minimum wage to their employees, who had reneged on paying vacation pay or any other benefits they were entitled to. I recall, as a matter of fact, how in 1987 you and your party in opposition were quite congratulatory towards our government for setting up this unit.

In the first year of its operation, it collected only $64,500. You have recently announced that you will be disbanding this unit in spite of the fact that it has raised more money than it cost to operate and had its best three months' collection period just before you decided to close it. In three months ending March 31 it collected over $901,000. This is actually an agency that makes money for the government and that helps serve those workers who are least able to help themselves.

Minister, can you tell us why you've done this?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The reason we've done it is relatively obvious. The reason we've done it is simply because we are in tough economic times and we are looking at where we can do something --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): So are the people who are going to benefit.

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

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- that we're currently doing better than we have done it in the past. We have come up with --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- for this particular operation.

Mr Sorbara: What about the people who were going to benefit? How tough is this for them? Four bucks an hour.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre. Had the minister completed his response? The member for Mississauga West with his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: I think I heard him say it was because we're in tough economic times. This is a little bit like the decision the Premier made to reduce the size of cabinet by adding more ministers. There's a little confusion that I don't quite understand.

What you've done here is you've eliminated an agency that actually makes money. On top of that, out of the seven full-time permanent positions you've moved six of them into the Ministry of Finance. You've transferred the cost from this successful agency collecting money on behalf of those folks least able to help themselves. This is a clear example of how this government thinks it can fight its deficit on the backs of those people least able to help themselves, how this government has completely lost its purpose, lost its direction and lost any caring it has for the workers of this province.

Minister, you're saying: "We can handle the job maybe even better there, in the Ministry of Finance. If we're wrong then we'll have to do some fast readjusting." That's terrific. What do you say about your fast readjusting to the workers who are not getting the money below minimum wage, who are getting shafted by companies and not collecting the money that's truly due to them? What kind of an answer does the current Minister of Labour have to those people?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: For one thing, I didn't say that we could do it better within the Ministry of Finance. The job is still going to be done within the Ministry of Labour. It might be difficult for the critic to understand, but the fact is that with the wage protection program and some of the other changes we've made, we have better than 50 additional people working on key areas of concern in the Ministry of Labour. We have sent the collection operation out to the field, where we feel we can do it better.

I might also say that the three people who were in charge of the operation when we had a separate collection division are still with us, are still organizing it and collected more than half of the amount of money that the member is talking about. We think we can do it with the employment standards officers in the field and in the regional offices much more effectively than we were doing it with the current group in the ministry itself.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. I read your rhetoric following yesterday's steel decision and it seemed to me to be quite tough. I think you said Canada should "clobber Washington with a two-by-four" because of the anti-dumping duty slapped on Ontario steel. Quite frankly, while there is a dispute mechanism available, I tend to agree with you; I think we should get tough with all those that throw barriers and tariffs in our road.

But time and time again my caucus has asked you to take that same tough stance against the province of Quebec. Yesterday, the member for Leeds-Grenville raised yet another example of how unfair Quebec protectionism hurts Ontario businesses and hurts Ontario employers and costs Ontario consumers.

Can you explain to me why you want to, with the United States, hit them over the head with a two-by-four, while for Quebec you continue to follow a 20-year-old tried and failed policy of throwing marshmallows at Quebec?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I will refer this to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I want to point out, first of all, and reiterate the comments that I've made in this House and the Premier has made in this House with respect to the interprovincial trade barriers that the province of Quebec currently has in place. Those are provincial government barriers that have been put in place that we object to. We've made that very clear. I've made that clear in a meeting with the minister from Quebec. I've made it clear at interprovincial trade ministers' meetings. We are pursuing bilateral discussions with them. We are engaged in meetings to negotiate bringing down those interprovincial trade barriers. It would seem to me that while negotiations are taking place, it would be counterproductive to erect new barriers at this point in time.

The Premier has been down in Washington trying to engage the US steel industry in negotiations about a US steel accord. They have said no. They have said they will not negotiate. They have said they're not interested. They have said that they are going to use their trade rules and their trade harassment activities to disadvantage our Canadian steel industry. There is no room for negotiations with people who won't sit down and negotiate.

With Quebec, in fact, we are negotiating. We do think there is a serious problem. We will continue to pursue it and we expect that we will have action.

Mr Harris: Minister, we've continued to tell you and the Premier and your cabinet and your party and your government that if you downsize the public sector, which we support, you have to at the same time allow our private sector to upsize and to compete. You're going to have to abandon a number of positions you've taken, your anti-business policies such as Bill 40. You're going to have to bring down the cost of doing business in Ontario so our companies can compete. And you're going to have to fight a lot harder than we have for the last 125 years of talking to break down the interprovincial trade barriers, particularly those with Quebec.

I know you've been preoccupied with the social contract and preoccupied with downsizing the public sector, but I'm going to tell you that you're missing the boat on one of the opportunities to upsize Ontario.

Premier Frank McKenna is making great headway. He now has Quebec at the table. They are now talking to them about the interprovincial trade barriers between New Brunswick and Quebec. You want to hit the US over the head with a two-by-four. I don't disagree with that, but I'm going to tell you this: Until you get serious, you're going to continue to have Quebec say: "Why should we negotiate? We can take the marshmallows in the head, and we got all the jobs."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: Will you toughen up your stance with Quebec, as New Brunswick has, as other provinces have, and get these interprovincial trade barriers out of our road?

Hon Ms Lankin: The leader of the third party seems to ignore the fact that with respect to the US steel industry, they're not interested in negotiations; they're interested in trade harassment. That's what we've been experiencing. There is a need for a strong response from the steel industry and the federal government, and we continue to be supportive of that and part of that and participating in that.

1450

With respect to interprovincial trade barriers, we are engaged in negotiations, both multilateral across the provinces and bilaterally with the province of Quebec. We are negotiating with them. We have issues on the table. They have concerns with respect to the Ontario economy. We believe that this is a very serious and important issue. You do not hit people over the head when you're at the table talking to them; what you do is make progress in negotiations. We believe that we are.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Once again, the Metro media is supporting the notion that garbage of Metropolitan Toronto should be dumped on the less fortunate communities that have a council that is willing to sell its community out for a dollar figure. The dollar figure, it would appear to me, is the reason for all the garbage decisions that Metro Toronto has made. The money, not the environment, is what motivates them.

My community finds it repugnant to imagine, as this morning's paper says in the editorial "Keep Options Open," that Metro can't afford to be without a place to send its garbage. The reality is that this government has put in place a process that will find a landfill site for the garbage and there is no need for Metro to continue to throw good money after bad.

Will the minister confirm for me today that the process that has been undertaken by the IWA to find three landfill sites in the GTA to serve these communities will continue and that in fact will be the way in which Metro will be able to dispose of its garbage?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Yes, I can confirm that the IWA process will continue, and I would point out that it's interesting that the Metro committee has proposed the use of the IWA's criteria and process for its site search. So I think that shows that the IWA process is accepted as the best way to go.

Mr Wiseman: The willing host scenario that Metro keeps talking about has my constituents outraged. They know well what Metro considers a willing host. They suffered through this type of process through the Liberal government; it was called The Rest of Durham Decides They Can Make a Lot of Money If They Let Metro Dump Garbage in Pickering, in an area 20 miles away.

My community believes that political accountability can only occur if this site is located within the municipality it serves. In fact, I delivered a petition to this House on Monday with over 10,000 signatures on it which stated on the bottom of it, "Political accountability can only occur if the site is located within the municipality it serves."

Is Metro so dependent on the revenues from garbage that they're willing to subvert the IWA process for their own financial gain?

Hon Mr Wildman: I won't comment on Metro's concern about finances. I would just say that there is nothing to prevent any proponent from pursuing an environmental assessment to establish a landfill site in the province. I would say, though, that it is significant, the question of the definition of a "willing host." It is difficult, perhaps, for all to agree on what that actually constitutes. Does it constitute simply a commitment on the part of the municipal leaders of a community or does it require some wider support within the community? That's difficult to define, and these are issues that obviously would have to be taken into account, along with provincial government policy, by the Environmental Assessment Board when and if it is presented with a proposal by a proponent.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question for the Premier on the social contract legislation. I know that you must be aware of the legislation and especially that part of the legislation which deals with what a public sector consists of. The legislation states, and I tell you that I am paraphrasing, that the public sector consists of, in the case of a municipality, any corporation -- and I underline that -- which operates or provides for the collection, removal and disposal of garbage and other refuse for a municipality.

My municipality, the city of Mississauga, like many others, has a contract with a private company, a private waste management company, to collect and dispose of residential waste. Privately, they have contracted terms and conditions that deal with the collection and disposal of waste.

Is it the intent of your legislation -- and this is my question; you must clarify this issue -- that contracts entered into between the municipality and the private sector are now going to be caught up in the net of social contract, that in fact they are part of the legislation and in fact the municipalities must comply with the legislation as it affects private contracts with the private sector?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): That's an excellent and very pointed question to which I am hesitant to give a definitive answer, but I would say to the member before he blows up, just discussing it informally with ministers here, that's not our view of the intent of the act. If there are any clarifications necessary to make that clear, that's precisely the kind of thing we would deal with in terms of amendment.

Mr Offer: I want to read part of the legislation. The schedule states, "The public sector in Ontario consists of," and the appendix under Ministry of Municipal Affairs states, and again I paraphrase, any corporation "which operates or provides the collection, removal and disposal of garbage and other refuse for a municipality." Your legislation takes them into the net.

My question by way of supplementary, as it is surprising that the Premier is not aware of the legislation, is: Will you commit to the municipalities? You have put them in an incredibly impossible position. When you pass this legislation, you will automatically make every municipality breach another law dealing with contract in terms of the private sector. Will you say today to all of those municipalities that you will indemnify them for the damages they will incur when they are sued by the private sector over contracts that they have entered into?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Are you going to rule by fiat? Whatever you want today goes?

Hon Mr Rae: We will not be ruling by Fiat or any other kind of car.

I would say to the member for Mississauga North, we will deal with that kind of an issue in committee of the whole quite gladly. But I would say directly to him, I think he's exaggerating a little bit the level of uncertainty that's out there with respect to the legislation.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I've sent a package over to the Premier, and I think it's now with the Attorney General, from a press conference that was held today with the member for Willowdale, Mr Charles Harnick, and myself. So the question will be going to the Attorney General at this point.

Today, Mr Harnick and I will both be introducing separate bills which we hope will effectively end the dissemination of hate literature and the acts of hatred against individuals.

During the past month there's been a tremendous increase in the number of incidents of racial intolerance within our society. Some eight have been reported, to our count, in the media. We're also seeing groups such as the Heritage Front and the Church of the Creator using rock concerts to deliver racist remarks. We're seeing the rise in the recruitment of young people into these groups. We feel the time for talk is over and the time for action is now.

These bills will begin to empower individuals to fight for their basic rights. My bill will bring the Ontario Human Rights Code into the 1990s by providing a legislative vehicle for individuals to protect their rights to be free from discrimination, either in public statements or written material or visual representations.

I'm asking you, Attorney General, and from you to the Premier and your caucus and cabinet, will you work with us on this non-partisan issue?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): There were representatives, obviously, of my office at the press conference. I have my own copy of the materials that were circulated.

As I said in this House a couple of weeks ago in answer to a question from the leader of the third party, there are a number of civil issues that we as a government are quite prepared to consider, including changes to the Human Rights Code, including the kind of civil action that's implied by Mr Harnick's bill. We are certainly prepared to look at these.

I think the member is well aware that in the civil action area, the burden of proof is considerably less than it is in the criminal area and that the balance-of-probabilities factor in the civil area may well make it more possible for us to control these actions which all of us find abhorrent.

I also think, however, having just glanced at these two bills, that we also will have to be very mindful of the possibility of charter challenge. We'll have to work together to see how this can be done to protect rights and to balance out the respective rights of individuals.

1500

Certainly this is the kind of action that we are discussing with the round table on anti-racism. It is exactly the kind of action we're prepared to work with the opposition on, as well as with the affected communities and the municipalities. We are planning to meet in the very near future with the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which has requested a meeting to talk about the particular problems that are being experienced in this area.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are very pleased to know that we have the support of the third party in taking this action.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Attorney General, as you're aware, I'm going to be introducing a bill entitled An Act to Protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario. This act will empower people to bring an action against someone who has promoted hatred against them. The purpose of the act is quite simply to fight racism and to fight against the promotion of hatred.

Knowing that you will not likely be here for private members' hour when this bill is debated, will you send a message to your caucus right now and tell us whether you will be supporting this piece of legislation or whether you won't be?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have just indicated that I am going to be having the ministry look at this legislation to see the extent to which we believe it meets the needs that have been identified. If indeed it is clear that this is an appropriate vehicle, I not only will be here but will be encouraging my colleagues to follow it, and possibly, if all we need to look at are some amendments, to make sure that we get into a venue where we can consider those amendments.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that if I could get information, I would before the end of question period. I'd like to inform the members that a lease search was undertaken, with bids being requested from five landlords with space available in the vicinity of 625 Church Street, where the bulk of the staff who make up OTAB's head office are already located. The lease search received Management Board approval and was in accordance with Management Board policy.

I'd like to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that there is no rent being paid for the current facilities. Part of the rental agreement was 17 months rent-free. So I'm not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I appreciate the additional information which the minister has provided. It leads to a number of other questions which I would reiterate in the supplementary. I suppose I could begin with why the information given by Management Board staff would differ somewhat from the information the minister has provided.

Nevertheless, if I took the fact that there is a lease-free period for the lease that has been signed, the question stands as to why there is an OTAB head office, to which the minister refers, which sounds somewhat substantial, already located before a piece of legislation has in fact been passed; why there would be a long-term lease signed for a program even before the legislation was introduced in the House, let alone before the legislation was passed; and why, if in fact these figures are correct, any government would enter into a long-term lease at a figure of some $27 per square foot when the average rental cost is $20 per square foot?

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess when you've been discovered to have the wrong facts, you have to try to figure out some defence. The fact of the matter is that since the business community and the labour community have both supported OTAB, while there's been general support for OTAB, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to get the infrastructure set up, and up and running. That's what we're doing.

Maybe what the Leader of the Opposition should simply have said is: "Thanks for the information. I was dead wrong in my question."

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. You and the Premier are constantly repeating that you're interested in job creation and making sure that the economy recovers in Ontario.

Minister, I told you on April 29 of a golden opportunity to keep jobs in Ontario and to strengthen an important sector of our industrial base in Ontario. I told you that one of these opportunities was the long-awaited legislation to permit longer trucks in this province the way other competitors like the United States and other provinces in Canada have been doing for quite some time.

You will know that in 1991 alone there were more than 190 bankruptcies and in 1992 there were 188 bankruptcies in the Ontario trucking industry. Why have you failed to introduce in this session the long-awaited legislation to permit the Ontario trucking industry to use longer trucks so it can compete internationally?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Very soon a decision will be finalized.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, the member will be aware that there is such a thing as process. We're concerned about the competitiveness. We're aware that $100 million of competitiveness per year is at stake. We're very much aware that truck configuration invites criticism, positive and negative, from everyone around. Many groups had to be consulted and are still being consulted.

We're also aware of our duty, of our mandate, to look at the impact on the environment, economically; what happens in terms of emissions, total weight, repartition on axle weight are all factors that have to be meticulously looked at before a decision is made.

However, the point is well taken and in the final analysis a decision is pending.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is it within your mandate to tell us what the Minister of Transportation actually says during his answers?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Bruce surely does not want the Speaker challenging anyone's questions or answers.

PETITIONS

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, as you know, the folks in Ontario have been aware for some time about the concern of the people for Bruce A, and there's a petition which includes over 15,000 names in support of the continued existence of the Bruce A facility. I present one of those petitions now to the House. I have attached my signature, and we have more of those.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and the social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province,

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

JUSTICE SYSTEM

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

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

"Whereas Brian Kavanagh will be eligible for parole on July 22, 1993, after serving only 20 months (1/6) of his sentence, that this travesty of justice be addressed immediately by whatever means available and that are within your power to prevent the premature release of this person from custody.

"On January 31, 1991, Ellen Sands Kavanagh was stabbed 32 times in her back, hands, ear, eye, cheek, neck, chest and stomach with a fishing knife, her head was bludgeoned twice with a fifteen-pound axe, fracturing her skull in three places and breaking her jaw. Her neck was slashed twice with a saw. Her estranged husband, Brian Kavanagh, was convicted of manslaughter in November of 1991 and received a sentence of 10 years in a federal prison.

"On July 22, 1993, Brian Kavanagh comes before the National Parole Board. On that date he is eligible for unescorted temporary absence and day parole. He has already applied to a halfway house in the city of his choice and will only have to report between midnight and 6 am to that location. The victim's family lives in terror at the thought of his release. We, the undersigned, wish to loudly proclaim that:

"This is not our concept of Canadian justice."

It's been signed by thousands of people, as you can see, and I affix my signature too.

1510

CONTRAT SOCIAL

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell): Comme hier et la semaine passée, j'ai deux autres pétitions signées par des gens de Prescott et Russell et adressées à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario. Ils sont en désaccord avec la façon de procéder de M. Rae face à la coalition, et ces soussignés-là demandent à M. Rae de corriger tous les déficits, les problèmes avec son contrat social, bien sûr. Je suis certain qu'il va accéder à la requête de ces braves gens et je vous dis, Monsieur le Président, que j'ai apposé mon nom sur ces pétitions et que je les appuie à 100 %.

HISTORIC VEHICLES

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

"Whereas government funding is supplied for the restoration and maintenance of historic buildings and sites, both public and privately owned, the financing of museums and the preservation of Ontario heritage;

"Whereas historic vehicle owners receive no assistance in the restoration or maintenance of these fine examples of an integral part of the history and heritage of Ontario,

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

"We, the members of Ontario antique auto clubs and concerned citizens, respectfully request an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act and regulations permitting a one-time-only licence fee, valid as long as the registered owner retains ownership, for 35-years-and-older historic vehicles, with an option to register and legally display year-of-manufacture plates in place of current issue historic vehicle plates. Modified vehicles, kit cars or streetrods are not eligible."

I've affixed my signature.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here from the inclusive neighbourhood campaign, which is located in Toronto, from a Barbara Jamison. To this date, these 111 signatures that are presented on this petitions bring it to a total of 2,428 petitions that have been forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is speaking in support of the passage, and quick passage, of Bill 90, and it is petitioning the government of Ontario, and in particular the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Housing, and the Minister of Citizenship, responsible for human rights issues, to immediately put an end to the widespread violation of human rights across the province by amending the Planning Act so that it will require municipalities to permit the creation of additional rental units that meet the health and safety standards in the neighbourhoods zoned for single-family housing.

There are 111 signatures on this petition, and I do affix my signature to it.

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I have a petition signed by 700 parents and interested parties in sheltered workshops from the city of Kingston, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has stated its intention and policy to reduce and ultimately discontinue funding in traditional segregated programs, resulting in the eventual phase-out of sheltered workshops; and

"Whereas the ministry itself recognizes that the needs of people who want meaningful work activity but are not able to work in a competitive environment may not be addressed," and those are quotes, Mr Speaker; "and

"Whereas this policy was formulated without grass-roots consultation, especially without consulting individual parents and guardians of adults with disabilities; and

"Whereas no provision has been stipulated for individual assessments regarding the needs and desired outcomes for individual clients,

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Premier and the Minister of Community and Social Services to reinstate funding for sheltered workshops in the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

'Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of immediate tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Again I bring to this assembly thousands of signatures that are against casinos and I'd like to read it. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in an individual is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos in that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

We hope that they listen to these good people. I affix my signature to the petition.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition. It's actually the same one as Mr Drainville's, to the Legislative Assembly.

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I affix my signature to the petition.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned members of the 60+ Club of the city of Thunder Bay, Ontario, do hereby petition the government of Ontario to seriously reconsider its decision to reform the Ontario drug benefit program, which would reduce the health care services by $4 billion."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters, all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992, with the full support and endorsement from Jim Wiseman, MPP, Durham West, Larry O'Connor, MPP, Durham-York, Gordon Mills, MPP, Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refused to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refused to consider the alternatives, like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impact on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Ministry of Environment but at the same time the IWA must adhere to the minister's ideology and their ban of waste alternatives, such as rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and the New Democratic Party government refused to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remained firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of criteria ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas,

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."

Signed by two people on Morrison Crescent in Markham and with my name affixed to it.

1520

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, support the initiative of the council of the township of Bosanquet to bring piped water" --

Interjections.

Mrs MacKinnon: Excuse me, Mr Speaker. There are people who don't belong here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs MacKinnon: -- "to service residents adjacent to Highway 21, the communities of Port Franks, Ravenswood, Ipperwash and the surrounding areas, at a cost of approximately $2,500 to $5,000 per household, debentured and payable over a five-year period."

I will sign this same petition.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition here signed by many residents in my community, including Susan Wilson and Rod Wilson of Oleander Crescent, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Legislature has given first reading to Bill 90, a bill to permit accessory dwelling units as of right and to permit granny flats,

"We, the undersigned, object to Bill 90 for the following reasons:

"(1) That the province examine the implications that Bill 90 may have on the rights of property owners, landlords and tenants with respect to their expectations of zoning authority in the neighbourhoods in which they live;

"(2) That the province not entertain Bill 90, removing the right of local government to regulate development without adequate public notification and opportunity to review and comment on Bill 90;

"(3) That the local municipality be granted the authority to regulate and license or register accessory apartments;

"(4) That the province, in consultation with local and regional authorities, examine methods of compensating the municipality for increased costs of servicing new residential growth accessory apartments;

"(5) That right of entry for bylaw enforcement officers to inspect accessory apartments during reasonable hours be incorporated into Bill 90;

"(6) That the city of Brampton supports granny flats as a form of housing intensification, subject to the insurance that the units will be removed at the end of their intended use;

"(7) If the province permits the enactment of this legislation, let Bill 90 be referred to a standing committee for public input."

This is signed by my residents and I'm affixing my signature thereto as well.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows to object to the recent cuts to the GO Transit bus service for Woodbridge, Kleinburg, Nobleton, Bolton, Palgrave and Highway 9:

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers; and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels, at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and encourage public transportation systems; and

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto during peak hours, and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers, at one of the worst economic times in Ontario history, to incur extra expense finding another form of transportation."

It's petitioned that the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and restore GO Transit service to Bolton and Palgrave, and I've identified my signature in this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Gloucester

Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Township of Atikokan.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendments:

Bill Pr11, An Act to revive Chua Di-Da (Amidatemple) of Toronto

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting Cambridge-Guelph Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting Georgian-Simcoe Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting Picton-Trenton Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting Stratford, Huron and Bruce Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting Waterloo-St Jacobs Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting Waubaushene Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr34, An Act to revive Rosalind Blauer Centre for Child Care.

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr82, An Act respecting the Humane Society of Ottawa-Carleton, be not reported.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr11, An Act to revive Chua Di-Da (Amidatemple) of Toronto

Bill Pr34, An Act to revive Rosalind Blauer Centre for Child Care.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

On motion by Mr Cousens, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 55, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The purpose of this bill is to give a person the right to make a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission about any public statement or any written material or visual representation that ridicules or demeans the person or that discriminates, incites discrimination or expresses hatred against the person because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES DROITS CIVILS

On motion by Mr Harnick, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 56, An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario / Loi visant à protéger les droits civils des personnes en Ontario.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): This bill gives a person the right to bring an action against another person whose conduct or communication promotes hatred or promotes the superiority or inferiority of a person because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap. The bill also makes it an offence to engage in such conduct or to make such a communication.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The next item of business is a deferred vote on Bill 48. There is a five-minute bell.

Point of order?

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S COMMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Yes. Actually, I think perhaps it may be a point of privilege.

I reluctantly rise today to bring to the attention of the House -- and I know everybody here in the House actually knows -- the speech made by the Queen's representative in the province concerning certain aspects of political activity in the province of Ontario. The privilege is one which comes from the point of tradition and the role that has been traditionally played by the Lieutenant Governor in the province with respect to political matters.

There is no question that I revere the member who serves currently as the Queen's agent here, the representative of Her Majesty in the province of Ontario. I respect his judgement. I respect in many ways the contribution that he has made to the province. But I raise for you, Mr Speaker, what I believe are at least concerns enough that I could not let them pass without bringing them to the record of the floor of the House.

1530

I regret that I have to do this, because of the esteem in which I hold the Lieutenant Governor, but I think for the comment to have been made prior to a vote -- in fact the very day prior to a vote on a piece of legislation which is a major centrepiece of government policy, the social contract -- that in fact the social contract would be endorsed, or at least that the Premier would have his social contract, meaning that the Parliament, the Queen's subjects' place of deliberation would pass it, is a break from tradition.

Further, an examination of the text of the material which was delivered in the forum indicates that the Lieutenant Governor had endorsed the Premier for re-election should he run, or at least had said that he would win, has left me really with no alternative, not to, in my sense, ask for any kind of censuring or otherwise, but merely to raise it as a point of parliamentary tradition so that it can be noted and so that it cannot be allowed to pass, so that it be seen that Her Majesty, through her representatives, or Her Majesty's representatives can in fact play their role in that way.

If, for instance, there was an observation that the bill had passed second reading, that would, in my view, have been nothing more than remarking upon a factual set of circumstances. But when we have the vote coming today and the speech coming prior to it, it creates a problem for me.

I have been seen, I think, by many as a traditionalist in terms of the ability of this forum to make our own decisions unaffected by the remarks of other organizations, of other institutions in our democratic society. We're a parliamentary democracy, but we have Her Majesty as the head of state for our Legislature. I am merely rising, as it were, to make sure that this Parliament, this people's council, can hold its position of paramountcy in relation to the business and the conduct of the public affairs of this province.

I note it here on the record so that the people know that we are concerned, that we in our party believe it was an unfortunate speech, that we believe it was a break with tradition and that we in the Liberal Party assert the paramountcy of Her Majesty's council to deal with public affairs and public business in our forum without being affected by remarks from another institution in our democratic society.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, I want to address you and the members of this House on the issue raised by my House leader, the member for Bruce, and I want to do so, sir, in the very strongest terms, because I believe very, very strongly that my privileges as an elected member of this Parliament have been breached in the most serious and significant way. I think that applies to every single member of this Legislature.

I would say to you as well that it most certainly applies in these particular circumstances when we as a Legislature are about to vote on perhaps the most significant piece of legislation that the government has presented and will present during the life of this Parliament, all the more so because, as we know, currently the government has a majority of some seven members in this Parliament. Certain of those members have publicly stated that they are prepared to vote against this measure and certainly some others will be considering that course right up until that vote is taken. I say to you, sir, for the Lieutenant Governor to make any statement whatever about the conduct of proceedings in this Legislature is the most vile breach of traditions, of executive authority in Ontario, and this Parliament, before this vote is taken, must do something about it.

I want to say to you first, sir, that I have the very deepest respect and regard for the Honourable Henry Jackman, the person who currently sits as the Lieutenant Governor in this province. He is an eminent citizen of some stature. He comes from a family of eminent citizens. His brother is a Catholic priest in my own riding. His sister was recently a candidate for election to this Legislature in the by-election in St George-St David.

The Honourable Henry Jackman is also a prominent business person in Ontario, in Canada and around the world. He has been a successful business person of great integrity. I should say as well that throughout his career he has taken an active and I think important interest in the political process.

All of us welcome the fact that he was appointed Lieutenant Governor of this province on November 19, 1991, and sworn in on December 11, 1991. He has shown himself throughout his career to be a very strong and community-minded person, and we have welcomed him as our Lieutenant Governor.

I think it's appropriate for me to read into the record the remarks made by the Lieutenant Governor in London yesterday. I'm sorry to take the time of the House but I think it's absolutely imperative. These remarks are not lengthy and it's imperative that those words be on the record so that we can deliberate as to whether or not our privileges have been breached. The speech begins as follows:

"It is a privilege for me to be here. I am, as the chairman mentioned, the Lieutenant Governor of the province, which is a" -- and then there is a part inaudible -- "head of state. Therefore, I have the ultimate legitimacy and power given the Queen's representative, but in practical terms, it means you just shut up and do not exercise it." Apparently, the Lieutenant Governor did not take his own advice.

"The relationship between the Queen and the government is the same as between the Lieutenant Governor in Ontario and the Legislature. So the way it works out with my socialist Premier, Mr Rae, is that he gets all the flak and I get all the honour. It is the same relationship the Governor General has worked out successfully with Mr Mulroney.

"But I am not going to talk to you about the role of the Queen or the Queen's representative. Sufficient to say that I think in our system of government, the purpose of the sovereign is always to ensure that those who are elected do not take the law unto themselves, that there is a sovereign who is above them. And maybe the sovereign is the supreme head or the Lieutenant Governor in our case is just a symbolic... (inaudible) nevertheless acts as a sort of symbolic safety valve on the elected politicians. They must always recognize that they are subject to the law. So I really do the ceremonial stuff."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I trust the member is not going to read the entire speech.

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry, sir, but it's only a page and a half.

The Speaker: We've spent a fair bit of time already. If the member has a point of order, I would appreciate if he would get to it very quickly so that we can move on.

Mr Sorbara: Then I'll just go to the salient parts of the speech. He says at the conclusion of his speech, after describing the deficit situation of the government:

"The Premier, I felt very, very strongly, because of his labour background, felt that he had to ask the unions to be part of this decision that was affecting them. A lot of businessmen, a lot of editorial writers, said: 'Why are you asking them to cut their own throat? Why don't you just pass a law and say that's the way it's going to be?'

"Well, from his perspective, from his background, as the leader of a party which is very heavily dependent on labour, he wanted to go through the exercise. The exercise so far has not been entirely successful. He has introduced legislation which will empower the employers to open up labour contracts and impose these cuts.

"I think there is no question about it, he means business. There is a New Democratic Party conference in Gananoque in a couple of days. He received the approval of his caucus and his party. Remember that, in his party, a lot of his ministers are former labour leaders themselves.

"I would say that I think he will prevail. I would say the strongest thing that Rae has going for him is that he is probably indispensable to the NDP party's survival. It's not like the Tory party in this country, where the Tories seem to have the luxury of debating whether they will keep the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, or keep the current Prime Minister, John Major, because they feel the party is stronger than the leader.

1540

"In Canada, in Ontario, without Bob Rae, the New Democratic Party would probably be nothing. I think they realize that themselves. So I think he will get his way. He's got a majority of 15 or 16 seats, I think. It doesn't take a lot of NDP ministers to vote with the opposition (to defeat the government). A couple of them said they would. He's had one minister resign on him. But he will prevail, I think, because his party knows that they cannot survive without him.

"And also he is sort of positioning the party on fiscal issues sort of on the conservative side" --

The Speaker: Could the member get to his point of order, please.

Mr Sorbara: -- "and in terms of his concern for pay equity and the disabled and recognizing minority rights...then certainly on the left."

And this is the conclusion, sir:

"But I think Rae, although he is behind in the polls now, could easily win the next election. He got 38% of the popular vote because the opposition is split between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Whether he wins again I think will depend on how much the Liberals and the Conservatives..." and then it's inaudible.

"If the opposition to Rae coalesces behind one of the two right-wing parties" --

The Speaker: I ask the member for one last time to get to his point of order.

Mr Sorbara: -- "then he would lose. If they don't, then I think there's a very good chance he would win."

Now, Mr Speaker, I am finished reading that part of the speech into the record.

I simply want to say to you, sir, this: The power of the Lieutenant Governor in this province is a very strong one indeed. I just want to review those powers for you.

The Speaker: Very quickly.

Mr Sorbara: He has the power to summon this Parliament into session. That is his power and his power alone. He has the power to dissolve this Parliament, and it is his power and his power alone. He has the power to withhold his consent to every act that this Parliament passes into law. Those powers reside in the Lieutenant Governor and they are exercised in this province on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen.

It is clear from every one of our traditions for 126 years in Ontario that the Lieutenant Governor and the Governor General, just as the Queen, do not interfere with the rights and privileges of members of this Legislature to consider legislation and pass it or defeat it.

I just want to quote you, sir.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: I'm telling my friends in the opposition that this is a matter of privileges, my privileges and yours.

The Speaker: The member is on very thin ice, and I ask the member to very succinctly get to his point of order.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I reiterate this is not a point order; it's a point of privilege.

I'm referring to, sir, a volume entitled The Office of Lieutenant Governor. It was written by Professor John Saywell and published in 1986 by Copp Clark Pitman Ltd. I'm quoting from page 20. It reads as follows: "Political opinions publicly proclaimed are forbidden him."

What the Lieutenant Governor has done, either advertently or inadvertently, compromised my right in this Parliament to expect the possibility that the social contract he referred to in his speech and that we are required to vote on under business of the day, the next order of business. He has compromised the ability of this Parliament, having declared that he believes it will become law.

He has the right to sign that bill and he has the right to refuse to sign that bill, and before Parliament has considered it independently, as we are elected to do, the Honourable Harold Jackman has prejudiced our rights in that matter.

What's worse is that under his authority to dissolve Parliament, he has publicly made predictions as to the possible outcome subsequent to the dissolution of this Parliament, suggesting to an audience in London but broadcast to an audience throughout Ontario and in Canada, the possibility that notwithstanding the current disfavour that the government is held in, Bob Rae could get re-elected.

I say to you that in 125 years of parliamentary and executive history in Ontario, we have never had a Lieutenant Governor comment in that way about the very political issues and the political climate in the jurisdiction for which he is responsible.

The insult that he proffered to the New Democratic Party is beside the point. I simply say that my rights to expect a fair and independent vote in this Legislature on Bill 48, the Social Contract Act, have been irreparably compromised by the remarks of the Lieutenant Governor. I plead with you, sir, that you adjourn this Parliament at this point, and now, until the Lieutenant Governor can come before this Parliament and --

The Speaker: May I say first to the member for York Centre that I appreciate very much the point which he raises. I understand --

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: Yes, I've got authority like crazy here.

The Speaker: I'd ask the member to come to order. The member raised the point of privilege, I listened, and I ask him to listen. I appreciate the point of privilege which he has brought to my attention.

To the member for Bruce, I appreciate not only the concern which he raised, but why he raised it and the point in time in which he did, and the argument which he made.

The members will know that there is nothing which has been raised today which involves directly the Speaker of the assembly, nor the assembly itself.

Mr Sorbara: What about my privileges?

The Speaker: What the member has raised is a constitutional matter, and those matters are normally dealt with before the courts. It is not a matter for this assembly. It is not a matter for the Speaker.

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 48, An Act to enourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program / Loi visant à favoriser la négociation d'accords dans le secteur public de façon à protéger les emplois et les services tout en réduisant les dépenses et traitant de certaines questions relatives au programme de réduction des dépenses du gouvernement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The business that we're at is the deferred vote on Bill 48. There will be a five-minute bell. Please call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1547 to 1552.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Mr Laughren moves second reading of Bill 48. All those in favour of Mr Laughren's motion will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Dadamo, Duignan, Eves, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Marland, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Runciman, Silipo, Stockwell, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Simcoe West), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Laughren's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Drainville, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Haslam, Henderson, Kormos, Kwinter, Mahoney, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Morrow, Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Sullivan.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order so I can hear the vote count.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 80, the nays 39.

The Speaker: The ayes being 80, the nays 39, I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Committee of the whole House?

The bill is ordered to committee of the whole House.

MEETINGS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 5:

That, notwithstanding standing order 6(a)(i), the House shall continue to meet commencing Monday, June 28, 1993.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the government House leader have any opening remarks?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just very briefly, because we've had some discussions here over the course of the last two weeks around time allocation motions and other items and around the government's agenda and the average amount of time that's been taken in debates in not only this session but all the sessions during this Parliament.

None of us like to sit here past the end of the normal adjournment for the session, but as I've said on a number of occasions, and I'd like to repeat again for members here today so that we all understand clearly what's happening here, throughout the course of this Parliament, ever since the election in September 1990, this House, thanks to the performance of the opposition, has been taking, on average, on every single piece of legislation, two and a half times the amount of time that was standard throughout the last decade under both the Conservative and Liberal administrations.

1600

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Because your bills are so badly written. Because you are bringing forward bad bills.

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): You don't know how to deal with us to get things done. You don't know how to deal with the opposition. It is incompetence.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Obviously some members of the official opposition have some emotional difficulty dealing with the realities of legislative process, but that doesn't change the reality of the irresponsible way that both of the opposition parties have behaved during the last two and a half years. Members across the way can say as often as they like that it's been because of the way we've performed that has elicited their performance --

Mrs Sullivan: Write legislation that we can support. What do you do when you have 800 amendments to three bills?

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- but the reality is that their performance started on day one and hasn't stopped ever since.

Their performance continued on some of the legislation that they themselves prepared before they left office, and we still took two and a half times the amount of time that's normal in this Legislature to deal with some of the legislation which they themselves had prepared.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You changed the rules yourself. You are incompetent.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: That, Mr Speaker, is simply bad losers. That simply is an opposition which isn't prepared to be reasonable and responsible in the legislative process.

I'm not going to take up a lot of time this afternoon on this motion. This House is going to have to sit and, as I've said to both of the opposition House leaders, this House will sit until the legislative agenda that we've set before this House is completed. When the opposition parties are prepared to deal with that legislative agenda in a reasonable and responsible way, then we can talk about adjourning the House and going home and to our ridings --

Mrs Caplan: Let's hear it for democracy.

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

Hon Mr Charlton: -- for that normal break that we find during the summer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order, and the member for Mississauga North. Let's try one person at a time. The government House leader.

Hon Mr Charlton: I have completed my remarks, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Is there further debate? A point of privilege.

Mr O'Neil: Mr Speaker, the House leader on the government side has gotten up this afternoon and has made certain accusations. Let me tell you that if any of the blame should be placed anywhere, it should be placed on his shoulders, because he is the one who has gone to our meetings demanding certain things rather than cooperating with our House leader. He is the one who is mainly to blame for all of the problems that he presently has.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Quinte will know that he does not have a point of privilege. However, he is certainly raising matters that are open for debate, and maybe he wishes to gain the floor to place his points of debate into the House.

Is there further debate on the motion?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion this afternoon, and it may be at some length, because I want to make sure that all of the arguments on this matter are canvassed.

I first of all want to indicate, having heard the government House leader, that it reminded me -- and he would remember this, because he was a member of the House, and a few other members -- that in 1981, after the Progressive Conservative Party won the election, what used to happen was that virtually daily the Premier of the day, who at that time was Premier Davis, would come into the House, and when the opposition would express any doubt about the government policies or would be critical of the government in any significant way, Premier Davis would remind the opposition of the realities of March 19. Members of the New Democratic Party were equally annoyed with members of the Liberal Party in opposition at that kind of arrogance.

The performance of the government House leader brings back that particular memory, because it seems to me that's the kind of lecture we're getting from the government House leader. We get the story that, "Well, you know, we won the election, so therefore you people should roll over and play dead and accept all of the legislation that comes forward, accept the new rules that the Premier has imposed upon the House," and so on.

I don't think that is the case. I look at the government as it puts forward its case for trying to get its legislation through the House, and I recall distinctly that, on many occasions during the winter and the early spring, at least weatherwise the early spring if not calendarwise the early spring, members of the opposition suggested that if the government had a very heavy agenda, it should in fact call the Legislature back at the appropriate time. The Legislature ended its sitting on December 10, 1992, and there was a lot of discussion at that time that we would be sitting through the Christmas holidays, well on into January. Then there were some questions that were forthcoming from the opposition that dealt with some rather embarrassing matters related to the government, and all of a sudden, I remember a question came from the member for Kenora to the Attorney General at the time, Mr Hampton, and that question prompted the government House leader of the day, Mr Cooke on that occasion, to fold the tent and finish the session.

Well, one would say the government is entitled to do that. People at that time of year are happy to be able to do their holiday shopping and to partake of the festivities of the year, so perhaps that was understandable at that time. But many thought that if the government agenda was that heavy, was that full, in fact what the government should be doing is calling the Legislature back, perhaps in January or February, certainly before the April 13 date which was subsequently chosen by the government. Now, that's a couple of weeks after what we would normally expect the House to sit, because we would normally expect it would have come back in March of this year.

I understand that when the government is developing its legislation and wants to get it through, perhaps it could have the House sitting for a longer period of time. Certainly we in the opposition would have been happy to cooperate with that particular initiative on the part of the government. It would have allowed for a fuller debate.

Now, people will say, particularly on the government side, particularly those who have served for the first time in the assembly, that they wonder why debates must be stretched out. They wonder why there must be so much discussion of what they may consider to be bills that are relatively routine, in their view.

First of all, let me say that many of the bills that are proposed by this government are not routine. They do not represent the viewpoint, in my view, of the mainstream of Ontario. That doesn't mean that the government doesn't have the right to bring forward those bills. The government certainly does, as it's elected to govern.

1610

But it does mean that we in the opposition, and perhaps some of the government backbenchers, want to be able to discuss that legislation with a good deal of reasonable argument and debate.

In fact, many members of the governing party are concerned that they ran on what was called An Agenda for People. They find that today much of the legislation, many of the regulations and many of the policies do not reflect that Agenda for People. So members of the governing side from time to time want the opportunity to either explain why they have changed their minds or perhaps even to challenge the government itself.

It's essential that the public and the news media be made aware of all of the arguments. Often, if a bill goes through in one or two days, the public is not aware that this legislation is before the House and therefore may not be telephoning the constituency offices or writing to members or contacting them personally to express their views on legislation, and we lose out.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Could I ascertain if there is quorum in the House?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for St Catharines has the floor.

Mr Bradley: I'm pleased to see that a number of members on the government side have come back into the Legislature to take part in the debate, or at least to hear some of the arguments that are being put forth by the opposition. I do want to say --

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Don't mention the third party. Please don't mention that there are no Conservatives in the House.

Mr Bradley: I will not mention that. There was an interjection that said there were no members of the Progressive Conservative Party in the House, and I'm going to ignore that particular interjection, which came from the government side.

Members, I know, are going to committee this afternoon and have many things to do, so from time to time I will expect that the odd member may not be giving full attention to my remarks, but I certainly hope they will be listening with some degree of interest.

I was dealing with the issue of why we debate bills to a very great extent. What you find as a legislator is that the general public is not always aware of what happens in the Legislature. Many of us, I suppose, when we were home last weekend, were greeted with people who were saying to us, "I guess you people are on holidays now," because first of all, they interpret the House not sitting as being a holiday for members, not appreciating the fact that members have many other responsibilities that they must undertake, that they must meet besides being in the Legislature itself. But what they have seen is that the federal government has finished its session. The House of Commons is no longer in session. So there's a bit of an assumption that the Ontario Parliament must as well not be in session.

When important legislation comes forward -- and some important bills are before this House, or at least some that are controversial -- what we want to ensure is that the public is aware of all sides of the issue. We'd like the government to be able to present its case with perhaps ministers and other members of the government who want to put forward the case on behalf of the bills, and then I think it's important that members of the opposition talk about the parts of bills they support and those that they do not support. That way, the public, through the communications network that we have, the Ontario parliamentary network, get a chance to watch the debates and make judgements on those bills.

Members of the news media who are preoccupied with a number of issues that are there have an opportunity then to become acquainted with the arguments that are being put forward on many bills. I've found often both in government and opposition that the appreciation of the impact of legislation does not often come until several days into the debate.

I know, for instance, a classic example we use in this House is the member for Welland-Thorold, Mr Kormos, who expressed great opposition to legislation which was put forward by the last Liberal government in the field of automobile insurance. He spoke for, I believe, over 17 hours in the Legislature and got to the point where he was reading telephone numbers and people's names into the record, but the point of that was to acquaint people with what he felt were deficiencies in the bill.

Members of the government didn't agree, but we did have the opportunity to hear from various folks out there about the bill. They started to know what the bill was all about. Some of them agreed, some of them disagreed and some modifications were made to that bill somewhere along the line. That bill in fact, or another bill on automobile insurance, has come before this House once again.

That's the benefit of debate. I've heard people say, "All you people do in Parliament is talk," and yes, that is predominantly what happens. There are speeches made, there are questions directed to ministers, there are various exchanges that take place, and I think they're exceedingly important. They're part of the parliamentary process, and those who have an appreciation of the importance of Parliament would recognize that it is not appropriate, nor is it wise in the long run, for the opposition to roll over and play dead at the sight of the government demanding that certain legislation be passed quickly.

There are certain bills that three parties have talked about that can pass rather quickly. Some of them have had extensive debate and are now ready for third reading, and I'm sure that the three House leaders have met and have made arrangements for those bills to pass rather quickly.

There are other bills that the opposition feels deserve more debate, and the government has proposed a certain amount of time. The opposition has indicated whether it is prepared to accept those proposals or not, and that's as the House should work.

Unfortunately, there's been some considerable rancour when those meetings have taken place. It's not unusual, frankly, at this time of year, just as at the end of the fall session we tend to have that but, ultimately, we usually have an agreement of some kind on the legislation that should proceed and that which should be abandoned and that which perhaps should go to committee during the summer so that people can make direct representations to members of the Legislature.

I guess one of the most impassioned speeches, angry speeches that I've made in this House took place last summer -- I think it was July 1992 -- when the Premier decided he would impose upon the House some drastic new rules which would have the effect of significantly limiting the role and opportunity of the opposition as well as many members of the government who are not members of the cabinet.

I felt that was unwise legislation on that occasion. I was angered because I know that the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition and when he sat in the federal Parliament, was a defender of the rights of parliamentarians, a person who believed that it was important that there be extensive debate on all legislation and policies and even some regulations indirectly that might come before this House.

I appreciated the Premier's arguments on those occasions when he made them in opposition in this House and he made them in opposition in the federal Parliament. I was therefore very disappointed to see that he would insist upon these new rules which would significantly restrict the powers of individual members of Parliament.

I think there's a danger in all of our institutions, that danger being that more and more power is concentrated in the hands of people who are not elected. It doesn't mean those people aren't clever. Many of them are highly intelligent. Many of them are pretty slick and many of them are pretty clever. But they don't have the opportunity that members have to have an exchange with, a dialogue with their constituents to bring back the feelings in the ridings.

From the events that we attend, from walking down the street, from sitting in our constituency offices, from talking to people on the telephone or from receiving letters, we all have a pretty good feel for what the people are saying about the circumstances that face the province and what they believe are some of the solutions.

I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, and to members of the House, that that isn't always the case with those who are not elected. Senior members of the bureaucracy who give excellent advice and try to serve the province well don't have that opportunity to have the kind of interchanges we do with constituents, but most particularly, the members of the Premier's office, the group of people who surround the Premier.

I think the member for Welland-Thorold at one time referred to them in a less than complimentary manner. I won't repeat those, mainly because I can't find the quote at this time, but I will be simply trying to suggest in a general way what the member for Welland-Thorold had to say.

1620

The principle is correct. He was talking about people whose background is often Metropolitan Toronto, whose focus is often the provincial capital, and one of the problems that even politicians have, those of us who are elected representatives, is that when politicians get elected to the federal or provincial Parliament, they tend to spin a cocoon around themselves, to talk to one another. We talk to one another. We talk to the senior civil service. We talk to our personal advisers. We talk to the news media, which is the Queen's Park news media.

Out there in the hinterland beyond Queen's Park itself, even into suburban Toronto and perhaps downtown Toronto, but certainly into the many communities across Ontario, when we get into discussions about these matters, we often find that the views are different, that the viewpoint of what is needed for all of the province is often somewhat different from the kind of viewpoint that the chief advisers to the Premier might be exposed to. That's why I think it's important that this House have the kind of rules that permit extensive debate.

What did the Premier do in July of that year? He became annoyed because he was not happy with the way the legislation was progressing. So he decided, through Mr Cooke, the member for Windsor-Riverside and at the time the House leader, that he would bring in some new rules that would significantly restrict the role of the opposition, and those rules had certain effects.

First of all, the House was not to sit as many weeks as it previously had sat. I would guess that most people out there would like members to be in session as often as possible to deal with the important issues of the day, to question the ministry, to put forward government policies and programs. Yet what was happening was that as a result of these new rules, the House would sit fewer days.

What does this mean? It means for the Premier and his cabinet that they're not exposed to question period as often. They are not as accountable. They don't face what we call around here the scrum, that is, the group of reporters who are just outside this legislative chamber who ask members of the government and opposition their viewpoints on various issues. I think it's exceedingly important that that take place. It keeps all of us accountable.

As a minister in a previous government, I certainly know that kept me accountable in the House, to have the questions directed to me by the opposition and by members of my own government, and I know that running the gauntlet of the scrum outside was an exceedingly important exercise as well, because one again had to be accountable. It wasn't always pleasant, but it was a necessary part of our democratic system.

So I was very disappointed, and angered frankly, when the Premier insisted upon new rules for this House. While I cannot speak for other members of the House, Mr Speaker, I know that you, as an individual, have been a defender of parliamentary traditions. You have advanced many arguments for some changes in the rules which would be more beneficial than those that the government advocated and which would enhance the role of individual members instead of enhancing the role of the non-elected bureaucracy and the staff of the Premier. I think those are the kinds of rules that the government should have entertained rather than the rules which were imposed in July 1992.

We see a circumstance then as well where the government was going to control how long debate would take. So a minister today can virtually come into this House and state how long a debate will be on a bill the minister is interested in. That is not healthy for democracy, in my view. I'm not suggesting that the debate can go on for ever. I'm not suggesting that there aren't occasions when the public, if not the opposition, probably would support time allocation or a closure motion. I'm not suggesting that somewhere along the line of debate that might not happen. I'm simply suggesting that there's a great danger when ministers themselves come in and state how long there will be for debate on any one particular piece of legislation for which they are responsible.

A second part of that, an adjoining part of that that I'm concerned about is that the new rules took away from the Speaker some discretion that the Speaker had in terms of the debate continuing. The Speaker is an important person in this House. Unlike the American system, where the Speaker has a different role, a much more partisan role and certainly a legislative leader type of role, in our Legislature the Speaker is a neutral person, even when that person is from one of the political parties.

I look at those who sit in the chair today from time to time: the present Speaker, the member for VictoriaHaliburton; the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, who is the number one Speaker, I guess we would say, in the Legislature; Mr Morin from Ottawa -- he's from Carleton East -- and Mr Villeneuve from Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry & East Grenville, I think is the last part of that riding.

I think all of those people have the respect of members of the Legislature as being quite neutral in their observations. There are times in the House when some of us become exercised at some of the decisions that are rendered by a Speaker, but I think everybody recognizes that they try to do a good job, and we recognize that the office of the Speaker is one which is different from others. The same can be said, I think, in the federal House of Commons. It has evolved that way.

There was a time when the Speaker's role in this House, and I think in the federal House of Commons, was a more partisan role than it is today, and I think that's an improvement. In fact in our Legislature the Speaker was actually elected in this particular case by members of the House as a whole, and I thought it was quite positive that this happened.

What happened was, having a neutral Speaker, having somebody who was objective in observing the debates and the proceedings of the House, the Premier decided, through the then government House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, that there would be some significant changes which would in fact diminish the power that the Speaker had in certain circumstances, and I don't think that's healthy for the system in this House.

In addition to this, what we see is that the individual members have less time to speak in this House because there's now an allocation of 90 minutes for a lead speech and 30 minutes for other speeches. Before we had those allocations, you found some members who might speak for eight or nine minutes on a piece of legislation and others who would speak for perhaps 40 or 50 minutes on a piece of legislation, but you found that members tended to speak the length of time that was required to put across a point. They may have had a very deep interest in a bill or may have had no interest in particular in a bill but wanted to make a few points on behalf of constituents.

What this has done is you're now seeing most members, at least on the opposition side, using the full 30 minutes or the full 90 minutes, because there's a fear out there that at some time, quickly, the government is going to invoke closure. So they want to put as much on record as possible.

I think the flexibility of the other system was better. I think allowing members to speak for either a short period of time or a longer period of time allowed that kind of flexibility which allowed for the independence of members and the independent points of view of members and their relative concerns about issues before the House. I think we would avoid some of the more lengthy speeches that we see today if that were in fact in effect.

I watched in the federal Parliament -- I know members of this Legislature would be critical of that which I'm going to speak about, that is, the NAFTA debate -- the debate on the North American free trade agreement. I was appalled watching the limited amount of debate which was allowed on that particular piece of legislation. To me, that's a very significant piece of legislation. Its ramifications for our province and indeed for the whole country are very great indeed, yet I had to watch members get up and speak for eight or nine or 10 minutes on an issue which was extremely important to their constituencies and to the people whom they represented across the country.

I didn't think that was healthy. I thought that kind of debate should have allowed members to speak at much greater length and it should not have been cut off the way it was. They sat all night when people aren't necessarily up watching it and it becomes a bit of a charade.

Another debate I noticed where there was a limited amount of time was the constitutional debate. You, Mr Speaker, played a very significant role in the constitutional deliberations that took place. As a significant member of the committee, you had a deep and abiding interest that brought you to other provinces to talk to people about that and to try to resolve the constitutional differences that we had.

I found it disappointing at the very least and appalling probably at the most that again this Legislature was so limited in the amount of time it had to deal with that issue. Individual members had so little time that some of us gave up time to other members so they could make some kind of significant speech on it.

1630

I remember back in 1980, I guess it was, the referendum in Quebec; I think that was 1980. The former government House leader, the member for Riverside, is here. He'll remember well that debate. I thought it was a very good debate in this House, the referendum debate. Each one of us got an opportunity to speak. I was concerned that there wasn't the kind of time we would like to have had to deal with that issue, but I thought it had at least some impact on Quebec; not a major impact, but those of us in this province could stand up and talk about why we wanted to see the province of Quebec stay, why we wanted the people of Quebec to vote against the proposition that was put forward by Mr Lévesque, who was the Premier at the time.

Those are the kinds of debates that I think are good in this House. I well recall some of the sittings when -- I always look this way because the member for Lakeshore at the time, the late Pat Lawlor, who was deceased recently, and we're all saddened by his passing, gave some lengthy speeches in this House that were very good, that were very compelling.

Pat Lawlor or Jim Renwick -- again a member who has passed on, who is no longer with us in this world -- both of these individuals spoke at some length; Elmer Sopha from Sudbury, another person who spoke so eloquently; Stephen Lewis; the member for Hamilton Mountain at the time, or Hamilton Wentworth, Ian Deans; Farquhar Oliver; Bob Nixon: A lot of these people were in this House and made some excellent speeches that were of some length.

Premier Rae has decided that they will no longer have that opportunity; in fact, that they will be confined to 30 minutes except for the lead speaker. I think that's unfortunate and I think that flexibility should be there. That's one of the reasons why we are where we are at this point, in June 1993, and why we have this resolution before the House this afternoon.

I also want to indicate that there has been, in my view, plenty of time for this government to introduce its legislation and to get much of that legislation passed. The government always says, "Well, we have these bills, and Simcoe or Niagara or somebody's waiting for one of these bills." The government will find, if those bills are introduced, they can be processed rather quickly. There's usually an agreement and there's not a problem.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Simcoe.

Mr Bradley: Whatever bill; it depends on what bill on Simcoe we're talking about. There are some bills that will go faster than others, as the member for Riverside most appropriately points out.

I think we can see that kind of legislation passed, but it's important that we not forego lengthy debate on some issues. Let me talk about one of those that I think might well appear. It's on the order paper.

We've had a good debate, by the way, on Sunday shopping. Again, it was splintered up. It was not as effective -- perhaps if I thought the government had a machiavellian mind running it, I would say, with reason, that it was a splintered debate. I cannot make that judgement, because who am I to determine whether it is a machiavellian plot or whether it is simply coincidence that it is split up?

Hon Mr Cooke: You're paranoid.

Mr Bradley: The former House leader makes references which I should not respond to, that you would not want me to, about paranoia, something that seemed to plague him very much when he sat in the opposition benches but doesn't today.

I want to say that, for instance, when I look at the issue of casino gambling, I put that in the same category as Sunday shopping. What was nice, I guess, about the Sunday shopping debate was that members at least had an opportunity to vote the way they wanted to vote on that piece of legislation, except for the cabinet, and I understand that. I'm not critical of the fact that the cabinet must vote as a block. That's the way our parliamentary democracy works.

However, there was an opportunity for members to speak whatever way they wanted on the issue, all parties, in this case, and there was an opportunity for members to vote as they saw fit or to take a walk and not vote all if they did not want to vote against the government but still wanted to express an opinion by being absent.

Another debate that may be coming forward -- I suspect, by the way, even though there is an opportunity for third reading on the Sunday shopping bill, the Retail Holidays Act bill, that there would be no further debate on third reading. Even though some would like to put the arguments further, I think there's been a decision of the Legislature. It was a pretty overwhelming decision, it was a non-whipped vote except for the cabinet, and I think people would accept that. I don't see that going to third reading expecting there's going to be more debate on it.

But I do look at the issue of casino gambling, an issue which has badly split the government benches. I understand why, and I don't say this in a critical sense, because there are many people who for a lifetime have opposed casino gambling as a revenue producer or as a social initiative or whatever category you wish to put it into, and who would like to express views on it. I know you, Mr Speaker, as the member for Victoria-Haliburton, as an individual who sits as an independent in this House today, largely over this particular issue, are a person who would like to see a rather lengthy debate and I would have hoped, for instance, that you would have an opportunity to speak at some length.

I had the chance to read the brief that you presented, that you provided for members of the Legislature, some rather interesting research on the subject. I think that's very helpful to the debate and what's going to happen in this Legislature. It may even persuade the member for Riverside to change his mind, though I somehow think in his circumstances that might not be the case. But it may persuade others to change their minds.

I think it's important that we have very extensive debate on casino gambling. I happen to have one view; others have another view. My view is and has been consistently --

Hon Mr Cooke: What does this have to do with the motion?

Mr Bradley: -- as it has come up over the years -- the member asks what it has to do with the motion. I'm explaining some of the things that might be coming up as a result of this motion, some of the initiatives that I've seen on the order paper, and why we may wish to see the House continue to sit or not see the House continue to sit. Therefore, I think it's extremely relevant to what we're talking about and I somehow think this Speaker is not going to cut me off when I get on to casino gambling.

I want to say that I personally am adamantly opposed to casino gambling in this province, and I am opposed if my own city wants it. If my city of St Catharines requests it, I will still vote against casino gambling because I believe, in principle, fundamentally, that it is not good for the province, and I think an extensive debate should take place because there are others who may have different views that they wish to put forward.

The research that you have and research that was provided by the former Attorney General, now the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Rainy River, when he was a young lawyer on the effects of casino gambling will be very helpful in this House. What I'm concerned about is even if the House continues, individuals who have important contributions to make will be limited to that 30 minutes. Now some members may not want to speak at all on the bill; some members may feel in five or 10 minutes they can canvass all of the issues and present their case; others will want to make a very extensive and comprehensive case either for or against casino gambling in this province.

I'm disappointed because I always looked to the New Democratic Party in certain areas to be the party that would prevent things from happening or make things happen. I happen to be a member of the Liberal Party. I agree most of the time with what the Liberal Party has to say. We have our caucus and we decide what our positions are on various issues, and sometimes I'm in agreement with the majority and there are times when I am not. I suspect that is of course the same in each caucus that is represented in this House.

I would hope that I would have the opportunity to make my case against casino gambling and perhaps persuade members of the House, particularly on the governing side, who are not as committed as the cabinet might be to a bill, to change their minds, to either be absent for a vote or perhaps to cast a vote against casino gambling.

I was very impressed with the arguments that the present Premier, at one time opposition leader, has made over the years against casino gambling. In discussing with some of his former colleagues, who are not always as pleased with what he is doing today as they might be, I was informed that he was one of those who was most adamant in his opposition in years gone by to the introduction of casino gambling.

I think it could have a very detrimental effect and that's why I think there's need for an extensive debate. That's why I wonder why the government wants to rush through a bill of that kind in the kind of timetable that is proposed by the government House leader.

1640

I think, for instance, that members here who watch television from time to time, particularly news types of programs, may well recall, and I thought it was the best argument against casino gambling, the interview by Robert Scully of Donald Trump. While I recognize interviews can be edited -- we've all gone through them, and sometimes a 30-minute interview turns out a four- or five-minute interview -- I thought that Robert Scully really asked pertinent questions of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump wants to have the casino in Windsor. If they're going to have one, he's going to be in on the action. But he made some very good arguments against casino gambling, and when asked, "Would you think it'll benefit a community?" suggested it would not benefit that community and pointed out all the problems that arise. You get organized crime, no matter what you want, what you desire and the moves that you take. It's not that this government wants to see organized crime moving in; it doesn't, but it's inevitable that organized crime moves in when there's casino gambling.

What happens is the Treasurer is always happy to see more money coming in, so the Treasurer says this is a great cash cow for the province, and, "People are going to spend the money gambling somewhere anyway, so why don't we have one in Windsor?" or they could say Niagara Falls or they could say Ottawa; they could say particularly border areas.

What happens is that if it's the only game in town, it produces revenue. If it's got competition, that revenue diminishes considerably, but you still have the problems. I understand in Pennsylvania, though I don't have the information with me, they said when they had one casino, it was great in terms of revenue. When they had two, the problems began. When they had three or four, they started to see that it wasn't all that successful, and it's particularly so when adjacent jurisdictions begin to have casino gambling.

Now, members from the Windsor area would be aware of the plebiscites or referendums -- I'm not sure which it is that they've had -- the votes they've had in the city of Detroit for casino gambling or against it and it has consistently been turned down.

There was a difference, though, because my friend the member for York Centre, who has made some speeches on this, pointed out, and some of the petitions we presented said, that it had been turned down pretty substantially in the past. My understanding is that the last vote in Detroit was about 51-49 against casino gambling.

I would suggest to members of this House that the reason for that is the knowledge that the Ontario government wishes to proceed with the casino in Windsor. They see a loss of business to Windsor, so they are now throwing up their hands -- some of them, at least, who opposed it in the past -- and saying, "Well, if Windsor's going to have it, we're going to have one."

Hon Mr Cooke: They haven't had a public vote since we made the announcement.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): What's that?

Hon Mr Cooke: They haven't had a public vote since we made the announcement.

Mr Bradley: I understood they had.

Hon Mr Cooke: It was a vote in council.

Mr Bradley: It was at a council? It was 51-49, the last I heard.

Anyway, you can be certain that they will establish a casino in Detroit if there's one in Windsor, and with the money Americans have, it'll be a bigger, glitzier, more attractive casino than we're going to have in Windsor, even though the government, when it's placing its casino in Windsor, if it proceeds with this, would want it to be an appropriate building and appropriate operation.

So the compelling argument in terms of revenue begins to fade away as there are other casinos in border jurisdictions, and you still have the problems.

Now, it is said that it produces a lot of jobs. I can't think of a party that has been more critical, with justification, than the New Democratic Party about wanting to replace high-paying jobs with low-paying jobs. Some people would be happy to have any job today, because it's pretty tough times in the province and there's a lot of unemployment. But these are not high-paying, lucrative jobs that you're bringing to the community, with the exception of a few of the key jobs. I would suggest that the employment opportunities, when you look at the competition that's going to be there, are not going to be as great as people had hoped for.

The local people, those who are involved in charities today running a very minor type of Monte Carlo nights where there's not much money changing hands, are going to find that this eats, to a certain extent, into their opportunity to raise funds. I said this back actually when Wintario was introduced -- I was a teacher at the time -- in the staff room. I used to sell a lot of tickets because I belonged to a service club and you'd sell the tickets on a small raffle, the turkeys or something like that. I found when Wintario came in, people would say, "Well, I've bought my Wintario ticket and I'm serving people in this province."

So I think you're going to have problems with casinos, and I suspect even the member for Etobicoke West, though he may not be opposed to them today, upon reflection, and I can't speak for him, may find that they bring with them a good many problems. Certainly the local charity fund-raisers will be hurt.

The horse racing industry: One of my former colleagues, the member for Scarborough something, I think Scarborough Centre, Frank Drea, was an individual who knew something about horse racing when he was in this House. He was seen from time to time to be reading a racing form while sitting in the House. He was appointed to the Ontario Racing Commission in a senior role, and I think he would recognize that the horse racing industry, which produces a lot of jobs, would be hurt by casino gambling, and therefore people would want to see a very extensive debate on casino gambling in this House.

The other point I would make is that they will say that people will gamble, but the most glamorous kind of gambling, the most glitzy kind of gambling, is a casino. I would suggest that those who are addicted to casino gambling, and their families can speak best to this, will come in great numbers to squander their money and to lose their money in these casinos.

But what, I guess, is most disconcerting is that it's the New Democratic Party that is implementing casino gambling, because the New Democratic Party as a whole has consistently and admirably been opposed to casino gambling. It has been a party which has stated its view that there should not be a tax on poor people in this province, yet the gambling initiatives really are a tax on those who are looking for the big chance to gain some wealth and to get ahead financially.

For that reason I'm very surprised that the party of Mel Swart -- and I'm sure Mr Swart, whose birthday may even be today or tomorrow, I know he's going to be celebrating a birthday this week, must be very concerned when he sees that an NDP government, that he fought for so long to get into power, would now be advocating casino gambling. That's why I think that's important.

I expect any Saturday now to read in the Toronto Star a column from Michele Landsberg, who writes with such objectivity on so many issues confronting the government. I'm sure Ms Landsberg would want to point out to people in the province the detrimental effects of casino gambling, as she has done so often in the very straightforward and objective manner with which she has dealt with issues that have confronted this government and others.

I want to say, as well, as I look down some of the notes that I made to myself here, that this issue of Sunday shopping having been disposed of, really was a situation where the government did a flip-flop. I had people in my constituency, and I'm sure other did around Ontario, who said: "Well, you know, you people in the Liberal Party are allowing municipalities to make their own choice, and we don't think that's good because a lot of them might opt for Sunday shopping. So we agree with Bob Rae and the New Democratic Party that we should have a common pause day."

I agreed personally with that point of view. As a member of the cabinet, one must support cabinet policy, but I agreed with the common pause day and I thought that, well, one of the consolation prizes of having an NDP government elected would be that there would be a common pause day, something with which many people agreed. But we found out, as the member for Etobicoke West may be surprised to find out, that in fact this government reversed its stand and the Premier says: "It's wide open. Holidays, Sundays, go to it. Shop till you drop." That is a departure from the other policy.

1650

I also looked at Bill 164, the auto insurance bill, and I thought if this had been introduced earlier, in a different time frame, we probably would not have to see an extension of the sitting of this House. Now Bill 164 -- and the member for Etobicoke West, who is sitting beside me, will correct me quietly and personally because he can't interject legally from where he is sitting, but would correct me if I am wrong -- is this not contrary to what the NDP stood for in opposition?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Jim, you're absolutely right.

Mr Bradley: I remember they were for public auto insurance, and while the other two parties in the House were not for public auto insurance because they felt there would be some problems with it, everyone felt that we -- one of the pillars of the NDP, in terms of its platform, An Agenda for People, was its suggestion and its promise that we should have, as they called it, driver-owned, as we called it, government-run, automobile insurance, and they have backed away from that position. The Premier did a full retreat.

You start to date yourself when you remember television programs, but there used to be one called The Silent Service. They had all these sayings -- it repeated itself very often. It was a submarine and you'd hear them say "Reverse engine" or "Right full rudder" or "All ahead full speed," and so on. Well, there's been a lot of reversing of engines in this particular case, and I have heard on many occasions, if others haven't, the bugles of retreat being sounded in this House on so many occasions where the government has reversed its position on fundamental party policy --

Mr Stockwell: Right full speed as well.

Mr Bradley: -- right full speed as well -- such as Bill 164, the auto insurance bill.

The member for Welland-Thorold, the present member for Welland-Thorold who campaigned so vigorously in favour of this, the former member for Welland-Thorold who used to rise in this House with issues related to automobile insurance, both had to be disappointed and would like to see, I'm sure, a more extensive debate in this House and would like to have seen this legislation introduced earlier so it could have received that kind of consideration. I suspect both of them would like to have seen the House back in February to deal with this kind of issue, instead of rushing at the last moment and imposing all kinds of time limitations on these debates.

It has once again been pointed out to me something that I mentioned earlier, but there may be people who are now watching the parliamentary network who weren't aware that the government did not sit for over four months. This Legislature was not allowed to sit because the Premier did not want to be confronted by the opposition in the daily question period and by the news media.

Another thing that I can understand being debated in this House would be the tax increases in the last budget. Every political party, every government has imposed some tax increases to pay for programs that have been suggested in this House and elsewhere, but I think most people would contend that those tax increases, at a time when we're in the midst of a very difficult recession, were ill timed.

I know the member for Wentworth East and the member for Welland-Thorold, who are in the public gallery today, as they often are consulting people of Ontario on various issues, would probably be ill at ease with some of the taxes that were imposed on people.

People out there must know that on July 1 the income tax is going to hit hard. It's not just the rich who are being taxed -- although that's another issue, because we have to say that we want people to invest in this province, so it may not even be wise at this point in time to tax the rich -- but also modest-income people who will feel the effects of a variety of taxes that have been imposed by this government.

I think most people will be quite surprised because, Mr Speaker, as you would know, in order to get a full year's revenue, the government is going to be double-taxing beginning July 1.

I also want to deal with the issue of polls. I know that in past years governments have been interested in polls. I've done polling with the taxpayers' money to see where everybody stands, but I heard speeches in the House the other day, and the Premier of this province certainly expressed his view on polling. He said it was an abuse of power, it was an abuse of democracy to have governments taking taxpayers' dollars and polling to find out what the taxpayers or what those who replied to the questioners had to say and then implementing policy.

I remember a time when the NDP knew where it stood and didn't need polls to tell it where it stood, because they were fundamentally in favour of certain things and fundamentally opposed. So while I might have expected the other parties to engage in some polling, I well remember that the Premier, when in opposition, was so critical of this practice that I thought, in government, surely we will be able to count on our friend Bob to implement those principles as Premier of this province.

I put a request in to the freedom of information office and was able to --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for St Catharines is giving, I think, a very good speech and I think there should be a quorum here to hear it.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the table to ascertain if there is a quorum.

Acting Table Clerk (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for St Catharines has the floor.

Mr Bradley: I apologize to members of the House that I have to use a cough candy, but I have had some problems with my throat lately which are soothed by this. So I may not speak as clearly as I would like.

I want to thank the member for Etobicoke West for ensuring that there was a reasonable group of people here to listen to the compelling arguments that are being made on this particular resolution.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): One Tory and one other Liberal. That is how many people are in here to hear you.

Mr Bradley: Well, we're into polling and the cost of polling. The other day I met with -- it was last Friday in fact, and I mentioned this is the House the other day -- people who are respite workers and care givers associated with Alzheimer's patients. I found that they needed about $25,000 in the Niagara region to be able to carry out a very good program, a program which was initiated by previous governments and carried on by this government; a great commitment to it, I think, by this government.

I was thinking on that morning the government had $1.4 million to spend on polling to tell it what it thinks and yet it didn't have the $25,000 which would allow this program to meet the needs within our area. It's a small amount of money.

I understand why, if it were $24 million, the government would be very cautious about committing; I understand that, even if it was $2.4 million or something of that nature. But this is $25,000, and I thought, how ironic that the government has money for polling, particularly when the Premier, in principle and ethically, opposed polling when in opposition, that they'd be squandering money on that. I hope the Premier will abandon it.

The Chair of the Management Board, who answered the question, said, "Well, you know, the previous governments had done this." The retort I had for that was that this particular government was always opposed to it, including the member for Ottawa Centre, who was always a person of principle in the past -- still is. I would have thought that she would have opposed Bill Davis and the government doing that, but apparently she doesn't. She agrees that governments should be spending money to tell them what they think and then not share those results with the opposition or anybody else until they're forced to do so by a freedom of information request. That's exactly when you revealed them, when you got a freedom of information request. I am quite surprised that the government wasn't different on this issue.

But to go back to the respite workers who work with Alzheimer's patients, what I found difficult to accept was, here are people who have an Alzheimer's patient in the home who, 24 hours a day, must spend time with that person. Those people are often very ill, often very, very difficult to communicate with, and have to be virtually watched all of the time, according to the care givers.

1700

The respite workers come in for a maximum of 20 hours a week. Most people get much less service than the 20 hours, but at least that provides some break for the care giver to be able to get that person's life in order, perhaps to work at a part-time job, perhaps to do some shopping, perhaps just to not be confronted with the difficulties, the challenges, that a patient who has Alzheimer's in an advanced stage or some other dementia presents.

As to the respite workers, very dedicated people, who are prepared to work with those folks who are afflicted with Alzheimer's, what's happened is the government hasn't gone in with an axe and slashed without mercy, but we have more people in need of that service, and as a result, to maintain the number of hours, we find that it's very difficult, and that money is needed.

I'm not a person, and people in this House will note that, who is obsessed entirely with deficits. I think they're important to address. I think governments want to be efficient. But I think we always must remember that there are very vulnerable people in our society who will need our help. This case is a combination of vulnerability and a relatively low cost to meet a very important need. I think that would have been advisable.

We get into government advertising, similar to polling. There are some advertisements the government puts in the newspaper or has on television or on radio that are informational and are needed for people. Some information is provided that way. Others have a pretty pronounced political tinge to them. They are most annoying because if a political party wishes to spend its money on such advertising, one can't object; that's political advertising.

But when governments do it -- some of the members who sat here during the Davis years will well remember the "Life is Good, Ontario; Preserve It, Conserve It," which is a subliminal, and I think is the word they use, message that you should be happy with what's happening in Ontario; "preserve" and "conserve," of course, for Progressive Conservative. That was one. There was other blatant government advertising that would take place, self-congratulatory government advertising.

My concern is that it's creeping into this government as well. I know the frustration. The Premier and perhaps members of the cabinet believe that their message hasn't necessarily got out through the popular news media. Some in opposition may say they've received very favourable coverage. It depends on how one looks at it.

To circumvent the popular news media, they place ads in the newspapers. I thought it appalling last weekend to open the newspaper and look at full page advertisements with the Premier's letter, which was clearly the government line.

If the Premier wishes to make a speech in the House on that, or wishes to go to Sault Ste Marie and make a speech to explain to the people there, personally I think the Premier has every right to do that and to meet people directly to talk about it and to make his case whenever he can.

There's also free time broadcasting on CBC. I watched the Premier last week on it.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It is an important initiative, you've got to admit.

Mr Bradley: It's certainly an important initiative; no one denies that. But I think that when governments spend a lot of money --

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: The Minister of Housing is intervening, and that reminds me of her rent control ads. They were one of the worst cases I've seen of blatant partisan advertising, your rent control ads, where you say, "Well, things were awful under previous governments, but we're the NDP and we fixed it for you." That wasn't even informational.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I am very proud of it.

Mr Bradley: That was a blatant case of political advertising, and you should be ashamed of that because that is a classic case.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be information out there; I agree there should be. I think the pamphlets that go out from time to time are helpful. But all that was, was a case of partisan advertising, and that's what annoys independent and objective observers. That money could be used to address the needs of vulnerable people in our society.

I was quite surprised and quite appalled to see on the front lawn of this Legislature not all that long ago people who are mentally challenged, people from various associations for community living who came to the Legislature because there was a possibility of funding being reduced or not provided to meet their needs for adequate sheltered workshops. These people came from all over the province. It wasn't simply the individuals themselves, it was, again, the staff people and others who were very concerned.

I know that in my part of the province, in my experience in this House, one group of people I have always felt deserved to have their needs met are those who are vulnerable in that case. Now, there are other people in that situation. There was a person by the name of --

Mr Martin: They were happy.

Mr Bradley: The member for Sault Ste Marie says they were happy, but they weren't happy with an NDP government, to have to come to Queen's Park to make that case on the steps of Queen's Park under an NDP government.

Another kind of person, another young individual whose parents would certainly want to see some assistance from this government, as opposed to government advertising or polling, would be the parents of Sarah McLaughlin. I received a very difficult letter, quite obviously, for the people to write about their daughter and all the difficulties their daughter faced and I raised it in the Legislature. I don't like using names in the Legislature, but these people asked that this issue be raised because their daughter was facing this situation.

I'll just read a couple of excerpts from the letter because I think it's important. They want that to be known because their need is out there. It says:

"I am writing to you with regard to our daughter, Sarah McLaughlin. We urgently need your support to help us obtain more hours of intervention" -- that is in the home itself -- "with her in-home special needs worker.

"Sarah is a 19-month-old, deaf and blind, developmentally delayed child. She has infantile spasms, which are a form of epileptic seizures. Last year, she was experiencing 50 to 100 seizures per day."

She also has other problems, "microcephalic, which means her head and brain are smaller than normal, and possibly she is mentally handicapped."

That's what it says in the letter here.

What they're asking for essentially is a worker who has special training, special education, who can enhance the quality of life of this young person. Yet because of cutbacks, that person will not be able to receive that kind of help.

That's why when I see the advertising, when I see the polling, when I see some of the questionable expenditures, I say better to place it with people of this kind.

If the House can't deal with these issues, if the House is never sitting or seldom sitting under the regular rules, we don't have those chances to raise those issues. I hope we can address the needs of that person. I don't think there's anybody in this Legislature who would want to see those needs not addressed.

I could go on with many others. There are other examples of people who believe that some of the legislation the government is bringing forward would not be positive for the province and that other of the legislation would certainly require some amendment, some improvement. Sometimes basically the legislation is good, but there is a need for that kind of change.

Matters of health care in this province: I well recall, sitting on the other side of the House and in fact sitting on this side of the House years ago, the number of questions which were directed to the Minister of Health about improving the quality of health care in the province. What I see happening to our health care system is alarming, because I see -- in some cases, some positive things; I don't want to be totally negative; I see some positive things -- a deterioration of the service that's going to be available in this province in the field of health care.

I think some of the decisions that are being made are unwise. Others should be supported. Some are as a result of work that started back perhaps when the Conservatives were in power. The Liberals worked with it for a while. The New Democrats are making some fine-tuning changes and so on and some of that can be supported and should be supported.

1710

But I'm quite alarmed that the health care system is not going to be able to address the needs of this province much more into the future. I'm also mindful of the cost. It's a very great cost. I always say to people, these days particularly when we're in difficult economic times, that if you want these services there is a cost to them. That cost is going to be addressed by either borrowing the money to purchase those services, to provide those services, or it's going to mean more taxes, or it's going to mean that governments are going to have to eliminate some programs, projects and initiatives that the people might like to have but cannot be sustained if we're to provide adequate health care. I think health care issues should be paramount in this House over the next several months.

The problems facing farmers are also great. I don't represent a farming community, but there are many farmers around. My interest is twofold: one, in ensuring that the family farm can survive and that farming is a viable operation in Ontario -- I think it's an important business; the second is the saving of agricultural land.

I become alarmed when I see municipalities gobbling up agricultural land. I understand farmers who wish to sell their land or sever it, because they simply can't make the kind of profit that makes it viable.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has been endeavouring to persuade his colleagues to provide conservation easements in the Niagara Peninsula so that we can retain some of that unique farm land for farming purposes, rather than having individuals sell it off for development purposes.

When I first started to go to Toronto 16 years ago, it used to be a rather scenic drive between St Catharines and Toronto. If I went on the train or the bus, you saw the farm land, you saw the fruit land and you kind of had a good feeling about our part of Ontario. Today I look along the same road and there are warehouses. They're not operations that are providing a lot of employment, but they're eating up good agricultural land. The reason they are is that it is not easy to be a farmer in Ontario at this time and hasn't been for a period of time.

I think the conservation easements allow for the retention of agricultural land. Stephen Lewis made it a big issue in his earlier days in the 1970s in this Parliament. The Globe and Mail used to write about it an awful lot in years gone by as an important issue, and I think it remains an important issue because there are some people who believe that, unless you pave every last centimetre of land, somehow you're not putting it to its best use. I don't agree with that. So I implore people to support the government in the initiative.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for York Centre, on a point of order.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is a very important speech by the member for St Catharines and I think it's important that the government provide a quorum for this House.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the table to ascertain if there is a quorum.

Acting Table Clerk: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present, The honourable member for St Catharines has the floor.

Mr Bradley: One of the issues I hoped might have been dealt with again -- in addition to the farm land, which I think it is exceedingly important that we retain, because it's not only for our purposes, it's for future generations and other parts of the world. We have some lush farm land down in southwestern Ontario; We have some in the Niagara Peninsula.

I was disappointed to see that the city of London was allowed to consume, to gobble up so much of that land, put it inside its boundaries. I know it's easy to say that just because it's inside its boundaries doesn't mean it's going to get developed. The chances are much greater that it will.

When I think of the future, yes, the prices are low today, but they're low to a certain extent because there's some competition locally, some competition in Ontario. Take away that competition, take away that source of food in our province, and we will find that indeed those prices will increase.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's amazing; only a minute has gone by and there's no longer a quorum. The government is not holding the quorum.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the table to ascertain if there is a quorum.

Acting Table Clerk: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for St Catharines has the floor.

Mr Bradley: In addition to the situation with farm land and the disappearance of farm land in our province, I also have a concern -- and Mr Sewell was here, John Sewell, and his commission. Mr Penfold I think was with him at the time, and Toby Vigod was with him as well, the three-person commission. I thought that one of the issues they could have addressed was in fact that of the Niagara Escarpment.

There are people out there who are now endeavouring to erode the jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment. Many of them come out and state that they are actually interested in the escarpment and they're home owners and they simply want to enhance its beauty and perhaps add something to it.

We have to remember that the Niagara Escarpment has many enemies. The enemies are those who want to develop, again, some of the most beautiful land that we have. The United Nations consider it to be a biosphere, a very important environmental treasure that we have in the province.

I listened with interest and read with interest the report that the hearing officers had on the five-year plan. It alarms me, some of the conclusions that they reached.

There's a bit of a lull now in the environmental movement. They are unable to raise the funds they once had. They certainly aren't able to grab the media attention that they once were able to grab. Indeed, if an environmental question is asked in this Legislature, there is seldom much coverage of it. That is totally in contrast to half a dozen years ago when in fact that would always be a matter of great interest.

I think the Niagara Escarpment can slip away from us, not in one stroke of the pen, but it can slip away from us by allowing a severance here, a subdivision there and a development here. Eventually, one argument leads to the next argument.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Death by a thousand cuts.

Mr Bradley: The member for Durham West certainly uses the proper terminology of "death by a thousand cuts," because we start to say that it's all right here, it's all right here, it's all right here, and finally we find out that the escarpment in effect is gone. So I hope members of the governing side will keep pressure on the cabinet and that the cabinet itself will take the initiative to preserve our escarpment.

I'm also concerned -- and I know that the Legislature would want to deal with matters of this kind if it were back earlier -- with the situation facing university students and community college students, both in terms of their employment opportunities this summer so that they can help to put themselves through college or university, or those who are leaving college and university and don't have a chance immediately to find some kind of reasonable employment position.

1720

But what's even more alarming is the fact that it's becoming much more expensive to go to school. One of the items I would have found in the Agenda for People, which everybody would remember, was in fact the promise that there would be an elimination of tuition for students. This may have been an unrealistic promise. I think a lot of people thought it would be implemented. I guess what is disconcerting is that not only has that promise not been kept --

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since we are debating whether we will be extending the sittings, I think it would be appropriate if we had a quorum, and I don't believe there's one present.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the table to ascertain if there is a quorum in the House.

Acting Table Clerk: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for St Catharines has the floor.

Mr Bradley: The people going to college or university find that their tuition fees have increased, that they can no longer get a grant to assist them to go to university -- it's now all a loan -- and that the number of spaces available in our colleges and universities have diminished rather considerably, or will at least in this particular year.

A lot of young people seeking higher education, seeking to prepare themselves for a very competitive future in this world, are finding that as a result of government policy, as a result of the downturn in the economy, they won't have that opportunity, or at least the sacrifice will be very, very significant in terms of mortgaging their future with student loans.

On behalf of those people and their parents, I think those of us in this assembly should be initiating action to ensure that they are able to go to school and that we don't have a situation where they're denied that opportunity well into the future.

We also have, if I may be a bit parochial, but it applies to all of Ontario, a circumstance where there was a policy on the part of the government of David Peterson to share government ministries with other parts of the province. We in St Catharines had the opportunity to have the Ministry of Transportation located in the city, bringing what we thought would be 1,400 jobs to our community.

There's quite a history to this. I won't go into the details of it, but there was considerable opposition on the part of the government to proceeding with that. I understand that when a government is new it has the opportunity and the right to evaluate the policies of a previous government and either proceed in that direction or not.

But it was almost a case of dragging the government, kicking and screaming, into maintaining this policy. I would suggest that had it not been for the other unfortunate circumstances confronting our city, such as the unemployment as a result of announcements made by General Motors, we might not even have the Ministry of Transportation there.

We had some bad news this week with that move, that in fact the number of jobs is reduced by some 400, and so many people who had anticipated being able to obtain employment positions and many who anticipated that they would have the opportunity to service the ministry are disappointed this week that this is the result.

I can recall raising this issue in the House. The Minister of Municipal Affairs was in a huff. He was at that time Minister of Transportation. I suggested that the government was reconsidering its moves to various communities and he said, "Well, you're rumour-mongering and you're simply scaring people in your community." I would ask it of the Premier and ask it of other members of the government.

The reason was quite simple. I know what governments go through. The government is evaluating all of its options in terms of its reduction of spending, and it was essential to raise this issue in the House and on other public platforms in order that the government would be persuaded to proceed with that move. I am pleased that the government has confirmed it is going to move those jobs, but I am concerned that there are only 1,000 instead of 1,400.

Members of this House will be aware that the Niagara Peninsula, and specifically St Catharines, has been hit with some very bad news over the last year and a half. The first bit of bad news was the announcement of the closing of the foundry in St Catharines and a portion of the engine plant, though a small portion, as well as some 750 people being laid off indefinitely. Between the engine plant and the foundry, the total jobs lost, along with those indefinite layoffs, would be about 3,000. Subsequent to that, several months later we had an announcement that General Motors was going to sell its axle division.

These are very efficient plants. We had good workers in them who are dedicated people trying to make them viable operations, efficient operations, and yet the announcements were made that the plants would be closed in one case and sold in the other.

I suggested at the time, though I recognize that only one of the many factors General Motors takes into account is the provincial government, that I didn't think that was a positive consideration for General Motors. Not that it was the reason they moved out or closed down, it would be unfair to suggest that, but that it was definitely a negative factor.

I suggested that the Premier go to Detroit on that occasion to speak to the top people in General Motors to try to persuade them that Ontario would be a good place to maintain operations. The Premier didn't think that was as good an idea. He headed off on a trip to Asia and he headed off on a trip to Europe -- both important. Unfortunately, they were both while the House was sitting, which I object to, but I'm not suggesting the Premier shouldn't take those kinds of initiatives when the House is not sitting and in an appropriate time.

I would have thought his time would have been better spent on that occasion going to Detroit, however. He's a persuasive individual; he is a well-spoken articulate individual, I think respected in many areas, and I think his presence in Detroit would have been helpful. Had he not been successful in changing the minds of the top people at General Motors, I would not have been critical. I would have been, I think, appropriately supportive of the fact that he at least made an effort.

Unfortunately, that chance has passed by and the trip to Asia and the trip to Europe I don't think were as productive in retaining those jobs as would have been a trip to the city of Detroit. But I hope in the future if that happens that our Premier will meet with those top people in General Motors.

I had someone stop me outside the other day and say: "Don't you realize General Motors' address in the phone book is in Oshawa? That's the headquarters of General Motors." Well, I'm sure members of the New Democratic Party would know that General Motors is not run from Oshawa. Although we have people there in managerial positions who make certain decisions, ultimately the decisions are made in either Detroit or New York for General Motors. That's why I think it's going to be important for us to try to retain those jobs with the persuasion of the Premier and the government, because there are many sad people in our community.

Let me tell members of the House, the effects aren't there yet. I mean, for some people they are, the 750 who are indefinitely laid off -- "indefinitely" in this case means for a long, long period of time -- are on the rolls, but the full effect of the closing of the foundry, which isn't coming for a while yet, is not felt in the community, and of the selling and potential closing -- we hope not -- of the axle plant.

So it seems to me that we will have to develop in this Legislature -- and certainly the government taking the initiative -- the kind of policies which will encourage people to invest in Ontario. For some members of the New Democratic Party it may be difficult to countenance those. For instance, the Treasurer brought in a tax in this particular budget that's very attractive to the average person in this province. It's the minimum corporate tax. I think most people in most circumstances would say, "Sure, everybody should pay some kind of tax."

Unfortunately, we're in a very, very competitive world, not only with competition from the US, but also from offshore and other places -- Europe, Asia, even South America -- today. It seems to me that we have to gear many of our policies to attracting investment, and second -- this is why, of course, we need a side agreement at the very least to the NAFTA agreement, which I wish they would abandon -- you have to gear your policies to attracting and maintaining investment.

1730

This should not be at the sacrifice of some of the essentials that we feel are important in this country. I don't think this government is going to do that. I don't think any government should do that. But it may be that some of the tax increases or tax changes that appear attractive to most of us as average citizens in this province should be either postponed or abandoned so that this business will stay in Ontario.

One of the suggestions I've made is that the gas guzzler tax, as it's referred to -- I call it the tax on auto workers -- be removed for the following reason: Anybody who makes a purchase of a vehicle recognizes the huge taxes, the GST, the PST, the gas guzzler tax, an air-conditioning tax and all kinds of other little costs that go with a vehicle. It seems to me if the Treasurer would abandon the tax on auto workers, the so-called gas guzzler tax, it would encourage people to purchase new vehicles. When they purchase new vehicles and replace their old clunkers they solve an environmental problem to a certain extent and they help to solve an economic problem.

First of all, if people are making the purchases, then people in St Catharines, Windsor, Oakville, Oshawa, St Thomas, London and any place around Ontario -- Alliston and other places -- who are going to make purchases may choose to purchase a vehicle, so it helps the economy and gets it moving again. The auto industry is extremely important to all of us.

Second, the newer vehicles that are purchased are, by and large, vehicles that have better fuel efficiency and certainly have better emission controls as far as pollution control equipment is concerned. I think that's a positive suggestion we in the opposition have offered on many occasions that would help Ontario and certainly help the automotive industry.

There are so many things that could be done in the province if we could get the economy moving again. It seems to me that getting the economy moving again, getting job opportunities available again and getting people back to work is the main priority of all of us. I think that would in the long term, and perhaps even in the medium term, address many of our problems of the deficit.

I've mentioned on a couple of occasions that I think the Premier and perhaps the Treasurer have been spooked a bit by two things, and I notice the Fraser Institute has now put out a booklet on it. They have been spooked by the New Zealand story on W5 and by the people who loan money and have the credit ratings in New York, both of whom have given some dire warnings to this government that if it doesn't drastically change its ways, somehow the world will end. Certainly, the government has to move in that direction, and perhaps if I wanted to look in retrospect, should have moved in that direction in the first year of the recession, but that's gone by. They should move to address that.

On the other hand, I think we always have to remember that most people I meet, and I think that most members meet, are concerned about their jobs and job opportunities.

Once they get back to work, once they're spending money on services and goods, once they have confidence back again, perhaps even making some investments on their own, we'll find that a lot of the services that we want in this province -- the Niagara Peninsula children's centre, for instance, which requires some money from the Ministry of Health, and I've made representations to the minister to provide that from within the present allocation that she has; I'm not asking for new ones, just putting the priority for our own area -- with increased revenues and increased stimulus to the economy, many of those social needs will be able to be met.

The conservation authorities, for instance, that have been hit with a new tax change by the provincial Treasurer, will not then have to sell off environmentally sensitive land in order to meet their financial obligations. Again, even people who are not environmentalists in the province, who are conservationists, would consider it important that these lands be retained for future generations and not lost to the tax man.

We have so many problems we could deal with in the province, so many reasons why we should be dealing with some important legislation that I suspect when the House leaders get together, they will try to establish some priorities: the government indicating what it considers to be its priorities, the opposition indicating what amount of debate will be necessary to carry out its responsibilities.

I know when I spoke to service clubs, both in opposition and in government, particularly in government, I always took time to point out the importance of the opposition and the role the opposition plays. I know when you're in government, the opposition appears to be annoying.

Some of my colleagues in the cabinet in which I sat who had never sat in the Legislature had a somewhat different point of view than those of us who had sat in opposition. It's not that we agreed with what the opposition was doing necessarily, those who had served for a number of years, but we understood how the place worked and why the opposition was doing certain things. It's nice when there's a blend of both those who have served for some period of time and new people in a cabinet, to get a different perspective.

I understand why the government is eager to get out of the House. When I was in government, I can recall that my colleagues and I did not always want to be sitting in the Legislature, because there's other work that ministers want to do, other work that committees want to do. Nevertheless, it was a responsibility to be accountable to the House. I'm one who believes that I'm prepared to sit all summer. Now, everybody says that. The government always says, "We're prepared to sit all summer," but there isn't anybody who's sat in government who doesn't know that the government doesn't want to sit all summer.

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, let the motion pass.

Mr Bradley: The member for Windsor-Riverside says he wants the motion to pass. It may or may not pass. The government has a majority. There may be some members of the governing side who, having listened to my remarks, have changed their minds and are prepared to either not vote and leave the House or some may be showing the kind of principle and personal initiative to actually oppose the government on this issue.

I've endeavoured, certainly over the period of time that I have spoken to the House this afternoon, to be persuasive. I've noted the attentiveness of those who were able to make it this afternoon. I think I've had the opportunity to persuade some. Certainly, there has been some nodding on the other side when I've been speaking and I hope it's not nodding off that I've seen. But I'm the eternal optimist and I always believe that where there is life, there is hope. We have life on the other benches, I think, and therefore we have hope that the government will change its mind.

I hope the government House leader will be a reasonable person. I know the opposition House leaders will be very reasonable. I think matters can be resolved with reasonable people dealing with them.

I implore members of the government to put the necessary pressure on the Premier, who runs everything, and the person who carries out his responsibilities, the government House leader, to act in a responsible way, to abandon unwise legislation and to proceed with legislation that may be of benefit to this province. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the House.

Report continues in volume B.

June 23, 1993

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

REPORT, COMMISSION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

SALE OF FISH

EMANCIPATION CELEBRATIONS

TAX AND FEE INCREASES

HEALTH SERVICES

METROPOLITAN AGENCIES REPRESENTATIVES' COUNCIL

NORTHERN EDUCATION SERVICES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

OSHAWA FIESTA

VISITORS

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SOCIAL CONTRACT

YORK DETENTION CENTRE

WAGE PROTECTION

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

LANDFILL

SOCIAL CONTRACT

RACE RELATIONS

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

HEALTH CARE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CONTRAT SOCIAL

HISTORIC VEHICLES

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

DRUG BENEFITS

LANDFILL

WATER QUALITY

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

GO BUS SERVICE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES DROITS CIVILS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S COMMENTS

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

MEETINGS OF THE HOUSE