The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARABRAM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's once again that time: Carabram weekend in Brampton. It is a cultural festival that started in 1983 with four pavilions and has worked its way up to 19 this year.

This festival is allowed to take place and is as successful as it is because of the many volunteers in the community who give endlessly of their time to make it a success. In fact, they start immediately after the Carabram celebrations are over and work tirelessly, not just preparing for the festival but also fund-raising. They do this through bingos. Hopefully casino gambling will not take away from this very valuable way of funding their whole operation.

This year it will be held on July 3, 4 and 5, Friday through Sunday. I invite all members to participate. There are 19 pavilions and you can come and savour the sights, sounds and tastes all around the world without leaving the city of Brampton.

I urge you to respond by thanking these volunteers. Obviously the province of Ontario and the city of Brampton would be in great need without these volunteers, who are able to serve us so endlessly. Carabram is a festival I would urge the government to look seriously at. It's one that could be a model not just for this province but also for the country. These volunteers are neighbours. They come together at no cost to the government or any other public body. They are able to bring us closer together to understand one another's diversities and similarities. I urge you to come to Carabram.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I protest the flawed process that has led to the infliction of 57 candidate landfill sites on the people of the communities in the regions of York, Peel and Durham. The flawed process is the result of having a Minister of the Environment who is living with a totalitarian vision, one that is not based on reality. Did she think she could employ draconian measures to force people to accept having a $40-million landfill site in their community?

From the beginning the Minister of the Environment has dictated the way things will be done. She rammed through Bill 143. She tried to deny public consultation. She refused to release the candidate sites until the bill was passed, and she silenced the communities to be affected. The New Democratic majority refused to pass any amendments put forth by the opposition. They closed their minds to the advice of the presenters. The bill is now law and the Minister of the Environment has effectively eliminated any options to waste management including rail shipment somewhere, incineration, or any other scientific method.

Today I tell the people living in communities such as Unionville, Whitevale, Sandhill in the town of Caledon, and other places that we have a government on our hands that is doing the wrong thing. They've been betrayed by this government.

The Ministry of the Environment is out of control. They have no solution to the disposing of waste and have refused to explore options. They selected landfill sites in environmentally sensitive areas like the Oak Ridges moraine and the Rouge Valley, and they selected sites in the middle of communities or on valuable farm land. This government doesn't care. This government needs to get going somewhere, but not stay around any longer.

ENVIRONMENT DAY

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Last week Niagara Falls hosted the sixth annual Environment Day held by the Citizens for a Clean Environment. This local group, led by Al and Penny Oleksuik, has been very active over the last few years on many issues, including pressuring the Minister of the Environment and the Norton company to clean up a chemical spill in the river, known locally as the Chippewa blob.

Environment Day featured many displays by schools, government, environment groups and industry. The panel discussion brought Professor Michael Dickman from Brock University, activist Pat Potter, who operates the environmental vessel called the NIMBI, Now I Must Become Involved, together with Bob Sorley, president of Lubrizol, a local company, for some real discussion.

I want to honour today the work of the CCE over the past more than 10 years of striving to change public attitudes. The environment movement has to keep up the pressure to make change. We as government can't do it without you, the public, with us.

I also have a message and a present for Environment Minister Ruth Grier from Pat Potter of Port Maitland: "This is the way we want to drink pop, in refillable bottles straight from the 1950s. I hope you will agree that refilling or reuse is better than recycling."

DONATION BY PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I hope members will share my view that sound projects of Third World assistance are not only acts of altruism. Of course, if they are well conceived, they benefit the receiving country directly, but by contributing to fiscal soundness and a better standard of life for all peoples of the world, we build a healthier and safer international community and a stronger and more vital world economy. That of course benefits Canadians as present and future trading partners of Third World developing nations.

I am rising, therefore, to thank a number of Canadian pharmaceutical companies and other suppliers for their generous donations of Third World assistance and to applaud their generosity and foresight. The companies concerned are Apotex Inc, Canadian Medical Aid Programme, Life Brand Pharmaceuticals, Nu-Pharm Inc, Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc, Technilab Inc, and especially Novopharm and Genpharm, whose generosity was especially outstanding.

To all these Canadian pharmaceutical companies and suppliers, for their humanitarian service and outstanding generosity, our sincere appreciation.

1340

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Last week a 16-year-old Kingston girl was abducted, apparently sexually assaulted and held captive by a forensic patient of the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. Thanks to the joint efforts of the Kingston police and the Ontario Provincial Police, the man was arrested, still holding the young girl captive 23 hours after the reporting of the abduction and almost 24 miles from its site.

Many stories are circulating in the Kingston area dealing with the circumstances of the abduction and assault, including a contention that following her abduction the victim was taken to the psychiatric hospital and sexually assaulted on hospital property.

Last year, three months after a murder on the grounds of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, I asked the Minister of Health if she had taken any action to ensure that released murderers would no longer be considered appropriate community escorts for murderers currently incarcerated in forensic psychiatric facilities. She had no answer then and to my knowledge has done nothing about a situation that significantly contributed to that murder occurring.

In the aftermath of the Kingston attack, Mayor Helen Cooper and her council and the citizens of Kingston are looking for answers and explanations. I urge the Minister of Health to, unlike her response to the Brockville murder, quickly, openly and honestly meet that request and address the concerns of the people of Kingston.

RURAL ROUTES '92

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to invite all members of this House to attend Rural Routes '92 in Woodstock on Thursday, June 25, and Friday, June 26. A schedule of events is being sent to each member's office.

Rural Routes '92, dubbed Ontario's showcase of resource planning by its organizers, is designed to help create a better understanding of concerns relating to resource use and community and rural planning. It will be held at the Woodstock Fairgrounds on Thursday from 9 am to 8 pm and on Friday from 8 am to 5 pm.

There will be a variety of exhibits, workshops and presentations on land use and planning, environmental and conservation concerns and innovations. It costs $10 per day per vehicle, $5 per day per walk-in or $3 per day on a bus, including mini-vans.

There will be a number of bus tours departing from the fairgrounds throughout the two-day event to farms in Oxford county and surrounding areas. Each of the tours will include a variety of farmstead, resource management and rural community development issues. These visits to the back roads of southwestern Ontario offer more than a pleasant sightseeing option. They present an excellent opportunity to learn about the efforts to improve soil and water conservation, to see at first hand how the thorny issues of land and waste management are being handled and how our smaller communities are responding to such pressing social and economic issues as rural day care and economic development.

In conclusion, I'd like to congratulate the organizers for their efforts to present a top-notch program for this two-day event.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Thousands of residents of York region are upset and angry. The issue is waste disposal or, in more poetic language, garbage dumps. The question we in York region ask is, why does the Minister of the Environment continue to insist that York region take, on top of its own waste, that of Metropolitan Toronto?

We also ask, why does the minister continue to refuse to examine other options and alternatives? Why has she ruled out any role for incineration? We all recognize that incineration is not the sole answer, but it can certainly be part of the mix in responding to garbage disposal. Germany and Sweden are but two countries that have demonstrated how incineration can be part of the answer to dealing with waste. We continue to ask why she has refused to allow the Kirkland Lake proposal to be put before an environmental review to see if it would also be part of the answer.

It is the minister's adamant and arrogant approach which will force a new dump site on York region, even larger than the one at Keele Valley.

Incredibly, in the four proposed sites set out in King township we have some of the best dairy farms in the province. King township has stated clearly in its official plan that it wishes to maintain its rural heritage. Surely, developing a megadump is not the answer.

The government owes York region some clear answers and new alternatives.

CURRENCY REGULATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Later this afternoon I will be introducing a private member's bill entitled Drop the Penny Act, 1992. This act would create a new acceptable business practice respecting cash transactions in Ontario by permitting cash amounts for goods and services to be rounded up or down to the nearest nickel.

I think most people will agree with me that the penny has become little more than a public nuisance. Pennies are no longer worth their weight in gold or any precious commodity. They are a cumbersome, annoying monetary unit and make little sense considering the cost of producing them, the time spent counting them and their trivial purchasing power.

What many people will not be aware of is that it costs one and a half cents to produce a Canadian penny and that there are about a billion of them produced each year. In addition to saving a lot of aggravation and bother, drastically reducing the use of pennies would save the Canadian Mint nearly $5 million a year.

Some will immediately claim that this is a federal matter, and they are correct if you are talking about a ban or an order to cease mintage and usage of the penny. However, it is possible for Ontario to permit the business practice of rounding up or down to the nearest nickel in a cash transaction, thereby drastically reducing the use and burden of the penny. A move towards a more sterling currency will be appreciated by all.

CHRIS HADFIELD

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today and acknowledge the accomplishments of Major Chris Hadfield. Major Hadfield remembers being inspired in his childhood by the first manned flight to the moon and has been named one of Canada's four new astronauts.

Born in Sarnia only 32 years ago, Major Hadfield has accomplished much in his career with the Royal Canadian Air Force. He has won many awards for Canada as a fighter pilot and graduated top of the class from the US Air Force Pilot School. He is currently an integral part of the F-18 departure flight tests.

The Hadfields have a history of flying. Chris's father, Richard, is a former pilot for the old Sarnia-St Clair Air Services and Great Lakes Airlines. He also flew for Dow Chemical. The family no longer lives in Sarnia but maintains a connection with Lambton county by owning a cottage on Stag Island.

Major Hadfield's selection to the astronaut program came after a gruelling process. He was chosen, along with the other new astronauts, by the Canadian Space Agency from 5,330 applications.

I want to extend my personal congratulations to Major Hadfield and ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating one of Canada's superachievers, Sarnia-born Major Chris Hadfield.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if we might think of extending the response time for opposition parties, bearing in mind that the Premier has an extremely important statement to be made today with respect to the Constitution and that there is also a statement being delivered today by the Minister of Housing.

While both are equally important, I think the nature of the first-mentioned will perhaps require an extension of a little bit of time so that both my leader, Lyn McLeod, and also the leader of the third party or his representative would be able to adequately address some of the items raised by the statement of the Premier.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the point of order. We require unanimous agreement. Agreed? Agreed.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING / LOGEMENTS À PRIX ABORDABLES

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Il me donne grand plaisir de donner aux députés de l'Assemblée législative des nouvelles sur les allocations aux logements à but non lucratif.

The Ministry of Housing today has given the go-ahead to more than 100 non-profit housing sponsors to work on 6,500 non-profit homes across Ontario. These non-profit homes are being built in 44 communities across the province as part of the Ontario non-profit housing program announced in last year's budget.

Last October I announced the first 3,500 approvals from this 10,000-unit program and today I am pleased to announce the second phase.

We have allocated 10,000 non-profit homes in less than one year. That means 10,000 new, affordable homes for Ontarians and thousands of jobs for workers in the construction and related industries.

This spring there were more than 28,500 non-profit and cooperative homes under construction in communities all over the province. These homes mean jobs. This year, non-profit housing will provide more than 38,000 jobs in construction and other related industries, and there will be more jobs when the sponsors I have announced today are ready to build. The non-profit homes today getting the go-ahead today will provide an additional 11,000 jobs in communities across this province.

Our commitment to a job-creation and building affordable housing program is a continuing commitment, and there will be more job creation when we begin delivering the Jobs Ontario homes fund, the 20,000 units of non-profit housing we announced in this year's budget.

I'd like members of this House to know that people from across this province fought hard for those units. I received hundreds of letters before the budget, letters from people living in non-profit housing, from workers and from a range of small businesses; they all rely on non-profit housing.

The units we're announcing today will be built under the direction of sponsors from community-based housing sectors, and that includes municipal and private non-profits and housing co-ops. At this stage, sponsors can now prepare for construction: They can hire consultants and architects and start the planning approvals process.

Today's announcement brings us one step closer to the official opening of 6,500 more affordable homes in communities across the province. These units will house people who cannot find homes in the private market for a variety of reasons. They may not be able to afford a place to live or they may have special needs like the single mothers living at Massey Centre here in Toronto or the seniors living at Au Chateau in Sturgeon Falls.

I know many of the members in this House have attended opening ceremonies of new non-profit buildings in their own communities. Last week I had the pleasure of opening a new section of Au Chateau in Sturgeon Falls. The residents there have built a community where they can live in their own homes and still have the security and help they need to preserve their dignity and independence. I think that's what non-profit housing is all about: helping people in ways the private market cannot.

Today I visited another development. It's 28 units. It's in the College and Spadina area. The residents will be street people, and some of them are now working on the site, which is a historic building. So in that development we're creating homes for those in need, we're creating construction work for some of the very people who have been on the street and will be looking for affordable housing in the development on which they're working, and we're preserving a building which has a history of its own.

I'm proud of what the ministry and this government are doing for people looking for affordable housing. When we invest in non-profit housing we're investing in the future, because non-profit housing we're approving now will be a source of affordable housing for generations to come.

C'est un investissement pour le futur de l'Ontario.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, I'm tabling in the House today the so-called Status Report of the Multilateral Meetings on the Constitution, the rolling draft as of June 11, 1992, and the possible elements of political accords which have been provisionally agreed upon between a number of governments.

I want to talk to this House about the Constitution again today, and I've had the opportunity to speak briefly to the Leader of the Opposition and to the member for Parry Sound, the House leader for the third party, with regard to my statement today and also with regard to where exactly we are in these discussions. I want to take this opportunity to speak to the House about the Constitution because last Thursday my colleagues across the country and I completed an important and productive phase in the process of constitutional renewal.

After a 10-day break, during which I made my last statement to this House -- and I appreciate that this has a certain quality of a continuing saga which I'm presenting to the House -- we reconvened in Ottawa last Tuesday for three days to continue the discussions we had not completed in Toronto. The three days were productive. In particular, some interesting new ideas came forward on the Senate, which I'd be glad to answer questions on. So for the first time since these discussions began there is now fluidity and movement on this issue, which is a prerequisite for finding a solution.

It is important to convey to all of you something about the dynamics of these discussions. You should know that all the participants in the process are dedicated to achieving a package of reforms that will help keep the country together and will allow Canada to function well socially and economically.

Everyone has agreed that the current Senate needs to be replaced. Finding further consensus has been difficult. The amending formula in the current Constitution may well point the way: On some issues, all premiers have equal say; on others we rely on the formula of seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

L'Ontario a en outre affirmé qu'une nouvelle Chambre de deuxième niveau ne doit pas avoir la possibilité de bloquer le fonctionnement de nos institutions fédérales. Le défi que nous devrons relever pour l'avenir sera de créer de nouvelles manières pour les gouvernements de coopérer et de mieux concerter leur action, et non simplement de créer des mécanismes de contrôle et d'équilibre.

I want to reiterate that in English. We have consistently taken the view -- and I'm pleased to say that in this notion I've had the consistent support of both opposition parties and spokespeople at the conferences -- that we do not want to see a second chamber producing a deadlock in our federal institutions. The challenge for the future is to create new ways for governments to cooperate and work better together, not to simply create a series of checks and balances. I think this is a very fundamental point.

Beyond the fundamental goal of keeping Canada united, however, the participants do not always have exactly the same view as to what is best for Canada, for all the regions and for all Canadians. These differences are sincere and deeply held views about the appropriate balance in the federation between the central government and the provinces and about the best way for a democracy and the economy to function in a renewed Canada.

What all participants in the process now have to do almost every day is to represent the interests and aspirations of their people and their governments, while working in good faith to find accommodation and compromise.

As I've said inside and outside this House, I believe the challenge is to construct a package that is inclusive of provinces, regions, communities and individuals.

The results of the work of premiers, ministers and aboriginal leaders over the past 12 weeks have been released in a status report. Along with this brief statement I'm making today, I'm now tabling this status report so that all members of this House could read it and share it with their constituents, with the goal of hearing from them in return.

As you will see when you read this report, the work is not yet finished and the results are provisional. But the package has come a long way; it is 90% there. In fact, progress has been made on every single issue on the constitutional renewal agenda. With continuing dedication to finding a compromise and some more hard work by all the participants, we should be able to complete this constitutional round successfully within the time available.

Canadians are now asking -- and I'm sure they're asking all across the province of Ontario -- what the next step is and what the plans are to get the last 10% in place. For my part I continue to believe that the best way to reform the constitution in a federal state is through multilateral negotiations. Governments and aboriginal leaders must continue to be fully involved in the process to protect what has been achieved and to present a complete settlement to the Canadian people.

As you know and as the document I am tabling emphasizes, what we've been working on is a series of provisional -- not final -- agreements. Each of the compromises we have reached is, by necessity, dependent on the rest of the package, and of course it's going to be subject to further refinement. This is why the constitutional reform process must continue to involve all participants fully. That is the most effective way to build on the consensus already established.

As well, the continuation of multilateral negotiations is crucial to the success of this round because the ultimate goal is the ratification of a reform package. To ratify constitutional amendments, provincial legislatures as well as the federal Parliament must pass resolutions approving the proposals. I want to stress this point: Under the current Constitution, this is the only way reforms can be successfully concluded. To have the buy-in, support and approval of provincial legislatures is, in my view, essential for this process to come full circle.

1400

The full involvement of the provinces in finalizing a package is the best guarantee of their legislative support. After a time for reflection and listening to the public, it's my view that the Prime Minister or Mr Clark should call a meeting of all delegations, including Quebec, to take stock, to review what was done, what remains to be done and to agree on how the multilateral process should proceed from here to ratification. We must now focus our eyes and our energies on this target of ratification, of getting it done. Getting it done is something all Canadians want to see happen this year in 1992.

During this time, members of the governments will be doing a lot of listening. We'll also be talking to colleagues in other provinces and the federal government to share ideas on how these outstanding issues might be resolved.

In the weeks to come, we intend to continue the very productive cooperation we've had with representatives of both opposition parties who've joined us as members of the Ontario delegation to all the meetings so far. I have deeply appreciated their participation, their commitment to the process and the very real help, advice and perspective they've given us throughout. I cannot say enough about how much all of us in Ontario have benefited from this approach, from our ability to work together to make sure this is not a partisan issue.

Mr Speaker, this week is for discussion and consultation. I will continue to keep this House informed and listen to your responses. I look forward to your advice and I hope, needless to say, for your continuing commitment and support.

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Housing. This is one more time when this government is using smoke and mirrors and big numbers, consistently big numbers, to try to delude the people of this province that it is actually acting. I'd like to talk about some of those numbers and what they really mean. First of all, the minister proudly says that there are "28,500 non-profit and cooperative homes under construction in communities all over Ontario." This was not the result of an NDP program; this is the Liberal program of over two years ago, Homes Now, that they are finally acting on and creating jobs with.

Second, she talks with pride about how they've finally "allocated 10,000 non-profit homes in less than one year." Those 10,000 homes were promised over a year ago in last year's budget, yet it is only now, some 14 months later, when they're finally allocating the second part, the 6,500 homes. Then they say that these 6,500 units "will provide an additional 11,000 jobs in communities across this province." That is true, but not this year. Any construction worker out there waiting for relief from these 6,500 units will not find jobs today and they won't find them this year.

Third, she talks about the 20,000 Jobs Ontario homes. Again, this was announced in this year's budget but it will not provide one job this year. What we need are those construction jobs now. One could consider this delay worth while if, for instance, the Minister of Housing announced that she was studying the effectiveness of the program or studying whether what they're doing is actually meeting the need, but she has not done this. She has not made any attempt to speed up the approvals process to cut the red tape and the bureaucracy.

This government has said that all its ammunition is going to be in one pocket and that is what it has done. It's going to be non-profit and co-op homes. It has ignored the rest of the housing framework. It has ignored the fact that housing starts for ownership homes in this province is at an all-time low compared to what we wanted it to be, that they are on the decline. It has done nothing for this. It has not encouraged the rent-geared-to-income programs to provide immediate need to those who need shelter and need it now.

So, Mr Speaker, all I can say is that this is one more example of smoke and mirrors and big numbers to say that this government is indeed doing nothing.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the Premier's statement on the constitutional talks and once again express appreciation for his bringing to this House a regular update on the progress being made at that negotiating table.

I appreciate the fact that considerable effort is going into overcoming some of the potential areas for impasse. I recognize that much of the effort over the past week has focused on the question of the Senate and how the Senate can be reformed. As I've indicated to the Premier, I'm not quite sure how the Ontario proposal to abolish the Senate and replace it with an equal number of additional representatives in the House of Commons is likely to meet with agreement, particularly of the western provinces for which this issue of Senate reform is such a critical issue. But I do recognize, having said that, that the matter of abolition of the Senate might strike a somewhat sympathetic chord in many other quarters.

I appreciate the fact that there is a very creative search for solutions going on and that there should be a willingness to explore any possible alternatives which could lead to resolution.

I want to express to the Premier some growing concern about the kind of atmosphere of crisis management that's beginning to prevail. In an atmosphere in which there is a sense of urgency that leads to late-night sessions behind closed doors, the kinds of solutions that can emerge from those kinds of sessions too often can be not thoroughly enough explored, not carefully enough considered, not broadly enough examined. I feel such solutions could potentially be a recipe for disaster.

Nevertheless, again I would say that I think those kinds of alternatives, the kinds of alternatives that were being put forward to deal with this issue of Senate reform last week, deserve consideration and they deserve considerable open discussion. The issue of Senate reform may not be one which catches popular attention very often, but Senate reform done badly, it seems to me, could leave us with something less than an ineffective Senate; it could in fact render this country virtually ungovernable.

This issue of Senate reform has to be an important focus. I wonder if the Premier might consider calling together again the people from this Legislature who have spent so much time on our committee on the Constitution to begin to examine in some detail the various proposals that are put forward, not in any way wanting to delay the discussions that are taking place between constitutional ministers and first ministers, but to begin to look in a more detailed way at the impact of certain proposals and what that impact would be on Ontario. I feel that might give us a bit of a head start in the kind of informed discussion that needs to take place among the Ontario electorate.

The second area of concern I would like to raise with the Premier this afternoon is one I've touched on in previous responses; that is, whether or not this government is really preparing for the possibility of an early national referendum or for the possibility of some Ontario alternative should a national referendum not be called. From anything we hear -- and I admit it's a little bit in the realm of rumour right now -- the federal government is in fact preparing for a national referendum and could be in a position to call a national referendum on very short notice.

I wonder if the Premier could tell us whether he has an assurance that the kind of time for discussion and consideration at a provincial level before ratification is called for is time that will in fact be given to the provinces by the federal government. Does he have that assurance from the Prime Minister, that we will not suddenly find ourselves in a position of having to respond to a national referendum? Is his government preparing now to know how we can ensure the Ontario public will have an opportunity to be fully informed on the proposals that are ultimately reached as part of a constitutional package? Will there be forums created where there can be some reasoned debate of those proposals? Will there really be an opportunity for careful consideration of whatever question might be posed in a national referendum? Whatever that question might be, this is clearly a very unique and very critical question.

I don't think any of us should make the mistake of assuming easy passage either in Ontario or elsewhere in the country. I think it would be a very considerable error if we were just to hope that somehow people would respond with an emotional surge of optimism, almost a response to the kind of national spirit that we hope the celebration of our 125th birthday will engender.

1410

All of us hope there will be that kind of positive response from Canadians to the future of this country, but I believe it's absolutely essential that this government do everything possible now, even at what may seem to be a somewhat early stage, because the proposals aren't finalized, to prepare the ground for that kind of informed discussion, careful consideration, and eventually, hopefully, positive response.

I don't think there's much question that people in this province are anxious to see a resolution. Personally, I believe a majority of people in this province want to provide support to a strong and united Canada, but I also believe the people of this province want to have a final say in giving their consent to the proposals which will govern the future of this country.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise to respond to the Minister of Housing's statement on the acceleration of the non-profit housing policy of this government. I must say that we in our party find it rather astounding that this party and this government would continue on with the policy of non-profit housing, specifically when it has restricted funds for hospitals, universities, schools, school boards, and more important, social services.

The policy with respect to non-profit housing -- and it has proven to be a very expensive policy -- continues to accelerate and yet in these other areas there have been major cutbacks. This government refuses to re-examine the focus that has been taking place with non-profit housing, notwithstanding the facts that have been produced that show it's too expensive a policy to embark on.

I note, for example, on the first page of the minister's statement where she says, "At this stage, sponsors can now prepare for construction -- they can hire consultants and architects and start the planning approvals process." It's this very process that we oppose, the very fact that developers, lawyers, accountants, consultants and architects are going to be charging top dollar in a market where the subsidy program would clearly be more beneficial and faster for the people of this province who need a form of shelter assistance.

We in this party, the Progressive Conservative Party, have put forward a more efficient, equitable and cheaper alternative in the form of a shelter allowance program. The cost of not only setting up this housing but also the annual assistance is cost-prohibitive. Clearly the cost of subsidizing this non-profit housing is extremely high. Information we have from the ministry's own staff, that it's in excess of $425 million a year, is probably quite conservative. The annual subsidy for a typical non-profit project is approximately $11,000 per unit and approximately $13,750 per unit for the 80% of the units that may be rent-assessed.

In our view shelter allowances are clearly more equitable because they give similar assistance to people with similar needs, can be delivered faster, can apply to a far broader selection of rental units and allow people to remain in the housing of their choice.

Non-profit housing, on the other hand, helps only those people who are lucky enough to get a unit. It neglects those on the waiting list who are too discouraged to apply. It's slow to respond to the need because the housing must become vacant or be built. It requires a subsidized tenant to move to a specific project, which we find inexcusable.

How can the minister stand in this House and be proud of the fact that she knows it will take years to actually provide a roof over anyone's head when our subsidy program would provide assistance now? Our subsidy program helps more people, and for fewer tax dollars, than this expensive and wasteful non-profit housing program. Our party assists people. This government, on the other hand, assists the wealthy developers, the consultants and the lawyers.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I am pleased to respond on behalf of our party to the statement made today by the Premier with respect to the state of negotiations on the Constitution.

I would first like to point out that a great deal of progress has been made if one looks at the status report of the multilateral meetings on the Constitution. I think the fact must not be forgotten that there are many people who represent many different regions and areas of Canada who are approaching this in a very sincere spirit of generosity and cooperation. It's all too easy, I think, to focus in on what has not been accomplished as opposed to what has been accomplished.

If anything, I'd like to stress that now is not the time to create an atmosphere of crisis. I think we must proceed on a positive plane towards resolving the differences we have among many different provinces, many different peoples and many different regions in this country.

If one talked to the average Ontarian about Senate reform and what it means to him or her, I think you would get the response, "Not very much, thank you very much," other than that it probably usurps about $100 million to $120 million of the taxpayers' money a year in Canada and doesn't, at least to them, seem to serve any useful purpose whatsoever. While it's fine for a lot of us to say personally that we advocate its abolition -- I'm sure many of us in this place do -- I think you have to realize the sensitivities and the importance this issue has for other regions of the country, the west and the Maritime provinces in particular.

We have many different proposals on the table as to how to deal with this. Of course we have the triple E proposal, the equal proposal, the equitable one, what's now being referred to as the Romanow formula or proposal about a different, weighted voting system. Perhaps some spinoff or some version of that may ultimately reach approval of the first ministers and the various provinces and regions in Canada.

The Premier points out in his statement on page 5 that, after a time of reflecting and listening to the public, meetings of the provinces should be called; the ministers should reconvene. I would like to stress that perhaps we've gone as far as we can go with the current type of negotiating rounds that have been going on and that we should be trying to stress a first ministers' meeting to deal with these crucial remaining issues, because at the end of the day any agreement is not going to be ratified and these most difficult issues are not going to be resolved unless we have the participation of the first ministers across this country, as well as native leaders, of course.

Quebec must be brought back into the process. Obviously, the sooner the province of Quebec is brought back into the process and is at the table, the more rapidly we're going to be able to resolve our differences and come to a proper resolution of the matter.

I would stress that Ontario should be taking a leadership with respect to this, and that although we sometimes face a lot of criticism by provinces in other parts of Canada, I think previous administrations and premiers have always taken a leadership role. When you think back to Robarts and Davis and even Mr Peterson, they all took leadership roles, being careful -- I realize it's a very fine line you have to walk as the Premier of this province -- not to offend or alienate other regions in this country.

I would also like to add a couple of final comments, Mr Premier. Yes, you have had our commitment to the process. That does not mean, of course, our unqualified stamp of approval or support for every single position you or the province might have taken at some of these meetings.

I would like also to talk for a moment about the issue of a referendum here in Ontario, because I strongly believe, having gone through the Meech Lake process and Meech Lake 2 or the amended version, whichever you want to refer to it as, that at the end of the day the people of Ontario, as indeed the people all across Canada, are going to have to be happy with whatever the first ministers agree upon. I can't stress this too strongly. I know my leader has urged this and the Leader of the Opposition has also mentioned this point today. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the people must decide. Thank you very much.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to ask for unanimous consent for the Premier to make a statement on the report by Stephen Lewis. As you'll know, Mr Speaker, this is the third day on which we in the opposition have expected some indication by the government of a stance, or at least an acknowledgement of Mr Lewis's report made to the government. Mr Lewis had a press conference. We expected it Thursday; in fact, we were informed so. We're informed that it would, again, be today. I would ask now that you put the question for unanimous consent to have the leader of this government, Mr Rae, give us a statement concerning that important report.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, in response to the point of order, I share the sense of urgency that's expressed by the member for Bruce, and I want to give him my assurance that, after some discussions with my cabinet colleagues today and tomorrow morning, I'll have a statement to make to the House at 1:30 tomorrow.

1420

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I thank the Premier for that advice. I wonder if you might then ask for unanimous consent for the people of this House to listen to the government House leader tell us a little about the Municipal Affairs policy announcement he made on the weekend in London. He had indicated that he was entertaining changes to the London-Middlesex bill, which, as you know, gave rise to a series of interruptions of the House last week as I inquired of you whether its status was such that he could compel its passage even though it were introduced into this place in the last eight days of the session.

The member for Windsor-Riverside has made at least a couple of announcements on the weekend, and now that the policy of the government apparently is clear, I ask for unanimous consent for the member for Windsor-Riverside, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to tell us what story they are peddling today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement for a statement? No?

Interjections.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As you know, we are now in the course of discussing rule changes, the rules which have appeared in front of you and in front of all of us with respect to how this place is going to be conducted in the future. I say "will be" because the people on this side of the House acknowledge that the numbers are such that once this motion gets placed to a vote, it is but a matter of simple counting one after the other. The fact is that we in the opposition will be inundated by the hordes on the government side of the floor.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to tell me whether it is your view that the role of the Speaker will in fact be curtailed by the current proposed change to standing order 45(a). With respect to 45(a), which is currently in -- and I will read just a portion of it -- there is a particularly critical sentence which really highlights the role of the Speaker in protecting the minority. These words are as I repeat them now:

"Unless it appears to the Speaker that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question shall be put forthwith...."

The proposed standing order 45 as brought forward by the government House leader now omits any reference whatsoever to the abuse of the standing orders or in fact to any reference with respect to infringement of the rights of the minority.

I stand here now because it has been, in my sense, a privilege of each member of this House to be able to speak not only within the realms of the standing orders but, in a sense, within the ambit of the common law which has governed the operation when the standing orders are silent.

It has always been the position of this House and of every Speaker I have had the pleasure of serving with that the minority rights are to be guarded by the Chair: by you or your successor. In fact, it seems to me that the way this is written it is seen to be a direction to the Speaker that he or she should in the future disregard that particularly critical rule of the operation of this House.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to provide me with some guidance with respect to how the new standing order would be read, were it adopted. I know you might say this is hypothetical, but since these are about to be thrown at us, I should like your assistance in determining whether the Chair would see its very important role in protecting the rights of the minority as being abused by the elimination of this particularly important sentence from the proposed standing order 45.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, I appreciate the matter he has raised and, of course, the interest all members have in the current standing orders and in the debate which is under way with respect to new orders.

Indeed, I don't believe the member was suggesting that the Speaker would have an opportunity to be involved in the debate, although of course your Speaker follows very closely the debate itself and reads Hansard afterwards to determine exactly what was said.

The matter he addresses is one which he and others may wish to consider during the course of the debate. I note that, because it's a motion before the House, it is amendable and members may wish to consider amendments to various rules that have been put forward.

Finally, he is absolutely right. I assume that every member of the House realizes that the standing orders must be protected by the Speaker, and that the Speaker has as his or her first concern protecting the rights of the minority on the principle that the majority will always take care of itself, but I appreciate the approach by the member.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. On May 26 the Premier called a meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association to talk about its labour negotiations with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. At the meeting the Premier asked the OHA to hold off on its scheduled arbitration hearings and return to the bargaining table for further mediation of outstanding issues. The Premier indicated that he did not believe it was in the best interests of the parties or the province for these negotiations to go to arbitration.

Given this government's commitment, as clearly stated in the Labour Relations Act amendments, to encouraging the process of collective bargaining, I ask the Premier if he can explain his unprecedented personal intervention in the ongoing collective bargaining process between the OHA and CUPE.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd be happy to do so. First of all, it's not at all unprecedented. In fact, it's my understanding that the person who was in the room with me serving as the president of the Ontario Hospital Association had himself, as the Minister of Health in a previous government, with the Premier at that time had a meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association to discuss the breakdown of bargaining and the prospects of an illegal strike in the hospital sector in 1981.

The purpose of my intervention was precisely, and has been consistently, to encourage collective bargaining. That has been the whole nature of the efforts by the government, by the Minister of Health, by all of us involved in this process. I take some pride in that.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier gives as precedent a situation which seems to me to be not at all comparable. It's my understanding that there had not been a breakdown in the collective bargaining process, that the collective process in this situation had been lengthy but that the parties had agreed that having reached an impasse this collective bargaining process should now go legitimately to the arbitration process.

To the best of my knowledge or the memory of the people on this side of the House, no government has interfered in the hospitals' collective bargaining process in this way before. If we look back even at last year's nurses' settlement, it was reached without government intervention, at least so the government claimed. Yet ironically, this is the Premier who in response to my question has again talked about enhancing the collective bargaining process.

There is more. It's our understanding that at that meeting on May 26 the Premier also told the Ontario Hospital Association that he wanted the hospitals and CUPE to reach a settlement based on the government's agreement with OPSEU, which he holds up as a model of restraint. He is therefore not only telling the parties what to do, he is telling them specifically what their settlement should be.

If the Premier is going to dictate the terms of the collective agreement, why doesn't he simply impose the agreement on the parties? He has clearly already violated the integrity of the collective bargaining process.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm afraid the information the honourable member has is quite wrong. I did not suggest any particular settlement to the Ontario Hospital Association, any more than I would suggest any proposed settlement to any of the parties. I simply pointed out to the Ontario Hospital Association privately what I said publicly in my statement of January 21 -- that is, that the government is taking action with respect to its own employees and that we are also taking action with respect to transfer payments. Those transfer payments are there and are there as a matter of record; they are not a floor, but are an essential part of the government's overall fiscal strategy and framework.

In that context all I did, and continue to do, was to encourage the parties to bargain and indicate that our good offices were available. I indicated as well that with respect to the question of retraining and of looking at the hospital sector training and adjustment fund the government saw a real need for there to be more information shared with the parties with respect to the purposes and the framework of that fund in order to allow effective collective bargaining to take place. That was what I did. To be perfectly direct with the honourable member, I think to do otherwise would not have been doing my job.

1430

Mrs McLeod: If the Premier says that he has not proposed a settlement, that he has only encouraged continued bargaining, he may wish to set the public record straight. The public record is all that we on this side of the House have to go by since we are not privy to the private meetings. The public record of that particular meeting is that the Premier stressed the government believes it would be in the best interests of both CUPE and hospitals to negotiate a settlement comparable to the OPS settlement rather than proceed to arbitration. That sounds like more than encouragement, and in fact it is not the first instance of interference by this government in the collective bargaining process.

On April 22 the Minister of Education stated in this House that he would use transition funds to support school boards that arrived at something called balanced contracts with their teachers in return for negotiated benefits. At least the Premier is much clearer and much more blatant in imposing his settlements than the Minister of Education, who has simply created confusion with his proposals. I would just ask why this government seems to want to support the collective bargaining process only when it likes the outcome.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's because we've expressed the concern. I'll go on; I'll tell you what else I did with respect to the situation, because I think it's important to know. We've found, on the basis of the professional advice we received from our mediators who are involved at the scene, including the deputy minister, Mr Pathe, a feeling that was clearly expressed that there was not enough real bargaining going on in this sector, that in fact there were too many settlements in which the parties were simply taking the way out of saying, "Let's just refer this to arbitration," instead of trying to encourage real collective bargaining.

All we have tried to do in this sector, as in others, is encourage genuine collective bargaining with all of the parties being fully aware of all the facts and parameters. One of the facts that has to be put to the parties is that the 1%, 2% guideline with respect to what we are going to be putting forward this year and next year as a transfer to the hospital sector is a very real number. It's on that basis that we wanted to encourage collective bargaining, and we continue to want to encourage collective bargaining, to take place.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): First of all, I'd like to welcome the Premier back to the House from his negotiations.

I would like to direct to the Premier a question in his capacity as leader of the government of Ontario, but also make a personal request to him that the Premier himself respond to my question and that he not punt it off on someone else.

Premier, while you have been dealing with matters of national and international focus outside of this elected body your House leader introduced without consultation with the opposition or your full caucus, without an attempt to reach consensus, a procedural motion which would strip the opposition and your own backbench members of many of their opportunities to play a meaningful role in the democratic process. Why would a person with your record of fighting for the underdog, with your reputation as a defender of the rights of the opposition, with your respect for the parliamentary process, permit such a heavy-handed, autocratic, muzzling motion to be placed before this House in the name of the government you head?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I refer this to the government House leader.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I indicated to the members of the Legislature on several occasions last week that the package of rule changes the government is proposing is very much in line with the rules that are followed in other legislatures in Canada and the federal House of Commons as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Hon Mr Cooke: The opposition House leaders last Thursday indicated that we were going to meet this afternoon to look at the package of rule changes the government is proposing and any proposals the opposition parties might have. We're going to sit down and talk about those matters this afternoon.

Mr Bradley: I ask the supplementary question of the Premier on behalf of not only the opposition but of all elected members of the Legislative Assembly. We have seen a move in many jurisdictions towards the consolidation of political power in the hands of non-elected people: the civil service, the political staff of government, particularly the Premier's office and the Prime Minister's Office. This has been imposed at the expense of members democratically elected by voters in constituencies across the province.

As an individual who has believed all of his life in democracy, who has fought all of his political life for the right of the opposition to be heard and the government to be held accountable in an open, effective manner, how can the Premier initiate a motion which will severely restrict the ability of the opposition to do its job by, for instance, substantially reducing the time available for members to address the House by chopping three weeks more from the sitting of the assembly and by removing discretionary powers from the elected Speaker, whose role it is to protect the rights of the opposition and all members of this assembly?

Hon Mr Cooke: Every example the member just gave in the rule package the government is proposing is a rule that is in fact in place in other legislatures in Canada and in the federal House. I don't see how it's democratic when you have the unrestricted ability for people to speak for hours and hours, which usually means that the backbenchers in my party don't get an opportunity to participate in the debate -- that's what happens under the current rules -- or just two or three members of the opposition parties get to speak. There is not ample opportunity for members to participate, and the rule changes we're proposing will guarantee that participation from all members of the House.

Mr Bradley: I can't believe that the Premier of this province would necessarily align himself with the Prime Minister of Canada who resides in that office at the present time on matters related to parliamentary democracy. The Premier and I have both served in this House, the Premier for some 10 years and myself for some 15 years, and I've admired the role the Premier played in opposition -- we were both in opposition at one time -- even when I was in government, watching the Premier play the role of defending the opposition. But if the Premier is determined to shove his new parliamentary rules down the throats of the opposition and his own backbench members, many of whom have been striving to enhance the role of all elected members of the House, and if he's determined to further concentrate power in his own office, what is the use of any of us remaining as members of provincial Parliament and why would anyone wishing to serve his or her community bother to run for this elected office?

Hon Mr Cooke: I always thought the premise of this place was that the government did get the opportunity to propose and the opposition got the opportunity to oppose, which is exactly what the opposition parties are doing. It wouldn't have mattered what rule change package we came forward with; they would've opposed it. That's their role. That was our role when we were in opposition as well. That is the job of Parliament.

But the government should also have the opportunity to vote on things in the House. The fact of the matter is that the opposition has -- and I can give you the examples. Last fall for six weeks we had no opportunity to vote on any legislation. We've had tax bills that have taken over a year to get to a vote in this House. The member who has asked the question has been one of the people who has participated in those kinds of games. The public says to me that it doesn't want to see that any more; it wants to see this Parliament produce. The only way that can happen is with a change in the way this Parliament operates.

1440

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I've received documentation from your ministry that confirms you have awarded a contract to FP Labour Consultant Services and its president, Mr Wally Majesky. This contract is worth $160,000 and is for a human resources study. Can you confirm (1) that this study was proposed by Mr Majesky and not solicited, and (2) that this contract was awarded without tendering?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I appreciate the question from the member. We have a meticulous contract procedure at the Ministry of Transportation. Some of them are massive. They're all consequential, but some are of lesser importance. Soliciting in terms of due process does not apply here.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): What?

Hon Mr Pouliot: It does not apply here. It's a very important question and we're very ethical in terms of Transportation. I don't know about this contract --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Did you tender or didn't you, Gilles? Just answer the question and sit down.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Why don't you just keep quiet -- with the highest of respect, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What I will do, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would be most helpful if the minister could address his remarks to the Chair. Of course, that would also be aided if there were no interventions.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I apologize. Perhaps I was a little too spontaneous in responding to a response contravening article 20(b) of the standing orders -- an interruption, Mr Speaker.

I will look into it, because this kind of question is insightful. You must never be too vigilant, Mr Speaker. My responsibility as the Minister of Transportation, as a member of the executive council, is to make sure that we are nothing short of meticulous in the awarding of people's money. We're looking at full value for money. I'll come back to the member in short order.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I'll never accuse you of being too vigilant. This is just something Wally Majesky dreamed up. In fact, the Amalgamated Transit Union, whom Mr Majesky represents, says, "Without question, this project represents an important first step in developing a broader range of trade union skills that are necessary to our ATU leadership."

In other words, this contract was awarded to trade union bosses. Minister, do you really think we should be spending $160,000 of taxpayers' money to fund a prep school for up and coming transit union bosses?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I have made the commitment that I will look into it. I will do so in short order and I will be honoured to come back to the member.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, that really isn't acceptable. This proposal was unsolicited, untendered and most of all unnecessary. Your ministry funded an earlier study by the Canadian Urban Transit Association. In the words of your assistant deputy minister, the previous study would be very relevant to and may duplicate much of the research proposed by Mr Majesky. In other words, you didn't need the study, but a labour crony needed a few bucks. Minister, the time when your ministry is slashing the capital budget spending, how can you justify spending tax dollars to line the pockets of your backroom buddies?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Those are mere allegations. I'm not going to fabricate or make up an answer. I will look into it and I will come back to the member.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Minister of Health. She will be aware that last week a 16-year-old girl in the Kingston area was abducted, apparently sexually assaulted and held captive by a forensic patient of the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. Thanks to the joint efforts of the Kingston and Ontario Provincial Police, the man was arrested, still holding the young girl captive, 23 hours after the reporting of the abduction and almost 24 miles from its site. Could the minister tell the House today and the people of Kingston how this could have occurred and how her ministry is reacting to it?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): As the member well knows, I can make comments about the general status of Lieutenant Governor's warrant patients at psychiatric hospitals and procedures. While this is before the courts, he knows I cannot comment on specifics of the individual case.

Let me say to the member that I take seriously the kinds of concerns the community has in response to this kind of very serious incident. He should know that an internal hospital investigation has been put in place. It involves both management and treatment teams internal to the hospital as well as an external expert. We are looking at steps to ensure whether the procedures taken with respect to privileges in this particular case were appropriate and to review the status of privileges for all forensic patients.

Additionally, I note that the member made mention in his statement at the beginning of question period today of the kinds of community concerns there were and the concerns of the mayor and the city council. The director of the mental health facilities division will be meeting directly with city council, and the hospital, the union and the community advisory board have been undertaking meetings to set up community consultation to try and ensure that there is an open process of dialogue with the community to address these concerns.

Mr Runciman: It is another confirmation that everyone has rights in this province except the victims.

I want to talk about last year. I raised an issue three months after a murder on the grounds of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. A patient was murdered. Two men were charged. One of them, who had been responsible for the murder of three children in Toronto a number of years ago, was on pass. His approved community escort -- approved by your officials -- was a former forensic patient, a cop killer. This was the man your officials approved to escort this gentleman out into the community. In my view, it was a significant and contributing factor to that murder taking place.

Minister, we are now talking about a 16-year-old victim. Apparently -- and this comes from members of the family -- the victim was assaulted in the community, taken back on to the grounds of the psychiatric hospital and assaulted on the grounds of the hospital. Minister, I think you owe it to the victim, her family and the residents of Kingston to be much more forthcoming than you are today and not to hide behind patient rights and court proceedings, as you have done in the past, and take absolutely no action.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I didn't hear a question directed. I think there was a general statement made. I assure the member that I do take these sorts of situations very seriously. I remind him that the Criminal Code Review Board, which operates under federal jurisdiction, sets the level of privileges for Lieutenant Governor's warrant patients. It is important for him to remember that. The administration of those privileges is done at a provincial level and this government takes seriously, as did the previous government, the concerns and considerations around how those privileges are exercised.

I've indicated to him that with respect to the exercising of those privileges in this particular case, and for all forensic patients at this particular hospital, there is a review going on right now. I think that from that review we will find whether any further steps need to be taken.

There is in fact the reality that the level of privilege has been set by the Criminal Code Review Board, and in Ontario, in our psychiatric hospitals, we are responsible to that level of privilege set by that procedure under federal legislation.

Mr Runciman: This minister is doing what her predecessor, the member for Oriole, did. In fact we have different words. This minister says she is going to "take it seriously." The former minister said, "I'm concerned." I will give the member for Oriole credit, though: When I had leaked documents and provided them to her, she took action and tried to remedy the situation. We're getting nothing from you. You're a puppet of the bureaucracy, apparently, in this situation.

I want to put on the record another concern in the community. This apparently comes from very valid sources. Not only was this young child, this 16-year-old child assaulted on the grounds of the hospital; the patient from the hospital tied this young lady to his wrist, put a coat over the wrist, went back on to the hospital grounds and received an extended pass with this victim tied to his wrist.

We're talking about security provisions at the psychiatric hospital which this minister is responsible for. She tries to hide behind the review board. I talked about approving a former cop killer as a community escort. That is something she could do something about. She has known that for a year and has done absolutely nothing. I think it's time she got off her tail, started looking at what is happening within the forensic system, took action and put public safety above patient rights.

Hon Ms Lankin: Again I didn't detect a question, but let me say to the member opposite that although I understand he sees himself as a self-styled crusader on these issues and likes to get very angry and likes to yell and use provocative words, we are dealing with a situation in which there --

Mr Runciman: You don't care about the community. You don't care about the victim. You are always holier than thou. Why don't you address the victim? Holier than thou. Baloney, pure baloney.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Hon Ms Lankin: I don't think I have anything further to add to the comments I've made already with respect to this issue.

1450

TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with incorrect information he provided to the House last week. I'd like to give the Premier an opportunity to correct the record and let the people of Ontario know what's really happening.

As the Premier I hope now knows, as of July 1, in two weeks, the Ontario income tax rate will be going up for all the working people in this province by more than 5%. In answer to a question I asked last week in the House, Premier, your answer was, "for lower- and middle-income taxpayers -- that is to say, individuals who are earning less than $53,000 -- there will be no increase in the combined federal-Ontario income tax as a result of the federal and Ontario 1992 budgets."

That information is incorrect; it's wrong. Will the Premier now admit he was wrong and would he confirm that people earning as little as $30,000 or $20,000, indeed $10,000 a year will have their Ontario income tax rate increased by more than 5% effective July 1?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I certainly wouldn't want to give any information to the House or give any impression to the House that was out of keeping with the facts. I can only say to the member that I will certainly take his question as notice. I'll get back to him with respect to the answer. If he feels the answer I gave was incorrect, then I'll discuss it with the Treasurer as soon as possible. I believe the tax policies which our government has introduced are tax policies that are fair. I believe the net impact those increases will have, when a number of other things are taken into account, will be no net increase for 1993. If I've given any information to the member that leaves a false impression, obviously I will correct that, and I'll ask my people to correct it as soon as possible.

Mr Phillips: The Premier ran on a platform, and I can recall him very clearly going across the province and saying, that he was going to eliminate Ontario income tax for people living at or below the poverty line. It's a very important question for this reason: The Premier is clearly confused. The facts are that as of July 1, for people earning as little as $10,000 a year, their income tax rate is going up 5%. Those are the facts. It's obvious the Premier has made his decisions on the assumption that people earning less than $53,000 will pay no more income tax, combined, this year. That's not right; that's wrong.

Premier, my question to you is this: If the facts are as I believe them to be, will you undertake now to change your budget to reflect what you believe the budget to be? Will you undertake now to say, "Listen, I'm committing to the people of this province that if you're earning less than $53,000, you will pay no increased income taxes in 1992," because that's your understanding of the budget? If that's your understanding, will you commit to ensure and carry that out?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member, for example, didn't mention the fact that senior citizens who are on a low income will be receiving an increase in the amount of their tax credit, which also relates to the tax system. I'm sure he would want to share that fact with the members of the House. He would also want to share with members of the House the fact that the overall impact of what the Treasurer has done in the last two years has been to remove tens of thousands of families from the income tax rolls altogether. But I will say to the honourable member that obviously he's looking for some information, and I'll be happy to share that information with him.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Government Services, surrounding the same issue I asked you questions about last Thursday, Mr Minister.

I've spoken with a Mr Ron Gotts in your office, executive director of the real estate service division, Ministry of Government Services. This gentleman has said to me that concerning the issue surrounding the tendered contract to the company that had previously done work for you and is now working for the ministry, which didn't carry any worker's compensation or had run out and which didn't have any liability insurance or had run out, your ministry had paid some $13,000 in bills at Christmastime that it had absolutely no responsibility to pay: "Because it was Christmas" was their explanation.

Further to that, my office asked Mr Ron Gotts if in fact an investigation was being done into this entire kerfuffle. His response, Mr Minister, was that you had done an investigation, a full inquiry. My office asked, "Well, when will this information be made public?" and Mr Gotts said, "That's already been done." The question was put, "Well, if it's been done, when did it happen?" Their answer was, "It happened last week when the minister responded to your question."

I reviewed Hansard and the minister's response was, "My staff has thoroughly examined the contract and have assured me that it was publicly tendered and awarded in accordance with the ministry's procedures." Some investigation.

My question to the minister is, when will you make this investigation public? When can we look through these files? I have a number of bits of information here that certainly cause concern for me, and I'm certain for the people in the province. When can we air this out? How come this happened? How come they got the job? How come they were pulled off? How come we paid $13,000 we had no responsibility to pay? How did they get on the job site without any workers' compensation liability insurance etc?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question?

Mr Stockwell: Can we expect the public inquiry information to be made public very shortly?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): I think the member and I have danced to this tune before. Let me just give him some of the new words. I mentioned last week that I had no connection whatsoever before, during or after with the letting of that tender. I also said that my staff had also done all their work in accordance with procedure. I reiterate that today. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the tendering process.

Upon investigation and subsequent inquiry, I have found that my staff worked to the letter in accordance with procedure. As far as the investigation is concerned, I am quite satisfied that there was no wrongdoing whatever among my staff, and of course not with myself, but --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Stockwell: I'm happy the minister is quite satisfied. The difficulty is, Mr Minister, that I'm not satisfied, nor I think would a number of other people be if they review the documents.

The suggestion has been made that this was in accordance with government rules and regulations. I put to the minister it is not. You're not allowed to take a tender in this province without supplying your WCB number, certificate etc. You need liability insurance and you need to post a 10% bid bond. You need to do a lot of things that didn't happen on this tender.

Now, the question to the minister is: These things didn't take place. Sir, this is not in accordance with your rules, admitted by your own staff. You, sir, have admitted yourself that "somebody played Santa Claus here and I need to get to the bottom of it." When will you make this information public so we can decide whether or not it was acceptable? Quite frankly, sir, I don't think you're capable of doing that on your own.

Hon Mr Wilson: Let me put it this way to the member: If you would like very much to have a personal, private briefing with my staff on the subject, where everything can be laid before you, I will arrange that, after which --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: You heard my offer, sir -- after which, I will say to you now, we will have another discussion on this subject and I'm sure you will agree with the facts laid before you. In any case, put up or shut up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Cochrane South.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question est pour le ministre des Collèges et Universités. Est-ce qu'on peut avoir un peu de silence dans la Chambre, s'il vous plaît ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would certainly be helpful if all members in the House would attempt to use temperate language both when asking questions and when responding. The member for Cochrane South has the floor.

1500

COLLÈGES DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Cette question-ci fait affaire avec les collèges, et avant de commencer la question -- ça fait assez longtemps qu'on essaie de faire avancer le dossier et que nous attendons nos collèges. Je souhaite que les interventions ne vont pas prendre de délai sur ma question autant qu'on voit.

La question est pour le ministre des Collèges et Universités. On sait que dernièrement il y a eu la réunion annuelle de l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario à Ottawa. Je n'ai pas eu la chance d'assister à cette conférence-là, mais j'ai rencontré beaucoup de personnes dans ma communauté qui sont beaucoup intéressées concernant la question de la création des collèges. Pouvez-vous donner un compterendu : à quel point sommes-nous rendus concernant ce qui s'est passé avec le congrès de l'ACFO ?

L'hon Richard Allen (ministre des Collèges et Universités) : Comme le député de Cochrane-Sud l'a mentionné, j'ai bien signalé cette fin de semaine à l'assemblée annuelle de l'ACFO que le Conseil des ministres de l'Ontario a pris une décision très importante touchant la proposition pour élargir le réseau des collèges francophones en Ontario.

J'ai également profité de cette occasion pour souligner que ce projet pourra voir le jour seulement si le Conseil des ministres fédéral donne son appui pour le partage des coûts de ce projet-là.

M. Bisson : Pour la deuxième partie de la question : je sais que je pousse un peu, mais jusqu'à quel point peut-on s'attendre à ce qu'on ait une annonce faisant affaire avec ce dossier très important, que je suis sûr que tous les députés de l'Assemblée sont intéressés à connaître.

L'hon M. Allen : Comme je l'ai déjà signalé, nous serons en mesure de faire l'annonce formelle de l'accord entre les deux gouvernements, le provincial et le fédéral, sur ce dossier aussitôt que possible, aussitôt que le Cabinet fédéral aura pris sa décision.

Cependant, je peux vous dire que le secrétaire d'État, M. de Cotret, s'est montré très sensible à ce dossier. Il travaille très fort et sans relâche sur ce dossier en ce moment pour avoir l'appui de son Cabinet fédéral. Aussitôt que possible, quand nous aurons une décision fédérale il sera possible d'avoir une annonce officielle.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Solicitor General. Mr Solicitor General, you'd agree that nothing in the Stephen Lewis report was in any way new. In 1989, the independent Race Relations and Policing Task Force, headed by Clare Lewis, submitted to the then Solicitor General a report containing 57 specific recommendations on improving the relationship between minority communities and the police services. Of the 57 recommendations, 56 were implemented by the government of the day, the Liberal government, including the establishment of a special investigative unit, improved race relations training for police services and legislated mandatory employment equity in police services.

Stephen Lewis, in his recent report on race relations, made a number of specific recommendations concerning policing and race relations. Will the Solicitor General today make a commitment to ensure that all of these recommendations are fully implemented?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I agree with the member opposite that the report has been a very valuable report and is one that requires immediate attention. I believe the Premier will be making certain comments with respect to that report tomorrow, and I as well intend to make a statement to the House with respect to some of the provisions of the report the member opposite referred to, more specifically in terms of code of conduct and the use of force, which were items that will be delineated by regulation under the Police Services Act and which I believe as well flowed from the recommendations of the original Lewis task force.

Mr Curling: It's unfortunate that it took Stephen Lewis to tell you the things that should be done. You say you were waiting on Stephen Lewis and that he made some rather important recommendations. These recommendations were made a long time ago. I'm asking specifically, as 56 of those 57 were implemented, will you do that?

Two years ago the Police Services Act was passed in this Legislature. Two years later we are still waiting for the Solicitor General to introduce regulations to this act on such important matters as the use of force by the police and police training. I recall that your previous Solicitor General had promised to do so.

Last year the ability of the special investigations unit to conduct independent investigation was severely compromised as a result of a private agreement between the police chiefs and the SIU, which you all denied when I raised that point last year. One year later the public is still waiting for this protocol to be revoked and replaced by new operating procedures which will allow the unit to fulfil its mandate.

What assurance can you, Mr Solicitor General, then give us that these issues will be acted upon immediately? Given this relative inaction on these matters to date, can you tell us why the public should now believe you?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The Police Services Act was changed some time ago, I believe when the members opposite were in power. However, the regulations that were to be delineated never happened under that government. We certainly are trying to do just that, particularly the ones the member mentioned in terms of use of force and code of conduct which have been under active consideration for many months in the ministry and will be brought forward tomorrow.

Secondarily, the member mentioned the SIU and he wondered if I could bring some immediate report with respect to the protocol he mentioned. I can do better than bring him an immediate response and action to that. I can advise him that the work's already done. The new protocol has been written, stakeholders have been brought in, it's been reviewed with them, it has been given to police forces. It is in fact the order of the day and in use right today, and has been. The member's information, I'm sorry, is badly lacking and outdated.

1510

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last Thursday Jim Thomas, the Deputy Minister of Labour, hosted a meeting with 60 American senior business leaders in Detroit. Automobile manufacturers were strongly represented at this meeting. That same day, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, you stated that you did not believe the changes outlined in Bill 40 would have a negative impact on jobs and investment in Ontario. If that is the official position of the NDP government, why was the Deputy Minister of Labour in Detroit?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the answer to that is fairly obvious. We have been in the process of consulting, not only through the process of our paper but also since, with all the various groups that might be interested in the new legislation in Ontario and some of the outside business people.

Mrs Witmer: If your government is so sure that Bill 40 is not going to have a negative impact on jobs and investment, is not going to affect just-in-time delivery in the automotive sector and is not going to affect the viability of Canadian branch plants, I am sure you would not have rushed the deputy minister down to the United States to reassure American investors. I have been told that despite the deputy minister's best efforts the reaction from the American executives was overwhelmingly negative.

Minister, is it not time to admit that you have absolutely no idea what the true economic impact of your labour law changes will be? Is it not time to set up a tripartite committee to examine the economic impact of Bill 40? Don't tell me about the recently announced labour-management committee, because it does not have a mandate to examine Bill 40.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It seems to me to be fairly obvious that we're likely to have more effect, in terms of investment in the province, by some of the scare tactics coming from across the way. If we have not made a clear decision that one of the things we have to do in this province is to involve workers themselves in the decisions that are made, we're certainly not going to compete in today's world markets.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is for the Solicitor General concerning Sunday openings. I've had a lot of calls in my office from retailers in malls and franchise stores asking whether mall management or franchise owners can force them to open on a Sunday if they wish to remain closed. Mr Minister, can you at least shed some light on this problem?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I think we had indicated a brief time ago in discussion with respect to this matter that the government does, through its legislation, provide protection for retailers and those who have franchise agreements. The government has every intention to protect those people to the extent that it can do so by legislation. I hope your constituents who have offered these concerns to you will be satisfied by the protection this bill and these amendments will bring.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. It's becoming increasingly clear that the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act as introduced by the Minister of Labour are not reflected in the minister's statement to this Legislature and the press releases on this same subject matter.

The Minister of Labour indicated in his statement that agriculture was not included. In fact, his own press release on the OLRA changes stated, "No further changes will be made to the agricultural exclusion until the government has had an opportunity to study the agricultural task force report to be released later this month." But in the minister's own legislation as introduced on that same day, subsection 4(2) states that the act does apply to a person employed in such class of agricultural or horticultural operations as may be prescribed by regulation. So not only do agricultural workers appear to be included under the OLRA changes, but the rules for farm employees can be changed by regulation outside the scrutiny of the House.

Can the minister tell the House why agricultural workers are included in the changes to the OLRA even though the minister has said they were not? Why did you, Mr Minister, not wait for the results of your own task force before deciding on a course of action?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): As I've said, we haven't decided on a course of action. The placeholders are there so that when we get the report, which should be down in a matter of days now, we can make a move if we so decide.

Mr Offer: I will only ask the minister if he might take some time to read his own legislation, which states, notwithstanding what you just said now, that the act does apply to members of the agricultural and horticultural operations, and you have done so by regulation.

I ask you to clearly indicate why you have made this type of statement. In other words, because you have done it by regulation, members will not get the chance to debate the inclusion of agricultural workers in these changes. The minister -- you -- can decide how to treat this industry without justifying these moves to the House. Can the minister explain to the House why you've decided to amend the agricultural worker provisions by regulation and not by legislation? Why did you decide to take away from the Legislature the right to examine labour changes in the farm sector? Mr Minister, by your own amendments you have already included agricultural workers.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No. What we really wanted was an intensive consultation, which we've been carrying out with the agricultural community.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a question for the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and also the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): And the minister of garbage.

Mr Cousens: And the minister of garbage. It can only be called a green betrayal. First you introduced Bill 143 without serious public consultation. Then you tried to ram it through the Legislature. Then you ignore worthwhile amendments put forth in public hearings. Finally you refused to release the landfill site list until Bill 143 was passed. As a result, thousands of people are now facing the very real possibility of having a 40-million-tonne landfill site in their community.

Property values throughout the greater Toronto area are dropping. New additions to people's homes, swimming pools and construction that they would put into their homes in those communities are being put on hold. New construction will slow down. You have dropped a garbage bomb. Who would have thought that a government elected on the premise of improving consultation between the people and the government and one that would uphold the environment as sacred could betray its people so callously? Now the people in those towns and villages near the 57 possible sites would like to know what they can do to save their communities from having a landfill site in them.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I'd be glad to respond to that because I certainly can understand the concern those communities and those people feel when they are identified as being on a list of candidate sites by the Interim Waste Authority. I'm glad to be able to say to the member that they will have every opportunity to participate. That's precisely why the Interim Waste Authority was created: to have a fair and open process. Community information centres are open. Opportunities for participation, review of the technical documents for evaluation and comment on the criteria that the Interim Waste Authority will use to move from the long list to the short list to the preferred site are and must be open, participative and consultative. People have to participate to make sure it is a fair and open process. I know they will and I know they will be welcomed and encouraged to do so.

Mr Cousens: They'll participate all right and they're going to participate as much as they can. Unfortunately the Interim Waste Authority offices are not necessarily where the people are and they're not necessarily open when people want to go to them. The one in Stouffville is closed till Thursday, I hear, and then when you invite the Interim Waste Authority to come to a public meeting it won't even come.

Aside from that, the question I really want to ask has to do with the fact that you've dropped an environmental bomb in every community across the greater Toronto area and you are also the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. You have a responsibility for the total growth and needs of that community. Our communities are now saying, "Something's gone wrong." It's so serious that they just don't know what to do about it, and your answer is "public participation."

I want to ask you, Madam Minister, why, when you set up the regional consultation network, you didn't even have representatives in it for York region from the communities involved. You've got someone from Etobicoke, your area, but there isn't someone from Unionville, Sharon or Schomberg when you've got sites in Durham --

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

Mr Cousens: -- and you've got people left out from Whitevale. The people in the greater Toronto area would like to know how you and the Interim Waste Authority came about deciding who would sit on the regional consultation networks.

Hon Mrs Grier: I can't answer that question. It was decided by the Interim Waste Authority and I know that people who wish to participate have merely to so indicate to the Interim Waste Authority and deal with it with respect to that issue.

1520

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. Last week I held a press conference and meetings in my riding about the location of seven landfill sites around the town of Whitevale. As I pointed out last week, the difference was that instead of being arbitrary and underhanded in doing it behind closed doors, as the Liberals did, this one is being done through a process. One of the questions that did come up in these meetings was about Kirkland Lake. My constituents would like to know why Kirkland Lake isn't an option for Durham.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say that I know how difficult it is for the constituents of the honourable member and that I really appreciate the very strong statement this member made to his community last week, encouraging it to participate in the process that's been set up by the Interim Waste Authority.

What I want to say to him in response to his question, "Why not Kirkland Lake?" is that there is a basic flaw in the thinking of those who say it is easy to go to Boston township near Kirkland Lake and have an environmental assessment of going to Kirkland Lake.

The two things don't jibe. The environmental assessment process doesn't start with a preferred site; it works towards finding a preferred site, which is exactly what the Interim Waste Authority is doing within the greater Toronto area. If you were to examine sites all across the province it would not be simply Kirkland Lake; it would be Plympton, Marmora, Nottawasaga and all the others that were previously on the list.

Second, environmentally, shipping waste all across this province does not lead us towards a conserver society and does not encourage the three Rs.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Markham is asked to come to order.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary has to do with the whole question of transportation of waste by rail. Some of my residents, in Pickering in particular, see this as a possible solution that could help them and the railway industry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will ask the member for Markham once again if he will come to order.

Mr Wiseman: I think my constituents have every right to hear a question in this House that they put to me, whether or not I know the answer, and have every right to have --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Wiseman: -- the ministers of this government be responsive to what their questions are without having to be interfered with --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr Wiseman: -- or lectured to by the hypocrisy of the Tory Party, especially that member.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. I asked the member twice if he would place his supplementary. If you have a supplementary, please place it quickly.

Mr Wiseman: I will do that. Some of my residents in my community see the possibility of rail haul as a solution to the problem. They would like a detailed explanation or any kind of explanation they can receive to explain what the rationale is for not using rail haul. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind and courteous attention.

Hon Mrs Grier: I know the question of rail haul of waste around the province was raised again last week at a press conference that was sponsored by the development company that has an interest in ensuring that the waste in the greater Toronto area goes to northern Ontario.

Rail haul is a very efficient way to travel, but the problem is that hauling waste around the province is not a very efficient way of dealing with waste. What we have to do to deal with waste is get serious about reducing, reusing and recycling, and that won't happen as long as we create ever bigger and bigger holes farther and farther away from where the waste is generated.

In response to that press conference, I'd like to quote to the member a release that was issued by a group in Kirkland Lake, which said, "Long-distance rail haul of garbage has greatly to do with billions of dollars in profits and very little to do with the problem of overproduction of garbage." They went on to say, "It is in the interests of a long-distance rail haul system that society produce more waste in order to generate more profits for hauling that waste."

That's precisely the kind of approach this government has not supported and it's precisely the reason we have not seen rail haul of waste as an adequate way to deal with the crisis within the GTA.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Solicitor General. Last month I asked the Solicitor General if he would establish a public inquiry into the events of the former Grandview Training School For Girls. In his response to me the minister said that the establishment of an inquiry was, in his words, "somewhat premature." I would like to ask the minister if there perhaps is another reason for his delay.

As Solicitor General the minister is responsible for the police and for their investigations into this complex matter. He is also responsible for the office of the coroner and for the Ministry of Correctional Services, both of which are being investigated. Many members of this Legislature and the public are asking how it is possible for this minister to be impartial when he, as Solicitor General, is the member of the executive council responsible for at least two other branches of the government being investigated: corrections and the office of the coroner.

Mr Minister, you are responsible for both investigators and those being investigated. You appear to be in a serious conflict of interest. Mr Minister, do you not believe that under these very delicate circumstances of an appearance of a conflict of interest the only fair and impartial resolution to this matter is to call for an independent provincial public inquiry?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): In the words of the member's own question, it is indeed a complex issue; with that I agree. I believe the Ministry of Correctional Services has cooperated fully, notwithstanding that all the files have long since left that ministry. There is not any particular active investigation or participation there and those files have gone to the public archivist. One of my colleagues, the Honourable Karen Haslam, addressed that question, I believe, in the House a week or two ago.

In terms of the Solicitor General aspect of it, the investigation continues through the regional police in that particular area. I am hopeful and encouraged that all of the information will come out when the investigations are completed and that everyone will be well satisfied with the conduct of the investigation. I don't particularly see that there's any conflict beyond an appearance of two ministries I represent, when one looks at the factual participation of those respective ministries.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's really a point of personal privilege. During the weeks following Christmas and the passing of second reading of Bill 143 a committee was struck to review all aspects of that bill, and for four weeks we had public hearings. During that period of time we heard from people who favour and oppose -- more people were opposed -- Bill 143. One of the members on that committee was the member for Durham West, Mr Jim Wiseman, who voted with the NDP bloc on all issues in support of abolishing consideration of the rail haul option, which is the question he asked today, and he voted against every amendment put forward by ourselves.

Now what we're seeing in the Legislature is the same member who was on that committee who voted with the government on the government side coming along and asking questions that were all answered at that time in committee. Why is it that he has to waste the time of this member of the House when he had a chance to ask those questions in committee for four weeks and he asks the question today?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Markham: He would know that every member of the House, whether that member serves on a committee or not, unless the person is a member of the executive council, has the opportunity, when recognized by the Speaker, to place a question during question period. The placing of questions has nothing to do with the member's participation in committees of the House.

1530

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have stood on this item before and asked for your intervention. Today I'm pleased to say that you did allow an extension of question period because of certain things happening. But I note that on two occasions ministers of the crown, in responding to members of the opposition, and sometimes to interjections -- and I understand interjections are out of order -- have used language that in my own view offends standing order 16, which talks about the place being brought to grave disorder.

I believe that in those two cases we consumed almost six minutes of question time. In fact, it is my opinion that with the outburst of the member for Durham West it probably contributed to somewhere close to seven or eight minutes' worth of question period time.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry; I can't be heard over the yelling. It seems to me that the language which has been chosen by the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Government Services, together with the member for Durham West, has been designed to bring in some extra debate from the opposition benches, in fact using up the time and offending against the placing of questions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the member for Bruce conclude his point of order.

Mr Elston: I will conclude very quickly, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that this sort of strategy, placed to eliminate the time to have the questions has been effective. It has brought us from usually having six questions, two leader's questions and four questions here from the backbench, if I can describe it as that, of the Liberal Party to a point where we very seldom now get the third question asked. It has been consuming time and it has also been moving the question period to such an extent that when the Premier leaves this place, which he does regularly now at 3 o'clock, we are unable to place our questions to him, he not wanting to answer. It's up to him, but at least he's here when we place some of the early questions.

If it is the design, and it looks that way to me, of the government to prevent us from asking our questions in a timely fashion, or even indeed asking those questions at all, I think you ought to intervene and protect us against those types of shenanigans from the government.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, a couple of observations: First of all, with respect to the language that was heard in this chamber today, I must report sadly that provocative language came from both sides of the House.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Not from this side.

The Speaker: I am not referring to any specific member, but clearly provocative language was heard on both sides of the chamber.

There's no question that intemperate and provocative language causes disruption to the point where we must halt the proceedings, and that indeed, as the member has pointed out, takes away time that otherwise could be used by members for asking questions.

I will add that he will know that I watch the clock very closely. Today, when the turn came for the government side there was ample time, in the view of the Speaker, for both that question and another question. As the member will know, while we have a time clock, the Speaker sees the clock. I note with interest that today we did manage 14 questions in total, which is the average number of questions this House can normally accomplish when the questions are put speedily and there is a response in a speedy fashion as well.

But his point is well taken, and what will be of assistance to all the members is if everyone could resist the temptation of using provocative language. I understand his point full well and I think the concern he raised was recognized today by the Speaker.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It has to do with a specific word that was in fact used. The word "hypocrisy" has been known to be unparliamentary when it has been used. I know you could not have failed to hear it -- you should have heard it anyway -- when the member for Durham West used it to describe the Conservative Party in his preamble to his last supplementary. I know that it had also been used by another member, but clearly the statement by the member for Durham West would be recorded in Hansard since he was given the floor.

Is it your view now, Mr Speaker, with respect to that word that if it is used to describe a political party as opposed to a member, it is parliamentary to use that word in this place when a member has the floor? If not, I would ask that you invite the member for Durham West, who is now here with us, to withdraw that comment and correct that record.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, there are two items here. No, first, I did not hear the precise words. I trust the member will appreciate that there seemed to be a number of other voices that were operating at the same time. He is partially right. The term "hypocrisy" or to be "hypocritical" or to be a "hypocrite": It depends on the precise usage of the word. It depends on how it's used as to whether or not it can be deemed to be unparliamentary at the time, so it depends on each and every situation. As has been my custom, if there is something which has been said which offends someone on the other side of the House, or indeed any other member of the House even within the same caucus, and the Speaker has not heard it, I then certainly invite the member to acknowledge what has been said and withdraw it.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This is a really interesting discussion that we're having here about the use of the word "hypocrisy." I remember having used the phrase some time earlier on in my career here, at which point the Speaker ruled that it was not acceptable to use it. Then a little while later on one of the members from the official opposition used it. I rose on a point of order in the House and asked the Speaker under what circumstances it was acceptable or unacceptable to use the word. The ruling at that point was that in the context the member used it, it was not unparliamentary at that time.

That has created some confusion in the whole discussion around the use of the word because it has been used a number of times in the House. I would agree with the solicitation from the members opposite as to under what circumstances it would be unparliamentary to use it, and should, Mr Speaker, the ruling indicate that I used it in an unparliamentary way at that time, I would be more than willing to withdraw it but I would like some clarification from you.

The Speaker: I do not propose at this moment to go into a discussion about the use of particular words. If the member may wish to visit my office at some point, I'd be more than pleased to discuss it with him. He was simply given an opportunity, that if he felt he said something which offended the other side, to withdraw it. I take it the member is not prepared to do that. It is time for motions.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm rising to seek your advice and direction under standing order 32(a). If I might just, sir, quote the opening words of section 32(a) dealing with oral question period, it reads as follows: "The oral question period shall be limited to 60 minutes, including supplementary questions and points of order. Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to the ministers of the crown but the Speaker shall disallow any question which he or she does not consider urgent or of public importance." It's on that last phrase, sir, that I seek your direction and advice under that standing order.

If I might just, sir, point out that over the course of the past week, if you just take the Hansards for the past week, there have been several questions asked by members of the government caucus directed to ministers in the government caucus which I would submit to you, sir, do not come within the heading of being of "urgent public importance." For example, there was a question delivered by, I guess it was, Mr Mills on June 4 to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Ms Haslam, which provided an opportunity for the minister to in effect make a minister's statement.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What ministry?

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry, did I get the minister wrong? It was the Minister of Culture and Communications.

1540

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member quickly get to his point of order.

Mr Sorbara: Well, sir, to argue the point if you'll indulge me for just a moment, we had the same situation today from the member for Durham-York, directing a question to the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for the GTA. We had a similar question on, I think the date was Wednesday, June 10, this time from Mr Hansen directed to Ms Gigantes in her capacity as Minister of Housing.

My point is simply this: I would not argue, sir, that government members ought not to be allowed to ask questions, to put questions to ministers in question period. Certainly if you examine the standing orders, as I have on this case, there is every indication that all members ought to have a right to place questions to ministers who are here in the House. But, sir, if government members are simply putting questions to ministers in order to take up some of the 60 minutes allotted to question period, then I think you, sir, have an opportunity and indeed I would suggest to you a responsibility to intervene to ensure that that part of the standing order which says: "The Speaker shall" -- it's not may -- "The Speaker shall disallow any question which he or she does not consider to be urgent or of public importance" -- now if I might just --

The Speaker: No. I understand what the member is attempting to do.

There are a number of points here. First of all, if any member of the House feels a question is being asked which is not of public importance, that is a point of order and should be raised immediately. Second, I believe the member would agree that it is extremely difficult for the Speaker to determine what is not of public importance.

Third, and finally, the member will know that the standing orders prescribe a rotation by three parties for the purpose of asking questions. Once the question has been placed, provided it satisfies the criteria of being of public importance, then the question must be allowed. I appreciate the concern the member raises, and indeed I'm sure that all members want to bring to this chamber, through their own vetting system -- as I understand it -- each of the caucuses' questions which are of importance to them and trustfully to their constituents.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to mention that there's an informational picket line, as all know, at the east doors of this building. We're gathering tomorrow afternoon at 1 o'clock to show some solidarity for the striking workers at The Toronto Star. We hope many people come out. Mr Speaker, much to my better judgement, I'd like to see Derek Ferguson back to work.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): That is not a point of order, although certainly a point of information for all members.

PETITIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

Mr Speaker, that petition is two pages in length. It has been signed by, I guess, something in the area of 35 or 40 people and those individuals are individuals who are employed with ITT Fluid Products Canada, located in Guelph at 55 Royal Road. I sign my name to this petition.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to table a petition signed by concerned constituents from my riding of Oakville South which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to legalize casino gambling in Ontario to increase provincial revenue."

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Waste Management Corp is proposing to build and operate a huge centralized toxic waste incinerator at a landfill site in the heart of Ontario's fruit land;

"Whereas toxic waste must be treated at the source because transportation of such huge volumes of toxic waste on our highways is suicidal,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to change the mandate and directions being promoted by this crown corporation."

I also have another petition to the Legislature of Ontario on a scroll of over 700 feet long, with more than 6,000 names of residents of Niagara against locating, by the OWMC, a toxic waste facility in Lincoln. The large size of this petition shows the large opposition to the OWMC locating in Lincoln.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I want to remind all members that demonstrations within the chamber are out of order. I would like you to remember that, please.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition which has been signed by representatives from 68 organizations, including the Metro Children's Aid Society, the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, the Metro Tenants Legal Services and the Scarborough Housing Work Group plus 64 other organizations.

"Whereas there is a shortage of affordable rental housing units in Ontario; and

"Whereas this shortage most affects individuals and groups facing discrimination and social and economic disadvantage, for example, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants and refugees, first nations people, women, gay men and lesbians, seniors, youth, single parents, people with children, people with disabilities, psychiatric survivors and people on social assistance; and

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Code affirms that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, handicap or receipt of social assistance, which is section 2(1), and that any policy or factor which results in the exclusion of people who come within the prohibited grounds of discrimination is illegal; and

"Whereas people who cannot afford to buy a house are often excluded from the lower-density neighbourhoods which are generally well served by community, educational and recreational services; and

"Whereas many thousands of home owners in all municipalities across Ontario have created additional units in their homes that have not changed the quality of life in their neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas tenants in such illegal units are not guaranteed the legal rights and protections that tenants in legal units have, therefore creating two classes of tenants; and

"Whereas zoning is only supposed to control land use, in practice it has excluded members of disadvantaged groups from living in many neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas such zoning practices are exclusionary and are a violation of the rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario agreed to article XI of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a treaty signed by Canada and 96 other nations, which recognizes that housing is one of the fundamental human rights, an aspect of which is the right not to be discriminated against in housing choice and location;

"We therefore petition the government of Ontario, in particular the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Citizenship responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Code, to immediately put an end to this widespread violation of human rights across the province by amending the Planning Act so as to require all municipalities to permit the creation of additional rental units that meet health and safety standards in neighbourhoods zoned for single-family housing."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

1550

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition signed by 176 citizens of the province of Ontario, most of whom live in London and Middlesex county. It is organized by Ruth Woods, the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Committee. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario, believe the Constitution of any genuinely democratic society truly belongs to its people, and that our views on any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard, and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians,

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

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution, and/or any amendments thereto, will mean to each of us, and then make provision for a final 'say' by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

I've signed my signature to this petition, and I will forward it to the Clerk of the House.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING COOPERATIVE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from 222 tenants of Twin Elms Estates -- that represents over 96% of all residents there -- who petition as follows: that they are not in favour of the non-profit cooperative being formed by the owner of Twin Elms Estates under the name of Elmbrook Non-Profit Co-operative Homes Inc. The tenants believe there has been no shown benefit to them, financial or otherwise. There has been no meeting or proposed meeting for these tenants to join this association. This is in contravention of an agreement of understanding dated and signed at London, Ontario, on 16 October 1991. The tenants request that the Minister of Financial Institutions dissolve the Elmbrook non-profit cooperative.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

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

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario, believe the Constitution of any genuinely democratic society truly belongs to its people and that our views on any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians,

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

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution, and/or any amendments thereto, will mean to each of us, and then make provision for a final 'say' by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

I too have signed my signature to this.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I have a petition signed by 198 honest, hardworking citizens of Brantford. The petition is against Sunday shopping.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at municipal levels; and

"Whereas the current government disputes its self-serving select committee and intends to encourage increased use of French in the courts, schools and other provincial services to ensure that the French Language Services Act is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations etc to comply not only with the written but also the unwritten intent of the French Language Services Act; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education, the French-language school board,

"We, the undersigned, request that the French Language Services Act be repealed and its artificial structures dismantled immediately and English be declared as the official language of Ontario in governments, its institutions and services."

I will affix my name to this petition, but I do not support it.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here signed by a number of residents within my constituency.

"We, the residents of land-leased communities, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt that the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and to take action to bring forward legislation and the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel that the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on resales of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents where long-term leases fall under the rent review legislation,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report on land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live in land-leased communities."

It's been signed by the Martins, McElroys and the Perrys, and I affix my name to this as well as many others.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY / ÉQUITÉ D'EMPLOI

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): This petition is in reaction to the layoff of 85 francophone employees.

«Étant donné que la seule école provinciale de langue française disparaît après 20 ans d'existence ; et

«Étant donné que 85 francophones perdent leur emploi sans aucune possibilité de réintégration sur le marché du travail, bien que ce groupe soit déjà sous-représenté au sein de la fonction publique »;

"Whereas the majority of positions designated bilingual are occupied by non-francophones, the French Language Services Act is consequently being applied under false pretences;

"Whereas the NDP has no intention of recognizing francophones within the employment equity legislation, francophones are consequently artificially treated as a target group within the Ontario public service;"

«Étant donné qu'il y a une montée évidente d'un sentiment antifrancophone au sein du secrétariat du Conseil de gestion, qui doit faire preuve de leadership à tous les niveaux de la fonction publique ontarienne.»

Mr Speaker, I have signed the petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition signed by 141 citizens from Coldwater, London, Wheatley and Keswick, Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I signed this, Mr Speaker, and I'll put a date on it too and send it to you, and I hope it gets to the government.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1600

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, perhaps you can help me; I'm not sure if it's a point of order or privilege. On page 50 of the Orders and Notices section published today, questions 382 and 383 were questions that were placed by myself, the first one to the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the flight plans, including passenger lists, costs etc, of Ministry of Natural Resources aircraft, and the second to the Solicitor General with the same request for information for Ontario Provincial Police aircraft.

These two questions were filed in accordance with the standing order 95(a) and were properly printed in time. The ministers in question are allotted under section 95(d), where it says:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

There's no remedy for a minister refusing to follow section 95(d) in response to those questions. The 14 days have expired. I've had no indication. I've not had a refusal. My questions have simply been ignored by both ministers. I look to you for some direction as to how I can get a response, either that they are refusing to answer, and in such case it would be noted in the Orders and Notices section that they have refused to answer, or that they need more time. I'm quite prepared to give them more time if there is some delay, but I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage and feel that my privileges are being violated by the two ministers. I look for your direction.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member does have a valid point of order. The time limits have gone beyond prior to an answer. I would advise the two ministers responsible to please take note and act accordingly.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SHER-BASSIN GROUP INC ACT, 1992

Mr White moved first reading of Bill Pr30, An Act to revive The Sher-Bassin Group Inc.

Motion agreed to.

DROP THE PENNY ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'ABANDON DES PIÈCES D'UN CENT

Mr Sterling moved first reading of Bill 66, An Act respecting the rounding of the Penny in Cash Transactions / Loi prévoyant l'arrondissement des sommes dans les opérations au comptant.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections: No.

The Acting Speaker: I heard some nays.

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Does the honourable member for Carleton have some brief remarks pertaining to his bill?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Yes. I wish the Speaker would let me get my two cents' worth in here.

I rise today to introduce a private member's bill entitled Drop the Penny Act, 1992. As its title suggests, this act would create a new acceptable business practice respecting cash transactions by requiring cash amounts for goods and services to be rounded up or down to the nearest nickel, thereby relieving us of the burden of carrying, counting and rolling pennies.

This bill provides that businesses be permitted to round the total amount owing in cash transactions, including all taxes, to the nearest multiple of five cents. Transactions within financial institutions are exempted from the requirement. Businesses which notify the public by posting a sign that they do not round cash amounts are exempted from the requirement. A customer charged a rounded amount would be required to pay that amount, be it to his advantage or disadvantage. However, a person may request at the beginning of the transaction that the total not be rounded.

I believe the penny has become little more than a public nuisance in our day-to-day business transactions, and Ontarians would appreciate no longer having to contend with them. Some will immediately claim that this matter lies within the federal jurisdiction, and they would be correct if my goal was to ban the usage of the penny. However, it is possible for the province of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly to permit a business practice of rounding up or down to the nearest nickel in a cash transaction.

INVESTIGATION INTO THE HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO RADON IN INDOOR AIR ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES EFFETS SUR LA SANTÉ D'EXPOSITION AU RADON DANS L'AIR À L'INTÉRIEUR DES BÂTIMENTS

Mr Elston moved first reading of Bill 67, An Act to require the Minister of the Environment to direct an Investigation into the Deleterious Human Health Effects of Exposure to Radon in Indoor Air / Loi enjoignant au ministre de l'Environnement d'ordonner une enquête déterminant les effets néfastes du radon existant dans l'air à l'intérieur de bâtiments sur la santé des humains qui y sont exposé.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Just very briefly, I know that this just deals with the issue of indoor air, but I thought, in putting forward the bill, that we should study the effects of radon in this context first. I know there is a much bigger issue, and my colleague the member for Cochrane South is about to come and discuss with me the issue in mines. But I wanted to bring to the attention of all of the members of the House and the people in the public that this issue should be at least addressed in some small way to begin with, and then we will have a place perhaps to start with the bigger issue around radon gas and its effects on human health. In my view, this is just the beginning.

1610

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Mrs Coppen moved, on behalf of Mr Cooke, government notice of motion number 8, pursuant to standing order 6(b):

That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on June 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24 and 25, 1992, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Did the honourable member have comments on this motion?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I beg the indulgence of the members of the House on this point of order, but I do require some clarification, particularly in light of the motion that has just been moved to extend our sitting hours from 6 until midnight for the balance of this session.

My point of order relates to that provision in the standing orders which provides that no government bill that is introduced in the final two weeks of the session may be called forward by the government for second reading. In other words, to simplify the matter, if a bill is introduced today by the government, being that we are now in the final two weeks of this session, that bill cannot be called for second reading. I understand the purpose of that rule --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I do not believe the honourable member has a point of order. He certainly has a point of debate.

Mr Sorbara: If you might just indulge me for a moment, sir, what I'm trying to find out from you is simply this: There has been some discussion about the fact that this Parliament might be invited by the government House leader to sit during the month of July. There's no provision in the standing orders for us to sit during the month of July. If a government bill is presented for first reading in the House today or in these last two weeks, I know the standing orders provide that it can't get second reading during the last two weeks.

I'm asking you, sir, to make a ruling that that bill cannot have second reading in the extended version of the last two weeks, which the government suggests might be coming forward, notwithstanding that it's also trying to get us to sit during the evening, pursuant to the motion that's before us.

My point of order is simply in the form of a question: If they introduce a bill today, are we allowed to debate that bill for second reading if we are required to sit here during the first, second, third or fourth week of July, or indeed during the month of August? That's possible. Apparently the government wants us to sit through a good part of the summer.

I think we need some direction now, a clear-cut determination from the Speaker that it would be improper and out of order to call a bill for second reading during July and August if it's introduced during these final two weeks. I'd like you to reflect on that, sir, and give us a ruling so that we can understand exactly what is going to be before us during the summer months.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for York Centre for bringing up a point of discussion. I do not believe it's a point of order. It's hypothetical at this point. We have not had any bills. Until such time as we do have bills come in during the last two weeks for second reading, at that particular point in time we can discuss and indeed arrive at, hopefully, a mutually agreeable understanding.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): If we are now ready to resume the debate on the motion, I'm prepared to speak, if that's now in order. Is that okay?

The Acting Speaker: I believe it's in order. I want to remind all members the clock is running.

Mr Elston: And the members are too, Mr Speaker. We are quite aware of the clock this afternoon. We have been up and going since 1:30 of the clock this afternoon. We welcome your attendance in the House to guide us expeditiously through this debate.

This is a notice of motion which is allowed under the standing orders, but I think, Mr Speaker, I should bring to your attention the question that I have in my mind right at the very start of my remarks about whether or not it is in order for the government to bring this motion forward today.

The reason I'm bringing this to you is that the nature of this standing order and the amendment brought were designed to allow the government of the day to expedite dealing with its business in the last eight days, so that it could clear off its list of bills it hadn't been able to get to when it had done what it could to expedite the carriage of the legislation through the House.

May I ask for order, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Yes. We have a lot of noise around the chamber, many conversations. The honourable member for Bruce is debating a very important motion. Please, I ask all members to come to order. The honourable member for Bruce has the floor.

Mr Elston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that the general business of the day requires people to leave and do other things, but today we're actually being asked to do something unusual under the standing orders. I was rising, first of all, to bring to your attention the fact that I believe there is some question of whether or not this motion is in order, even though it complies with the standing orders, on the basis that in order to have what is called in the legal field "clean hands" to come before Her Majesty's Legislative Assembly to move this, the government ought to be seen to have prosecuted its business with dispatch and with the diligence that is required of any reasonable parliamentary government.

Mr Speaker, I start by contending to you that this administration has done almost everything it can to frustrate the carrying out of the business of this place through various and sundry means of tactics which were designed to do what they ultimately did a week ago Thursday, and that is drop on the Orders and Notices paper the motion to unilaterally change the rules that govern the activities in this House. They complained that they were unable to get to their business. In one of the press releases which the government House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, dropped on the unsuspecting public on Monday following the Thursday motion to the table, he said that there were 121 bills that they had wished to have introduced for this session and that unfortunately they had been unable to get to their business.

Mr Speaker, I want to bring to your attention that up till the time when that had occurred only about 17 bills had been introduced, and of those fully 14 had been introduced between the dates of May 26 and June 4. We could not possibly have done the business, nor could we have even deliberated upon them in our caucuses, as is the way and the tradition in this place, to determine the reaction of each parliamentarian and each caucus to each of these bills.

Now, it's not as important for the people who are members of the New Democratic Party in this chamber to be able to go to caucus to talk about these bills, because any bill that is introduced in this place has been the product of the work of the executive council and the Premier of this august government. As a result, the backbenchers are told that they must support the bills, and support the bills they will, with maybe one or two very notable exceptions with respect to one or two very notable pieces of legislation.

But for us in the opposition who, when the bill is dropped on the table, see it for the very first time, the opportunity to have caucus on these matters, which occurs but once a week, on Tuesday morning of each week, is an important deliberation which will determine exactly how we proceed to get to the basis of any real criticism of the legislation.

Some people may think that the members of this House only have to go and sit in a corner someplace during caucus, read the bill through and then come up with their own conclusion about whether it is meritorious or not. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that in fact is not the way things are done for the opposition members of this House, and I dare say there are one or two members who are well known on the government side of the House for whom that is not the way of the world either. In fact, what we have to do when we first see a bill is not only to take it out to our party colleagues but also to reach out into the communities to ask the people for whom the legislation is being brought forward or, in some cases, against whom the legislation is being brought forward, what their reaction is, and what legal reaction there may be with respect to some of the provisions in the bills.

1620

There isn't a hope at all that the government of the day really wanted to bring 121 pieces of legislation forward. In fact, they could have done all that had they chosen to do so. They didn't do it; they brought, as we said, 17 bills forward to June 4 and since that time have brought forward two or three others just to make it look, as my colleague from Parry Sound described it, as if they were busy little beavers in this place in particular weeks.

It seems to me that what they have done is to hold back from the public the real world of New Democratic Party policy. In fact, they've probably even held that back from the provincial council. If I were to guess, do you know the reason why they didn't really start to introduce bills until May 26? I think they were quite concerned about the reaction of the provincial council. They really only wanted to talk about Sunday shopping, but if they had talked to them about a whole bunch of other bills they dropped on the table at that provincial council there would have been a scandalous outcome, probably a censure of the Premier, Bob Rae, by his own provincial council.

I know those people to be generally outspoken individuals and I'm sure the outspoken nature of their deliberations on Sunday shopping were extremely helpful to the Premier who, of course, came back after that weekend retreat and said, "Oh, I heard them all right, but it's my way or it's the doorway." It looks like the doorways on Sundays, according to the Premier, have been open despite the provincial council.

Mr Speaker, you might well ask yourself, what would have been the result had there been, along with the Sunday shopping legislation, a clear understanding of where the New Democrats were going for that provincial council meeting? My goodness, 121 pieces of legislation were referred to those women and men who make up the élite, the intelligentsia of the party, the very essence of the resolve to formulate socialist doctrine into policy to practically transform our dear Ontario into a socialist international refuge.

I could guess what they would have said had all 121 of the government's intended pieces of legislation -- maybe I should describe it as phantom legislation -- already been in Orders and Notices. Can you imagine some of the people in that provincial council coming forward and saying: "But Mr Premier, what is this? You're selling Consumers' Gas to the Brits? Mr Premier, you've let Massey-Ferguson go over to Buffalo. Mr Premier, what is left of your Agenda for People?"

I only go that route to begin with to say that not only was the Premier trying to prevent this body from deliberating upon its full and intended legislative scheme in this place, but also that he was trying to frustrate democracy inside the New Democratic Party. I should explain off the top that while I have a lot of very --

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Hot air.

Mr Elston: Yes, hot air; who knows what it is?

I have a lot of respect with regard to a lot of the thinking that has gone into a lot of the platforms that have been brought forward by the New Democrat Party from time to time. I admit fully up front to not being an adherent. In fact, I don't agree with a good bit of it, but most of it has been formulated after a fairly good deliberation has taken place, and they've got democratic forums in which that can take place. I was really interested in watching the Sunday shopping shenanigans retreat where the Premier said: "Well, I'm going to listen, but if I hear something I don't like that's their problem. I know what I'm doing and the stores are open."

Let me come back to where I was at. After the Premier has frustrated both that group and this group, he now comes to us to say he's got 121 pieces of legislation that he could not present in this House. I'm just telling you, with my version of the story, that he had no intention of introducing those bills. He had no intention of coming to do legislation in an orderly and reasonable fashion. Why? It is so that he can cast a veil over the way this place operates so that he can tell the people out in the public, the people who are watching this program today or the people who read the newspapers or anybody who gathers around the coffee tables throughout this province, that there's no work getting done here.

He didn't bring the work to this place. I asked last week, and you probably remember me posing the question to the government House leader, Mr Speaker: If you have 121 pieces of legislation, table the list. Let us, in this place, see if not the bills, at least the list of principles of the bills you want to bring so at least we can be prepared to start to deliberate on these things." Was that list forthcoming? The list was not forthcoming to this place. He would not share it with us.

The reason there was no sharing or intent to share that material with us in this House was so that he could frustrate our preparation, so that he could frustrate our outreach to the public, which would be affected by these pieces of legislation, so that the principles could not be found out, so that the principles could not be debated in our caucuses and so that he could put in front of the public the question, "Is this place working well?" and get the answer, "No, it can't be working well because you haven't passed very much legislation."

Before the meal can be had, the table must be set. The table, in this case, has not been beset with legislation. If anything, this has been the slowest time I have ever seen in my 11 years, with one small exception, and that was at the time when the then Premier, Mr Davis from Brampton, was deliberating, to a certain extent, with respect to his federal aspirations. At that point there was a slowdown. It was an understandable one and it was temporary, but it was really understandable.

From my point of view, while I regard the table officers as very able, I don't think they need to have had so much time off from reading bills in English and French in this House that their language skills would become rusty if they were pressed on a surprise to start reading these bills again. It's nice to have our table officers being able to participate on a routine basis and get to practise their skills day by day.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Murray, Murray.

Mr Elston: When I come back to the issue --

Mr Christopherson: Talk about a reach.

Mr Elston: There's somebody interrupting me, Mr Speaker. The member for Hamilton Centre, Mr Christopherson, wants to join the debate. In fact, I'm going to welcome him to join the debate about why his party is unilaterally moving to change the rules and why it is bringing forward this piece of government business to extend our sitting time so that we can deal not with legislation but with the government's unilateral attempt to change the very nature of the business in this place.

While I'm on my feet and am reminded of it, Bob Rae, although he can, at his peril, completely disregard what goes on at the provincial council of his party, wouldn't have the nerve to walk into that provincial council and say: "Ladies and gentlemen, women and men, boys and girls" -- whatever -- "I am bringing in a unilateral change to the New Democratic Party of this province because I don't want to listen to you very long. I don't want to have you raising the business you want to talk about. I want to do what I want to do. You better heave to or else you get a unilateral rule change." He wouldn't have done that to the New Democratic Party in this province. They wouldn't have stood for it.

Does he do it to our House here, the provincial council of all the people of the province? I was at an elementary school today in Wingham, where I used to live. I enjoy that. I enjoy going and speaking with the young people in this province for two reasons. I think they should be more interested in dealing with what we used to call social studies, Mr Speaker, when you and I might have been in elementary school, or civics as it was called a little bit later, or just in how we do business in this place.

I love to describe this really beautiful chamber to those young people who will be voting in maybe, most of them I guess, about seven or eight years, that this is but a council chamber, that this is but a provincial council chamber for all the people of the province to see and watch, to participate in through their members, so that they can have something to say about whatever it is that comes forward here.

Bob Rae wouldn't have changed his provincial council in his New Democratic Party, but he is changing the people's council chamber rules. He is dealing with the rights of the people who have elected me to represent them from Bruce, who have elected you from S-D-G & East Grenville -- how I wish it was still Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, but that's another matter, Mr Speaker.

1630

For me, the point of order is this: The Premier is asking us -- let's not play games, let's not say it's the government House leader; the government House leader only does the Premier's bidding -- but the Premier of this province has come to move this motion on us to have us sitting from 6 o'clock till 12 o'clock each evening because he wants us to be worn down, to be ground down under the boots of the people he has chosen to put his case until we are unable to stand, and withstand, the direct assault on the intelligence of the people -- for his own gain, the gain of his party. What is his gain? His gain in these last eight days is to have unilateral changes to the rules of the way this place does business.

Having gone through all that, I come to my point that I believe makes this out of order. After going through all of that, it seems clear to me that it is in order to use this motion, this government notice of motion 8 under standing order 6(b), only when the government had reasonably made effort to prosecute its business in the usual days provided for the government to do business.

When you deliberate upon that -- and I expect you at the end of the debate to come back with a decision about whether or not it is in order -- I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to reflect upon not only the foregoing that I have provided but also this piece of information: The government came back to this House fully one full month after it was scheduled to be here; not one week or two weeks, but a calendar month between the time we were originally scheduled to sit here in this place in March and when we ultimately came to our chairs here in April to listen to the speech from the throne, which is, as you know, supposed to be a story about the government's intention and a demonstration of resolve of will of its legislative scheme.

Mr Speaker, I regret to tell you that that full month could have been useful to us to go through a whole series of government bills. In fact, it could have helped us as private members to prosecute our business in this place, but the Premier made a real decision not to come back here. Why? Why did he not come back here? There are a couple of reasons. I believe it is the government's intention and the Premier's intention not to be in this House so that he does not have to be critically questioned by the people from our party, and -- enjoyably, and on a more frequent basis -- by the people from his own party who are becoming restless with the Premier's meanderings through the New Democratic Party policy manuals.

I have been taken by some of the very cutting questions from members of the government party. I applaud as well, not to leave any out, questions from the opposition benches, but in my 11 years, having seen a Conservative administration, a Liberal administration and now a New Democratic Party administration, there are few chances for backbench people to put their case unless the government is really running roughshod over them. In this case, the diligence with which the questions are being asked by the New Democratic Party backbenchers means to me they are not having a place to put their real questions in their caucuses, that they are not having time to make representations to their ministers, which really is surprising because this New Democratic Party administration came forward with the great credentials of being open to consultation, open and accessible to everybody. The work here by the backbench members in some of their questions obviously tells me that that has fallen by the way.

But there's another reason Mr Rae said he didn't want to come back to this place in March when we were scheduled to be here. He said he didn't want to come back because he didn't have all the ramifications of the federal budget well resolved in his own mind, so he didn't know what he could do. Anybody who knows anything about government, including almost all of us now in this House, I hope, knows full well that the knowledge of the staff in the executive council chambers and in the ministers' offices and, in particular, in the Premier's office, is such that they know what's going on in Ottawa, they know the ramifications of some of the steps taken by those federal people, whether we like them or not.

I suspect, Mr Speaker, even though you happen to be a member of a party which sits just to my left but dwells most assuredly to my right, that we don't always agree with what our federal colleagues do to us and for us. I remember a time, in fact, if I can digress just a moment, when my former leader, Mr Peterson, from London Centre, had mentioned something about someone being a millstone; that statement certainly rode heavily upon all of us for a long time. I might say it's been interesting to listen to the leader of the third party, someone who's come to describing himself as Brother Mike -- I find that exceptional -- and has noted with some great sense of pride that he disagrees with the Prime Minister of this great country when it comes to certain policies that are brought forward.

Mr Speaker, I can tell you that the Premier of Ontario has a lot more access to information in the federal bureaucracy and in the federal political parties down there than probably the opposition people do. And Mr Rae, although protesting that he didn't have enough information to prosecute his legislative agenda, had all kinds of it. He already knew there were going to be changes in the amount of transfers coming from Ottawa because we, as a Liberal administration, had been faced with those for a number of years prior to us losing office in 1990. How in the world can we let this fellow protest and keep us out of this place and play games with us when we know full well that he is possessive of the knowledge required to prosecute the business of the House?

What else is it that tells me that those two pieces of factual information, or at least my assumptions around the facts, are correct? Why should I assume that he was merely ducking out of questions and that he was pretending not to have federal information? He said the second, but I believe the first; because the gentleman who occupies the position of Premier of this province is rarely, if ever, in this Legislative Assembly so that people can actually put questions to him. Even on the days that he stays in his place for question period after he comes to make an important announcement, as he did today in this House, he rises and leaves the chamber almost without exception by 3 o'clock in the afternoon, even though he knows full well that question period is but 60 minutes every day and that there are routine proceedings which govern the way we carry on the business of this place.

But he gets up and walks out. Not only does he walk out of this chamber and leave us all, including his colleagues, but he takes with him the press. The press all go as well. He frustrates the backbench members who have come to ask the questions their people need to have answered if we are to prosecute our positions as members of this place in the best way possible. He leaves us. He either doesn't come here or he leaves us -- or he doesn't call the House back at all.

So, Mr Speaker, when you look at my point of order around this question being brought forward now, it would seem to me that you should keep in mind those three pieces of information so that you could ask yourself, has there been due diligence by the government to prosecute its business? Was there in fact an honest attempt to bring forward a legislative agenda that could be dealt with in reasonable time in the usual hours of the calendar as established by the standing orders?

I know, Mr Speaker, that you will say that under standing order 6(b), which this motion comes under, there really isn't a need to look at whether or not it should be or could be brought in; that there is no question for you to consider. But in all cases, it seems to me, Mr Speaker, in your position as a mediator of problems in this House when disputes cannot be resolved, you should at least ask yourself if there has not been an abuse of the standing orders by the government by not bringing forward its legislation with dispatch.

I understand the nature of the government's desires. Anybody who has been a minister would like to stand in his or her place, introduce a bill, move to second reading, go to third reading and get the business over with. Whether you happen to be Tory or Liberal or New Democrat, as a minister or as a parliamentary assistant, you have talked to people. Enough about these shenanigans and all the parties' talk about there never being consultation. Even when I was here in 1981 and forward, it was obvious the groups had been consulted by the Tories. They didn't always like what the Tories did to them -- for them --

Interjection: "To them" or "for them"?

1640

Mr Elston: They've asked me to clarify whether the Tories did things to the people or for the people, but the Tories used to tell me they were doing things to the people for the people's own good. But that's another story which we'll talk about another day.

I can tell you that despite everything that has been said, the Liberals and the Conservatives and the New Democrats, as ministers or parliamentary assistants, will have talked to the people who have a position to put on almost all policies. But the fact of the matter is, clearly more than ever before, you can't agree with everybody. Whatever that means to all of us, you can't agree with everybody all the time. So it's not without some desire that the ministers have come to this place as Grits or Tories or New Democrats to drop their bills on the table and say, "Let's get on with it, let's get it done, let's get it out of here, because I've talked enough."

I was a minister in the government of David Peterson for some five years, some few months, hours, minutes. I've got it written down in my diary with some sense of fondness. I go back to that once in a while as I like to recall better and greater days. But maybe there will be something coming when I can get a new diary and have a new time starting to run it. In fact, the member for Fort William -- my leader, Lyn McLeod -- will do that for us here. I just want to do that as an aside. She will prosecute government business in a way which will keep us moving reasonably here. I know the government wants to bring its bills, get them on the table, and get them out of here, but that's not the way of this world.

It wasn't the way in 1981, when the government of Bill Davis brought forward some legislation with respect to wage controls. You may remember them, Mr Speaker. I believe in those days you had a position with another government body and probably were affected by the five-and-six scheme that was brought forward. We debated Bill 179 for a long, long time. We were in committee a long, long time. I was an opposition member in those days. We came back to the House and we talked about it. Then we talked about the companion piece, which was Bill 111, the following year, which talked about more controls. We talked about those a long, long time.

I remember going in to committee and listening to each president of each local of OPSEU come forward. I was quite interested in listening to the women and men who appeared before us to tell us what their situation would be like if these bills were to be passed.

There are other bills about which we deliberated during the Tory administration for a long, long time. I know some of those ministers of that day personally. It must have been painful indeed to listen to us.

Mr Speaker, if my speech gets a little bit long today and somewhat painful, I only remind you that in 1981, 1982 and 1983 I was a new member, and I can well advise that I will not go back and read those speeches. If anybody does, he needs to be examined, because those speeches were really just filler and there wasn't much to them.

In the days of the Liberal administration, I was a minister. I brought in a couple of pieces of legislation; more than that, but at least a couple that generated a fair bit of debate. There wouldn't have been anything to make me happier than to see everybody on the opposition benches stand up and say: "Well done, member for Huron-Bruce. Boy, are we happy we got this thing in front of us. Let's get it over with."

The Health Care Accessibility Act generated some discussion among the Tory partisans of the day. It was real debate and it was strong debate. Not only that, the New Democrats, the opposition party in that day, also had to have their day. I remember the day when Larry Grossman, as he then was and still is, stood in this place and sent a portable phone over to David Peterson and said, "Call the doctors." I remember the day Larry sent his people back down the hall to get the phone back from David. I think Larry wanted to make a call or two.

I remember then Bob Rae sitting just about where my colleague the member for Carleton now sits and writes his important messages for the people of this province on his notepaper, saying great things about what the Health Care Accessibility Act would do, could do and should do for the people of the province, and congratulating me for bringing it forth. But I'll tell you, it wasn't done without a lot of time going by, because the New Democrats wanted some share of the ownership of that particular piece of legislation. That's fine, but it was done with a great deal of debate having taken place in the meantime.

The issue at stake in this place, really, is how quickly the government wants to get its business done, how quickly does it want to assert its will, how unresisted it wants to be in prosecuting its business through this place.

When you look at that, in the context of everything else this motion represents, perhaps you could deliberate for a moment on the rights of the minority. The rights of the minority in this case are not only the rights of the Liberals and Conservatives but in my view also represent some of the members on the back bench of the New Democratic Party. I know a couple of those members are looking forward to speaking on the main motion with respect to the unilateral change to the rules. In fact, I suspect there are even one or two of the New Democratic Party members who wish to speak on this motion to extend the sittings beyond 6 o'clock.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): As soon as you sit down.

Mr Elston: The Minister of Transportation asks if I'm thinking about sitting down soon. I cannot sit down soon, Mr Speaker, because I have a great deal to say about the lack on the government's part of the clean hands you need if you're going to bring forward motions like this one, which is really just a smokescreen to push the unilateral rule changes through much more quickly.

What do we need the unilateral rule changes for? We need the unilateral rule changes because the government knows that its bill, the Ontario Labour Relations Amendment Act, has generated a whole lot of public heat. A lot of public sentiment follows with its not passing in this place. A lot of public sentiment follows that it should pass. But the government of the day doesn't want to take time in this House to really, fully debate that bill.

What do we do? We have the bill itself introduced, then we have the motion to unilaterally change the rules of this place and then following quickly on the heels of that motion, which we began to debate just last week, we come fully to the order and government motion 8, which asks us to sit from 6 till 12 each night from June 15 to June 25. It is no coincidence that this is the order of the introduction of the business of this place. It has been a scheme that has been put together by the government House leader and the Premier of this province designed to do but one thing, and that is to prevent us from doing our real business.

Mr Speaker, when you come to the end of the order of the day and are looking at whether or not this motion is in order, whether or not clean hands are required, as I describe it, to bring that motion, you will deliberate upon all of the machinations that this government has gone through to prove to the public that it can't get its work done.

But so much for my point of order, Mr Speaker, for you to consider whether or not the government really does require clean hands to prosecute a motion under 6(b), as it is now trying to do. Mr Speaker, that is what I want you to consider. There are probably other things I should have spoken about, but if I have something further I will put it in written form and I'll deliver it to you before you make a ruling on whether this is in order and whether the government actually requires clean hands to move what is, although allowed, still an exceptional deviation from what the calendar of the day really prescribes for us.

That is my first point, that there is a point of order for you to consider and that you should deliberate on before we actually vote on this matter.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Are you opposed to going to midnight tonight or to all the rule changes?

1650

Mr Elston: Both. The honourable member for Cochrane South, although out of order, asks the question, "Are you opposed to sitting till 12 o'clock tonight or against the unilateral rule changes?" The answer to both questions is in the affirmative. I'm against sitting till 12 o'clock tonight and tomorrow night and the next night and the next night, and I'm against the unilateral rule changes because I don't believe there has been a real attempt by the government to actually do business by bringing the stuff forward.

I'll go back and I will explain, as I was going to anyway -- not to get deviated from my discussion by the member for Cochrane South -- what usually happens in the House when we come back to this place when there is a throne speech. That's what we had this April when we returned to this place after our due deliberations, important deliberations, as I recall, Mr Speaker. We spent a wonderful weekend of holiday in Hamilton, you and I and several thousand Liberals. Did you hear that? Several thousand Liberals spent a whole weekend in Hamilton, had a lot of fun and came up with the new energy which is going to allow us to regain some of those halcyon days.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I thought it was the NDP convention.

Mr Elston: The member for Grey -- or Grey-Owen Sound -- mentions that he thought it was a New Democratic Party convention; I can tell you it was not. This was a real democratic deliberation. It wasn't like the Premier going to the provincial council meeting, where he goes in and says, "I'm here to listen to the people who represent the party, but whatever you tell me, I don't care, because it's Sunday shopping come noon on Sunday, whether you like it or not."

That's not our Liberal Party. That wouldn't even be the Tory party, for goodness' sake. I know what the Tory party did. They didn't call meetings. Do you remember how many meetings were called by the Progressive Conservative Party during the 43 years it was in power?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Two.

Mr Elston: I think there were three. The member from Carleton says --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please address the Chair.

Mr Elston: Well, Mr Speaker, do you know how many annual meetings were held by the Progressive Conservative Party during its 43 years? The member from Carleton said he thought two. I thought I'd recalled three. What we didn't need to do was call the meetings and then tell the people who showed up, "We don't care what you say anyway," like the Premier did.

Anyway, back to where I was heading, and that was to tell you that in the normal course of business, in the normal course of affairs, I wouldn't resist this motion to sit till midnight in the last eight sessional days. But there are some exceptional circumstances in this case which compel me to stand and speak. In fact, if I can throw us back to December of this year, the government House leader also moved this motion to sit the last eight days till midnight, and I think it is fair to say it was barely discussed in this place. Why? Because the people who were here had determined that they would want to get the business done that was on their platter. Very few pieces of legislation were left except those that were sent out to committees, and there were some very important bills that went out to committee.

However, the one dominating factor in coming to an agreement in the last eight days of the last session was the need by the government party to get out of here because there were a whole series of questions surrounding the member for Sudbury East and her work as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. That pushed us into a whole series of agreements among the parties so that there was a decision that certain business would get done and then be sent out with dispatch into the legislative committees. One of those committees was the committee that looked into the so-called Shelley Martel affair.

There were also the deliberations with respect to the housing bill, and that was sent out to committee. There were other pieces of legislation that found their way to committee as well, and I needn't list them; only to suggest that there was a consent around the prosecution of the business that was before the table because there was a real agenda there, and there was something that we as opposition people could look to to understand the full context of the business of this place. An agreement transpired, and there was a short and brief discussion among the people and the parties with respect to this same motion brought in December of last year.

But why this year am I standing to resist this motion, at least in the only way I can, which is to bring forward to the public some of the interesting information it needs to know if it is likewise to make an intelligent and reasoned decision on whether we should be sitting till midnight?

In this year we start at March 1992 and find that when we were scheduled by the standing orders -- this very same book contains the standing orders and the Legislative Assembly Act, which governs the operations of this place. If you turn here now as it is, you will find that we should have returned to this place in March. But we were not allowed to come back in March because the Premier unilaterally decided that he would not come back because he didn't know what he was doing. That's how I read his press releases. Of course, the New Democrats would have read those press releases somewhat differently -- slightly differently, some of them; some of them might not have been so charitable as I have just now been.

Not only did we not come back when we were scheduled, but it was one full month after we were scheduled to come to this place that the Premier came back and actually brought forward his throne speech, on a Monday. Tradition calls for us to come back on a Tuesday. When I advised the House leader, he said, "Oh gee, we haven't done this before," which isn't quite correct, because they've done it at least once before, but anyway, being new, that's okay and so what? We come back on a Monday instead of a Tuesday. We're all able to get here on Mondays, not like the old days when people had trouble coming in from way out in places where they don't have trains.

Come to think of it, I don't have any trains out in my part of the country any more. Maybe we should have sat on a Tuesday in any event. But that's another story: Transportation not being one of the high priorities of this government, we have no train, our roads are falling apart and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, there's a lot of concerns generated for us to discuss here.

[Applause]

Mr Elston: I think that was the member for Grey who was applauding me. No, it wasn't. Mr Speaker, I thought I had some applause from the member for Grey who is now, I think, auditioning to become the business agent for k.d. lang in Owen Sound. I'm not sure that's true, but we'll go back out and take a look at the press releases.

Mr Murdoch: Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Elston: No, not Grey-Owen Sound yet; it's just Grey. Grey-Owen Sound is coming. It's coming, just like the next election; it's coming too.

Mr Speaker, I just wanted to bring your attention to this, because these standing orders really do govern the way we do business and there is an attempt to unilaterally change them.

Anyway, we came back a month later than we were supposed to, and when we came back that month later than we were supposed to, we lost very valuable days of business time. Do you know what else we lost, Mr Speaker? As much as we lost the business time of this House and the committees which meet while this House is in session -- right now, I believe that if you went out there you would find that the justice committee is meeting, and several others -- we lost the opportunity to examine the record of the Premier, the member for York South, and we lost the chance to examine the record of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the government House leader, and we lost the opportunity to examine the activities of that party animal, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I read her press release. Actually, I read the caption in the daily paper where the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations says, "I have always been a party animal and I'm bringing my party along with me." We lost the chance to examine the type of party the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been having over the intersession.

Valuable questions were there to be asked and we were shut out of asking them because the Premier unilaterally changed the calendar, because he didn't want to be here. I think some of the ministers love coming in here because they like to spar with the opposition; they like to sharpen their wit with the people across here. In fact, I think some of them love the opportunity because it gives them a chance to show they really do know more than the opposition people do, and that's understandable, but the Premier wouldn't let them come here. Really, he also didn't want to come here because he knew that as soon as we got to this place we would start asking questions about the Martel affair again, and that's embarrassing to him, so he shut us --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, you don't name names. That's the member for Sudbury East. He knows that. He's been around here long enough.

The Deputy Speaker: You have no right to address the House. You should get up on a point of order.

1700

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I think it's in order. In that interjection by the Minister of Transportation he talks about whether or not it's in order. It has been clearly reported in this House as the Martel affair, dealing with the business of that special committee that was struck to inquire into the activities of the Minister of Northern Affairs, the member for Sudbury East. I think common parlance and usage in the daily press has established that.

But anyway, let's not dwell on that so much as just to say that the reason I'm standing on this motion today is because I believe the government hasn't acted fairly with us and in fact cannot now suggest that we sit from 6 till 12 on all the days that are enumerated in the motion, because it hasn't really tried to do its business at all. But let me get back. That deals with the postponement of the business of getting back to this place for whatever reasons the Premier wants to enumerate.

What is the next concern that we have? We don't think the government has prosecuted its business as well because the Premier himself has not been in this House. I must mark that while the Premier has not been here, there has a been a noticeable increase in the number of ministers who have been unable to attend this place as well.

Put in context, that shows to me and to others who have watched this House with some degree of consistency over the past several years that there is a real sense that the New Democratic Party does not want this place to function the way it should. The Premier is not here, so he is not accountable. He can go off to all sorts of places during the sitting of this Legislative Assembly. We're not in session all the time. Why can't he plan to be places on Friday, Saturday and Sunday? Why can't he plan to be places during the intersession?

Not only were we called back here late, but then when we did come back the Premier took off and went for the grand tour all over the place. Some of the business, probably even all the business, was important, but it was not so important that it couldn't have been done at a different time.

There are some exceptions to that. The exceptions are all the constitutional debates and all the constitutional meetings which have been scheduled by Brian Mulroney and the rest of the people. Obviously our Premier must be there, although it's interesting to note that not many premiers have attended the same number of meetings Bob Rae has. They have sent their constitutional ministers or they have sent someone who is seen to represent their premiers while the premiers in other provinces stay home to conduct their business.

That, for me, says it all. This government has not desired to do its business in this House. Not only have they not been attending, but when they do go away from this House they make government announcements and policy statements to all and sundry, invite the press without any opposition people being present so that they can spin their tales, so that they can let everybody know what their side of the story is and unsuspectingly believe that the government is doing great things for them here in the province.

If they bring those statements into this Legislative Assembly, then the people would at least have another view of what is going on. We don't hold that we're always right, but we do hold that we have the right to an opinion and a view which should be put in the face of statements made by the government with respect to its policies. If we are prepared to be critical, sometimes we are prepared to be charitable, and in some cases -- I can enumerate some -- we have actually joined with the government in celebrating announcements here in this place.

But what the government wants to do is to shield itself from any sense of criticism at all by the opposition or it wants to shield itself from any share of the joint work that has been done in this place, because there are generally few exceptions in legislation where some member of the opposition benches hasn't suggested some piece of change in a legislative bill that's come through here that hasn't been accepted in one form or other.

Not often has it been acknowledged with great fanfare, but if we are never here to do the business of the House, then obviously the credit cannot be given to the opposition members. That's another important consideration. That's why I believe they haven't fairly prosecuted the business of this place.

Mr Speaker, I will go back to repeat, just because you were not here, something I used as part of the point of order, at least the order I think you should take a look at when you leave this chamber, and that is again to talk about the number of pieces of legislation that have been brought to this place.

There were, according to the government House leader, some 121 pieces of legislation they wanted to introduce, and as you know and as I know, there isn't any place in this standing order or in the Legislative Assembly Act that forms part of this book a prevention of any sort to the movement of a bill for first reading.

I can do it as a private member. In my capacity as a private member, I can do it as a sponsor of a private bill. I could, if I were a minister of the crown, move it on behalf of the government. No place here is there a prevention against bringing every piece of legislation in front of this House.

The only thing that could stop its happening, as you well know, is that some way or other somebody would say no to its having been read for the first time and in fact there would be enough members opposed to it. Only then could the bill actually be prevented from being brought, but at no time is a member prevented from bringing his bills forward.

We may in fact see a change to that, because I understand that if the government House leader of the day has his way with this Legislative Assembly, he will be putting limitations on the number of bills that can be introduced in this place, to deal with an irritant that has been used with some effect by another opposition party, and in fact from time to time, I suspect, even by some of the New Democrats in their day in opposition as well.

Of the 121 bills, what have we got so far? We head up to June 4, when Bill 40, the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act was introduced, with some 17 pieces of legislation of the 121 introduced for consideration here. That means to me there was very little desire to do anything in this place that would allow us to prosecute the regular business of the day. If you want to get the work done, you've got to bring it forward.

That is a little brief bit of information with respect to the bills; more you can read about in Hansard from just prior to my coming to this section of my speech, because I used it to guide you in your deliberations on whether or not this item should be in order at all or not.

I will move now, though, to consider another piece of information which shows that this government has not been following the traditional way of doing business in this House. What could that be? After we got back to this place, we were continually being yelled at about how many people could speak on the speech from the throne and we were kept to the letter of the law with respect to the throne speech debate. They wouldn't agree to deviate at all from the eight days that are allowed under the standing orders, even when they knew that we had a lot more speakers who wished they could participate much more fully in the debate.

We stayed to the letter of the law with that one, but when it came time to deal with the budget debate, which allows us to have speakers speaking over a whole series of issues and items with respect to the budget, these people would not let us get by the presentations having been made to the budget speech by the Treasurer, by anyone other than one member from our party and one member from the Conservative Party.

That is unusual; it is irregular. We were shut down when it came to criticizing the budget because the government had decided that it wanted its tale to get to the people and not that of the opposition. Did we have four or five days of budget debate so that we could consistently pursue that issue which was critically important for the people of the province? Not at all. We in fact have been shut out from talking to the budget because it was the will of the government House leader that we would give in to all of his requests and demands with respect to his very contentious legislation, and then maybe he would think about letting us talk about the budget.

Well, let's talk about the budget for a moment. Is it important that we talk about the budget? I guess it is. Part of the reason for our being here is to put some criticism and some critical analysis around the statements being made by the government of the day. It is our routine nature to question the expenditures.

Today earlier, we saw the member for Etobicoke West stand in his place and question the Minister of Government Services with respect to some spending around some contracts. I say "some contracts" because there are a couple of contracts in question, and probably if the contract is signed, there will be an episode following today's and so on.

We also saw in this place a question raised with respect to the Minister of Transportation and the issue of a contract, the expenditure of some $160,000 to one Wally Majesky, who has been for some time known to be at least sympathetic to the New Democratic Party.

1710

Those issues around the spending of money are critically important for us, and when you get told by the fellow from Nickel Belt, the member for Nickel Belt, the Treasurer, that he is spot on with respect to last year's estimates and projections and then it turns out that he is a couple of billion bucks over -- then he comes forward in April of this year and says: "This is my new plan and I am holding the line with respect to budgetary initiatives. I am doing a great job for the people of Ontario. Look, it's only $9.9 billion in deficit this year. That's only $1 billion more than I told you it would be last year, but anyway, if you didn't believe me last year and you thought I was wrong, which I was, then you should believe me this year, because I'm not wrong this year. I've raised my sights a billion bucks or more."

In any other Parliament we have been given time as backbenchers to analyse the budget. In fact even one or two government people have stood in their places and tried to say what a good thing this budget really was in other administrations. I remember the member for Carleton -- I look to see what others, but he alone survives of a very dynamic group who went into the election of 1981 to lead --

Mr Sterling: 1977.

Mr Elston: No, no, you started in 1977, but I remember you from 1981. You went into the election of 1981.

But anyway, the member for Carleton, I can remember standing and promoting what a great thing the Tory budgets were. I remember him being less kind actually to the Liberal budgets, as I recall the member for Mississauga South being less kind to the budgets she's been able to see so far. There may be a day when she sees a much more sympathetic budget, I trust.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Yes, when we are the government.

Mr Elston: I'm not sure when our friend the Prime Minister of Canada is going to bring down his next budget, but I'm sure you'll be supporting the new Mazankowski when he brings that down.

Mrs Marland: No, not necessarily.

Mr Elston: You see, the amount of chatter I've engendered really makes my point. Everybody who is an elected official, whether you're at the municipal level, the provincial level or the federal level, is interested in how the budgets are formulated, because it affects everybody in this place. It affects all of our constituents because even the New Democrats are now taxing at a higher rate this year than last the people who are at or below the poverty line. We want to make that point and we haven't been allowed to make that point in this place as we would usually have been allowed, because the government has chosen to act much more in a different fashion.

What other reason is there that I ask that we not be required to sit from 6 until 12 each night? It is because there still remains a concern about how these people go about ordering their business.

I have what was described to us as the "must have" spring 1992 list. As you will know, as we get toward the end of each session, there is a sense of urgency with respect to some bills, a sense of less urgency with respect to others, and with some on the order paper there is, "Well, if we get to it, okay, and if not, don't worry about it," and with still others, "We don't care whether we ever get to that one or not."

We were given the "must have" list not that long ago, a couple of Thursdays ago. Included on it were the Power Corporation Amendment Act, Bill 118, which has been since voted on and passed in third reading; the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, which has not come forward; the Co-operative Corporations Amendment Act, which has not come forward; the Ontario Loan Act, Bill 16, which has not come forward; the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency Act, Bill 1, which has not come forward; the Mining Tax Amendment Act, Bill 12, which has not come forward; the Corporations Tax Amendment Act, Bill 11, which has not come forward; the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Amendment Act, Bill 123, which in fact has received third reading; the Game and Fish Amendment Act, Bill 162, which has not come forward; the education act assessment, Bill 27, which has not come forward; the education act equity issues, Bill 21, which has not come forward; the Gaming Services Act, Bill 26, which has not come forward, and Sunday shopping, which now appears on their "must have" list, which was not even enumerated for our earlier discussions.

That was all of the legislation we were given a couple of weeks ago that had to have third reading. I find it really, really quite appalling that the people can make the case that they had so much work to do when they didn't even know what their "must have" list looked like before two weeks ago from this date.

Then on second reading the Ontario labour relations act, which is now Bill 40, pay equity, Bill 168, public service act, Bill 169, auto insurance, Bill 164, London annexation, which is still not in.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Yes it is. Irene has finished it.

Mr Elston: There's some indication that the member for Middlesex has finished with respect to her deliberations on the legislation. I agree that the announcement by Mr Cooke last weekend probably put an end to a whole series of efforts, but we haven't seen the bill yet. We should have had a statement in this House, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs would not tell us what he really told the people. The Toronto Islands, Bill 171, was introduced some time ago and now we've got a companion piece with respect to the Toronto Islands, which incorporates some 22 changes to the government's own bill.

The Building Code Act, Bill 112, and the worker ownership, Bill 150, were all supposed to have received their second reading and gone out, but of course the House leader for the government didn't know that at the time of delivery of this that the worker ownership bill was already out in committee. In fact, in this House today the member for Lincoln stood in his place as chair of that committee, I guess, or representing the chair of the committee and actually brought it back to the House. It was reported to the House.

We were given this list just two weeks ago. It's not unusual to receive the list that late, but it is very unusual to have listed among the "must haves" several pieces of legislation that have not even been introduced prior to its formulation.

How can we do our work? How can we be accused of holding up the business of this House if the business of the House is not even before it, if the table officers haven't even had a chance to read the titles, if we have not even had an opportunity to take the legislation to our caucuses, indeed not even had a chance to take that legislation out of this place and to the individual groups in the community who believe they have something to say, either positive or negative, about the legislation that comes in front of us?

It's not usual to do business in that way. If the government would do its business in the usual fashion, then I would have no reason for standing here today to speak at length about this motion to have a sitting past 6 till 12 tonight, from 6 till 12 on Tuesday, from 6 till 12 on Wednesday and again on Thursday, the following Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but the government doesn't do its work reasonably.

You would have thought when you looked at the "must have" list that there was some problem with a whole lot of the legislation that appears here. The government House leader knows, and the truth of the matter is, that we have provided to that gentleman on several days an indication that a good number of these statutes could be called and in fact could be dealt with on dispatch in a way which would allow us to get that work done, but we had advised him because of the issues in the public surrounding labour amendments and surrounding Sunday shopping that we wanted to talk about those bills.

You know something? We also wanted to talk about Bill 118, the Power Corporation Amendment Act, which gives new and interesting powers through that legislation to its chief interest, Ontario Hydro, and we want to talk about that. You know something, Mr Speaker? We want to talk about the Game and Fish Amendment Act because there are issues surrounding that legislation dealing with people who own dogs for the purpose of hunting that have to be clarified.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Deer farmers.

Mr Elston: My friend the member for Wellington tells me over the din of interest in this wonderful speech that in fact deer farmers are affected by the Game and Fish Amendment Act, and in fact they are. I see the member for Oxford nodding his head in agreement. I have deer farmers in my riding. I suspect he does too from the diligence with which that head is nodding in the affirmative. I suspect there's the odd one in Wellington and probably one in Grey. I know there are some in Huron because I've driven by them.

We want to talk about that bill. If the bills would be called, we could discuss them because there are issues of interest. I hesitate for a moment to raise this issue again because I had some exchanges which were not perhaps helpful earlier in the day with my colleague the member for Middlesex who has been working diligently with respect to the London annexation issue. But there is such a state of affairs in Middlesex and London, and interest surrounding that bill, that when it comes here we will want to discuss that piece of legislation.

1720

I cannot imagine for a moment that the member for Middlesex, having been unsuccessful in her first attempt to change the minister's mind, wouldn't want to put her case very publicly again so that at least she can put it on the record and then send it out to the municipal representatives who have been prompting her to do her work as a local member representing them. But we were told not only that it will not be introduced in time for a hearing in the last two weeks of this session, but that in fact it will come about much later.

Interjection.

Mr Elston: Is there a point of order, Mr Speaker? I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, I have but one option and that is to place my remarks on the record through you. If you are in other discussions, I should at least let you have those discussions and I will resume when you are finished one way or another. If you declare it so, I shall take my seat and await your invitation to speak again.

Let me just say that there are bills here which could go quite quickly. If they had been called for us to do them, they would have been done and the passage of them would have been done. The complete work would have been finished and we could have had His Honour attend upon us to nod assent to the bills. They could have taken effect as they are required to do, but they were sheltered and shepherded away from this place by the government House leader so that he could make his case that something remained to be done, and that was in the absence of almost all 121 pieces of legislation that he put out in his press release as waiting for introduction to this House.

He has tried to shepherd the bills away from this place so he could make the case that the government could not do its work, as it is usually done, in a mutually suitable fashion at a time when our critics could have some time to go through the bills, analyse them and talk to the people in the public.

I regret very much that we're not doing our work here the way we used to do it. When a government House leader was informed that certain bills could be brought forward and dealt with expeditiously, then the government House leader of the day --

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Just a point of information, Mr Speaker: One hour and 12 minutes' time has elapsed.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Bruce, please take the floor.

Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman from Cochrane South has indicated one hour and 12 minutes has elapsed. I can tell the honourable member that had he been here -- and I know he was -- and if he fully wanted to put the information on the record, he would have said that we started with a five-minute point of order to begin with. I was interrupted on several occasions when I had to sit down, including that time. I was interrupted in my statement just prior to that by his interjection to you, Mr Speaker. You being my only vehicle to Hansard, I awaited your pleasure.

I have a number of other things I would like to say about the way this place operates and does not operate. All I can say to you is that if the government had prosecuted its business reasonably and had asked us to go to bills like the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act -- something, by the way, that I know the Conservatives have a bit of a concern about but which I know, from talking to the member for Parry Sound, their House leader, could have been dealt with in this House -- it could have been passed -- and Bill 166, the Co-operative Corporations Statute Law Amendment Act, about which I know there is an expert opinion in the Conservative Party -- it could have been brought forward along with our critic and it could have been prosecuted here until the third reading was fully finished. We aren't dealing with events here as is normal. In that case, I resist what some people would think was a normal motion under government notice of motion 8.

I have a whole series of other items which I would like to bring to your attention and one of them is this, effectively, as I move on from them not dealing with business with dispatch: It is, with respect, Mr Speaker, my opinion concerning night sittings. Unless there is some consent to go with dispatch through a series of items, you will find that the evening sitting has not ever been a productive one. I came from Huron-Bruce in the good old days, 1981 through 1985 -- actually till 1987 when the redistribution took effect -- and from 1987 onward it has been from Bruce county that I have hailed. But from 1981 to 1985 there were night sittings. In fact, there were in the early days of 1985 as well, until we changed the order so that there would be no evening sittings.

Tuesdays and Thursdays we sat till 10:30 of the clock as the Speaker used to say. Sometimes even after 10:30 we'd have those so-called night shows -- they really were night shows -- when members could express their displeasure with respect to the answer of a minister. The interventions of dinners, meetings and other things sometimes caused the debate here in the evening sittings to be somewhat meandering. They lacked focus and often-times lacked the attendance of a very large number of the government members or the opposition members who should have been here.

What we are doing is going back to fully two weeks of this same sort of stuff in a context that lacks the agreement we had in December 1991. That does not auger very well. I think that if there was a genuine attempt made to order the business consensually, you would find there would be real progress, even in the daylight hours.

I apologize to my friend the member for Carleton. I'm just about ready to wind up now. I know he wants to put his record together so that the people can see it.

In the context of the regular operations of this place there would have been time set aside, and there is no time at this moment, for us to talk about the constitutional problems affecting us. The recent deliberations --

Interjections.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, the member for Wentworth North and the member for Cochrane South are both sitting there saying it's a waste of time. I'm telling you what it was like in the good old days when we had some consent around doing business. In the good old days, when there was a round in 1982 that dealt with bringing the Constitution back to this place, Mr Davis, then Premier, had allowed, prior to 1981's election and then following 1981's election, the opposition parties, the members of this place to speak to the constitutional issues.

During the course of these affairs, even though the Premier came here today in one of his irregular appearances in this place to talk about the Constitution, there has been no opportunity for us to put any in debate time around the constitutional issues. There were a couple of days when the committee report was brought forward from our own committee, well chaired and well worked by the member for Victoria-Haliburton, as he then was; he is now a Deputy Chair of this place. The report is important to be dealt with. No time is given for us for in that regard.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: I'll only mention quite quickly the fact that we have not had time to debate the Constitution. It has not been allowed to us. We were not given time to debate the budget. The time has not been allowed to us, as would reasonably have been expected. That's why I'm resisting the way this motion is being brought now.

Finally, if this place were working as it used to work, there would be ample opportunity for us to address a whole series of issues that have been pushed off the shelf by the New Democratic Party. I am very much perplexed by not only the movement to bring in unilateral rule changes, about which, by the way, I have not spoken very much but which I would like to talk about at length.

Mr Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention that there is a real move in the public accounts committee to take off the table items which are usually open for the Chair and others in that committee to decide upon by the majority of those people, so that the opposition cannot do the business of the House.

My view is that there should be night sittings these last two weeks only if in fact there has been a real effort to do business in a reasonable fashion by this government. They have failed to do that, by not bringing us back on time; by not appearing as Premier and as ministers of the crown to be examined by us in question period 60 minutes each day; by not attending for the whole question period when they do come back; by not bringing forward legislation in a timely fashion so that we could examine it; by not being able to let us assess in committee the results of the report of the standing committee that dealt with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the so-called Martel affair; by not letting us debate the budget; by not letting us prosecute a discussion around the Constitution; by not delivering to us answers to order paper questions, a thing about which I have not time to speak this afternoon, but there are very few replies. My colleague the member for Mississauga -- North? -- West stood earlier on a point of privilege.

1730

Mrs Marland: The member for Mississauga South is here.

Mr Elston: The member for Mississauga South indeed is here, and I see she is wearing those Mulroney glasses from time to time this afternoon. But my colleague the member for Mississauga West stood in his place earlier and raised a point of order because the government has taken far longer than 14 days even to acknowledge that his question was filed.

All of these things are such that the government of the day should not be allowed to prosecute this government motion under standing order 6(b). I believe wholeheartedly that this motion ought to be defeated when we have a chance to vote upon it.

Mr Speaker, with that, I leave it to you to consider not only that information but also my beginning remarks, wherein I asked you whether or not the government had to exhibit clean hands in its prosecution of business in this House to take advantage of the standing orders which are there. My view, quite briefly, is that if they haven't demonstrated clean hands to the people of this province, to the public of this province, then they should be precluded from forcing us to do things at extended hours which they have not even tried to do in the real calendar as it is scheduled for us.

Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for allowing me to participate. I now cede the floor to my friend from Carleton.

Mr Sterling: Under standing order 6 of the present rules --

Interjection: It's going to be boring.

Mr Sterling: It's pretty hard to be interesting when you're talking about these kinds of motions, but I'm going to try to make as much sense as is possible.

Under the standing orders which we have now, the government House leader is permitted to bring forward a motion to extend the hours of sitting during the last eight sessional days at the end of June, which we are now at, from the normal quitting time of 6 pm to 12 am. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why we have such a silly standing order presently within our standing orders of this Legislative Assembly. The whole idea of putting forward a standing order of this kind is to allow the government, in the last two weeks, to cram in the different business it has not been able to pass during the normal session.

If that's the case, instead of having a motion and two hours of debate this afternoon, which in fact is not going to accomplish anything, why would we not just give the government the right to have extended hours in the last two weeks? So be done, and we wouldn't have wasted this afternoon with regard to this whole debate and we could consider some government legislation. What I don't understand is that the government House leader has brought forward his suggestions for amendments to our standing orders, but instead of looking at practical things like the one I have just suggested, he's brought forward various different suggestions which are an attempt to just cut off the opposition from its ability to oppose and delay.

A lot of people who may watch this particular Legislative Assembly from time to time get upset that the opposition members stand up and make long speeches, drag things out etc. But when we're treated as we have been in the last two or three days with regard to the unilateral move by the House leader to bring forward significant changes to the rules, the public must understand that the opposition has no option but to stand up, give long, boring speeches which will go on and on and on until a deal can be struck --

Mr Elston: Come on, Norm; I wasn't that bad.

Mr Sterling: With the exception of the member for Bruce.

But we in the opposition have no option but to act like this. Therefore, what the House leader has done, in my view, is demean the institution in a larger way, because when people turn on their televisions they'll say, "There is Sterling, the member for Carleton, standing up and speaking for half an hour," and after I sit down they'll say, "Well, he hasn't said a lot."

Mr Sorbara: Talk about pennies.

Mr Sterling: We could talk about something that makes sense, sure. What I'm trying to say is that by his actions the government House leader has virtually brought this place to a halt. We cannot deal with legislation. We cannot deal with resolutions which are of interest to members of this Legislature. The government House leader and Bob Rae must take the full impact of that decision by the government House leader.

The other thing I want to draw to your attention, Mr Speaker -- because you and I personally were involved at the very first part of this Parliament in an election for the position of Speaker; you are really the Deputy Speaker, but when you sit in the chair you are the Speaker. We ran for election to be Speaker in this Legislature. I'll never forget that on October 1, when Bob Rae was swearing in his cabinet, they asked, "What about David Warner?" He was a former member, had some experience in this Legislature, and I think was accepted as a very capable member when he was in opposition. At that time the Premier said, "Mr Warner is going to be Speaker." The Premier realized he made a mistake after he said that, because the election of the Speaker is supposed to be a non-partisan event.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I believe he said he was supporting him.

Mr Sterling: Mr Hayes says the Premier said he was going to support Mr Warner for Speaker. I don't think there's much difference between saying he's going to be the Speaker and the Premier of a majority government saying he's going to support Mr Warner. The line is very fine.

But to get to the moral of the story, I'm not sure that Bob Rae, even though he has been a parliamentarian for a lot of his life, really understands how this place operates. I don't think Bob Rae understands, perhaps, that this is not a debating society. This is an institution which is supposed to pass laws; it's supposed to seek cooperation among political parties so they can get on with the business of the day. I think Bob Rae tipped his hand on October 1, 1990, when he said, and was quite out of line, that he was condoning or crowning David Warner as Speaker of this Legislature.

I'm going to assume that after Mr Rae said that all members forgot about what Mr Rae said and elected David Warner as the Speaker of this House on the merits of David Warner and that that was the way it was done. I have accepted Mr Warner as the duly elected Speaker of this Legislature, and I think we all had to accept that, in spite of what Bob Rae said on October 1.

1740

Another thing I'd like to bring into the debate is that about a month ago our House leader, Mr Eves, the member for Parry Sound, came to me and said: "Norm, will you head up for our caucus the negotiations surrounding changes in the standing orders?" The government House leader wants changes in the standing orders. The Liberals appointed Mr Mahoney to speak on their behalf. The New Democratic Party decided that Mr Kimble, the member for Oxford, would do their bidding.

Well, Mr Speaker, I like the member for Oxford and I think he's a bright young fellow. But the member for Oxford has only had about a year and a half of experience in this place. The member for Oxford is not a member of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which considers the rules of the House, and I thought it was quite inappropriate that Mr Kimble be the named person.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Sutherland.

Mr Sterling: Sorry, Mr Kimble Sutherland. I hope the member for Oxford will forgive me for using the wrong name.

Mr Speaker, I bring that to the fore because in the previous Parliament -- and I am the only member left; I was the only member who was involved with the present standing orders and the negotiations regarding those standing orders -- the New Democratic Party, in the last round, appointed Mr Breaugh, who was a long-time serving member of the Legislature and who was the Chairman of the Legislative Assembly committee. They had appointed Mr Reycraft for the Liberal Party, and when Mr Breaugh, myself and Mr Reycraft went into the negotiations, Mr Breaugh and I quite frankly were able to sell Mr Reycraft a bit of a bill of goods.

Mr Reycraft is a very bright guy but he had been in the Legislature only a short period of time. When Mr Breaugh and I would say, "Well, this is a good idea," it was not that Mr Reycraft was any less adept at understanding issues; he just didn't have the depth of experience which was required at that time to negotiate the change of rules.

If the government House leader is serious about changing the standing orders and wants to get on with it, I believe it should be he himself, perhaps the member for Bruce and the member for Parry Sound who sit at a table and negotiate what the changes to the standing orders might be. It is only with experienced members who have been here for a period of time that you're going to really drive a deal which will be able to be well understood by all.

I want to talk briefly about the need for longer sittings and the need for a change in our standing orders. The member for Bruce has already indicated what has happened with regard to some legislation. I'd like to just make a few more comments with regard to some of the other government legislation which we have had in front of this House.

You may remember, Mr Speaker, that last year we were considering Bill 115, the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act of 1991. This was introduced for first reading on June 4, 1991, about this time. What was the bill that we had to deal with all summer? The Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, in other words, the Sunday shopping law. That law was the one which outlined that if you had a tourist area you could open on Sundays. You could open on certain Sundays -- I believe four Sundays around Christmas; I'm not certain of the logic about that particular part -- etc.

You know that just recently Bob Rae stood in this Legislature and said this law no longer works. The bill was introduced June 4, 1991. We spent an afternoon debating the bill, or at least one afternoon; I can only tell from my records here. It may have been several afternoons of debating the Sunday shopping law. It was finally passed on second reading on June 17.

So we wasted three or four days on a law which was ill thought out by the government. The government is coming back to us and saying, "We don't have time for our agenda." We in the opposition are saying to the government, "You're not thinking about your agenda; you're not thinking about the laws that you're putting forward clearly enough before you bring them in here."

As a result of the bill passing June 17, it was then sent out to the standing committee on administration of justice, and it had hearings on July 29, 30, 31, August 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 26, 27, 28, 29, September 16, October 28 and 29, November 4, 5 and 18.

All those hearings, all of that legislative time that you and I as members of this Legislature put out of our time schedule to consider the Sunday shopping law has gone for naught. We wasted all of that time, not only in this Legislative Assembly but also in the standing committee on administration of justice. We wasted all of that time because they could not put their act together and bring forward a Sunday shopping law which made any sense.

Now they want to cut us off because they haven't got time to consider their agenda. They haven't got time to bring forward their important laws, their important bills. What can we do but look back and say, are these guys real? Do they know what they're doing? Can we trust any laws that they bring forward?

I want to talk about another piece of legislation as well which I have been involved in, and that is Bill 150. Bill 150 is dealing with the new investment proposals by this government to create a tool for labour unions and employees to buy out their own company and also to act as a capital resource base to invest in other companies. This bill was debated on first reading November 6, and its second reading was on December 18, 1991. It was then sent out to one of the committees of this Legislature on which I sit. We were to consider it and have people come in front of the committee to let us know what they thought about Bill 150, public hearings, on or about February 23 of this year.

Three days before the hearing we get a call from the committee clerk which tells members of the committee that the hearings aren't going to start on Monday. This is the Thursday before, four days before, that we find out the committee hearings are not going to start, and the reason they aren't going to start is because the government has a tremendous number of amendments to make to Bill 150.

In other words, the original bill was garbage. They had to rethink the whole idea of Bill 150, because between the time they introduced it on November 6 and about the middle of February, they had second thoughts about most of the bill.

Bill 150 has 51 sections in it. Mr Speaker, do you want to know how many amendments there were to an act which has 51 sections? There were 49 amendments -- to a bill which has 51 sections. In other words, if you average one amendment for one section, they got 49 wrong.

1750

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: The housing bill was bigger than that.

Mr Sterling: Some of our members say that's better than normal. I understand from the member for Mississauga South that in terms of the rent control bill, Bill 121, there were 249 amendments to that piece of legislation. There were about 135 sections in that, so not only did they have more amendments than sections in the bill; they had almost twice as many amendments in regard to that particular piece of legislation.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): What a government. It listens to the people.

Mr Sterling: One of the members across the way says, "That's a good government; they're listening to the people," and you know, I do appreciate a government that does listen to the people and does make some amendments during the committee process. I think that is healthy. I have also, as you know, been involved with the advocacy legislation, and we're having public hearings this afternoon down in the standing committee on administration of justice, which I can't attend because I've got to be up here in the Legislature debating this silly motion which is present under the standing orders. I think the standing orders should be abolished on allowing this debate to go on, but as a member of the opposition, the government House leader forces me into a position of having to carry on during this particular debate.

The advocacy legislation and the Consent to Treatment Act, the amendments to the Power of Attorney Act: 199 amendments, and some of those amendments were major changes in the structure of those bills. If we add up the number of experiences that I have had -- Sunday shopping law, numerous days of this Legislature wasted -- I don't know how many millions of dollars this government has blown on its previous Sunday retail business --

Interjections.

Mr Sterling: They blew millions of bucks, wasted money because they are not clear-thinking. They have no idea --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: After this happens two or three or four times, members of the Legislature start to lose confidence in how much vetting and how much work has really gone into this legislation. Have the government and the people representing the government really thought about what they're putting forward, or is it really off the top of their heads? Is it off the wall?

Is Bill 40, dealing with changes to the Ontario labour relations law, off the top of their heads? Is that off of the top of Bob White's head? Does it have any relevance to reality? Do they know what they're doing to business? Do they know what they're doing to investment? Do they know whether or not the legislation they put forward actually carries out the intent of what they think they're doing? I have found in the committees of this Legislature and in this Legislature that while they espouse certain principles and ideas, when you get down and you read the legislation it has nothing to do with what they have said is their intention. I think that's because they're sloppy.

Mr Stockwell: "Sloppy" is kind.

Mr Sterling: "Sloppy" may be kind. I don't think that when their ministers are sitting around the cabinet table and making these decisions anybody goes back and looks at the piece of legislation before they introduce it. I think they rely on the bureaucrats to put forward the legislation. Nobody every cross-examines the bureaucrats and says: "What does this section mean? What does that section mean? How are you going to implement that?" Maybe it's because they're not practical. Maybe they have no idea about how these laws really impact on the citizens of Ontario.

When we were in government we used to have a committee called the legislative committee of cabinet. When we used to go through a bill, the bureaucrats would have to come into the room, the policymakers would have to come into the room and the committee would say to the bureaucrats: "Okay, this is Bill 150. The cabinet has decided this. How does that intent match up with the words in the bill?" When the bureaucrat would answer back, "Well, the intent of cabinet was this and here's what the words are," we used to say to the bureaucrat: "Is that practical? Are you going to be able to do that? How does it affect the man on the street? Is he going to be able to go to the government or is he going to be able to utilize this particular piece of legislation in order to have the effect that it was intended to do?"

On many occasions, on more occasions than not, the bureaucrats would have to go back out of that room and come in with another piece of legislation which made more sense, which didn't leave the government open to the unmitigated attack this government has allowed itself to be open to. On just about every piece of legislation we see in front of this House we come to the conclusion immediately that it's ill thought out and that the technical language has nothing to do with the intent the ministers stand up and talk about in this House. We are losing more and more confidence in each and every piece of legislation that's brought to the fore.

This is important with regard to the discussion, because this motion is going to keep us here from 6 o'clock in the evening to 12 o'clock every night. Being normal human beings, we would like to be back in our constituencies during the months of July and August so that we could talk with our constituents and take a week or two off for a holiday during the summer period, when many members want to share that with their families.

We're going to talk from 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock about bills that have been ill conceived, that ministers haven't even read themselves. Bob Rae was asked a question on Bill 150 by Mr Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the other day. Bob Rae didn't even know what was in his own Bill 150, which is supposed to be a cornerstone in the investment plank of his party. It was in the throne speech. Bob Rae didn't even know what was in Bill 150. He didn't know there were two parts to Bill 150. He didn't know that part of the bill dealt with employee buyouts and the other part dealt with investments. He didn't have any idea. If Bob Rae doesn't know what is in his own legislation, how the heck does he expect the public to know what is in his legislation?

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I'm not finished. Can we not stay longer?

The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1800.