Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE COMTE DE SIMCOE

Mr J. Wilson moved second reading of Bill 132, An Act respecting the Amalgamation of Municipalities in the County of Simcoe.

M. J. Wilson propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 132, Loi concernant la fusion des municipalites du comte de Simcoe.

Mr J. Wilson: The thrust of my private member's bill is quite simple. It deals with the fundamental principle of a democratic society, that is, the right of the majority to determine their fate. Amalgamating municipalities against their will only serves to distance the public from the institutions that govern them and further fuels the widely held conviction that government is not listening to them.

This morning I want to explain to the members of the Legislature why I feel so strongly that the proposal to restructure Simcoe county is and has been seriously flawed from the outset and that the wishes of the majority of the ratepayers in the county have been ignored. Today we have the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past, to restore faith in our democratic system and institutions and to truly respond in a meaningful and tangible way to the wishes of the people.

While the previous Liberal government allowed itself to be imprisoned by the bureaucracy in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, we as legislators now have the right to demonstrate that we take our responsibilities seriously and that we are here to stick up for and fight on behalf of our constituents.

Between 1987 and 1990, the Liberal government authored three major restructuring reports which set out to strengthen county government in Ontario. However, at no point was a consensus achieved from the people whereby the people of Ontario agreed to move forward with this restructuring policy.

The last of these three reports was entitled Toward an Ideal County: Principles and Programs for a Strong County Government System in Ontario. This document laid out the terms of reference and the process for the county restructuring studies which are under way.

Here we come to one of the fatal flaws in this extremely flawed restructuring process. The previous Liberal government was clearly aware of the public's dislike of both regional government and its strengthened county government that jeopardized local autonomy. The Liberals got around this by downplaying the notion of regional government and stacking the study committees to produce a desired, predetermined result.

Why did Simcoe county embark upon a restructuring process in 1989 that would eventually culminate in its final report of July 15, 1991? Initially, Simcoe county councillors had good reason to believe that to do nothing would invite the provincial Liberal government to swoop down and remake the county in the image it desired. Faced with this prospect, and considering the findings of these Liberal reports, Simcoe county had no choice but to at least attempt to have input into what it foresaw occurring.

The previous government paid dearly at the polls in the last election for its arrogance. However, the trap had been set. Simcoe county was a year into its study and the new NDP government, driven by that very same bureaucracy, was encouraging local studies to continue until completion. Simcoe county, which began its restructuring study so that change would not be imposed, now became imprisoned by its own initiative. Every time it wavered, it was encouraged to continue by an NDP government that was eager to see this "locally driven" study completed.

Eric Beecroft is a political scientist at the University of Windsor. In his review of restructuring in Oxford county, he postulates that local support and initiative are crucial ingredients to the eventual acceptance of restructuring by the people. I do not doubt for a second the quality of Mr Beecroft's assertion that local support is key if restructuring is to prove successful. The difficulty I have is applying the notion of "locally driven" to the Simcoe county example.

I have received a flood of telephone calls and letters from constituents who are anything but supportive of this restructuring process in Simcoe county. My constituent Mr John Porter writes: "It is hard for me to envision any significant benefit which the residents of Nottawasaga township will receive from this restructuring. On the other hand, it is very easy to conclude that tax increases for Nottawasaga residents are highly probable."

Mr William Hall writes: "I oppose the proposals to restructure Simcoe county. I have concerns because of my experience living in Cambridge as a victim of regional government that (1) taxes will rise inappropriately for services provided, (2) there will be a loss of identity, and (3) representation will suffer."

Mr MacFarlane of Glen Huron says: "Nottawasaga should remain a rural community with a rural identity and a rural government. Amalgamations such as that proposed are highly suspect. They are driven by interests other than those of the rural community."

The latter part of Mr MacFarlane's comments, that restructuring studies are driven by interests other than those of the rural community, sheds significant light on another fatal flaw of the restructuring process. The study process has the potential to be controlled by the interests of a few.

There is good reason to believe a lobby developed within Simcoe county council to support the amalgamations and boundary changes. The towns of Midland, Collingwood and Stayner wanted these changes in order to grab more land and assessment and a larger tax base in order to pay their sizeable debts. The four townships bordering Barrie supported restructuring in order to hold off the city's expansion until the agreed-upon date of 2012. The south Simcoe municipalities supported the changes because they had already been subject to forced amalgamation by the previous Liberal government, effective the beginning of 1991.

Further reinforcing my point is the makeup of the Simcoe county study committee. Five of the nine representatives came from the newly amalgamated towns, so I ask, how could these representatives be truly objective in determining whether the remainder of Simcoe county should undergo a similar amalgamation? Two other committee members were from towns looking for additional land and assessment, while another was from a township bordering Barrie. Eight of nine committee members were representing interests that may be described as not in the best interests of the county as a whole. On top of this, the cities of Barrie and Orillia were asked to leave the study committee, even though they represent an integral part of Simcoe county. This alone compromises the value of the final report drafted by the Simcoe county study committee.

1010

I want to quote from Marc Lalonde, a Liberal, who in 1965 said, "The dispute between levels of government in Canada is essentially connected with the power politics of the various groups of people involved and has very little to do with the welfare of the individual citizens of the country."

These words have added significance in the post-Meech Lake era that we are now in. There are striking similarities between Simcoe county's restructuring study process and the Meech Lake constitutional accord. Both made decisions behind closed doors. Both arrived at decisions tailored to certain interests and forsook the general welfare of the nation, and both forgot about the people. Whereas the drafters of Meech ignored public input, the authors of the Simcoe county restructuring report consulted the public but omitted their concerns, I believe, when drafting the final report. At every public meeting, residents of Simcoe county overwhelmingly expressed their disapproval for the whole restructuring idea. Regrettably, this disapproval was overlooked when county councillors voted on the final report.

I also must question the role of the NDP government since coming to office. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has played a shrewd game of poker with these studies. He has encouraged their completion, yet he has not responded directly to any of the studies.

I would certainly expect support for my bill from my NDP friend the member for Simcoe Centre, who in a memorable debate during last year's election campaign said: "When I am elected member for Simcoe Centre, I would see the proposed restructuring of Simcoe county scrapped. We don't need to become a northern Mississauga." This assertion was also supported by the Premier, who said during the election that the province should tread carefully with restructuring.

I yield the floor to other members. A little later my colleague the member for Simcoe East will further explain some of our concerns regarding the restructuring process and the study process in Simcoe county.

Mr Drainville: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak briefly to the views set forward by the honourable member for Simcoe West.

I come from a riding, Victoria-Haliburton, where such a study has been ongoing, a study of Victoria county. We encountered a number of problems as well in terms of that study, and there have been questions as to the viability of restructuring. When it came down to the vote in the county council, they voted basically to do away with many of the recommendations that were put in the report. I want to put that in the background as I give my remarks.

There is no question that this whole issue of restructuring is an important one. In fact, quite apart from the comment from the honourable member indicating that the minister has been playing a game of poker -- it is not a game of poker at all; it is that in all the realms of possibilities in terms of policies that we have to address ourselves to, this is a very contentious, a very controversial and a very difficult one. It is not so facile as just to say we are going to respond this way or we are going to respond that way as soon as we take power. Rather we have been looking at and trying to see the process that has gone on before, with some questions about that process, and acknowledging that we have to make some changes and move in some different direction, which we would like to do.

I want to say to the honourable member that there is a very clear feeling among those of us who are in government that we need to develop a comprehensive approach to reform while at the same time recognizing the integrity and the diversity and the differences in each of the counties. That has to be stated as we look at our policies and how they will develop in the next while. The minister will shortly be addressing this issue in a very public way. I want to say, though, we have to deal with the views that have been put forward in this House and we have to deal specifically with Bill 132.

Regarding the situation in Simcoe, it has to be stated for the public record that this whole process set up by the Liberal government before was to attempt to see a renewal of the county structure of government in Ontario. There is no question there are flaws. There are flaws in everything we do in government and there were flaws in that piece of legislation as well. But there is no question in terms of the plan put forward that there were some very real things that government was trying to address that had to be addressed by the county government and the local municipalities. There is no question at all either that in terms of Simcoe county, as we see in the final vote of the Simcoe county council, which was 42 to 26, there was a very substantial vote in favour of the report being put forward to the county.

The other thing is that the study was to be completed and was completed by June 1991 and it received comments from every part of the public until the end of October. I realize there are charges in Simcoe county that there was not enough consultation. We always face that in this particular job. People always say after a decision has been made that there has not been enough consultation, particularly if they differ with the perspective put forward or the change being moved.

In terms of our response at this point, we need to say that these are the important background points to understand about the Simcoe county restructuring; all studies that have been done across the province in whatever county have been locally initiated, that is, people who are involved in the day-to-day operation of those municipalities were involved in those studies. They had an opportunity to be part of that committee and to discuss these things and to put their views forth within the county.

Also, we have to say that all municipalities repeatedly had opportunities to make sure the committee had its particular perspectives taken into account. In terms of any final recommendations that were oriented towards boundary changes, they were proposed directly by the individual municipalities involved.

The last and most important thing is to understand that to accept the bill as put forward by the honourable member today would in a sense take the government prerogative to deal with this issue across the province and put it into some jeopardy by saying, "Oh, no, not Simcoe county." In fact the minister has the obligation to respond to this and ensure that the good of the whole of the province is also taken into account. That is what his role is as Minister of Municipal Affairs.

In conclusion, I would like to say to the honourable member that I agree there are some questions about the way things were done. Certainly I have questions about the way they were done in Victoria county. To indicate that somehow this bill is going to correct that for Simcoe county I do not believe, nor do I believe it would be helpful in terms of the work of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in trying to establish a policy for the province. So I have to say that I cannot accept this bill as put forward and I will be voting against it.

Mr Mahoney: I intend to speak in support of the bill and wonder what the honourable member has against a northern Mississauga. I was somewhat dismayed to hear that reaction, but I will get over it and I will continue to support the honourable member because I think he put forward an issue that is very fundamental.

I am somewhat disappointed to hear the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton say he cannot support the bill, because the fundamental aspect of this bill, particularly in private members' public business, is that I firmly believe the best government is the government that is closest to the people. They are the people who can understand what is best for their particular community.

What the honourable gentleman opposite has said is that if we were to support this bill -- I believe this is close to the exact quote -- it would take away the government's prerogative to make a decision with regard to Simcoe county. Since when should any government have the prerogative, the ability to force something on the citizens of a local community that they do not want? I just find that repugnant and believe there must be a process put in place that allows for the people in the county of Simcoe to make a decision through their elected representatives as to what is particularly best for the structure of their community.

1020

I would like to touch for a moment on the task force set up by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, John Eakins. I was asked to serve on that task force because, as some members would know, I spent the better part of 10 years at the municipal and regional level as a councillor in Mississauga and a councillor in the region of Peel and I have some background and understanding of the difficulties and concerns facing local government. I enjoyed very much the opportunity to travel around the province to the various communities.

I should also tell members that I spent three years on the board of directors of AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and, as a result, had an opportunity to talk to a lot of folks not only from counties like the Simcoe community but from all across the province about what affects them and what concerns they have. It is unfortunate that the member would see that task force as a negative deed by the former government, because my experience was quite the opposite. I came to the conclusion that the people in the counties did not want regional government or restructuring or anything of that nature forced on them without their having a clear-cut opportunity to discuss it, debate it and take it to the people.

The message was driven home loud and clear to me in all the counties I visited across the province as part of that task force. Contrary to what the honourable gentleman has said about the performance of the former government, I think if we did one thing really well, we listened to the people at the county level. We went out on a task force and we talked to them. We had meetings with them, spent time in their communities, toured their communities, had lunch with the reeves and the councillors, met with the local business community, talked to various interest groups in those different communities and tried to get a focus, a handle, an understanding on what it is they wanted.

If there was one thing that came across loud and clear in those deliberations, it was: "Let us control our own destiny. We realize that we are creatures of the province. We realize that we need legislation to do whatever it is we want to do, but we'd like as much of that legislation as possible to be permissive legislation. Give us the authority with which to make our own decisions and run our own lives."

Frankly, that is what I see Bill 132 doing. It simply says to the government: "Look, Simcoe county is particularly concerned if you're going to come in and take the map and a crayon and start drawing lines. You're going to create little feuds, neighbour against neighbour, family against family, an upheaval in the community that is totally unnecessary."

They say they do not want to become a Mississauga north or a north Mississauga. I remember well in 1974 when we amalgamated the communities of Port Credit, Streetsville, Cooksville and all of these wonderful communities within the city of Mississauga. We formed a city and we formed the region of Peel at the same time, and I remember well that there was a fair amount of acrimony over doing it.

But I also remember, with all due respect to the government of the day, that it allowed for a public process to take place in the community, for debate and dissension to take place in the community and for the local representatives to be involved. The current mayor, Hazel McCallion, was very actively involved at that time as the reeve of Streetsville and, as members can appreciate, would have been somewhat outspoken against the formation of regional government. But in a constructive way, at least the opportunity was there for the community to set its course and set its destiny.

Notwithstanding the fact that there were a lot people opposed to regional government, I will admit that at least the opportunity was there for debate. They did not go quite as far, however, as this member would have this government go in respect of local autonomy and local decisions. What this bill says is that restructuring should not be allowed "unless the council of the affected municipality, by resolution, consents to the amalgamation."

Were that kind of philosophy to have been in place, were this member to have been a member of this Legislature at that time and be in support of a similar bill for Peel, today we would not have the region of Peel, in my humble opinion. However, the important thing is that the dialogue at least took place. The concern the counties have expressed is that bigger is not necessarily better. Frankly, as a resident of 22 years in the city of Mississauga and a member of that council, I can tell the members that is true.

The one thing we have striven to do in our community that would support the concept put forward by the honourable member is to preserve our neighbourhoods and our communities. In my own city, even though it is part of a massive region of 500,000-plus people, even though we have what would appear to be certain duplications, we have some excellent services such as the Peel Regional Police Force, one of the finest in Canada. We have an ability to deliver social services on a regional basis with one of the finest departments.

We have a non-profit housing company that is the model of non-profit housing. I know the Conservatives do not like non-profit housing but, as the past president of that company, I happen to be very much in support of it. It is one of the finest housing corporations in all of Canada. Indeed, it is used and held up as the model for establishing non-profit housing programs and projects throughout this country. We have some very fine, first-class services.

At the same time, there are people who would say there is duplication. As we are part of that as a city, I think what makes it work for us is that we have the ability to maintain our grass roots. We feel we have a sense in our community of actually having something to say. Frankly, if this government is not prepared to support what really is a very innocuous, albeit a very good resolution -- I say it is innocuous because it simply says "Don't do this unless the people agree" -- if the New Democratic Party does not agree with that principle, I for one would be quite astounded.

I do not mean to be partisan on this issue. For years I have heard candidates from that party talk in terms of supporting the grass roots, of listening to the people, of providing a forum, an opportunity for people to have their say. If this government were now to throw this resolution out and defeat it, I could only interpret that, and I would respectfully submit the people of Ontario could only interpret that, as meaning those principles have been thrown out with it, those principles that the rank and file of the New Democratic Party have held close to their heart for years; at least we have been led to believe it is close to the heart of that particular institution.

I think it is a very critical vote for the members of that party. Considering that this is private members' public business, there would presumably not be a whip on. The members presumably would have the ability to stand up and vote in whatever way their conscience suggests is right and fair. If I am wrong on that I would be quite concerned, because over the years we in our party have had debates, as I am sure the third party has, about how exactly Thursday morning's private members' hour should function.

It is called private members' hour for a reason. It allows the member for Durham East to make a decision based on what he understands he would want in his community. It allows the member for Oxford to make a decision based on what the folks in Oxford really feel, not based on what the Minister of Municipal Affairs tells them to do, not based on what the Premier tells them to do and not based on some platform that has been cooked up in the caucus room of the New Democratic Party.

1030

Notwithstanding that the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton has spoken against this, I sincerely hope a number of them on that side of the House, the member for Sault Ste Marie and others, understand the importance of local representation and the significance of giving people the opportunity to make a choice at their local level. I hope a number of them recognize, as I said in my opening remarks, that the best government is the government closest to the people. The best way to ensure that government functions is not to hamstring it, not to dictate from some great 12th floor in the Whitney Block that this is how it will do things, not to send policy from Bay Street and Bloor Street to wonderful communities like Simcoe county, but to allow the local representatives an opportunity to express the will of the people.

There was a suggestion that the council voted in some way that was unacceptable. I very strongly believe it is the responsibility of the duly elected municipal politicians to listen to the concerns of their communities, to weigh the pros and cons, to look at the benefit and deficit sides of the issue and then to make a decision based on what they feel is in the best interests of their communities. If that council decides to vote in a certain way on a certain issue, who are we to tell it how it should do it? That is exactly the kind of Big Brother image we have to get away from. When I was on council we used to refer to the senior level of government in Ottawa or at Queen's Park. We should seriously consider looking at a reversal of that if we truly believe that the democratic process is important and that it is important to give people their say. The senior level of government should be considered that government which is closest to the people.

The restructuring of this county may indeed turn out to be the right thing to do. Frankly, being from the Mississauga community, I am not prepared to make a judgement on that. As the critic for Municipal Affairs, however, and as someone who I like to think has a background in municipal affairs, I am not prepared to come down with some great judgement from Queen's Park and tell these folks what to do. When the honourable member speaks, he should recognize that it may be in the best interest of Simcoe county to form some type of restructuring.

As I said before, notwithstanding the negatives, there are services provided on a regional basis in Peel. We provide the water and sewer treatment services. We cut a deal with the province to take that over. The negative side of that is that our water and sewer bill used to be in the taxes. They took it out of the taxes. The taxes went down for about 30 seconds. Then they put it on the water bill. The water bill went up and the taxes went back up. That is something that everybody at every level of government, if responsible for that, has to answer for.

It is not black and white, I suggest, and that is why Bill 132 is such a fair, balanced, well-thought-out and simple bill that says, in very simple, direct language: "Leave the power with the people. Don't force it on them unless the council of the affected municipality consents by resolution to the amalgamation." I will be supporting the honourable member in his efforts.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill 132. This bill will bring a good discussion on county government, something we have not had in this Legislature since the previous administration brought in some changes, when the government of the day established a consulting committee in, I think, February 1988 to seek input into county government.

I believe reform was a move to decrease the number of municipalities, which the ministry officials wanted very much to do. This committee developed about 41 recommendations aimed at strengthening the system of county government. The aim of it really was to do away with small municipalities. Also, whether you were a mayor or reeve would depend on the population. I want to give a little background with regard to how this restructuring has taken place in the province.

In January 1990 the government announced that eight municipalities in south Simcoe would be amalgamated into three larger ones. That resulted in the amalgamation of Cookstown and Innisfil into one municipality, Bradford and West Gwillimbury forming a second and Alliston, Beeton, Tottenham and Tecumseth joining to create a third.

I indicated my reservations with regard to restructuring in Simcoe county when this proposal was first announced. I have been opposed to regional government -- we have seen what has happened over the past many years -- and I felt this was another form of regional government. I believe the entire process involved in the restructuring of county governments in Ontario was flawed from the very beginning. The task force that gave us the Tatham report consisted of eight members of the provincial Legislature. All were from one party. My colleague George McCague, who was the member for Simcoe West at that time, raised the issue in this Legislature. He felt it should have been an all-party committee.

The same minister who imposed restructuring on south Simcoe prior to the study process was looking at the rest of the county. But at the time the process took place in south Simcoe, the ministry felt there were some pressing problems. They did not feel it could wait for the rest of the county to be looked at, so the minister of the day proceeded and went ahead. Bill 177 made the amalgamation take place in south Simcoe.

County council asked to undertake the study, with assistance from ministry staff, for the rest of the county. The committee structure was a farce, even though its membership was duly elected at county council. Public hearings were mainly held with the municipal people, yet there was some public consultation with other than the municipal people. My colleague mentioned before the structure of the committee. The study committee considering the restructuring of north Simcoe consisted of only a very few elected members from the area to be amalgamated. There were approximately three from the area. The rest were from south Simcoe, which had already been restructured.

They will say they were duly elected at county council to sit on that committee, but to me that was still a problem because of the fact that the members from the north were not the majority, or even 50%. There was an enormous amount of wheeling and dealing at county council. The new boundary lines were drawn up about two weeks to a month after the committee was set up and most of the work was done by the ministry staff. How could they have maps so soon after a committee was put in place? I remember back to the early 1970s when they had the old Toronto-centred region report. It was circulated and I believe the ministry staff continued on with that report. That is where they got their boundary lines drawn.

In county council, we have seen one reeve dealing with another reeve with regard to the boundaries. Should Washago be in Rama or Mara or should it be in Orillia township? One reeve was making a deal with another reeve, with no public consultation with the people living in that area as to whether they felt it was a good thing for them to be living in a certain community or another, as to which municipality they wanted to live in.

There was a great concern with regard to the voting that took place in county council, all this taking place when the county council first voted down having an official plan done in the county. How can you have restructuring taking place in a county when you do not have any planning process in place, simply no planning? The views of the two largest municipalities, the city of Orillia and the city of Barrie, have to be given serious consideration when you are dealing with a county. Do members know what happened when the process was halfway through? The county council kicked the members from Barrie and Orillia off the restructuring committee. How can you have a total restructuring of a county when you have five members kicked off the restructuring committee?

That should have been halted right there. That was where the work should have stopped. However, they were permitted to continue with these deliberations over the objections of numerous individuals and municipal governments.

1040

Simcoe county approved the restructuring report on July 23, 1991, paving the way for a major revamping of boundaries, presentations and the delivery of services. There is an interesting point I want to make here. What happened was that the county turned over the county study to the province without Barrie and Orillia having had any input into it. In essence, the county said: "Here you are, Minister. You now complete the restructuring of Simcoe county."

Barrie has a plan. They want further amalgamation. They want more land. Orillia wants more land. They had a plan whereby they had some drawings done that they felt would fit in environmentally and land-wise in that municipality. But there were no negotiations with the townships of Oro, Vespra and Innisfil, which abut the city of Barrie. Do the councils of those municipalities feel they got a good deal by adjusting their boundaries with abutting townships without dealing with the city?

I am here to tell members that the province is now going to determine what the boundaries of those two cities are going to be, and those municipalities surrounding them are not going to have the input they thought they were going to have. I can draw lines now where I think the restructuring is going to end up around Barrie. You can go out about a lot east of Shanty Bay. You can go north to 15 or 16 Side Road. You can go across to Highway 400 and north to the Dalston cutoff. Go west again and you will take in the county buildings and the new Taj Mahal of the education centre in the county of Simcoe. These reeves and councils are not going to have any input into that.

What say do the people have who live in that area surrounding the city, what input into what is going to take place? I hope the member for Simcoe Centre will stick to his guns on the statement he made during the election.

Mr Mills: That was then, this is now.

Mr McLean: "That was then, this is now," the member for Durham East says. It is going to be interesting to hear his quotes today on that. The member for York South said: "Restructure with care. All concerns have got to be taken into consideration. Don't force it on them." The member for Simcoe Centre: "No restructuring in Simcoe county. We don't want another Mississauga."

We get all kinds of letters indicating the problem they are having with amalgamation. Bill 132 is not going to solve all the problems, but it brings us here today to have a good discussion on what is happening. The warden of the county said, "If we don't do it, the province will." Where were these words coming from? Were they coming out of the minister's office? This is why they said they had to do it. The county has had its vote and it has had its negotiations within the county. It sawed off parcels of land here and there, with no public input. The parliamentary assistant today says he is not supporting this bill. It will take away the prerogative to place restrictions on the county of Simcoe. Does the government not want to hear from the grass roots? Does it not want them to have their say?

It is wrong when we have municipalities and members of a county drawing lines without any planning and when no consultation has taken place. Can the large urban areas stand to have a large amalgamation take place when 50% of their tax bill now goes to education? Are they going to build new fire and police stations and a new maintenance building on less than 50% of what they have left? The people in the urban areas have to have a concern about this restructuring, as well as the rural people. If they think that because they are amalgamating their taxes are going to be less, I am here to tell members they are not going to be less. They will be more, because they are going to have to supply all of those services.

The best thing to do is to put the question on a ballot. Why did they not wait until the new councils were elected? Of the seven municipalities in south Simcoe that are being amalgamated, the representation of those people who had the vote on the proposal is going to be cut almost in half. In essence what we are saying is that people who are being amalgamated have less say than the people who are already amalgamated.

Does Midland, with its expanded boundaries, feel it is going to gain, get control of more land? The hospital would be amalgamated into Midland, and the shopping malls. But what is going to happen to poor Tiny township when it loses all its assessment? Tiny's major assessment is its lakeshore property, Oro's major assessment is Shanty Bay and the lakeshore, and Vespra's major assessment is Midhurst. What is going to happen when Barrie brings in its plan of what it feels should happen? The public will not have any say. It will be the city dealing with the county and the province, and do members know what happens when civil servants want their way? It is pretty hard to change it.

In essence this bill brings in today a major discussion with regard to county restructuring. I think the process that has gone on is not the province's fault. The process was followed, other than the fact that the county asked to be restructured; really what it asked for was to have a study done to determine whether there should be boundary changes. But within a month after the committee is struck, here we have a map showing us where the boundaries should be. I am telling you, Mr Speaker, somebody was thinking a long way ahead of how he was going to manipulate restructuring in Simcoe county, and I do not like it.

I think there is a need for some minor restructuring to take place. They should have a consultant do a planning study of the county to determine whether some areas are feasible to be within those boundary negotiations. Who is to say where the lines should be drawn, without any input, without any impact study taking place? The first thing the county turned down was doing a study. That should have been the first thing that was done before the boundary lines were drawn.

There have been hundreds and thousands of letters and calls from constituents in my riding and in Nottawasaga township, Devils Glen. Restructuring is key to Coldwater voting. We have a quote from the reeve of Coldwater, who voted in favour of restructuring. He says negotiating the best deal for the village under county restructuring is another one of his aims. What happens to our boards for the village under county restructuring? What happens to our municipal office? What happens to our other boards we have within the village? These are all questions that are being asked by the individual who voted for county restructuring to take place.

What should happen is that a five-year moratorium should be put on county restructuring in the county of Simcoe. Call it to a halt. Let the people put it on the ballot or let the people be heard. The people are not being heard in this whole process. This government here is saying it is the government of the people. For goodness' sake, they should have their minister withhold any further developments in the county of Simcoe restructuring until we have time to look at it and make sure it is right and proper. Let the people decide what should happen.

1050

Mr Wessenger: It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to debate on matters in which I have had some interest for many years, having at one time been a former alderman in the city of Barrie, having been involved with the Simcoe-Georgian Bay task force and having a background of interest in the planning area.

I think what we should look at first is really the overall, basic principle behind the concept of restructuring our municipalities in Ontario: that in much of this province we have not had ideal development. We have had a great deal of urban sprawl, which has proved very expensive for the province. We have had environmental problems arising as a result of development on unserviced land. We have had severance policies which have been very uneven in certain parts of Simcoe county and in certain parts of the province, which have created bad development. We have environmental problems in the county of Simcoe. Lake Simcoe is at risk environmentally at the moment because of phosphate runoff. There is a problem with respect to the amount of growth that presently can occur around Lake Simcoe because we do not have the technology to deal with that growth.

We have water problems in south Simcoe, a lack of water in the Beeton-Tottenham area and in the Bradford area. We have the problem of assessment planning, whereby commercial and industrial growth is not occurring in the best place but is occurring because it suits the economic interests of each municipality.

Second, we have attempts to have some rationality with respect to the relationship between provincial and municipal governments with the Hopcroft report, with the idea of trying to have clear responsibilities for both municipalities and the provincial government, and we have the aspect of having a rational system of financial responsibility between the provinces and the municipalities, with the clear indication that the level of jurisdiction that provides the service really ought to pay the cost. So we have all this in the background.

We have an antiquated system of municipalities in this province. A lot of them are too small to be viable; many in Simcoe county are too small to be viable. How do we deal with this problem? We have to have some way of dealing with it, we have to some new structure.

There are alternatives. One alternative is to let the province do the planning for those areas that do not have viable municipalities, but that, I think, takes away from strengthening local government. I do not prefer the option of having the province take over the increased responsibilities where you do not have the municipalities able to take on that role.

The other role that has been tried is the regional development role, where you have the transfer of a great number of services to the regional level. The difficulty with that is that it has included a great deal of tax increases and a great deal of bureaucracy and a great deal of criticism that people feel isolated.

The interesting thing about the Simcoe county study -- I am not talking about the boundary aspects, because the government has not made any decision on the specific boundaries or whether it will be implemented, etc -- which I see, which I support in principle, is the idea of creating strong lower-tier municipalities. That is the model I prefer.

First of all, it keeps taxes lower and it makes government closer to people, and that is the proposal put forward in the Simcoe county study. I am very supportive of that, and I must say, certainly talking about my riding, I have not had the calls about the restructuring. I must admit there is a problem with respect to the city of Barrie being left out, but that is being dealt with. The ministry is consulting with all the municipalities and the city of Barrie and the city of Orillia with respect to how it is going to proceed in this area.

When you look at all the alternatives, the alternative that I think is the best in principle is developing strong, viable, lower-tier municipalities in any restructuring that occurs in this province. Therefore I would ask you to reject this bill, because let me just say, having lived in Barrie when we went through an attempted amalgamation, attempted boundary changes, we will never get every municipality on side. It is completely unreal ever to expect that to happen. A provincial government has to have the power to make the ultimate decisions.

Second, this legislation makes no sense because it applies to one area only. It does not apply generally throughout the province. Therefore I would ask you to defeat this bill.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure to rise in the House this morning. It is always a pleasure to talk to private members' bills, and it is a pleasure to see you in the chair this morning, Mr Speaker. I have not publicly given you my good wisdom of welcome, but I do so here this morning.

I can speak to Bill 132 that has been introduced by the honourable member for Simcoe West because I lived in Simcoe and, like my colleague for Simcoe Centre, I also served on the city of Barrie council during some very trying times when we annexed parts of Innisfil township, Vesper and Oro. I can tell members that it was a very traumatic time. We could get no consensus of opinion about what we should do about anything. Then we had extensive meetings with the public.

I agree with the member for Mississauga West that the best form of government is the one closest to the people. I remember back in my time being violently opposed when they increased the term of office of municipal council people from two years to three years to make them less accountable to the public.

I have some serious concerns about this bill in so far as I can speak as a resident of the region of Durham, which went through the same sort of traumatic upheaval a few years ago, I believe at the behest of the then Conservative government. But it has done some good things in the region of Durham. It has made for better policing -- I know you share my concerns about community policing, Mr Speaker. If the restructuring goes ahead, it will allow for the concept of greater community policing in so far as now each little village, community and municipality, in some cases, is policed on an ad hoc basis by the Ontario Provincial Police. It addresses the need for overall planning. Too often we see strip planning and planning that is not in the best interests of all the folks who live there.

If services are to remain viable I believe you have to have some form of amalgamation. To make municipalities remain viable you have to get together and amalgamate. It creates a strong local government.

I do not think it will be smooth. I think there will be all kinds of obstacles along this rocky road to amalgamation. I was surprised to hear the member for Simcoe West say there was not agreement on this. I have a note that says there was strong local support for this study, and also that the Simcoe county study, which was locally initiated, was accepted by county council by a vote of 42 to 26. It would seem to me there is some strong local support for this amalgamation, contrary to what the member suggests.

Government is considering a wide range of options for the direction of county government reform. I know the ministry is developing a comprehensive approach to reform while at the same time recognizing the diversity and differences that exist among the councils. I know that local comments and concerns are also being addressed. I am afraid I cannot support this bill because it takes away the role of the government.

Mr J. Wilson: I would ask the member for Durham East, if there is strong local support for restructuring, then why are 14 municipalities putting the question on their ballots on November 12? I do not think there is strong local support. There is a great deal of confusion out there.

I have endeavoured to highlight some of the flaws with the restructuring process specifically as it has been applied in the county of Simcoe. I have done so as a means of impressing upon my friends here in the Legislature the need to support my bill. Because the restructuring process can be hijacked and is often flawed, municipalities must be given the right of choice. They must have the right to decide whether their residents want amalgamation or the status quo. That right to date has been stolen from the residents of Simcoe county.

The continued existence of our political system is contingent upon our ability to be responsive to the public. The public has grown resentful of politicians who refuse to represent them and who repeatedly pass legislation that is not in their best interests. My private member's bill is a piece of legislation that helps both the public and its elected representatives, because it entrenches power where it rightfully belongs, in the hands of the people.

I have often heard the Premier and the NDP speak about democracy and the underlying principle that the people must be trusted to make their own decisions about what is best for them. In the election campaign, I and my colleagues had clearly learned the lessons of the past. We know that the people did not send us here so that we would turn around and tell them what is good for them. No, that nonsense must stop. We are the servants of the people. Our job is to stand up and to speak out on their behalf. They send us here to represent their views, and we must always put our best effort forward to ensure that their hopes, dreams and aspirations come true.

I ask all members of the government and members of the official opposition to join with me and my colleagues in supporting my private member's bill. We should learn from the mistakes of the past, trust in the collective wisdom of the people and give hope to democracy.

1100

FARM INCOME

Mr Mancini moved resolution 36:

That, in the opinion of this House, given the crisis facing Ontario's agricultural economy in dealing with high input costs and low prices, which have fallen by 35% this crop year for grains and oilseeds and which have remained at depressed levels for other crops and the livestock sectors, and taking into account the fact that long-term federal-provincial price and income support programs are not scheduled to take effect until next year; given the extensive crop damage in southwestern Ontario this summer due to drought, particularly in Essex and Kent counties; given the importance of ensuring the survival of Ontario's family farms, and given the continuing policy of the NDP socialist government to ignore the problems facing the economy of rural Ontario, the government of Ontario provide immediate emergency agriculture funding in order to maintain the viability of the rural economy and family farms.

Mr Mancini: This is the continuation of the agricultural debate that has received high priority in the Legislature for this fall sitting. Why has it received high priority? Because some members in this Legislature have used all opportunities at their disposal to ensure that agriculture was in fact debated in committee.

I refer to the standing committee on resources development, a motion that had been put forward by the Liberal leader, the member for Bruce, an opposition day motion that had been put forward by the leader of the Conservative Party, and now my only opportunity for a private member's resolution for quite a period of time, given by myself freely in the interests of agriculture in Ontario.

Why have we done this? We have done this because the government has been reluctant to intervene in an appropriate way to save Ontario's rural economy, the family farm being the basis of the rural economy.

I want to quote for the record a letter sent by the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, a newsletter dated October 1991. It says, "State of Emergency." On page 3 of the letter from the corn producers, they are talking about the ministers of the day:

"We have received no commitments to date, but at least we have captured the attention of the federal ministers with our crisis campaign. We wish that we could say the same for the Ontario government. As of early September, Mr Buchanan, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food, had not met with major Ontario farm groups on the income crisis, and to our knowledge he has not yet visited Kent and Essex counties where the effect of low prices has been compounded by severe 1991 summer drought.

"The minister has given no indication that his government intends to do anything about the income crisis other than offer sympathy and pocket the $4 million in gross revenue insurance plan payments, in GRIP premium rebates, which was given to it by the federal government via its announcement on April 18, 1991.

"Murray Elston, leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and official Leader of the Opposition in the Legislature, has called for an emergency meeting of the resources development committee of the Legislature. As of date of this writing, the Ontario PC House leader has supported this request and the NDP House leader has not."

Since that newsletter was sent by the corn producers, a number of things have happened. We have in fact had the standing committee on resources development hearings that I spoke of earlier. We have indeed got some attention from the Ontario government. The minister indeed did make one very quick visit to Essex county -- I am not exactly sure how many farms were toured; I am not sure how many acres of destroyed crops he was able to see, but he did make one short visit -- and we did have an announcement by the government. What did that announcement do? Put in plain and simple terms, the announcement, as far as the government is concerned, basically gets the Ontario NDP government off the hook, and now it wants to wash its hands of the problems facing Ontario's rural economy and the family farms in Ontario.

I say to the NDP socialist members we are not going to allow them to do that. We are not going to allow them to wash their hands of the difficulties facing Ontario's rural communities because they announced one $35-million program. In their Agenda for People during the last election, they promised $100 million and it did not have anything to do with the crisis that we are facing today, and of the $100 million they only forwarded to the farmers $50 million.

We were in committee only a few short weeks ago, and socialist mathematics is something to behold. We were told by the minister that the $50 million the government had allocated to the farmers, to the rural economy of Ontario, in fact equalled $100 million. That is what we were told, and we were expected to believe that. We do not believe it and neither do the farmers. Rural Ontario is waiting to be treated in the same manner as the government treats unionized industrial and government workers and doctors in this province. That is what we are waiting for.

The Treasurer of this province has consistently said that it is the members of the opposition who pit one group in society against another group. I say to him that the opposite is true. It is the NDP socialist government that is doing that. They are the ones who very clearly said early in their term, "We have lots of money for doctors." They said it and they made a deal with Ontario doctors and they put up the money. They delivered for the doctors.

They said that early in their term and they took action in a number of areas where industrial jobs were threatened. They were willing to pour out hundreds of millions of dollars at the request of the union bosses here in Ontario. They were willing to buy into de Havilland to protect industrialized jobs. They were willing to raise the wages of nurses. When it came to farmers, never have I seen such a measly effort: $35 million for 60,000 farm families who feed Ontario, who export billions of dollars in farm-gate value, who support the rural economy.

If we divide 60,000 families into $35 million, we get a whopping $580 per farm family. If we had the time to do some interesting mathematics, I would say that some of the highly paid civil servants we have in our government, whose wages were increased anywhere from 11% to 14% by this government, must have got a $580 increase biweekly, and they are not in a financial crisis in the way the farmers find themselves today.

1110

We brought to the minister's attention the problems of the drought. Let me read to the members some of the headlines that we have to deal with every day. I know they are comfortable over there. I know they are very comfortable. "Another three and half years before the election, you know, so we can maybe get by without really helping the farmers this year. If some of them go bankrupt, at least we have helped the other people we were concerned about."

October 8: "Drought Sours Prospects for Owner of Sugar Bush: The Sugar Maple Trees Are All Dying."

"Region's Farms Ravaged by Drought of 1991," Windsor Star, August 20. It shows a farmer from the Chatham area plowing under his crop instead of harvesting the crop.

"Farmers Fight for Their Lives," August 7, Windsor Star.

"Belle River Farmers Gathered Together to Talk About Their Plights: Generation of Farmers Will Be Lost, Say Officials of Agricultural Group," Amherstburg Echo, August 8.

"Drought Has Been Rotten to County Tomato Fields." Leamington, the tomato capital of North America, maybe the world, has been devastated.

"Essex County Declared a Disaster Area." The county of Essex, at its county council meeting, declared our county a disaster area.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. The member's time has expired. We will return to the member later in the debate.

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to join in the debate today on the motion regarding agriculture put forward by the member for Essex South. I am pleased to support the motion on behalf of my colleagues in the Ontario PC Party. I would say to the member, though, I think the motion is a little late in the sense that my leader put a motion forward that was, frankly, voted against by the NDP.

An hon member: When was it?

Mr J. Wilson: It was a motion some two weeks calling upon the government to give real financial assistance to farmers. The NDP voted against that motion.

I again commend the member for Essex South for his motion today because it also fits in with what we were discussing in the last hour, my private member's bill which fights for the rights of rural Ontarians. All indications I have from the government members in their speeches are that once again at noon today they are going to vote against rights of rural Ontarians.

Whether we are talking about forced restructurings or amalgamations or support to farmers, it is essential that this government start to act for all Ontarians, not just for the big unions. In my remarks last week around the farm crisis in Ontario, and in response to the motion of my leader, the member for Nipissing, asking for further assistance for farmers, I mentioned some of the same points that the member for Essex South has mentioned this morning. They are able to come up with $250 million through Ontario Hydro to bail out Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing, some 6,000 jobs. They are able to come up with $150 million for the Canadian Auto Workers, for Bob White and de Havilland, for which there were supposed to be, I believe, some 4,600 jobs. Since then de Havilland has announced the layoff of some 1,300 or 1,600 workers, so there are even fewer jobs they are trying to maintain and protect there, and de Havilland is a sinkhole for the taxpayers' money.

The federal government had the good sense to finally get out of the business of building planes. Every time one comes off the production line, it loses money. The more bloody planes they build, the more money they lose. Throwing more taxpayers' dollars at that company is not the way to go.

We are firmly on the record as opposing that, only because we say to the government: "You've got a $9.7-billion, a $10-billion or a $12-billion deficit this year, unheard of in the history of the province. You're going to double the province's debt over the next four years. Pity those of us who will succeed you in government, because we will have a very difficult time redressing and correcting the economic disaster you guys are creating for this province."

I go back to priorities. This government has no priorities. If it does, its priorities do not reflect the needs and rights of the people of rural Ontario. I am proud to represent a riding that has a pleasant urban-rural mix, the riding of Simcoe West. My largest municipality is the town of Collingwood, with some 12,500 people. I have some other towns and villages, but I have a great deal of rural area.

I have a great number of farmers who are among those 60,000 farm families in Ontario that are suffering. If the government would get its priorities straight, be honest and come clean with the people of Ontario, it would tell us and show us by putting more money forward in the area of agriculture.

For every $1,000 in support we give to farmers, statistics and studies indicate the return farmers put into their local communities is sevenfold. There is some $7,000 worth of economic activity generated in their local communities and the farm community for every $1,000 of support; not losing money as every time a plane comes off the assembly line at de Havilland. These people, the good people in farm families, produce food that we enjoy eating. They produce economic activity that is positive.

The government says so often, and it is only talk to date, that rural Ontario and a farm strategy will be part of its industrial and economic strategy. First, it does not have an industrial strategy. Second, its economic strategy to date is a disaster, and at every opportunity in this House and outside of this Legislature we try to steer it on the right path.

The government pays lipservice to rural Ontario, but emotion has to come forward. The member for Essex South spoke so eloquently about the need of farmers in his area, particularly with the drought situation in his area, but it is just as true in my area and in all other areas of Ontario. There are 60,000 farm families that are looking to this government for assistance.

The day after my leader brought a motion into this House asking for assistance, the government managed to come up with $35.5 million. It pales in comparison to the money it has been able to give to big unions. The $35.5 million is not enough. With prices having bottomed out in the grains and oilseeds sector, and with this government's failure to sign on to the net income stabilization account for this crop year -- it is not signing on to NISA until next year -- we know there is a gap there. The federal government is turning away from short-term programs and going with NISA and the gross revenue insurance plan for the long term. This government is going long term starting next year; $35.5 million this year. We know the need in the grains and oilseeds sector is some $124 million. It is far short of what the real need is out there.

Farmers are getting antsy about this. They are respectable people who normally would not take up a picket sign. They were not brought up in the ideology of the government members' party where they used to picket for ever. They are respectable people who have better things to do than picket those people, better things to do than to meet in Lucknow, which they did a couple of weeks ago and which members of my caucus attended. Over 1,000 farmers there were trying very desperately to get the government's attention.

I think the member for Essex South pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has done some touring but has failed to grasp the need out there. He has failed to convince his caucus colleagues and his cabinet colleagues around the cabinet table of the degree of need out there. Clearly the government's priorities are somewhere else.

I have a theory that the government is planning on never really addressing the needs of all Ontarians, because probably its pollsters and Gerry Caplan and the backroom boys in the Premier's office tell it that it only needs 38% of the vote to win the next election. It can ignore the vast majority of Ontarians as long as it keeps the unions happy, as long as it keeps what we call the 1991 NDP coalition happy. If it keeps that 38% happy by doing the pappy socialist crap it is doing, it will probably win the next election.

We are going to do our best, as members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, to show the people of Ontario the government's true agenda. We know for a fact that the true agenda does not include rural Ontario, that the true agenda does nothing to address the needs of the 60,000 farm families in Ontario.

1120

I am pleased to support this motion. In addition to the motion and the very strong resolution brought forward by my leader the member for Nipissing two weeks ago, it is sad that another motion dealing with agriculture has to come to this House. Those people sit there and heckle and laugh and seem to have no concern for rural Ontario. We are not going to take it any more and farmers are not going to take it any more. They are getting organized, because the government seems to like organized people. The government will hear loud and clear, and should be hearing now loud and clear.

We met last night. My good colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville -- sand, dust and gravel and East Grenville -- spoke at a public meeting in my riding last night in the village of Creemore. A great number of people showed up to hear our comments and hear about this government's response to the farm crisis in Ontario. There were a lot of concerned people at that meeting. They recognize that the government has not lived up to its responsibilities to rural Ontario, that it has not exercised rights it is willing to give to other sectors, particularly big unions. It is willing to give them rights, but it is not willing to help farm families.

It is a sad day in this Legislature that we and our colleagues in the Liberal Party once again have to remind this government of the serious need that is out there in the agricultural community.

Mr Hayes: I might say to the two previous governments, welcome aboard. I am very pleased they are finally seeing the plight of farmers in this province.

Mr Villeneuve: Why did you vote against our motion the other day then?

Mr Hayes: I compliment the member for Essex South on the resolution. I think it is a very good resolution. However, I would say it is about 10 years late.

Mr Villeneuve: Where have you been the last 10 years? What was the price of commodities then? Come on, Pat, be honest.

Mr Hayes: It says "given the continuing policy of the NDP government to ignore the problems facing the economy of rural Ontario." Let me say that this government is committed to Ontario agriculture and the food industry. We listen to the farmers and we act.

Mr Villeneuve: Careful. You are going to break you arm patting yourself on the back.

Interjections.

Mr Hayes: The Minister of Agriculture and Food, along with myself and other parliamentary assistants, the member for Huron and the member for Chatham-Kent, and many of my other colleagues on this side met with farmers, farm groups and rural organizations last fall to discuss farm finances. Farmers told me when I went around the province that their interest costs were too high. We responded at that time with the $50-million farm interest assistance program. That was welcomed by all sides of this House.

Mr Villeneuve: It sure was. What was in the Agenda for People?

Mr Hayes: Unlike other governments, we did that. We did not wait until the budget to do it, because we saw the immediate need and we did it right away.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. I would ask for the co-operation of all members. Unfortunately, since the member for S-D-G & East Grenville arrived, the tone in the House has disintegrated. I would ask the members' co-operation in allowing the member to speak.

Mr Hayes: With the drought situation and the problem of low prices that farmers have been faced with, especially in the ridings in Essex and Kent counties and other parts of this province, some of those people have been hit with a double whammy. We responded very quickly with a $35-million emergency assistance package for Ontario farmers, which I might add was very well received by individual farmers and the different farm associations.

I am particularly pleased that Kent and Essex counties will be receiving a fair share of the available assistance. Crop insurance will also be making significant payments, approximately $40 million, to the eligible producers in those counties and also across the province -- or just $40 million for that area alone. The ministry estimates that approximately $5.7 million will go to farmers in need in just those two counties alone. In addition, I am pleased to say that I have been assured by the minister that staff will soon begin consultations on the $3.5 million set aside for farmers suffering from low prices and of course the drought. Essex and Kent counties will receive a substantial share of that on top of the others.

I would add that the minister responded to my request to tour the area and meet individual farmers. He met with us and the Essex drought committee, and I also have to compliment those individuals. The response to date is an indication of this government's sensitivity to all agricultural areas in Ontario.

There have been comments about the Minister of Agriculture and Food not going and looking specifically at some of these areas. Let me tell members that just in that part of the county alone, he has been there three times already. I do not know of any Minister of Agriculture and Food who has done that within a year.

What other provincial government has done this? Governments that are brothers and sisters of these people here have ignored farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and places like that.

This government's work has only begun. What is clear to this government is that the rural economy is a key component of the Ontario economy. Farmers, local stores, local industry and the infrastructure which services the rural economy have all been under a certain level of strain in recent years. Unlike previous governments, this government is committed to renewing rural Ontario and we will all benefit from this.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food and I are currently examining options for long-term farm finance and I look forward to the consultations which will be occurring with the farm community in the near future. Together, this government and farmers will develop a credit program which is much needed and well overdue in Ontario. There are many pressures facing the agriculture and food industry in Ontario which are a result of federal policies. The federal monetary policy of high interest rates has seriously increased the cost structure of our farmers. The lack of federal adjustment money promised during the free trade debate has also caused additional pressure on Ontario farmers.

At the same time, our food processing sector in Ontario is undergoing rationalization and restructuring. This process has been worsened by the free trade agreement. Some of these activities impact on farmers to reduce markets, on labour through lost jobs and on these companies, as they are unable to compete with US firms. This government will also be working with producers on labour and environmental issues and together we will develop long-term approaches for the industry.

Let me close my comments by saying that these are just some of the initiatives the Minister of Agriculture and Food is developing in partnership with all participants in the food system and I hope the minister has all our support as these initiatives are developed.

Just before closing, very quickly, here is an article from the Chatham Daily News. Scott McGeachy from the Kent County Federation of Agriculture "said he was 'pleased' with the financial assistance announced...by...minister Elmer Buchanan." He also stated that "Essex-Kent MPP Pat Hayes was to be congratulated for the important role he played in making" this possible. Here is a farmer in Raleigh township, "It's not going to save everybody, but I'm happy with it." "Any help is a positive sign, he said. 'All we need now is the federal government to contribute their fair share.'" Here is another article from the Ridgetown Dominion, "A warm thank you to the province for this support." We have lots of articles like that.

This government is committed to rural Ontario. This government is committed to preserving the family farm in Ontario. This government will continue to correct a lot of the mistakes and the lack of political will of the previous governments. We will address this and we will be working with farmers, because we know that the family farm is the backbone of this country. We ask members to join us and get a little political will themselves to help us to address this serious problem.

1130

Mr Ramsay: It is a pleasure to be standing in my place as the member for Timiskaming and as a former Minister of Agriculture and Food to speak for the second time in two weeks on this issue. The members of the House are to be congratulated that they have brought forward these motions so that agriculture is finally getting the importance in the Ontario Legislature that it deserves. When we look at the various issues that are discussed in the Ontario Legislature and what seem to be priorities of Ontario governments, agricultural policy does not necessarily take the place it should. I am very pleased that it is.

In fact, yesterday afternoon in our standing committee on resources development we were concluding our discussions leading to an interim report we will be bringing forward to this House in the next few weeks that will start to lay out a few ideas that all parties working together are starting to consider. I would hope that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will start to work on some of these ideas.

We are standing here in our places today speaking to agriculture. I certainly salute the member for Essex South in bringing this motion forward today, because there is a crisis in agriculture. There is no point in standing in our places as politicians trying to smooth over the situation that is out there. There definitely is a crisis, and it is happening not just in Ontario but to our fellow rural people across this country. We hope today the federal government will be coming forth with some assistance.

The people out there who are watching and maybe are not familiar with what is going on in rural Ontario must be asking: "Why is it that farmers are always asking for assistance? Why is it that governments in this country respond to that plea for assistance?" I must make the point that we do not, like other commodities, have fair trading rules in this world. In fact, as has been on TV lately, we see that European farmers receive about $10 a bushel for their grain while the going price in Ontario is about $2 a bushel. You cannot even grow a bushel of wheat for $4 or $5, so you need $6 or $7 just to start to break even and make a profit. We have to get that level playing field across the world when it comes to agricultural production so that the prices are returning to the farmer what it costs to produce -- and then some, because it is important for our farmers in this country and especially in Ontario to be profitable.

There is also a crisis in this province right now because in southwestern Ontario, especially in Kent and Essex counties, we have had incredible climatic conditions this year, those being drought. In the last few years it has sometimes been too much water, but this year it was drought. So we have not only low prices that have been quoted earlier today as being 35% below the low prices of previous years, but also we have very low and poor yields, and therefore the farmer is suffering a double whammy.

It is important that government assist the farmers in the short term, but it is also important that governments start to address the concerns of agriculture in the long term. As I said, we were having those discussions in the standing committee on resources development, all of us from both sides of the House, the last few days. We have been listening to the concerns of the different commodity boards and the farm associations, bringing forward as they have been some very constructive ideas of what we can be doing.

In the last few years in this country we have started to bring in much more appropriate income stabilization programs such as GRIP and NISA. It is imperative that this government get involved in NISA and enrich its involvement in NISA. In a contributory plan such as this, where the farmer, the provincial government and the federal gov ernment pay into it, if the province increases its share, it means the federal government will have to also increase its contribution and therefore the farmers will receive more government assistance through this program. It is a very good program and it deserves the support of the Ontario government. I would certainly plead with the Ontario government to get involved, as it had not, unfortunately, earlier this year, and to enrich that involvement so that the farmers of Ontario and the rest of the country can benefit by this program.

What can we do in the long term? It is a difficult subject, because we have an open marketplace. It is very difficult to say to people that somehow people have to pay more for food. When we look at the component price of a product we purchase in a grocery store, a loaf of bread, for example, a farmer does not receive very much for that product. In fact, some people will say for a $1 or $1.30 loaf of bread there is about four or five cents of wheat in that loaf.

The problem with the food production system today is that the consumer is demanding a much more value added product, therefore the farm-gate value in a product is very, very low. Much of the food now goes from the farm into the factories where much value is added because people want convenience foods and microwave-ready, etc. So food is growing in expense, but the farmer's share of that is very low.

What we need to do, and what government can do, and what specifically the Ontario government can do -- and I am glad the member across the way is here who instigated a task force on long-term financing. I would encourage that member to take that report up with the ministry. I think it is very important that the government of Ontario, for the first time, starts to enter the long-term financing of agricultural producers in this province. I think it is very necessary. There are obviously some problems of how we go about that. I, for one, certainly would not want to see some sort of beginning-farmer program. This is not the time to entice our young people to get into farming. We are having great trouble in keeping the farmers who are already on the land, already producing food for the people of Ontario, and keeping them profitable.

There must be a way we could introduce a farm financing program that farmers can access for a portion of their long-term financing needs at a reasonable interest rate. That would be the only cost to the government, because what we are talking about is financing. We are talking about access to loans. The cost would be that, yes, I would ask the government to subsidize that interest rate so that we would have a low, steady interest rate the farmer can count on, so that he or she will be able to fight those vagaries of the marketplace and the ever increasing high input costs but know he or she has a steady payment, as far as principle and interest on that long-term financing is concerned.

I would go as far as to suggest to the members across the way in the government that possibly they look, as a source of capital for that financing program, at the Province of Ontario Savings Office. Why do we not, working to gether in this House, basically make the Province of Ontario Savings Office maybe the farmers' bank in Ontario? In most towns in Ontario, we have a Province of Ontario Savings Office. Many people deposit their money, and I know it has tremendous assets there. That might be the pool of capital we could work with. Instead of the other investments the Province of Ontario Savings Office, or POSO, as we call it, is involved in, maybe that could be the pool of capital the Ministry of Agriculture and Food could tap into so that we in Ontario would finally have a pool of capital that is totally dedicated to the farmers, the food producers of Ontario.

I think this would go a long way to help alleviate those long-term problems and give a sense of certainty, as much as we can in Ontario, to the producers of food in Ontario that their government cares and, through the government, the people of Ontario care about agriculture and understand that agricultural production is absolutely essential for a sovereign jurisdiction, for a sovereign nation.

That is what it really boils down to. Why are we involved in this? Why is the food industry more important to us than any other industry? It is too bad, but television sets have not been made in this country in the last 10 years. I bemoan that fact and I feel badly about that. But that has gone to more competitive jurisdictions. Sad as it is, we do not rally around trying to get television sets produced in this country. But all of us, from all sides of this House, do rally around when our ability to produce food is threatened, because to be a sovereign nation I believe we must fight to maintain the ability to feed ourselves. That has to be paramount. If we said we were just going to rely on the midwestern United States, for instance, for our dairy products or our wheat products, we would be putting ourselves in very great political jeopardy.

1140

And what about the environment? I do not think it is wise for the world to put its eggs literally in one basket, especially the food basket of the United States. What if there was a tremendous drought in Ukraine or in the midwestern United States and we were solely reliant upon those particular places for our nourishment? Then we would be putting ourselves and the world in great jeopardy. It is important that all jurisdictions of the world produce as much food as they can.

What is interesting, when you look at the environmental sustainability of Ontario agriculture, is the way we have organized ourselves in this jurisdiction so that we do not force the environment to produce our food, because we have regulated our systems in many commodities to produce what we need to consume. Therefore, there is another advantage to our marketing board system in that it is environmentally sustainable, unlike the Americans who push production and then have to store a lot of that production because in many years they overproduce. We produce what we need and therefore we do not push our agricultural resources. We have very sustainable agriculture, and I would say to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food that he should endeavour to support the supply-management system in this province. I think it is very important, besides being a marketing system.

Mr Villeneuve: They are undermining it. You know that.

Mr Ramsay: I am afraid they might be undermining it. My friend from the Tories is reminding me. I just want to encourage them in a very positive way that they must support this system. It is very important. It is more than just guaranteeing a price for farmers. It is also, I think, one of the cornerstones to agricultural environmental sustainability, and I would hope that the member is doing that.

I would also want to caution the government members to look at the accumulated impact of other areas that they want to work on in society, because they are going to have a profound effect on agriculture.

While I am on the environment, I would like to caution the minister, as we all want to see the absolutely cleanest environment we can possibly manage here in Ontario, that he and the parliamentary assistant must be very careful that they work with the farm community as we bring in better environmental controls. We must make sure we use the carrot rather than the stick and work with our farm producers and our food processors in cleaning up our environment, but make sure we phase it in and work in consultation with our agricultural community. Yes, there are things we do on the farm that are not correct, and we have to start to work with the Ministry of the Environment and other people who are pointing these things out to us in the farm community. I want to work with the farm community in bettering our practices, and I think we can do that better. But this is a warning to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment not to come with a big, heavy stick into the agricultural community, but to work with the processors and the producers to make sure, yes, that we have sustainable agriculture, but that we bring that in by working in consultation with the farmers so that we do not disrupt that activity which is precious to the economy of Ontario.

Lastly, I also want to comment on many of the labour laws that are being anticipated by this government, the changes to the Employment Standards Act and other acts that are coming forward. I believe the ministers over there must also be careful that we do not unduly subject the agricultural industry to major changes overnight. We do want to bring our economy into the modern day and make sure that we have very sound occupational health and safety legislation, good legislation that is fair. We want to make sure we do not bring that in with a big stick to people. We want to work with the people, especially with the fragility of the agricultural community right now and the agricultural sector. It is very, very important that we work with this community.

I would like to close by saying I welcome the opportunity to be speaking again within two weeks on the very important subject of agriculture, what it means to our province, what it means to the economy of this province. One in five jobs in Ontario is dependent upon the agrifood industry. I am not sure if people are aware of how important the agricultural industry is as one of the generators of the tremendous economy of Ontario.

It is needed to be a sovereign nation, so that we have the ability to feed ourselves, but also it is a very prime component of the economy of this province and therefore deserves to be supported by all the members of this House. I am sure all of us agree today that the government of this province should continue to increase its support to Ontario agriculture.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to compliment and thank my colleague the member for Essex South. Our party and I will be supporting him 110%. First I want to tell my colleague, and he knows of it, that I was in Leamington several weeks ago. I have a copy of the report on agriculture as prepared by the drought committee for Essex county. It outlines very clearly that indeed some $20 million is needed just to replace what was lost in the drought of 1991, not compensating for the very low prices.

That message is very clear. One visit to the Leamington area was certainly worth 1,000-plus words. They have some very drastic conditions. Crop insurance will not be of great assistance, because they have had three out of four very devastating years. As most members know, the crop insurance is based on previous averages. When and if you claim more than once every five years, you have major problems.

This government claims to be listening. This government claims to be trying to do everything for everyone. I just came from a committee room downstairs where 14 registry offices were closed in rural Ontario by this government, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture just got up and said how great the things they were doing for rural Ontario were. One of the great things is that they closed three registry offices with one stroke of the pen. It was supported by the committee this morning. I want to put that on the record.

Some additional $515 million were given to the civil service of Ontario this year. That is quite rich. The $35.5 million agriculture got one week ago pales in comparison to the additional $515 million the civil service of Ontario got.

De Havilland got $151 million to save 4,900 jobs. I understand that is now 1,300 less; they are down to 3,600. Still, that is $151 million in comparison to an additional $35.5 million that has been committed by this government for 60,000 farm families.

I was recently talking to a beef producer who tells me he has not made a profit in the last five years. He has broken even. What is even worse is that on his assets and liabilities sheet he has lost $100,000 of equity. Members should name me any other business that has worked for nothing for five years and has $100,000 less equity for the effort put in at the end of five years. They will not find any.

I have here the budget for 1991-92 for Quebec, which is not nearly as rich as Ontario -- the estimates for le ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation. Would members believe $711 million for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Quebec, almost $100 million more than the support this government provides in Ontario?

I come from a riding right along the Ontario-Quebec border. It is very difficult for me to explain to the grain growers in Bainsville and in Glengarry county when they cannot get $100 a ton for their corn, yet their neighbours right across the line in Quebec are getting $180. That $80 is support from the province of Quebec.

1150

Supply management is most important to the province of Ontario. I think many people are not aware of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has allowed the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal to be the price setter, or the cost-of-production setter, for supply management, and has rolled back to our chicken broiler producers 12 cents a kilo on their cost of production. That, in very short English language, is the destruction of supply management.

I brought it to the standing committee on resources development and questioned John Core, who is the chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. Under a supply management system that works, three items have to be in place: cost of production, the value of the product and import restrictions. Those are the only three things that have to be there in order for supply management to work. If one of those items is missing from that formula, you have disaster. You have the worst of two worlds, because you are producing under quota and have no control over the price.

Those are some of the problems facing agriculture in general. In Essex county, with the drought conditions that have occurred, we have a situation that is almost intolerable. In Farm and Country here we have insolvent agricultural producers 19%, severe problems 13%, so 32% of the 60,000 families in Ontario are either insolvent or in severe financial difficulty. That comes from the most recent edition of Farm and Country.

Mr Hayes: When did this start?

Mr Villeneuve: Certainly the price of commodities was never lower than it is now.

An editorial in the Corn Producer entitled "Minimal Consultation" says:

"We cannot recall a minister of agriculture, provincial or federal, who was less inclined to meet and consult with major farm organizations than the present Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food. The NDP rural caucus has refused repeated requests by different commodity groups to meet and discuss their problems."

Those are not my words. Congratulations to the member for Essex South. We are supporting him.

Mr Hope: For a second I thought there was a typographical error in the resolution. Where it has "ignore," I thought it would say "help" rural Ontario, especially in Chatham and Essex-Kent, as we talk about the assistance that is needed for the people of rural Ontario, especially in my riding, which was hit by the drought which added extra problems to those family farms.

In this House, to understand the day-to-day agendas, the opposition members wake up in the morning and flip a coin to find out whether they are Doctor Save or Doctor Spend. Today they woke up as Doctor Spend.

When we tried to understand what was going on around the agricultural community during the campaign, I made it quite clear I was not an agricultural expert. That was one of the best things they wanted to hear from a local member, that he is not an agricultural expert, because they want to be listened to instead of being told how to operate their small businesses and their small farms. That is why in this election the people of southwestern rural Ontario made it quite clear by electing New Democratic members in most of the ridings of Essex-Kent, Windsor, Lambton, Sarnia, Elgin, Middlesex, and it goes on into London.

A number of the problems are at issue in this resolution. The resolution is redundant now because this government has come across and helped people.

Mr B. Murdoch: You never got elected. You got in by default. Don't ever think you got in by reason. You never had a seat, Randy.

The Speaker: Order. I know this is a matter about which the member for Grey feels strongly, but I ask him to temper his language and allow the member for Chatham-Kent to continue his speech.

Mr Hope: It is nice that they try to override it, but it is the fact that today we have a number of members on this side.

During the drought and during this time frame I was educated by the farmers of rural Ontario who were affected by it, making sure that they educated me. This government has come through with a short-term program, and we look forward to the long-term program we are wishing to put forward. A number of the farming communities have talked to me about when all this started. In 1981 and 1982, when the recession hit, a lot of family farms were affected.

Now I am hearing opposition members yelling and screaming, "What are you doing?" They should let me tell them what the Liberals and Conservatives did in the past. They put programs together to help out the bankers and the bank institutions instead of helping those farmers.

In my riding a lot of farmers have been affected by mismanagement of government issues and policies, not making sure they could assist the farmers in my community, and they ask me what I am doing for them. We are making sure that when we put $50 million into effect, the $50 million goes to the farmers. When we put this program into place we made sure the program went to the farmers to help them in the drought and help them in other areas across the province. That is what is called helping rural Ontario.

We say we have to help the family farm. I am going to use as an example a constituent of mine who is a major farm leader in my community. He said to me: "I think we should commend you on your hard work this summer on behalf of the Kent county farmers. This aid package, I believe, is a direct result of rural MPPs like yourself working on behalf of the farmers. Maybe us farmers should have voted NDP a long time ago." He said this to make sure that we help the farmers.

We understand the first part of this resolution that deals with the people in rural Ontario being affected by the commodity prices being lower, but it is going to take through GATT. I am sure the member opposite listened to Canada AM this morning. More than just the provincial government has to get on board. It is time the federal government made sure it had fair trade policies for the people of rural Ontario, so they can live and work their small businesses viably and effectively.

Mr Sutherland: I am pleased to participate in the debate this morning. I am sure the member for Essex South was up late last night getting his remarks ready for today. I congratulate him for bringing the issue of agriculture to the forefront. I do not necessarily agree with his resolution.

Let me just say that we all recognize that the issues of agriculture are very severe. They are extremely challenging and they certainly have not just developed over the past year, although the accumulation of many years of low commodity prices and high interest rates has created a great number of problems.

I and the farmers in my riding are very pleased with the response this government has provided. Before the most recent announcement the farmers in my riding had received over $2 million in interest relief, which was well needed. They got it during the latter part of the summer and the early part of the fall. It was very important for them to get it. They are anticipating that they will get more than another $1 million out of the most recent announcement, so well over $3 million, and it could be very close to $4 million, is going into my riding to support farmers.

The opposition can say that we are not concerned about agriculture or about the impact of this past summer and the significant decline in commodity prices, but that simply is not the truth.

We heard the member for S-D-G & East Grenville talk about registry offices and about this government not supporting rural communities. I want to remind him that one of the key areas for rural communities across this province has been rural post offices in many small villages. We will not comment on how many of those post offices have actually been closed, undermining rural communities.

I am proud of this government and what it has done for farmers so far. We do need to do more, but I will not be supporting the resolution.

Mr Mancini: I would like to use the remaining two moments to put a few more facts on the record so that all listening can understand exactly the situation.

Since assuming office, the NDP's only short-term plan for agriculture has been a $50-million advance to the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, which was instituted by the previous Liberal government. It enhanced by $50 million an already existing program implemented by the previous government. That was in its budget.

The government promised $100 million in the election; $50 million does not equal $100 million, and that has nothing to do with the crisis in commodity prices or with the problems caused by the drought. I want the government members to understand that. I want the general public and the farm community that is watching to know that the members of this socialist government were spendthrifts when it came to their friends. They had $515 million for the civil service in one year, they are ready to spend $150 million for de Havilland in one year and they are ready to open up the vault for the doctors, the nurses and everyone else, but when it comes to farmers there are only crumbs left on the table.

The parliamentary assistant to the minister can congratulate himself all he wants. As a matter of fact, he needs a third hand to pat himself on the back. But his self-congratulation is not going to address the crisis facing 60,000 farm families. We condemn the government for its lack of action.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the House has come to order, we will be able to deal with the ballot items. We will deal first with ballot item 35 standing in the name of Mr Wilson (Simcoe West).

1205

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE COMTE DE SIMCOE

The House divided on Mr J. Wilson's motion for second reading of Bill 132, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. J. Wilson pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 132, mise aux voix, est rejetee :

Ayes/Pour -- 19

Arnott, Cunningham, Curling, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Mahoney, Mancini, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Ramsay, Runciman, Sorbara, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Nays/Contre -- 31

Abel, Caplan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martin, Mills, Murdock, S., Sterling, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wessenger, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

1212

FARM INCOME

The House divided on Mr Mancini's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 23

Arnott, Caplan, Cunningham, Curling, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Mancini, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sorbara, Sterling, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Nays -- 29

Abel, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martin, Mills, Murdock, S., Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wessenger, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The House recessed at 1214.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Sola: When is procrastination a virtue and when it is a vice? In looking at the Treasurer's recent statement on spending adjustments, it would seem that to put off for tomorrow what can be done today is a vice unless it is done by the government. Then, miraculously, procrastination becomes a virtue. This is confirmed by the statement of the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet when he describes this as "restraint" and "management of resources." "Loss of control and government mismanagement" is a more appropriate definition.

Let's examine both statements. Let's put this restraint into perspective. Let's look at this management or, more precisely, government mismanagement. In their outline for spending adjustments, the word "delay" appears 10 times. When accompanied with words such as "unexpected" and "unforeseen," how can the NDP claim to be managing government spending? How can the NDP describe unexpected delays and unforeseen delays as restraint? As Shakespeare would say, "Much ado about nothing."

For instance, of $460 million in one-time savings, $434 million is beyond the government's control. Only $26 million may be under partial government control, of which 50% or $13 million was a conscious decision by the NDP. This decision to renege on $13 million in payments to colleges and universities shows precisely where education stands in the NDP's sense of priorities.

BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Villeneuve: There was a very troubling report in the Hamilton Spectator recently regarding the discovery of an illegal medical waste dump near Brantford. The dump was located on the weekend by a private citizen who found it on the Six Nations Reserve. This dump covers two to three acres and is up to five feet in depth, containing hazardous medical waste such as syringes, needles, an empty intravenous bag and at least one blank prescription pad from a hospital.

Officials of the provincial Ministry of the Environment have visited the site but have not yet told anybody what they found. This dump site is near McKenzie Creek, and if any hazardous materials are seeping into the ground water, there could be very serious consequences for natives on the reserve, as well as for anyone else living in the area. I understand the Ministry of the Environment has little power to act because the property is on an Indian reserve but that does not remove the government's responsibility to work with the natives at Six Nations.

I raise this issue for two reasons. First, and most important, there is potentially a serious health threat in the area. Second, there is no one else to raise the issue. There is no one here representing the citizens of Brant-Haldimand because the government and the Premier will not call a by-election to replace our former colleague Bob Nixon. Once again I am urging the government to call that by-election to give the people of Brant-Haldimand a voice in this Legislature once again.

JOHN SIMPSON

Mr Owens: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Mr John Simpson. We are all concerned about the rise of crime in our various constituencies. Not only is John concerned about the rise in crime; he is also concerned about crime prevention in Scarborough. He has devoted many long hours and recruited many volunteers and worked hard to make the community a safer place. For eight years now, John has been involved with the Neighbourhood Watch program and is currently chairperson of number 63 Mason District Neighbourhood Watch.

John wants to ensure a safer community and is dedicated to assisting the police. He does many things for his community: preparing a newsletter, distributing crime reports and lobbying all levels of government for funding for Neighbourhood Watch programs.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the city of Scarborough to do as its sister city North York has done, which is to fund a full-time Neighbourhood Watch volunteer co-ordinator.

Through the hard work that my constituent John Simpson has done, he has been instrumental in establishing the Crime Prevention Resource Centre in the city. This not only serves the residents of Scarborough Centre, but all the residents of Scarborough.

We have the utmost respect for John Simpson and the fine work of the Neighbourhood Watch program. Because of the efforts of John Simpson and of the many volunteers like John, Scarborough is a safer and better place to live.

MISSISSAUGA BOARD OF TRADE

Mr Mahoney: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to welcome, joining us in the west gallery, a delegation from the Mississauga Board of Trade. Since 1976, the board of trade has become an institution with great influence and respect in our city, and indeed across the province and around the country.

A sign of the economic times would be that the membership of our board has dropped from a high of 3,200 down to 2,000, something I would like the government and the Treasurer to take note of when they are attempting to look at the record high deficits that they are bringing forward. Notwithstanding that, this board still ranks as the second largest in the province and the sixth in the entire country, operating with a staff of 23 people and completely funded by its own members.

The Mississauga Board of Trade has grown in prominence municipally, provincially and federally by establishing a policy review committee giving depth to business-related issues. The board has emerged as an important advocacy group for business.

Much of the success of our board of trade can be attributed to its executive director, Lois Gibson, who on September 30 of this year retired after 11 years of service with the board. She has an outstanding record of service. She was the first woman to be appointed as the president of the Chamber of Commerce Executives of Canada and the first woman to receive Manager of the Year and many other awards. I congratulate Lois Gibson on her retirement and wish her well, and I thank the members of the board for coming today.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Arnott: The Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs has again made a mockery of the public consultation process.

Last March, the minister stated he would be consulting with all interested parties on the interim hunting and fishing agreement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. In this week's announcement regarding the release of a draft document, the minister notes that he would have liked more time for public discussion but that the formal negotiations were far more complex than he had originally anticipated.

The minister is aware of the importance of this agreement as it relates to the management of this province's valuable natural resources. Interest groups are not pleased with his arbitrary 48-hour consultation process on what appears to be a done deal. As the Federation of Ontario Naturalists has stated, any real change is unlikely as the document is to be signed by the band and the government on or before October 15.

We ask the minister that all interested parties be allowed to fully participate in these important discussions on the future of Algonquin Park. We agree that an equitable settlement can be worked out for the Algonquins of Golden Lake, but it cannot come at the expense of this province's long-standing resource management principles. Two days of public consultation for this issue are simply insufficient.

ROYAL VISIT

Ms S. Murdock: I rise today in total disbelief at the reprehensible reporting evidenced in Toronto's local tabloid. Balanced reporting? Yet when yesterday's article came out, I said, "Fine; consider the source." What can you expect but irreverence and totally disgusting reporting?

But it has to be surprising to this reporter, if you can call her that, that the royal couple actually asked to come to my city. Yesterday I discounted much of this doggerel because I figured, well, it was done in ignorance. Today's article shows that, first, this person could never have come to my city; otherwise she would know better. Second, my city is 100,000 people. It is hospitality plus. It is beautiful. I will admit that 25 years ago we could not have said that, but working together, Inco and everyone else have made it a wonderful place to live. She does not know what she is talking about.

Frankly, she is so tunnel-visioned that after today's article, the only thing that is obvious is that in her view only Toronto is good enough. The tabloid earns its reputation with this kind of reporting. I say: "Come to Sudbury. Meet our people. Share our hospitality." The royal couple will, but I can bet you, Ms Mandel, that you never will.

1340

GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES

Mr Phillips: I want to say a few words today as to why I think the atmosphere of civility in the House has recently come under pressure.

It was only a little more than a year ago that the Premier, at the swearing-in ceremonies at Convocation Hall, announced that it was his government's task "to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power." Yet, frankly, almost daily we see the government engaged in activities which seem to challenge the Premier's statement and to further aggravate the tone of debate in this House.

Examples of this would include the recent budget hearings where we in the opposition assumed that a fair representation of groups would come forward to provide public feedback on the budget. Unfortunately the Premier's office took it upon itself to very aggressively load the agenda with groups supporting the budget, ignoring the need to achieve a cross-section of opinion. Furthermore, the NDP members on the committee issued a press release headlined, "Committee Finds Widespread Support for Provincial Budget." This press release was issued before the committee had any opportunity to discuss the hearings.

The government has further contributed to the negative atmosphere by having the Premier here perhaps two days a week and by having virtually no ministerial statements. Who suffers as a result? Surely the opposition, but also, importantly, the NDP caucus and the public when the role of the Legislature is abrogated.

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS DAY

Mrs Marland: Today, October 10, is Breast Cancer Awareness Day. The purpose is to make people aware that early detection of breast cancer saves lives.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in women in Ontario. As women age, their chances of getting breast cancer increase. However, early detection of breast cancer has reduced the number of deaths in women aged 50 to 69 by as much as 40%.

Women aged 50 or older should contact their physicians or the Ontario breast screening program to arrange for breast screening, which includes an X-ray called a mammogram and a physical examination. A mammogram can detect breast cancer at its earliest stages, even before a lump can be felt.

In addition, women of all ages should do a breast self-examination every month. Regular self-examination enables women to detect breast changes in between checkups by their doctors or other breast screening centres. A doctor will demonstrate how to do a breast self-examination. As well, a brochure explaining the procedure is available from any office of the Canadian Cancer Society.

The Ontario breast screening program runs free breast screening centres in several cities across Ontario. For more information, please call the Cancer Information Service at 1-800-263-6750.

I encourage all women to discuss breast cancer detection with their physicians. Early detection could save your life.

I just came from attending the luncheon, with 1,600 people present, to celebrate Breast Cancer Awareness Day.

BUSINESS IN BRANTFORD

Mr B. Ward: In this House, we all know the tough times that Brantford has experienced in the past from an economic standpoint. I would like to bring to the members' attention some good news on the economic front.

Since September, a number of business people have made the decision to invest in Brantford. Examples are the construction of warehouse space for the rationalization of Lumsden Brothers Co; the decision of Go Vacations, a recreational vehicle manufacturer, to relocate all of its operation to Brantford; Ben-A-Clamp, a maker of automotive and industrial clamps, picking Brantford over the American states of New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and even Mexico, and the plans of BASF Canada to invest $6 million for new equipment in its Brantford paint plant. As well, Intercity made the decision to close a plant in Red Budd, Illinois, and maintain its Keeprite operations, and just last Friday I toured a plant that was purchased by local investors from an American company.

These decisions mean jobs for the people of Brantford. They mean that these business people have confidence in Brantford and Ontario. I am confident that this House will continue to hear of improvements on the economic front as our province continues on the road to economic renewal.

Hon Mr Cooke: I have met with the opposition House leaders and I believe we have unanimous consent for a statement to be made by the Minister of Housing, followed by statements from the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Premier.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

RENT REGULATION

Hon Ms Gigantes: I wish to inform the House about the investigation by Ontario's rent registrar of the rents in a building owned by the Minister of Community and Social Services.

As members will recall, on September 24 allegations were raised that illegal rents were being charged for the two units in this building located at 964 Avenue Road in Toronto. The rent registrar, David Braund, investigated these allegations under section 11 of the Residential Rent Regulation Act. He has concluded that there is no basis for proceedings under section 122 of the Residential Rent Regulation Act. I am not tabling the report in the House for two reasons.

First, the report the rent registrar has produced is a law enforcement record containing personal information that is protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Second, since September 24 a tenant has filed an application with rent review regarding one of the units in this building. The matter will be dealt with by a rent review administrator who will hear evidence from both the landlord and the tenant and then issue a decision. The decision can be appealed by either party to the Rent Review Hearings Board. If the opinion of the rent registrar were to be released at this time, it might be viewed as prejudicing the right of either the landlord or the tenant to fair hearings before the rent review administrator and the Rent Review Hearings Board.

Hon Ms Akande: As members know, there has been concern raised about rent levels at my property at 964 Avenue Road, Toronto. I am satisfied that the rents charged in the two apartment units are honest and proper. However, a tenant there has now initiated proceedings to have his rent reviewed. The rent review process is the appropriate forum in which to have this matter decided. This process will take some months to resolve. Therefore, I have decided to tender my resignation as Minister of Community and Social Services in order that the Legislature can focus on the many important issues facing the people it serves.

Hon Mr Rae: After discussing this matter with the Minister of Community and Social Services yesterday evening, I have decided, with enormous regret, to accept her resignation. I want everyone in this House to understand that I do this in order to allow the minister to be able to present a fair case before the rent review tribunal and because I have enormous respect for the minister and her sense that it would be better for everyone, including herself, if this was the way we proceeded. I say this without any prejudice with regard to the case that is now before the tribunal because of the action taken by one tenant.

When this matter has been dealt with fairly and squarely by the administrator, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, as far as I am concerned, will be back in the cabinet.

If I might be permitted to say just a couple of things about the minister, her tenure as minister over the last year has been marked by progress of which we in the government are understandably proud. I hope members will allow me to point out just a couple of areas in which she has worked enormously hard on behalf of all the people of the province.

Shelter allowances were increased by 10% on January 1991. The $51 million in the capital works projects designed to get welfare recipients into the workforce created 62,000 individual weeks of work in communities with high unemployment rates. Through the Back on Track program of some $215 million, the minister's insistence at cabinet -- and I can assure members that no one has been a more effective advocate on behalf of the people of this province than the minister. Social assistance reform has included a $78-million program to get welfare recipients back to work. She has taken responsibility as a minister for working together with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Citizenship to deal with the long-term care reform and make sure that stays on track. She has launched a review of the province's child care system and she has shared responsibility with others for the creation of 5,000 more subsidies for child care.

These are never easy moments of decision for a minister or a Premier. The minister has shown in the decision she has taken today, as in so many others to my knowledge and in my experience, enormous grace, enormous courage and a great sense of fairness to herself and to everyone. I hope it will be understood in that light by the members of the House.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EXPO '98

Hon Mr North: I am very pleased to advise the House today that Mr Tom Wells, former agent general for Ontario in London, has agreed to lead the federal-provincial municipal team supporting the Toronto bid for Expo '98. Many members of the House are former colleagues of Mr Wells, who served in the Legislature as the member for Scarborough North for many years and was a cabinet minister in both the Robarts and Davis administrations.

Mr Wells will chair the Expo '98 Bid Corp, which will be incorporated soon. The bid corporation will have an advisory board which will include representatives from all four levels of government, business, labour, the local community and native groups. This group will ensure that, should our bid be successful, Expo '98 will be a unique and very exciting world's fair.

The bid for Expo '98 represents a tremendous opportunity to spur the economic renewal of this province. It will not only create jobs; it will inspire investment and growth across Ontario.

Mr Wells's first task will be to meet with a visiting delegation from the International Bureau of Exhibitions next week and begin the lobbying process we believe will lead to our successful bid.

I know all honourable members will join me in welcoming Mr Wells to this very important assignment and assure him of our full support.

RESPONSES EXPO '98

Mr H. O'Neil: We are very pleased to see an appointment such as this. Mr Wells had a very distinguished career while he was in this Legislature, and when he was transferred to the job in London, England, as the agent general, he again distinguished himself and did a great job promoting the province of Ontario. The position to which he has been appointed is a very important one, because the Toronto bid for Expo '98 could mean a great deal to this province, not only in the tourism sector but in the business sector as well, creating, as the minister mentioned, a lot of jobs and promoting the province right around the world.

I hope we are successful with it. With a person like Mr Wells leading it, I hope we are. In the meantime, having a person of his stature doing the job also means that over the next number of years we will be able to promote the province of Ontario right around the world as the great place it is.

We talk about the importance of tourism to our economy in Ontario. I would be remiss if I did not mention, as the minister is aware, that many of the people in the tourism industry are having a lot of problems at the present time. Our tourism numbers, not only from the United States and the other provinces and the rest of Canada but from around the world, are down. People are having a lot of problems. We are going to have a lot of failures over the next few months and the next year.

I commend the minister for cutting some of the expenses in certain areas within the ministry. I think he has reduced the operating budgets by approximately 6.4%. There were areas where we could reduce the costs we have. I commend him on this, but I would also say to him, the Premier and the members of the cabinet that there are other areas in which he should be lobbying the Premier and the cabinet to give some type of special assistance over the next few months and the next year while we are waiting for specifics. We have not really seen them. There have been no other announcements within the House.

I feel the minister should be doing a better lobbying job, because when the tourism industry in the province is a healthy one, a lot of extra tax revenue is generated. That helps many of the other social issues and problems we have. We are hoping that within the next few months the Minister of Tourism and Recreation goes after the Premier and the other cabinet ministers to get some more support for tourism in Ontario, but I commend the minister for the appointment of Mr Wells to head up this very important area.

Mr Phillips: I remember well the Premier's opening remarks to us when the House came back after being off for three months. I think he said: "There is much to accomplish. We face the most serious challenge since the Great Depression. Unemployment is too high. Over the next few weeks, ministers will be announcing plans."

This is the very first announcement we have had all week. There have been no other ministerial announcements. He had all summer to lay out his plans. He has had three weeks now since the House came back. According to the Premier, we are facing the most serious challenge since the Great Depression, yet this is the only announcement we have had all week.

There is no question that the economy is struggling very badly. I welcome Mr Wells. He is a first-class individual who will do a first-class job. But the members of the opposition were expecting much more. We were expecting announcements this week that tackled some of the major issues facing the economy. We acknowledge there is much work to be done. We took the Premier at his word and his announcement, the very first words he gave when the House came back. I hope we will not see many more days go by before the ministers do stand up and announce specific programs to get at some of the issues that are tearing this province apart.

I am frankly very disappointed in what has come forward this week from the government. I fully expect that next week, and early next week, we will be seeing some significant announcements to begin to tackle some of the major economic issues in this province.

Mr Harris: I want to say a few things and I want to leave some time for the member for Wellington, who wants to comment on this as well. Obviously I do not fault the minister or the government for the appointment of Mr Wells. He is an excellent negotiator and a top-notch politician. In fact, were he here as government House leader, this would be a kinder, gentler, smoother-running and better place than it is today.

I think those of us from all sides of the House who were here in those days would recognize that while we may not all have liked the agenda, or the legislation, or the prosperity that the province enjoyed, surely we would have agreed that there was a House leader who knew how to deal fairly with all sides of the House and who knew how to advance an agenda with the co-operation of all parties and make sure all viewpoints were heard, both from the public and from the opposition. I know he will bring those skills to this challenge of landing us Expo '98 here in Canada, in Ontario and of course in Toronto.

1400

I also want to say a couple of things I think could be very helpful to the minister and his party. Their very strong ally and friend and cousin virtually singlehandedly, along with other NDP supporters, absolutely scuttled the bid for the Olympics in this country, in this province and in the city of Toronto. The Bread Not Circuses Coalition and the candidate for mayor misrepresented exactly what that project was all about. They say they are going to involve four levels of government. They say this will create jobs and it will inspire investment and growth across Ontario. If they believe that Expo '98 will do that, let's hope that one of the representatives is not Mr Layton on behalf of the city of Toronto. Let's hope.

I believe the government members could do something by talking to their municipal colleagues, talking to those supporters of the New Democratic Party. Mr Layton obviously will be looking for something to do in a very short period of time. If they can bring him on board -- and perhaps Mr Wells can, because he was good at bringing people together -- and we can present a united front, then we will not scupper this bid, we will not scupper Mr Wells as Mr Henderson was scuppered, and indeed we will get Expo '98. As they say, we will get the jobs, we will get the prosperity, we will get the economic renewal. Let's hope we can do it right this time.

Mr Arnott: I am pleased to stand in my place as our party's Tourism and Recreation critic to respond to this statement also. I must say that Tom Wells is certainly a first-class person. I do not know him personally, but I know very well of his reputation and I am sure he will do an excellent job.

In the weeks that I have been Tourism and Recreation critic for our party I have been inundated with calls and responses from tourist operators. There are very serious problems in our tourist industry. The answers are just not coming from the government at all. I cannot say enough about that. All the wrong signals are going out to our tourist operators and the government has to get down to work on that. We need a more substantive announcement from the government and from the minister that he will do more to assist our tourist operators instead of making these sorts of nothing announcements.

The Speaker: There is more response time remaining. Any other responses from the third party?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Cousens: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: My rights as a member of this House and as the critic for the Ministry of the Environment have been reduced. In fact, I have to bring to your attention the impact that it has on the work we have to do in this Legislature.

I thought maybe today there would be a statement by the Minister of the Environment. It was not today. She did not make one yesterday, and yet outside this House she made a major statement carried by four of the Toronto newspapers: the Globe and Mail, "Businesses, Institutions Drafted Into Recycling"; the Toronto Sun, "Grier Unveils Plan to Force Cuts in Trash"; the Financial Post, "Business Attacks NDP Waste Plan"; the Toronto Star, "Institutions, Businesses Told to Begin Recycling Trash."

The minister has come forward with regulations and decisions that affect her ministry that she did not make in this Legislature. I can only say that the New Democratic Party is aware of the adversarial nature of this House where, if you bring up something in the House, we at least then have a chance to counter it and discuss it and debate it. If it is not raised in this House, we in opposition have little, if any, opportunity to raise it.

This minister has taken away my right as a member of the Legislature to respond in any way I want. It could have been supportive in some way, but in this case I am saying the minister has done me wrong.

The Speaker: Would the member for Markham take his seat, please. The member may recall that a quite similar matter was raised yesterday as a point of order and I responded at that time that I would take it under advisement, and indeed that is what I have done. It will take a bit of time to do some research on it, but there will be a ruling with respect to the matter which has been raised.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on the same point: What happens when I even call her office to get a copy of the speech or the press release and I still do not have it? I have to read the Toronto Star and the other papers to get it. I have to get that information. I am being let down by this minister.

The Speaker: The member for Markham will to take his seat, please.

Mr Cousens: Where are my rights? I don't have any, Mr Speaker. She is not giving me the answers I need. It is wrong. There is no information from this minister.

The Speaker: The member for Markham will come to order, please.

Mrs Fawcett: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I also feel that my rights as a member of the opposition have been undermined and hampered. I understand that at a House leaders' meeting this morning it was decided by the government House leader that from now on ministers would be making statements in this House so that we would have a chance to put forth our points of view. At the same time, a press release was being issued by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the closure of land registry offices.

This is a very important matter to many areas in rural Ontario and I feel that this government continues to peck away at rural Ontario and destroys any kind of chance --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. Again, I realize this is the same matter and the only response I can provide to you is that the Speaker is taking the matter seriously. I have it under advisement and I will report back to the House at my earliest convenience.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, of which I gave you notice earlier today. I wish to deal with the matter that constitutes not only a breach of privilege but a contempt of Parliament and an utter disrespect for this Legislature.

In my point of privilege I will illustrate to you the fact that this House and all its members have been treated with contempt and disrespect. I will show you that in the parliamentary tradition of this Legislature, this occurrence constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege. I will then be asking you to rule on whether my point constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.

The Legislative Assembly Act, subsection 45(1), states:

"The Assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court of record for the purposes of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as contempts...matters and things following:

"1. Assault, insult or libel upon a member of this Assembly during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days preceding or the 20 days following a session."

Mr Speaker, I will read to you remarks made by a government lawyer representing a ministry of this government in a court of law in arguing against an injunction to stop the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations from closing 14 land registry offices. The solicitor for the ministry said it would serve no purpose for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to await any input from the standing committee on general government, which is looking into the closure of land registry offices under standing order 123, and she gave three reasons: (1) The general government committee is of no significance; (2) the general government committee is really just a way of creating political heat; (3) the general government committee is composed of six members of the NDP and five from the other two parties and all of the NDP members could be absolutely counted on to stick to the government's position of closure of the land registry offices.

This is indeed an insult, not only to myself as a member but to the Legislature as a whole. These remarks alone are bad enough, but when they are coupled with the remarks of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations made in answer to my response some time ago, they are utter contempt of this Legislature.

1410

I would like to quote to the House again the remarks made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on Thursday, September 26, 1991. Referring specifically to page 2569, I will quote myself asking the latter part of my question and her answer:

"My question is whether the minister feels this course of action is fair and democratic, and will she agree to stop any further closures until the committee has reported back to the House on its findings?"

The honourable minister's replied: "The answer to the first question is that, yes, I think this is a fair and equitable decision to make, and yes, I will continue to try to keep on schedule in terms of the integration of the land registry offices."

I submit that the two statements, made by the solicitor for the Attorney General's department and the minister, should be read together.

Section 24 of the 1982 Constitution Act ensures that the administration of justice is not brought into disrepute. Those are my rights in a court of law. My question is, what rights do I have in this House and what rights do I have in sitting as a member of the standing committee on general government?

The only recourse we have in the parliamentary form is through our standing orders and the tradition of parliamentary privilege. I will quote from the chapter on contempt from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, chapter 9, page 121:

"Indignities offered to the House by words spoken or writings published reflecting on its character or proceedings have been constantly punished...upon the principle that such acts tend to obstruct the Houses in performance of their function by diminishing the respect due to them."

The words of the solicitor for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations have indeed obstructed all members of this House in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to this House, and more specifically its standing committees, by prejudging the results of a committee of the Legislature and calling into question the validity of the powers and integrity of the members of this House.

The government's solicitor has cut to the very core of parliamentary privilege. If these comments were allowed to stand unchallenged by this House, every standing committee of this Legislature would be very reluctant ever to call any member of the public to appear before it.

Under standing order 123 we called some very busy and important people to appear before the standing committee on general government to speak to the closures of registry offices across this province. Am I to say to them now that the time and effort they took to appear before our committee was wasted? Should they ever come again? How can our credibility as members be maintained if our standing committees and standing orders are deemed to be a farce and of no significance? The ability of all members to do their jobs will be drastically diminished.

The Speaker of the House of Commons on November 2, 1987, ruled:

"It is very important...to indicate that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges upon the ability of the members of Parliament to do their job properly."

The comments by the solicitor representing the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has very definitely impinged upon the ability of myself and of members of this House to do their job properly.

There are many precedents of contempt being found when the honour and integrity of the House and of certain members have been called into question. The following is from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms: "Traditionally, articles in the press reflecting badly on the character of the House have been treated as contempts." In my opinion, this is much more serious than an article in the press. These inflammatory statements have been made by a government employee in a court of law.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue which affects all of us. I am concerned about the comments made about the NDP members of the standing committee on general government. By saying that all the NDP members could be absolutely counted on to stick to the government's position of closure of the land registry offices, the minister's solicitor calls into question the very right of the individual members of this Legislature to represent their constituents and the people of this province.

Mr Speaker, I put before you and submit to you that this is a significant question of privilege covering the issue of contempt. If you find a prima facie case, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

The Speaker: I must first commend the member for Dufferin-Peel on having done some research, in particular checking with Beauchesne and Erskine May, and indeed quoting the Speaker of the House of Commons. I would be pleased to take a look at the events he has described. I believe this matter is currently being dealt with by a committee of the Legislature, in which case, of course, it would not be appropriate, nor would the Speaker be able, to deal with it. However, should a report come from that committee dealing with the difficulties you have described, of course the Speaker can deal with it at that time. None the less, I shall take a look at what you have raised and consider it seriously.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, I rise with some reluctance on the same point of order. As you may know, sir, I have been serving as Chairman of the standing committee on general government since the last Parliament. We have tried to do our work in the committee in as proper a way as we could and as best we could. When standing order 123 was referred to our committee, I believe I was asked to sign some letters and support the efforts of our clerk to get certain witnesses to appear before the committee.

I want to tell the Legislature that some of these witnesses took time off from work. They were not reimbursed for their time off from work. Some of these witnesses came several hundred kilometres at their own expense. There is no way for them in any way to get reimbursement for that expense. Most of them came out of their deep support for an institution which happens to be in their own community.

I want to come at this point of order from a different angle. Right now the Premier, as are other Premiers across the country, is joining the Prime Minister in trying to forge a new and stronger country and in trying to get citizens in Ontario and across the country to once again have a deep belief and also respect for our institutions.

This is very important. Whether they respect us as individuals or as members of a particular party does not concern me at this time, but I am very concerned, and I support the Premier's efforts 100%, that we need to do whatever we can to get our citizens to believe in and have respect for our institutions. Most important is our Legislature as an institution, and the process used in this institution should be respected. Therefore, all the committees of the Legislature, and the process that is used in these committees, which report to the Legislature, must be above reproach.

I was challenged today by several members of the committee as to what kind of committee I was running when we were in the middle of a process in which the public was invited to partake, and before the process was completed, action contrary to some of the witnesses' advice was being taken by the government. I could not answer the members. Furthermore, the matter that has been brought forward by my colleague who has just spoken, with regard to the comments made to a court by an employee of the government, concerns me deeply.

As Chairman of the standing committee on general government, I cannot sit there and run a charade. To the best of my ability, I have to convince the public that their input into the committees which report to the Legislature is real and serious business.

I have asked the clerk of the committee to obtain the court transcripts so we can peruse and see for ourselves exactly what was said by the employee of the government and whether or not the allegations we just heard are true.

Mr Speaker, if the allegations are true, we cannot deal with it ourselves in the standing committee on general government. This is a matter that concerns you and all the members of the Legislature. We are looking to you and to everyone else who sits in this House to be able to support the Premier in his efforts to ensure that our institutions are respected, because they need to be, and they cannot be if what was alleged today is true.

The Speaker: I appreciate the concerns the member for Essex South has brought to my attention. The Speaker, of course, has a natural interest in the functioning of this place of ours, including its committees. I will endeavour to take a look at what has occurred and review the circumstances, and I shall report back later.

1420

CROATIAN CEREMONY

Mr Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Last night in front of this Legislature some 600 to 1,000 mothers were at a vigil ceremony to dispute and protest the senseless killing in Croatia. My friend the member for Mississauga East and myself attended that function. Although a microphone had been requested in advance, due to an accident, and I recognize accidents can happen, the microphone was not there. It required the member for Mississauga East and myself and the participants to either use a bull-horn, which is probably great for politicians, or shout.

I recognize it was an accident and we have had an explanation to that effect, but the privileges of my friend the member for Mississauga East and myself were in fact breached. The organizers were looked upon by the people who were there as perhaps having done a bad job of organizing. The organization of that event was spectacular and the organizers should bear none of the responsibility, but I would hope that would not happen in the future.

The Speaker: I appreciate the administrative matter the member has brought to my attention. I will report back to him as quickly as possible.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ETOBICOKE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT

Mr McClelland: My question is for the Minster of the Environment. Can the minister tell us in this House why it is she refuses to answer questions about her past and present policies with respect to the environmental assessment process? I wonder if it is perhaps the result of legal advice or maybe political advice and whether or not she has handed over her responsibilities pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act to her colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Mrs Grier: I cannot recall a single occasion when I have refused to answer questions about the environmental assessment process. If the member is referring to a question that was raised yesterday by his colleague the member for Oriole, that was about a very specific situation that is currently before the Ontario Municipal Board, and I quite properly referred that question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr McClelland: The minister says specifically with respect to the municipal board, but she should bear in mind her letter of August 24, 1988, to her predecessor, wherein she requested strenuously that this matter come under the Environmental Assessment Act and wherein she stated that if there was ever an opportunity to put the philosophy into practice, this was it; this was the time.

While in opposition the member, now the minister, waged a one-person war on the Etobicoke motel strip. She fought against what she declared at that time would be another Harbourfront planning fiasco, as she likened it to. She demanded there be an environmental assessment. She was quoted in the papers as saying it was absolutely necessary, that it was essential an environmental assessment hearing be held.

What has transpired? What has happened in the meantime since the days when she was an advocate for the people of Etobicoke in 1988? That was then, this is now? Things have changed? Constituents want to know, I certainly want to know and I think people in this House want to know. Now, as minister, is she willing to back down under pressure? Is there some sort of pressure that led her to cancel the EA? What is going on? People want to know. That was then: environmental assessment, no option, a must-be. Now things have changed. What has happened?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member says I have been fighting about the Etobicoke motel strip for five years. I regret to have to reveal my age. I ran in 1972 in a municipal campaign saying that I was opposed to another Harbourfront, or whatever Harbourfront was then envisaged as being, on the Etobicoke motel strip. I am delighted that because of the work that has been done by my colleague in Municipal Affairs and his officials, the proposal that is now going before the Ontario Municipal Board is one that will provide my constituents and the people of Metropolitan Toronto with a clean, green, accessible waterfront, which it would not have done in 1972, in 1982 or in 1990.

Mr McClelland: With reference to the minister's age, might I say she hides it extremely well and I would never have guessed for a moment that she had been serving that long.

Having said that, when she was the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, she would not have agreed to what I suggest she has agreed to now. This is a 10- to 15-storey concrete curtain, the terminology used by environmentalists and people in the community. They see it as a concrete curtain right along the Lakeshore and the Etobicoke waterfront.

I very much doubt that in 1988 she would have agreed to a 10- to 15-storey concrete curtain along the Lakeshore but now, as Minister of the Environment, she is under tremendous pressure and she has been forced into negotiating a backroom deal just like her use of emergency powers to exempt landfill site expansion under the Environmental Assessment Act with no public consultation. The minister is again cutting deals behind people's backs. How does she explain that? She has shut constituents out of any sort of public consultation in this. It is a major redevelopment project. People are wondering how can this be -- the champion of the environment, not only in Lakeshore but across the province -- what has happened to the then champion of the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon Mrs Grier: What has happened is that because of the work this government has done, because of the decisions this cabinet has made, the proposal for the Etobicoke waterfront is quite different from any previous proposal. It does not contain the amount of lakefilling that was anticipated and that was exempted by previous governments from any environmental assessment, and it provides a clean, green, accessible waterfront which is what was recommended by Mr Crombie, which is what has been achieved by this government and which will benefit all the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Elston: I have a question that will be now directed to Minister of Transportation, who is now just finishing sprucing himself up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member from Etobicoke has finished, I believe, and the Leader of the Opposition is now able to place his question.

UTDC INC

Mr Elston: I am going to direct my question to the Minister of Transportation. Eventually we will get around to talking a little bit about UTDC, but day by day we are able to extract just a little bit more about this government's economic plan. Today we found out in the newspapers, the Globe and Mail in particular, what the group project for economic growth thinks about the plan where 150 small and large businesses indicate they believe the New Democrats are ignoring business realities. I would like to explore the NDP version of economic reality with the Minister of Transportation.

Yesterday, the minister's government announced its intention to provide UTDC Inc with a line of credit and guarantee the wages of the employees, about 700 in number, at UTDC plants. It was also our understanding that the government purchased a 90-day option to buy for the remaining 85% of the shares it does not already own.

The final and most important piece of the puzzle is that Fenco Engineers, a direct subsidiary of Lavalin, has just laid off 196 workers here in the province, in Toronto. These 196 employees, some with more than 30 years' service, were laid off without notice or severance and with no idea about what is happening to their pensions.

I want the minister to tell us today what he is prepared to provide to UTDC in detail, so that we and the public know what is being spent on that corporation, what terms of credit he has granted to Lavalin and exactly what commitment his government has made to guarantee the wages of all of the people who have been disadvantaged by the Lavalin financial problems.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I appreciate the interim leader's question and sincere interest in the 522 jobs in Thunder Bay; add to it 177 jobs in Kingston. Negotiations are going well. There are two main suitors, or contestants, and we are down to brass tacks, what we hope will be the final stages of negotiation, namely, AEG Westinghouse and Bombardier, two major international firms.

Mr Villeneuve: Are they both unionized?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, indeed, and we can confirm this as negotiations are ongoing. The government of Ontario has picked up an option, simply this, that we have the first refusal or for the next 90 days we have an option to pick up the 85% share of UTDC. The member will be aware that at present the government of Ontario owns the remaining 15% of shares. With the option comes the responsibility of ensuring that the women and men in both Kingston and Thunder Bay will no longer live in anxiety. We will pick up their wages and current liabilities until an agreement can be reached, and we hope it will be done shortly.

1430

Mr Elston: We did not quite get to the substance of the question, which was, what is the minister doing in terms of telling us about the details of the arrangements for the 570, which is important; the 177, which is important; and also the 196 who have been laid off through Fenco, which is also part of the Lavalin empire and has had some problems?

We had thought, as the minister was involved in arranging the agreement with UTDC in relation to the Lavalin organization, that he would have taken some steps to ensure the security of the 196 people who were laid off at Fenco, who have not had any indication about how their pension is to be secured, about how they are to be provided with severance, and other things.

The minister should have made the arrangements that protected workers in Ontario. While he spouts about protecting the people who are working in Ontario, he has failed to tell us what he specifically has done to provide support for those people who have lost their jobs. Under the arrangements of the deal that was cut -- probably not by the Minister of Transportation, because of his surprise expressed not that long ago about the deal, but probably by the Premier -- what arrangements have been made to protect all the workers who have been laid off due to the Lavalin problems?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am pleased to try to help the Leader of the Opposition. There is a certain irony attached to the dilemma that is faced by UTDC. With the highest of respect, it was this administration --

Interjection.

The Speaker: If I could have the attention of the member for Oriole, I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm in dealing with the public business, but a modicum of restraint when others are attempting to ask and answer questions would certainly be very much appreciated.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Strike 2, Elinor, if I may proceed.

We are picking up the option on 522 jobs, and the shares will be protected until a final agreement is reached; 177 jobs, the same scenario. Under the member's administration -- when we took office a little more than a year ago, we found out that $360 million of taxpayers' money was completely wasted and could have gone a long way to guaranteeing the jobs. It was immediately the week after that we found out about another $300 million at SkyDome.

What irony, when the member talks about protection, that his government wasted $700 million of taxpayers' money. This administration, for a sum of less than $10 million vis-a-vis $700 million, is doing more to protect 700 jobs in the marketplace. That is the reality of the day. Not only does he have the facts wrong, he has a bad accountant feeding him those fact.

Mr Elston: My facts come pretty close to that. I told the minister I was happy to hear there were 700 jobs being protected in his deal. All I asked was to find out what the details were and what this government was doing to protect the 196 who were laid off under the Lavalin difficulties from Lavalin-Fenco. I did not hear any reply.

Hon Mr Rae: Are you suggesting we take responsibility for every Lavalin company?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: The Premier asked if I had a question. I said earlier I had one on UTDC , and he pointed to the Minister of Transportation, because he wanted to get out of here. I have gone to the Minister of Transportation, and now that bird is chirping over there and trying to interrupt me. He cannot have it both ways.

Let me repeat my question, Mr Speaker. My question is to this government, which has indicated that it is intervening on behalf of all the workers. It has cut a deal with the Lavalin successor to deal with UTDC. It has agreed to spend a lot of money to purchase -- at least it has an option to purchase -- to guarantee the wages. It has, it seems to me, an obligation to use its position of economic negotiation at the moment to see that workers who have been disentitled to their workplace and to their benefits are also supported.

I merely ask, what arrangements are being made with the Lavalin successor, which cut loose 196 people in Toronto, to make sure they are not disadvantaged, to make sure their pensions are delivered and to make sure those workers have support? I congratulate the government on intervening to make sure there is protection for the 700, but what is it doing for the 196 when it is in the midst of negotiating with that company and giving money to the organization with whom it is a partner?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The questions are really not related. The main question and the first supplementary dealt with the dilemma, with the story of UTDC. The member could have talked to us about the 40 bilevel cars presently being built that are going to Los Angeles, or the 216 cars that will shortly be delivered to the Toronto Transit Commission right here in Toronto. The future looks good and we are positive about the sale of UTDC.

Regarding the Lavalin connection vis-a-vis the 196 workers, we have a bill in this House. In the short term, both opposition parties can help us make sure we are in a position to at least put money into people's pockets once a company is technically or otherwise insolvent. We are doing our job in terms of UTDC. It is and will continue to be a success story because of government interference at a price the taxpayers can well afford -- value for money, indeed.

Mr Harris: I really do not want to get into a debate about whether it was our government or this government or that government that spent more money on UTDC. I am happy to get up in a very vulnerable position to say, why do we not all take a look at ourselves and ask, "What are we doing throwing government taxpayer dollars into things we know nothing about?"

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier. I want to quote from the government's speech from the throne; not even a year old yet, but I think the Premier might agree with me, out of date in this respect: "My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist." I like those words. We all like them.

I have been an elected member of this assembly now for slightly in excess of 10 years. Yesterday, I was truly embarrassed to be part of the proceedings in the House. Will the Premier tell this House if he is satisfied with his government's regard for the words that were in His Honour's speech when the Premier first took office and with regard for the democratic principles that govern the running of this House?

Hon Mr Rae: I found yesterday an example of one of those days when there is a tremendous gap between what goes on in this House and what is on the minds of most of the people of the province with respect to their daily lives. I think that is something we should all be aware of.

I want to say to the member in as fraternal a way I can that I understand the House leaders had a meeting this morning in which there were efforts made to reach some understanding with respect to the balances that will be struck about statements made inside and outside the House and other issues of that kind. I know there is going to be a discussion among House leaders with respect to the rules. I know there are members of our own caucus who have some issues they want to raise in that regard and I am sure there are issues that are being raised on other sides of the House in that regard. I just say to the leader of the third party that I hope we can make some progress in this area.

Genuinely, I am not trying to be argumentative. I am sure all of us could look into our own conduct and ask at what point the rhetoric really matches the situation which is being faced by the province.

1440

Mr Harris: I agree. The Premier will know, with me, that many school classes that used to have watching the legislative debate as part of the curriculum have now said, "No, this is not what we should be showing children in our school, how our government is run." More and more schools are tuning out instead of tuning in to government.

I want to deal specifically with what I believe are some of the difficulties with the rhetoric and what is happening. I want to talk about the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- it has been raised in a point of order here today -- and her staff. They have shown a total disregard and contempt for the House. The public asked her to stop closing land registry offices until a committee of the Legislature could report its findings; I do not want to get into the closing issue particularly at this time. Instead, she proceeded to shut down the offices one by one, without ever hearing the report of the standing committee on general government.

The Premier and I, in opposition, spent some time discussing how we felt the rights of the public and the committees had to be strengthened in our parliamentary process. In light of what has happened in this case and the comments that were made, I would ask the Premier, how can we as legislators, how can committee chairmen, as we heard the chairman of the committee today, ever again ask for the public to come forward and express their views when it is so obvious in this particular case that the government does not care one whit what the people have to say or what the members of that committee have to say on this particular decision?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member thinks the minister has not been listening, all I can say is that my experience with the minister on this issue -- and she, in a sense, came in after the decision had been taken and was trying to managee and to cope with it as a minister -- is that she has tried to respond to it in terms of managing the decision. This is one of these areas that I am again --

Mr Turnbull: If you call that responding, you don't understand what you're talking about.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the member who is heckling, let's get a consistent message here in terms of what they are trying to do. If his leader is trying to say, "Let's be more civilized," I say to the member for York Mills, I am happy to do that and I am trying to --

Mr Turnbull: Okay, Premier, but start listening to committees. What's the point of having committees --

The Speaker: Would the member for York Mills please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for York Mills prefaced his heckling by calling me Premier. I take that as a sign of civility in the House and I appreciate it. And I want to thank the member for Mississauga West for feeding me all my best lines. I appreciate that, and I wish him well in his upcoming campaign. He has a lot of support on this side. He probably has more support on this side than he realizes.

Let me say to the leader of the third party, in responding seriously to his point, that one of the issues we are going to have to determine with respect to rules and how the government operates is that under the parliamentary system that has been in place, majority governments, or governments, are expected and requested to act, to make decisions, to stand by those decisions, to defend them and to implement them. We face it in a budget, with the Treasurer announcing what the tax changes are going to be and simply proceeding with those and with all the requirements of budget secrecy and so on.

I say to the leader, without avoiding his question, first of all, the minister in this case has tried to be responsive to public opinion, knowing there is no easy solution. Second, I think if he looks at the record of this government in responding, we have responded with amending legislation in terms of the wage protection fund. We have responded in terms of the budget, where the Treasurer sat down after there were complaints about the gas tax and worked out a compromise. The member was very much involved in asking and insisting that be done.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I think one of the things that is going to have to be determined under the rules is precisely this balance between the government's right to govern and the way in which party discipline operates and the way in which decisions are made and cabinet government functions, and the growing desire in the House and elsewhere for there to be a greater degree of openness.

This is faced by this assembly. It is faced by the House of Commons. It is faced everywhere. I have not heard any easy solutions to the questions, but we are certainly happy to consider them.

Mr Harris: I am going to give the Premier the specifics of the case. The minister, if she had made up her mind and made the decision -- the bureaucracy tried it on six ministers before her and they all rebuffed it, but this minister said, "We're going to go ahead." Had she said, "We're going ahead, no point in hearings, no more debate," that might have been an honest, upfront way of doing it without violating the rights and privileges of members and of the public. But she went ahead with the hearings. She went along with that. The committee went ahead with them. They had them.

Here is what the solicitor for the ministry argued in court on this: (1) The general government committee is of no significance; (b) the general government committee is really just a way of creating political heat; (c) the general government committee is composed of six members of the NDP and five from the other two parties, and all of the NDP members could be absolutely counted on to stick to the government's position of closure of the land registry offices.

Now how did the solicitor for the ministry know that unless her minister came back to her and said: "Here's what's going to happen. Never mind the committee. Never mind they are having public hearings. Never mind that people are taking time off work to have their views heard"? That is what happened.

The Premier brought up in his response the rule changes, but opposition members have very few avenues by which to bring matters of importance before the government, avenues which are supposed to be guaranteed under the standing orders of the House.

I ask the Premier, how his government can expect the opposition to proceed in good faith with his proposals to change the rules to diminish our rights even further when he refuses to respect the few rules that we have to hear from the public and to have committee input? That is the question.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I do not know who the lawyer is or what he said, but if the lawyer said, for example, that the six New Democratic Party members of the committee can be absolutely counted upon to support every government initiative, the lawyer knows a lot more about my caucus than I do with respect to what takes place. All I can say is the lawyer has not been present at all the caucus meetings I have been present at.

But let me respond seriously to the last point the member is making. Yes, in the context of the discussions which took place in the House last spring, we did have some concerns about the management of the House and our ability as a government to get our agenda considered and dealt with by the House in what we felt was a fair way.

I do not see this rules discussion that we are trying to get off the ground as being a one-way street in which the government says, "This is what's going to happen, like it or lump it." That is not my view of what either can happen or should happen.

We are having very intensive discussions within our own group -- I expect the member is as well -- about more imaginative and creative ways of involving members of the House in solving problems. The public expects two things, it seems to me. The public expects a government to have the capacity to act and to have its legislative agenda dealt with. The public also expects there to be a degree of fairness with respect to the conduct of House business between and among the three parties. I am very much aware of that.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I am very much aware of the changes that are being discussed in other jurisdictions. We are prepared as a government, and I am prepared as Premier to contemplate some significant changes in the way in which this House does its business in order to facilitate both those things. I look forward to that dialogue and I hope --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: Even in my more partisan moments, I hope we can succeed because I think we would all be better off frankly and the --

The Speaker: Will the Premier take his seat, please.

1450

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Health, who I understand is not too healthy today. I extend my condolences. That is about as generous as I get.

I am sure the minister recalls a very brutal axe murder on the grounds of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital this summer. A patient of the hospital, the forensic ward for the criminally insane, along with a former forensic patient, has been charged with that murder.

Public safety concerns in the Brockville area, as I am sure she is aware, have been raised as a result of this murder, and I want to pass on to her a petition signed by over 5,000 residents expressing their concerns about the situation.

The minister has had three months now to consider this. I am wondering if she could advise the House what actions she is taking to either eliminate this sort of thing happening or at the very least minimize the possibility of it recurring.

Hon Ms Lankin: I thank the member for his unusual generosity in his comments. I have been told that the Minister of Health is not supposed to get sick, but it does happen, so here we are.

With respect to the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, I appreciate that the member's question was general, as he does know that there is an investigation still ongoing, so with respect to the specifics of the case, I am unaware of the state of the investigation and would be unable to comment on that.

In general, I did send a rather detailed letter to the member outlining steps of review that had taken place in the ministry under the former government with respect to cases of Lieutenant Governor's warrants at psychiatric hospitals. I have taken steps to ensure within the ministry that those particular recommendations from that review have been carried out at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital and other hospitals.

It is a discussion, I guess, of topical importance and we will continue with it because, in the Supreme Court decision with respect to Swain, we understand that the government will in fact be responsible to move much more quickly to house many more of these kinds of clients.

Perhaps, with a supplemental question, I could be more specific with respect to particular initiatives on which the member would like information.

Mr Runciman: I certainly hope the minister could be more specific because that essentially is a non-answer. Again apparently she is being buffaloed by the bureaucrats.

One of the forensic patients, the individual charged, was Peter Woodcock, who had community privileges. He is one of Toronto's most notorious child-killers who has legally changed his name to Krueger after the cult horror film villain Freddie Krueger. His approved community escort was also charged and responsible for a murder in Ottawa a number of years ago, an ex-psychiatric patient. What the minister has done through her policy is to allow one killer to escort another killer into the community.

I am wondering, after three months, how she can justify the continuance of that kind of a policy. Why does she need three months to come to the conclusion that is indeed inappropriate and jeopardizes public safety?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again I am going to be very careful not to comment on the specifics of the case, and I apologize to the member, but there is an investigation still ongoing. In general, with respect to the issue of the treatment of Lieutenant Governor's warrant individuals in psychiatric hospitals, back in about 1989 there was a study that was contracted by the previous government under Peat Marwick as the consultants that involved --

Mr Runciman: I asked you a specific question about having a killer escort another killer. Why don't you deal with that?

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, perhaps the member could be brought to order.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: The former minister under the previous government made an announcement with respect to 45 management recommendations to --

Mr Runciman: Read your book. Turn the page. You are under the control of the bureaucrats like most of those guys over there. You don't know what is going on obviously. God!

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: The member has obviously lost his generosity. I can tell it has happened very quickly. The previous government, under Peat Marwick as the consultants who --

Mr Runciman: Yes, you bet. You are letting killers wander the streets and that is okay. You don't even respond.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville, you posed a question and the minister is attempting to provide a response for you.

Mr Runciman: Give me an answer. I will listen to it. Not a bunch of bunk. Baloney.

Hon Ms Lankin: I have to remark, Mr Speaker, I just came back from a wonderful luncheon that was with respect to breast cancer screening. There was a room full of 1,000 women who were dealing with real-life issues and real-life traumas, and I note the remarkable difference coming back to this place in terms of some of the ways in which people treat issues. I think the issue that happened in Brockville is a very serious issue. I think the member raises very serious questions and I am trying to answer them. I would appreciate it if he would listen.

With respect to the recommendations made on review of forensic services in psychiatric hospitals, the first step I took after this incident in Brockville was to ensure that those recommendations had in fact been enacted within Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. I have been informed that they have been.

With respect to the specific issue that the member raises of an individual who was a former LGW patient and who was an approved companion for someone, the ministry's policies and the review which is undertaken are quite scrupulous. I have asked for that to be looked at, whether in fact that is an appropriate policy. That is part of the review that is going on with respect to the specifics of this case.

While the member may be very theatrical in his response to my answers, we are in fact trying to deal with a very serious problem that the community is very concerned about.

Mr Runciman: That is a typical, arrogant and condescending response from this minister that typifies responses from many members of that government. She is being critical of me and draws into this discussion a luncheon she had today.

I am talking about thousands of people across this province who have forensic facilities in their communities who are very legitimately concerned. We had a murder in my community. A year or two ago we had a stabbing because of her loose regulations in the Ministry of Health with respect to these people.

The minister is standing up here today and saying a killer can escort a killer. She has had three months and she has not even dealt with that. What she is doing is defending a system designed to protect the interests of the criminally insane at the expense of public safety. She is shoving people like Krueger, who is a dangerous sexual psychopath, out of maximum security facilities and into our communities, and she put him in an area where one of his victims' family lives. That is what she has done. She is consistently, in a very cavalier and callous way, gambling with public safety and ignoring victims and their families.

My final question is, will the minister commit herself to cleaning up this system so that public safety and victims' rights are its top priorities?

Hon Ms Lankin: I am going to say that I take great offence to this member saying to me across the floor that I am arrogant in my responses. People in this House know I take my job very seriously. I do not display arrogance.

I am very concerned about the people in the community of Brockville who have experienced this horrific event in their community, as well as people in other communities. We have a system that is in place. I am not personally responsible for the loose guidelines this member refers to, but quite frankly --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Difficult and contentious issues are not made any easier by language which inflames the situation, on both sides of the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister is not required to provide a further response.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Ramsay: My question to the Minister of the Environment follows along the same line of questioning of my colleague the member for Brampton North. We have to start to question the responsibility this Minister of the Environment takes for her job and specifically for the Environmental Assessment Act especially, unlike the Etobicoke situation where the proponents are private developers, in the case where it is a government initiative, there is publicly perceived harm to the environment and there are taxpayers' dollars involved. A few minutes ago, I gave advance notice to the minister of my question, and just in case she did not realize it, the Ad Hoc Committee to Save Algonquin Park has sent her a letter today requesting an environmental assessment on the government's draft agreement between itself and the Golden Lake Band, which is now going to allow hunting right across eastern Ontario, including provincial parks such as Algonquin and others.

I draw the attention of the minister to the final section of that letter. It asks her to make a determination for an environmental assessment before -- this is very important -- that agreement is signed. Just to remind the minister, unfortunately her colleague the Minister of Natural Resources wants this agreement signed next Tuesday, after giving us only 48 hours' notice of this agreement.

I am asking the minister today, will she meet immediately with these groups requesting this EA to see whether they can start to work this situation out?

1500

Hon Mrs Grier: I thank the member for having sent a copy of the letter over to me, which I gather was sent today by the Ad Hoc Committee to Save Algonquin Park. As my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources told the member yesterday, the document that had been released was there for consultation. I appreciate this contribution to the consultation and will discuss it with the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr Ramsay: That answer is just not good enough. The minister talks about consultation. She is saying five days is going to be all the consultation. I have some quotations from this group. I am giving this to a minister who has always been the champion of the public with regard to public input and involvement on the Environmental Assessment Act. I am asking the minister to be that champion again.

These are the quotes: "...promised public consultation; it did not occur. The public has been given only two days to comment before this agreement is signed. The document was released on October 8. Real change is unlikely in this document since it is going to be signed on the 15th. Sure we had some meetings with the various ministers, but I wouldn't call that consultation. Asking another group consultation? It was zip. We didn't have any."

I am asking the minister whether we could start a consultation process. She has the authority to initiate an environmental assessment on this very profound impact on eastern Ontario. I am imploring the minister to exercise her authority today. Will she do it?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond to the member by pointing out to him that I am still the champion of the environment but, unlike previous ministers of the Environment, I am not alone in my cabinet in championing the environment. I am one of a collectivity of champions of the environment within our cabinet.

Let me also remind the member that when he was the Minister of Natural Resources, his government entered into an agreement for the hunting of deer in eastern Ontario, which had exactly the same limit on the hunt as this agreement. I do not know whether there was an environmental assessment of that particular agreement. As I said in my response to his first question, I will consult with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources about the letter, which I have just received today.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Harris: My question is to the Deputy Premier, the Treasurer, the member from northern Ontario. Forintek Canada Corp, a forestry research institute, is in the final stages of making a decision about where to relocate its eastern laboratory. The Treasurer should know that both Quebec and northern Ontario are the two on the short list being considered for the 80 jobs. These are high-tech research and development jobs. They are supported by the federal government, by virtually every other provincial government and by virtually everybody in the forestry industry. It is not supported by the province of Ontario.

At a time when Ontario is in desperate need for research and development jobs, when our forest industry is under assault, when some of our processes and technology are aging and when our competitiveness is causing layoffs all across northern Ontario, as I think the Treasurer would know, can he tell us why he, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Premier -- in contrast to the Premier of Quebec and the various ministers who have been lobbying, talking to this company and laying out the red carpet -- seem not to know very much about this facility and are not willing, at a senior level, a ministerial level, to meet with this company and secure these 80 jobs for northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: In view of the fact that this is an important question, I wonder whether I could refer it to a very senior member of our cabinet, the Minister of Northern Development.

Hon Miss Martel: I asked that the question be referred to me because I met with representatives from Forintek several months ago. I was very interested in their proposals and encouraged them very much to arrange meetings with the Minister of Natural Resources and the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to talk about this particular issue.

I know the member is having communications with this company, so he knows very well that we are presently in negotiations with it to determine sharing costs among the three ministries -- the Ministry of Mines and Northern Development, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- to attract Forintek to Ontario.

Mr Harris: It is very significant that the Treasurer and a senior minister and the Deputy Premier knew nothing about this because it has not got to that level yet.

Hon Mr Laughren: Who said that?

Mr Harris: The honourable member's face told me that. She should stand up and tell me all she knows about it.

It is very significant that the Premier of Quebec and the senior ministers in Quebec know we are talking to this company. I am going back now to July 29, and nothing has changed since then other than a little memorandum going forward from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology saying:

"We should go through the regular channels. Ontario has not been willing to participate in the partnership that funds the annual operation of Forintek. We have had Extensive discussion with Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Industry Trade and Technology. Regrettably, we must conclude that little value is placed on Forintek's presence in Ontario."

This is the company that wants to bring 80 high-technology jobs to northern Ontario in the forestry industry. The world is passing the honourable member by, and it is because members opposite are all too busy meeting with Bob White and dreaming up new regulations for the province, while other provinces are in there stealing our industries, our jobs and our investments. Will these government members commit today (a) to supporting Forintek and (b) to participating in the sharing so they can make the decision tomorrow?

Hon Miss Martel: If there are problems in the forestry industry in northern Ontario, it is because of the federal government, the friends of that group of people there, who with the 15% softwood lumber tax they only took off, and with the high value of the Canadian dollar and high interest rates, are killing the forestry sector in northern Ontario. The member's federal friends are directly responsible for it.

With respect to the negotiations that are going on, maybe the member's former Premier did not trust cabinet ministers to make deals with companies in Ontario. I am telling this member that our Premier has the confidence in me, in the Minister of Natural Resources and in the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to put this deal together, and we intend to do just that.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Morrow: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I have an awful lot of people in my riding asking about the status of Bill 70, the wage protection program. I also understand that there are an awful lot of people who are looking for money for the wages that are lost. We also understand it was supposed to pass third reading in the House this week. Could the minister possibly tell us the status of that, and how many people are going to benefit from Bill 70?

Mr B. Murdoch: Ask the people right beside you.

Mr Turnbull: If you weren't asleep, you would know what was happening.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Grey and the member for York Mills are preventing the Speaker from hearing the response. The Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it is a valid question that a lot of people are waiting for the answers to. We have had better than 18,000 claims. We have completed assessments on 6,000 of those claims. We can have 2,000 cheques out the first week after the proclamation and we can start the others shortly thereafter. The only problem we have is completing the legislation, which nobody seems to really disagree with, and start the cheques moving out to the people who are owed the money.

1510

UTDC INC

Mrs McLeod: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The minister was most anxious to answer a question from our leader about UTDC, so we will now give him an opportunity to respond to that specific question. We are very appreciative of the fact that the government has found a way of providing some interim funding to UTDC to keep its plants in Thunder Bay and Kingston operating while the government makes a decision about the sale of the company, although it is frustrating to learn about the details of these negotiations only through the newspapers.

We are well aware that there are at least two private sector bidders for the company. We are also very well aware that the management and the employees of this company have been waiting anxiously for many weeks now to learn of the government's decision. The government has said that uncertainty over the ownership is hurting its ability to secure contracts as well as heightening the anxiety for the workers. I ask the minister, what is holding up the decision and can he give us an assurance that these negotiations will be successfully concluded very shortly?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I appreciate not only the commitment, but the knowledge and ongoing following of the dossier by the member for Fort William. It is fair to say that in the political arena perhaps no one is more aware of the dilemma or the impasse at UTDC than the member is. She should be, and it is not uncommon. It is not being parochial. It is people who are paying our collective wages, and she comes from that region. There again my compliment, mes hommages.

We have received one initial offer from the AEG Westinghouse group, and another initial offer from Bombardier. We go back about a month. We have asked that they come back, because the offers were relatively close. There was little to differentiate between one and the next on many components and not enough to bring those components to a catalyst to enable us to make a decision.

We have said to AEG Westinghouse and Bombardier, "You can do better." In the meantime Lavalin, which owns 85% of the shares, is saying: "We can't pay the bills. We can't make ends meet." More important, the workers are saying: "What are you going to do in terms of anxiety? Am I going to get paid next Friday for the work I have done?" In the interim, in the short term, we have provided a few million dollars, not that much money, to make sure people get their paycheques until an agreement can be signed. We are hoping the agreement will be signed within a matter of short weeks.

Mrs McLeod: I am looking for an assurance from the minister that this agreement will be successfully completed in a very short time. In the last few years these UTDC plants have overcome a legacy of problems, which arose when the company was under public ownership, incidentally. This plant now produces world-class products, offers top-quality service and the plants have a proven record of success in international bids. Surely the minister and his government can understand that this is exactly the kind of company we need to keep and should be able to keep in Ontario.

What is worrying me -- the minister would perhaps acknowledge it -- is that the antibusiness record of this government has created a real crisis of confidence for private sector investors in the province. I would like from the minister some understanding this afternoon of the assurances the government is able to provide in this case to two prospective private sector buyers of this company, that they can invest safely in these companies and in Ontario. What assurance is he providing to those companies to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Let's talk about business acumen. I welcome the question. I give the member the assurance that the tone of the negotiations is businesslike. Negotiations are straight to the point and we are just about to reach a conclusion in a matter of short weeks. There is no antagonism here, because this is what is being said in the real world of business, that 40 bilevel commuter cars for the city of Los Angeles are presently being built -- that is worth $70 million in real money -- and 216 T-1 subway cars for right here, the greater Toronto area. That is real money in the real world and real money in the pockets of workers. And 40 advanced light rail transit cars for Vancouver. If that is not good business, I do not know what is.

Our focus is to guarantee the jobs. They way you guarantee jobs is by going to the marketplace and encouraging companies to establish a partnership with the government of Ontario, which presently owns 15%. All our options are open. We are doing what needs to be done. Exercise a little more patience. You are just about to win this one.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am sure the minister recalls the story last week reported on the television program The Fifth Estate on the implementation of the Polaris land registry system in the province of Ontario.

That program outlined some very serious concerns regarding this system, including the circumstances surrounding the original bid for the project and its potential to compromise the privacy of all Ontarians. That was the general gist of the television program. The Fifth Estate managed to find out some of the provisions in the minister's partnership agreement with Real Data Ontario, and these were reported on the television program. According to The Fifth Estate, under this agreement both sides have agreed to keep the details of the partnership agreement secret for ever, a most remarkable clause.

Would the minister tell this House today why she wants the details of the partnership agreement to remain secret for ever?

Hon Ms Churley: I did see the program and was aware of its existence for some time. As the member knows, this project has been around for some time and had been approved by the previous government. The magnitude of the --

Mr Sorbara: Nearly approved.

Hon Ms Churley: Actually, the member across the floor is quite right. It had almost been approved by the previous government and then, of course, the election was called.

What I should say is that this government, because of the magnitude of this particular project and the implications to taxpayers, took nothing for granted. It did extensive external and internal reviews of the project, and at the end of those reviews came to the conclusion that it is a very good deal with the private sector. The government fully supports it and believes it is going to be a good deal for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Mr Tilson: I find it amazing that the government would take it upon itself to make an agreement of this magnitude, literally giving away all our secrets to a group of people we do not even know, and that it is going to keep that secret for ever. That agreement is "secret for ever." I submit that the minister has not answered the question at all. I hope she intends to file that agreement with this House.

All we have to refer to is what was revealed in that program, because she will not tell us what the contract was. Under this secret partnership agreement, as reported in The Fifth Estate, the government guarantees Teranet a minimum revenue flow. That was one of the provisions of that agreement.

I feel it is important that Ontario taxpayers know where their tax dollars are going. This, of course, has been stated by the Treasurer. I would like to know what this guarantee works out to in dollar figures.

Hon Ms Churley: Some of the information that was on the program was not correct; there were inaccuracies in that program.

I have to say this is going to be worked out over a great number of years and is going to save the taxpayers money and make money for the taxpayers of Ontario.

The member refers to a "secret" deal; there is no secret deal here. As the member is very aware, when any company begins a new project, certain documentation is always kept private. That is for the simple reason that certain information, if made public, will hurt the company's ability to compete in the marketplace.

I will be happy to provide the member with further details later, because I can see Mr Speaker would like me to sit down now.

1520

SCHOOL TRANSFER

Mr Hansen: My question is to the Minister of Education. Recently in my riding, the two school boards, the Lincoln County Board of Education and the Lincoln County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, signed an agreement to hand over Grantham High School to the separate school board.

Under the original conditional agreement, the public school board was to receive funding to complete much-needed remodelling at two of its schools, one being South Lincoln High School in Smithville. However, with the recommendations of the Planning and Implementation Commission, the funding for the two public schools was dropped from the final agreement.

Since that time, a number of public school supporters in my riding have expressed concern that the agreement signed by the two boards does not include an allocation to renovate South Lincoln High School. Can the minister clarify the reasons this allocation was not made?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is quite right that there was some sort of preliminary agreement signed between the two boards under the Planning and Implementation Commission process earlier on. That agreement was never forwarded to me with a recommendation from PIC. The parties went back to the bargaining table. They were aware of the general financial parameters that the government had set on this kind of situation. They reached another agreement. I do not know the process by which they came to that agreement and I have not officially received the agreement to sign as yet, so it is difficult for me to tell the member what their process was.

I can tell him that certainly boards must understand that the province does not have an unlimited supply of money and that settlements of Bill 30 issues cannot be used as ways to get money for other projects that schools want to do.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would like to inform members that we have been joined this afternoon. Seated in the Speaker's gallery are Dr Carlos Da Costa Neves, the Home Secretary for the government of the autonomous region of the Azores, Portugal, and Dr Jose Manuel Viegas, the consul general of Portugal. Welcome.

PETITIONS

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr B. Murdoch: I have a petition from the Western Fair to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens;

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

"That Ontario tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1991 and, further, that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to rise to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

That is signed by a number of good people from my riding, Simcoe West, from the township of Tecumseh and the village of Tottenham, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

Mr Mahoney: I have a petition, Mr Speaker:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario Regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990 denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

I present this petition and have affixed my signature thereto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION PROGRAM), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (PROGRAMME DE PROTECTION DES SALAIRES DES EMPLOYES)

Resuming consideration of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an employee wage protection program and to make certain other amendments.

Suite du debat ajourne sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par creation d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employes et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comite plenier.

Section/article 16:

The Second Deputy Chair: Yesterday we were debating an amendment moved by Mr Offer to Bill 70, section 16 of the bill as reprinted, that clause 65(1)(rb) of the act, as set out in section 16 of the bill as reprinted, be struck out. I believe when debate was adjourned, the honourable member for Brampton South had the floor.

Mr Callahan: When last we were dealing with a particular clause by the government, I raised, and I perhaps reiterate to get back to the area I was at, the question that regulations are the silent laws of this province. They require absolutely no scrutiny from members of this Legislature. The net result of that is that a government, simply by a cabinet order, can increase the amount of protection under this bill.

I must correct the record. Yesterday I indicated that it could perhaps also decrease the amount, but the bill is quite specific that it cannot do that. The only thing that is open to it is to increase it, so in fact what we are looking at is a blank cheque.

I want to paint this against the background that quite obviously people in this Legislature representing their specific constituencies share a common concern about the protection of workers, in the event that a business closes or in the event that a business leaves the country, to ensure that there is a continuum of support for these people. But on the other side of the coin, you have to create an atmosphere that is going to make it possible for those businesses that wish to continue to be able to survive. We want to create an atmosphere of certainty about investment. We want to create an atmosphere that is going to make the labour market or the business people provide the jobs so that in fact there will be jobs.

If you create uncertainty by creating a scenario that allows, one, a blank cheque routine, and two, and probably more significantly, this to be done without the democratic protections of its being canvassed and viewed by the elected representatives of this House, then I suggest that what you in fact do is create an air of uncertainty that is totally unnecessary in this time, in this place, in Ontario.

1530

It is interesting to note that in the last month or so all sorts of forecasters have been indicating that the recession is winding down. When I heard those circumstances, I had to think about it. I thought to myself, "That's not happening." There are lots of indicators that each and every one of us see as we walk around our constituencies to demonstrate that the recession is not winding down. In fact, in the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star, I guess two or three days ago, there was a front-page story that the recession had got deeper.

We are dealing with a very fragile economic situation here. It is all well and good for all of us to have great concern, and I think it is appropriate for there to be some form of protection for workers who may lose their jobs for various reasons, but at the same time it is inappropriate that in a recession which appears to be not abating but getting worse, we have such uncertainty that the people who have the capital and who are prepared to create the jobs, who are prepared to invest in this province, are concerned about doing that.

We may say to ourselves: "Why should the fact that there is a wage protection program create uncertainty? Why would people not be prepared to generate jobs by investment of capital? That is not a great uncertainty." I suggest to members that one thing every member of this House has to understand is that every small quirk or loophole that a businessman cannot put into his business plan to determine exactly what the cost of doing business is and what it is going to cost to operate at a profitable rate so that he does not go under and does not have to lay off his employees, every small item has to be there in a definitive way so that he can plan effectively for the creation of those jobs that all of us so greatly want to be available in Ontario.

When we look at the loss of jobs over the last year, it has been dramatic and tragic. We have all seen the results of those lost jobs. We can blame them on whatever we like. We can blame them on free trade, we can blame them on a whole host of things, but the fact is that those jobs are leaving this province. The net result is that we cannot afford to create any degree of uncertainty in that fragile relationship to develop those jobs. I suggest that is exactly what is happening here, and it bears repeating, because in fact what the government is doing is giving a blank cheque.

A similar type of thing was debated on Bill 118. I am not going to get into that, but it is significant that this legislation creates an uncertainty as well. The people who are going to take a chance, even in a recession, to start up a new business and create those jobs to replace the ones that have been lost by employers going under, employers leaving the province and so on, are sitting down and trying to write out their business plans. They are trying to figure out just what it is going to cost them to create this job, at the risk of their own capital, and also what liabilities they have.

We have this blank cheque. That is a real problem. We have a blank cheque that bears no scrutiny by the people who have a right to speak on it, if the government of the day, be it this government or any other government, decides it wants to up the ante from $5,000 to something greater.

I have alluded to Bill 118, which allows hydro rates to be increased. Some people say: "So what? We've got the cheapest hydro in town." The fact is that the relatively good price we have for hydro under the present Power Corporation Act, before it is amended, encourages business people to set up shop in this province and create those jobs.

I urge this government to really look at it from the standpoint that jobs do not just spring up out of the ground. We do not go sprinkle some seeds and jobs arise. Jobs are created by people who are prepared to risk their capital, and if we do not give them the groundwork so that they can significantly understand that the rules are thus and the rules cannot be changed without a particular type of attention being brought in a public forum such as the Legislature, then what we have done is create an air of uncertainty.

As much as I applaud the actions of the government in an attempt to protect the workers of this province, I really ask it to look at that. I think we fall into a real state of -- I am trying to think of the proper word -- misleading ourselves by talking about this order in council. I am sure the people out there in the public domain, those who perhaps do not follow the proceedings of the Legislature, see a Lieutenant Governor's order in council as being our good and gracious Lieutenant Governor ensuring that fairness will be dealt with throughout.

I think that is an appropriate approach to take, because our good Lieutenant Governor has served this province well. He is a man of great integrity. He is respected by the citizens of this province. However, people have to understand the Lieutenant Governor's role. I am sure if he had the ability to be able to oversee that, he would, but that is not the legislative technique of this province.

It is important that the people in the government members' ridings who are watching this bring this to their attention and that the members make them aware of the fact that this is a decision made behind closed doors with no input whatsoever and nobody to be the watchdog on it. I do not want to impute motives that would be inappropriate to the government. I am speaking of not just this government but any government of the day. That is what laws are for. They are to be certain. You are supposed to know not just for today, not just for this government, but down the road.

If we going to have a piece of legislation that makes sense, there has to be certainty to it. Let's say that down the line -- again, I am not imputing motives to any particular government -- it becomes important because of some exterior force; let's say an Angus Reid poll. I should not really give them an advertisement. Any of the pollsters could say, "It would be a good thing, government, to increase the protection for workers," not because the economy says it is needed, because that would be an appropriate increase to cover the fair and just needs of the workers, but for political purposes. I know that would not happen, but it might.

If that avenue is there, it creates uncertainty too. It makes me feel uncomfortable. It should make the people who would be the shakers and movers of the day uncomfortable that they would have the responsibility to take a piece of legislation that was meant to help people and use it as a political tool. We want to avoid that. We want to make certain that cannot happen. The best protection to ensure that does not happen -- and I think this is a common statement throughout history -- is that democracy flourishes best in the light. The darkness that you shed on democracy makes democracy work less effectively.

If there is one thing that my colleague David Fleet, the former member for High Park-Swansea did, in having guts and intelligence when he was chairing the standing committee on regulations and private bills, it was to prepare a very excellent report, which I urge each and every member to read, about the very thing I am talking about, regulation. He tried to enlarge the powers of the regulations and private bills committee to have more input and more control over the decisions made by order in council.

1540

If that were in place, if in fact a committee of this Legislature, albeit perhaps with just 10 members, had the opportunity to look at and examine the motives of why a particular matter was being changed by regulation, I would feel a little more secure and I think the business community would feel a little more secure. They would know that the people who are responsible to them and hold the sacred trust to look after their interests had had an opportunity to examine the regulation.

We have not got there. I hope that one day this Legislature will become enlightened enough to change a number of things, and that is one of them. I hope they would change and become enlightened enough to refer bills out to committee after first reading rather than after second reading, when the policy of the bill has been established. Going to public hearings then is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Not one word of what people say is listened to. I would like to see those things changed.

To get back to the question of the amendment -- I am sure the Chair will bring me back to it -- talking about it as a regulation, the impact of that on the business community is such that it should not be by regulation. I know that would cause some difficulty for the government of the day, because it would have to bring it back into the Legislature if a change were required. I suggest the ceiling that has been placed there now is one that should be adequate for the time being. It is not something that necessarily has to be changed immediately. Why should it not be brought back into the Legislature to be aired in the full view of the elected representatives? That would give a degree of certainty to the community that creates the jobs.

If one looks at the amendment and does not really examine it or listen to the other members who are speaking on it, one might very easily think, "It's fairly innocuous, it's not difficult, it's not going to create a problem." I think the members have to examine the full gamut of it. They cannot simply say, "Trust me." If the members said to the electors today, "Trust me," the electors might very well laugh at them. We have created our own reputation, which probably runs second to that of the oldest profession in the world. We have created it ourselves because we have done such things as sending bills out after second reading, when the policy is in place, and doing things by order in council.

I bet the members that if I sent a page back there to bring me the 95 volumes or whatever it is of the Revised Statutes of Ontario and all of the red books, the amendments, we could go through them and spend time counting the number of acts in this province which have opportunities for decisions to be made by regulation. There are basket clauses, as they call them. Some of the basket clauses are so wide you could do literally anything under the act. We should do that. We should direct our attention towards making regulations more accountable, requiring that they come before responsible elected members of the Legislature.

If we did that, the minister would not have any difficulty with this clause, because that regulation would have to bear the scrutiny of elected representatives. This is not necessarily a criticism directed at the government. It is reality that more often than not those regulations are made after five or six people have got together in a room and thought: "This is a good idea, but we don't want to lock it up in the House. We want to have the flexibility to be able to roll whenever we want."

If I could be sure those people in that room were all elected people, that would give me great comfort. But I am willing to bet that if I were a fly on the wall in those meetings, four of them might be elected and the other four would probably be what are called spin doctors, or unelected representatives. That, to me, is dangerous, because what is happening is that the unelected people are not accountable to anybody. They are not accountable to the people of Ontario who elected us. Therefore, there is nothing that can be done if they carry out their program in an inappropriate way and it results in either the amount being increased and businesses leaving the province, or having to get out of business because they cannot effectively make a profit. Who do you go to? How do you get to those four unelected people or whatever the number is? You cannot.

Obviously the whole purpose of democracy and our way of life that has kept us free is that accountability is the final step. That is how the people of this province have their strongest way of keeping all of us in line and making certain that when we enact laws they are for the betterment of the people who gave us that sacred trust. It is because they have their final arrow and that arrow comes at the ballot box. How do they get at these four, five or six people who have had some input into why this regulation should change and why the ante should be jacked up from $5,000 to $7,000 or $10,000?

We all know and we all share a common concern in this province. My good friend the Treasurer day after day -- I have great empathy for him -- puts up his shield and fends off the arrows, trying to defend his budget deficit of some $9.7 billion, saying, "We're going to fix that by telling all the ministries they must pare down their expenses." If that young fellow there, the Treasurer of Ontario, can work that hard to try to keep our spending in line and to ensure that we can carry on with all those marvellous programs that were formed by our government and are being done by the present government, if we are going to have the money in the pot to do that and if the Treasurer is going to work so hard to try to pare down the costs of ministries, then I think it behooves us to ensure that this amendment be framed in such a way that it can be scrutinized and controlled, or at least not be a blank cheque.

I say this because I was watching -- I am nutty enough that I go home and watch this thing a second time. That is really sick. My kids look at me like something is wrong. In any event, as I was listening, and I think it was yesterday, somebody was asking the Treasurer, who is a man of great integrity -- I enjoy him; he is a very good person -- about a dinner that took place at the Royal York Hotel for, I think it was, $800 or $900 at $17 a plate for 256 or something for the Ministry of Government Services. We have all these marvellous rooms that we occupy around here and that are not constantly in use. I would venture to say you could walk through the corridors of Queen's Park and all our adjoining buildings and you would probably find all sorts of space where the cobwebs have settled because no one has been there.

I bring that up simply because the Treasurer is trying so hard, and I believe him, to pare that money away from ministries. Yet while he is doing that -- his comment when the question was asked of him was, "I didn't know about that" -- I watched the new Minister of Government Services up there, and I congratulate him on his new post, and he did not flinch. If the Treasurer, who is a man of significant substance and is close to the Premier cannot control the expenditures of the ministries that he would like to, what assurance do we have if this amendment goes through and if changes could be made by regulation? What protection do we have? What do I and everyone else here do, not as just opposition members but as government members? Those members who are in the shadow of power, and perhaps outside the shadow of power; some of them may even be outside the shadow of the shadow of power, because I know what that is all about.

1550

But if members are outside the shadow of power, they are going to have to explain at some point to their business electorate how the ceiling went from $5,000 to $7,000. They are going to say: "Did that happen in the House? Did you vote for it? Did you know about it?" I think I am helping out the newer members in the House by letting them know how they do it. The members opposite are going to be able to say to them: "It wasn't my fault because I have no control over that. This is done by order in council, big stuff." Then they will say to members opposite: "Well, Mike, what's an order in council? Who does that?" The members are going to choke over it and they are going to say, "I think it's done by eight or nine responsible people in the back office." Then they are going to say: "That's fine, Mike. What are their names and what are their ridings?" The members are going to say, "I don't know."

What I am trying to do is help the members out when they have to explain why it went up from $5,000 to $6,000 or $7,000 or whatever, and again, I hasten to add, without justification. Quite obviously we want to protect our workers where they are left out to dry because of bankruptcy or unconscionable closing down of a business, but more often than not those cannot survive because of the economic climate, because of changes that take place.

I strongly urge members to look into their souls so they can look into the mirror when that question is asked and say, "We listened and we voted down an amendment that would have allowed that increase to take place without it coming to the floor of the Legislature." In the alternative, when they are asked, "Why did it go from $5,000 to $6,000 or $7,000?" they will be able to send a copy of their Hansards where they and their fellow legislators debated the issue. Right there in Hansard it will say that the reason the price went up was because it was there to meet the very legitimate concerns of those people who had lost their jobs, who we care for, and that we debated it, that it did not happen in the back room on the second floor, down in that corner office or wherever else this stuff takes place. I do not know because I was never privy to that stuff. But members will be able to hold their heads up high and they will be able to go back to Kitchener and be greeted in a fashion befitting a politician who honestly did his job, each and every one of them.

I urge them to consider that and I thank them for their attention.

Mr Cordiano: I rise to participate in this gleefully, but I want to say to my colleague who spoke earlier, with reference to watching our proceedings a second time on television, that I would think better of it. In fact, being here once is enough during the day, without having to revisit this on television later in the evening.

There are of course worthy debates and worthy discussions that take place here. I want to focus my attention on what we are dealing with and say with respect to a ceiling of $5,000 that is done by regulation that it is quite troublesome and worrisome on our side of the House. Our concern, as my colleague pointed out earlier, is that the amount could be raised at any time, given whatever whimsical desire there is on the part of the government to raise that ceiling without real justification in this House. I think it speaks volumes about the kind of initiatives that should be taken with respect to legislative authority mandating such changes. They should be done in this House. Quite frankly something that is law should not be changed by regulation in such an easy fashion. This piece of legislation which is called for is very important. It is very fundamental to the way this recession works itself out. In fact, if we come out of this recession it will be largely because we are able to do it by our own means. I think this legislation has a direct impact on that.

What we do in this place has a direct impact on how we conduct ourselves in an economic fashion in this province. We have a big impact on how the economy functions. This government will have a big impact on the way the economy functions. I think it is important to keep that in mind. It is important when we are bringing about changes of the kind we see here today, changes that have a fundamental impact on the way people think about how to shape their economic futures.

It has the kind of impact which says to someone in the future that we are not going to be certain about what changes will be coming down the pipe. I think that is the sort of thing people are concerned about in our jurisdiction these days. The uncertainty is not just with respect to the economic factors that go into a decision to locate investment capital in this province, it is about the kind of changes which will occur by regulation, the kind of changes which will tie up small businesses, which we see at the present time in this province having difficulty coping with the red tape that engulfs them.

We hear pleas from the business community, particularly the small business community: "We're having a difficult time, a very difficult time. We've never seen the kind of difficulties we're experiencing now."

In that climate of uncertainty and in that climate of anxiety, to bring legislation which does not try to rectify its uncertainties or clear up its intentions is very difficult. This bill is not unworthy in what it attempts to do; it is noteworthy, it is full of merit in many regards, but I think the uncertainties have to be cleared up. That area needs further clarification. It needs to be dealt with in this Legislature. To leave it to be determined by regulation -- that level of $5,000 can be changed at any time in the future -- I think is a fundamental mistake.

The fact that this bill spills over into other areas can be problematic as well. What I mean is that workers can claim to have been docked pay for other reasons and may be entitled under this legislation to pay that has been docked for other reasons, as I said earlier, and to claim those wages under this act. I think there is a great deal of uncertainty with respect to that as well. I have concerns about that aspect of this legislation and I want this government to clarify its position a little further with respect to workers being able to claim pay that has been deducted for whatever reason -- but who still have their jobs, mind you. They still continue to be employed by that employer but will be able to claim wages lost for other reasons. That is a whole other issue this legislation must clear up.

The uncertainty with which we deal with this bill continues to plague the economy. People have anxiety because of the uncertainties, because the climate is not clear, the direction is not clear. We are seeing a shrinking economic pie, yet there is a greater desire on the part of this government to steer us in a direction that says, "Let's deal with that shrinking economic pie more closely."

1600

All of our energies have to be directed towards increasing that economic pie, making it larger. These matters which attempt to clarify the labour situation -- wage protection, other items that are being brought forward by this government -- do not deal with the basic economic fact that we have a shrinking economic pie at the present time, that we are in a serious recession, not just a temporary situation. Some people think this is a serious situation which may last well into the next five years.

We do not want to be pessimistic, of course. We feel things can improve by the willingness of governments and of people in the province to work together to improve our situation. We can do that. However, we have to be of the school of thought that says we have to attract investment to this province, we have to attract wealth creation and people who are interested in making things happen, and those people do not come easily. They are difficult.

It is difficult to encourage people even within our own jurisdiction, let alone foreign investment, which we depend on, but to encourage people in our own jurisdiction to risk capital is something we need to do, and it simply cannot happen if we are going to bring about legislation and policies which do the opposite. The climate at present being what it is, I think it is not well suited to bringing in legislation which questions that, which adds an even further strain in terms of the investment picture.

While we look forward to initiatives to improve the situation with respect to employees having lost wages -- again, I say there is a principle at stake here which is supportable on our part -- the concern we have with the lack of clarity on this question that will be dealt with by regulation is one that I think will continue to cause problems for us unless we hear further definitive statements and clarifications from the government. This is not just with respect to the whole theme of this bill, which I think in itself causes uncertainties for the investment picture, but with the lack of clarity with respect to specific aspects of this bill which cause problems for us in supporting this legislation fully.

I ask the minister, who is sitting in the House, to please take a look at those areas of concern that we bring forward in our debate and try to clarify those for us. Let's deal squarely and head-on with the issues which will result in dramatic changes to legislation. We should deal with those in the Legislature. I think that is the direct way to deal with legislation which calls for fundamental change, which mandates the kind of change we will see in terms of the limits that are being set in this legislation; $5,000 could quickly turn into $10,000 and we would not have a significant debate in this House about that. I ask the minister to please look at that.

Mr Harnick: The intent of this amendment is to prevent the definition of "wages" being changed by way of regulation. I think that is a very important amendment and I am glad the minister is here. The amendment is significant in that the definition of "wages" is the determining factor of virtually every payment that has to be made out of the wage protection fund and certainly it is the substance of the bill. In terms of definitions, that is the most substantive part of the bill, so if the government wants to have any stability in dealing with this wage protection fund, it cannot permit the cabinet to go behind closed doors and on its own, without consultation, which is what it can do, go ahead and change the definition of "wages." They can do it by regulation.

The important aspect of this amendment is that it would force the government, if it did not want to consult -- we know that there has been some difficulty with its definition of what consulting is. If they did not want to consult, at least they would be forced to bring a substantive change to the legislation back to the Legislature. If it is back before the Legislature, a bill has to be prepared and there is the opportunity for committee hearings so that the public can be heard, if the government chose not to consult in perhaps some more ameliorative way.

The idea of being able to change this legislation by regulation is a dangerous thing, particularly because we are not dealing with minor regulation; we are dealing with the pith and substance of the bill itself.

The other thing is that if they want to send the right message to the public, if they want to send the right message out to the small businessmen who employ the majority of the workforce, then they do not provide that they can change the bill behind closed doors. They provide that they are going to do everything in an open, democratic and obvious way, because by doing that, they do not evoke suspicion. They show that their intentions are the very best at all times and that it is in fact government without walls. We heard that from another government. This government has not made that statement. In effect, with legislation like this, it is a government with walls, because it does everything behind the closed door of the cabinet where nobody can see, where nobody can know.

This is not the only bill we have seen brought before the Legislature where significant and substantive elements can be changed by regulation. I do not see that the deletion of this particular clause, 65(1)(rb), would hurt the intent of this bill. The deletion of this section would show that this government is sending out a message to the community at large that it wants the input of the community, that it is not going to go behind closed doors, that it is not going to make changes in a hasty way, in a way in which the public does not have an opportunity to be consulted. I urge the minister to consider this amendment because it sends out the right signal without detracting from the bill in any way at all.

Mr Sola: I would like to carry on in the same vein, because the previous member just covered the topic I wanted to cover, that is, the message that is being sent out. For instance, who in his right mind could be opposed to worker protection? I think that is the reason members on all sides of the House in every party are here: to do the best they can for their constituents, which includes every level of society, from worker to small business to big business and professionals.

But at the same time they ask, "Who would be opposed to worker protection?" they have to ask the question, "Who wants to promote legislation that will produce more unemployed workers who will have to seek this protection?"

When they see the headlines in the papers from the business community, I think that is what they have to be afraid of with Bill 70, the fact that the business community sees it as an attack upon business, an attack upon the investment community and that through this attack the likelihood of investment in this province is minimized.

1610

I would like to take just one headline today, from the Toronto Sun, by Lee Lester. It says, "Coalition Fires Salvo at NDP." It is a 160-strong coalition of companies, most of them major companies but also smaller companies, and it has some very hard-hitting facts to put down. First, for instance, they say new labour laws "will put bureaucrats in charge of the workplace...and raise the cost of doing business in Ontario." Second, they say, "Business investment will be driven away to other provinces and border states."

This amendment which the member for Mississauga North has proposed, that any change to compensation levels should be dictated by legislation, may give business a little more confidence that its concerns will be heard. If there is an antagonistic element between the government and business, they know that at least the opposition parties then will be able to present some views that the business community wants to propose, whereas if it is through regulation, it can be done silently and they will be hit with perhaps retroactive measures that will hurt the business environment.

I am afraid that when I hear the opposition to the amendments proposed by our party, especially the previous amendment, which was turned down, where company directors should be given some leeway with regard to reasonable diligence before they become liable to these fines, I wonder. I would like to pose this question to the minister: In these proposed government bail-outs, for example, the de Havilland case and some of these other companies, it would seem to me that if the government is proposing to put money into the private sector to save companies, by that very act it is saying that these directors are not completely responsible for the shape the companies are in; that it can be the downturn in the economy, it can be the world economy, it can be the recession, it can be political factors that are out of the control of the company directors. If the government is willing to put money into these companies, you would think it would be willing to give these company directors some sort of protection if they are considered to be conscientious people doing a job in the best interests both of the employees and of the employers.

My problem is that on most of the legislation the NDP has proposed so far, it seems to me it has taken a blinkered approach. It knows what it wants to accomplish and it stares straight ahead. It puts the blinkers on so that it does not see the dangers that are lurking at the side of the road. I think this legislation simply tries to remove the blinkers or cut a little hole in the blinkers so they get the idea that they had better not veer off the road too much because they will fall into a disaster.

From the reaction of the business community, I think this labour legislation, Bill 70, is seen by the business community to be trying to destroy the foundations upon which the economy of Ontario was built, that is, the private sector and the small-business community. It reminds me of an article I read in Saturday's Globe and Mail, I think, about the civil war in Yugoslavia, where the Yugoslav army claimed it had to destroy the port city of Dubrovnik because it had to protect it from the people who had built it, who had maintained it and who had protected it for 1,000 years. In this instance, to get back to the bill, Bill 70 seems to be trying to protect the economy of Ontario, the workers of Ontario, from the very people who have made the economy so strong in Ontario.

We realize that there are bad apples in every barrel. We realize that there are directors who are directly responsible for the sad shape of their companies and who are trying to renege on their responsibilities to their workers and their commitments. On the other hand, I think the vast majority of companies in Ontario do not have these types of directors and do not have a lack of concern for their workers.

I think by accepting at least some of the amendments that the opposition parties are proposing, a message could be sent that the government is willing to listen, that the government wants to remove the antagonistic approach to the business sector and that the business sector can regain confidence in the government and put some investment moneys into the economy in order to improve the situation, to turn our economy around and get our province back on its feet.

Mr Tilson: My comments will be very brief. They are mainly to support the member for Willowdale in his comments and our party's support of this amendment. I think the fear we have in our party is the fear of government by bureaucrats. The amendment, of course, is to stop the intent of the bill, which in section 16 indicates that whatever has been set out in section 40b defining what wages are, whatever has been overlooked either now or in the future, can be simply prescribed by regulation at a later date.

Our concern with that, of course, is that this is the type of matter that should be dealt with in this House. To assign a matter as important as this to the bureaucrats, we cannot support. There is a fear of the unknown, the fear of the unknown of a later date expanding on the definition section of what wages are, the fear of the unknown which will perhaps be more detrimental to business, business already being afraid of this legislation, and this will create even more fear.

The government seems to be committed by this type of section to policies that will certainly dissuade investment in this province and entrepreneurs outside the province investing in this province. When they look at this province to look at the potential of investing in this province, they are concerned with the increased power that has been given to wages, and they ask a question in article after article, in newspaper after newspaper: "Is this type of legislation, which includes this type of amendment, the last straw in breaking the back of Ontario's entrepreneurs? Why would an entrepreneur or an investor invest in the province of Ontario?"

We cannot support a position being taken by the government on this bill to delegate the responsibility which we feel should be in this House as opposed to with the bureaucrats.

1620

Mr Harnick: I have just a couple of other thoughts on this particular amendment. We have had a raucous couple of days in this Legislature, and part of the reason is because the opposition has become frustrated at not being able to respond to announcements that the government is making outside of this Legislature.

The standing orders say that ministers may make statements in the Legislature, and it has become the traditional approach since these standing orders were amended to read that way that statements were made in the Legislature.

We have become increasingly frustrated over the past few days -- and I see members of the government looking quizzically at me. I am getting to the point. They should give me a moment.

The Second Deputy Chair: I appreciate the point will be on the amendment to Bill 70.

Mr Harnick: Absolutely, Mr Chairman.

We have become increasingly frustrated about the fact that announcements are made outside of the Legislature day after day and we do not have a chance to respond and make a statement on the record about whether we like what the government is doing or whether we have some constructive criticism about what the government is doing.

Now we see in this act an attempt to amend a significant aspect of the wage protection fund and wage protection program by not bringing the amendment into this Legislature. We see a deliberate attempt to continue to make changes in the cabinet room by way of regulation, amendment to regulation and order in council, rather than bringing the amendments back into this Legislature.

Hon Mr Cooke: Because this place operates so efficiently.

Mr Harnick: Pardon?

Hon Mr Cooke: Just mumbling.

Mr Harnick: Can the member tell me what he said? The government House leader is making comments, but he is mumbling so I cannot respond to them, and it is probably just as well.

This amendment does nothing more than ask that the government please do its public business in this Legislature. They should not do it behind closed doors. The Premier today was quite eloquent in answering questions pertaining to the amendment of our procedures in this Legislature. He recognizes, having been in opposition himself for many years, and likely getting ready to come back to opposition after the next election, that there would be certain aspects of the rules that may be beneficial to change so that we as an opposition can be effective.

This particular section permits the government to carry on with public business not in this forum. That has become the style of this government. The style of this government is to hide, to avoid criticism --

[Applause]

Mr Harnick: My colleague the member for Markham is just coming back into the chamber. It was not a great cheer for my speech. It is interesting that he came in at this particular moment, because he left here this afternoon distressed and he left this chamber after making a pretty vocal speech. He was very justifiably distressed and frustrated, because he cannot respond to the minister to whom he has the responsibility to respond because she will not make her statements in this Legislature.

What is essentially happening with this amendment is we are asking the government to please perform the public aspect of business on the floor of this Legislature. They should let us comment upon it, let us make suggestions and let us have the opportunity to be constructive. They should not hide. They should not run away from us. They should bring the business to the floor of this Legislature, and that is what this amendment is intended to force the government to do.

I will repeat what I said before. It does not change the effect of the act. It shows there is an element of good faith in what the minister is trying to do. It shows the minister will bring this legislation back to this Legislature when he wants to change it; he will not do it behind closed doors. It shows the minister is being absolutely candid when he says he wants to consult with business.

As long as the government has a clause that reads the way clause 65(1)(rb) reads, it cannot possibly have the confidence of the small businessman. They cannot have the confidence of the public. They cannot have even the confidence of the employee, because they may do something detrimental to the employee and no one will know, no one will understand and no one will have the opportunity for open debate.

If the minister really wanted to prove he is being candid with business, that he is being candid with labour, that he is being candid in this Legislature and that he really wants to consult, he would permit this amendment to be carried because it would by necessity ensure that his business in further amending this act and the definition of wages would take place on the floor of this Legislature.

Members can see that my frustration here is merely because the style of this government is to remove as much as it possibly can from this chamber. It is to remove our opportunity as an opposition to constructively criticize what this government is doing. The fact that they make all their announcements outside of this Legislature -- and they have made a definite decision to do that -- the fact that they have taken that course and the fact that piece after piece of legislation indicates that amendments can be made by regulation and order in council but not on the floor of this chamber are indicative of the style of this Premier and of this government.

They tell the people on the one hand, "We're open, we're accessible, we're listening to you, we want to consult and we want to have all of the interest groups at the table when legislation is drafted," and then they go ahead and operate in completely the opposite way. They operate by way of statements outside this Legislature. They operate by amendments, regulations and orders in council, I think this minister, who has the respect of his colleagues in this Legislature, can send out the right message by accepting this amendment, particularly because it does not change the effect of this act in any significant way at all.

Those are my remarks. I hope the minister will consider them and I hope this amendment is carried.

The Second Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable member for Willowdale for his participation. Further debate? The honourable member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, I did not think you saw me there for a moment, or you were being very coy. At any rate, I just want to point out for the record that our member for Waterloo North and our critic for Labour also has tabled an amendment which is almost identical to the amendment we are discussing today, and that was done independently and without consultation with the other opposition party. That shows how serious the concern of my party is with regard to the wide range of power that this minister wants to scoop for the government to make new laws without consultation with this legislative chamber in the future.

Mr Chairman, when I look at you sitting in that chair, I think about the regulation power the previous Liberal government made with regard to Bill 8, in setting what was a francophone region within this province. They took that regulation power and put it in Bill 8, where behind closed doors the government can change the qualification as to what area is or is not a francophone area. People would come to my constituency office and say: "Where is this in Bill 8? I can't find the fact that if 10% of the residents of a region are francophone, or 5,000 francophones over all, then the area is deemed a francophone area for provincial purposes." I would try to explain to them that it is not in Bill 8, that a government has made this by regulation behind closed doors. Quite frankly, my constituents could not understand how we in the Legislature passed a bill which allowed the government to make law behind closed doors.

That is exactly the argument we are having today on quite a different issue. What we are asking today is that the minister not scoop this power into his bag so that he can go behind closed doors, sit in cabinet, which is meeting in secret, as we all know, walk down to the Lieutenant Governor's office and have him sign a regulation that would increase compensation levels for one part of our society perhaps without consultation with the other part, the people who have to pay. That is what this debate is all about.

I want to indicate in particular that on this issue both opposition parties independently came to the same conclusion. Therefore, we will be showing our support for this amendment when the vote is called.

1630

Hon Mr Mackenzie: My comments will be extremely brief. I think there are three or four points I want to refer to. A couple of them, unfortunately, carry over from yesterday.

I think it was the member for Mississauga West who indicated that I had sent a note to the member for Mississauga North with his phone number listed on it. I want to make it clear that I sent no such note at all. It certainly was not any of my doing.

Also, the general theme was that I, the present minister, should be more willing to make amendments to this legislation. I want to tell the member that there were a substantial number of amendments made to this legislation. Maybe in terms of the way this House works, if we had let some of those amendments come in the course of the hearings from the opposition, it might have served more of a political purpose, as strange as that may sound. I do not know, but I think we responded to every major amendment and reached general agreement that the bill was now worthy of passage and certainly worthy of support by most of the members in the House. I think that is worth mentioning, that the call for, "Why won't you deal with or allow any amendments?" has been more than adequately dealt with in my own honest opinion.

There are an awful lot of people who in the course of the debate on this section, have raised the issue of how we are giving ourselves authority or permission to raise the $5,000 ceiling. This amendment does nothing of the kind whatsoever. That is not the intent of it. At the moment, it deals only with the construction industry and the ability to be able to outline what is salary or salary benefits and the way their package is put together.

Mr Harnick: Definition of "wages."

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Definition of "wages" will have absolutely nothing to do with raising the level at all. The number of times we would have to be in this House in terms of different construction agreements by not doing it in regulations, I think, would make the bill extremely unworkable, and that is why we have gone this route. The Employment Standards Act contains about three pages already of issues that can be dealt with by regulation. This is just a faster and more efficient way of dealing with it. That is why we made that decision and that is the decision we have on this issue.

Mr Offer: I do not want anyone to get the impression from the minister's statement that the government accepted one amendment from either of the opposition parties. I listened carefully to what the minister was stating, and the way the minister was stating it could lead one to come to the conclusion that there were some amendments put forward by the opposition parties that were accepted. In fact, the record will show that there was not one single amendment put forward by the opposition parties that was accepted.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I just want to make it clear I did not inply that whatsoever. I did say that maybe a better approach would have been to have let some of the amendments, which were all ones that were suggested by the other parties, come from them, instead of moving them ourselves, but we did move the amendments.

Mr Harnick: I listened with interest to what the minister said and I think the fact that amendments were already made is not an answer, or just the fact that there have been amendments does not justify not making more amendments if the situation calls for more amendments. The fact that the minister may have amended something three months ago does not make it a justification for not making further amendments now.

It just shows me the minister is not looking at the substance of the amendments being presented. He is merely saying: "We made all the amendments we wanted to make. We did it and therefore we don't have to make any more amendments." I do not find that a compelling answer, when there is a situation where an amendment is called for, where it is obvious that it is needed and is justified, and he says, "We're not going to make any more amendments because we've made all the amendments we need to make or we want to make."

The other thing I found a little bit curious -- it indicates to me the way amendments can be made by way of regulation and order in council -- is that the minister states it will be more efficient to be able to make these changes by way of order in council, but does that make it right? What "more efficient" means is that it is easier. He makes his little changes, he walks down the hall, the Lieutenant Governor signs the order in council and it is done. That is very efficient, very simple, but does that meet the needs of the people of Ontario? Does that give the people of Ontario the opportunity to discuss the changes and the opportunity to suggest better changes? Does it give the people any input whatsoever? The answer is no. The fact that it may be more efficient does not make it right. There has to be a better reason.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment to Bill 70 moved by Mr Offer carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

This vote will be stacked with the other stacked votes and amendments to this motion.

Vote deferred.

Le vote est differe.

Mr Sterling: On a point of clarity, Mr Chairman: Who won that vote? Was it the ayes or the nays?

The Second Deputy Chair: The vote is stacked.

Mr Sterling: I was just wondering who won the preliminary vote.

The Second Deputy Chair: We have no preliminaries here.

Do we have further amendments to section 16 of Bill 70? I believe the Progressive Conservative Party has an identical amendment to the one that has just been stacked.

Mr Harnick: That is correct.

The Second Deputy Chair: You are not moving it?

Mr Harnick: No. We will withdraw that amendment and rely on the other one.

1640

The Second Deputy Chair: The Progressive Conservative Party has an amendment to section 17.

Mr Harnick moves that the bill as reprinted be amended by adding the following section:

"(17a) This act is repealed on the earlier of,

"(a) the 28th day of February, 1993; or

"(b) a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor."

Mr Harnick: I have spoken to legislative counsel. There was a typographical error. We have withdrawn our motion to amend section 16 of the bill, which would be identical to the previous amendment of the Liberals which affects clause 65(1)(rb). The next page of our amendments says "section 16a of the bill as reprinted." I have checked with legislative counsel. That should be "section 17a of the bill." In fact, that would go in at the very bottom of section 17, which is found on page 15 of the printed bill. Have I clarified where we are, Mr Chairman?

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes. This effectively is creating a new section to section 17?

Mr Harnick: Yes. I have spoken with legislative counsel and that was the intention when it was drafted.

Section/article 17:

The Second Deputy Chair: First, do we have further amendments to section 17 prior to the movement of a new section to 17? Shall section 17 stand as previously presented by the government prior to an addition?

An hon member: Agreed.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have further amendments to section 17? Shall section 17 carry?

Mr Sterling: Could we stand down the first part of section 17 for a few moments? I just wanted to check something out.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that we stand down the first part of section 17 until we discuss section 17a?

An hon member: Agreed.

Mr Harnick: This amendment is a sunset provision which would allow a full review of the program after the first 18 months. This would ensure that workers who have been affected by the recession would be compensated for unpaid wages and vacation pay. Part (b) would allow the provincial government to dissolve the program when the federal employee wage claim program, Bill C-22, came into effect. This amendment will allow the province to protect workers today while not taking over a federal responsibility in the long term.

Mr Cousens: Part of the problem is we do not trust this government one bit. The experience I have had today is real proof of why we cannot trust the New Democratic socialist government in Ontario. If we give too much to this government to do what it wants to do -- it got elected last September 6. Undoubtedly, they won 38% of the vote of the province and then had enough seats that they could fill the government side of the House and, therefore, run the province for four or five years. We will let them do what they want under the supervision of this House. If you think we can expect them to come back and report or review or have any kind of discussion on their legislation, the sense I have is that it just does not happen.

Part of the issue in this House for the past week has been the way in which ministers of the crown have gone out and made announcements elsewhere but have not had the decency -- I call it decency, and if you do not think that is parliamentary I will find stronger words -- the decency to come into the House and allow all of us to understand what is going on. The whole system here is one where they will go and do it outside the House, and the Legislature is not involved. That is why we want to have a review of this and other things that are being done by this government, so that on an ongoing basis we have a chance to review it, to criticize it.

If the government does something good and right, I am prepared to stand up and applaud it. I think all of us are. But if they are going to do something wrong, then face the music. Do not just expect that it is easy to run a government. It is not. We on this side of the House have the responsibility to be able to find that balance, and we are losing the balance in this Legislature right now.

I do not think there is any doubt that there is deep-seated anger. I have it. I do not like to have the kind of anger in my heart that I have toward the government and the way it is acting. It is the sense that this government has a cavalier attitude to the responsibilities we have in this House.

The responsibility we have is to criticize; it is to hold things up for public dialogue and discussion. Once it has gone through that dialogue and discussion, if there is some amendment or change that comes through, we are then able to go away with a better sense of having worked together to make it better. But that is not happening. That is not at all what is happening in this place. Instead, the opposite is now taking place, and what we are seeing now is that this government is unwilling even to try to work with other people who are elected here in this House.

I know, in speaking with my colleagues in the Ontario PC caucus, we have never felt more frustrated by the lack of simple dialogue. The Minister of the Environment yesterday made a speech on recycling which established new guidelines for regulations but did not come into the House and make a statement yesterday, did not make a statement in the House today. In fact, my office phoned her office this morning asking for a copy of the press release of the remarks she made yesterday. I did not get them in my office until four o'clock today. I am the critic for Environment and I could not even get it.

Do they think we are going to sit around and accept that kind of pushing to one side when we have a responsibility to comment on these things? We just will not do it. They come along with legislation and say they want to have the absolute right to do everything they want because a bunch of patsies are sitting over here. I will tell you, there is not a patsy on this side of the House.

I think what they would have encountered up until recently is a willingness to try to work things through, but they are pushing us against the wall. Democracy is crumbling in the province because the New Democratic government does not regard it correctly. They should not think they can take us for granted. There happens to be 62% of the people of Ontario who did not vote for them, and that 62% has a voice and should be heard, but they are trying to take that voice away from us by everything they are doing.

If the member thinks it is funny, then just --

Interjection.

1650

Mr Cousens: Come on. He is not even in his own seat and he comes along and makes all those comments. That is exactly the kind of abuse they are giving the people of Ontario.

Mr White: You can be heard quite well.

Mr Cousens: I am a guy who is angry at the fact that my rights as a member of this Legislature have been abused by the New Democrats, who were self-righteous, indignant people during the years they sat in opposition. If anybody had treated the present House leader or the present Minister of the Environment or any one of them in the way we have been treated the last several weeks, they would have been up screaming. Well, I am screaming right now. I am screaming with a sense of anger that it is not right; it is wrong. It is a disease that has crept into the New Democrats within 13 months of their winning office.

Why do they not come along and understand there are ways in which we can work together in this House, ways in which we can work through amendments and changes to the law? When we came out it was really terrible. It was terrible the way the honourable Minister of Labour, who had more sanctity when he was in opposition than any of us could begin to hope for and learn, used to stand up with his indignation.

I will just tell them this much: We happen to have a lady, the member for Waterloo North, who was given the senior responsibility of being our Labour critic. She is a very careful, conscientious, concerned Canadian who wants to find the balance on issues and is not one who comes out and starts fighting until she really has the information.

What happened was that the minister came out with Bill 70. The member for Waterloo North came in and asked questions in the House a number of times to try to get the minister to rethink his position. She was stonewalled by the Minister of Labour, who did not even give her the respect of an answer; 90% of the time she just got shoved aside and she got the palaver that he did not like when he would ask questions in the past when he was in opposition. When he would ask a question and get a dumb answer, like the ones he has been giving, he would be get into a rant and a rave.

Anyway, I give tremendous credit to our Labour critic for the way in which she has been able to persist and carry on. She is without a doubt one of the most able, hardworking, conscientious people we can ask for in our caucus. The strength she gives to labour issues out of that dispassionate concern is something magnificent.

What she really displays and what I see happening with the member for Willowdale and the other members of our caucus who are here today is that we are not going to give up our right as a responsible opposition to a New Democratic majority that has lost sight of its responsibilities. We are not going to give up for the other 62% who did not vote for the New Democrats. We are going to continue to fight for them in a responsible, meaningful way.

I look forward to finding something they have done that I can applaud. I will applaud their initiatives in transportation around the greater Toronto area. In fact, when Bill Wrye, the former Minister of Transportation, made those announcements in the first place, I stood up and applauded him. I would stand up again today and say, "At least we are beginning to get something done for the transportation infrastructure."

But when we come along and look at some of the other announcements coming out, I cannot stand up. I will not stand up and applaud. I will not stand up and give them the chance to think they have got my support. My job in responsible opposition is to help find the balance that meets the majority of all the people in Ontario. It is not going to happen, especially when we have got the kind of intransigence of the New Democratic Party in pushing through everything without giving that kind of balanced concern and opinion.

I have to thank the member for Willowdale for putting forward this motion. It just comes out of the fact that, as we come into this new stage of new legislation, we should have a chance to review it. Let's not just let it be implemented. Part of the problem is that there are powers that will go into the hands of the minister. The minister will have these powers and can then make changes by regulation that are not even on the table today. Those changes will happen. What does that mean? What is the impact on the Treasury of the province? That is not a question the New Democrats ask too often. They do not ask what the real cost is to the Treasury of the province.

The question that has to be asked is, are the people who need help being helped the way they should be? We on this side of the House are anxious to see that we find ways of assisting those who have financial problems and trouble when a company goes bankrupt. I do not think we have ever said we are not in support of finding meaningful ways of assisting those people who need help.

When we come back to review this within 18 months, we will then be in a position not only to review the regulations that have been changed by the minister, but to review the impact this new law has had on the people who needed help. Then the government can come back and say: "Look, here is our sense of what's going on. This is what the federal government is now doing and this is what we are able to do." Maybe there needs to be more training. Maybe there need to be other things. Maybe what this government needs to do is have a comprehensive review and understanding of what it is doing for those people who are unemployed.

As a member of the Legislature, the most difficult problem I have to deal with -- aside from the divorce cases and the support and custody payments, which are really tough things in society that we have never dealt with properly yet, and aside from a few other ones I will not get into -- has to do with the unemployed, the people who have lost their jobs, especially those who are talented and capable and want to work and are healthy. What are they then able to do, especially when the economy has declined to such an extent that there really is nothing they can do?

There they are, a young couple who wrote to me. I was going through the letter last night, examining it. Both husband and wife have lost their jobs. They are unable to maintain the payments for their taxes. They are not now able to make the payments on their mortgage. Their house is going up for sale; it is going to be a power of sale. They asked me, "Is there anything else that can be done?" I have to say, "What can I do?" I look forward to meeting with them. I am going to talk to them.

The Second Deputy Chair: I would like to remind the honourable member for Markham that we are addressing an amendment to Bill 70.

Mr Cousens: But this really ties into it, Mr Chairman. I do not want to go off on too many tangents. My concern is that here are two people who have issues and problems. This bill itself will not correct or resolve the kind of problems I am talking about. What we need is a more comprehensive review of the whole issue. The amendment we are talking about says, "Let's have a chance to look at it again on February 28, 1993." The kind of situation we are in right now does require that kind of review when you see the personal stories of anguish and suffering and the misery of this young couple who will lose their house. They have two adopted children. Both parents are unemployed.

Where is their pride? Where is their sense of self-respect? I just hope they never lose that, I hope they do not lose the hope that there is something out there for them and I hope we as a government do not ever get to the irresponsible stage that we cannot really try to find solutions to help out people who need our help. That is the kind of balance that should come out of the deliberation that would be made of this bill 18 months from now.

I do not think any bill should ever be brought in that is retroactive. Yet the benefit of retroactivity is that there are many people hurting, so if it helps them -- the principle of retroactivity is something that is anathema. If there is any way in which we can deal with those people who are affected, then maybe we should have a special bill that says, "Here are the ones for whom we are really trying to do something," instead of slipping it in the back door.

When we are dealing with people in Ontario, let's be open, honest and fair. The problem with this government is that I do not think it is open. I think the level of honesty that people have is such that the public at large distrusts politicians and feels that when they are in power they say a lot of words. Yet when it comes time to do something meaningful and constructive to help make a better world, the politicians have all the words before they are elected and then after they are in office it just does not happen the same way.

That has to do with the integrity of the individual or the government or the party. Quite candidly, that very integrity is called into question by virtue of the number of things that have been said by the New Democrats before they took power and now that they are in office. The public is sitting out there saying, "What can we expect?" All politicians get a bad name because of the way the New Democrats have been acting. That really is true.

Mr Mills: You've got to be kidding.

Mr Cousens: I am not kidding.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: Oh, come on. The New Democrats are giving politicians a bad name.

1700

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Markham is straying quite a long way away from the amendments to Bill 70.

Mr Cousens: I realize that, but when they start interrupting me the way they do, I think it is only right to rebut.

I believe this bill has problems. We will see the problems better after we have had a chance to see the bill in force for a while. Let's have the chance of coming back in this House. Maybe this group of elected members, the New Democrats, will still be in power 18 months from now, unless they miss a quorum call or they miss a vote some day. When that happens we will be here in force and vote them down on a confidence level. I tell members, I will be here that day.

In the meantime, we are not going to have a chance. The people of Ontario are stuck with the Minister of Labour and the New Democrats, who can do what they want, but we are not going to give them the chance to do everything they want without at least a strong statement indicating where we stand on issues. A strong, honest statement is something that is needed on all the issues in this House, where they can be aired, where they can be considered, and where we in the fairness of this House are able to deal with them.

I have to say, in closing, that the lack of trust we have in the New Democrats to share anything with the opposition is at the extreme worst level I have ever seen it in 10 years in this House.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: The member disagrees. Well, I have never seen anything before like the Minister of the Environment going out and making a speech and then missing two occasions, yesterday and today, to make a statement in the House. She had a chance to send a copy of her speech or her remarks or her press statement to my office and did not even have the courtesy to do that. Maybe it was not herself; maybe it is her handlers. But it is indicative of a government that has lost the sense of fair play within this arena of the Ontario Legislature.

What we have to do is to fight for our rights when we are in opposition. We do not have any given to us by the New Democrats. We have to fight for what we believe in. In doing so, we are fighting for the people of Ontario to have a fair hearing, an honest hearing and an open and complete understanding of the issues that are before us. We are not even able to have that on other issues. We say we want that opportunity on this, Bill 70.

Mr Harnick: It is interesting. I saw the last amendment we dealt with as an opportunity for the government to consult with the people rather than take its amendments and do them through the back door by way of order in council and avoid the Legislature. So I could say, at the conclusion of the debate on that amendment, that this government does not want to consult; it does not want to do its public business on the floor of the Legislature.

Now we have a new amendment before us. The hallmark, as I see this amendment, is the word "accountability," so that after 18 months of seeing a program operate, it can come back to the Legislature and people can see and the government will stand here and account for whether that program worked, whether people received the payments they were supposed to receive, whether the payments were adequate and whether the program is working. I do not see anything wrong with the government publicly accounting for its programs, especially on the floor of this Legislature.

I have a great deal of difficulty justifying in my constituency what goes on in this place. My constituents are people who live in an urban area. They see costs escalating. They see that their jobs are not as secure now as they were before September 6, 1990. They are concerned about their security in their neighbourhood. They are concerned about government programs that do not punish criminals. They are concerned about a lack of deterrents. They are concerned about a government that pays out all kinds of money -- some of it, I will admit, very justifiably and for very good reasons.

But my constituents say to me, "Boy, we see $250 million about to go to de Havilland and we see $200 million going to Elliot Lake and we see all this money going to Kapuskasing. Is there no accountability? Why can these payments be made, and why does nobody want to account a year down the road?"

That is what is important about this amendment. This amendment is all about accountability. It is about reassessing where this program has gone in the first 18 months of its operation. The fact that the government does not want to account makes my constituents very nervous, because my constituents pay taxes, and every time they turn around they see the taxes --

Mr Perruzza: Don't be so sure.

Mr Harnick: The member for Downsview says he is not so sure that my constituents pay taxes. I would just like to point out to my constituents that there is a member of the Legislature who represents another section of North York and who claims that my constituents do not pay taxes.

I can tell him that my constituents do pay taxes and they work very hard for the money they earn in order to pay those taxes. My constituents are concerned about paying increased taxes for the waste of this government, the member for Downsview's government.

When he stands in the Legislature and shouts across to me that he doubts my constituents pay taxes, I can tell him that when my constituents hear that coming from a New Democrat, and given that I have the opportunity to tell them what he said, he can count on the fact that a New Democrat will not be winning my riding next time. They do pay taxes. If the NDP attitude towards my constituents is that they do not, they have another think coming, because they are going to go out in the next election and they are going to campaign to try to beat him too. The member is not going to be here, because he said they do not pay taxes.

Let me tell him that my constituents are hardworking people and they do pay taxes. They do worry about the waste of his government and the moneys that are going out and the fact that he refuses, by his minister here today, to be accountable to my constituents.

His constituents may not care and he may not care and his friend sitting beside him with the big smile on his face may not care, but the people in Willowdale and the people on this side of the Legislature care about the taxes and about the waste, because they work hard for their money.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The member has digressed rather markedly from the issue of the amendment put forth and has hurled particular invective --

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you for reminding the Chair. I was about to bring the member back to the subject at hand. I know there were interjections coming from across the floor. That is also out of order. Please, let's get back to the business of the House, the amendments to Bill 70, and let's continue with the debate.

1710

Mr Harnick: It is of interest that I am trying to debate this issue in a rational way, and we have not had a single person on that side of the Legislature, save for the minister, get up and add anything to this debate today. It is because most of them have not read the act and they are just going to do what they are told. They have not read this material. They do not understand this material. They have not listened to the witnesses who came to the committee room. All they want to do is get this done and get out of here.

If they really want just to get it done and get out of here, you would think they would have the smarts to keep their mouths shut, but they keep interjecting. As long as they are going to interject, I am going to go ahead and respond to those interjections, because that is the only way you can have a debate with these people.

They sit on their behinds and they shout across the floor of the Legislature, but when the Chairman asks, "Is there anybody who wants to debate this further?" they all sit there. They all sit there with their hands in their pockets, because the only way they know how to debate is to shout across the floor. The only way they know how to vote in this chamber is by being told, "You stand up when the minister stands up."

My constituents do not think that is good enough, and they want accountability. That is what this amendment is directed at. My constituents see money being spent on this wage protection program and perhaps $50 million that will ultimately be tied up in this act. They also see that the Ministry of Labour is going to increase its bureaucracy by adding 131 people to administer this program.

We all know what happened when the Liberals went ahead and started to expand the landlord and tenant registry, and we see the amount of money being spent annually on that program. This program is going the same way, and my constituents want accountability. They want to know how many people are being hired, what they are doing, how much we are paying them, why we are paying them that money and whether we are getting value for our money. Eighteen months from now, are we going to be able to find out whether this program is working? We are paying taxes that are funding those salaries and that program and we would like to know whether it is working.

We have an amendment on the floor that says, "Account after 18 months." My constituents are a little upset. Every time they go to the gas station there is another tax on gasoline and they have to pay more. Every time they get an electricity bill it is higher than the month before. They keep finding out there are increases in these basic utilities they are paying for, and that there is going to be a $9.7-billion deficit in this province, and they ask: "Who's going to pay that? Am I going to be responsible for paying that money?"

The Treasurer says he is not going to raise taxes, yet revenue levels are flat. My constituents call me and say: "What's going on? Are we going to have to pay more taxes? We can't pay more taxes. We don't have any more money to pay any more taxes." They want accountability. They are worried. My constituents are not like the constituents of the people on the other side of the floor. My constituents are worried because their jobs are not as secure as they were before September 6, and because there is a $9.7-billion deficit they are worried whether their taxes are going to have to pay that deficit back.

They are worried about watching big payments come out of this government that claims it is broke, yet it is about to invest in de Havilland and has saved a couple of towns. Those are perhaps very worthy things; I do not deny that. In many respects maybe the government paid too much, but the intent was there and the intent was proper.

All my constituents want is accountability. They want this government to be able to account to them so that when they go to work every day and make a living, when they work hard and their money goes to pay for these programs, they want to know whether these programs are working, whether they are wasteful, whether they are costing more than they should, whether they are effective, whether they are getting to the people who really need the help or whether they are universal programs and the money is going to people who do not need the help.

These are all the things my constituents in a big urban riding are concerned about. They are concerned about whether their cost of living is increasing beyond their means and, as I said earlier, about a $9.7-billion deficit.

When I stand here and implore the government to pass an amendment that will cause it to account to this Legislature, I resent very much that there are people here who allege that my constituents do not pay taxes and who really do not care about the concept of accountability. In this amendment and the amendment before it, what we have been stressing is the idea of being open, of consulting and being accountable. If there is any hallmark of a government today, it is the idea of being open, consulting with the public and developing programs for which it is accountable in this Legislature, not making statements everywhere but in this Legislature.

I urge the government again, and the minister, to do the proper thing and accept an amendment by which it would be accountable and by which the public would have its confidence. If it does not, the public will only recognize the bumbling it sees going on in this government day after day. Together with that bumbling, people are going to see a government with no heart, with no ability and with no accountability.

If the government cannot do the job technically correctly, at least it can show it is trying to do it ethically and morally correctly with accountability, with consultation and by not being a government with walls. The House leader is nodding his head as if I am committing heresy here, but these are people who, prior to September 6, told everybody how compassionate, open and approachable they were and how competent they would be. They told everybody about the simple answers they had to all the big problems.

In the last year we have seen that they do not have the answers to complicated problems and no longer profess to be accountable. They no longer come to this Legislature to do their business; they hide in corridors of other buildings and make announcements. They operate from locked offices.

I look at these amendments and I say they are reasonable. Any government that wants to do the right thing for the people it represents -- and I remind the government it no longer represents just the 38% who voted for it; it represents all the people in Ontario and has to be accountable to all of them -- when it votes against an amendment that asks it to be accountable, then it is kicking the people in this province in the behind because it does not want to level with them.

I urge the government to accept this amendment, to be accountable, even though it has rejected the previous amendment that asks it to do its business in a public chamber rather than in private, and to consult with people. The government has rejected that, but on this score government members still have an opportunity to come out looking like a relatively decent bunch of people who want to be at least accountable, even though they do not want to consult in advance.

This amendment is reasonable. I urge them to look at themselves again and recognize that the people in Ontario want accountability. They want them to come back here in 18 months and tell them whether the money they have just spent to pay for this program has been money well spent.

Mr Perruzza: Thank you for the opportunity to make a couple of comments on the bill that is on the floor and to respond very briefly to some of the comments that were made by my friend the member for Willowdale. He took a comment which I made, "Don't be so sure," and expanded on that. He inferred from it that fundamentally I believe people in his constituency do not pay taxes. That is the furthest thing from the truth. Everybody pays for the GST of the Conservatives.

I remind the member for Willowdale that some time ago in his constituency the municipality forgave developers to the tune of about $25 million and gave back that money which could have been applied to the municipal budget and offset taxes considerably. Those developers did not pay a tax.

Another developer recently was forgiven $3 million in interest payments to the city, again taxes from his constituency which could have been used. If he were the champion of the good people of Willowdale who pay their taxes, he would come into this House and raise those issues and make those people pay their fair share of taxes, which they do not pay. There are a lot of good people in Willowdale who pay their fair share. There are a lot of people who are being given breaks in the city of North York. He often breaks some lobster with the mayor of that city, and that is why he does not come into this chamber and champion those causes.

1720

Mr Harnick: I would just like to point out to the member for Downsview --

Mr Sterling: Get a claw.

Mr Harnick: Yes, he should get a claw on life because I would like him to go and ask the mayor and debate with the mayor over the issue of who pays and who does not pay taxes. I want the public who are watching to understand this, that taxes are not set by the opposition; they are set by the government and taxes in North York are set by the government in North York. The member for Downsview knows that.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Willowdale should really come back to the subject matter.

Mr Harnick: If the member for Downsview had any gumption about this issue he would talk about whether the government will be accountable to the people of Willowdale. He will talk about this amendment, which he did not do. We have yet to see one person on the government side stand and talk about these amendments and talk about this bill.

The member for Downsview still thinks he is a member of city council in North York, where he rode off in a blaze of glory, breaching all kinds of edicts that were part and parcel of his job in the city of North York. I do not want to get into that, but I suspect that if he wanted to deal with this issue, he could talk about whether his government wants to be accountable, not who does and does not pay their taxes in Willowdale. Certainly my constituents will remember --

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I have been listening very carefully to the debate over the last few minutes and I just noticed that a group of Scouts have arrived and are in the members' gallery watching the proceedings. I know the members of this House would want them to get a very good impression of the debate and the level of debate in this House, so I would draw your attention to the fact -- this a legitimate point of order -- that the members have not been speaking to the amendment before us. I would ask you to point that out to them.

The Second Deputy Chair: I want to thank the honourable member for Oriole. It is an excellent point of information that we have a band of young people with us this afternoon. I know it is Thursday afternoon and members are anxious to get back to their ridings. They are on edge to some degree and it is somehow difficult to stay on the subject matter, but I ask that you please stay on the subject matter. It is of utter importance, and they are amendments to Bill 70.

Mr Harnick: I regret the fact that the member for Downsview tried to get into this debate. This debate to him is about whether people in Willowdale do or do not pay their taxes. Bill 70 is not about whether people in Willowdale pay their taxes. I regret that he did not want to stand and debate this issue of whether Bill 70 is a good bill, whether the government should be accountable 18 months from now. I regret the fact that neither he nor a single other member of his party would stand and debate this bill and this amendment today. But I have made my remarks; I have probably gone on for too long, so those are my remarks.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chair: If the member will check the record he will find that I have participated in the debate on this bill. I participated in this very House. If he would check the record, he would find out.

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. That is not a point of order; it is a point of view.

Mrs Marland: I rise to support this amendment because I have such difficulty with the legislation. I think that if this is such a good piece of legislation for the people of this province, this government would not have any difficulty with our amendment. Our amendment simply says that in February 1993 the act would be repealed. If the process has been working and the people who need to be protected are protected, then there would be no further need for this type of legislation.

It is so incredible that these people in this socialist government who cry out all the time for the protection of workers and the protection of jobs forget that there will not be any workers, that there will not be any jobs if we do not protect the businesses, the commerce and the industry which provide that opportunity for them. The people they criticize are the very people who give employment opportunities in this province.

If we are going to go ahead with this kind of legislation, where this government is so nervous of our amendment for February 1993, it must be because it already realizes it could not afford to have it repealed in February 1993 because it is quite possible that in that year it will be into an election and will be out of office. I see very clearly the significance of their opposition to the amendment our caucus is presenting today. It is no wonder that everybody who knows what is going on with this legislation in this province is as concerned about it as they are.

Mr Offer: I want to make some very brief comments on this amendment. I think, if my notes are correct, this is probably the final amendment.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: I am sorry; there is one more amendment. I listened very closely to the comments by the member for Willowdale and I think the member's comments in terms of accountability and making certain that any changes to the legislation in the future are brought before this House in debate, and all those things that follow, are all very important. We have spoken about this at some length in the past. I am very concerned that the government has not seen fit to change some of the aspects of this legislation to make any further change by legislative process as opposed to regulation.

We are not talking about slight changes. We are not talking about technical changes. We are talking about changes to the heart and soul of the legislation that in fact address the principle of the legislation. I believe that when we are talking about those aspects of any piece of legislation, any change should be through the legislative process. I think all members of the Legislature recognize that there is the need for regulation, for a government to be able to change certain aspects of any piece of legislation by regulation without having to go through the legislative process, but not when we are talking about the heart and soul of a piece of legislation. That is what we are doing today.

We are really closing the door to future consultation, listening to people, listening about what the impact of change will be. It is one of those things that is causing me some incredible concern about a piece of legislation the principle of which I wholeheartedly agree with.

As I listened closely to the member's comments on accountability I can only say that I wholeheartedly agreed. I am quite upset over some of the interjections by members on the government side, because I think they were totally uncalled for. They were well away from the aspect of the bill and the amendment. The member himself was really zeroing in on something that we in the committee had really been focusing on for these last number of days.

The concern I have with the amendment is that it talks not to the accountability aspect of the legislation, but it really talks about the repeal of the legislation. I think we have to recognize that we are dealing with a bill that I do not think we want phrased as a recession bill, a bill which was potentially born in the recession and will end when economic times hopefully improve. I think we recognize that even in good times there are bankruptcies, there are insolvencies, there is inability to pay, there are people and workers who many times are caught from really getting the benefits that are owed to them either in terms of wages and vacation pay or under the Employment Standards Act in terms of termination and severance. That is some of the concern I have with the amendment.

1730

I have absolutely no concern with the argument put forward by the honourable member because I think it was bang on. The problem I have is that it makes the bill one that is framed within the recession, to live and die within it. I think in some way it excludes the fact that there are people who are hurt and who are out dollars even in good times, and they are hurt just as badly. They may be able to access a job a little more quickly than in bad times; none the less they are out dollars and out benefits which in fact they are entitled to.

We have spoken earlier about the whole issue of severance and wage and whether it should be included in the bill. We have had some good debate on that. We have spoken about wages and vacation pay. I think even during our committee meetings, the business groups that came before us recognized an obligation and a responsibility to meet those benefits where possible. They recognize their obligation under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and they recognize the fact that those particular benefits are owed to those workers.

That is one of the concerns I have with the amendment. The amendment really does not deal with accountability. I think if the government had seen fit, it would have moved some of the changes to legislation. That would have allowed us, as members of this Legislature, to do what in fact we were elected to do, to be in many ways the watchdog, the eyes and ears of our community, to deal with impacts of any changes to legislation.

The government, by not agreeing to those amendments, has really closed the door to this Legislature in terms of this bill. It is going to cause a lot of members of this Legislature, and I believe probably on their own side, some concern over why they would not do that, why they did not have the faith, trust and hope in the bill to allow it to go before a committee, to allow it to be debated in terms of any change to its principle, to its reason for being.

We have had those discussions and we have had that argument in the past, and I stand here still with some very grave concerns about why the government would not do that. I think it sends out a very grave message to business communities. I think it sends out a bad message to the public in general that the government is not ready to listen. We are talking about one particular piece of legislation, but the message is one that transcends all pieces of legislation and all initiatives in the future. It is something I think the government is going to have to listen to and live with.

Certainly in terms of this amendment I have a concern that it makes this bill a recession bill and it really ignores the fact that people, men and women in our communities, hardworking individuals all, are sometimes out some benefits that are earned, some wages, some vacation pay, some termination, some severance. I think if it is possible for us to achieve those types of benefits in a well-balanced bill, in a bill which can provide that type of protection while at the same time sending out a positive message to business that this is a province where you can create jobs, where you can expand, where you can really have an option for more jobs and a real opportunity for success, then we should do that.

I am concerned that the government has not seen fit to address some of those amendments which both the Liberal caucus and the Progressive Conservative caucus has brought forward in committee and in this Legislature, and we are going to have consider that as we go through our second reading and third reading debates.

Mrs Caplan: I will be very brief in my comments. I would like to begin by saying I think this is a very significant and important piece of legislation. When it was tabled in this Legislature, I think the principles that were enshrined in this package not only were supportable but were principles that many of us in this House not only agree with but believe in. Legislation begins with principles, and that is why during second reading debate and discussion the vote is ultimately a vote in principle.

The bill was very seriously flawed. At that time it had provisions obligating directors of both private and non-profit corporations that seriously flawed this bill, and I think in proposing amendments to this the minister went quite some way towards addressing those concerns. However, what we have seen over the course of both the committee hearings and debate in this Legislature is that there are still some provisions in the bill which are considered serious flaws.

I want to compliment our critic, the member for Mississauga North. He has expressed many of the concerns I have about this bill, the principles of which I support. I believe there are men and women, working people in this province who, having earned their wages and their benefits, are then denied those when a company goes under in these very difficult economic times. That has happened in the past and it will happen in the future, as the member for Mississauga North so well pointed out.

But there are two major flaws to this bill and real concerns that I have. I will just put them on the record and ask the government to reconsider its approach to some of the amendments that had been proposed by both the Liberal caucus and the Conservative caucus.

I urge them to consider that in the context that my constituents, when we have discussed this matter, have said, "Why don't you offer some changes and some ideas and suggestions to help?" We know the government is inexperienced, we know there are just a few pieces of legislation that have been brought before us, so I have said to them that ideas and suggestions and alternatives are offered through the amendment process, that amendments were suggested at committee and those amendments were rejected. I said there would be another opportunity during committee of the whole House for those amendments to be placed and debated in the Legislature, and that during that time I would stand up and speak to the principle of the bill but encourage the government to accept those amendments which would allow for a balanced bill.

I have two significant concerns. First is the funding of the wage protection fund and the kind of insecurity and instability that would signal to the business community, already hard-pressed at this time of not knowing how that fund is going to be financed, whether it will be a new tax on business or a reallocation.

How the Treasurer intends to fund this provision is sending out the kinds of signals to people in the business community which in fact are forcing them to delay making some decisions, which are encouraging them not to come to Ontario to invest because they do not know what the taxation climate is going to be like. They have no security. They have no confidence in this new government. If there were a commitment from this government that said how this fund was going to be funded, how this wage protection fund was going to be financed, then the business community would know that it could count on not having additional taxes placed on it to pay for this.

The second point is the limit. As members have heard the member for Mississauga North so eloquently put it, the concern is that by being able to change the limit by regulation, what the government is saying to business is: "You cannot have confidence in what is going to happen. We can arbitrarily, by regulation, change the fundamental principles of this bill and change the limit without having to be accountable to the Legislature, without having that debate."

Those two provisions tilt the balance in this bill in such a way that it creates the kinds of flaws that make it very difficult to explain to the business community that it need not have fear.

As I said, we will soon be reaching the point where we will be in third reading discussion. I hope the government will take into consideration the amendments that are placed by the opposition parties at this point in time and will support some of them so that we have a bill that is balanced and that will also send the right signals to committee.

I want to state that I support wholeheartedly the principles of this bill. I hope it will be sufficiently amended to achieve the kind of balance that it will be able to be explained to my constituents in the riding of Oriole, who, as I do, share the concern about the economic future of this province as well as ensuring that men and women who have earned their salaries, their wages and their benefits are not denied those because of the economic difficulties their employers have experienced.

1740

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We had an agreement that this legislation, other than the vote, would be through tonight. In the interest of that, I am not going to respond at this point in time.

The Second Deputy Chair: All those in favour of Mr Harnick's amendment to section 17 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

The Second Deputy Chair: We revert back to sections 1 to 4. We will have some sections that do not have amendments.

Mr Sterling: Perhaps we could deal with the first part of section 17 at this time.

The Second Deputy Chair: We will revert back to the first part of section 17.

Mr Sterling moves that subsection 17(4) of the bill, as reprinted, be amended by striking out "$5,000" in the third line and substituting "$4,000."

Mr Sterling: I want to be as quick and brief as I can in terms of my explanation on this.

Mr Hope: Short.

Mr Sterling: Short. I never use that word. When I first saw this amendment, which was suggested by our Labour critic, I thought: "That doesn't make sense. If we're going to protect the wages of people, we should protect them properly, in accordance with the best we can do." The $5,000 did not seem to be that unreasonable when looking at $4,000. But on researching the matter further, I find that under section 17, the definitions of what would be paid to a worker could include four different things. They could include wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay. Termination pay differs from severance pay in that a termination payment is paid when notice is not given to the employee. It is in lieu of notice, whereas severance pay is paid when somebody is given proper notice.

It is our position in this caucus that the limits on these amounts should be in accordance with other statutes and provisions in other acts. It is my understanding that the liability of a director for wages and vacation pay is at a $4,000 level at this present time. Therefore, we think that one should marry with the other so that there should not be two different sets of figures in terms of liability.

I am informed that if the wage protection fund eventually comes out of the pocketbooks of our businesses, what will happen is we will in effect be taxing our small businesses to reimburse the unemployment insurance fund. The minister has refused to answer the question directly that the unemployment insurance fund has said it will claw back part of the payment that is made by the wage protection program to the worker because some of the benefits that will be paid to the worker under this section will be deemed income by the UIC.

Therefore, it seems more reasonable to us to have a reasonable upper limit, so that the bleeding in terms of the amount that will have to be refunded to the UIC, payment which UIC will pay the worker and then the worker will be asked to pay back, would be stopped at a level of $4,000. What we are saying to the Labour minister is that this amendment would not affect the amount of money the worker would get as a result of termination or severance, but it would save the wage protection fund from having to be as high as it might have to be, because the money would be coming from UIC instead of the wage protection fund.

It is a fairly complicated argument and it is a fairly complicated concept, but the fact of the matter is that UIC has told us that it deems, I believe, severance and termination pay as income and therefore will be demanding it back from workers after they have received it from the wage protection fund. In effect, what the minister is doing is asking the taxpayers of Ontario to help out Ottawa with regard to the UIC fund. I would like the minister to comment on that with regard to how he plans to protect the workers from UIC demanding this money back from them.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have maybe a partial reply. First off, I want to point out that what we are talking about is money that has already been earned, that is owed to the workers. I want to point out also that the average at the moment is $4,200, which means that slightly half are getting less and half are getting more. What we were trying to do was to maximize as much as we could what is owed to the workers.

In terms of the UIC arrangements, we have been having and are having ongoing discussions with them on this issue. I cannot tell the member as yet what we are going to be able to resolve in terms of a payback, and I do not have an answer for him on that. We felt that $5,000 was a serious effort without getting beyond our financial means, which may always be an argument, to deal with a majority of the workers who have actually earned the money and are owed it.

Mr Sterling: No one argues that the money is owed to the worker. I do not think anyone is arguing on this side that the worker should not receive that money. Our concern is, where is that money coming from? The wage protection fund, as I understand it, has nothing to do with the company that can afford to pay that money; it will be paid by that viable company to the worker to pay. It is from the wage protection fund, which is funded by the taxpayers or the employers, which is our concern. If the minister is going to pay a worker $5,000, and $2,500 is going to be clawed back to the UIC fund, then in effect what the minister has done is he has transferred $2,500 to our federal government. I find it ironic that he is taking this kind of step when we hear so much complaining about transfer payments.

Then the minister admits that severance and termination pay are deemed income and that they will be stripped from the workers, from their UIC benefits, under the present law and the present arrangement. Is that correct?

1750

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on section 17?

Mr Sterling: I asked the minister a question. Surely a minister of the crown should know the answer to the question about whether UIC is going to ask the workers for this money back. I will continue to ask him the question until I receive an answer.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We are in the process of negotiating that very matter. I cannot give an answer beyond that at this time.

Mr Sterling: If the minister is negotiating the matter, then his opinion must be that UIC can do this, it can demand that money back. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Reducing the ceiling will not do anything about the amount that would have to be paid back.

Mr Sterling: It would very much do that, because there would be less to strip back from the worker. I see a nod from his adviser that I am correct, and I am not talking about the member for Sudbury. I will not tell members which adviser nodded.

Mr Chairman, I have asked the minister: Am I correct in saying that severance pay and termination pay are deemed income in terms of our Unemployment Insurance Act and therefore would be stripped from the worker at the present time under our present laws?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Yes, they are determined as wages, but if you receive the payment, it will delay the time at which you will receive the unemployment insurance by several weeks or months.

Mr Sterling: In other words, the method of stripping back from the worker the money that will be paid in the wage protection fund will be from the UIC fund. In other words, we are talking about a transfer of provincial tax revenues to the federal government under the present law.

If we had the $4,000 limit, as I mentioned, we would have put a lower ceiling on the amount of bleeding that is done from the provincial Treasury. I say to the minister, we get many demands on this side about how we can cut the deficit down. This is a way the government can cut its future deficit down, if it supports this amendment.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Sterling's amendment to section 17 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinions the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

Les articles 18 et 19 sont adoptes.

Sections 1 to 4/articles 1 a 4:

The Second Deputy Chair: We now move back to sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, which were stood down. Do we have opening statements on section 1?

Mr Harnick: I understand why we are dealing with these four sections at the end of the proceeding in committee of the whole. These are the somewhat hidden sections, even though they come right up front, because they deal with an aspect of this bill that appears to use the Employment Standards Act and the concept of a wage protection program, but the sections in effect are much more encompassing amendments to the Employment Standards Act.

The first thing we are introduced to in dealing with this act is the amendment in subsection 1(2) which states as follows:

"Section 2 of the act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 55, section 1, is further amended by adding the following subsection."

That subsection to be added is known as subsection (4) and it states:

"Part I of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply to the exercise of any power conferred on the program administrator under part XII-A or to the exercise of any power by the director under section 50."

I am quite concerned that this section provides that there is not going to be a hearing if there is a dispute that relates to sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the act as presented in Bill 70. We will obviously have considerably more time in our next session to deal with these amendments, but that is initially my first concern. That is the red flag that alerts us to what sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 really contain.

The Second Deputy Chair: I want to thank the honourable member for Willowdale for his participation on section 1 of Bill 70. Further debate on section 1 of Bill 70?

Mr Offer: Briefly on this and the other sections, I think we have to recognize that one of the things that was always implied was that this particular bill was a bill that was as a result of the recession. It was going to help the people who are the victims of the recession to recover wages, vacation pay, termination and severance.

These particular sections, 1 to 4, of the bill clearly indicate that the principle is much wider than that. The principle of this bill will not only help those workers but indeed is broader in that any workers for whom there was an order under the Employment Standards Act which their employer has not paid will be able to access the fund, even though they still have a job, even though they are still working and have always worked.

I think we have to be very cognizant of the fact that the principle of this bill is much wider than what had initially been indicated as far as we are concerned, and is one which I think is the subject matter of some future debate.

The Second Deputy Chair: Shall sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the bill carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Votes deferred.

Les votes sont differes.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the committee of the whole reported progress.

A la suite d'une motion presentee par M. Cooke, l'etude du projet de loi en comite plenier de la Chambre est adjournee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for next week.

On Tuesday, October 15, we will deal with third reading of Bill 70, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, following the votes in committee of the whole that have been stacked by agreement.

On Wednesday, October 16, we will continue the adjourned second reading debate on Bill 118, the Power Corporation Amendment Act.

On Thursday, October 17, in the morning we will deal with private members' business: ballot item 37 standing in the name of the member for Scarborough East and ballot item 38 standing in the name of the member for Mississauga East. In the afternoon, we will continue second reading of Bill 118.

The House adjourned at 1801.