Journal des débats 1989-janv-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

On Thursday, in the question that I asked to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I gave her and the House some information which, upon further consultation with the Ontario Hospital Association and the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto, was incorrect. I want to apologize to the House for doing that. It happened because of the information that was given to us by the OHA, which was obviously misunderstood.

I regret having done so and I want to apologize to the House, but I might also add that I regret as well that the Toronto hospital council has told us today that it is not going to give us the latest survey. It was instructed not to give us the latest survey. I might just add, that does make our task a little bit more difficult.

I do apologize to the minister and the House for having goofed on Thursday.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr. Speaker: I would just like to inform the House that on Thursday last, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) raised a point of order with respect to government notice of motion 20 standing in Orders and Notices in the name of the government House leader.

The Leader of the Opposition argued that government notice of motion 20, which proposes to fix the amount of time for further proceedings on Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, is not in order because it proposes to allocate time to the consideration of two bills and because it proposes to allocate time to prospective stages of legislation which the House has yet to reach.

The argument of the Leader of the Opposition was supported by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and opposed by the government House leader.

Over the weekend, I had an opportunity to review the arguments of the three members, the standing orders, the decisions of Speaker Turner on December 8, 1982, February 15, 1983, and June 25, 1984, and the parliamentary law texts, and also had the opportunity to discuss the matter with other presiding officers from across Canada.

Before I discuss the arguments raised, let me begin by stating that I believe it is important that the House clearly understand the nature of an allocation of time motion. Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 20th edition, at pages 454 and 455 states:

“In many sessions in order to secure the passage of particularly important and controversial legislation, governments have been confronted with the choice, unless special powers are taken, of cutting down their normal program to an undesirable extent, or of prolonging the sittings of Parliament, or else of acknowledging the impotence of the majority of the House in the face of the resistance of the minority.

“In such circumstances resort is had sooner or later to the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure, namely, the setting of a date by which a committee must report, or the allocation of a specified number of days to the various stages of a bill and of limited amounts of time to particular portions of a bill.

“Orders made under this procedure are known as ‘allocation of time’ orders, and colloquially as ‘guillotine’ motions. They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.

“The allocation of limited amounts of time to the stages of bills, and occasionally other kinds of business, forms no part of the general procedure of the House, but is applied in each case to a particular bill (or several bills jointly) or other specified business by a special order.”

The House has adopted the standing orders which are the permanent rules for the guiding and the control of the House in the conduct of its business. The standing orders do not form a complete code of procedure for the House to discharge its functions. They may be supplemented from time to time by sessional orders or special resolutions to facilitate the progress of business through the House. The standing orders are not safeguarded by any special procedure against amendment, repeal or suspension. They are passed by the House by a simple majority and may be altered, supplemented or deleted by a simple resolution in the same way.

Standing order 40(a) provides that: “A substantive motion is one that is not incidental to any other business of the House, but is a self-contained proposal capable of expressing a decision of the House. Examples of such motions are: the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, the budget motion, want of confidence motions in allotted sittings, resolutions, motions for returns or addresses, and motions for the appointment of committees.” The list of examples of substantive motions set out in this standing order is not exhaustive.

Further, clause 40(c) of the standing orders states, “Such motions require notice and must be submitted to the Speaker in writing when moved, before being put to the House for debate.” It has been settled that a motion for the allocation of time is a substantive motion and may be moved upon proper notice being given.

In the case at hand, I am satisfied that the requirement that notice be given has been met. I am left to decide, first, whether two or more bills may be the subject of a motion for time allocation. In the Ontario Legislature, time allocation orders have only been made on four occasions and in all cases applied to allotting time to the consideration of the remaining stages of one bill. In contingencies not provided for, standing order 1(b) provides that the Speaker “shall base his decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition” so far as they may be applicable. I have therefore looked to the precedents and practices of this House and other jurisdictions to determine if they provided any guidance.

On January 9, 1986, this House agreed by unanimous consent to permit the motions for second reading of three related bills to be moved together and for the bills to be debated together. Although this motion was passed by unanimous consent on that day, it still represents the will of the House and this does not take anything away from the absolute right of the House to determine its own procedure.

1340

In the House of Commons at Westminster, precedent has been established to allocate time in one motion to several bills jointly. Most recently, at the end of the last session, a time allocation order dealt with two unrelated bills dealing with school boards in Scotland and firearms. In 1975-76, five unrelated bills were the subject of three time allocation orders passed on one day.

Although the standing orders speak of “the allocation of time to any proceedings on a bill,” the rule has not been interpreted to prevent a time allocation order from allocating time in one motion to more than one bill.

J. A. Pettifer, in House of Representatives Practice, notes that it is not unusual, to meet the convenience of the Australian House of Representatives, for the rules to be suspended to enable related bills to be considered together.

The standing orders specifically provide for allocation of time, speaking of the time allotted to various stages “of the bill.” This has not been interpreted, however, as preventing the allocation of time to a group of bills.

Having weighed the arguments of honourable members and the precedents and practices of this House and other legislatures, I must advise the House that I am persuaded that the motion in Orders and Notices is in order, even though it provides for the allocation of time to the consideration of two bills.

Finally, I must consider whether the motion is out of order because it proposes to allocate time to prospective stages of legislation which the House has yet to reach.

The very purpose of a motion to allocate time is to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at any one or more stages of any bill. This includes proceedings at the stage at which the legislation is currently before the House and proceedings at remaining stages for consideration of the legislation.

The time allocation orders passed by this House in 1982, 1984 and 1986 each specifically allotted time to the stage at which the bills under consideration stood in Orders and Notices. The orders also applied to the remaining stages for consideration of the bills.

Members might be guided by the Canadian House of Commons in this matter. In December 1988, Parliament was called into session to deal with only one bill. That was the bill relating to the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America. The Canadian government in this case introduced a notice of motion setting out a time schedule for the consideration of the bill and suspending a number of standing orders. This notice of motion did not stem from the House of Commons standing order specifying allocation of time. This notice of motion fell into exactly the same category as the notice of motion which the government House leader is seeking to introduce, except that it went much further and was seeking to set out a special procedure as well as a time allocation for the whole process relating to the free trade bill.

Faced with a point of order on this question, Speaker Fraser decided that it was in order for such a motion to be introduced as it is always in order for the House to make the appropriate decisions relating to its procedures.

I therefore find government notice of motion 20 to be in order.

In addition to questioning whether the motion is an abuse of the standing orders, both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Carleton questioned whether the rights of the minority have been infringed.

In my opinion, government notice of motion 20 does not infringe the rights of the minority.

Both the minority and the majority have rights. As your Speaker, I have a particular duty to protect the rights of minorities; but, in the exercise of my impartiality, I must not lose sight of the rights of the majority. When I was first elected Speaker on June 4, 1985, and when I was re-elected Speaker on November 3, 1987, I pledged to safeguard the rights and privileges of each of you and to serve with fairness, firmness and impartiality. This pledge continues to be of paramount importance to me.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside has a point of order. However, I made a ruling. I will remind the honourable member that it is not possible to debate the ruling, but to challenge it.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I understand that. I understand that I cannot debate or give reasons. I do appreciate the fact that your decision today has obviously been given a great deal of thought, but we cannot live with that decision and we must express our opposition to that decision. Therefore, I challenge the chair’s ruling.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside has challenged the ruling of the chair. I will put the motion. Shall the Speaker’s ruling be sustained?

1414

The House divided on the Speaker’s ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Beer, Black, Brandt, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Elliot, Elston, Eves, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Fontaine, Grandmaître, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Kerrio, Kozyra, Kwinter, Leone, Lipsett, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, Matrundola;

McCague, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Owen, Pelissero, Peterson, Phillips, G., Pollock, Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Riddell, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sterling, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Bryden, Cooke, D. S., Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Mackenzie, Martel, Philip, E., Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Wildman.

Ayes 83; nays 13.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Philip: The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) have shown insensitivity to those volunteer groups providing transportation for disabled people.

In February 1987, the Metro commissioner of roads and traffic rejected an Etobicoke council recommendation to amend bylaw 200-83 to allow volunteer organizations providing transportation to the handicapped to receive disabled parking permits. The reason given was that a provincial system would soon be in place.

Now the Minister of Transportation has brought down a policy that will issue disabled parking licences only to companies and organizations that are primarily in the business of providing transportation or care of disabled people. This means excluding organizations such as Care-Ring for Rexdale which has 40 volunteers who drive disabled people.

The government’s response to my question last week was that a disabled person can have a portable permit. This fails to take into account the fact that many of the clients serviced by organizations such as Care-Ring for Rexdale --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: -- have limitations that will make it difficult for them to apply and use their own portable disabled parking permits. Once again, the government is not listening. I urge the Peterson government to reconsider its rigid and unreasonable position on this matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it would only be fair to listen to the members who are making their statements.

1420

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Cunningham: At this very moment, concerned citizens of London Centre are standing on the constituency office doorstep of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) protesting extended Sunday shopping, and more important, Sunday working.

In 1987, the Liberals promised Ontario voters an open government. They also promised a common day of pause. They have broken both promises. An open government to Liberals means travelling the province, asking the people of Ontario their views on Sunday shopping and then returning to Queen’s Park and passing the buck to the municipalities. The Liberal idea of open government means spending thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on open, public hearings and then doing as they like. This Liberal government has a lot of important work to do. If it believed in open government, it would withdraw Bill 113 and Bill 114 and support family life in this province.

The citizens of Ontario want a healthy environment, good health care and schools for their children. They do not want Sunday shopping. Families do not support more Sunday working. They do want a common day of pause.

Why does this Liberal government insist on forcing through such unpopular legislation? Nobody knows.

PETERBOROUGH CITY-COUNTY DISASTER TRUST FUND

Mr. Adams: I attended the annual meeting of the Peterborough city-county disaster trust fund. Founded in 1980 by Alderman Gord Holnbeck, the trust fund provides immediate assistance to disaster victims. In the past year, 37 families were helped by this dedicated group of volunteers.

The fund committee is composed of 35 members who ensure that whenever assistance is required following a fire, flood or other disaster, help is there. A member of the committee is present at the scene to provide moral support, make emergency accommodation arrangements and provide immediate financial help of up to $500. Since its inception in 1980, the fund has helped over 290 families, representing 843 people.

The trust fund is supported by private business, community service clubs and individual contributions. The fund is now close to being fully endowed. It is an excellent example of the sophisticated network of support the Peterborough community provides those in need.

I was pleased to attend the presentation of awards to Rod McLeod, Carl Prince and Dan Fisher of Direct Tire Inc.; Kevin Ross of O’Toole’s Restaurant; Ford Best of CHEX; Judy Gibson, Chair Bear of Peterborough Teddies, and Connie Nicholson of city hall. All of these individuals merit our support.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr. Mackenzie: Over the weekend, I read with a great deal of concern in our local papers about the recent layoff of Cathy Gibson. Ms. Gibson, as the members will know, is an employee of the Royal Ontario Museum who was laid off from the job she has held for better than 17 years. As well as being a loyal employee, well-liked by her co-workers, Ms. Gibson happens to be disabled.

Although 23.5 jobs were eliminated in the recent cutbacks, 18 of those were vacant positions, and jobs were found for all but three of those affected. Her union is fighting on her behalf and has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, charging she has been discriminated against because of her handicap. Whether that turns out to be the case or not, I think all members of this House should not feel any happier than I did about the stories that emerged over the weekend of the layoff of Ms. Gibson.

It seems to me that this government, which has been talking for a long time about strong affirmative action programs when it comes to the handicapped and disabled in our society, is going to stand condemned if this situation is allowed to continue. How do you take a loyal employee, with better than 17 years’ service, who is disabled and so callously toss her aside? I think it is a sad day for the commitment to affirmative action programs in Ontario to allow this to happen.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: Several months ago, along with my caucus colleagues, I called upon this government to establish a public inquiry into questionable planning practices in York region. This issue was raised on a number of occasions in this House, as well as in committee during the estimates for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Our party felt this matter was significant enough to provoke an emergency debate in this chamber. To date, the only response from this government has been that an Ontario Provincial Police investigation is under way. Little is known as to when this investigation will be completed. Serious questions remain.

Residents of my community and the surrounding areas are deeply concerned with the happenings in York region and they are frustrated with the lack of answers. In the fall of last year, I circulated a newsletter to my constituents dealing with these grave matters. Included in this newsletter was a section whereby members of my community could petition this government to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning processes and land development practices in York region in high-growth areas.

Concerned individuals from outside my riding have also responded. So far I have received over 500 petitions, which I will begin to table in this House today. No one has expressed opposition to the need for a public inquiry except the Premier (Mr. Peterson). The people of York region deserve some answers, and in tabling these petitions I will ensure that they will be heard.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Tatham: The rule of thumb is that one tire per person is discarded each year. Solid waste management is one of the top priorities for municipal officials. Used tires are not welcome at landfill sites.

Retico Rubber Inc. of Ayr, Ontario is now able to shred and crumb rubber tires. This is a sample of rubber crumb. The little white spots are whitewalls. Then they take the rubber crumb and manufacture different products: mats suitable for homes, playgrounds and farm stables. Here is a sample of a mat that contains rubber from approximately two small tires. They charge $2 a tire to receive them and they can handle up to 4,500 tires a day.

If markets can be found for the rubber crumb and the resultant products, society will benefit by converting a liability into an asset.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Ms. Bryden: I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) that for the second time in less than a month a senior from a retirement home or an old folks’ home has frozen to death. I think this indicates the tremendous need for legislation on retirement homes and for careful investigation of the rules for patients in homes for the aged, because this must not be allowed to happen again.

It appears there were inadequate alarm systems or the alarm systems were not checked adequately after the alarm went off, and the person was outside, unable to get back in, without her coat on and was found frozen to death at 5 a.m. the next day.

I hope the minister will look into the matter as soon as possible.

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). It concerns the November 29 crash of the air ambulance near Chapleau, Ontario, which killed an Orillia paramedic and three other men. Local newspaper reports indicate the ministry was aware of Voyageur Airways’ record of 12 serious accidents and 10 crashes this decade, and yet the ministry still contracted with this carrier to assume the air ambulance service last fall.

I believe it is time there were an immediate inquiry into this tragic accident.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We ask for unanimous consent in order that the House may respond to the news of the death of Farquhar R. Oliver, a former member of this chamber.

Agreed to.

FARQUHAR R. OLIVER

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is with the greatest regret that I respond on behalf of my colleagues to the news of Mr. Oliver’s death. He was an extremely close and good friend of myself and a number of my colleagues who are long-serving, and of course, of all the members of our family.

He was elected first to this House in 1926 when, at the age of 22, he was then by far the youngest man or woman elected to Parliament or any legislature. It is interesting to note that his formal education came to an end at age 13, but by assiduous personal education through all his life, he always maintained a most complete and personal knowledge of the issues and the factual background of the unfolding universe.

This was coupled with the most amazing ability, not only to convey this information but in the way he ordered his thoughts in response to the information. Many times he was heard in the Legislature and right across the province responding to the most intricate issues, some of them the most sensitive that could be imagined, and yet his views were always moderate and well informed.

It is of much lesser importance, but I think of interest to all of us, that he was always able to convey those views without elaborate notes or script, and always in the most coherent way imagined. His grammar was perfect and his views were expressed in a compelling way which I think reflected the orderliness of his own mind.

1430

He always had the greatest of good humour and moderation, and particularly that latter may have been one of the reasons he never became Premier, even though he was the Leader of the Opposition on at least two occasions, and on a number of other occasions because the leadership seemed to become vacant quite regularly. It is a great regret to me, frankly, that over his lengthy career of 41 years in this House, he never led the government.

I think we should be aware, however, that although he was first elected as a supporter of the United Farmers of Ontario, he moved on to support the Liberal Party and entered the cabinet in about 1940 under the premiership of Mitchell Hepburn.

He was a very close personal friend and confidant of my father. The two of them had a rural background and membership in the Ontario farmers’ party at that time, which meant that they were, of course, very much aligned in their views on politics and community matters.

There is much to be said, I am sure, by those of us who have experienced his qualities as a man. He was always frank and ordinary, if I may use that word. There was never any attempt by him to separate himself from the crowd, except that he always was simply because his abilities transcended most of those that we have experienced in public life over these many years.

I do not think it is an invidious comparison to say that, from my point of view, I have never heard a more compelling public speaker. Long before we had electronic assistance to our speeches, he could be heard in every corner of this chamber, and often in the far recesses of this building when he was so moved.

The man’s personal capabilities meant that he had friends in all parties and among the public service. He was even known to enjoy a hand of cards during late night sessions when the contributions from the government side became just insupportable and he had to do something constructive with his time.

Since his retirement some years ago from active politics, he has maintained his interest in his own community. His wife, Maymie, was certainly by his side during all those years of his political endeavours and they were a fine couple, good friends and therefore a good example in that respect and many others to all of us. Although I understand he has been ill for a few months, the latter part of his illness was mercifully brief and he passed away over the weekend.

I know we would join in sending our sympathy to Maymie and his family and his many friends in all parts of the province. He is truly a historic political personage whose example to all of us is extremely important. There are many here who do not know much about him, but it would be worth while for them to pick any of his speeches over those years and read and learn.

Mr. B. Rae: I am delighted to be able to add my words to the Treasurer’s, particularly immediately following what he has just said because I have done that. I did not know Mr. Oliver, although I had heard a great deal about him. In fact, I think I first heard about him from my predecessor, the member for York South, Donald MacDonald, who served in opposition with Mr. Oliver.

As I heard the Treasurer speak today, knowing the friendship he has had with Mr. Oliver and with the Oliver family, I wanted to take the opportunity to read a speech of Mr. Oliver’s, which I did. It is the last speech he gave in the Legislature in 1967, his retirement speech, and I would commend it to all the members of the House.

The Treasurer has spoken of his career. I think if you read any of Mr. Oliver’s speeches, and I had a chance this morning to read two or three, you get a feeling, first of all, of the gusto with which he spoke; of the humour with which he always spoke, whether it was a budget speech or any other kind; and as the Treasurer has already said, of the extraordinary range of his interests when the House sat for a shorter time, as it did in those days, and covered a wider range of issues. Of course, being in opposition for as long as he was, he developed that capacity which all of us in opposition are required to develop -- some of us far greater than others -- of some sense of what is going on in a whole range of ministries.

In his last speech in the Legislature in 1967, Mr. Oliver had many interesting things to do. First of all, he observed that royal commissions should not sit for ever. They should be very brief and very specific. He thought that nobody should be allowed to speak in the House from a text, that everybody should be speaking extemporaneously and that the Speaker should enforce that rule very vigorously. He thought that the budget of $2.2 billion was too big and that it needed to be cut back.

He had a particular complaint to make about the burden of property taxation under that administration at that time when Mr. Robarts was the Premier. It was with great pride that he announced to the House in 1967 that it was the policy of the Liberal Party -- in order to relieve some of this burden on the municipal taxpayer, which he was announcing on behalf of the party as part of the election campaign, because members will recall there was an election in 1967 -- to pay 80 per cent of the cost of education in the province. I am sure that as Mr. Oliver observed the debates that took place in the House since that time, he watched with interest the commitment of the current Liberal administration to that particular promise that was made in 1967.

The speech also had much to say about the changes that had happened in the province while he was in politics. As the Treasurer said, he came in when he was 22 and retired at a relatively young age of 63, after having been in politics for 41 years. He was 32 years in opposition; he was nine years in government. He served the people of this province well, as someone who was very much on the progressive side of the debates on many issues, together with Mr. Croll, who fortunately for all of us is still very much with us and very much actively involved in these debates. He was one of those in the Hepburn administration who pressed hard on behalf of collective bargaining at a time when that was controversial and difficult. His views were progressive and well expressed and, as I say, always expressed with great humour and commitment.

We on our side celebrate this remarkable life of Farquhar Oliver. We send our deepest sympathy to his family. Perhaps I could recall the words I have quoted on other occasions, that we should not so much mourn the passing of Farquhar Oliver as celebrate together the fact that he was with us for so long and with such distinction.

Mr. Brandt: On behalf of my caucus, I would like to join my colleagues in marking this very sad occasion. Unlike the Treasurer, who is much, much older than I, I have not had the opportunity to meet Farquhar Oliver on a personal basis and cannot quite offer the House some of the anecdotal observations of times past. But I think we are all in agreement in this House that we have lost a very distinguished individual and certainly a tremendously competent and long-serving parliamentarian.

Farquhar Oliver at the age of 22 became the youngest person to be elected to the Ontario Legislature where he served continuously, as the Treasurer mentioned, from 1926 to 1967, fully 41 years of dedicated service to his Grey county constituents and to the people of Ontario whom he loved so dearly. As well, he served as his party’s leader and as Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Oliver did, in fact, hold a number of cabinet posts in Ontario, Public Works and Welfare, and pioneered in this province a matter that we deal with on a regular basis, virtually daily in this House, the establishment of homes for the aged in Ontario. It was at the dedication of a wing of the new Rockwood Terrace Home for the Aged in 1984 that a former cabinet minister, Frank Drea, who was then the Minister of Community and Social Services, said of Mr. Oliver: “This man did an admirable job in devoting his life to help people. It is an inspiration for many and a tribute to one of the premier orators in the history of the Ontario Legislature to have this wing named in honour of him.”

1440

I would like to say that on this occasion we should not perhaps mark this particular event only with words of sorrow, but rather let us join together to remember the greatness that this one man brought to the province that he loved so dearly and the contribution he made towards what I am sure we will all agree is a better quality of life in Ontario, a more humane society, a more caring society, because he in fact dedicated the largest portion of his life to serving the province in a most effective and admirable fashion.

Mr. Speaker: As is the usual custom, as soon as Hansard is printed I will of course make certain that a copy is sent to the Oliver family members, so that your words of sympathy are transferred to them.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO HYDRO

Hon. Mr. Wong: Today I look forward to introducing a comprehensive set of amendments to the Power Corporation Act. In the November 1987 throne speech, the government undertook to encourage energy conservation and greater public input into the development of energy policy. Part of this undertaking included a commitment to review the Power Corporation Act and amend it to ensure that Ontario Hydro is in position to be more responsive to government policies and public priorities. Today, we meet this commitment.

Ontario Hydro is North America’s largest electric utility and the largest nonfinancial corporation in Canada, with assets of $33 billion. It has a total generating capacity of close to 30 million kilowatts and a fine international reputation. As reliable as Hydro has been, the government believes that our relationship with Ontario Hydro must be brought up to date. That is why the government has undertaken the first major review of this act in 15 years.

Since this government made its initial commitment to improve Hydro’s responsiveness, I am pleased to report that we have taken a number of important steps towards achieving this goal. We have initiated reviews of Ontario Hydro’s Draft Demand/Supply Planning Strategy, known as the DSPS. These reviews, one completed by a dozen government ministries and one completed by an independent technical advisory panel, looked at a number of factors that are clearly high on the government’s and the public’s list of concerns.

This is the first time in the history of our relationship with Ontario Hydro that the government has taken a Hydro plan and placed it under such an intensive examination, and I can assure the House that it will not be the last.

In its review, the Electricity Planning Technical Advisory Panel to the Minster of Energy recommended a thorough inquiry be made into Candu nuclear costs. We have done so. I hope to receive the report by the end of the month.

The government made a commitment to address public concerns about nuclear safety. We have done this. Last spring, I tabled a thorough report on the safety of Ontario’s nuclear reactors written by Professor Kenneth Hare of the University of Toronto.

The government made a commitment to make environmental issues a high priority as we plan our energy future. We have done so. Restrictions placed on Hydro’s acid gas emissions, through our Countdown Acid Rain program, are one example. By the end of this month, Hydro will be submitting its plan for further acid gas reduction.

We said that we would take action on energy efficiency and conservation. We have done so. Last year, the government passed the Energy Efficiency Act, the first such legislation in Canada. When Ontario Hydro prepared a plan for electricity conservation, efficiency and parallel generation, it identified targets of up to 5,500 megawatts by the year 2,000. This is encouraging, but I have directed Hydro to leave no stone unturned to achieve even higher targets through vigorous pursuit of efficiency initiatives and private generation.

As we continue to explore our energy options, we will continue to examine both the broader social and environmental issues involved and our mandate to ensure secure energy supplies in the future.

Today, the legislative package I am introducing is the next step the government is taking to ensure that Hydro is properly positioned to meet our goal of reliable electricity supplies, achieved in a socially and environmentally sound manner. I believe this package represents the essence of responsible legislation. The government has made changes where it identified a need for change.

The proposed package clearly establishes the government’s role to outline the policy framework within which the utility operates. Government now has the authority to issue policy statements that Hydro shall respect on matters relating to Hydro’s exercise of its duties and the authority to require Hydro to submit its plans and reports for review. The government is also improving Hydro’s responsiveness by ensuring that future appointments to the Hydro board of directors, including the chairman’s position, are reviewed by a legislative committee.

A key amendment to the act requires Ontario Hydro to sign a new memorandum of understanding with the government. Consistent with this amendment, I am tabling a new memorandum which takes effect when this legislation is passed. This memorandum has a three-year term and can be amended earlier. It goes well beyond previous memoranda between the government and Hydro.

One of the most important issues addressed by the memorandum, or agreement, is the information flow between Hydro and government. Energy decisions must be based on complete and current information. This memorandum requires that Ontario Hydro will provide the government with all necessary information on a timely basis to ensure that we, the legislators, can make the best possible decisions about Ontario’s energy future.

The memorandum sets out a new system of consultation and reporting that gives government early access to Hydro’s planning information for review and comments. The formation of a Hydro committee comprised of a number of senior ministers and the Premier is an important feature of this new system. The committee will meet at least four times a year with Hydro’s chairman and president to ensure that Hydro is aware of and responds to a wide set of government concerns.

Under the new memorandum and in the amendments, we have addressed the important areas of conservation and parallel generation by removing legislative roadblocks and by giving Hydro the capacity to provide incentives for these initiatives. The government will play an active, ongoing role in assessing targets for conservation and parallel generation and by evaluating the effectiveness of the methods of attaining these targets.

Hydro must ensure that its programs are developed in a manner compatible with the government’s environmental goals, including goals to improve air and water quality through lowered emissions. Hydro must provide the ministers of Energy and of the Environment with reports on its initiatives and targets for environmental protection.

The agreement contains other important provisions on environmental matters. Hydro agrees to continue to work with the federal government towards resolution of issues associated with nuclear decommissioning and the disposal of nuclear waste.

Also, the agreement ensures that Hydro will identify lands surplus to its present or future needs and grant the government first right of refusal to purchase such lands for Housing First initiatives. Hydro is an important instrument of economic development, a fact noted by the Premier’s Council and which is addressed in the new memorandum, particularly in the section dealing with strategic procurement.

The amendments to the Power Corporation Act also contain sections designed to preserve the government’s ability to carry out energy policies for the good of Ontario and Canada under the free trade agreement. Those sections reassert Ontario’s traditional and constitutional rights in electricity matters.

They provide that Ontario and Canadian consumers will have their electricity needs met on a priority basis. Electricity will be contracted for export only when it is surplus to our needs and only when the price is higher than the domestic price paid by Canadians for equivalent service.

The amendments and the new memorandum of understanding acknowledge the areas in which Hydro excels while recognizing that it is a public utility, and they recognize that the government has a responsibility to make sure that Hydro’s activities serve -- I underline -- the public interest.

1450

One of the government’s next steps will be to review the Ontario Energy Board Act. This act deals with the mechanisms for setting wholesale electricity rates and rate review processes. Any adjustments to the current process will be considered when we review this act and they will be looked at in the context of the new relationship this legislative package creates.

Under the amended act and the new memorandum of understanding, Ontario Hydro will continue to operate under the best principles of the free enterprise system, but as a public utility and an agency of the government it will be in a better position to respond to the priorities of the people through the direction of the government.

In practical terms, this does not mean that the government will sit in Hydro’s offices and interfere in day-to-day operations. What it does mean is that the government can ensure that Hydro is working within the policy framework this legislative package outlines and that the utility is working to address and fulfil government policies and public priorities.

We intend to monitor and assess the new relationship on an ongoing basis, and we will consider further amendments, as necessary, in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

This government made a commitment to position Ontario Hydro to more effectively respond to current realities and to new and evolving government objectives and public concerns. We have done so. These initiatives meet that commitment.

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA

Hon. Mr. Scott: Today I introduce the Law Society Amendment Act, 1989. This bill amends the Law Society Act in order to permit permanent residents of Canada to practise law in Ontario. At present, the Law Society Act provides that only Canadian citizens or British subjects are eligible for membership in the Law Society of Upper Canada. As of July 1, 1989, however, only Canadian citizens will be eligible to practise law, because an earlier amendment to the Law Society Act, Bill 7, which on account of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms removed the special status afforded to British subjects, will be proclaimed in force.

Recently the law society, at my request, reconsidered the issue of requiring Canadian citizenship as a prerequisite to practising law in Ontario. I am happy to say that convocation of the law society voted in favour of permitting permanent residents of Canada, as well as Canadian citizens, to practise law. As a result of this bill, it will not become necessary for British subjects or any other permanent residents of Canada now practising law in Ontario to become Canadian citizens in order to continue. Other professional bodies in Ontario do not require that their members be Canadian citizens.

This bill accepts the view that all persons admitted to Canada as permanent residents, regardless of their place of origin or citizenship, will be treated equally.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mrs. Grier: The amendments to the Power Corporation Act announced today by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) in a press conference and then later in this House are nothing if not disappointing. This government came to power vowing to bring Ontario Hydro under control and now, almost four years later, the first steps we have seen are changes in process, mechanisms by which the government can make Hydro subject to its policies and directions but no hint of what that policy might be or what direction, in fact, this government intends to take.

The last select committee on energy, when it reported in July 1986, recommended very specifically that the Ontario Energy Board Act be amended to give the board the power to regulate electricity rates. When the current select committee asked for an update as to what had happened to that recommendation, we were told the matter would be addressed in the review of the Power Corporation Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act.

The amendments we have heard today are very silent in this respect. They do not mention what is going to happen to the Ontario Energy Board Act. We are told that is going to follow at some future date. We ask how long it is going to take before we see some meaningful amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act that will really bring Ontario Hydro under control.

The advantage of having it subject to the Ontario Energy Board is, of course, the opportunity for public review. Far from having public review, we now have a Hydro committee of cabinet -- not a standing committee of this Legislature, but a cabinet committee. We do not even know whether the Minister of Energy and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) are members of that committee.

The one thing I do welcome in the amendments is the provision for parallel generation by Hydro. I think that is certainly long overdue.

I am a little puzzled by the recommendation with respect to housing. I find it somewhat bizarre that Hydro would identify land surplus to its present and future needs for housing development. I wonder if that means we are going to have affordable housing under the transmission lines or whether we are going to surround Darlington and Pickering with family accommodation. I hope that is not what is intended.

This government has a long way to go in enunciating a firm energy policy and in bringing Hydro under control. I hope we can move speedily to at least implement these amendments, and then not have to wait three years for amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Mr. Brandt: I want to comment as well on the Power Corporation Act amendments and the comments of the minister.

It would appear from the outset of the minister’s remarks, if I might say so, that he is going to be very busy within the next short while in that it is his intention to bring to a close, by the end of this month, the inquiry into the Candu nuclear costs as well as the report with respect to acid gas emissions and the need for scrubbers in provincial generating facilities.

I would like to suggest that this is a very ambitious schedule and one that I hope he will be able to meet in terms of time guidelines. I would hope, as well, on the question of scrubbers, that he will have a report indicating the dates at which Hydro intends to embark on that program, and a full, documented overview of what its intentions are with respect to the use of western coal, for example, in order to reduce acid gas emissions; as well as a recognition of the combination of facilities that will be required and the changes in those facilities in order to accommodate the use of both western and US coal in some of our present installations.

I would like to compliment the minister on the conservation targets. However, I would caution him that by looking at a 5,500-megawatt conservation program by the year 2000, there is always the risk that a shortfall will leave power shortages. I would like the minister to have fallback positions in place in case those conservation measures are not as effective as he had hoped, so that while we are attempting to conserve energy, at the same time we have to have this province in a position where it can provide the energy that is required if the conservation programs are not as successful as he would like or if the power demands exceed his expectations at the moment.

Finally, I would like to say to the minister that the review of the Hydro board appointments that he is proposing is something that his government has in fact proposed with respect to all appointments of this kind, in all committees and boards that are accountable to the province; he made that commitment some three or four years ago. The time is well past when an all-party committee of this Legislature will look at the appointments, as he has indicated, not only of the chairmen but of the members of the Hydro board. I would applaud a move if in fact the minister does intend to follow through on the commitments he has made in this respect.

There is a great deal of work to do and there is much more I could say. However, some of my colleagues want to comment as well. Let me just say that Ontario Hydro has, over the years, been very competitive, particularly as it relates to our rates vis-à-vis those to the south of us in the United States. I think that we have got to keep our eyes firmly on the ball, that this is an economic development tool of this province and that we have to keep our rates competitive with our major competition in the industrial parts of the US to the south of us.

1500

Mrs. Marland: I think the Minister of Energy fails in his statement where he says the government made a commitment to make environmental issues a high priority. The truth of the matter is that we might believe that if this government had at least followed through on one of the recommendations of the select committee on energy. That recommendation was that we have the plans from Ontario Hydro as to how it was going to meet its 1994 emission figures by December 1987. We are now sitting at almost 15 months later and we still do not have that information.

I think it is perhaps too prophetic to read in one of his statements here, where he talks about the memorandum of understanding enabling the government to set out its objectives, that the last of the objectives listed there just happens to be environmental protection.

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA

Mr. Sterling: I am absolutely astounded at the announcement by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) of the introduction of the Law Society Amendment Act. I am astounded because it appears to be reasonable and we are not accustomed to having reasonable pieces of legislation put forward by the Attorney General.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. B. Rae: Starting out today, I would like to ask a question to the Premier about garbage.

I have in my hand a proposal from a company which calls itself Envacc Resources Inc., which is said to comprise Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc., CP Rail, the American Recovery Corp. and a number of individual investors who are prepared to invest somewhere between $150 million and $200 million to deal with the waste management crisis in this part of Ontario.

Can the Premier tell us in detail what he knows about this proposal and what is the merit of our handing over this field to private enterprise when we have a history in this province of dealing with these issues well within the public sector on a not-for-profit, public service basis?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, I should say this is a regional responsibility, as my honourable friend knows. My honourable friend is also aware that a number of the regions have a lot of pressures on them at this particular time with respect to short-term as well as long-term management of waste disposal.

Because, frankly, there had not been a lot of co-operation in looking at some of the regional problems over the last little while, we organized a meeting of the regional chairmen. I met with them on Friday last and there was an agreement that they would look at the problems in unison and they would try to co-operate as best as is possible.

At this moment, there is no formal structure to that, although one may come out of it if there are enough regions that are interested. As I said to my honourable friend, the province is not in a position to impose anything on the regions, although we do feel that we have a responsibility to be as co-operative as best we can.

That being said, there are a number of private sector groups that have come forward in varying degrees of specificity with suggestions about how to handle waste management in the long term. There are no obligations to any group and it may come to pass some time in the future, should the regions so choose, that they will involve the private sector in waste disposal. That has not been firmed up by any stretch of the imagination. A lot of work has to be done with the regional councils, the Ministry of the Environment and a whole number of other groups.

I can tell my honourable friend that is as far as it has gone at the moment. I assume if anything is done in the future, it will be tendered and will be examined and adjudicated on by the regions.

Mr. B. Rae: If the Premier is talking about tendering, he is then already building into it the notion that this huge project, which will be an enormous enterprise involving hundreds of millions of dollars, is going to be carried out by the private sector. This particular proposal is not airy-fairy. It involves financial backers who are not named in this paper, but it also involves some backers who are named. It says on page 2: “The private sector will design, finance and operate the appropriate waste management facilities.”

Does the Premier not realize the danger in giving a financial incentive to companies to deal with garbage in that their profits will increase as the volume and amount of garbage increases? Does he not realize that this is the exact opposite of the way we should be going -- in other words, providing some real incentives to reduce the amount of garbage that is produced -- and that if he leaves it in the private sector, with profitability as the primary motive, he is, in fact, going to be contributing to the mountain of garbage, rather than getting rid of it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say to my honourable friend that, first of all, this province is leading North America with respect to recycling. I say that there is much left that can be done and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has shown very great leadership on this matter. Obviously, the foundations of any proposal will be recycling, reuse and recovery; but we have to look ahead as well. I can tell my honourable friend that no judgements have been made on the ultimate format or the composition of public/private sector involvement.

But I say to my honourable friend that if he is going to take the view, because of some philosophical or intellectual straitjacket, that the private sector should not be involved in any future programs, I say he is out of step with modern reality. If the regions so choose and if the member wants to impose his ideological hangups on them, then he should go ahead and make those speeches. But let me say that they will make those judgements, not me.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps a big business government is happy to give away public rights and public goods to the private-profit sector in this province. We in this party are not prepared to do it. This is a moment of a critical decision which is obviously going to be co-ordinated by the province. The Premier cannot pretend that he is not involved in this issue up to knees -- indeed, up to his neck. Of course he is involved in it. He has to be because of the extent of the crisis.

The Premier is under pressure to telescope the environmental time frames in terms of environmental assessment. He is under pressure from these groups for a very quick decision because of the implication for the time frame three or four years down the line into the 1990s. I think the Premier knows far more about the particular proposals that are being made than he is prepared to tell us.

Can the Premier simply tell us the logic of giving away something that can come to the good of the public sector and to the taxpayers and people of this province? Can he tell us the logic of the taxpayers subsidizing private-profit operators in this regard? And can he tell us the logic in giving these operators a stake not in reducing the amount of garbage but in seeing that the amount of garbage increases? That is precisely what a private-profit operation will end up doing.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I think his statement, if he believes what he has just said, is so logically flawed, so bound up intellectually and so totally uncreative that he has absented himself from the great debate about what will happen with waste management in the future in the greater Toronto area.

On the one hand, he says we should hurry up and get up to our knees in this garbage. On the other hand, he says we should not give garbage away. You cannot have it both ways. We are looking for solutions, not just to make speeches. I say to the member that the ministries and the government have provided leadership on a regional problem. We are prepared to cooperate. No final decisions have been made.

There are a number of groups that are interested in this. If they choose to finance this huge potential capital expenditure to the extent of several hundred million dollars through the private sector, I can tell my honourable friend that I do not see anything philosophically the matter with that. If he thinks that he has a proprietorial interest in keeping all the garbage to himself, then my friend will live with that for ever.

Mr. B. Rae: Being accused by a Liberal of trying to have it both ways is a very serious accusation.

1510

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I have raised this case in the past -- I think she was away when I did and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was answering the question on her behalf -- but I want now to again draw the attention of the minister to this particularly tragic situation in Windsor where Mr. Charlton, who is 65 years old and has been on the waiting list in London for several months for a double bypass operation, has now booked himself into a hospital in Detroit. In fact, he and his wife are going to have to spend their life savings, some $10,000, in order to get an operation in Detroit which they feel, and I think all of us in Ontario would like to feel, they should have as a matter of right in Ontario.

I wonder if the minister does not see the danger of what is happening, that whereas we have spent a generation building up a health care system in which we said that health care was not for sale, precisely the opposite is now happening and people are going out and having to purchase health care on the open market in the United States because that is the only way they can get it quickly. Does she not see the tragedy of that situation?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, I would say to him, as I have on numerous occasions in this House, if he has individual cases about which he would like the ministry to ask questions of the hospital, I would be pleased to investigate them. But the data and the information we have show that there has been quite a stable number of individuals who have chosen, for whatever reason, to seek treatment outside of Ontario over the past five years. I am assured that the resources we made available to increase cardiac capacity are being used effectively and that capacity is increasing.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister thinks that people are choosing of their own free will to spend their life savings on a heart operation and do not feel that they are being forced into that choice by a government which has failed to recognize the seriousness of the situation, then she is simply, in my view, out of touch with how most people would respond to the situation of Mr. Charlton. He has made a choice because he felt he had no choice, because he was being delayed and bumped around on a list in Ontario. Instead of that he said, “My health is so important to me that I am going to spend my life savings on that operation.”

We fought for a generation in this province and in this country in order to eliminate that kind of situation for citizens and now we are right back into it because of the shortages in Ontario.

The minister is shaking her head. Does she not think that heart patients who are having to go to the United States because of the length of the waiting list are going because they do not feel they can get care quickly enough in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am told by the cardiac surgeons and the cardiologists I have consulted with that they believe the situation is in hand and the majority of them are not advising their patients to seek care elsewhere. They are assuring them that cases are being prioritized in Ontario on the basis of need.

We know as well, from the information that we have, that the numbers of people who are choosing to leave Ontario are the same this year as they were last year and the year before, and that has been quite stable. We know as well that there are people who come to Ontario for care and treatment.

I want to assure the member opposite that the increase in capacity in Sudbury, the increase coming on and beginning next week in Hamilton -- which is quite significant -- and the increases taking place in Ottawa will all assist the cardiac capacity, because my goal is to make sure that people get the service and the treatment they need as quickly as possible and I have been told that those resources which have been made available --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: -- will ensure that the capacity is increased expeditiously.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to say to the minister that Mr. Charlton, according to my information, was never scheduled for an operation in Ontario. He still has not been scheduled for an operation in Ontario; he has been on the list for months, but he has never been scheduled for an operation. He was able to get scheduled for an operation in Detroit at the end of January and he will be in hospital for some seven to 10 days as of January 30.

If the minister cannot answer this situation in Mr. Charlton’s particular case, can I ask her this: Does she approve of the fact that many people are having to turn to the private sector -- in this case in the United States -- for their care? Does she not realize that when people start doing that, that is the most powerful critique anybody can mount on what is wrong with the health care system today in the province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the Leader of the Opposition does a disservice and an injustice to the physicians, the nurses, the hospital boards and the administrators who provide care and service in this province, funded by the Ministry of Health. To fairly categorize the situation, we know that with all our problems -- and there are many -- we have people coming from around the world to look at how we provide what we do, the way we do it.

I can tell the member that what we are attempting to do is make the kinds of structural changes to resolve the issues and problems we face. We are doing that co-operatively, working with our partners in health care, and I would encourage him to work with us in a constructive way and fairly categorize the situation.

Mr. Brandt: My question as well is for the Minister of Health. It is with a great deal of reluctance that I bring this case to the minister’s attention. It is not frequently, as she knows, that I bring individual cases before her, but I am deeply disturbed by this one. It is a case that is not that far removed from the one just described by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to Mr. Charlton in Windsor.

A constituent of mine, Maria Gaccioli, was admitted to Victoria Hospital in London on December 30. She subsequently spent about two weeks in that hospital. It was her understanding that she was to undergo heart surgery for three blocked arteries she had or arteries that were collapsed. She was released from the hospital on January 13, after being of the opinion that she was to undergo heart surgery.

That lady died within nine hours of being released from the hospital and sent back to Sarnia, where she was admitted later on that day to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Sarnia and died.

I do not know what kind of explanation one can give in a case like this, but I want the minister to check out why that lady was released after a history of four years of heart problems. She ends up at Victoria Hospital in London, stays there two weeks and ultimately is discharged only to die that day. That is completely, totally unacceptable.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am always distressed when I hear of these kinds of cases. If the member will give me the details, I will be pleased to ask the ministry to investigate.

We rely on the very fine physicians working in this province to ensure that those people who require care get it first. We know the hospitals are responding and we are working very cooperatively with them, but I would be pleased to investigate this case.

Mr. Brandt: The only explanation I have been able to get in this particular case is that the beds were required for other patients. I do not for a moment question the fact that there are other needy patients. I do, however, have some difficulty in accepting the argument that there may be a higher priority than this particular lady, who had a history of heart problems and who was of the understanding that she was going to receive heart surgery. Then, as I indicated in my previous question, the events unfolded where this particular individual died within a number of hours. My understanding is that even her doctor in Sarnia was of the opinion that she was being admitted for heart surgery.

How can it possibly come to pass that someone who is in a hospital for that period of time and expects to get heart surgery is dismissed and sent home without the surgery in this kind of health situation which places the very life of the individual at risk and ultimately may have cost the life of Mrs. Gaccioli?

1520

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I said -- and I will repeat it to the member opposite -- when I hear of these situations I am always very concerned, and I undertake to investigate the situation.

It is the medical judgements and the decisions of physicians to both admit and discharge patients to our hospitals. They are accountable to the medical advisory committees and, ultimately, to the boards of those hospitals. We will have an opportunity, when we review the Public Hospitals Act, to determine whether the accountability which is presently existing in this province is in the public interest and protecting the public interest or whether we should make some amendments and changes. I have committed to opening that act and look forward to an important, and I think timely, debate.

Mr. Brandt: The understanding that the family of this particular lady had was that she would be receiving heart surgery in two to three weeks from the time she was admitted to the hospital. As I indicated, this is an individual with a long history of heart problems where one would expect that the hospital would in fact treat her before releasing her to go back, and then the ultimate end result is one we are all aware of.

I ask the minister, is she prepared to look specifically into this case and report back to the House, to see where the blame, if any, lies with respect to Mrs. Gaccioli? I am going to send to the minister a chronology of the events that occurred. I will send her as well a detailed report with respect to my information on the case. I want to deal with this in such a way that we can stop this kind of thing from happening in the future. If in fact the system, as I believe it to be, is so backed up that people are dying as a result of not being able to get access to a bed or receiving the necessary surgery that they require, then we collectively, as a Legislature, have to make a decision --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The question was asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that, under the Public Hospitals Act, the hospitals have an obligation to ensure that those requiring emergency care receive it first. We know as well that physicians do their very best in determining the medical status and use their very best medical judgement to ensure that their patients receive care based on need. I believe it is appropriate that those decisions be made by the physicians who are trained. I do not believe that government should intervene in the practise of medicine and tell the physicians how to do their jobs.

Under the Public Hospitals Act, whenever there is a concern about patient care, I am always prepared to investigate any situation and to determine what the facts are. I have undertaken to look into this case and, if the member will send me the details, I will be pleased to do so.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Attorney General and it is with respect to comments recently made by Chief Justice Howland wherein he indicates that some 282 cases have been dismissed in our court system because of the backlog. I might add that Chief Justice Howland’s comments are quite in line with those that have been made by other judges, prosecutors and defence attorneys who are involved in the system, who are very concerned about the fact that the backlog is reaching such proportions that the system simply cannot deal with those who are brought before it for the appropriate form of justice delivery in this province. I wonder if the Attorney General might comment as to how he sees this backlog in terms of its seriousness and what he intends to do about it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: First of all, it is very important to see the problem in perspective. We run probably 400 courts in Ontario every day in close to 300 different locations. As the figures released by the Chief Justice himself confirmed, the lists in those courtrooms are in order in all but six or seven jurisdictions of the provincial criminal court in Ontario, a very successful administration of the system. The six or seven jurisdictions, with the exception of the city of Ottawa, are all adjacent to the city of Toronto -- not the city of Toronto itself but five or six communities around the city of Toronto -- and are restricted to the criminal division.

As my learned friend will know from hearing the Chief Justice’s speech, the chief judge of the provincial court and I are both aware of the problem and we have introduced very recently a co-operative management program designed to expedite these lists by shared efficiencies on the management, judicial and defence bar sides of the problem.

The process, which began first in Ottawa, has begun to work. Delays have been significantly reduced over a very short period of time and we anticipate that we will have good results in the other five jurisdictions as well, so that all jurisdictions in the province will have timely lists.

Mr. Brandt: The Attorney General is somewhat more optimistic than he was just a short while ago, when a headline in Lawyer’s Weekly indicated, “‘Ontario Justice System Near Collapse: Scott,” and that we have a system, in fact, of justice in this province which is reaching --

Hon. Mr. Scott: What was the date of that?

Mr. Brandt: I will provide the Attorney General with the date, and I would be very pleased to -- well, it just so happens I have the article here and I will send it to the Attorney General so that he has it.

My question is whether the Attorney General stands by his earlier comments. Could he in fact indicate whether he stands by his earlier comments where he indicated that justice in this province was now reaching the level where it was only for the very poor or the very rich?

He has indicated some steps administratively that he plans on taking to provide some efficiencies within the system. Can he indicate when we are to see the results of those planned introductions of efficiencies?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The speech to which the honourable member refers was of course made a year and a half ago, and I am delighted to say that the six projects that Chief Judge Hayes and I have announced in the districts where I was focusing on in the speech are leading to a resolution of the problem.

Perhaps the honourable member, before he spends a lot of the taxpayers’ money and takes no responsibility for it, will want to know something about the problem. In the administration of justice, you have a number of players, each of whom quite properly sees himself as independent: the judge, who sees himself as independent in the arrangements that are made for his court day; the members of the defence bar, who see themselves as independent; and the crown attorneys, who have an independent role in the administration of justice. The system and the court lists cannot, we now know, be run by any one of those groups acting alone. They can only be run by a co-operative management system.

This is a very great difficulty, and in Ontario is being met with very significant novelty by way of approach. Chief Judge Hayes’s proposal is to put together the players in each of the districts to establish shared rules and expectations about how the system will operate.

As I say, in the city of Ottawa, it has begun to work effectively, and we are hopeful that in the five other jurisdictions we will have the same results; but co-operative management, not plowing in more dollars alone, is the --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Brandt: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, I do not need a lecture from him on how to spend taxpayers’ money, let me assure him. When his colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) spends $7 million on the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program, and when we have some $750,000 being spent on family violence and sexual assault programs in order to make the public of this province more aware of what is going on, and when you read about a case in the paper in Barrie where an individual, on a second charge for impaired driving, which directly relates to the RIDE program and that expenditure of money, and that case was in fact thrown out because of the unusual delays that were associated with it, I would suggest to the Attorney General that the system is not working that well.

Mr. Speaker: By way of question?

Mr. Brandt: I only ask the Attorney General if he can bring in an efficient system that will handle cases like this and at the same time save the taxpayer some badly needed funds in this province.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to say to my friend that we are proud of the RIDE program and we are proud of the lives that are saved by the investment of that money. We are also proud of our victim-witness program, a program that the likes of them never undertook and which is doing good things for people all across Ontario. We are also proud of our program -- it does not exist yet in all areas -- in which we provide for assistance to people accused of --

1530

Mr. Brandt: And it’s world class.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, but if we had waited around for the honourable member none of these things would have happened.

With respect to delay in the criminal courts, I think it is important to emphasize, as I emphasized at the opening of the courts, that when the players who are part of the system develop, as they have begun to do in Ottawa under the leadership of Judge Belanger, a management plan for their provincial court so that we maximize the facilities the taxpayer provides, I have indicated that at that stage when the plan is forthcoming and when it is working we will do everything we can to provide the requisite resources to support that plan, but if the players in the system think more funds will be provided without any management plan for its expenditure entered into on a co-operative basis, they could not be more wrong.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment regarding intervener funding for the class environmental assessment of timber management in Thunder Bay.

In view of the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources alone has already spent approximately $4.5 million on legal fees, travel and accommodation and support in staff and equipment for the environmental assessment, and that the arguments of the ministry, which were expected originally to take about six months have now taken eight months with only seven of a proposed 17 panels testifying so far, can the minister assure us that intervener funding will be increased so that the groups which received the $300,000 for intervening originally and which are now running out of money will be able to continue their input and involvement in the environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: One of the things I would point out is that if this were to have been conducted even two years ago for instance, or let’s say more than three and a half years ago, there would not have been intervener funding for this particular project. I think the member will agree with me. He has said on many occasions that in fact there is intervener funding, and he makes the case that individuals and groups appearing before the board would like more money for those purposes.

The panel of the board is the group that makes the decision, of course, on who shall receive the intervener funding and how much they shall receive of the money that is available. They do so based on a guess, I would guess, of how long a hearing may go on.

There are a couple of things that those involved in these hearings want to do. One of them that everybody has a stake in is trying to focus on the issues that are specifically before the board. I would think all parties that are involved in this would want to see that kind of focusing and certainly would work in that direction. Second, I think we have to take into consideration the fact that the board itself listens to more than simply the lawyers or the so-called experts who make the presentations, and that individuals and organizations can make some very valid arguments themselves based on their own experience.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I am certain there will be more information after the supplementary.

Mr. Wildman: By way of supplementary, while the minister has pointed out that the board itself, the panel, decides how the money will be divided up among the groups, surely he agrees that it is the cabinet that decides on how much money.

The groups that received the $300,000 originally asked for $600,000. Forests for Tomorrow, a coalition of five groups, received $134,000 and has indicated it will have to withdraw because it does not have enough money left because it is taking so much longer than was expected.

In view of the fact that the cabinet has just approved, on January 18, $3.2 million for intervener funding for the Ontario Waste Management Corp. hearings, surely the minister will agree that he should increase the total amount so that the board can split it up among the interveners on the timber management EA.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would be pleased to share the concerns that have been expressed by the member for Algoma with my colleagues in government to determine whether there is an opportunity, in view of any changing circumstances that might take place, for further consideration.

I think the member, with a lot of validity, points out that these kinds of decisions are made based on what are anticipated to be the length, or in fact the breadth of the hearing and the kind of arguments that will be presented. I think the member makes an interesting point when he says that if there are changes in the original standards, concepts or criteria, members of the government should be prepared to take those into consideration.

I want to assure my friend from Algoma that we will give every consideration to his most responsible representations that have been made today.

USE OF LOT LEVIES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Premier. He has been quoted as saying and others of his ministers have said that government policy and priorities can be characterized by a phrase: Housing First. I suggest, and I do not think I am alone in the view, that if housing is this government’s first priority, it has a strange way of showing it.

I would like to tell the Premier that lot levies will have a dramatic effect on housing prices in Ontario. Industry estimates are that it will be perhaps $10,000 per new house. The overall impact in terms of heating up the housing market will be far greater. The whole idea behind lot levies is to finance government programs in the areas of health, education, transportation or other areas, clearly at the expense of housing.

How can the Premier reconcile this with his claim that his government’s priority is Housing First?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the honourable member has any views, I will pass them on to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), but one of the things the developers tell us is that we need to get more lots on the market to take some of the pressure off the limited supply. In order to get lots on the market, one has to have schools, roads and other infrastructure.

I think the member would agree with the many people who come forward and say that one of the problems in the housing market today in Ontario is there are so many people moving in and putting pressure on limited supply. If municipalities use lot levies -- many of them use them now, as my honourable friend knows, and they did ask us to review the entire matter -- they feel it will assist in bringing more lots on to the market.

Mr. Harris: I would like to read the Premier a quote from a letter he received before Christmas from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. “The government has lost sight of its fundamental responsibility to provide an appropriate environment in Ontario so that the average family can be properly housed. We further believe that the current direction of government policies respecting housing is the single greatest contributor to our present housing crisis.”

Given that the industry believes the government has ignored the advice it gave in good faith and that the government is going ahead full steam with its own private agenda, with no support from the private sector industry and without regard for the devastating impact these policies will have on the housing market, why does the Premier ask for advice from the experts if he is going to ignore it? Does his ignoring it mean he now intends to try to go it alone, without the private sector, to provide affordable housing in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We ask for advice every day and we get advice, whether we ask for it or not, every single day. We get advice from the honourable member. We get advice from the members opposite, frequently in conflict. I find some members opposite represent all sides of all questions. Their basic view is that whatever we are doing is wrong and it does not matter where it comes from.

I do not see that consistency in thoughtful advice coming forward, because I can tell the House that when there is good advice coming forward we follow it. We have the responsibility of implementing these policies. We talk to as many people as we possibly can, and then ultimately we have to make decisions that are not in the interest of a particular group.

My friend represented a government that had a very different view of governing than we do. We do not believe our responsibility is to stand up for some particular group or some particular business. Our responsibility is to speak for all the people of Ontario, and that is what we do in all circumstances.

1540

RECYCLING

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. It has become apparent to me through Peterborough’s enthusiastic response to the blue box recycling program that some people’s attitudes towards garbage are changing. They no longer view garbage simply as a nuisance, but rather as a potential resource. With the average household in Ontario generating one ton of solid waste each year, the province should ensure that the financial framework is in place to deal with problems associated with the disposal of municipal household waste.

Could the minister outline the financial support available in Ontario to encourage the so-called 4R programs: reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery.

Mr. Speaker: In any special length of time?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try, Mr. Speaker, to do that as expeditiously as possible.

I want to say, first, that I agree with the member that garbage is potentially a valuable resource. Any of the proposals entertained now by municipalities are based on the fact that there can be a lot of recovery, a lot of recycling and a lot of reduction.

We all know that 19 trees are saved for every ton of newspaper recycled and 70 per cent in energy on the recycling of an aluminium can. I want to indicate to the member that we have 1.2 million blue boxes for curbside recycling in this province and that we now have $7.7 million being allocated, compared to $750,000 when we took office.

I recall that the last year the other government was in power not one blue box was put in a household in Ontario. I want to indicate to the member for Peterborough that my ministry has recently committed $500,000 dollars to help the city of Peterborough with its new recycling depot, and the city of Peterborough and Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc. have matched those funds.

In terms of industrial recycling, we have doubled the amount now to $2.5 million --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I wanted to give equal time and I wanted to make certain that the questioner and the responder had the same amount of time.

Mr. Adams: While the blue box system is a step in the right direction, it is currently limited to newspapers, glass, cans and pop bottles. Can the minister tell the House what steps he is taking to move beyond the blue box program.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would be pleased to do that. I should indicate before I do that we announced the Star program, Student Action for Recycling, which will have even more institutions dealing with this in terms of the educational field.

I want to indicate to the member that I and representatives of the Ministry of the Environment have met with the plastics industry, as an example, and those involved in groceries and packaging, newspaper publishers, all of those who could make a significant contribution to the reduction, reuse and recycling that could take place in Ontario. I am pleased to report to the member that this has been exceedingly productive. At this time we are in support of projects in Guelph and Metropolitan Toronto for the purposes of composting. We are now going into apartment buildings in terms of the special funding we are providing.

The province of Ontario was recognized in January 1989 as the leading jurisdiction in all of North America in the field of recycling.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. We have an all-time record today. The minister may be aware of this one in the rent review process because it is from the riding of Oakwood, at 9 Humewood Drive. It is a small building with eight units. Can she explain to Doug Calder, who is a tenant at that particular building, just exactly why the landlord got a 62 per cent increase in rent?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As the member opposite knows, I do not know the answer about every single building in the province. I can tell him that in order for anyone to get a major rent increase --

Mr. Breaugh: Find the one you do know.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite knows very well that our rent review legislation tries to take into account the need of tenants for certainty and for security, and the need of landlords for the recovery of the costs they legitimately spend in the management, maintenance and improvement of their buildings.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Calder and the other tenants in the building are angry and they are angry with some cause. This is a building where in 1987, this government gave the landlord $30,000 in interest-free loans through the government’s low-rise rehabilitation program. He cannot for the life of him figure out why, on the one hand, a government would finance the landlord through one agency of the crown, and on the other provide another agency that gives the landlord a 62 per cent increase in rent. Can the minister explain that terrible dichotomy to Mr. Calder and the others who live on Humewood Drive?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The low-rise rehabilitation program the member alludes to of course is managed by the city, in this case the city of York --

Mr. Breaugh: And you don’t provide any money.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The province provides the money for the low-rise rehabilitation program. That program is meant to make sure that a large amount of our low-rise stock is maintained in the way it needs to be in order to make sure the housing stock remains available for housing. If we do not spend our resources in making sure the basic repairs are made to our housing stock, then the member opposite knows very well that much of our housing stock would be at risk.

The low-rise program is structured in such a way that through the city the province helps those owners to bring the buildings up to the Ontario Building Code standard, to make sure the plumbing systems, the wiring systems and so on are up to that standard.

I believe the people who live in this province want to make sure that our housing is in fact kept up to that standard, that those levels are maintained. I believe the program is a really important one to make sure at least that level of standard is maintained.

UNIVERSITY STUDENT RESIDENCES PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Her government issued a press release last week announcing the provision of $2 million to create, as she put it in her release, “225 new residence beds at Queen’s University.”

The release is very interesting. It says the Premier honoured at least one of his election promises, says it will take 25 years; says a lot but it did not tell us any of the other details. What we have been able to uncover is that in fact the $2 million will be used to purchase Waldryn Towers, which is located just outside the campus. This building already provides affordable housing for over 200 university and community college students.

Can the minister explain why $2 million of Ontario taxpayers’ money was used to convert off-campus housing to on-campus housing, and does this, in her mind, create new affordable housing for students?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: The program of new residence development for Queen’s University was a somewhat unique program within the university residence program. As the honourable member is well aware, this particular program involved the purchase of a facility from the hospital. There indeed have been residence beds available for students in that facility, but this was on a leased basis. Through our university residence program, Queen’s has been able to acquire the facility and ensure that there will be, on a permanent basis, continued residence beds available there. This in turn does clearly increase on an ongoing basis the amount of affordable housing available to students in that area.

Mr. Jackson: Some suggest the release is somewhat misleading in so far as it goes on to suggest, “This program complements the government’s Housing First policy by reducing the competition for affordable housing between students and low-income earners.”

Yet when we checked today with the vice-president of Queen’s University, Tom Williams, he said his university will be forcing as many as 125 students from St. Lawrence College on to the streets as of September 1989, so that Queen’s University students can take their places. Given that the minister has responsibility for both community colleges and universities, can she please explain to us how she is increasing the stock when she is in fact evicting 125 community college students by her actions.

1550

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: We are in fact ensuring a continued stock on a permanent basis. The hospital was interested in finding someone who would purchase the facility. Queen’s University, in purchasing that facility, has ensured that residence beds will be available to students in the long term.

Students attending St. Lawrence College who are currently in that residence facility will have an opportunity to continue to have space in the facility, if space is available. They will also have access to other affordable housing in the community and in fact will have access to the Queen’s University housing list so that their search for housing in that area can be facilitated.

I also think it is important to recognize that there are two residence programs that have been announced by the ministry this year. One is the university residence program, in which we provided support for 5,000 new residence beds. The other is the lifting of the ban on college residence so that each college can proceed to build residences to ensure that there is affordable housing for its students. The two programs do work in a complementary fashion.

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. The minister is well aware that a number of issues relating to the demise of Massey Combines Corp. remain unresolved. One of these issues relates to the serious underfunding of the Massey pension plan.

It has been clear from the beginning that the pension benefits guarantee fund will need to be utilized to ensure that retirees continue to receive pension benefits. Former Massey employees and retirees have felt some uncertainty awaiting word of their individual pensions. Would the minister report to the House on the present status of the review initiated by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to thank the honourable member for his continuing interest in this very important issue. The review of the pension fund itself has been ongoing and has been problematic because of the difficulty in reviewing the records in the state that they were kept.

I can tell the honourable member, though, that at the current time there have been a number of letters sent out and I think fully just about 7,100 former employees and retirees of the company should now have received their letters. I think they went out on January 13, 1989. That has completed the first phase of review by the commission. They are looking forward to receiving by February 24 replies from all of the people involved, who will then verify their length of service and other criteria, so that the firm engaged, Price Waterhouse, can then compute fully the individual benefit entitlements.

Although there was some delay originally because of the records, the work has been ongoing and there has been progress. I think that all of those people either should have received or will shortly receive the letters asking them to verify service.

Mr. Neumann: Now that former Massey employees have received letters setting out their pension entitlements under the plan, what further steps are required before the pension benefits guarantee fund can be triggered and long-term security of specific benefits can be implemented and secured?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The result of the original review was to verify the names of people to whom letters should have gone to alert them to the fact that there was an entitlement. Those letters have gone out. I think it is just under 7,100 people who have been contacted. Those people should reply by February 24, as I said earlier, to Price Waterhouse. Then there will be individual computation of the amounts due to each of those individuals and that then should complete the requirements before a final determination of benefit is locked in and the payments made following that.

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

Mr. Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last week was National Nonsmoking Week. The subtheme of that week was the question of access of minors to smoking and the problem of smoking among minors across the country.

The minister undoubtedly is aware, as the community has been for some time, that in the last 20 years the age at which the average young person begins smoking has drifted from 16 to the age of 12 and that some studies tell us that 85 per cent of those young people, once they become regular smokers, go on to become persistent smokers in their lifestyle in later years, with the consequences we all know to their health.

I was therefore surprised that the minister did not introduce legislation last week that might have addressed this problem, even though he has been asked to strengthen legislation in this regard by a number of quarters. Is he prepared to do that and will he be acting in that regard soon?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to say to the honourable member that certainly there have been representations made to me as minister, as there have, I believe, to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), to move in this area since he has a piece of legislation called the Minors’ Protection Act which is currently on the books.

We have taken a look at the issue and we have looked very closely at it. I just say to my friend the member for Hamilton West that while I understand the very desirable ends that the groups which have been in discussing this matter with him and me seek, it is really a very difficult problem of regulation and enforcement, which would take literally hundreds of employees and which might not at the end of the day be very effective.

There are a number of antismoking initiatives which the member and I both know have been moving forward, not only in this Legislature but other kinds of voluntary and mandatory initiatives. It just seems to me that this one is not one that would be very high on my list of initiatives that would be effective.

Mr. Allen: We do know that the Minors’ Protection Act, as it exists, with its fines of some $2 to $50 is rather absurd. We also know that the federal Tobacco Products Control Act is equally weak in all of its aspects. We are aware that boards of health and local municipalities literally have their hands tied by the weakness of the legislative base they have to work from.

I wonder if the minister would not indeed sit down again with his colleagues and inquire among them as to whether it would not makes some sense to, first, increase the fine substantially against retailers who abuse the legislation; second, find some way to make vending machines inaccessible to minors; third, engage in a system of licensing which would regulate the field to such a degree that lifting the licence would be a major penalty and therefore a major discipline upon retailers in their behaviour towards clients who are under 18 years of age.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can say to my friend at the outset that certainly my colleague the Attorney General has heard the comments and I am sure has noted the comments made by the honourable member in regard to the fines in the Minors’ Protection Act, which comes under his jurisdiction.

In terms of licensing and in some way regulating the thousands and thousands of establishments that either sell cigarettes or have vending machines on site, I suppose we could do that. The real problem we have examined is the method of trying to enforce those regulations so that the penalty the member talks about would take place.

Certainly, there is a very real problem of enforcement and that has led me to a conclusion that the other methods of reducing the numbers of smokers, particularly those who are very young, who are of the age that the honourable member has spoken of, are probably at the end of the day more effective methods.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Eves: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Education, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). I had actually hoped to cover more than just the educational --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: What has the absence of the Premier to do with it?

Mr. Eves: It is just a statement of fact. The Premier is not here.

The minister will be aware that going back to July 15, 1988, I have written him several letters, as have indeed the east and west Parry Sound boards of education, asking whether the ministry is going to fulfil a commitment made by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) with respect to Parry Sound district. That is to get the full goods and services weighting factor that all rural school boards in northern Ontario receive; that is 0.90, not 0.60 which they already receive, effective April 1, 1989. Can they expect to receive the same goods and services weighting factor as the rest of the north does?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member for Parry Sound is no doubt aware, the method by which the government and the ministry flow funds to school boards is sensitive to local conditions and sensitive to the ability of local municipalities to allocate resources to the very necessary programs that boards may provide. Currently, the boards he refers to do get a goods and services weighting factor. As the member knows, the boundaries that establish the line which receives that factor have been adjusted.

We are doing a very fundamental review on educational finance in this province and we will be making some determinations. I will be happy to share the outcome of those deliberations with the member as soon as they are complete.

1600

Mr. Eves: I have already received the answer the minister has just given by correspondence. However, what I want is an answer to the specific commitment his government made on June 9, 1988, that effective April 1, 1989, that boundary for northern Ontario would be moved for the purposes of all ministries.

I am just going to read, very briefly, a quote from the Minister of Northern Development on that day: “...access to specific programs oriented to northern needs. For the people of Parry Sound and Nipissing, particularly those living south of Algonquin Park and the French River, this means being treated in a consistent fashion with other northern districts by all government ministries.”

I presume “all government ministries” includes the Ministry of Education. As the Minister of Education will see from the minister’s statement, the boundary line is to be moved from the French River to the southerly limit of Parry Sound and Nipissing districts. Is he going to fulfil this commitment on April 1, 1989, or not? Yes or no? I do not want to know what is happening in the rest of the province.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member goes on and on about making reference to a specific boundary line which is drawn and to which many ministries across the government have due regard in terms of making grant determinations.

As I indicated to the member, we are currently reviewing many aspects of educational finance. The reason for the differential for northern boards is quite clear. Due to circumstances such as remoteness, small school size and distances travelled in terms of the provision of services, it is our intent to make sure that the grants are very sensitive to those factors.

The member would want his board to get the same sort of treatment as any board in a similar circumstance. I think that is a legitimate expectation. I am sure the member will be satisfied when he sees our proposals for recognizing the difficulties that small boards have that have substantial distances to cover and have very particular needs because of their own circumstances.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. McLean: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“I understand that the government of Ontario is considering changing the way it helps pay for our public schools through a plan to pool local commercial and industrial taxes.

“I am very concerned that tax pooling will divert needed funds away from public schools and lead to further increases in property taxes. Funds for public schools are already stretched to the limit at the local level. I believe that any action by the government of Ontario to reduce its support for public schools or to cause property taxes to increase would be harmful to our public school system.

“The government of Ontario needs to stop shifting the costs of education to local property owners -- our public schools need more provincial support, not less.

“I am opposed to this tax pooling plan -- and any plan that will deplete funds available for public schools.”

That is signed by 16 people on behalf of Coldwater public school.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. McLean: I have a letter from Gordon F. Youngman to Wallace Campbell in district 17:

“The chairman of the Best Five Committee has requested that the provincial office forward the enclosed petition signed by 176 teacher members of the five Ontario Teachers’ Federation affiliates to your Queen’s Park office for presentation to the Legislature.”

In that organization there are 3,303 retired Ontario teachers. They seek to have the 1983 Teachers’ Superannuation Act amended as indicated in the petition form.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the dramatic growth rate in York region has placed extreme pressure on the municipal planning process and, given that serious allegations have been made regarding the integrity of this process in York region, we strongly urge the provincial government to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process and land development practices of York region.”

Mr. Speaker, these are only 10. I have several hundred more I will be presenting on other days.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a second petition.

“To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

This has 109 signatures, in addition to the previous 533 signatures that I submitted to the honourable Speaker.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Cousens: Finally, I have two other petitions of 100 names each to the Lieutenant Governor in Council objecting to the tax increases imposed by the Peterson government.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Ms. Collins: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

This is signed by the 16 members of the executive board of district 13 of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario, representing 950 pensioners who live in the area of Haldimand and Wentworth counties and the city of Hamilton, and I have put my signature to it.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly.

“We, the undersigned, support Bill 190 and urge the members of parliament to pass this bill immediately.”

This is the bill standing in the name of my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). I believe he said that the total numbers in support of this bill are now up to almost 30,000 people.

HOME CARE

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it states:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the Red Cross Society has incurred a deficit because the government of Ontario has failed to fulfil its promise to adequately fund home care services and therefore Red Cross may be forced to withdraw their home care services, we petition the Treasurer of Ontario to adequately fund the Red Cross services so that 170,000 citizens of Ontario are not forced to seek more expensive care in an institutional setting.”

This petition has my signature of support. It is signed by 800 additional residents from Burlington, which brings the total now to over 2,000 citizens who have expressed the sentiments of this petition.

1610

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 203, An Act to amend Certain Acts as they relate to the Law Society.

Motion agreed to.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wong moved first reading of Bill 204, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

UKRAINIAN EVANGELICAL BAPTIST ASSOCIATION OF EASTERN CANADA

Mr. Kozyra moved first reading of Bill Pr83, An Act to incorporate Ukrainian Evangelical Baptist Association of Eastern Canada.

Motion agreed to.

COUNTY OF LANARK ACT

Mr. Sterling moved, on behalf of Mr. Wiseman, first reading of Bill Pr78, An Act respecting the County of Lanark.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. Mr. Conway moved resolution 20:

That, when the order is called for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the committee report on Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, not more than one sessional day shall be allocated to this order and that at 5:45 p.m. on that day, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this order.

And that notwithstanding standing order 66(c), there shall be two sessional days allocated to the consideration of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, together in the committee of the whole House. At 5:45 p.m. on the second of these sessional days, the Chairman shall put all questions necessary to dispose of every section of both bills not yet passed as well as the titles and shall report both bills forthwith to the House, and that the question of the adoption of the report of the committee of the whole House on both bills shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

Further, that there shall be one sessional day allocated to the consideration of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, together at the third reading stage and that on that sessional day the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at 5:45 p.m. and put all questions necessary to dispose of the order for third reading of the two bills.

Finally, that in the case of any division requested during the time that these bills are being considered, the bells shall be limited to 15 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Conway: As the sponsor of this particular motion, I want to speak to it directly this afternoon. I do not intend, as I indicated to my friends in the opposition, particularly to the leader of the third party in the House, to go on at any great length, because I indicated the other day when we were debating the efficacy of the motion what the general intentions of the government were in this connection.

I have, for example, the sense that I am going to have some of my observations of a previous time recalled to my attention later this afternoon. I do want to give the members opposite an ample opportunity to join this debate.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You should have seen the tape of Provincial Affairs on Saturday.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I did not see the tape of Provincial Affairs on Saturday night. I was very busily attending to matters in my constituency.

Mr. Mackenzie: I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: When I see the member for Hamilton East look so agitated, I know that I must have done something of a kind -- anyway, I do not want to be provocative.

I want to say simply that the government has put before the assembly and the province, as of last spring, a comprehensive set of proposals to more efficiently, more fairly and more enforceably regulate the regulation of retail store hours across Ontario. That package of proposals has been debated widely.

There have been days of debate in this chamber on the second reading of, particularly the first of the two bills, Bill 113, which took several days, as I recall. Bill 114, the companion legislation having regard to the amendment to the Employment Standards Act, took somewhat less time. That gave any member who wanted to have the opportunity to participate in the debate an opportunity to indicate to the assembly, and through that process to the audience that reads or watches these proceedings, a clear indication of what the views of that honourable member or the political party in question were on the matters at hand.

We spent many, many days last spring debating those bills in principle. The government had always indicated, and then moved quickly to fulfil the commitment, that there should be public hearings in this connection. We organized ourselves, as we do, in the very amicable circumstance of the House leaders’ panel to arrange, under the very able leadership of my colleague the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan), the very distinguished chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice, ably supported by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) and others, not only to have a very good clause-by-clause deliberation but to allow the justice committee to travel, as it did, through the summer and early fall to some 14 different venues, to give the people of Ontario in those areas and those communities an opportunity to bring forward their representations.

If memory serves me correctly, in that perambulation the committee entertained something like 500 briefs. Some 200 groups or individuals came forward to express themselves with respect to the bills at hand.

Mr. Mackenzie: Almost all in opposition.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend from Hamilton says, “Almost all in opposition.” I do not share that view, but I want to say to my friend from Hamilton that in this matter, as in virtually all other matters of my recollection in almost 14 years in this House, it is true to say that these major reforms of public policy did not attract unanimous approval.

I have had experience in both government and the opposition in understanding how it is that when one moves forward to effect change of whatever kind, it is rare indeed that there is unanimity for what one as an individual private member or as a member of a government seeks to do. Certainly, the government found that in this particular regard. But the government did what it said it would do. It went out, it listened to what the people of Ontario had to say, it listened very carefully to what honourable members in the committee had to say.

My colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), and in her absence the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter), who, I think it must be said, deserves the commendation of the province generally and of the House specifically for the stellar fashion in which he carried forward the very onerous responsibilities that were his as parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General in this particular regard, listened very carefully to the constructive criticism brought forward, and Bill 113, the first of these two bills, has now attracted nine amendments that have been accepted.

I think that is a good indication, I say to my colleagues in the assembly and the population that might be viewing this afternoon, that the government has listened.

1620

To be sure, I say to my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), we did not find ourselves able to accept all of the suggestions for amendment that were advanced by the community or by members of the opposition, but we listened, and I said the other day and I repeat now that we listened with great care to a series of representations from the opposition.

I can remember being in my office on one particular occasion. I was somewhat nervous about joining the committee, because I thought my presence might have a destabilizing effect on what appeared to be the very conscientious deliberations of the standing committee on administration of justice; but I watched, for example, on days when the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) were seized of a very, very passionate conviction that these matters needed a great deal of attention. I was struck by how the chairman of the committee, the staff of the committee and members from all sides on that committee listened with great care to the very remarkable interventions -- at least the ones I saw -- particularly from the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Cambridge.

Mr. Philip: You accepted two minor amendments.

Mr. Chiarelli: The rest of them were dumb, Ed.

Mr. Philip: And then voted against it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale says that he did not always attract majority support. He ought to know, from his experience in his own caucus, to say nothing of the justice committee, that is sometimes his lot in life. We very much appreciate his observations, we admire the dogged determination with which he pursues his objectives, but it has to be said that, not only in this matter but in others where I have had a very, very close association with the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, he does not always attract a majority view from his own side or from the other parties in this House.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: He probably has more support than you do.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The leader of the House for the official opposition observes that on occasion he finds more support on our side than perhaps in his own caucus. I suspect that is true, because the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and I were elected together over 13 years ago. He is very compelling, resourceful, and as I said earlier a man of dogged determination. I have to tell him that his contribution to this long and elaborate exercise that we are now discussing today has not been insignificant.

But it is true to say that the government, after a very good debate over weeks in this chamber last spring when on second reading we debated at great length the issues, in principle, that attach to these two bills, went out to the justice committee and organized through the justice committee very extensive public hearings in 14 different locations. As I remember, I say to my friend the member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero), they were widely advertised and very well attended.

Out of all of that process there came a variety of suggestions for change. The government accepted some nine amendments to improve the legislation, because we have never said that we imagined this to be perfect. We certainly said that the bills could be, and we expected would be, improved in the clause-by-clause process; and in our view they were.

So where are we today? To be fair, and I am very anxious to be fair and balanced in this, we have awaited, as a government, the return of these bills from the justice committee, where, as I say, up until the other day some 60 days of legislative time had been dedicated to their consideration.

I know my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) would agree with me --

Mr. Mackenzie: Did you say 59 or 60?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Well, it is in the neighbourhood of 60. I will defer to the honourable member opposite as to the precise number, but it was very close to 60 when I last checked. It is hard to add up the days, quite frankly, because there have been days dedicated to bell-ringing. There have been other days dedicated to a variety of other, sometimes exotic, sometimes fascinating and sometimes frustrating exercises.

I must say this. To be fair to the opposition, it has indicated from the outset its dislike of this particular government initiative; and that is not unusual for an opposition. I have in fact found myself doing that when I occupied that part of the Legislature.

Mr. Philip: So has your parish priest, Sean.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale makes some comment about my parish priest. I would be very anxious to hear whatever it is my honourable friend has to say in that connection. I can only say that the last time he offered that advice he had the reverend gentleman’s name incorrect. I presume by now he has that straightened out.

Mr. Philip: If you’d attend church more often you’d know his name better.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Was it not Harry Truman who described himself as an outside pillar of the church? I perhaps might want to join that distinguished former president of the United States, knowing that I could never match the religiosity and the virtue of my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

I want to say that the government has been faced with a situation where it was determined to move forward in a thoughtful and deliberate way, as I believe we have. We have, on the other hand, faced an opposition that has said: “Listen, we don’t like this. We like it so little” -- as the New Democrats have advertised in recent times – “that we are prepared to move heaven and earth to delay and to obstruct.”

We have seen in the developments of the last while some extraordinary things. One of those we saw here last week. We saw, for example, the bells ring for 24 hours to frustrate the progress of these important matters.

Mr. Philip: You’ve never rung bells in opposition? When was it you rang them for three days?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I cannot answer the honourable member’s question. I can tell the honourable member that while a member of the opposition, I always felt that it was my responsibility to oppose vigorously and constructively. I always appropriated that right for myself and my colleagues, but I did draw the line at constructive opposition.

I have felt, I say to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), that there is a demarcation dividing constructive opposition -- I expect my colleagues in the opposition to be vigorous in their attack upon the government, both in question period and elsewhere in public debate.

Mr. Philip: So ringing the bells for three days is constructive, but ringing the bells for one day is obstructive?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friend, it is not just the ringing of the bells. I acknowledge that bell-ringing is part of our practice, part of our rules.

What I have to say to my friend the member for Hamilton East is simply this: Over the past five years we have seen some delaying tactics that are new and extraordinary; extraordinary in the sense that there is no way for the House then to proceed to the kind of business that the public out there in Stirling, Bancroft, Rexdale or wherever expects us to responsibly get on with. In this debate, for example, we have seen not just endless bell-ringing but also endless reading of petitions where we could not get to the orders of the day.

In recent days, we have seen the very considerable debate on a report from a standing committee during routine proceedings. It is a debate that frankly is quite unusual, and as we have discovered not really dealt with in any effective way within our rules simply because it is treated as a routine proceeding. However, my friends in the official opposition have decided to treat it as something other than a routine proceeding.

Again, I want to be fair. They have advertised what their intentions are. Their intentions in this connection are to obstruct at virtually every turn the government’s intention to move this important business along. The other day --

Mr. Philip: It has been done before.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale applauds himself. I say that is his right.

I also want to say that while the opposition has a very important role to play in attacking the government for its shortcomings and for its other failures, the government too --

Mr. Mackenzie: There aren’t enough hours in the day for that.

1630

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Hamilton East says there are not enough hours in the day for that, and he may be right.

I am reminded of what the late great Sam Rayburn once said. It was something like, “Just about anyone can kick the barn door down, but it takes a carpenter to construct an edifice of that or any other kind.” I have to say that having been in the opposition for all those years I know something of the recreational delight and psychological release that comes from attack. I have no lessons to learn in that connection, as my friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) knows only too well.

There is, in another place, a former government House leader who would really like to be here today, I am sure, to hear yours truly make this speech. I have been a fairly vigorous and regular opponent of government in this place when I felt that government had not quite got it right.

But I have to say that governments have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to govern in the best interest, as we see those interests, of the province and of the community. The people of Ontario went to the polls and made a determination. Whatever one thinks of that -- I can understand that my friends in the opposition might think that somehow the public did not quite do what they would have liked; I used to think that and sometimes say that -- we have an important responsibility as the duly elected government of this province to get on in a responsible and reasonable way with the public’s business.

There comes a time, I say to my friend from Mount Forest -- and I do not have to say this to him, because I do not know anyone who is more sweetly reasonable in these matters than my friend the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), with whom I have done public and legislative business for a long, long time -- when the people expect after a good while that the debate is going to be moved along. Surely it is part of the informing logic of parliamentary democracy, and any kind of good public debate, that after a vigorous ventilation of all sides of the question a duly elected chamber such as this is going to be able to decide the matter.

What we have before us now is a government notice of motion that seeks to move these important matters of public policy on to the next stage of debate. It is no more than that. It is a statement by the government that having spent nine months, 60 days of debate in specific, in respect to these two bills, surely it is now both timely and desirable that we should move these matters on to the next stage of debate and then to an orderly conclusion. That is what the government notice of motion standing in my name intends.

I do not want there to be any confusion. I say respectfully to my colleagues in the opposition that I, for one, am both interested in and anxious to hear the next phase of debate. Having heard the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale on a number of occasions in this connection, and having, for example, read the Stratford Beacon-Herald the other day to see that my good friend the recently elected member for the third party, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), was at the pulpit in that wonderful Perth county town addressing the assembled gathering I think on Sunday about this important matter of public policy, I am equally anxious to hear her next sortie in this debate.

Mr. Philip: I was in the pulpit too.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I hear the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale say that he was at another pulpit in recent times. What we want, I say to my friend the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) is to move this along. We are not anxious --

Mrs. Marland: Ask the churches.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Not at all. I have an understanding of the church point of view in this connection. I want to say that in my part of province there has been a good debate about this particular public or government policy. I repeat: not everyone I have met endorses the government’s point of view; absolutely not, I want to be perfectly candid in that.

I have to say to my friends in the opposition that in my communities, rural eastern Ontario, we have a well-established practice where the local option has been accepted by many and rejected by a good number on the other side. I live in the city of Pembroke. Our community has essentially said, “We’re not going to have an open Sunday.”

Mr. Philip: Wait till the neighbouring city does.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But I have to tell members, and I say to my friend from Rexdale that I have a little cabin in the woods, high in the central highlands of that great county of mine, and the nearby township has opted into a local option whereby in the shadow of church spires businesses are open and have been open for decades, because they have opted in to a local option that has been theirs, happily provided by --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If you already have the local option, why do you need these bills?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member asks: “Why do we need these bills?” We want these bills because they provide the government with much stronger enforcement powers; they give the government the injunctive power. These bills are exceptionally significant because they give to the government -- to the Solicitor General -- a far, far greater enforcement capacity than has been the case over the last number of years.

But I just simply want to say that in my communities we have seen some communities opt in and others stay out. I think that is entirely understandable and accords with the good common sense of the people of the Ottawa Valley and what I expect to be the good sense of the people right across the province.

So I do not find anything revolutionary in this. I have listened to my friends in the opposition and I have wondered: “What did the Tories think they were doing in 1976 when they enacted the Retail Business Holidays Act? What do they think the tourist exemption is if it is not local option?”

In so far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, I have to say that the member -- pardon me?

Mr. Mackenzie: It is a great ambition to outdo the Tories.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Not at all, not at all; because you see I have listened, for example, over the years to what the member for Windsor-Riverside has had to say. And I will tell you, the member for Windsor-Riverside has been positively inspired in this connection; and he is inspired, I say to my friend the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash), because he lives in that wonderful part of southwestern Ontario where he knows that while the bulk of the city of Windsor has opted to close, Amherstburg, not far down the way, has moved to a more open Sunday policy over the past number of years. I have to believe that the member for Windsor-Riverside, when he has offered his opinions from time to time and from place to place, recognizes in the good sense of those opinions that that has not brought about a moral decline in that wonderful part of the province, nor has it created any particular chaos.

My friends, again from places like Sterling and Manotick, will know that in our part of eastern Ontario we have communities as disparate as downtown Ottawa -- I think of the Byward Market, for example -- Athens, Gananoque, Deep River in my area, to name but two or three that have opted for a more open Sunday; hosts of other communities have said: We simply choose -- in the best of local democracy -- to say: “We are going to remain closed.’ “ It seems to me that is part of the genius of Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: Just like this is democracy.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Now of course we have the member for Algoma who chimes into this debate, who I would have thought might have been more cautious after the municipal elections in that great city of Sault Ste. Marie, near which he resides, because I know the honourable member does not hold his finger to the wind. I have more than a little bit of evidence in that regard. But I just simply want to say that I watched the debate in that part of northern Ontario and I was struck by what the people in that community did very recently. I note, as well, that there were other communities that with equal vigour said: “No open Sunday.” That, quite frankly, under this legislation is going to be made very clear to them as a significant possibility.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) stood in his place on Thursday and suggested how this motion might be out of order. I listened with care to his argument and I listened with equal care today when the chair released the results of its weekend deliberation. And I am pleased that the ruling is as clear and as strong as it is with regard to the efficacy and the orderliness of government notice of motion 20.

1640

I think it is not, as the member for Algoma suggests, anything tyrannical. It is quite the reverse. It is something entirely democratic. In this sense, it is democratic: It is democratic because this motion says we, as a government, are anxious to continue the debate and, given the views of the opposition, we want to give that opposition a further opportunity, after so many months, unfettered by whatever delaying tactics might next be imagined; an opportunity for the members from the Beaches, Hamilton, Mississauga and wherever else to come forward and debate, in an orderly way, the issues of Bill 113 and Bill 114 at the report stage again and committee of the whole House and third reading.

Mr. Wildman: And to end it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Algoma is right. I repeat something I said earlier. It seems to me that part of the informing logic of any democracy has to be that a good debate ought to be had, all sides ought to be heard. Hopefully, government or positions in general might be adjusted to take into account the wisdom that is generated or the good ideas that are brought forward in that debate, but a good debate must come to a conclusion.

If it does not, then I do not know how it is that any reasonable person could imagine this democracy of ours to be defensible, to be justified to those out there in communities as far flung as Blind River and Deep River, where the good people expect the members of the Legislature to vigorously debate but to ultimately decide.

If the opposition does not understand that, we in government understand that, because we have a responsibility not only to debate, and in the course of that debate to listen and to amend, but to decide a question, to put in place the new policy, as we want in this connection, and to move on to other business.

In conclusion, I recommend to the attention of honourable members opposite the wisdom of supporting this mechanism to move this now nearly year-old debate on to a next stage.

Mrs. Marland: Don’t finish. I am enjoying it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friend the member for Mississauga South, my experience in government is teaching me to try to make my point with perhaps more clarity and in less time than might have been the case when I was in opposition.

I just have to say that what we have done is to put before the assembly a motion that allows the debate to continue and to take it, then, on through those stages to an orderly conclusion. So I cannot imagine, apart from some rhetoric that might arise in this debate, that there is any reasonable person who imagines that this is anything but fair, even-handed, and I might even say expected. I have had a sense that there were those who were waiting for this kind of a motion so that a debate that had gone on for so long, that had become so irregular, could now be brought into a more organized final phase.

My colleagues in government are anxious to have this motion debated and voted upon. I, for one, want to resume my place to hear my colleagues make their submissions at those next stages.

Mr. Mackenzie: You are going to stay in the House.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have shown, I think, a very good degree of interest in these and other debates, I want to say to my friend the member for Hamilton East, and I will be here to listen with great care to the submissions of honourable members opposite. Quite frankly, I am going to be interested to see whether or not the member for Cambridge and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) will find any need to be more focused in the next round of the debate than perhaps they were that day when I checked in on their interventions at the standing committee on administration of justice.

I conclude my remarks by repeating that we have spent virtually nine months -- a lot of time. This motion seeks now to move this along. I cannot imagine that my friends opposite are going to want to do anything but approve it and get on to the next phase of what has been one of the most interesting debates of important government policy; I repeat again, a policy that seeks, after a lot of deliberation and amendment, to more fairly, more efficiently and more enforceably regularize the regulation of retail store hours in this province of ours.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am not going to say that I am happy to join in this debate, but here it is and obviously the government House leader knew it was coming.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you had the opportunity to watch Provincial Affairs this past Saturday night, but I did. The government House leader spent a good deal of the time attacking my party. I took that as a compliment, because I think we have demonstrated over the last number of months our vigorous, real and very strongly held views on the government’s plan to expand Sunday shopping.

I guess the offensive thing about the Provincial Affairs presentation was that either the government House leader took for granted the decision the Speaker was going to make today or it was taped before Thursday afternoon -- one or the other. In either case, he obviously assumed that the Speaker was going to rule in favour of the government. I think that indicates a bit of arrogance. It is not appropriate for a government to take a Speaker for granted in the Legislature.

This has been a bad session for the Liberal government in Ontario. There is no doubt about that at all. They have had difficulty with the Sunday shopping bills; they have had no focus; obviously they have no vision; they are being criticized in the press because they do not have a vision. They have lost the progressive nature they had during the 1985-87 period, when we imposed that progressive flavour on government with the accord. They have developed an arrogance which we have come to know very well in majority governments in this province. This issue demonstrates the lack of honesty the Liberal government has brought to the politics of Ontario as well.

I should point out that if I had taken notes during the entire time the government House leader was speaking, I could probably speak for several days in response to some of the things he said.

One would get the impression, from listening to the government House leader, that when they were in opposition they were just very quiet; they voiced their opinions on issues but they did nothing that would be called, as the government House leader calls it, obstruction. I have another word for it and I will get into that later.

I remember when the Liberal Party was in opposition it used several tactics. I think it was the former member for Rainy River, Mr. Reid, who spoke for hours. I do not know whether it was that tactic or the bell-ringing that almost prevented all the civil servants in the province from getting their pay.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) himself spoke at great length.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Yes, he did.

Extraordinary tactics were used on sales tax legislation. It was not uncommon for the Liberal Party, when it was in opposition, to challenge the chair, to divide and vote against the Speaker on several occasions. In fact, the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) himself -- as was pointed out last Thursday -- voted on at least two occasions, I believe it was, against time allocation. He took the view, as we did last week and today, that time allocation is not provided for in the rules of the Ontario Legislature and therefore should be ruled out of order.

I would like to go back briefly to talk a little bit about the history of these two bills, because if it were not for these two bills, obviously we would not be dealing with this motion.

1650

The history on Sunday shopping is an interesting one. Prior to the last election, there was a consensus that had developed in this Legislature.

I would like to respond for 30 seconds, because I think that is all it is worth, to the comments the government House leader and other members of the government have made on occasion about comments that I made in our local newspaper.

When I made comments when the select committee on Sunday shopping was being set up I said, and I felt then and I still agree with the position that I took at the time, that a select committee should be set up; the Legislature should review Sunday shopping; we should deal with that type of issue in a way that would review past practices and try to develop a consensus.

In minority government that was done. A consensus was formed and a report was tabled with the Legislature -- a unanimous report. All three parties supported the report from the select committee on Sunday shopping. I would like to read a few of these consensus recommendations, unanimous recommendations that were passed during the time of the minority government.

“Your select committee on retail store hours adopts the following principle and makes the following recommendations:

“Guiding principle: The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario. Legislation regulating retailing on holidays, including Sundays, should therefore be structured to support the maintenance of such a common pause day, or day or rest.”

“Recommendations: 1. The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government.”

That is the number one priority recommendation of this committee. It was a unanimous recommendation. What does the government do as soon as it gets its majority? It passes the buck and dumps the major responsibility not on the provincial government, but on the municipal governments. That is something, Mr. Speaker, I know you felt very strongly about when you were a municipal councillor. You were, as I was, sick and tired, and continue to be sick and tired, of this government and past provincial governments dumping the responsibility on municipalities so that local councillors have to take the heat when a provincial government is afraid to tackle hot political issues.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: So much for local autonomy as far as the socialists are concerned.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is not local autonomy. It is not local autonomy when the government dumps something. When the government dumps it on to the municipalities --

Hon. Mr. Riddell: So much for local autonomy. You people want to run everything. You want to nationalize lnco. What else do you want to do? You want to govern the whole thing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Order, please. I would like to make a comment. I would request that the member for Windsor-Riverside not draw me into the debate because I do not have the opportunity of responding to his statements with respect to me personally. Could he continue?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am not quite sure where the member for Middlesex, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, was coming from when he talked about local autonomy and then said something about nationalization of Inco, but then I have never really understood where the minister was coming from. I do remember, though, in the last provincial election he came into the riding of Essex-Kent and played those kinds of red-baiting tactics in order to defeat Pat Hayes. It is something that the minister should not be very proud of.

Hon. Mr. Ridden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am from Huron county. I wish you would get that straight. I am the member for Huron.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I know the minister’s background very well. We know what he thinks of labour. We know what he did to the Fleck workers. We know his background very well. His background is not something to be very proud of for workers in this province.

The third recommendation of this unanimous report was that the municipal level of government should retain the right under the Retail Business Holidays Act to exercise specified, delegated authority; for example, the decisions on the designation of local tourism areas. That is very important because this unanimous report does not say that the whole ball of wax should be dumped on the municipalities. What this report clearly says is that the designation for tourist areas should remain the responsibility of local governments, which know that particular aspect of this issue best. It does not say that the entire issue should be dumped on to the municipalities.

Recommendation 12 said: “The government of Ontario, with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation playing a lead role, should undertake appropriate analyses to develop a provincial framework and policy standards which would define provincial objectives for holiday retailing in support of tourism in Ontario. Such a provincial framework should develop the definition of tourism and be designed to assist municipalities in their consideration of local tourist area bylaw exemptions under the Retail Business Holidays Act.”

Clearly, the recommendation here says: “Yes, there was some problem in the area of designation of tourism areas, but you don’t throw away the whole principle of a provincial ban on Sunday shopping and the authority at the municipal level to designate tourism areas because you have a problem with defining ‘tourism.’ Instead, you study the issue and you properly come to a solution and put that into the legislation.”

That recommendation was never followed up on. Instead, during the provincial election of 1987, the Liberal Party took the position that the status quo should remain. There was a consensus in the province. All three political parties supported the select committee report and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the leader of the Liberal Party, said at the time that this should remain and that if he were re-elected on September 10 there would be no change in the government’s policy on Sunday shopping.

On September 10, the Liberal Party got a majority. In December, just a couple of months later, the government announced its policy change: it is going to dump the responsibility on the municipal governments. The result, of course, will be Sunday shopping right across this province.

This is just one example of many where the Liberal Party said one thing during an election and did the exact opposite. When it made this announcement we forced the government to allow public hearings through tactics that the government House leader might talk about as being obstructionist tactics; we talk about them in terms of holding this government accountable.

We read petitions into the record for days. We did not allow the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to read a budget -- not something that we felt terribly comfortable with, but we had no alternative, because at that point the government was refusing to hold public hearings across this province. It was only because of the reading of the petitions and the bell-ringing in the spring of 1988 that the government was forced to have public hearings across this province, and that is something I am very proud of and was proud to be part of a caucus that did that.

That is not obstruction. That is not obstruction at all. That is forcing a government to do what it should want to do but what an arrogant majority government refused to do in Ontario.

That was the case. This government had no mandate to bring in Sunday shopping across this province. They can talk about having 94 members in this House and that the majority should be allowed to govern, but the majority should not be allowed to say one thing during an election, get a mandate from the people of this province to maintain the status quo on Sunday shopping and then reverse policy and expect that their majority allows them to do that. That is not honest, that lacks integrity, and that is not something this party will stand for. We will fight it, whether it is Sunday shopping, whether it is a workers’ compensation bill, whether it is insurance rates or whatever the issue is. That is our responsibility, that is our role, and we intend to do that as the official opposition.

There was one time in this place when we did support a time allocation motion. I am not going to say there should never be time allocation in this House. There will be extraordinary circumstances, I think, and I agree with the government House leader on that. I will read later some comments where I agree wholeheartedly with the government House leader about time allocation.

I think there should be an amendment to the rules, and we have been struggling with this government to try to get some changes in the rules that would benefit both the government and the opposition parties and make this place work better. To date, the government has rejected our proposals and we have gone no further than the interim rules that were brought in during minority government.

We supported time allocation on Bill 94, the bill that banned extra-billing, because of a couple of things. We had a doctors’ strike across this province and the delay in passing Bill 94 was lengthening and increasing the intensity of that strike. There is no doubt about that. As soon as Bill 94 was passed, the strike ended and collapsed.

1700

It was costing the taxpayers, through the continuation of extra-billing, $1.1 million per week. There clearly were extraordinary circumstances with Bill 94. We had already debated it for quite some time, and I think in that case there was no alternative but to bring in some form of time allocation that brought that debate to an end.

But clearly those are extraordinary circumstances, and those extraordinary circumstances do not apply to this situation whatsoever.

Why do the Liberals want these bills passed in the Legislature at this particular time? Why is it necessary? Is there an emergency in the province? There is no emergency to do with Sunday shopping in this province. Is there anything else on the Liberal agenda that is being held up as a result of Bills 113 and 114 not proceeding?

I have before me a list of government priorities, government legislation that must be passed. I am not going to read through it all, but it is not a very impressive list whatsoever. There are a couple of pieces of legislation like Bill 124, the Children’s Law Reform Amendment Act. We have dealt with it; it has gone out to committee.

The Independent Health Facilities Act: We are not in agreement. The Conservative Party is not in agreement, but there has been only one day scheduled for Bill 147. By some strange coincidence, Bill 147 is seen as being an anti-free-trade piece of legislation. The only time Bill 147 was called for debate was two weeks before the federal election, when the provincial Liberal government was trying to help John Turner on the free trade issue. That was the only reason it was brought forward. It is not on a government priority list.

We still have on this list, to show how accurate the government list is, Bill 168, the Power Corporation Amendment Act, which was also an anti-free-trade bill which also was debated that same week. Today, the bill is withdrawn. We said that week that it would be withdrawn; it was withdrawn. Of course, the other bill that was in at that time was the Water Transfer Control Act, which we have not heard a heck of a lot about either, but it is on the list.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing much here that has been on the list. The government did not see these bills to be priorities. I would dare say that if the Sunday shopping bills had been dealt with before Christmas, none of these bills would have been a priority.

The government does not want to be here. They would rather be elsewhere. I am not quite sure why. We in this party like the idea of being here and holding the government accountable day after day after day in question period and dealing with issues like health care in this province, which is incredibly important and which is not being adequately dealt with by this government.

I would dare say that the main reason the Liberal Party brought in time allocation last week on these bills is because it is embarrassed. They want to get out of here. Their Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is in trouble over health care issues. The Solicitor General has been an embarrassment in the way she has dealt with issues. More important than any of those issues, there is a thing called the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. The insurance rate review board will be reporting the decision on insurance rates in this province either at the end of this month or up to February 20.

I might say to you, Mr. Speaker, that last week we were told the insurance rate review board would likely report on February 3. Today, we are told it will not report any later than February 20. I may be cynical, but I have a strong feeling that the February 20 date has something to do with time allocation and getting the New Democrats out of the Legislature so that when that rate review board reports a 20 per cent, 25 per cent or 30 per cent increase in insurance rates, the government will not be here to be held accountable. That is the reality of the situation; I think that is very true.

Of course, in insurance, the government is also very much embarrassed because it again said one thing during an election and did the opposite. In fact, members you will remember that three days before the election was held the Premier said he had a plan to lower insurance rates. Only a few months later -- in fact I think it was the same month that the government announced its switch in policy on Sunday shopping -- it raised the insurance rates 4.5 per cent. Then a few months later it gave the insurance companies another 4.5 per cent; so that was nine per cent when the freeze was in effect. Heaven only knows what the insurance rates will go up to in this province when the rate review board reports in a matter of a few weeks.

I would like to go back to some comments that the government House leader made when he was on this side of the House, because I think some of these are very interesting. Some of them, quite frankly, are quite hilarious, but I will read them anyway.

This is on December 8, 1982, on a time allocation motion that the former government used to bring in Bill 179, which was a wage control bill that was subsequently found to be unconstitutional, but nonetheless was an emergency for which this House had been brought back that year in September by the Davis government. We had held the bill up because we were totally opposed to the bill in principle. In December 1982 Mr. Wells, then government House leader, brought in time allocation.

The member for Renfrew North said: “On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to offer a few comments with respect to the government notice of motion 10 introduced in the name of the government House leader.

“It is of genuine concern to my colleagues and to me that we have before us so serious and so significant a departure in terms of the way we have conducted ourselves in the Legislative Assembly for lo these many years.

“Let me reiterate what I have said on an earlier occasion. I, like many others in this assembly, have been taking note of the fact that we have arrived at this parliamentary impasse because one group of politicians, one group of members, has made it clear it will not easily agree to the passage of this legislation. That is the right of these members.

“However, in the course of this difficult passage, we must be very careful that we do not allow to be put in our tradition, as we stand now to do, not one but two serious departures by way of closure. Those of us who sat in the standing committee on administration of justice last week saw the first departure in that connection, and now we see this.

“Quite frankly, as my colleague and leader has indicated, it is an experience and rule among lawyers that difficult cases make for bad law. I am deeply concerned that, in the course of this difficult passage, we are going to write very bad new rules into our practice here in this assembly.”

I totally agree with the government House leader. What happened in that case was that we brought in time allocation without amending the standing orders of the Ontario Legislature. That precedent has served governments since then to bring in time allocation a few times.

It would be much more appropriate, as the member for Renfrew North said at the time -- and I agreed with him at the time and agree today -- that if we are going to have this type of action taken in the Legislature, what we should do is renegotiate the rules, we should be properly addressing the issue in the rules so that oppositions and majorities are protected.

We had another debate in February 1983. At that time, I think we were dealing with Bill 127. Again, the government House leader -- I think at the time it was as Education critic for the Liberal Party -- spoke in opposition to a closure that was brought in on Bill 127.

I just want to quote a couple of things. “I do not intend to be long but I want to say -- unless the government House leader ulcerates with that concern -- one cannot but come to the conclusion that the government notice of motion 11, which I understand was not written until after adjournment last evening, is before us today because very late in the session the government House leader decided on a reasonable date of adjournment to facilitate the first minister’s travels to France and other such considerations. Having decided on a date of adjournment, everything was worked back from the date of adjournment, which I understand is thought to be Friday.”

1710

I could run through all sorts of quotes. Again, the government House leader makes the point very well that the Legislative Assembly should not be passing time allocation without proper adjustment to the rules of the Legislative Assembly. That has not been done. We have had that opportunity on many occasions when we have been negotiating the rules. We have had several meetings on it and not once has the government House leader or the government party raised the issue of bringing in time allocation rules.

I think the time would be appropriate for the government to do that. If it wants to negotiate that as a package, then we are certainly prepared to talk about it. We will want other things in return. We would want all sorts of protections for opposition parties. But it is inappropriate and it is wrong for the government party to bring in time allocation on these bills.

I think there is a real question, as raised in our point of order, of whether it is appropriate to bring in time allocation on two bills at once. The fact of the matter is that Bill 114 had very little attention paid to it in committee. Members had just got to it in committee of the whole House and the argument about the amount of time spent on Bill 113 simply does not apply to Bill 114.

I want to sum up by saying that I think it is clear what the government has done here. It brought in a bill, Bill 113, which will extend Sunday shopping across this province and it passed the buck to municipalities. The government can talk about local autonomy and democratic accountability at the local level, but the fact of the matter is there was not even consultation with the municipalities. There was no consultation whatsoever.

The government can hardly say there is agreement on local autonomy when the fact of the matter is the municipalities never agreed to this process whatsoever. In fact, many municipalities appeared before the committee. The Ontario-wide association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, appeared before the committee and it unanimously opposed the government’s position on passing the buck.

Bill 114, the labour bill, does not do what the government says it is going to do. It does not protect workers. The government knows as well as I do that there is absolutely no way it can protect workers who refuse to work on Sundays. The government can say that there will be a panel, that there will be an appeal process, but who is going to protect the worker if a month later there is a layoff, a cutback in hours or whatever other tactic is used?

Time allocation, I think, is a sad commentary on this government. It is a sad commentary on a majority that has become more and more removed from the people of this province. There was not a lot of discussion on Bill 114. I think what this government has done is use its majority to force these bills on an unwilling Legislature, which is very clear.

More important than the Legislature, the government is using its majority to force these bills on an unwilling public. I can speak on behalf of this caucus. It will be opposing this bill. We will be discussing it at length. I hope that while we are debating, the government will reconsider its position.

Mr. Harris: I am delighted to be back. I was going to say, “I am delighted to enter into this debate.” I do not think anyone is delighted to enter into a debate like this, so I hedge my delight in that sense. I am delighted to have the opportunity to be here, though, to get my thoughts and those of my party on the record pertaining to this motion brought forward by the government.

I want to say that the disappointment I felt today on the ruling the Speaker made on this motion is really with the government in bringing forward the motion. I want to indicate it is not the ruling I would have made had I been the Speaker, because it is a very precedent-setting ruling. I want to indicate that it was a difficult decision the Speaker had to make because I believe in this chamber it set the potential for a number of precedents.

I support the Speaker. I accept that the Speaker made the ruling in the spirit of trying to achieve the delicate balance between the rights of the minority in this parliament and the rights of the majority government to govern, and for that reason I support the Speaker in his role. I support that he made his decision based on the best available information he could find. I will live, of course, with the Speaker’s decision.

But I want to say that I was disappointed. I am disappointed the government chose to proceed in this direction. I have the odd little quote I would like to make on the matter.

First, Beauchesne on the matter of the principles of parliamentary law states, “To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority;” -- l suggest that if we are not dealing with both improvidence and tyranny of this majority, particularly as it pertains to Bill 114, certainly improvidence would carry the day, and I suggest a strong argument can be made for both – “to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express his opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time.”

The operable words here are “to enable every member to express his opinions within limits necessary.” We are dealing here with Bill 114, which received second-reading debate in one hour. It moved on to committee where the public was heard from and then it received two sitting sessions in committee which translated into -- I do not have the actual times, but one of them was half an hour and the second session slightly under an hour, in that order.

Certainly, it was sent to a standing committee where two members of my party of 17 had an opportunity to speak, perhaps, in that period while it was in the standing committee. So 17 of my members sharing time with 130 members of this assembly had approximately an hour on second reading and two of my members had an hour or an hour and a half to share with seven government members, I guess, and two New Democratic Party members in committee.

What I am suggesting to the Speaker is that under the definition of Beauchesne, the Speaker ought “to enable every member to express his opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time.” All the members of my caucus have not had an opportunity to express their opinion on Bill 114. It says, “to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken on sudden impulse.”

1720

I suggest to the House that I disagree with closure on Bill 113, and I will be making arguments. I suggest that as far as Bill 114 goes, which in my view is a different bill brought in by a different minister to cover a very different situation than Bill 113, part of it to protect some of the workers from the very problems Bill 113 caused, it is a very far-reaching piece of legislation and, many argue, unconstitutional, I happen to be one of those who suggested it probably is an unconstitutional piece of legislation, and I am sure there will be challenges to that effect. They are two very different pieces of legislation and I suggest the legislative action being taken was taken on sudden impulse to deal with Bill 114.

Those are the rules as set out by Beauchesne that the Speaker should try to maintain. For those reasons, I suggest there was ample opportunity, in a very difficult decision the Speaker had to make, to suggest that the debate not be shut off.

In the introduction of the time allocation motion, particularly with respect to Bill 114, it seems the government has no regard for the tradition of our parliamentary heritage. It is not only that the government is not prepared to allow for adequate debate on a very controversial bill, but it also appears unable to sit down at the table and negotiate with the opposition to come to some reasonable conclusion as to the amount of time that is appropriate for debate on Bill 114.

I want to refer as well to something else the Speaker said today. He used an example of unanimous consent that was given at some particular time. Beauchesne is very clear, on page 7, section 14, “Whenever the House proceeds by way of unanimous consent, that procedure does not constitute a precedent.” I understand the Speaker took that into consideration, but if so, I do not know why he quoted the precedent as any licence to help him make his decision. I am a little uncomfortable with that part.

On page 117 of Beauchesne, we have the rules for closure. “Closure is a method of procedure which brings debate to a conclusion and enables the House to secure a decision upon the subject under discussion.... If debate is on an amendment under closure, and a division takes place on that amendment,” etc. It gives some examples.

“A motion for closure applies not only to the main motion under debate but also to such amendments ... .” We understand that.

“A motion for closure applies to all the formal subsidiary motions... ‘Consideration’ of a clause or other item may be achieved by as little as one speech when the item is called.”

One would think closure ought to be used to fit this criteria once every individual member has been given some opportunity, which clearly has not been the case on Bill 114.

As well, it talks about time allocation for stages of the bill. Page 224, chapter 17: “A motion for the allocation of time may set out in detail some or all of the provisions which are to be made for the further proceedings on the bill.” Not “on the bills”; “on the bill.”

We are now dealing with two of what the government feels are very related pieces of legislation. While I understand there is the odd connection, I would suggest they are two very different pieces of legislation, with two very different thrusts.

There are four sections there, 730, 731, 732 and 733. I do not want to read them all, but I want to make it clear that I could find nothing in Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms that talks about two bills being brought together at the same time for closure.

Also, Erskine May, page 454, talks about allocation of time orders or the guillotine motion.

I do not want to read the whole preamble. Others can refer to this. It says, “But the harshness of this procedure is to some extent mitigated either by consultations between the party leaders or in the business committee” -- the House leaders – “in order to establish the greatest possible measure of agreement as to the most satisfactory disposal of the time available.”

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that given whatever the time -- the government in this case has considered four days the time that ought to be made available -- those discussions have not taken place as to how to best use that time.

For those reasons, I would have thought a little reflection might have been in order, for those discussions to take place. I suggest to the government House leader that there is still some time for that, that he might entertain an amendment to this motion he has placed before us and that it may be appropriate some discussions take place as to how the government has seen fit to allocate the time.

I am under the sense there are not too many government members who feel they want to enter into this debate any further, but there are a number of opposition members who would like to enter into this debate, particularly those who have not had the opportunity under Bill 114.

I urge both the government and the official opposition House leaders to sit down with me and take a look at whether we cannot allow more substantial debate, on Bill 114 in particular. How many hours? On second reading, there was a little over an hour, about 19 to one what was allowed for Bill 113. I find it passing strange that the government thought 19 or 20 hours was appropriate for Bill 113, whereas an hour or so was appropriate for Bill 114. That does not make a lot of sense to me.

The document the government released to the media indicates first reading, April 25, 1988, no debate, no time spent; second reading, June 16 and June 20, one hour of debate.

1730

How much can be said, how many speakers can get on the record during an hour in second reading debate? How many speakers can get their views on the record in a meaningful way on a very substantial piece of controversial labour legislation, precedent-setting and possibly, as the Ontario Federation of Labour has said, unconstitutional? This is the bill the government now wants to rifle through this House. Let’s have a look. I have the Hansards here. How many people?

Hon. Mr. Conway: How many wanted to? There was no restraint.

Mr. Harris: The government House leader interjects, which I am supposed to ignore. I understand that, but he does bring me to another train of thought. How many wanted to? Let’s say that on Bill 114, in second reading, there was a great deal of co-operation by these two minority parties on this side of the House. They had an understanding or at least felt that there would be a little more ample opportunity for all members to have some substantial debate in committee of the whole after the hearings took place.

Unfortunately, the hearings took place and there was next to nothing in the way of debate in committee, because at that time the government agreeing -- I sense, because they whipped it through in an hour or so -- with the opposition parties that all our members wanted to get on the record. We did not give them time during second reading.

We went along with the government plan to let us go home for the summer on the understanding and the feeling that we would hear from the public. The committee would have a chance to have a look at it. We then made a decision, “Let’s let it come back into committee of the whole because all our members have been caught up with the opposition to this particular piece of legislation.”

How much time has Bill 114 had in committee of the whole for my members to have an opportunity to speak on it? Not one minute. It has not been given any time. There has been no consideration of time to review this piece of legislation in a meaningful way.

On second reading of Bill 114, the minister had a few comments. He went through one page, two pages. The member for Hamilton East had an opportunity. I am looking through Hansard here. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) had an opportunity, so I am not making this case so much on my behalf as on behalf of all the members of the chamber, and particularly the member for Mississauga South. That was it, by the way, all that I could see there.

On June 20, 1988, the member for Nipissing again had an opportunity for a few comments. He finished my remarks from the day before and that was it. So on second reading, I was the only one of my caucus who had an opportunity to speak on this particular bill. We then proceeded, as I said, to the hearing stage. We facilitated moving this bill out of committee in less than two hours, to come back into the House so that the rest of the members of my caucus and indeed the official opposition and the members of its caucus would have an opportunity to speak on the bill.

Before it was even called, we were faced with the guillotine motion, the time closure, the “That’s it. We’ll tell you how much time you’ll have to speak on this bill and that’s the end of it.”

I have a number of remarks to make about closure in general, but I really suggest to the members of this House and to the government that on Bill 114, to bring in closure on a bill that has had so little legislative time and that has such far-reaching implications, particularly in labour, particularly for working men and women across this province, is totally out of line.

I am also going to take the opportunity to refer to Bill 114, only in the context of pointing out the complexities of the bill and how unfair it is that this closure motion should be brought in on such a complex piece of legislation when less than an hour of second reading debate time was provided to the membership of my caucus at large and when absolutely no time was provided in committee of the whole to my caucus.

Before I move on to that, I want to refer to a few comments that were made by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) on December 8, 1982. This was at the time when the Inflation Restraint Act was being debated. Many members will recall this was wage and price restraint legislation, or the nine and five, as it started out.

This particular legislation, many have argued, was the saviour of this province. Many have argued it was the resolve of the government at that time that allowed this province to lead the way in this country in the fight against inflation. It was part of a package that allowed this province to lead this government through a difficult recession and to position the businesses and the men and women and the people, and indeed the government of this province, into a very enviable position when that recession ended.

What did the member for London Centre say on December 8 when our party at that time was forced to bring in closure so that this legislation could help this province wrestle the demon --

Mr. McGuigan: We were wrong then and you’re wrong now.

Mr. Harris: The member for Essex-Kent says that his Premier was wrong then. I would like to get on the record what the member for Essex-Kent feels his Premier was wrong on. He said:

“As my colleague pointed out, there were other options. That is why we cannot support this motion for closure, guillotine, phase closure, time allocation or whatever one wants to call it.” “There were other options.” As the House leader for the New Democratic Party has pointed out and as I have pointed out, there were many other options available to the government here as well.

He said: “I have the right to pursue the most vigorous opposition that I can pursue, and the longer I am here the more I believe very strongly that the opposition is the only thing that stands between government and the sheer, naked use of power. It is the only check we have in the system, and I believe it is our responsibility to exercise it in as responsible a way as we can.”

That was the current Premier in 1982, talking about wage and price controls, the one piece of legislation that I am sure every significant economist would point to as being the one that signalled and paved the way to wrestle the demon inflation to its ground. It was wrong for that important, significant piece of legislation.

Now somehow it is right for Bill 114, a silly bill about which every organized labour group, every retail worker has said: “It offers us no protection at all. It’s a waste of time. Why bring the thing forward at all?” The people it is supposed to protect say: “We don’t want it. Scrap it.” It causes complications with all of the other workers, it is discriminatory, the very mildest criticism that could be made about it. That bill ranks with wage and price controls in 1982.

1740

The member for London Centre also said:

“Speaking for myself and our party, I say that part of our responsibility in pursuing what I hope to be a vigorous opposition is that we want to amend the bill and make it better. We regret very much that we have been precluded by certain kinds of behaviour from having that kind of discussion.”

What opportunity have 15 members of my caucus had to amend Bill 114?

Mrs. Marland: None.

Mr. Harris: None. They have had no opportunity to represent their constituents and to amend this legislation. While we tried to facilitate moving this bill along and moved it out of committee in less than two hours, so we could get it to the committee of the whole so that all of the members of my caucus could have an opportunity to discuss, move amendments and improve on this piece of legislation -- if indeed it is improvable, if that is possible -- what happened? The guillotine motion was brought in.

In 1982, the member for London Centre said, “That is not right.” He said one other thing, “We regret the use of closure and the fact we are being punished for the NDP behaviour.” I like this one. I am not sure what the NDP behaviour was, but the member for London Centre felt that his party was being punished for the NDP behaviour. He goes on, “We believe that a rational, sensible approach to this whole matter is being precluded from being discussed because of government overreaction to a series of irresponsible behaviours.”

He felt punished, as a member of an opposition party, because in his view one of the others was being irresponsible. I suggest to members that I do not think the situation is quite the same. I do not think that my colleagues to the right of me in location, and sometimes in philosophy, are or have been in any way irresponsible.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That’s why you’re going for the moderate vote.

Mr. Wildman: That’s not going to win Frank Miller’s vote.

Mr. Harris: You’ve got to go for the ones you don’t have.

I want to suggest to members that in dealing with these pieces of legislation, unless it was while I was away last week, I have not seen any indication that my colleagues have been anything but rational, speaking on behalf of their constituents, speaking on behalf on those who made representations to the committee. The only time that comes to mind -- there may have been others -- when I thought that the New Democratic Party acted irrationally was in 1985. I think they regret it, I think they regret the decision they made at that time.

However, as I supported the Speaker’s ruling, although I indicated it is not how I would have ruled, I support the decision that was made in 1985 and the right to make it as well.

What about the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley)? I understand from talking with the government House leader that the Minister of the Environment does not plan to enter this debate, which shocks me, because he sure planned to and did enter the debate of February 15, 1983, the birthday of the member for Mississauga South.

The member said: “I recognize that is more embarrassing to the government because it would likely mean this form of closure would have to be invoked several times as we went through the various sections of the bill.” He was criticizing, as one might imagine, closure that encompassed all the stages of the bill. He thought that was wrong. “That would be embarrassing. It would perhaps prolong proceedings for a greater period of time than would suit the members of the governing party. Nevertheless, if they were intent upon imposing closure, it would have been the preferable method of doing so.”

One stage at a time. See what the debate is like at a particular stage of a bill. If it is a problem, if everybody has had a chance to have their say, close it off. That, I suggest to you, is what the Minister of the Environment was suggesting: Do not close it all off, all stages, all members for all time. Do it a piece at a time.

Perhaps after me reminding him of what he said in 1983, he will want to enter this debate and suggest to his colleague the House leader:

“Perhaps we’ve erred. Perhaps we should discuss this motion with the House leaders. I know you didn’t do that, House leader of mine, you didn’t talk with the official opposition House leader nor the Conservative Party House leader and discuss how your time allocation motion will be constructed or phrased or brought in.”

The member for St. Catharines, on February 15, 1983, said: “I feel the government would have been much wiser to have adopted a different course of action. I think it is blocking the democratic process; that is a mild word to use.”

The member for St. Catharines said that. He is not here to say it today. I think it is important that government members understand. Obviously now, in a majority government, with a sense and a feeling that, “We can do whatever we want whenever we want,” his viewpoint has changed.

There is one other thing the member for St. Catharines said at that time: “I ask that he” -- meaning the then Premier – “recognize the lack of wisdom of proceeding with a motion of this kind. It clearly stamps his government as one that is prepared to bulldoze legislation -- important and less important -- through this House.”

At that time, we were talking about Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. This dealt with amending certain frameworks within the education system, namely, the responsibilities and obligations of the higher tier and lower tier of school boards here in Metropolitan Toronto.

I find it passing strange that if the member for St. Catharines and the current Premier felt it was not the right thing to do at that time -- this is a bill that provoked this kind of reaction -- they have been in government now for some three and a half years and there has been no move to change this back. The school boards obviously feel it is working. They have obviously accepted that it was the right thing to do, but that is what the member for St. Catharines thought at that time.

The government House leader today went on at some length in this debate and failed, in my view, to refer to some of the very important comments he himself has made in this House on a number of occasions.

1750

I think it is appropriate to refer to those, to try to understand the rationale for this motion at this time, the rationale for the bringing together of two very different bills, one a justice bill dealing with Sunday shopping, dealing with municipalities and the other a labour bill, and to try to help us understand where the government came from, not only in bringing the two together, but on one motion to cover all aspects and all phases of those two bills.

The government House leader, the member for Renfrew North, on December 8, 1982, said, “Quite frankly, as my colleague and leader has indicated, it is an experience and rule among lawyers that difficult cases make for bad law.”

He said, as well, “I would like very much to see the resolution of this deadlock by means of the framework we have evolved here since my arrival seven years ago, namely, the House leaders’ panel, because I do not want to see this kind of new order born in the middle of this kind of deadlock and difficulty.” That was December 8, 1982.

As I quote those comments of the government House leader, who was then just the member for Renfrew North, surely nobody is in a better position to follow this advice than the government House leader himself. Surely nobody is in a better position to accept that very advice he offered to this House in 1982.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Winston Churchill once said eating your own words could be an agreeable diet.

Mr. Harris: I suggest to the members that the House leaders’ panel has had no opportunity for one second to discuss the framework, the content or the method of the closure motion. As one of the member’s colleagues pointed out, that would have been appropriate.

He says, as well, “Notwithstanding what some in the government may feel, I think we threaten to poison this parliamentary well if we proceed in this debate, by writing into our rule book this kind of time allocation.” That was also December 8, 1982.

Now, the kind of time allocation he was referring to was one bill, one piece of legislation, dealing with what surely was viewed at the time, and in retrospect, history will show, as you point back, was the most pressing, urgent, difficult problem that the whole world faced, as well as this country and this province -- that of runaway inflation. That is what the member felt at that time, on the most significant piece of legislation dealing with the most significant problem of the time.

We are dealing now with a labour bill, about which those whom it is supposed to protect say: “Chuck it. We don’t want it.” Surely that causes constitutional problems, the government House leader comes in with a motion to cover this. I do not understand that. I just do not understand how he can equate the two issues that we are talking about, how he can equate the amount of time that was provided in 1982 for debate, before the closure motion was brought in, and I think, if the government House leader checks, he will find it was more than one hour on second reading.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My patience is far greater than Dr. Stephenson’s and you know it.

Mr. Harris: I think he will find -- no, no, this is wage and price controls we are on. We will get to the other one.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I repeat, my patience is greater than Bette’s and you know it.

Mr. Harris: An hour in second reading, nothing in committee of the whole House. It is hard to believe.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You quote me with such vigour.

Mr. Harris: Let’s move on, since the government House leader interjected again, a comment I know I am supposed to ignore but which does remind me of February 15, 1983, on a bill by a former colleague, a great friend, great parliamentarian and somebody who will surely go down in history as one who had her constituents and indeed the people of this province at heart first, specifically with responsibility for the educational community -- that was Bette Stephenson -- when she brought in the bill that I referred to, Bill 127. This was to clarify some jurisdictional difficulties with the two tiers of school boards in Metropolitan Toronto, something which she did very well, which the boards accepted and is working very well, as I already mentioned. The government has been there for three and a half years and it has not seen that there is any need to change it.

The present government House leader said at that time, February 15, 1983, “I reiterate, we have been able to do the business of this Legislative Assembly for a long time, through wartime, through great depression and much acrimony, without the time allocation procedure.” Through wartime, through depression, the business of this chamber was able to proceed without time allocation. Yet, this very same government House leader, after only one hour of second-reading debate and after no time permitted in committee of the whole House, has not been able to work out some compromise not to have to bring in time allocation on Bill 114.

He said as well on that day, “I cannot believe we are seized in the winter of 1982-83 with some parliamentary crisis that forces us into a new avenue, down a slippery slope of time allocation, without which we have been able to function for the previous 115 years.” That is the government House leader. He cannot believe “that we are seized in the winter of 1982-83 with some parliamentary crisis.”

I do not want to put words into the government House leader’s mouth, because, as members can see, he is very capable of doing that himself, but he seems to imply that if the bill was of such momentous need and desire, that this piece of legislation was addressing a crisis or there was a parliamentary crisis, then time allocation might be acceptable to him. He implies that. Now, by bringing in this motion, I assume he is implying that there is a great crisis in this land; that the whole province, especially the retail workers, is crying for this Bill 114.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Some people are shopping in Port Huron.

Mr. Harris: We are talking about Bill 114.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I do not know if he can conclude his remarks in the next 45 seconds or so. It is very close to six of the clock.

Mr. Harris: Thank you for pointing my attention to the clock. There are a number of other quotes that I would like to put on the record that will help put this motion before us in some context, so I will ask perhaps if we can adjourn the debate today and I will carry on when it is next called.

On motion by Mr. Harris, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like, if I might, to make a brief business statement. As members will know, we had, by previous order of the House, agreed that tomorrow we would complete the estimates of the Office of the Premier and the Cabinet Office. As members also know, a former leader of the Liberal Party, Farquhar Oliver, has died and his funeral will be tomorrow afternoon. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) will not be with us; he will be a pallbearer at that funeral. By agreement, we will not proceed with the Premier’s estimates for that obvious reason, but I have given my colleague House leaders a commitment that those estimates will be rescheduled at the earliest opportunity and, in that event, we will proceed with the business --

Mr. Wildman: If you want to go on with other business we are quite willing.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I quite appreciate that, my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), and therefore we will continue tomorrow with the business of, and flowing from, government notice of motion 20 and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) can continue to favour us with what is quite a good speech.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

23 janvier 1989