The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): The provision of children's services in this province is in dire straits. Wherever you look -- children's aid societies, children's mental health, youth employment -- cutbacks are causing tremendous disruption and dislocation, yet we hear little from the Minister of Community and Social Services.

What has happened to the final report of the Advisory Committee on Children's Services, entitled Children First? This committee, which reported in November 1990, articulated a vision of services to children appropriate for the 1990s. One of the committee's goals stated specifically that government must become the leading partner in creating a public agenda for children to ensure that children's needs are met.

Second, the standing committee on social development has requested that four weeks be set aside to permit the committee to conduct hearings relating to child protection, and specifically at-risk children. These hearings would focus on the population of children at risk, the services available to them and would make recommendations to improve the whole range of children's services. Members of all three parties on the committee agreed to this proposal. Can we expect to receive government approval so this important review can be carried out on behalf of Ontario's children?

Finally, on May 4 of this year, the federal government announced its Brighter Futures program. Some $500 million is to be made available over five years. How is Ontario going to access these funds to assist in the delivery of better health and social services to high-risk children? This government must lead. It's time to act on behalf of our children.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Here is some long-awaited good news on the pesky, perennial problem of locating a landfill site for garbage from the greater Toronto area. It has come to my attention that a group of highly creative individuals are working on a garburetor to end all garburetors; its name, the NDP monster garburetor.

It will handle all kinds of political rhetoric, campaign promises, useless information, one-time urgent needs and burning issues. The urgent, burning issues as they were when the NDP was in opposition have long been basic fodder for the new garburetor. No matter what you put into this marvellous little machine, nothing comes out but hot air. Directions for the use of the machine are non-existent, as appears to be the case for the minister of garbage.

A note of caution though: When fed up to capacity, the NDP monster garburetor tends to fly off the handle; and I should remind you, that is the only handle this government appears to have on anything.

Again, let me remind you, residents of York, Durham and Peel, this machine is still in the experimental stage and as Premier Bob would say to his cabinet, "Trust me." The NDP monster garburetor to end all garburetors is not for sale. It, along with the hot air, is here at great cost to all taxpayers.

Let's just survive until '95, when the NDP garburetor can be thrown out and never used again.

HONOURABLE BILL SCOTT

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to one of my constituents. On July 1, Mr Bill Scott, the Conservative MP for the federal riding of Victoria-Haliburton, was named to the Privy Council. He was presented with a Bible, his name inscribed within, from Queen Elizabeth.

After 26 years of service as the MP for my riding, it is fitting that his hard work and commitment to the area and to the political process be commemorated by this honour. This honour marks an outstanding and invaluable contribution to the national life of Canada.

Mr Scott, first elected to the House of Commons in 1965, is currently secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. His goal has been, he says, "to see my constituents here are well served." He feels that by devoting his last 26 years to being a member of Parliament, he has had an opportunity to serve his country, and in that a rare privilege.

At this time of uncertainty with respect to the future of Canada, I find Mr Scott's words inspiring. He says, "Canada is a great country, and the country deserves the attention and dedication of each and every citizen in whatever way they are able to contribute."

Ours is a rich and diverse country with great potential, and I am pleased that the federal representative from my riding of Victoria-Haliburton has been honoured for his recognition of this potential. It is my hope that this man, who has been honoured by the members of our community, with his commitment and devotion, will be a role model for others who choose to serve this country with such loyalty and dedication.

FISHING LICENCES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to inform the House and the Minister of Natural Resources of the burden which his policy, the policy of restricting the number of retailers in northern Ontario who may issue fishing licences, is having on the economy in my part of the world. I have one constituent who turned away eight people seeking fishing licences. Those people had to drive 30 miles to get a licence to fish in the province of Ontario.

In previous years, tourists in northern Ontario were afforded a variety of opportunities to purchase licences for fishing. Most retail stores, outfitters and camps which apply to the ministry were able to be granted the right to issue licences. This year, however, the ministry has drastically reduced the number of new northern Ontario outlets it sanctions to distribute the licences. The result has been frustration for tourists and a drop in the economic activity in a number of different stores which previously administered this alongside their other operations.

I urge the Minister of Natural Resources to reconsider the ministry's policy on fishing licences so that we may bolster the tourism and local economies of northern Ontario.

EVENTS IN S-D-G & EAST GRENVILLE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Many members will have heard me mention the Glengarry Highland Games held in my home town of Maxville every year. This year the games will begin on Friday evening, July 31, and continue Saturday, ending with the traditional massed bands. We will have some 50 bands competing for the North American championships again this year.

As always, I strongly encourage all members to attend, particularly those who tend to forget that there is indeed something that goes on outside the city of Toronto. You will enjoy the skirl of the pipes, the roll of the drums, the grace of the dancers and the power of the athletes in the stone, sheaf, hammer and caber tosses, not to mention the massed bands.

This year we hear that the leader of the Liberal Party will attend the games. Certainly I would make myself very much available to the leader of the Liberal Party should she want to meet some of the farmers in the area. I will certainly be welcoming the leader of the Liberal Party to our Glengarry Highland Games.

On the weekend before our games, July 24 to 26, the Avonmore Fair will be held in the community of Avonmore. On the August 8 weekend there are fairs in Vankleek Hill and in Williamstown, the oldest fair in all of Ontario. On August 16, of course, there is the annual Villeneuve picnic and I certainly encourage everyone to visit our farm and attend our picnic.

These events are for everyone and I hope many members indeed will decide to travel to eastern Ontario and enjoy our hospitality.

1340

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Today I rise to make a statement about a program in my riding called the Babies Best Start Project. The project is funded by the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto Foundation as a research project, as well as by private sector funders who have an interest in paediatric care.

This is an innovative primary prevention project aimed at children who live in public housing in Scarborough and their families. It empowers young, low-income and at-risk parents. While this project was originally targeted to the 400 McCowan and Trudelle Court Metro housing complexes, the success has built to the point where the program is now branching out to other parts of Scarborough, as well as including members from higher income levels.

This program employs community parents to be trained and paid to work with other parents of children up to three years old. The home visitors are matched with new parents from similar cultural backgrounds and they teach parenting skills and provide moral support which will improve the new parents' self-confidence.

The home visitors are the key to this program. It is their commitment and long-term involvement which make the program work. They provide friendship, a morale boost and stimulation for the new parents, who are often single, isolated moms. They give solid, practical advice which helps build parents' confidence. Hopefully the participants in this program will at some point be able to become home visitors themselves.

There are other programs such as Nobody Is Perfect, which is a group project for young mothers providing outreach and peer support, as well as the Mother Goose program, which teaches moms nursery rhymes and teaches them how to touch, play with and enjoy their babies.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): The Treasurer claims that if Bill 154, the Government Cheque Cashing Act, becomes law, it may possibly encourage the use of unregulated alternatives. I disagree with this assertion. I have proposed measures that should accompany Bill 154. This is to ensure that no recipient of social assistance is left out in the cold under any circumstances.

For example, an agreement should be reached between the Canadian Bankers Association, other financial institutions and the government of Ontario that would guarantee the cashing of government cheques and establish criteria for identification. This solution need not entail any cost for the government.

Recipients of social assistance benefit by being treated like any other customer. They gain access to a greater range of financial services. They can deal with their funds in the manner they choose, with dignity. There is no dignity in having to resort to paying fees to cash a cheque which is as good as gold.

Cheque cashing businesses have become associated with low-income persons. This singles out recipients of social assistance very cruelly. If the practice of cheque cashing can be made more easy and more attractive, it will not be driven underground. Low-income persons do not freely choose to pay extra fees. To suggest otherwise is incorrect and insulting.

HOUSING POLICY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm happy to see that the Minister of Housing is in the House this afternoon, because I know this will be an important statement for her to hear.

There are 8,300 households on Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp's waiting list, yet in the Minister of Housing's recent allotment of 6,500 non-profit units, Peel received just 469 units, or 7% of the allocation, compared to Metropolitan Toronto's 58%. This is not a fair share for Peel, which has one third of Metro's population and has grown six times faster than Metro in the past five years. Moreover, all the units went to the co-op sector. Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp received no units in this allocation and none of the 3,500 announced last fall.

This is not right. PNPHC provides 40% of its new units to families needing a deep level of subsidy, whereas co-ops must provide just 25% of their units to deep subsidy households. As well, PNPHC has the zonings in place to start building 500 homes immediately. This would have created jobs now, whereas many of the projects are years from construction.

The unfair allocation of non-profit housing shows how the government's social housing programs are not working. We must correct the inequities and assist the greatest possible number of needy families. Therefore, I call on the NDP government to implement a shelter allowance program. Such a program to help all of Ontario's needy families would cost an additional $410 million a year, which is a far cry from the $1 billion this government will spend annually by 1995 to subsidize just 115,000 non-profit homes.

CANADIAN DEAF FESTIVAL

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): The Canadian Deaf Festival's first biennial national conference was held from July 7 to 12, 1992, in Richmond, British Columbia. Over 700 deaf people participated in the conference, including representatives from the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Cultural Society of the Deaf and the Canadian Deaf Sports Association.

The Canadian Deaf Festival was established with an objective to promote cultural awareness and to produce a positive image of deaf people in society. It provides a forum where new ideas and cultural experiences could be shared and where we could stand united for the rights of deaf citizens in Canada. The conference had as it theme "Together We Grow."

Presentations from deaf speakers were held in the areas of deaf self-awareness and action, bilingual and bicultural education, deaf youth, AIDS, cochlear implants and the deaf, education on the prevention of sexual abuse and deaf politics and networking. The presentations were extremely insightful and proved to be an invaluable resource.

The key theme of the conference was that we as deaf people must be involved in decisions that affect our lives, and I'm proud to see that the Ontario government has done just that in its work on deaf education and has considered all communities in its work on employment equity and human rights reforms.

I encourage all levels of government to get out and meet deaf groups, learn about their cultural needs and take them into consideration when implementing plans that will actually affect their lives.

MEMBERS' SAFETY

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Last Monday the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan) rose in the House on a question of privilege concerning two incidents involving "physical threats or threats of violence against members." The member, who intimated that the incidents occurred outside the parliamentary precinct, quoted Erskine May on molesting of members and influencing members by threats.

The first incident occurred in Thunder Bay on April 10, 1989, which was the day before the member for Halton Centre was scheduled to attend a meeting of the standing committee on resources development in that city. Whereas that incident occurred in the course of the 34th Parliament, the second incident occurred in Georgetown on June 27 of this year, and it involved the Minister of the Environment while she was in transit to a public function in that town.

I have carefully reviewed the member's submissions, together with the appropriate authorities, and I'm now in a position to address the House on this matter.

Let me begin by making a few remarks on parliamentary privilege. Standing order 21(a) defines privilege as "the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Citation 24 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne, drawing on Erskine May, defines privilege (at page 11) in the following terms:

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by the members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law. The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.' They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."

1350

The authorities suggest that for a prima facie case of privilege to be made out, the circumstances giving rise to the alleged breach of privilege should have impinged on the parliamentary duties of a member. For example, citation 92 of Beauchesne states (at page 25) that, "[a] valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a member must relate to the member's parliamentary duties and not to the work the member does in relation to that member's constituency."

Furthermore, Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada indicates (at pages 197 and 198) that "to be considered a matter of privilege, any molestation or intimidation of the member must relate to his parliamentary duties unless the circumstances arise within the precincts when the House is sitting, in which case the act alone of assaulting any person within the precincts is the gist of the contempt."

And at pages 199 and 200, Maingot makes the following additional remarks about the narrow confines of parliamentary privilege:

"[I]t must be shown that the member was obstructed in his work relating to a proceeding in Parliament and not simply while he was performing his representative duties in his constituency or in other myriad areas (which is the wont of members of the House of Commons), nor simply in his private capacity....

"[T]he underlying test in all cases [is] whether the right claimed as a privilege is one which is absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers of Parliament."

I also want to refer members to some of the authorities concerning the timeliness of raising questions of privilege, an issue that is more germane to the first incident raised by the member for Halton Centre. Citation 115 of Beauchesne indicates the following (at page 29):

"A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House."

The 21st edition of Erskine May indicates (at page 135) that "a member who wishes to raise a privilege complaint is required to give written notice to the Speaker as soon as reasonably practicable after the member has notice of the alleged contempt or breach of privilege."

I have to say, then, that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made with respect to the two incidents raised by the member for Halton Centre.

Notwithstanding this ruling, I want to assure the member for Halton Centre, and indeed all members, that I am very concerned about how such incidents might affect members as they attend to their parliamentary responsibilities. To this end, I will review such security arrangements as are within the jurisdiction of the Speaker and take such action as is appropriate.

I again want to thank the member for Halton Centre for bringing these incidents and the seriousness of the situation to the attention of the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Roughly four years ago, Canadians participated in a federal election campaign which turned on an issue of unparalleled importance for our economy and our people.

The party that now forms the national government ran a campaign based on the virtues of a Canada-US free trade agreement, an agreement which was going to mean jobs for Canadians, greater predictability about the rules of the game for our trade with the United States, more access to the American market for Canadian business and future competitiveness for our economy both within North America and the global economy.

No less an authority than former Finance minister Donald Macdonald, co-chairman of the pro-free trade Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities, summed up the issue as follows: "The really critical thing is, does the agreement put Canada as a trader with the United States in a better position to defend its interests? I think the answer is yes."

Our government disagrees profoundly with that view. Over the months, we've been subjected to virtually unending trade harassment from American industry. The list of disputes is very long and includes trade in softwood lumber, beer, steel and autos. Earlier this year, CAMI Automotive and Honda were subjected to harassment by US customs over alleged issues involving the national origin of their products, and today we have the latest salvo: US customs officials have begun investigations regarding the national origin of cars produced by Ford and Toyota in St Thomas and Cambridge respectively.

I don't think there's a better or fairer way to describe these actions, the latest in a long string of similar moves, than as systematic trade harassment. In my view, they are the most recent evidence of what many Canadians and I believe most Ontarians feel. The Canada-US free trade agreement has not produced the most fundamental benefit it was intended to achieve: an end to unilateral protectionism by the United States.

That is why, when our national government and the American federal administration announced their intention to negotiate a trilateral North American free trade agreement among themselves and Mexico, we said it was a bad idea. Our government consistently has opposed the talks as not being in the best interests of Canadians generally or Ontarians.

Canada cannot stay at the NAFTA negotiating table while these American actions continue. They are clearly intended to discourage investment in Canada. They will not succeed, as we have seen from announcements by many companies, including major investments announced in recent months by General Electric, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. Despite the confidence shown in the economy and the people of Ontario by these major investors, we feel the federal government must signal clearly that ongoing US protectionist actions and the active discouragement of investment in Canada is entirely unacceptable.

I've spoken today with the Prime Minister. I want to say that I am today calling on the federal government to suspend its participation in the NAFTA negotiations. Further, I believe the Prime Minister should call a first ministers' meeting in advance of any deal being signed, at which the federal government should explain its strategy with regard to trade. In our view, this should be the beginning, and not the end, of a public debate on the desirability of a NAFTA and the direction of Canadian trade policy for the 1990s.

RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I listened with interest to the Premier and his recommendation to the Prime Minister of Canada. This from the same Premier who said, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, if he was elected not only would he not honour the free trade agreement, he would do everything he could not to comply. He almost immediately did nothing when a tractor company that made trailers sold a large shipment to the United States directly, to the detriment of Ontario and directly contravening the exact thing this Premier said.

Mr Premier, I have a question for you. Where have you been? This discussion has been going on for 18 months. To suddenly come to the party and say "Go home" is a little late. I suggest to you, sir, that this agreement is near completion. You had every opportunity to express the same concerns in a meaningful way to the Prime Minister, the President of the United States and the President of Mexico. You haven't been very effective if you have done it.

I will say to you this: that to ask to take Canada away from the table, to my mind, would be disastrous, because then what you would have is the United States and Mexico negotiating a deal without Canada being there to at least try to minimize the effect of it.

I would make another suggestion to you if you're looking for suggestions. I notice you had no trouble making your statement outside the House and it's now the headline in the Toronto Star, in which you say in effect: "I don't know what has been going on. I wasn't aware of it." I would suggest to you that you could have put your efforts to the point of making sure that Ontario was at the table. As the manufacturing and industrial centre of Canada, you should have been there protecting the interests of this province to make sure that any negotiation that takes place takes place without being detrimental to the people of Ontario and to the jobs we have here.

1400

There is no question, and I have to say I agree, that there are incidences of harassment. The implications of the 201 and the 301 actions, whether it's countervail or dumping, have always been a problem, and that of course was the whole genesis behind the free trade agreement. Contrary to what you're very happy to say -- that we did nothing to stop the free trade agreement -- that was our concern: that when we did have agreement, the dispute settlement mechanism wasn't terribly effective.

I would suggest this is where you should be putting your efforts, not to come literally at the last minute after 18 months of negotiations and suddenly suggest, "Let's withdraw." I think what has happened to you, and I say this with all respect, is you have been so coloured by your involvement in the constitutional talks that you got the idea that if you withdraw from the discussions, maybe things won't happen. That certainly didn't stop you and the other premiers from coming up with a constitutional agreement.

I suggest to you that your responsibility is not to give gratuitous advice to the Prime Minister of this country as to what he should be doing. You should be looking after the business interests of Ontario. You should be at the table. You should insist that Ontario have a place so that at least when decisions are taken that are going to impact negatively on Ontario you have an opportunity to say something about it. I would suggest that that would be a better place to put your efforts.

To make this statement is grandstanding in the worst way, because unless you can put something behind it, unless you can put your money where your mouth is, what are you going to accomplish? You're going to get your 15 seconds in the Toronto Star and that'll be it. But tell me, what is going to happen? What is the next step? Are you going to go to Ottawa? Are you going to insist that the talks stop? You will be laughed out of Ottawa if that happens. Tell me what you're going to do. I'd be very interested to hear what plan you have other than to wring your hands and say, "Please, sir, will you withdraw from the talks, because we think it's not going the way we would like it to go?"

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I want to make one specific comment on the statement by the Premier and then some comments about all provincial politicians who think they have anything to do with free trade and who think they can do anything about it and how irrelevant the Premier's statement is and why it's time to get on with what you can do.

The comment, though, has to do with what I guess has provoked the statement: the fact that customs officials earlier this year harassed, as the Premier said, CAMI and Honda with regard to Canadian content, and now, today, the national origin of cars produced by Ford and Toyota in St Thomas and Cambridge. With or without a free trade deal, customs officials are free to bring up these allegations and harass, if that's what they're doing.

I'm also very intrigued that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- and I think the Premier as well, but certainly spokesmen for the government -- has expressed great confidence that the free trade agreement will provide the mechanism to ultimately win those disputes and that without that free trade agreement there is no recourse; there is no other vehicle to try to resolve those disputes.

The very issue that seems to have prompted the statement, as imperfect as the free trade agreement is -- I agree with the Liberals -- is the one vehicle that you tout as going to save the day. The same with the softwood lumber you talk about -- that's the vehicle that's going to save the day, yet you continue to think we can operate in a vacuum and put the barriers up.

I'm not surprised, for a couple of reasons. First, the Premier of Ontario went to the negotiating table on the Constitution and was the Premier who was the biggest impediment and barrier to interprovincial trade barriers in this country. All the other negotiators have said this, all the other provinces have said this: that Premier Rae was the biggest obstacle to dropping the interprovincial trade barriers. It's not surprising then that he thinks Ontario can live in a cocoon all by itself.

What I suggest is that the Premier ought to do things that he has some control over, that are within provincial jurisdiction, that will allow us to be competitive and prosper and have jobs with or without free trade with the United States, with or without free trade with Mexico, with or without a GATT agreement, and that is to be competitive in this province, to have a tax climate where we're a desirable province to do business in, to have a regulatory framework where it's desirable for business to locate in.

I understand the Premier trying to divert attention from that, because his record, as was the previous Liberal record, was abysmal on this front. I fought a campaign in 1987. I was involved in an election where we had a Premier in Ontario, very much like the current Premier, who campaigned against free trade. "If you elect me as Premier," he implied, "I'll stop this free trade deal." He had no power to stop the free trade deal. It was a bogus issue to begin with. It wasn't something that was within the provincial purview or domain. I suggest that was because, as the Liberals hiked taxes, brought in more regulation, more red tape, made us more uncompetitive, they knew it would be more and more difficult for Ontario to compete.

Now we have another Premier -- a partner who led to the election of the Liberal government -- doing the same thing: trying to divert attention from their terrible record here in Ontario by pretending that they can do something that we have no jurisdiction over. You might as well say, "We're opposed to panda bears in North Bay." You have as much control or jurisdiction over that as you do with the free trade agreement. To suggest that whether the Premier of Ontario agrees or disagrees is going to have any impact at all is so presumptuous on the part of the Premier of Ontario that I think it is laughable.

Premier, I suggest you get your own house in order. I suggest you look at why we can't compete any longer with the western provinces, with Quebec, with New Brunswick, when Ontario used to be the province of opportunity, the province that was the most competitive. I suggest you get your own house in order. I suggest you work at the things you can do and you have jurisdiction over, and not worry about those things that you have no control over.

MINISTERIAL COURTESY

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege today. Last Friday, July 10, the Minister of Government Services came into the riding of Quinte, into the city of Belleville, to announce under the Jobs Ontario Capital program a $2.7-million grant to two things within the city of Belleville: construction of a new Belleville OPP detachment and three separate renovations and repair projects at Sir James Whitney school in that same city.

I would just like to make you aware, Mr Speaker, that prior to coming into the city the day before, the minister notified all the municipal politicians and the press in that area and neglected to notify the elected member of that riding.

It is my personal feeling that whatever government it is usually has the courtesy to make sure that the member within that area is notified of different announcements so that he or she can be there to be aware of it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. To the member for Quinte: Indeed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member for St George-St David come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member for St George-St David to come to order.

To the member for Quinte -- and the member may know that in the alleged point of privilege which he raised, he in fact answers his own question -- while it is not a loss of privilege when a member has not been invited to a function, none the less it is generally considered to be a courtesy, and obviously in this particular instance it was not extended. It is time for oral questions, and the member for Timiskaming.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I ask the member for St George-St David to please come to order.

Mr Ramsay: I would also like to thank my colleagues for getting the government's attention today.

My question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. In April the government's throne speech talked about the need to form partnerships between government, labour and business in order that we could renew the Ontario economy. Everyone understands and, I might add, agrees that these groups have to work together to get the Ontario economy working again, but the NDP's labour bill has upset many businesses and working Ontarians. It has made foreigners nervous about investing in Ontario and has polarized labour-management relations in Ontario.

The government can talk about promises and partnerships all it wants, but these amendments are really not showing business in Ontario what partnership is all about. Your idea of partnership is, "Take it or leave it; this is how we see it." That's not what a partnership is. You can't ram partnership down people's throats.

Doesn't the government realize that it has begun now a pitched battle with business over these labour reforms, a fight that means the end of its economic renewal strategy? How is this type of labour management going to rebuild the Ontario economy and get those new jobs that we need for Ontario's unemployed?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): The honourable member has made a number of statements that are simply not based on fact. He says that this government hasn't listened. In fact there are 20 amendments to the Labour Relations Act already as a result of the impacts of the information provided to the Minister of Labour, 11 of which are substantial.

I can tell you that members of the business community whom I have spoken to are appreciative of the fact that I and other cabinet ministers have brought that information to the attention of the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour has met with many of these groups themselves and he has listened. The evidence is in the changes that he's already made to the bill.

The honourable member says that it is forcing businesses not to invest in Ontario. The evidence is to the contrary: There is more investment in Ontario than in any other province and indeed than in all the other provinces combined. Why don't you learn the facts?

Mr Ramsay: This breakdown in the government's relationship with the business community in Ontario is poisoning other activities in the government's economic renewal plan. I'll give you some examples. The main business group representing Ontario small business pulled out of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board yesterday. That's the government's prime initiative for skills training. How is the government going to renew the skills of Ontario workers if OTAB is in shambles? The main business steering group that the government has relied upon to develop OTAB has now stopped nominating the principals to be on OTAB. In short, OTAB is in shambles.

This minister has said it's key to economic renewal that we have a highly skilled workforce in place. How can the minister say his industrial strategy will help create a skilled workforce when the government's main initiative in training is on the rails?

Hon Mr Philip: Once again the research for the Liberal Party is found to be faulty. In fact, they have not withdrawn from OTAB; they have withdrawn from the reference board. I think that there's a great distinction to that. We respect and we want the influence and the input from business in that. The Minister of Colleges and Universities and Skills Development has been saying that all over the province.

The honourable member says that somehow the business community does not have confidence. Let me read to you a statement by one of the investors, namely IBM. IBM, in opening up construction for two facilities that have created 150 jobs per year over a five-year period, said, "I hope that people will see that the opening of these two facilities is a ringing vote of confidence in Ontario." That's what the business community has done. They're putting their money in Ontario. That's the vote of confidence.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The facts have been released today, as the minister will know. We see the plant closures, the tragic numbers, that you are responsible for. Just released today: a plant closing every other day in the province of Ontario. We saw 16 plants close in June; 74 plants closed already this year. We see already in the month of July, and we're only halfway through the month of July, that 19 plants have announced they are going to close, Minister. Those are the numbers.

Minister, there were four key planks in your economic renewal plan. The first big part was the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, and we found out yesterday that the partners are saying they don't want to participate. The second big part of your economic platform was the Ontario investment fund, and we see there the partners' severe concerns about participating. The third part of your economic renewal plan was the the worker ownership plan. The Ontario Federation of Labour, the Canadian Auto Workers and the Steelworkers all say the plan is crazy. The fourth part is the Labour Relations Act amendments.

Your economic plan is in tatters, Minister. I want to know very clearly from you, what are the things that are specifically going to create jobs in the next six months, recognizing that the four major planks in your economic renewal plan are in tatters?

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member says they're in tatters. In fact all he has to do is read the headlines of the newspapers to see where the tatters are. The fact is that in the last two months more new jobs have been created in Ontario than in all the other provinces combined. Tell that to your Liberal friends who are running other governments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Philip: The research in the Liberal Party is so poor that they can't even read the newspapers. Here are the headlines in the newspapers: "New Contracts Keep Ontario Bus Rolling" -- Toronto Star, July 14; "ISM Information Systems Management Corp" -- a new $14-million contract; General Motors's announcement -- we all heard about that; "Company to Reopen Toronto Oil Recycling Plant" -- Toronto Star, July 13; "Microsoft To Expand Canadian Operations" -- July 13 in the Financial Post; "Thirty Waterloo Labatt Workers to Transfer from Montreal to Toronto."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat, please.

CAMCO INC

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Premier. For the past six months or so, just about every time anyone raises the possibility that the NDP just might be a job-killing, anti-business government, this government dusts off the two-year-old Ford investment decision to say that things really aren't as bad as they seem. Yesterday the NDP announced that at least one Ontario manufacturer was actually going to keep its doors open for at least one more year and that was considered to be big news.

Today I want to ask the Premier about another one of his favourite good news stories. He referred to it today in his earlier statement, and that has to do with General Electric. I'm sure the Premier is aware of the situation at Camco Inc. Could he tell this House what he is planning to do to make sure the thousand jobs at stake in Hamilton are in fact maintained in this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): As soon as we heard about the action being taken by GSW and the concerns being expressed, we've obviously asked for and held meetings with both GE and the principals of GSW with respect to Camco. We intend to continue those meetings with General Electric with respect to the future of Camco.

We think there's every interest for the whole country in seeing genuine product mandates being granted to this firm. We think it's a company which has shown a history of success and competitiveness. Everything that can be done to maintain those jobs, to keep those jobs and to see that those firms expand, everything that possibly can be done, will be done by this government, as we have done in other situations in which we faced difficulties, whether it's de Havilland, whether it's Algoma. Whatever situation it may be, we will do everything we can to see that these jobs are maintained and that the appropriate product mandates are granted to these companies.

1420

Mr Kwinter: The General Electric plan calls for the company to chop 500 jobs at its Hamilton Camco facility by the end of 1994 and the remaining 500 Hamilton Camco jobs by 1998. General Electric is the same company this government flaunted in its throne speech, the same company the NDP was eager to give $27 million to, to gain 190 jobs just up the road in Oakville. That's $142,000 for every job, and the federal contribution amounted to millions more. Can the workers in Hamilton expect that the same type of treatment their company cousins in Oakville received to entice their employer to stay in Canada will be given to them?

Hon Mr Rae: When the member was the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, he was not reluctant. I can show him examples, of Goodyear in Napanee, and the federal government was there; with respect to the Toyota location in Cambridge, in which the government was involved, and with respect to the Honda location. With respect to decisions that have been made by companies, this is the reality of having to deal here. We had to succeed in getting the world product mandate for the Oakville plant. We had to succeed in working out some understanding with Ontario Hydro with respect to purchases and with respect to the marketing of the new lighting that's there. These are very tough negotiations with these corporations. It's not easy.

I suppose that in an ideal world the government of Ontario would not be involved in having to deal with the training needs. The fact of the matter is that on the training side I have said to corporation presidents, I have said to companies that are planning to invest, that we are prepared to cooperate and to invest on the training side, provided the jobs are there and provided the world product mandates are there. That's what we're doing. The member knows full well that we have to compete with Kentucky, Georgia, Michigan and New York state, all those jurisdictions that are offering tax concessions and other concessions that we have no way of matching and no way of dealing with.

The key way for us to deal with it is on the training side and on the infrastructure side, and that's exactly what we're going to do in order to keep these jobs in Ontario and in order to see they're expanded. This is the reality of having to do business in the world today and the member for Wilson Heights knows it better than any other member in this Legislature.

Mr Kwinter: I don't know what I said to elicit that response from the Premier. All I asked him was: "You did it in the Oakville plant. Are you going to do it in the Hamilton plant?" I wasn't being critical of the fact that he did it in Oakville. I just asked: "Are you going to do it in Hamilton? Are you going to tell those workers they will get the same treatment from this government that their brothers in the Oakville plant got?" That was all I asked you. I wasn't asking you to give me a whole dissertation on the advantages of enticing industry into Ontario. As the Premier said, I, probably more than anyone else in this House, am very aware of that.

But I would like to say that the Premier probably isn't aware that the company to which he handed the $27 million to save the 190 jobs in Oakville is the same company that has laid off 275 employees in Peterborough without a peep from this government. So what I want to know is, when do you decide who gets your attention and who doesn't get your attention? How do you deal with that?

You give money to the Oakville workers at General Electric and you seem to be prepared to ignore what is happening in Hamilton. The General Electric company in Peterborough lays off 275 workers: not a peep. I just want to know from this Premier about this government: What kind of industrial strategy do you have? Is there any consistency in what you do or is it just to react to whatever is the hot point of the day?

Hon Mr Rae: The repayable loan we granted to General Electric with respect to Oakville -- I might say no one was more keen to be there for the signing ceremony than the local member from the Conservative Party, as one would fully expect. I get questions being asked by all kinds of members about what's going on in their individual plants.

You say, "What's the strategy?" First of all, the strategy is to do as much as we can as a government on the training side. The strategy is to do as much as we can on behalf of the workers and on behalf of education. As we begin to see the transformation of branch plants in response to the free trade agreement, the strategy for this government is to try to get as many world product mandates given by global corporations for their activities in Ontario as we can possibly achieve.

That's been the strategy with respect to General Electric; that's been the strategy with respect to Ford, Chrysler and others. That is the best and most intelligent way for us to respond to the restructuring that's going on within these global corporations. That's what we're doing in response to General Electric.

I can tell the honourable member that there are going to be other efforts made with other corporations, whether on the computer side, the high-tech side, the manufacturing side or the service side. Where we have these multinational corporations working and looking to locate around the world and looking to why they should choose Ontario, the two reasons they give us are these:

First of all, because of our health care and social service system, the quality of life for their workers is very high and their health care costs are predictable and controllable in contrast to what they are in the United States.

The second reason given is the quality of the workforce and the commitment of this government to training and education. Those are the two critical factors we have at work in dealing with the global corporations with which we have to deal.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Minister, yesterday the Canadian Federation of Independent Business announced it's withdrawing from the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. They said, "We cannot become training partners with a government that destroys the very jobs the training is supposed to benefit." Your Premier called that a partisan political tactic. I suggest that is typical of a government which makes a habit of trying to crush anybody who disagrees with it. I just ask you to ask the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, the CFIB is the voice of small business in the province of Ontario. Why won't you listen to them?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to make it clear to the member that we have listened to them carefully. It seems to me that when the approach is one that what we have to react to is how we can pay the lowest wages and the least benefits possible, it's not a good approach for Canadians. It's not the direction we intend to go in. The direction we intend to take is to take advantage of the trained and efficient workforce we've got and to see that they take part in some of the decisions that are going to affect them.

Mr Harris: Yesterday you went off on another rant against the people you think are out to get you. This time a reputable polling company, Environics, was the object of your abuse. Later in the House you slammed an Ernst and Young study. Now you've added pollsters and small business groups to your growing list of people you think are out to get you. Minister, I ask you again, as I have asked you countless times before, will you show us one shred of evidence you have, one study that you have done, that proves that any of the studies you disagree with are in any way, shape or form the slightest bit wrong?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: What we do know, and what the leader of the third party should know, is that an efficient, involved workforce is much more productive than one that's not. What we are trying to do in Ontario is to use our most valuable resource, which is our workers, and bring them into the decision-making that's going to affect them.

1430

Mr Harris: Minister, I realize you don't believe me or listen to me. You don't believe or listen to big business or large employers in Ontario. You don't believe or listen to small employers in Ontario. You won't believe countless numbers of independent studies and now you don't believe the polls. Every day in my office I get letters like one I'd like to read from. It's from Piller Sausages and Delicatessens Ltd of Waterloo addressed to me about the impact of proposed labour legislation. It says:

"Over the last five-year period we have had substantial growth in our organization resulting in investment dollars in Ontario. The following points highlight some of the positive effects of this growth: employment levels increased 29%; investment dollars were $10,750,000 over the last five years" -- over $2 million a year -- "participated in a joint venture to expand product base -- new facility erected in Ontario; expansion of current facility. This type of investment has a positive spinoff effect throughout the entire community and Ontario."

Then the letter says: "The proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act have caused us to put all further investment plans on hold. There will be no increase in employment and no further investment in Ontario."

Minister, this letter, as well as hundreds of others we are receiving from across the province, is not partisan. They're not big business; they're not small business; they're not pollsters; they're not independent analysts. They are small businesses trying to make a living, trying to create jobs. They are not your enemies. In fact, treated properly, they are your greatest ally in creating jobs in this province. Why won't you listen to them?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's obvious there's a disagreement between myself and the leader of the third party. I think I have been listening to them. I have been listening to them very carefully, and what we've done with the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments clearly indicates that in the changes we've made. It's unfortunate the leader of the third party does not believe there is a role for the workers in the province of Ontario to play as well as business in terms of turning our situation around.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. I'm sure the minister is aware of the staff training and development school his ministry operates in Hamilton. I'm wondering if the minister is also aware of concerns being expressed about the operation of the school, the fact that there's no supervision available on a night-time basis when up to 70 individuals from his ministry can be housed on premises, stories of considerable amounts of liquor entering the premises, parties and women, members of his ministry feeling extremely vulnerable if they have to stay on those grounds over an evening or over a period of time. Would the minister indicate if he's aware of those concerns, and if yes, what is he doing about it?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm not aware of the concerns, although they are very serious concerns if in fact they are the case. I can assure the member if any such actions are taking place, they will be stopped immediately. I will see to that personally.

Mr Runciman: There's a very serious allegation circulating within the Ministry of Correctional Services. Several months ago, two female members of the ministry, while attending a course at the college, were sexually assaulted by others attending the college, a significant number of males assaulting two females. We've been advised that the women are not lodging formal complaints because of peer pressure, although they have visited with the ministry psychologist because of the impact this is having on them. I stress, Mr Minister, that these are allegations. I'm asking you if indeed you're aware of this charge, this allegation, which is in wide circulation within your ministry, and if yes, what you are doing about it.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, if these allegations do have any basis in fact, they are indeed serious and are taken as such by myself and certainly will be dealt with immediately if that is the case. I think that's all I should respond until I can find out whether the honourable member's questions or assertions are a fact. I'll be very pleased to respond subsequent to that investigation.

Mr Runciman: It's difficult to pursue it any further other than to say I have been contacted by a senior member of the bureaucracy, who certainly indicated that the deputy minister was aware of these allegations. A decision was taken within the ministry not to pursue it simply because the women allegedly involved would not file an official complaint because of their concerns about peer pressure. Again these women feel extremely vulnerable working in an atmosphere and environment dominated by male coworkers. We're also talking about individuals who are acting as peace officers, who allegedly committed a very violent crime against two women within the ministry.

Again all I can ask for is the assurance of this minister that he will report back to this House as quickly as possible if indeed these allegations have merit, and what action he's taking. Also, I would ask that he pursue as to the manner in which this was dealt with internally within his ministry.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can take from the questioning now and understand that it may well not have come to my attention because no one did proceed. These are apparently allegations which no one was prepared to substantiate.

Notwithstanding that, I am very pleased, and anxious as a matter of fact, to review any such allegations with respect to my ministry, the Ministry of Correctional Services, and I will be very pleased to ensure that the appropriate information is found out and actions taken.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I firmly believe that developing ethanol fuel in Ontario by Ontarians could go a long way in turning around this economy. By using this environment friendly fuel alternative, Ontario could be saving renewable natural resources while increasing markets for our hard-pressed farmers.

Should the government of Ontario decide to pursue this industry, over 5,000 jobs could be created province-wide. As we become daily more aware of the need to protect and preserve our environment, as we continue to experience job losses almost daily and the irony of farmers turning to food banks continues, I wonder what project other than developing ethanol fuel could be more tailored to respond to the dire situation of farmers, the environment and all of Ontario.

So important could ethanol fuel be for the province that I have stood in this Legislature many times pleading with the Minister of Agriculture and Food to heed this opportunity being offered by the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Cooperative, yet the minister remains doggedly unmoved over this opportunity.

In fact just this morning the Minister of Agriculture and Food's assistant informed my office, "We are still mulling over what we are going to put into the industry's discussion paper, so unless there is something other than deadlines to discuss, I am not sure there's a whole lot to talk about." I'll repeat that: "Other than deadlines." Minister, what else could there be to talk about?

I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food: When are you going to act? Are you willing to dither away time and potential jobs as this opportunity relocates in another province?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I appreciate the member for Cornwall's support for the ethanol industry. I think he's heard me say before, and in fact the Minister of Energy as well, that we support the production of ethanol in Ontario and we certainly would like to see it happen in eastern Ontario as well as in other sections of the province.

In response to the member's earlier questions, I told him that we have an interministerial committee which is reviewing ethanol. The member also knows that there are 13 or 14 other organizations in the province that are very interested in pursuing the production of ethanol. There is a report being prepared which will provide guidelines and directions for any assistance that might be provided for the Seaway Valley cooperative organization or any other organization.

I met this morning with the Minister of Energy. We reviewed what is coming forward, and in fact we will continue to support ethanol and very much appreciate the member's support. We will in fact do everything we can to support the Seaway Valley cooperative's initiatives.

Mr Cleary: Despite all your talk about interministerial discussions, reports and provincial strategy, it is evident that developing ethanol fuel cannot bear any more of your delays.

The Seaway Valley Farmers have exclusive rights until July 1 to a unique technology required to make ethanol economical. Then, Minister, you personally requested that you should receive an extension until July 15th -- today is the 14th, the 15th tomorrow -- which they did. I must mention that the Seaway Valley Farmers were approached by Quebec officials indicating Quebec's willingness to develop ethanol fuel as soon as possible.

1440

I stress that these out-of-province talks will not affect just the Seaway Valley Farmers; they will also affect all the farmers across this province. The environment needs preservation, which ethanol offers, and indeed all of Ontario needs an ethanol industry. Are you finally going to act in the necessary and appropriate manner by responding to the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Cooperative? Are you willing to be personally accountable to the farmers, the environment and all Ontarians seeking jobs by letting this proposal slip into another province?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We certainly would like to see the Parteq technology developed and used here in Ontario. There is one minor omission in the member's question. The Parteq technology needs to have some kind of pilot test done to make sure it's economically viable in any large-scale production. Those tests have not been done. We are very interested in having those tests done as quickly as possible so that the Seaway Valley cooperative or another organization can get on with the production of ethanol, which of course is a very environmentally friendly fuel, and we support what the member says with regard to that.

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Solicitor General. I've sent the minister a copy of an article from the Ottawa Sun concerning the ongoing police investigation into alleged cases of child sexual abuse in the town of Prescott in eastern Ontario. The headline reads "Funding Threatens Sex Abuse Probe." It's known as Project Jericho within the OPP.

The story outlines that police and child welfare workers fear that suspected child molesters will go free because provincial funding for the Prescott sex abuse investigation is running out. The Sun story goes on to say that as many as 46 child sex abuse charges may never be laid because of the mounting costs of the investigation.

Could the minister indicate to the House today if indeed adequate funding is going to be committed to Project Jericho, and if not, why not?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): Funding is being provided, and I'm not aware of any situation why it wouldn't continue to be. These are matters that are very serious indeed and ones which cannot be allowed in our institutions now or in the future, and those that have occurred in the past need to be remedied.

Mr Runciman: Local officials need to be contacted by the minister with respect to this matter, not only the OPP but also children's aid officials, who are very concerned. We are talking about a very small municipality with about 5,000 people. To have the suggestion even floated that child molesters possibly are going to be allowed to go free because funding is not going to be made available to complete these investigations is not only detrimental to the community at large, but leaves a cloud hanging over all those individuals who may be under suspicion.

As you well know, Mr Speaker, in a small community those kinds of things are not kept under wraps very well. So again I urge the minister, if he'll commit himself today, to follow up on what he said here and communicate with the OPP regionally to assure those officials that funding will be made available.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member had my initial response. I think it was quite clear and it remains unaltered.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is to the Minister of Health. In my riding of London South there is a good deal of concern about the campuses of Victoria Hospital. Ten years ago, a former Conservative government of Ontario began development of the Westminster campus site of Victoria Hospital without a firm commitment to see it through financially. This situation was left unresolved by the former Liberal government. Today we find patients must often be transported from one site to the other, often while they are critically ill, to receive some services. Most operations are performed at the South Street hospital, but diagnostic tests are performed at Westminster campus.

The final report of the Comprehensive Health Planning Commission of Southwestern Ontario identified rationalization and consolidation of the South Street and Westminster campuses of Victoria Hospital to be a top priority for our province's health planning. Minister, how is this government moving to consolidate Victoria Hospital in London South to end potential treatment delays and hospital resource waste?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I thank the member for his question. While his lead-in is quite factual in terms of the history of this, I would say it should be stated without blame towards previous governments. One thing I've learned since being in this portfolio is that the time for good health planning in terms of capital expenditures is considerable. What the project here has gone through over the period of time, although lengthy, I think will result in a much better delivery of the health care system in terms of the integration of that in the city of London.

The previous government did appoint the comprehensive health system planning commission. It's normally referred to as the Orser report. The member's quite right: This was identified as a high priority. He's also right in talking about not just consolidation of the services on one campus but rationalization of services among the hospitals in the London area.

Currently, through the district health council, we are leading a conjoint planning process with the council of teaching hospitals so that we can get the answers to what services are going to which campuses to be able to effect the consolidation. In the meantime, there are some small consolidation projects going ahead funded by the ministry, some that the hospitals are doing, but the big project is still to come and we do remain committed to achieving that.

Mr Winninger: I understand that the London teaching hospitals' council has submitted a plan to the ministry. When can the people of London South expect to see --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You missed the answer. Put it in your press release. She said nothing --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Winninger: -- the ministry's response to the draft plan of the London teaching hospitals' council to consolidate services of all three teaching hospitals in London?

Hon Ms Lankin: I'll try and answer that question. I actually had trouble hearing part of it. One of the members from the third party is busy, I guess, making extra comments on this. I think the question was with respect to the process of the London teaching hospitals' council on conjoint planning.

What I referred to in my first answer is that the process is being led by the district health council. It is a community-led process at this point in time. That process of planning, of rationalization of services, of trying to end duplication, of trying to take money out of the system that it isn't necessary to spend on duplication of administration and put it into delivery of services to people is a process that will be dictated by the local planning process.

I am unable at this time to give the member an assurance of a time frame. The local community will respond to me and then we'll try and take action at that point in time.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, on June 5, 1992, the parliamentary assistant to the Premier announced that your government would make available $20 million through Jobs Ontario Youth to create 8,500 summer jobs. At the time of the announcement, the parliamentary assistant indicated that the program would have a particular focus on black youth and that a special effort would be made to reach out to black youth. Could the Minister of Education tell us what direction or guidelines his ministry has given the youth employment centres and all the agencies participating in this program in order to assist them in fulfilling this mandate?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I think the member raises a very important question and one that, rather than answer today in a very general way, I'd prefer to come back and give him a very specific answer to. I'll take that under notice and return with a more succinct answer.

Mr Curling: This is rather shocking. A program of $20 million was announced and the minister doesn't know the guidelines.

While you're at it, Mr Minister, let me just give you an incident. Yesterday, my office was in contact with a black woman whose daughter had been told by counsellors at the youth employment centre in North York that she looked white and was therefore not eligible to apply to the program as a racial minority. According to the applicant's mother, the counsellor at the centre told her that 80% of the positions were being held for black youth, with the other 20% going to all others, including members of other minority groups.

She was then told that in any case her daughter was clearly not disadvantaged. Explaining this comment, the counsellor noted that the applicant was wearing a sweater with a private school insignia. The applicant was also asked if she had ever been pregnant or had an abortion and was subjected to many other equally inappropriate questions.

Something is clearly wrong with the way in which this program is being administered. I am really appalled to know that you don't know of the guidelines and direction being given to these counsellors. Minister, what more do you intend to do about this situation?

Hon Mr Silipo: I want to say to the member that he's incorrect when he states that I'm not aware of the guidelines. I'm aware of the guidelines in a general way. However, given the specificity of the question, to do justice to the question he's asked, I've chosen to take the issue under advisement and to come back with a more specific answer for him.

With respect to the point he raised in his supplementary, I would share his concerns if the things he has set out in his supplementary are indeed happening. I would also say to him that I will look into those matters and report back to him, I hope by tomorrow, with some very clear answers to the questions he's raised.

1450

PRICING OF WINE AND BEER

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister will know that the tourism and hospitality people in Ontario are being hammered by high taxes by all three levels of government, by the continued effects of the recession and now by bad weather this summer. These three factors are combining to have a devastating effect on this important sector of our economy.

The Prince Edward Island liquor control commission, to promote tourism, has launched a pilot project allowing licensed establishments to purchase wine at a price 20% less than the basic price and, in turn, licensed establishments have reduced markups on wine; in other words, a wholesale pricing system for wine as a pilot project.

On March 31, I wrote to the minister urging her to undertake a similar program in Ontario to help our tourism and hospitality sector, and I have received no response. My colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville raised this issue with you, Minister, on April 28 and you replied that you were not considering a pilot project of this nature at this time.

My question is this: Will you announce today a pilot project to allow the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to institute wholesale pricing for wine to assist our beleaguered tourism and hospitality sector?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, I will not announce today that I will instigate a pilot project of this nature. If you haven't received a response to your letter, I believe you should receive one soon. This is not an option we are looking at at this time. I should make that very clear.

Mr Arnott: I'm very disappointed in that response and I believe the minister is continuing to overlook the effect that high taxes, in turn leading to higher cost tourism products, is having on our economy.

I move now to the question of beer pricing in Ontario. There is a great concern in the tourism and hospitality sector about the government's stated intention to establish a minimum price for beer. The Ontario Restaurant Association has estimated that almost 60,000 jobs have been lost in the restaurant and food service industry since the NDP came to power.

My question is this: What assurances can she provide that the minimum floor price for beer that she is contemplating will reflect the legitimate concerns of Ontario's tourism and hospitality sector?

Hon Ms Churley: I have been working, as have a lot of our other ministers, directly with the hotel and motel association. As the member knows, the issue around the minimum pricing on beer is one that was part of our whole discussion around the GATT issues around beer. In fact, minimum pricing is something that has existed here in Ontario I think since 1927, and to my knowledge there is no beer price at this time that in fact goes as low as that minimum pricing.

The members of the hotel and motel association and others quite understand the social reasons why we have the minimum pricing in place. In fact, it's my understanding that they are in agreement with our continuing to keep that minimum pricing in place so that we continue to maintain our social policies around the consumption of alcohol.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture.

Interjection: Citizenship or Culture?

Mr Ferguson: I'm sorry. Culture and Communications --

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): Citizenship.

Mr Ferguson: I'm sorry, Citizenship.

The minister will know that many members of this House have indeed received complaints from individuals who have in the past lodged a grievance with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and of course many of those cases are very long-drawn-out cases and have a long history with the commission and are very much dated. Could the minister please advise us how this issue is coming along in terms of her announcement last September? Last September she announced a strategy in order to clear up the backlog with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to advise the House and my colleagues in the House that last year, as we announced a very special comprehensive strategy to address the concerns at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, first of all, we addressed the backlog by assigning over 1,000 of the extremely old cases that had not been previously assigned to a very special task force. I'm very pleased to tell the House that the task force is on target and by December of this year the whole backlog will be eliminated.

At the same time, we also realized that the commission itself needed to have some very good comprehensive house and strategy initiatives addressed in the commission, and the commission's set up to look at the remaining cases. I'm very excited to announce that since 1988 we are at the very lowest of case loads in our history at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, below 2,000 cases, which includes the old backlog cases as well as the new cases.

Further to that, Mr Speaker, as you know and most members know in the House, most of the cases have taken exceptionally long lengths of time to address and to come to completion. However, because of the new training techniques -- I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but this is a very important issue, I know, to my colleagues and all sides of the House.

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

Hon Ms Ziemba: Because of these important measures, over 50% of the new cases coming in have been completed in less than six months, and this is a remarkable improvement to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

1500

LANDFILL

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for my friend the Minister of the Environment, if she'd want to move back to her place in the Legislature. Obviously, once again the question relates to Bill 143, the garbage bill, the bill that gives the Minister of the Environment the power to order York region to create a massive dump within its boundaries to provide for the people of Metropolitan Toronto's waste over the next 20 years.

The minister says she is not going to be sensitive to the concerns of citizens. She says she's not going to be concerned that her bill is now the subject of a constitutional challenge in our courts. She cares very little about the fact that municipal politicians right throughout the greater Toronto area have soundly rejected her bill. She cares very little that every editorialist in the province has said that she is on the wrong track.

The minister has established an Interim Waste Authority, which is charged with the burden of identifying an appropriate site for this megadump, but the Interim Waste Authority can't do its work until the minister herself complies with the act.

I want to point out to her that section 14 of the bill requires that the Minister of the Environment provide the Interim Waste Authority with a written estimate as to how much garbage is going to be diverted from the waste facility --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place his question, please.

Mr Sorbara: -- by virtue of her waste reduction efforts and recycling and reuse of products which would otherwise find their way into landfill sites. Will you explain to this House, the people of York region and the people of the province why you haven't complied with your own piece of legislation and provided to the Interim Waste Authority those written estimates which you're required to do under your very own bill?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): The explanation is very simple. Of course that is what the waste reduction office of the Ministry of the Environment will do. That's why we required ourselves to do it in the legislation. The waste reduction office has been established now for a year and has a number of consultation papers out with respect to the regulations that will shortly be brought in and will ensure there are waste reduction action plans in place in industries, in institutions and in businesses, not only in the greater Toronto area but across the province.

Based on the actual tonnages and estimates as a result of the actions we anticipate will be taken and have been taken around the greater Toronto area, we will then supply that data to the Interim Waste Authority.

Mr Sorbara: I can't believe what the minister is saying. She says, "That's something that we will do." Right now the Interim Waste Authority is trying to narrow down and select a site, but it can't possibly know how large a site to identify and what kind of site to identify until it has the written estimates the minister is supposed to provide.

You can't have it both ways. Either you have to tell the Interim Waste Authority to stop its site selection process until you've provided those written estimates or you have to provide the written estimates. Which is it going to be? How do you expect them to narrow down their site selection process if they don't have the primary information they need to identify what kind of site they're going to need? Are you going to call them off or are you going to provide the written estimates? What is it going to be?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm certainly not going to call them off. I understand the drift of the member's question. The targets of 25% reduction by the end of 1992 and 50% by the year 2000 are certainly the targets that we have accepted and that we are putting in place programs to achieve. Those are the initial estimates the Interim Waste Authority has identified as it goes around its site selection process. The refining of those figures and the plans that will enable us to be assured that we are getting there will of course be provided to the Interim Waste Authority.

In the preamble to his question the member stated what he believes my position and my insensitivity are and made these extravagant statements based on very little fact. Let me say to the member that I know very well there are people in York region who don't want landfill sites.

Mr Sorbara: There's no way we can accept it, and we will defeat you.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: But he may be very interested to know that I also have land owners in York region who are filing suits because their properties are not on the long list of sites. So there is no way that one can in fact please everybody in York region.

ST JAMES SCHOOL

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Education. On July 2 the minister wrote to the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board announcing a Jobs Ontario Capital grant of $798,000 towards $1 million of renovations to St James school.

For seven years I've raised with successive Liberal and NDP ministers the plight of St James school, where 70% of the students are in portables and there is no gymnasium. The parents, students and educators of St James have also pleaded with the provincial government to correct the school's physical shortcomings. Their most recent letter to the minister was on May 11.

While the grant is welcome news, the original project cost estimation of $1 million has escalated in seven years to $2.5 million. Thus the board will be unable to complete the needed renovations and addition without more funding.

My question, Minister, is: Why have you provided insufficient funding to complete the renovations and addition so urgently needed at St James school?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The funds that we provided through the Jobs Ontario Capital fund were to assist school boards that, first of all, on the basis of need were able to demonstrate they were projects that required the funds now and, second, that could get the construction going right away. As I think the member knows, we still have to allocate the 1995-96 capital allocation. We are working now on completing the work within the ministry to deal with those decisions that need to be made so that we can announce those projects.

I have no idea whether this is one that will be on the list that will come from the school board in that respect, because we've also made it clear to school boards that we want them to prioritize the projects with respect to the ongoing capital funds as opposed to the ministry being involved in that exercise. That's an issue I presume we'll continue to examine.

In terms of the specific grant that we provided, my understanding was that this came as a result of the requests from the school boards we had before us through the regional offices. On the recommendation of the officials, we looked at a variety of funds that could be provided throughout the province to assist projects that could get going right away.

Mrs Marland: This school's been on the list for that school board for seven years now. This minister's approach to capital funding can be described as haphazard at best. The Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received this special grant for St James school, yet it is July and the board still hasn't heard about its capital allocation for this year. Usually the ministry makes these announcements in April. I don't know how the minister expects school boards to budget for capital expenditures.

The Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board fears that there will be no capital allocations for new pupil places, despite the high growth rate in Dufferin and Peel. As the board chairperson, Arthur Steffler, has pointed out to the minister:

"Even with annual capital allocations, we as a board have been falling behind each year in the provision of permanent pupil places. If we miss a year of capital allocation for new places, the backlog will become unmanageable."

Mr Minister, obviously the educational capital funding process is in chaos. When can we expect your announcement of the capital allocations and what action will you take to correct this mismanagement of the whole capital funding process?

Hon Mr Silipo: I have to take some exception about the mismanagement of the capital funds. I think the member is incorrect when she states that the boards don't know their capital allocation for this year. They do. They've known that for some time. What they don't know yet is their capital allocation for 1995-96, and that, as I've indicated in the earlier response, is something that we're planning to announce some time this month. That's something school boards will know.

I think I can say that we recognize there are some problems with respect to the capital funding. We are looking at some options that are there. There were some indications in the budget that my colleague the Treasurer indicated we wanted to look at with respect to debentures and other kinds of ways of funding capital that we are going to be discussing with school boards in terms of various possibilities that exist. We will keep working away at that, but in terms of the 1995-96 capital allocation I expect to announce that later this month.

1510

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE FORCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question to the Solicitor General. The Niagara Regional Police inquiry, after literally years now and millions and millions of dollars of expenditures, the vast majority of it borne by Niagara regional taxpayers, is finally wrapping up. It's been a most unsatisfactory experience for virtually all involved. There is great concern that, notwithstanding the considerable length of time, the significant efforts of Judge Colter and the literally millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, the issues that were present in the first instance still haven't been resolved.

I don't believe I'm going to have time for a supplementary, so bear with me for just a moment please, sir. The fact is that there were two significant OPP inquiries conducted before the Colter inquiry was struck. The fact is that both of those OPP inquiries resulted in significant reports prepared and the fact is that those are still being suppressed. It is the view of a large number of people in Niagara region that the contents of those inquiries and reports would provide a key, some light --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place his question, please.

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir; I know I don't have a supplementary -- on what in fact happened. In particular, why was there no adequate response to the OPP reports? Why did we have to have a multimillion-dollar, almost four-year-long inquiry at great expense and great pain?

I ask the Solicitor General, why will he not now compel the release of the contents of those two OPP inquiries? They are crucial to understanding what happened. It is essential that we establish some credibility on this issue by releasing those reports. Why won't those be released? There's no good reason for them not to be made public.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): As the question from the member indicated, it's almost an historical question now, the length of time this inquiry has proceeded. As the member indicated, there were investigations by the OPP many years ago. My understanding of that matter, although I certainly wasn't involved those many years ago on this issue, is that no criminal charges were proceeded with or found. There then was a request to the Ontario civilian police commission to investigate the matter. They did so; they released a summary of their findings to the public. My understanding is that it went as well to the Niagara police services board, which in turn asked the Solicitor General of the day, back in 1987, that a public inquiry be held, and the government of the day granted it.

The Colter commission is all but wrapped up. I believe it's all been finalized. I imagine, because it spans some 20 years of investigation, that the report may not be in our hands for another six to 12 months, but we certainly look forward to the findings as they relate to the Niagara police commission and to policing generally with respect to the matter.

The Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to seek unanimous consent of members of the House for a supplementary question for the member for Welland-Thorold.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? No. To the member for St Catharines, unanimous consent has not been granted, although I'm sure all members appreciate the lively interest shown.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR46

Mr Cooke moved that standing order 85, respecting notice of committee hearings, be suspended for the consideration of Bill Pr46, An Act to revive The Mississauga Real Estate Board, by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday, July 15, 1992.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that Mr O'Neil (Quinte) and Mr Beer exchange places in order of precedence for private members' public business and that the requirement for notice be waived.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition today signed by exactly 100 people from Elora, the Knox Presbyterian Church group, Drayton, Puslinch township and Cambridge, 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've affixed my signature to this petition as well.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition. I'm sorry the Premier left early and he won't hear this, but it says the following:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature to this petition because I agree with it.

FRUIT GROWERS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I have a petition which I am presenting today on behalf of 14 members of the Lowbanks Mount Carmel United Church within the Niagara presbytery of the United Church of Canada. This petition deals with the tender-fruit growers in Niagara and it states:

"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are on the verge of financial crisis,

"Therefore, we, the members of the Niagara presbytery of the United Church of Canada, petition the Ontario government to act immediately to find a solution to the economic viability of tender-fruit farms.

"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are on the verge of financial crisis; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is undertaking an agricultural land protection program,

"Therefore, we, the members of the Lowbanks Mount Carmel United Church within the United Church of Canada, strongly oppose restrictions on tender-fruit land until economic viability of the tender-fruit growers is restored."

CHILD CARE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has undertaken a consultation which does not address the major policy changes inherent in its plan;

"Whereas the policy changes are basically discriminatory and will destroy 650 small businesses;

"Whereas we believe the government's commitment to child care should be in licensing and monitoring and in funding only via transfers to the municipalities to cover the costs for families in need;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to treat all child care operations equally, to cease funding capital and startup costs of non-profit agencies and to provide subsidies which will cover the true cost of care for the children whose parents qualify for assistance."

I have signed my name to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 56 residents of the township of Mosa, in the county of Middlesex, who respectfully ask the Legislative Assembly to set aside the findings of the Brant report for the greater London area, because these petitioners feel that the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of a way of life that is very important to us in the county of Middlesex and that the county will become economically unviable and that very, very important agricultural land will be lost.

I have signed my name to this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have another 2,000 signatures from the people in Markham and Unionville, Thornhill, Milliken and Locust Hill.

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, the undersigned, hereby call on the government of Ontario to discontinue the consideration of locating a waste disposal site in Markham M6, the 11th concession south of Locust Hill, and the disposal site in Markham M3, north of 16th Avenue between McCowan and Kennedy, and in all other areas that are located in the immediate vicinity of environmentally sensitive areas of York region."

I have affixed my name to this petition, and there are thousands more being signed from others who also share in this deep concern.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition which has been signed by members of the Sherwood Park Residents' Association in north Toronto. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is arbitrary and demonstrably unfair to use market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas the implementation of such a measure would work undue hardship on the residents of north Toronto, on our long-term home owners, our senior citizens and our tenants;

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by increases of up to 50% more;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto and to consider another method of property tax reform for Metro Toronto."

I have signed this petition and wholeheartedly agree with it.

1520

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to sign it.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition which says:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Canada have instructed their governments by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to serve them fair and in accordance with the rules laid down;

"Whereas the Parliament of Ontario is violating section 15 of the charter and discriminating against the people using the English language, francophones are given the benefit of calling a 1-800 number for Ontario health insurance free of charge, but English-speaking people are not given this benefit; they must pay for their call, there is no 1-800 number for them;

"Whereas section 15 reads: 'Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability,

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

"Provide a free 1-800 number for anglophones also when telephoning the Ontario health insurance or dispense with the 1-800 number for francophones so that there is equality as required by the charter."

That's signed by Henry Freitag and Massey Asadoorian of Penetanguishene, and I've also signed my name.

LANDFILL

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

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

"Whereas the town is a significant tourist area from which much of the town's economy is generated, the tourism industry is now being threatened by plans of the Interim Waste Authority to create a megadump in the heartland of this tourist playground; and

"Whereas most of the people in Georgina depend on groundwater for their drinking water; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump on the water supply to this area and Lake Simcoe would be catastrophic; and

"Whereas the land currently labelled 'potential landfill site' is prime agricultural land,

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

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land in the heart of the town's tourist area, Georgina, to turn it into a Metro's and York's megadump;

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

It's very similar to petitions I have presented from East Gwillimbury and Whitchurch-Stouffville, and I sign my name.

CHILD CARE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has undertaken a consultation which does not address the major policy changes inherent in its plan;

"Whereas the policy changes are basically discriminatory and will destroy 650 small businesses;

"Whereas we believe the government's commitment to child care should be in licensing and monitoring and in funding only via transfers to the municipalities to cover the cost for families in need,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to treat all child care operations equally, to cease funding capital and startup costs of non-profit agencies, to provide subsidies which will cover the true cost of care for the children whose parents qualify for assistance."

This is signed by some 500 petitioners, and I too have affixed my signature in concurrence with the petition.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition 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."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature.

CHILD CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition with several thousand signatures to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has undertaken a consultation which does not address the major policy changes inherent in its plan;

"Whereas the policy changes are basically discriminatory and will destroy 650 small businesses" -- namely, day care centres;

"Whereas we believe the government's commitment to child care should be in licensing and monitoring and in funding only via transfers to the municipalities to cover the costs for families in need,

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to treat all child care operations equally, to cease funding capital and startup costs of non-profit agencies, to provide subsidies which will cover the true cost of care for the children whose parents qualify for assistance."

I have assigned my signature in support as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Cooke moved government notice of motion number 12:

That one further sessional day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment. At 5:45 pm on this day the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put the question without debate.

That the standing committee on resources development shall meet to consider the bill as follows: five weeks, including up to three evening meetings per week, to receive public submissions, commencing Tuesday 4 August 1992. Further, that the committee be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill following routine proceedings on the first eight sessional days of the fall meeting period of the House. All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 4 pm on the day prior to the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bill clause by clause. At 4 pm on the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bill clause by clause, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported and received by the House.

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on resources development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That two sessional days shall be allotted to further consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 4 pm on the last sessional day on which the bill is considered in the committee of the whole House. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5:45 pm on the last sessional day that the bill is to be considered in the committee of the whole House. At 5:45 pm on that sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That two further sessional days shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division in the House relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 15 minutes.

That this resolution be subject to change upon the agreement of the three House leaders.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Does the minister have any opening remarks?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Yes, very briefly. This notice of motion is a time allocation which will set out how Bill 40, the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, will be handled over the next several stages in the Legislature.

This motion provides for one more day of second reading debate, and I would remind the House that we had three days -- did you want to say something, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Could the government House leader notify the Chair if there's been an agreement with respect to the division of time?

Hon Mr Cooke: There's been an agreement that the time will be split three ways equally for debate, until 5:45.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

1530

Hon Mr Cooke: This motion comes after we have already had three days of second reading debate last week and then yesterday we had debate on the Ontario Labour Relations Act until 10 o'clock last night. The next stages of this will provide for one more day of second reading debate tomorrow with a vote to take place at 5:45 or 5:50 tomorrow afternoon. The bill then will be referred to committee, and in committee there will be five weeks of public hearings.

In the motion, the provision also has five weeks of public hearings, with three evenings provided per week as well, which really works out to well over six weeks of public hearings on this particular bill. Then provided for in the resolution are two weeks, or eight sessional days, to deal with the bill clause-by-clause. Then the bill will be reported to the House. It provides for an additional two days in committee of the whole to deal with the bill again on clause-by-clause, and then provides for a couple more days on third reading of the bill.

This isn't the first time a time allocation motion has been presented in the House. It was even presented on occasion by the Liberal Party when it was in power. But they seem to forget those types of things.

It's important to very briefly run through what has gone on in the last couple of weeks in the Legislature. There has been discussion in several House leaders' meetings to try to work out how we are going to deal with the Labour Relations Act. We negotiated what would happen in terms of public hearings, the five weeks plus the three evenings per week, and that was done by consensus. We looked at the amount of time it would require to deal with this bill on second reading, and yes, I tabled a time allocation motion last week, this time allocation motion which upset the opposition parties, after the three days provided for in the rules of this Legislature.

We will continue to disagree about the conversations we had as House leaders, and I would leave it to the House leader for the third party, if he feels like talking about it, who sat in on the meetings where we talked about approximate time frames for second reading on the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Suffice it to say the House leader for the official opposition does not agree with the position I put forward in the time allocation motion last week, and as a result of the reaction from the opposition party I did not call the time allocation motion last Thursday. Instead we sat down and we attempted to negotiate how the bill would be dealt with at second reading. We had already come to an agreement on how we would deal with this bill for public hearings.

Yesterday we had from just before 5 o'clock until 10 o'clock last night, and I must say I indicated, and I think it was concurred with by the House leader for the third party, that we could sit later than 10 o'clock last night, but the agreement was 10 o'clock. I also offered to sit tonight on second reading of the debate till 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock, whatever it would take tonight in order to get through the remaining speakers for both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.

That offer was agreed to by the Conservative caucus. They were prepared to sit tonight in order to finish second reading and then defer the vote till tomorrow. At its meeting today the Liberal caucus decided instead to refuse to sit past 6 o'clock tonight and to refuse to give any indication -- or firm indication, to be completely fair -- of when we would finish second reading of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

As House leader for the government, there has to be some plan of when we are going to finish second reading. We have already had considerable amounts of time. I can only assume, from the game that is being played here today and was played in the negotiations we've had, that the Liberal Party doesn't want to come to an agreement on how we're going to handle this piece of legislation in the House.

I can understand that. When I was in opposition and when there was a contentious piece of legislation, sometimes it was advantageous for an opposition party to say to the government: "No, we're not going to agree to anything. You're going to have to bring in time allocation. You're going to have to bring in closure. We've got to show our constituency, the people who are opposed to this legislation, that we fought it as hard as we can." I can only assume that must be the strategy of the Liberal caucus, or whatever reason. They did not want to sit down and negotiate an arrangement of how we would deal with this bill on second reading.

But I would say to you again that we had three days last week on second reading, that we had a day yesterday where we went until 10 o'clock at night, that there was an offer that we would go tonight to 10, to 11, to 12, whatever it took to get through the speaking list of the opposition parties in order to speak on the Ontario Labour Relations Act. That offer was rejected by the Liberal Party. It was agreed to by the Conservative Party. I can only think that the Liberal Party has very little interest in getting comments on the record when it comes to its opposition to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They are more concerned with trying to showboat and trying to oppose at every step of the way.

They have a responsibility as an opposition party to oppose whatever legislation they feel very strongly about. But I also have a responsibility, as the government House leader, to make sure the government agenda gets through the Legislature. I believe this motion is a responsible motion. I believe it provides for adequate discussion at second reading, which has been cut short at second reading not by the actions of this government, but the second reading debate has been cut short by the refusal of the Liberal Party to sit past 6 o'clock tonight and come to a negotiated settlement on how we would deal with second reading.

If the Liberal Party wanted to discuss this bill on second reading, it had that opportunity. They cannot stand up in the House today or any other day and say that we are cutting off debate on the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They cut off debate themselves by refusing to sit tonight and that is the fact. The Conservative Party agreed, the government agreed and the Liberal Party rejected. They have cut off debate on the Ontario Labour Relations Act by their decision today.

The balance of the debate on this bill will be dealt with as it is provided for in the motion. There will be one more day of second reading tomorrow. There will be five weeks of public hearings, with three evenings per week so that not only will people be able to come during the day, but people who are unable to come and appear before the committee during the day will come at night. Then we will have eight sessional days for clause-by-clause and we will have two more days in committee of the whole and two more days at third reading.

I think this is a responsible motion. I think the more appropriate approach would have been to have a negotiated agreement for second reading. That became impossible today, based on the decision of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is cutting off debate on the Ontario Labour Relations Act and therefore this motion had to come forward and I encourage members of the Legislature to support the motion.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am sorry to do this, but I would like to ask the permission of the House to revert to bills for a bill that is scheduled before a committee tomorrow, if I could have agreement of the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Is there consent that Mrs Marland present this bill? There is unanimous consent.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MISSISSAUGA REAL ESTATE BOARD ACT

Mrs Marland moved first reading of Bill Pr46, An Act to revive the Mississauga Real Estate Board.

Motion agreed to.

1540

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to take the opportunity this afternoon to speak to government notice of motion 12, and I will not concern myself with the remarks made by the government House leader. I think those are better responded to by others, particularly by the opposition House leaders. I just want to make some comments today about the process and about --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Conway: I will try to be moderate and I will try to be balanced. It's not easy on this motion. It's not easy on this particular policy. I want to say again that I fully appreciate the government's desire to proceed with this business. I have no quarrel with their right to bring forward this kind of legislation. I have every expectation that in the course of this Parliament they will seek to pass this kind of bill, which in their view reflects the kind of labour relations policy they feel they have a mandate to impose on the people of Ontario. That right they won on September 6, 1990, and it's not for me as a member of a minority party in opposition to say they do not have that right, but I think there are some other elements of this particular motion that deserve some discussion today.

I think some of the senior, thoughtful and fairminded members of the government will know something of what I will now say. For anyone to stand in his or her place today and say that the Liberal opposition seeks to restrain debate on the labour relations policy that is contained in Bill 40 is, to be polite, laughable. There are more accurate words in the English language to describe what that kind of analysis stands upon. I want to say, Mr Speaker, to you and to the viewing audience, that I know I am engaged now in a theological debate with my friends opposite. I might as well engage the College of Cardinals in Rome in a debate on the efficacy of papal infallibility.

There is to a very real extent a pointlessness in discussing some of this with my friends in the New Democratic Party. I have been struck, for example, by the agitation and the anger of members on the government benches when people like the member for Waterloo North spoke to the bill last week. It is very clear that this is a matter of high religion with the New Democratic Party, and I would say quite honestly that those of us not of that party should not be surprised that it is so. If I had any expectation of a government that has strong and very many connections to organized labour, it would be that in the course of a mandate of over five years I should expect that they would do some things in the area of labour relations policy. I am not surprised that they are doing this and I am not surprised that theirs is such a theological commitment.

But having observed that, I want to say that what we have in government notice of motion 12 is the following timetable. I don't think there is anyone here who is going to or who can --

Interjection: Nobody is even watching.

Mr Conway: Someone says behind me, "No one is even watching." I suspect very few are even listening, but there's going to come a time when people are going to listen to what Bill 40 was all about and there is going to come a time when my friends opposite are going to remember the day that this government notice of motion 12 was passed, because I think by any judgement, by any standard, Bill 40 is one of the most important legislative initiatives the Rae government will proceed with over the course of its five-year mandate.

My friend the member for Cochrane North nods approvingly, and I agree with him. In fact I would submit that Bill 40 will be the most important piece of public business this government will enact in the course of its five-year mandate. They will do many other important things, but I submit there will be nothing actually in the four-year, nine-month mandate of the Rae government that will be as important both to the government and to the province as a whole as Bill 40.

Having said that, let me now ask members and the public beyond to reflect on the timetable that will now govern the passage of this very important piece of government legislation. Bill 40, this very important legislation, will have been introduced on the fourth day of June 1992 and, according to the government motion that will be passed here today or tomorrow, it will have been completed through all stages of Legislative debate, including public hearings, in four months.

That is unprecedented. It is absolutely unprecedented. You cannot find the equivalent of that anywhere in the annals of Ontario's legislative history. I only observe that because I want, as part of my strategy -- since my motives were just transparently impugned a few moments ago, but allowed, so I don't feel particularly bad about that -- to be very frank about what some of my motives are.

One of my motives in this process is to slow this train down.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Oh, now we know.

Mr Conway: Absolutely. I want to be very frank. I will tell you what I've told people in my constituency, because this is so important. I want to say again that I do not dispute the right of the government to move forward and enact this kind of legislation. If I took that position I should be written off as some kind of really hateful, miserable oppositionist.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Never.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Nickel Belt rightly observes that while I have many faults, those are not in the category of my shortcomings.

But this is very important. It is going to touch upon --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You are now being reprimanded by the government House leader.

Mr Conway: Well, I just want to say that part of my objective is to slow this train down, because it is absolutely unprecedented that this or any government in this jurisdiction would introduce a bill of this kind on the 4th of June 1992 and expect to have that bill given royal assent on or about Thanksgiving of the same year. That is mind-boggling. My friends, particularly the Treasurer, know that.

Hon Mr Laughren: You leave me out of this.

Mr Conway: He says, "Leave me out of this." If I were the minister of finance for the province I would not want to be left out of this, because of course I couldn't be left out of this.

Let me just say this for my friends opposite: A bill of this import and consequence introduced on the 4th of June and expected to, and now in fact will, be completed through all stages and on His Honour's desk by Thanksgiving of the same year is unprecedented. If that's what you want, I want you to think about that, because there will come another day, another decade, when there may be another government.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You've been stalling this for a year and a half. Call it what it is, Sean.

Mr Conway: My friend the minister of highways says we've been stalling it for a year and a half. That's not true. My thoughtful friends in the government understand that you cannot bring forward this kind of legislation and expect that you're not going to encounter significant resistance. I have said ad nauseam in this place in the last couple of years that I was once charged with the responsibility of taking a bill through this place which had all-party support, but it was admittedly a bill of some significance to the community, and from beginning to end that very contentious bill, with all-party support, took 14 months.

I'm not suggesting it had to be that long, and I'm not here arguing. In fact, I've said that many of these rule changes I can live with, but it is how they are applied. I ask my friends opposite, particularly the thoughtful ones who may in fact be here another day, because for those who are only going to be here for one Parliament -- and that will probably be at least 50% of this assembly -- this debate is totally irrelevant.

1550

But I want to say to my friends in the New Democratic Party that if a Harris government or an Eves government or a John Tory government or a McLeod government were in another day to move forward and bring this kind of a timetable to legislation having regard to the vital interests of, say, the labour community or the social activist community, I say to my friend the Minister of Health that she would be absolutely and rightly apoplectic. The idea -- and I want to say it again -- of a very important bill expected to be completed from the date of introduction to the date of proclamation in four months is the real issue in this debate this afternoon, and that is what I want to speak to.

As part of that, there may be people on the street who don't understand some of what the government House leader was saying, but just so no one misunderstands, let me just say what this time allocation provides the public. The public is going to get five weeks of hearings, and the vast majority of those hearings are going to occur between the August civic holiday and Labour Day. Anyone who knows anything about public consultation knows that is the equivalent of having public hearings in the middle of the night, and the authors of this --

Interjection: That's when Liberals call elections.

Mr Conway: Exactly. The Liberals called elections in that period of time. In fact, the election that sent me here 17 years ago was called in early August for September 18, and I don't think it was a Liberal who called that election. The history of mid-September elections is long and varied. I can think of a number -- 1963, 1975, 1987, 1990 -- just off the top of my head, some of them called by Liberals and some by other people.

But my point is that the government is coming to this Legislature with a policy that seeks to offer public consultation in a very limited time in the pit of the summer vacation, in the dog days of summer. Whom do you think you are fooling? Whom do you think you are fooling?

Interjection: Who do you think you are fooling.

Mr Conway: That's right, it is. I stand corrected. Who do you think you're fooling? I'm trying to be restrained here, but I tell you, it's just so offensive. My friends laugh across the way.

When Evelyn Gigantes was at CBOT 15 or 18 years ago she would have had a meltdown if Bill Davis had tried this kind of a trick. The whole debate would be about process and, you see, I don't want the debate to be a debate about process because there are extremely important, substantive issues involved with this policy. But I want to say again, the Bob Rae government has brought forward enormously controversial and significant labour relations policies. They have introduced them in early June.

I don't quite frankly care as much about the fact that you want to shut me down. You've now got that right, and we will see what the future brings.

I want my friends Laughren and Lankin and others who may in fact be here another day to think about this, because another government might try to impose this on its friends in the Ontario Federation of Labour, and if it ever did under the old rules or the pre-Bill 40 rules, Mr Speaker -- and it's pointless to say this to you because you're a very good new person. You have no sense of the recent history. He's a very fine fellow, and anyone who gets up and says what was said today about Bill Scott -- I mean, it is a brave new world that has such people in it.

But let's make no mistake of what you're about. We heard yesterday the Minister of Labour; I heard him driving in, I heard him on the radio. He was hysterical, because of course the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and others had attacked. We have heard others in the government reel in resistance over the kind of public criticism that has been engendered as a result of Bill 40. As my friend Bradley likes to say: "You know, politics is like baseball. It's about pitching and catching." Like a lot of the rest of us, the NDP would rather pitch than catch. But Bill 40 has been catching a lot of flak.

Just to be clear, those thousands of people out there who are going to want to have a say are going to get five weeks. They're going to get the bulk of that time in the month of August and they're going to get it seven weeks after the bill has been introduced.

I know all kinds of people who are, as we speak, still doing the analysis of this very intricate, complex legislation.

It is absolutely offensive for any government, particularly a government that purports to be concerned about social democracy -- not for them to bring forward this kind of bill; that is absolutely their right. But I say to my friends, as they interject and as some chew gum, don't you understand that it is truly offensive and it --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: People want to modernize this assembly. I've got a little standing order that -- I'm all for eliminating the chewing of gum, speaking as a private member. Let me say this: I know smoking is difficult to forsake, but there are some requirements in modernization.

I want to make this point again. Surely my friends opposite understand that they are inviting a reaction and a resistance beyond what is perhaps even merited by following this kind of a timetable. You are shoving it in people's faces. People will have a right to be mad as hell in the middle of August when they find out they are going to have but five weeks in the middle of the summer to come to the committee, wherever it is going to sit, to speak their piece on this legislation.

We can talk and, Mr Speaker, you have talked ad nauseum about the need to clean up our act. That is an injunction that I guess we should all follow, but this timetable -- I have no problem with the second reading debate concluding before we leave here. I think there's no problem and quite frankly there hasn't been a problem, because I have been here listening to most of the debate. There has been some very good debate.

The Leader of the Opposition, for example, I think spoke for 25 minutes. The spokespeople, Mr Offer and Ms Witmer, I thought gave very thoughtful, intelligent observations over the course of 90 minutes. There's been a good response. The member for Cochrane North made some very good observations, and a number of people have gotten up through questions and comments.

But this is the most important bill of the session and I believe the most important bill of the Parliament, and here we are talking about whether four or five days is enough for the House and whether or not five weeks in August, a month and a half after the bill was introduced, is appropriate and satisfactory for the province as a whole. I submit to my friends that any self-respecting person would say no.

Look at the timetable for some of the other things you're doing -- Bill 150 and the advocacy bills -- I'm picking just some of the things that are currently on the docket. You wouldn't have thought about it. You wouldn't have thought to have told the community concerned about advocacy and consent that they were going to be limited. If you had tried that with the advocacy bills we would've been in a hopeless mess. As it was -- and I think my friend from Halton Centre was involved in a way that I wasn't -- the committee process was very helpful, because effectively the bill was rewritten.

My colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the treasury critic, is telling me what's going on down there with Bill 150. That is an incredible and a very interesting and important exercise.

So what are we doing here? We are saying, "The House is going to have to vote this before it adjourns," -- I'm quite prepared to do that -- "but then, province of Ontario, you've got the month of August to have an input."

I'm going to tell you what this schedule is going to mean. It's going to mean that some time, on a day when it's 95 degrees, people from my part of the province are going to come from Pembroke, Smiths Falls, Alexandria and Cornwall, and good people from the labour council, individual citizens, people from the chamber of commerce are going to be brought in to wherever -- the Chateau Laurier hotel. They're going to sit till midnight and they're going to be told, "You've got seven minutes to speak your piece about this bill." I can tell you, there are going to be scores of people who are going to be disenfranchised.

1600

I tell my friends opposite, that is what I'm upset about. That is truly unfair and it is unreasonable. It's going to create the very climate that you don't want and that none of us needs. If the policy is, as you submit, so evidently virtuous, constructive of the kind of partnerships that are going to drive this economy into a stratosphere of economic glory and activity, then what is so problematic with opening the doors to a more measured public consultation? What is there to be afraid of?

I can well understand because I have been in government and I know how people who have a very real interest in these kinds of things want the matter wrapped up as quickly as possible. I suspect, though I don't know, that there are people within the order that is the new democracy in Ontario who are saying privately within the councils of the NDP, "Get this bill done and get it done quickly." I can understand that some of that pressure might exist. But I say again, look at the timetable that you are asking not the Legislature but the people of Ontario to abide by here.

Who among us would not think it is absolutely preposterous on a bill of this magnitude to say, "You're going to get five weeks, and 80% of that time is going to fall within the month of August"? That's an insult to the intelligence and to the participatory instinct of most Ontarians. Why do we want to do that? And what are you going to do when on that day in early September you have scores of people -- and they will be there -- who are not going to have any opportunity to speak either for or against the bill? Are you going to then say, "I'm sorry, it's over"?

The reality is that it will be well into August before a lot of people even understand that the bill is before the Legislature. To have hearings in August means the public advertisements will have to go into the papers in late July and early August. Every one of us knows that the last week of July and the first week of August are the absolute peak of the vacation season. This schedule is not an accident. The part that is even more enraging and infuriating is that it has been a very carefully calculated strategy and it is one that is so transparent that I --

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Like calling an election.

Mr Conway: My friend from Norfolk says it's called an election. Maybe he wasn't here when I said it earlier. I have no problem with your desire to enact this kind of legislation. I do not support it; I will take an opportunity later to say why I don't support it. You won the election. That's not the issue. What is an issue, quite frankly, is a sense I get from a number of people over there that having won the election, they have an unfettered right to do whatever they want. None of us has that right, though we might imagine sometimes we should have it.

Premier Rae has said, I think to his credit, that he wants to run an open and fairminded government. My friend from Haldimand-Norfolk, such as I know him, seems to be not an unreasonable person. How can he defend -- he won't even want to defend it because he knows you can't. It's so transparent an effort to ram this bill through and to get it done before the public awakens to what's in it. It's going to be found out. You're not going to get away with it.

I mentioned the advocacy business only because after an extended set of consultations, the government was back in the committee, I say to my friend Mrs Sullivan, with 199 government amendments. I've heard from some of my friends in the labour community. I know I don't have as many there as some of my friends opposite, but they've told me they've seen a few things in here that they think represent mistakes or oversights. I can't believe that when we get into the clause-by-clause or into the public consultation there's not going to be a lot of discussion around what some the language intends or doesn't intend.

Five weeks of public hearings: That is my complaint. It is a premeditated attack on the public's right to have a say on this bill. It is transparent. It is offensive. It is almost certainly going to raise even more resistance, even more reaction than might be justified. It raises very real questions about your real motives and your real intentions. When I see a railroad schedule as tight as this, even I begin to wonder what kind of game you're playing.

I say finally that if, on a bill of this importance and this sensitivity, the New Democratic Party of Ontario wants the Legislature to establish this kind of precedent, then it is setting the ground for a time in the perhaps not distant future when it will unfortunately and very painfully reap what it has sown. I don't think that is very healthy and I don't think it is very desirable.

I say again, I don't have a problem with a lot of the rule changes that people want to make. This isn't about rule changes, this isn't about fairness, this isn't about participatory democracy; this is about a government that is determined to make peace with one of its most powerful, one of its most influential, one of its most funding of friends. This is about a government that is so determined to accommodate its labour constituency that it is prepared, in a way that this Legislature has never seen before, to introduce a bill on June 4 and cause its completion a mere three and a half or four months later, including five weeks of public hearings, the overwhelming majority of which will be offered to the public while the public is on vacation or otherwise distracted by summer activities.

I would ask the House to think about that, because it brings no credit to the government, it brings no credit to the assembly. If there is not a change in this, when the public discovers, whether in Goderich or in the Beach or in Niagara-on-the-Lake or in Renfrew county, three or four or five weeks from now that this timetable is so restrictive, they are going to be, and rightly, mad as hell, because Bob Rae will have transparently betrayed the trust that was invested in him particularly on account of his commitment to openness, fairness and accountability. That's the case I want to put not just to the assembly but to the public out there, which in fact may have more opportunity today to watch this debate than it will have in the month of August.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to put a few remarks on the record this afternoon with respect to what I consider to be a very unfortunate time allocation motion indeed. I'm reluctant to talk about what goes on in House leaders' meetings from time to time because I believe you need that element of sincerity and frankness and trust among all three House leaders or this place just doesn't operate. I don't care what the rules are. In the 12 years, almost, that I've been in this assembly, all three parties have been in power and all three parties have had various House leaders. If that spirit and that element of trust is not there, I don't think it matters what the rules are, quite frankly; this place is not going to operate.

I'm disappointed, I guess, first of all that the government House leader has found it necessary to proceed with the time allocation motion on this particular piece of legislation, because all through the House leaders' discussions with respect to the rule changes we were told time and time again that the government had no intention whatsoever of using the new rules with respect to the debate and the process surrounding Bill 40. Bill 40 was to be exempt from that; it was to be proceeded with by agreement of the three House leaders. Obviously that is not being done today.

1610

We had discussed various time lines for various stages of the bill at House leaders' meetings when we talked about the rule changes at the same time that we talked about Bill 40. Quite frankly, the opposition parties wanted anywhere from unlimited time to eight weeks of public hearings and the government started its negotiating position at about two weeks of public hearings on Bill 40, which is obviously somewhat ludicrous in itself on this significant piece of legislation.

We talked about two weeks of clause-by-clause in committee while the House was adjourned. That, for the public out there who aren't as familiar with these matters as perhaps some of us are, is approximately six hours a day, four days a week, which is 24 hours a week, which is 48 hours or almost 50 hours of clause-by-clause discussion.

In this motion we find eight sessional days when the House is sitting, which would mean a maximum of perhaps two and a half hours a day, four days a week, which is about 20 hours, not even 50% of what we had talked about during House leaders' meetings. I also see that there are two days of committee of the whole debate and two days of third reading debate, which I think is probably unfortunate and unnecessary on a significant piece of legislation such as this.

Having said all that, I do believe there is some element of justification although I will not be supporting this time allocation motion because, as I said, I thought it was understood at the outset that Bill 40 would not be proceeded with in this fashion no matter what. It is being proceeded with in this fashion and I feel obligated to vote against this time allocation motion.

Having said that, though, I think I have to be fair to the government House leader with respect to some of the discussions that surrounded Bill 40 in the first place. During House leaders' meetings and during negotiation with respect to the rules -- I heard the member for Northumberland earlier and I've heard the member for St Catharines, who's now walking back into the chamber, and others talk about the fact that the Conservative Party voted for these rule changes.

Yes, we did vote for these rule changes. We don't like them. They're not ideally what we would like, but the fact of the matter is that all three parties participated in the debate and the negotiation with respect to the rule changes and all three House leaders agreed to the rule changes. I don't know how you can go to a meeting, agree to something and then come back into the Legislature and vote against something that you've agreed to. If you didn't want to take part in the rule debate, I say to the Liberal members, you shouldn't have participated. Having participated and having agreed to the rules, I don't see how you have any option but to vote for them.

Having listened to the member for Renfrew North, I certainly do share his concerns with respect to Bill 40; and I certainly share his concerns with respect to the fact of how rapidly the government wants to proceed with Bill 40, how late -- accidentally on purpose in his opinion and mine as well -- it introduced Bill 40 and how quickly it wants to dispose of Bill 40 with a minimal amount of public debate.

I share all those concerns, and my colleagues -- especially the member for Waterloo North, who sits behind me and is our Labour critic and a very good one at that -- have certainly been travelling across the province and listening to many people including the working public of Ontario, and they have very sincere and genuine concerns about Bill 40, as do we all.

But having said that, I think the member for Renfrew North's party maybe has unwillingly assisted the government in short-circuiting the process and limiting the amount of time because --

Mr Bradley: Better check the rules on that one.

Mr Eves: The member for St Catharines says maybe I should check the rules. I know he doesn't like the rules. I know he despises the new rules. However, the reality is that they are in existence and the reality is that we have to operate within that framework, as much as we don't like it. That is the reality and I'd like to deal in reality a little bit here.

The problem is that now instead of debating Bill 40 today until 10 pm this evening or 12 pm this evening, as was offered by the government House leader in good faith, we are instead debating a time allocation motion, and tomorrow we will be debating, for the last time on second reading, Bill 40. Our party will be lucky if it gets on one to two more speakers at the most tomorrow afternoon, and so will the Liberal Party be lucky if it gets on more than two.

But I say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that they have in fact precipitated this event on themselves, because the government House leader, quite frankly, offered an additional 13 to 15 hours of debate on second reading of this bill, which would have virtually allowed every single Liberal member of the 15 they had on their list and virtually every single member of the 14 we had on our list to get his or her comments on the record under the new rules, which I don't like but I have to operate within. They could have exercised their democratic right. Instead the Liberal Party, for whatever reason -- it has its own reasons and I have to respect that -- chose in its caucus meeting today to only have two more speakers instead of 15.

I just want the public to understand that the Liberal Party has of its own free will and volition chosen to have two speakers on Bill 40 instead of 15, because that is what they have done. What annoys me is, if they want to do that to themselves, that's fine, but they have stopped 13 of my colleagues from getting their comments on the record. I suspect they have found themselves in a political box, and the only way to get out of that box was to grandstand, be theatrical and force the government House leader into reintroducing his time allocation motion.

That was their way to escape so they can go out to the unknowledgeable public out there about how this place really operates and say: "Sorry. We would've liked to have got more time to debate Bill 40 on second reading, but that mean Mr Cooke, the government House leader, cut us off and introduced a time allocation motion so we were cut off at 6 pm tomorrow afternoon."

That is in fact what is happening here. I'm not happy about it. I don't think anybody should be happy about it. I guess I could make a lot of comments about what I think the Liberal Party is doing, but that would be unfair because I don't know what its rationale is. I don't get to attend their caucus meetings. I don't know what problems they have.

I do feel for the House leader of the Liberal Party, because I realize that from time to time during this debate and the rules debate he has been put in a very difficult position. He has been put in a position where he has several independent members of his caucus, as indeed we all do in all our caucuses, who feel extremely strongly about the rule changes, who feel very strongly about how we should be proceeding.

But the reality is that we do have new rules, whether we like them or not. They are better rules than we would have had if we had forced the government or had the government proceed unilaterally with its own proposed rule changes. They were agreed upon. They were voted against by the members of the Liberal Party, and that is their choice. I don't see how you can negotiate something in good faith and then turn around and vote against it; however, maybe somebody can explain that to me some time.

I don't see why approximately 29 members of this Legislature should be precluded from getting their comments on the record with respect to probably the most significant piece of legislation that this government will introduce during its mandate, why we should be precluded from doing that because some people want a political escape from a political hole that they've dug for themselves. That in effect is what is happening here, whether the Liberal members like it or not.

I share Mr Conway's concerns. I share the member for Renfrew North's concerns about this legislation. I really do. I share his concern. I do not think this bill should be proceeding as rapidly as it is, but the reality is that it is going to be dealt with. The reality is that it is going to pass, if anybody can count, because the last time I was in school -- the numbers over there exceed the numbers over here, and it is going to happen.

Having said that, the whole process is about having the public have its say, coming to committee for as long a period as possible -- that's always negotiated -- and hopefully the government of the day, with the persuasion of the public and the opposition members of the Legislature, will be able to persuade the government of the day to make some significant improvements to the piece of legislation.

That is the way this place is supposed to work in theory. Having been in a majority government, having watched now two other majority governments and two other parties in operation, that isn't always the way it happens. I don't believe in Tinkerbell. I can remember Bill Davis's government ramming through legislation without amendment, I can remember David Peterson's government ramming through legislation without amendment and now I have lived through Bob Rae's government ramming through legislation without amendment. That is the way the place operates.

1620

I think we have to operate within that realm of reality. I personally think that Bill 40 will be the undoing of the New Democratic government in Ontario. Perhaps if we here on the opposition side were smart and only thought of our political interests, we'd just let them do whatever they want to do. They would embarrass themselves at the polls in 1994 or 1995. I really think that's what's going to happen. I think it is the hallmark of this government and I think it will also be the downfall of this government. I think that is what Bill 40, at the end of the day, is going to be all about.

But with respect to the time allocation motion itself, I find it very disappointing that the government House leader has felt obligated or has found it necessary to proceed in this way, because he indicated to us that he would not, that Bill 40 would be outside of the new rules and that he would not use the new rules with respect to Bill 40.

I am also disappointed that my colleagues in the Liberal Party of Ontario have precluded 12 or 13 of the members of my caucus from getting their comments on the record. That, in effect, by their actions to get themselves out of the political hole they've dug for themselves, is what they've done. They've not only done it to my colleagues, they've done it to their own colleagues. I know they don't want to hear that, but that is the reality. That is the way this unfolded.

Mr Bradley: The reality is that your leader wants out desperately, Ernie. You're the guy who has to carry it.

Mr Eves: The member for St Catharines said the reality is that some of our members want out desperately. I can tell you I don't even know where your leader is, quite frankly. Maybe that's part of your problem. It seems to me you had about eight leaders at last count. We have the member for St Catharines, who's ticked off that he isn't the leader; we have the member for Bruce, who's ticked off that he isn't the leader, and we have the member for St George-St David, who's ticked off that he isn't the leader. He wants to go and practise law. The member for Renfrew North wants to run federally. The member for York Centre -- I don't know what he wants to do. In fact, most days I don't think he knows either.

If you want to get snippy about it, I say to the honourable member for St Catharines, I can get as snippy as anybody here. But I'm telling you this is the way it is. I know you don't like the new rules. We got the point, Jim: You don't like the new rules. But the reality is that they are the new rules and the reality is that you have to live in the real world. You can't go around with a crank on for the rest of your life because you don't like the new rules.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): We heard you were getting snippy.

Mr Eves: Speaking of snippy, a very good Mr Snippy has just appeared, the honourable member for St George-St David.

Mr Scott: Don't take my name in vain when I'm out of the Legislature.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'd like to just remind the members in the House -- and to the honourable member for St George-St David, it's good to have you back, but if we could just restrain ourselves for a moment. To the member for Parry Sound, there's been a lot of discussion between various people, various members of the House. I believe that at times that happens but it's not easy for the House and the business of the House to be conducted on that basis. I'd ask the honourable member to please speak through the Chair.

Mr Eves: I thank you for that advice. I think I've said everything I want to say with respect to the time allocation motion. I will be voting against the time allocation motion because I don't believe it's appropriate or proper for this particular piece of legislation. I don't believe in the piece of legislation. I'll be voting against that as well, as is my democratic responsibility.

However, having said that, I do feel somewhat annoyed that a lot of my colleagues, and some in the Liberal Party as well, have been precluded really from getting their comments and those of their constituents on the record on this very significant piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I actually in many ways agree with the member for Parry Sound on some of the comments he has made, but I'm going to take a different line on this, I guess, in terms of being a new member in the House and to the Legislature. The process in this place and what is involved in passing a bill has been a true learning experience for me. I didn't realize so much was involved, nor how long it took to get something through.

As a former teacher and a student in both business and law, I have found over the years that I loathe the misuse of my time. It seems reasonable to state that all of us feel that we don't want to have our time wasted; we feel that it is valuable.

Then we come and we get elected and we think we're going to do great and wonderful things. We're dewy-eyed, idealistic, and we believe that none of us is going to waste any of our time and that all of us will speak to the issue succinctly and eloquently and that we will do the best job we could possibly do.

It was not very long before those of us new on the scene discovered that this is definitely not the case. In committee, where the partisanship is less tangible or at least less obvious, and people tend to talk to one another as human beings, I've stated my disbelief over the wide-ranging discussions when you're supposed to be talking about a particular bill and you end up talking about everything else and past history for the last 50 years, and I've been told in no uncertain terms that we New Democrats were the teachers in how to tie in diverse topics and how to tie up or delay the House.

I have no doubt that is very true, just based on what I used to watch on TV myself. The member for Welland-Thorold, who spoke for 17 hours against the then auto insurance bill, certainly is constantly thrown up to us as the example of what we used to do, and the opposition tells us that now no longer will we be able to do this, that it will no longer be allowed. While it's true that the likelihood of getting unanimous consent to allow someone to speak, such as the member for Welland-Thorold did, for an extended period of time is slim, the possibility nevertheless is still there.

With regard to the new rules, I must admit that, as a new member in this House, I am very anxious to see that they are truly implemented. Surely all of us want to see orderly movement of legislation through the House. When orderliness is not the order of the day, then time allocation can and I think should be used, and I'm hoping that should the day ever come that I'm in opposition, I will feel the same way.

I don't believe there is a single person out there watching on television who watches this House on a regular basis -- and we do have a regular following of people who do follow this House who believe that we as politicians working in this House are anything but what would even closely be considered productive. I do not believe they see us as a productive body of hardworking people who deserve their respect and also deserve being listened to. I think it is a real shame that I'm spending my time and have to fight that kind of concept all the time.

My constituents don't generally understand about the rule changes. When people have stopped me on the streets in my riding, they don't seem to understand what the rule changes mean. But time and again they have told me to try to stop what they perceive as us wasting our time. "What are you doing down there?" they ask. "Why is it worse than a school classroom?" Good question, as far as I am concerned. I can't believe the activities in this House.

1630

Time allocation gives everyone the opportunity to succinctly state the reasons for or against a particular bill. The first speaker of each party gets 90 minutes to say his piece. Each speaker after that, in rotation, states his position in 30-minute segments. Surely we should be able to make our point in that amount of time. All of us, from all parties, when time was unlimited -- and I can say certainly in the last 20 months this has been my experience -- have found the comments to be extremely repetitive. I'm not saying this is the fault of one party or another. All of us are at fault for this. With rare exception, all of us from all sides used and abused the process. With 90 minutes and then 30-minute segments, we're going to have to hone our speaking skills to say what we have to say in a prescribed amount of time.

The main argument I've been hearing from the opposition members is about not having enough time to say what they have to say. Again today, just moments ago, we heard the argument about this being introduced on June 4 and four months is a very short period of time. I should point out, being the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour and having been involved with this from the beginning on Bill 40, that we have been at this now since January 1991, when it was put to the original committee.

The committee reports came out in April 1991 and then we had numerous submissions made to my ministry -- letters, telephone calls, meetings with different groups, meetings with business communities -- plus the January and February hearings and the consultations that both the minister and I did. All of that led up to finally being able to sit down and draft some legislation. This has not been a short-term, brief, momentary fling that this government has thrown out. In fact it has spent an awful lot of time in the process.

Now, since the time allocation provision is first being applied to Bill 40, the amendments to the Labour Relations Act, we have to look at how much time the allocation is actually going to allow, remembering also the time we've already allocated to debate on the OLRA. So far we've had three sessional days of debate, and that was last week. Due to a fire alarm and a constitutional report from the Premier, the debate last week lasted approximately six hours. Yesterday we began debate at 5 pm and we lasted until 10 pm, and thus far, therefore, we've had 11 hours of debate.

Most of the comments, in truth, have been made by the members opposite because the government members made a very conscious decision, at the request of our House leader, that we would speak not for the half-hour allocated but for lesser amounts of time, that we would only respond in the rebuttals and that our list of speakers would be reduced to allow the opposition members ample opportunity to speak so they would get at least one if not two extra rotations. I don't think that is being obstructive and unproductive. By giving up voluntarily of our speaking time -- and many, in fact all of my members would dearly like to speak to this -- this allows more opposition members to speak and increases the amount of time for us to hear the views expressed.

The time allocation allows for five weeks of hearings. I've heard that's not enough. In actual fact, in and of itself this is a significant amount of time for public presentations and for questions to be asked. Part of the allocations are night sittings. We've agreed to four days a week and three nights. For those members who are going to be sitting on the committee, it is going to be an onerous task indeed to have to sit through that.

The other thing is that when you consider the night sittings, that will add a day, possibly a day and a half, to each week we will be sitting. When the public hearings are completed, the standing committee on resources development will sit every day for the first two weeks of the fall session for clause-by-clause. Again, today I heard that isn't enough time, but in truth there are 32 amendments. It's not like some of the other bills where there are over 100 amendments. There are 32 amendments to the existing bill, and from those, I imagine we're going to hear a number from the opposition.

In terms of having enough time to speak and say your piece and tell us what's wrong with the bill or what amendments you would like to see, the allocation doesn't end there. In committee of the whole House there are another two days to bring forth the amendments proposed from the opposition. It still doesn't end there. Third reading results in another two days. So in my view, it has more than enough time.

In calculating just the time allocation portions for debate, one of my colleagues figured it out to be approximately 160 hours total. If you take that in terms of 24-hour days, that's almost seven days of debate, not counting the four sessional days we've already had. It is frankly inconceivable to me why this time is not enough to discuss one bill. Everything that could be said in favour of or against labour reform should be able to be said in that amount of time.

It's not just my own constituents who want to turn on their TVs and see us performing productively. I think that's the very least that should be expected from us. Frankly, I would like to feel at the end of this term, whenever that may be, that I have performed productively and that my constituents see me as such. This time allocation bill is needed.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): I'd like to use a few minutes of the time allocated to the official opposition to state some of my views on government motion 12, which basically sets out the time available for this Legislative Assembly to deal with Bill 40, the act to amend the Labour Relations Act, some 32 substantial amendments, and what the government's motion means to this assembly and to every member of the assembly, what it means to the general public and possibly what it means to the future operation of this assembly.

Before I do that, I'd like to take a moment or two to congratulate the Progressive Conservative House leader, who did the best job of any member I've ever seen in this House of defending the New Democratic Party, bar none. I believe the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party did a far better job of defending the socialist government of Ontario than the government House leader has done, than any of the cabinet ministers have done and certainly better than any of the backbenchers have done.

It has been apparent that the Progressive Conservative Party in this Legislature has wanted to fold up its tent and go home since the last week of June.

Mr Bradley: Not all of them.

Mr Mancini: I'd say the vast majority of them. It certainly has been the position they tried to put forward at more than one House leaders' meeting.

I want to say to you, Mr Speaker, that the reason we're sitting here in the Legislative Assembly, here in the second week of July, discussing any number of things, is because the government has been incapable of running its own agenda. We know, and we have pointed out to you and to the general public watching, they called this Legislature back four weeks later than the official calendar had suggested.

I recall attending a House leaders' meeting as the House leader for the official opposition in December. I recall stipulating at one of those meetings that I wanted it noted in the official minutes of the meeting that I and the Liberal Party objected to the delay in the recall of the Legislature. We came back four weeks late because they were so tired from the last session. They were already packing their bags the first week of December to go south to rest up from the six weeks at work that they had to undertake.

They called us back four weeks late. They waited until May 26 to introduce 75% of their legislation. These are facts. They're not opinions. They waited until June 4, I believe, to introduce this piece of labour legislation, something that's so important it has to be passed yesterday. It was introduced on June 4 because they are incapable of preparing and carrying out their agenda items. They introduce legislation. Several weeks later we find out that there are any number of amendments.

1640

The record is clear: The government cannot manage the affairs of the assembly because they are in a constant state of disarray. Why? We can speculate on why, but that's not the issue today. The issue today is that the government of the day --

Interjection.

Mr Mancini: To the Minister of Transportation, who has been heckling constantly and not from his own seat, I say to him and to the rest of the government members that it's abundantly clear why you introduced the rule changes some two or three weeks ago. You introduced the rule changes to prevent legitimate debate in the assembly. You introduced the rule changes to prevent organized and legitimate groups in the general public from having the opportunity to state views which are different from the views of the government, contrary to every democratic principle that we know and have embraced in this political jurisdiction of Ontario.

There is nothing democratic about the New Democratic Party. Nothing at all. They prepare speeches for their members, who try to explain why 30 minutes of speaking time is sufficient. Mr Speaker, in regard to the amendments to the Labour Relations Act, it would take 30 minutes to read the 32 amendments. How can one possibly have a thoughtful debate on 32 amendments when you're allowed 30 minutes? It would take longer than that to read them into the Legislative chamber record.

We hear some of the backbenchers cackling. Why? They came into this chamber with the attitude that they had never been wrong, that they could never do wrong and that because they were New Democrats everything they did was obviously correct and should be accepted by everyone. That's why they're so paranoid. That's why they cannot understand why organized and legitimate groups, large or small, have the temerity, in their view, to object to some of their platform, especially when the things they want to do were never in their platform to begin with.

The famous Agenda for People -- which we describe now as the agenda for power and which can be found in the fiction section of the library -- is a document they used to get elected. In that document, they didn't talk about the Labour Relations Amendment Act. They talked about taking over the insurance industry -- that's what helped them get elected -- and what did they do? They backed away from that. They talked about being opposed to Sunday shopping -- that helped them get elected -- and what did they do? They reversed themselves on that.

On the things they talked about to get themselves elected, they say: "No, we changed our minds, we don't want to do this any more. Thank you for your votes. We're sorry we told you we were going to do these things for you, we're sorry we took your votes. However, the things" --

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're such a cynic.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, if the honourable Minister of Transportation is going to interject, have him sit in his own seat.

Not only have they now reversed themselves on everything that allowed them to get elected, they are now undertaking certain serious activity which they did not promise. They did not say on any one occasion, not a single one, that when they assumed majority responsibility in this Legislature they would unilaterally change the rules, take away the opportunities of the opposition to speak for the 900,000-plus people who voted for the Liberal Party. That's what I want to say to the government members. We received more than 900,000 votes and those people have a right to be heard. When you take away our voice, you take away their voice.

These people across the floor have no appreciation for Parliament. They have no appreciation for the history of Parliament. They have no appreciation, evidently, for any type of democratic debate. They want to have debate only on their terms. They want to have debate as long as it is not too long, "Because we don't want to use up the valuable time of the House," as if we get paid by the hour.

"No, no, we don't want to use up the valuable time of the House. We can't have debate if it allows members of the opposition and special interest groups to point out some flaws in the government policy. No, no, we can't debate about that. We can't have debate, my goodness, if it's going to take a month or two longer. We can't have debate if the minister can't have his way all the time. We can't have debates under any of those circumstances.

"We can only have debate when we introduce a bill. We tell the opposition members, 'This is how long you can speak.' We tell the general public, 'This is how long a period of time you have to come before us,' and then it's game over. We pass the laws, we do as we please and it's on to the next socialist platform that we didn't happen to promise."

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're exaggerating.

Mr Mancini: We are not exaggerating. I will say to the Minister of Transportation, who keeps interjecting and is not in his seat, I remember Bill 162, a very important piece of legislation, important for the government, important for the opposition. How did that important piece of legislation go through the chamber? What was the process? What did the opposition rightfully demand? What did the government rightfully give up?

It's been common practice for any major piece of legislation, from its date of introduction into the chamber until the Lieutenant Governor gives royal assent, to take up to one year. Why has that been common practice? Why does democracy have to operate in a thoughtful way? Why must members of the opposition, and backbenchers who have the courage, have the opportunity to speak and put their points forward? Why must members of the general public who wish to come forward have the opportunity to speak? Why? Because we are passing laws which impose regulation and responsibility on our citizens, and when you impose regulations and responsibility, you have to absolutely ensure that you're satisfied you're doing the right thing. You don't have to be sure you're satisfying a special group that helped you get elected -- not at all. You have to make sure that the 10 million people who live in Ontario are satisfied.

Bill 162, which was introduced on June 12, 1988, passed 13 months later, on July 27, 1989 -- a full 13 months. I cannot recall on any single occasion any member of the Legislature from the opposition parties rising in his or her place or any member from the general public speaking in any committee forum saying that we should have shortened the process, that we should have eliminated the opposition parties from having the opportunity to speak, that we should have limited all the public statements made to the committees to five or six minutes. I cannot recall that on any single occasion.

We have been unhappy in this chamber for a significant period of time. We have been unhappy because the government has been arrogant in the extreme. We've been unhappy because it, on any number of occasions, has wanted to ram things through the Legislature without proper debate. I can tell you, when I served as Chairman of the general government committee we were forced, because of the government's timetable, to allocate to certain individuals 15 minutes of time to speak, seven minutes of which to make a presentation and seven minutes to answer questions.

1650

Hon Mr Laughren: The poor Chairman.

Mr Mancini: My honourable friend the Treasurer, who is not in his own seat, is interjecting, saying, "The poor Chairman." I remember when he was Chairman of a committee. I remember his saying, "In this democratic House in this democratic procedure that we're following, anyone who wants to speak before the committee of which I am Chairman shall have the opportunity to speak." That was his position then. Now he's forgotten his high democratic principles. He's been corrupted by government, along with his cabinet colleagues and his backbenchers.

Do you know what is really irksome, Mr Speaker? It is the opposition backbenchers who've been corrupted in this process to accept rule changes which in fact take away the voice of the people who voted against the government. What is really irksome in this whole process is that none of them, from what I can see, has ever taken the time to study any of the parliamentary procedures and principles that we have used over the long number of years that this Legislature has been in operation.

None of you has taken the time to read old speeches that we can find in Hansard. None of you has taken the time to really come to grips with why opposition members and organized and interested groups should have the right to speak at length in government committees when important pieces of legislation come forward. None of them really has taken the time, which basically tells me they're only interested in one thing. They're not interested in the democratic procedures that have become part of our history and culture in this chamber. They're not interested in advancing those democratic and parliamentary procedures and principles. They're only interested in one thing: advancing the socialist ideas of the New Democratic Party government, whether or not those socialist ideas were promised during the election campaign.

The day will come -- and maybe the Treasurer will be here and he will rue the day, I'm sure. Maybe not. Maybe he'll go down like the rest of them will. But the day will come when they will sit back and say, "You know, we had a better chance for debate under William Davis; we had a better chance for debate under David Peterson." I wonder why, when our rules have been satisfactory all these years, for two or three different sets of government, they're not satisfactory enough for the NDP socialist government of Ontario.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today will go down in the history of Queen's Park as one of the ugliest, meanest days we've ever had. The fact that this government is going to railroad this Legislature into having passed Bill 40 as labour legislation without a full and complete debate, having come along and changed the rules of the House arbitrarily without any respect for the rights of the opposition, is just further proof of this government's condescension on free speech and allowing people to have the freedom to stand up and speak for what they believe. When they were in opposition, they couldn't keep still long enough to think of what they were saying. They won't give us a chance in opposition to represent the people we've been elected to serve.

Today is one of those days which will come back to haunt Bob Rae and his New Democrats as a day of sadness and a day in which Ontario took a large step backwards. Today we see them exercising the power they received on September 6, 1990, using their 74 people to block the opposition in order to push through legislation that will have long-term negative ramifications on the people of the province.

I don't think there's any doubt that the members of our caucus are offended in the extreme by the actions of Mr Rae and his House leader, Mr Cooke. What you're seeing done is the control of free speech. You're seeing the removal of democratic rights of legitimately elected opposition members, and in so doing, this government is --

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): A sad day.

Mr Cousens: It's one of the saddest days. I just see them in contempt of the parliamentary process. What can one do? In opposition our only tack is to speak up and speak our minds, speak loudly and clearly and represent the people we represent. Unfortunately the public at large has no understanding of the effect that Bill 40 will have on our society, on the workforce, on investment in our province.

If you think I'm angry, my whole system tells me everything is wrong, not only about the government but especially about Bill 40 and the process we're being forced into today. There is no chance of the freedom of speech that we want, that we cherish, where members can come forward, as you have in the past when you were in opposition, to articulate concerns about an issue loudly and clearly, succinctly, however you want to do it.

Now we will, as of tomorrow, be cut off from free speech in this Legislature. If anything is bad, it is that. Unfortunately there's nothing any of us can do in the time we have except make sure that the people of Ontario know that the New Democratic Party of Bob Rae is doing what it is. If there's anything we have to do, it is to survive till 1995, until such time as this government comes up for a review with the electorate.

Unfortunately there is nothing within our political system in Ontario where you can recall a government. There is no such thing as a Proposition 13, as there was in California. There's no such way in which we can, through petitions, have a Premier resign. Our political system does not allow the people of the province or the opposition to stop this tremendous steamroller that these 74 members of the New Democratic government have.

It is a tragedy in the extreme because the repair that will have to be done following the next election by whoever wins -- I sincerely hope it is Mike Harris and the Ontario PC Party that become the choice of the people of Ontario. That is something within the realm of possibility, certainly when the people of Ontario realize what we stand for and how well we will work to maintain and keep the faith. One of the first things we will do is to repeal and revoke Bill 40 and its effect on the province. I sincerely hope the people of Ontario understand how important that decision is.

Bill 40 has such a long-term impact on our economy, on future jobs, on investment. This government has even refused to have a study on the bill, though Ernst and Young, in its cursory review, indicates this bill could cost some 300,000 jobs in Ontario, could cost us a loss of investment of some $8 billion. Why, then, will this government not have a full economic impact analysis of the effects of Bill 40? Why won't they?

What is Ontario's problem today that would require such a massive change to labour legislation? We have had fewer days lost to strikes in 1991 than for 16 years previously. In fact, in Ontario in 1991 there were only 153 work stoppages from lockouts and strikes versus 218 in 1990. We've seen a reduction of this and we've seen an improved labour climate. Yet the government says, "Let's hold up Quebec as an example."

In Quebec you have seen some one million days lost to strikes since 1978. You see a smaller workforce in Quebec. Yet here they are saying, "Let's bring into Ontario the very labour legislation that has caused Quebec to go backwards." They have 20% more strikes in Quebec than Ontario. The unemployment in Quebec, up until recently, has been 50% higher than in Ontario. Investment is down in Quebec. In 1991 Ontario received approximately 75% more investment dollars than Quebec. Yet Quebec is held up as the ideal.

I support our federation. I support our country. I do not support initiatives that are going to be brought into Ontario that will set the clock back for this province. What we have is a union push coming from a union labour leader who does not understand and appreciate the balance that's required in developing a law that is going to respect the needs of all employees and all people in Ontario.

What this Minister of Labour has done is establish an adversarial atmosphere by the way he's brought forward this bill, not only in this House but through the labour force and the people of Ontario.

In the last 18 months we have lost some 500,000 jobs due to the recession. How many more jobs will we lose and how quickly will they go because of the kind of bills before us?

1700

We want to entice investment into Canada, and instead of that we're seeing people remove their funds, remove their jobs, remove their work, go elsewhere. It is a sad day for Ontario. People are indeed asking for workplace changes, but they are not asking for the kind of reorganization that this legislation will bring into being. If only the Minister of Labour had done something like including business people in the process of developing Bill 40 -- but he wouldn't do it.

The Minister of the Environment, in developing the new environmental bill of rights, at least did involve not only environmentalists but also the business interests in trying to develop a bill. Mind you, the bill that she's come up with is hardly a bill of rights for the environment. It's far less than that. She's built up expectations that it's going to do something that it just isn't capable of doing. The Minister of the Environment at least involved segments of society in the development of that bill so there was at least the inclusion of those points of view.

In this Bill 40, brought forward by the Minister of Labour, there has not been that opportunity for business people to participate and to have their views heard and understood and included in that bill. So the five weeks of public hearings that we're talking about are hardly worthwhile if in fact the government is going to be as closed-minded as it was with Bill 143. Bill 143 is the Waste Management Act for the greater Toronto area, a draconian bill also brought in with this socialist majority that is in fact riling the hearts and minds of people in York, Durham and Peel, another example where people are outraged because there is no way they can speak or be listened to.

You've got a minister who doesn't listen to them; you've got the Interim Waste Authority that's an arm's-length group and it's not doing anything to show the people out there that it really cares. As I went up to the Interim Waste Authority office last week, what did I see on the wall but a topographical map that is so far out of date that it has the M3 site in Markham and it shows the south of that site as if it's all green farm land. Instead, the truth of the matter is, that land has all been built up to Highway 16.

What did this government do? They built up expectations and then they crumbled them afterwards. They said to people, "Come and make your views known about the 57 sites in the greater Toronto area." They went up there last week and there weren't even enough forms for the people to fill out. The photocopier wasn't working and there weren't enough forms. So they say, "Participate, consult," and then when people come back to participate and consult there is no one there. The door's locked, the lights are out. The people of Ontario have been better served in the past by any government other than this government. This government is an atrocity to what democracy is all about. In bringing in this motion today to close off debate on Bill 40 they are destroying one of the fundamental rights that all of us were elected to serve, and that is the people of the province of Ontario. To take that right away from members of this House to speak on a bill, to participate in the debate, is indeed a deprivation of the rights and privileges of members.

As we go down the track the one thing that comes to my mind is that I wanted to speak on Bill 40. I wanted to be able to table some of the concerns of people from my riding. I've had over 500 letters within the last two months, and not one of those letters -- that's not fair to say; I think a couple of the letters have been in favour of Bill 40, the labour legislation, but the vast majority have been opposed to the initiatives of the Minister of Labour, Bob Mackenzie. Yet how am I to share those and put them on the record and have them as part of Hansard? What this government has decided to do instead is cut off debate. In cutting off debate they have again cut the legs off democracy.

I know, as our House leader Mr Eves said in his remarks, that this one bill will come back to haunt Bob Rae and the New Democrats in the next election. This bill in itself is the single most significant bill that this government will have passed. Who knows what you're going to do in the next two and a half years that you've got, but I can tell you that this bill is without a doubt even worse than any other piece of legislation you've brought in as to the net impact it's going to have on employment, on jobs, on investment and on the economic wellbeing of our province.

If only this government would find a way to listen and open up its mind and its heart and show a willingness to know there's a way of balancing off viewpoints. This government refuses to do that. This government feels that it has all the answers.

It is time for the people of Ontario to speak out. Unfortunately we are not going to be able to speak out in this Legislature as we would have wanted to, because our rights have been cut off; this government has removed that right from us. But may the people who are, through this channel, aware of what's going on in the Legislature write to their MPP and give support to ourselves in our battle against Bill 40, the labour legislation.

I can tell you that the efforts of Elizabeth Witmer, our member for Waterloo North and our Labour critic, have been phenomenal, and I strongly support the speech she gave in this Legislature last week. She has articulated the views clearly and in an intelligent way. I sincerely hope that people in Ontario will understand what it is we're trying to say.

Here is a government that doesn't listen. What can we do if we're not given the chance to speak? I see this as one of the foulest days and one of the saddest days in my 11 years here in the Ontario Legislature, when the rights of the minority have been removed by a majority that wasn't even elected by more than 37% of the population. It's a tragedy, and this tragedy is perpetrated on all the people of Ontario. Not just those who will want to become part of this new union legislation, this socialist atmosphere that's being created, but all people will suffer.

Indeed, there is still time for the New Democrats to change their minds. I hope they will.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I am pleased to rise today and spend a few moments talking about the motion that's before us. Despite the bombastic blathering of the previous speaker and despite the apparent differences both opposition parties are having over how we got to this point, I think, perhaps unlike some members of this House, the opposition is doing what it was elected to do, and that is to democratically and with loyalty oppose the government of the day, particularly when there's a majority government, with the means that are available to them. I respect that. I think that for them to do otherwise would be an abdication of their responsibilities in this House, just like I believe it would be an abdication of our responsibilities were we not to do exactly what we're doing today.

We have seen members of the opposition use that right and that obligation in the past, to the point where they have deliberately tied up the business of this House at a cost exceeding $250,000 a day, reading out bills that contain all the lakes and rivers their research department could put into them, with no other purpose than to take up and use up the valuable time of the House. Now again, I do not have a particular problem with them taking that action other than the immediate debate we have at the time. I think it's a waste of taxpayers' money but I do not condemn them for that activity. I think that as a majority government we responded in the responsible way, and that was to say, "We're going to have to change some rules around here, folks, so that those types of extreme abuses of the rights of this House do not waste the time of the taxpayers and indeed waste the money of the taxpayers."

It's interesting; I can remember the early days when we were first elected and got into a couple of differences with the opposition, and quite frankly the whole business of the House went into the ditch. It wasn't too long, as we were new in government, feeling our way through and learning the levers of power, if you will -- during this time the opposition was then decrying the fact that a majority government couldn't lead.

They said: "You're in the driver's seat. You have a majority government. You don't have the ability to lead the government, to take the business of the day, which is your right, and ensure that you can move on your agenda, which is your right." I remember sitting there and thinking: "They're absolutely right. We ought to be ensuring that we are using the rights that the people of Ontario gave us, and that means implementing our agenda and it means at the end of our term of office the people will pass judgement on how well we did that job." We're prepared to face that point with the public in 1994-95 when the election comes, as it should be.

1710

But it would be wrong for us as a government and the opposition would condemn us, and I think rightfully so, were we to allow this Parliament to continue to be in the ditch not doing the business of the people, wasting $250,000 a day and not taking hold of the reins of government, as is not only our right but our democratic responsibility.

It's interesting of course to listen to some of the debate around the rules that are now in place. We've seen very clearly that the rule changes now in place that are now being used are not draconian. If one reflects on the columnists and the editorials and the political pundits who watch this place very clearly, there were very few of them who said, "There's a majority government with power that's run amok." That did not happen. In fact, after the speech by the member for Renfrew North, there was this dramatic change in the atmosphere and the environment out there, as most people looking on said, "If that's the kind of bitterness and acrimony that exists, then one can understand why this NDP government has taken the steps it has."

I would point out, Mr Speaker, that every one of the rules we have exists and is used in one of the parliaments of this nation, either at the provincial level or at the federal level. So the argument of draconian does not hold. What we did was act as a responsible government and take the reins of office and ensure that we could move on our political agenda, and at the appropriate time at the end of our term we'll go to the people and we'll show them what we've done and we'll say to them, "Now you pass your judgement."

Mr Speaker, before I take my seat, let's again underscore the amount of time that will be available for this issue, because to listen to the opposition only, you'd think somebody was throwing a blanket over this place and that no one ever again could talk about the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is still in front of us at this point, in addition to the time we've already had, which, by the way, if there weren't shenanigans going on we'd be debating right now? We have five weeks of public hearings where the public will be given the opportunity they deserve to comment on this legislation. It's important to note that three evenings in each week will also be dedicated to public meetings so that as many people as possible will have an opportunity to comment on this legislation.

Is that all, Mr Speaker, you might ask. No, it's not. In addition to the five weeks which contain the three evenings per week, we have eight more days of clause-by-clause. Is that the end, you might ask, Mr Speaker. No, it's not, I would respond. There are still two more left of committee of the whole house. In addition to the eight days, in addition to the five weeks on top of the three evening sessions, there will still be those two days. Is that the end of the discussion, Mr Speaker? No, there are still two more days on third reading.

I don't think any reasonable person in the province would believe an argument that said this government has shut out the ability of anyone to have input on this resolution, this bill, this law. Indeed, this government has taken the responsible course. We've ensured that the business of the House is being done, that the taxpayers' money in running this place is being put to good use, and we're giving people who need it a chance to comment. That's what a responsible majority government should do and that's what this NDP majority government is doing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I haven't had a chance to write down any notes, but I'm going to do my best. I'm going to speak for only a few minutes, and I'm going to say only the things I know my constituents would want me to say in this particular case.

I want to talk a little bit about how long it takes to get a message across in this place. For a year and a half, I've pretty much sat back and I've looked upon this experience -- I've compared it to going back to school -- as a learning experience. I can tell you this, if somebody really wants to get a message across, no matter what that message is, it doesn't necessarily have to take an hour. It doesn't necessarily have to take an hour and a half. It doesn't necessarily have to take two hours or, in some cases, six or seven hours. I think a half-hour is a sufficient amount of time for somebody to get his message across, perhaps a message that his constituents would want him to say in this place.

I have learned to jot down notes. I have learned to talk about the pertinent things that pertain to my riding or perhaps the issues that are necessary to talk about in Ontario. I have learned not to repeat myself. I have learned that if you repeat yourself, you're defeating the purpose and all you're doing is perhaps rattling cages and getting people's backs up against the wall.

We hear consistently from across the floor that they don't have enough time for this to happen. I could probably go back in Hansard and pull out enough evidence to prove my point here today, in terms of repeating themselves consistently. Frankly I can't see the logic in doing that.

The constituents who have put us in this place have made it very clear: "Do your business. Finish what you have to finish. Stop your fighting. Stop your bickering. Pass the laws, the legislation that is pertinent to Ontarians, that is necessary to make the lives of Ontarians a little more respectable, a little more comfortable. Stop your fighting and stop the waste of time."

That is certainly a message that is very loud and clear, in my particular riding anyway. I'm willing to bet that this message is certainly a message that was heard by every one of the members who had the opportunity to get voted in, in 1990 anyway. I know this was an issue at the door in 1990, because I personally had to talk about that, the system, the procedure --

Interjections.

Mr Mammoliti: The heckling is just a prime example of what frustrates people in this place. The member for Willowdale and the member for Etobicoke West continue to irritate me as I speak. I don't necessarily have to speak for them to irritate me. It could happen outside this place as well, as it has done in the past.

1720

I'll try to get back on topic in terms of consistency, in terms of keeping to your topic, speaking on the issues that pertain to your riding and doing it only once in a speech, not three times, not four times, not five times.

The people who sit across from us here have mastered something. They have mastered the insults. I don't know whether opposition in the past has insulted to the degree I have witnessed here in this Legislature. They have insulted the person, they have insulted the families, they have insulted the politicians, they have insulted governments. They have mastered the ultimate insults. Insulting somebody in this place is not productive and I frankly take offence at that. Criticism is healthy; insults aren't.

Interjection.

Mr Mammoliti: Stop repeating yourself, please.

That's the argument I wanted to make and I close with that. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Niagara South.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): I am happy to rise today to address the House on this very important issue which has generated a great deal of debate and, if I may say, a great deal of exaggeration and rhetoric.

Before I begin, I want to congratulate publicly both the Minister of Labour and his parliamentary assistant for introducing a piece of legislation that is long overdue in this province.

I also want to congratulate the government House leader for his patience in dealing with the opposition House leaders. As chief government whip, I attend the House leaders' meetings and I have seen our House leader negotiate a deal with both opposition parties in the morning only to have the deal scrapped in the House in the afternoon. Why is it scrapped? Because the opposition House leader negotiates the deal but he must not have the support of his caucus. If he did, the deals would be kept and we would not be introducing time allocations at this time. We would be carrying through with one of the many deals negotiated by our government House leader.

We have heard that we are cutting off the debate, that we are not allowing the people to have their say on this important piece of legislation. Let's take a look at it for a moment. What has transpired here since talking of the labour reform act? In November 1991, the Minister of Labour introduced a discussion paper on the labour law amendments. What followed was a three-month, province-wide consultation process during which the minister met with over 200 business groups and umbrella organizations to discuss the proposals.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The official opposition had its time. It's now the time of the government. The member for Niagara South.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Then, after all of these meetings, the minister, along with his parliamentary assistant, introduced Bill 40 over a month ago. We have had over three days of debate on second reading of this legislation. We offered more. We offered more time to the opposition, the ability to discuss this bill today. We offered to sit through the night whether it be 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, whatever. We offered that to the opposition. So if the opposition wanted to get its points on record, we offered it the provision to stand its speakers so that they could be on the record.

As the whip, I know there are members who want to speak on issues and they don't get the chance because there is insufficient time. On this issue, that was not the case. We are accused of ramming this through, yet we --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That is not factual.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole; order, please.

Mrs Caplan: She's prevaricating.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There are seven minutes left on your side.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Yet we offered the opposition the ability to get each and every speaker it wanted on the record. How can we be accused of ramming it through? The Liberals had the choice and they decided they did not want their members to stand and be put on the record. That was their decision, not ours.

Once this bill is passed, what will happen? The bill will go to a standing committee for five weeks; five weeks in which the committee will meet mornings, afternoons and evenings. Evening sittings mean that people who do not have the luxury of being able to be off their jobs during the day will now be able to make a presentation to a government committee. That does not happen often. Again, I am quite amazed that we can be accused of ramming through legislation and not allowing members of the public to come before us.

The honourable member for Renfrew North talks about the issue going to public hearings in late July and August. He described it as prime holiday time and, according to the member, a time when the public does not pay attention to public issues. I think it is important to make a few points on that. First of all, not everyone in this province has a cottage to run to and not everyone has the extra money to go on vacation. Not everyone in this province --

Mr Scott: Bob Rae sure does. He has been at it most of the last month.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: He goes to a cottage in Florida and Muskoka. Don't give me this "Not everybody has a cottage" nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St George-St David, please.

Mr Mancini: Not everybody has a cottage but Bob Rae has one and he uses government aircraft to get there.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Sir, you had your chance to debate; now it is mine.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Essex South.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Not everyone in this province has the luxury to be off for the month of August. Many people in this province will spend August as they spend every month: working. Working to make ends meet, working to keep their children housed and fed.

Second, we need only look at August 1990 to see that, unlike what the member for Renfrew North believes, the people of the province of Ontario do care what's going on in the month of August. The Liberal Party should remember the provincial election of 1990. People do care what's important in this province, what is happening during the summertime.

I want to see this bill proceed and I would like to read into the record a quote that I think summarizes what we're trying to accomplish. The quote begins with, "We in this party strongly support the free collective bargaining concept and do not want to see any further erosion of this concept."

Of course, I'm quoting a representative of the Liberal Party, a member who in fact represented the very riding I'm proud to represent today. The riding was then called Welland South and is now called Niagara South. Mr Ray Haggerty, whose quote I am happy to re-enter into the record, represented many of the same fine people living in communities like Port Colborne, Wainfleet and Stevensville. He also represented what used to be an honourable tradition in the Liberal Party, a tradition that, given the rhetoric coming from the official opposition today, is obviously long gone.

1730

A frequent charge made by the opposition on this and other legislation is that we have no right to introduce legislation because we never got 50% of the popular vote in the last election. Let's take a look at the past election and the past winning percentages for the government party.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please take your seat.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if the member for Niagara South would reconsider her remarks. She's imputing motives and attaching words to the opposition and to this party that in fact are not true. I am asking her to withdraw them.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mrs Sullivan: Yes, it is.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It is against the standing orders.

Hon Mrs Coppen: As we all know, the Tory party was the governing party for 40 consecutive years --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. She didn't attack any person individually.

Hon Mrs Coppen: -- getting elected in 1943 and holding power through 1985. But they never once received 50% of the vote at that time, and not a single time. The Liberals too have made reference to the level of popular support we received in the 1990 election. When the Liberals won their first majority government in over four decades, surely their support must have been over 50%. No, the one election in which David Peterson managed to win a majority saw his Liberal Party receive less than half the popular vote.

In 1937 the Liberals managed to win the support of half the population, but never in an election since that point has any party won over 50% of the vote. Does this mean that no party has had the right to govern since 1937? Of course not. That is ridiculous, considering that we have two to three parties in this province. Rare is it that any government in any jurisdiction in this country receives more than half the vote.

Mr Speaker, as you can see, this is a small point and one which the opposition continues to use in its attempt to stop the will of the people of Ontario. The people spoke on September 6, 1990. They spoke loud and clear and they sent a majority New Democratic government to Toronto to govern the people in this province for five years. They sent us with the expectation that we would govern. It's time to get on with governing and it's time to get on with this bill that the people of Ontario want and need.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Just quickly off the top, no one suggested to the whip of the government that you don't have the right to introduce legislation and that you don't have the right to carry it through this House. I think what you confuse is what I don't think you have the right to do and what the public doesn't think you have the right to do: You do not have the right to muzzle opposition. That is a very clear and distinct difference.

Don't tell me this closure motion is not cutting off proper debate. I have been reduced to less than 14 minutes of debate on the entire labour legislation, 14 minutes on maybe the most important legislation we will deal with in this Legislature.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): That's enough time.

Mr Stockwell: I hear the member for Chatham-Kent across the floor saying that's enough time. Quite frankly, that's not enough time. That's not how democracy works. You're supposed to listen to the opposition. The point of this is that when in opposition, this government --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Yorkview, you made a remark not too long ago that you didn't care for hecklers. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: This government has decided to move closure on this debate today for two simple reasons. They can't stand the heat and the heat is being turned up in the public today because there is opposition to this motion, this piece of --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I'm only getting 14 minutes on this, 14 minutes to debate a very important piece of legislation. They want to go home, because they don't want to sit in this place. At least while you're here, have the decency to hear out some opposition.

The public doesn't accept this legislation; it's been proven in poll after poll. The indications from the consultants who have been doing work on this have been very clear. There are going to be major job losses. The government doesn't want to undertake consultants' reports because it will only prove the obvious, that this legislation is flawed and will cost them valuable support. This closure motion is from the party which had Mr Peter Kormos stand here for 17 hours and defend the rights of opposition. They stand here today and tell us that what we do is a waste of time, that what we do is a waste of taxpayers' money, that what we do is not acceptable to them. Tough. It's called democracy.

I'm frustrated and I'm angry. I'm angry that I'm given 14 minutes to debate this type of legislation. I'm angry because it's this government that is trying to shut up opposition and those who oppose. I'm angry because they're telling me I should be happy with the paltry amount of time opposition is given to debate this important legislation. I'm angry because they're going out to the public for five weeks in the middle of the summer, and I know full well what that means, as they know across the floor. In the summer people are not in their homes. They're on vacation and they can't get out to public hearings. If you ever spent time in municipal government, you didn't have public hearings in the summer unless the fix was in. The fix is in.

I hear noise about the fact that it costs money to run the Legislature when this bill is being debated. Yes, it costs money. They say $250,000. I'm not sure about that. I always thought democracy didn't come cheap, but it was very precious. Clearly I have a difference of opinion from those across the room. I make no apologies for standing in this House and debating this. I make no apologies for opposing your legislation. I make no apologies for standing up and making this House sit longer. If you don't like it, go home. I'm staying. If you want to get to work, tighten up your helmets and pull your socks up and get busy. Democracy doesn't work quickly sometimes and this is one of the times.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): What do you know about democracy?

Mr Stockwell: The member across the floor asks what I know about democracy. What I know about democracy is that what you're ramming through today isn't a form of democracy I care to be associated with. If the members across the floor choose to think they're operating in a fair and democratic process by introducing closure on opposition members on this important piece of legislation, they're going to rue the day when they get back to opposition.

I'm most upset because I look across the floor and see the likes of Mackenzie and Laughren and Grier and Martel.

The Deputy Speaker: Please refer to the riding and not to the name.

Mr Stockwell: I see the likes of these members who felt that opposition played a very vital and important role in the legislative process. I remember seeing Mr Kormos from Welland in the newspapers, about the 17 hours of debate and how important and crucial it was for democracy and opposition.

What is becoming very plain and clear to me and to the members on this side of the House is that this party only believes in opposition when it is in opposition. They don't believe in opposition when they hold the levers of power. That makes me angry.

When I was going to debate this, I was going to explain to that side of the House that in most instances when it came to labour legislation, I agreed with them.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Oh, come on.

Mr Stockwell: Hear me out. I don't agree with legislating people back to work. I oppose it. I opposed it at Metro council on the Toronto Transit Commission; I opposed it on school teachers. I think if you're going to declare them an essential service, declare it before they go out; don't pull political stunts when they're on the picket line. I don't believe in it. I believe in collective agreements, I believe in negotiated settlements, I believe in job withdrawal and I believe in lockouts. I believe that is what it takes to reach consensus.

There are some parts of this bill I don't believe in, but what is becoming obvious to me is that this government cares not what I think, what my constituents think, what the business community thinks or what the constituents in the province think. You honestly believe you have a higher calling and know better than the people. No one knows better than the people. The people know what they want, and the people don't want this legislation. It's my job to bring that issue to this House, to explain and debate. If it means trying to slow down this process, so be it.

It's not your job to determine whether what I have to say is important or not; it's the job of my constituents. As you were elected, I was elected. You don't measure my contribution. You don't measure whether or not what I'm saying is important. You don't measure whether or not what the Liberals say is important. You must listen. It's called governing, and we're called opposition. You're not listening, and I'm mad and my constituents are mad. I'm mad because you're closing on an important piece of legislation because you won't listen.

They're confusing governing with listening. I don't oppose governing; I don't oppose you passing legislation. I oppose you trying to shut up opposition. It's a big difference.

I am prepared to sit here till the year ends. I'm prepared to sit here till midnight. I'm prepared to sit here in August, September and October. I'm prepared to sit here as long as it takes so a full and comprehensive airing of this legislation can be had. If the government party wants to hear from everyone and cast aside the rule changes and do away with the half-hour and have a full-blown debate, I'll guarantee you there will be a quorum of this caucus here, and I will sit with them.

I know I've only got four minutes; four minutes left out of 14 to talk about labour legislation. This is it. I don't get to talk about labour legislation because you moved closure. I don't get to debate it. You moved it; take responsibility for your actions. I get to speak for 14 minutes on a piece of legislation that in my opinion will cost my constituents jobs.

I know you don't agree with me. I beg you to investigate. I plead with you to look at it. It will cost jobs. This isn't Sunday shopping, because when you flip-flopped on Sunday shopping, I agreed. This isn't government auto insurance, because I agreed with you. This isn't all the policies you flip-flopped on. This isn't Agenda for People. This isn't anything you spoke about in the election. This is going to cost jobs. It's going to cost potential jobs. It's going to cost people in this province their livelihood.

All I'm asking you is to give them, give me, give my constituents, an opportunity to explain why. Seven minutes on August 25 in some hotel at 95 degrees is not enough time. I need more. They need more. They need studies and we need help.

I look across there and I'm dumfounded that this government, the government of the people, they said, the government of opposition, the government of the small person, the government of the minority, the government of all of those, has chosen at this point to institute unfair, unilateral rule changes and ram them in on the very piece of legislation they shouldn't have.

In conclusion, I suppose it doesn't matter. I suppose it won't make a difference because we're going to go ahead with this closure motion and I suppose they nod in the background and you're wasting your time. But I want to give one last attempt. I look across and ask you, if you truly meant what you said in opposition, if you truly meant what you said about opposition and if you truly meant what you said about the importance of opposition, you would withdraw this closure motion. You would open up debate and change the rules back.

I leave it on the record: I'll sit for as long as you like, I'll debate for as long as it takes, I'll stay here as long as you want, but just hear the people who don't agree with you. Allow my 14 members the opportunity to speak, to get on the record to represent their constituents, which is what the democratic process was supposed to be. Anything less and it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this government has fallen so far that it's barely recognizable.

1803

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

Ayes -- 62

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Ferguson, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury),

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

Nays -- 36

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, McLean, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Scott, Sorbara, Stockwell, Sullivan.

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

The House adjourned at 1808.